|
||
Miracle on Ice: Edwards is Hillary's Firewall to February 5th
In one of politics' great paradoxes, success of Hillary Clinton's quest for the presidential nomination is tied directly to John Edwards's viability because most of his votes would go to Obama if Edwards were not in the race. This was confirmed by no less a political analyst than Bill Clinton. When told by Charlie Rose that Edwards's voters would go to Obama if Edwards were not in the race, Bill Clinton hemmed and hawed but did not counter Rose's assertion.
Edwards has assaulted Hillary's character, her fundraising and even questioned whether she would be the best person to promote women's issues. With Barack's rise, however, and his prodigious fundraising (without $10M from another campaign, and without the history and network of a former president), Edwards now is Hillary's firewall against being crushed in the first 4 primary contests prior to the February.
With Edwards in the race, Hillary can win or stay close in all the contests. If she had been crushed by Obama in those contests, as it might very well be if Edwards were not dividing that vote, Hillary might have had difficulty remaining viable on February 5th, despite the small number of actual delegates that would have been chosen before that date.
Although Bill Clinton took pains on Charlie Rose to undermine Barack for his lack of experience, he made no such comments about John Edwards whose public accomplishments are, well, hard to find. There is no reference, for example, on the Edwards website to any legislation for which he was responsible for that passed in his entire time in the Senate. (You can note in the text that he "authored" certain legislation, but nothing seems to have passed). Barack, even in a slightly shorter time in the Senate, already has a major legislative accomplishment, the most comprehensive rewrite of ethics rules in several decades. And, Barack spent years as a community organizer and as a member of the Illinois State Legislature.
Thus, Bill Clinton's focus on attacking Obama and ignoring Edwards on the issue of experience was clearly calculated. Clever lad.
As indicated in "Caucus Night Strategy in Iowa: The Uncounted Factor", the outcome in Iowa may depend on what actually happens within each precinct caucus. After the first vote, candidates with less than 15% in that precinct are given a chance to switch to remaining candidates with 15% or greater. Indeed, everyone at that point may change their vote, but only candidates with 15% or greater in the first round remain.
Thus, the opportunities for 'fixing' the outcome of the Iowa caucuses abound. Hillary's strategy to defeat Obama in the primaries now depends on Edwards, her harshest critic.
Contemplating the ice winters of the Iowa and New Hampshire winters, that must be what Bill Clinton really meant by the "miracle" that Hillary may win.
Loading comments…
Want to reply to a comment? Hint: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to
This article is a great argument for Instant Runoff Voting. It's just as important in primaries as in the general.
If only Hillary weren't in the race then she wouldn't be taking Obama and Edwards' votes. Darn her. And Edwards for taking Obama's votes. And Obama for taking Edwards votes. And Biden for taking Hillary votes. How dare these people have the gall to run campaigns!
Edwards in person is even more impressive than I expected. Yesterday, he gave a rousing speech to about 400-plus supporters in my hometown (okay, some were there to see Kevin Bacon and his band). He was sincere, inspirational, specific, acutely knowledgeable, and "ordinary" in the best sense of the word. He was happy to give very specific answers to the questions posed, unlike Hillary and Obama, who are not so big on specifics but very big on projecting their political personalities.
A powerful moment came when a man with a son in Iraq asked Edwards how he was going to end the war. Before answering, Edwards asked everyone to honor this father and son, as well as the dozen or so others in the room with ties to the war. There was sustained, thunderous applause... Edwards seems to have a strong feel for the kinds of sacrifices made by military families and indeed all families that don't come from the anointed class.
He is scrappy and spoiling for the fight. Does anyone really believe that either Hillary or Obama is spoiling for a fight w/ the powers that be? Hahahahahahahah. She is part of the problem, and Obama seems more comfortable opining on the issues than confronting some of his Congressional war-hawk buddies, e.g., Lieberman.
The times we are in call for fighters, not conciliators. I believe Edwards' personal experience has sharpened his political mission, message, and moves. We want someone who can put up a good fight--not unite us.The other side is not anyone I want to unite WITH. They are the side of stupidity, greed, and death. They need to be defeated, not invited over for tea and cookies.
Edwards will shut down Guantanamo and the discussion of torture. It would be off the table, completely antithetical as it is to a free, democratic, and liberal society. Can Hillary say that? Does she? It should be said every day--I'd admire her a lot more.
The main point can be argued that either Edwards or Obama may be the spoiler...
... considering the voting record, it seems more likely that it's Edwards since he voted for the Bush agenda too.
That said, the important point is that
76% of Democrats in Iowa DO NOT WANT Hillary!
Until Obama got into the race, her nomination seemed inevitable. Her campaign tried to sell that with the help of the corporate media but the numbers expose the truth behind that lie.
Former Nebraska Gov. Bob Kerry, who has endorsed Hillary Clinton, is engaged in a brewing controversy, that is the next big headache for The Clinton Campaign: http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2007/12/why-did-bob-ker.html
Hillary is done. She's slipping fast and she doesn't have the personality to win back voters. It's all down hill. Hopefully she will lose bad enough that it becomes a 2-person race between Obama and Edwards. Either would make a fine president and either would easily beat a Republican. I prefer Obama, but would not be upset with Edwards.
...you have it exactly reversed...its obama's empty-suit platitudes and vacuous Rorschach card "appeal to hope and a better tomrorow" that is robbing the Dem party of a real and substantive issues deabte between the true liberla edwards and the corporatist clinton...Obama's campaign has all the depth and gravitas right now of a warm and fuzzy hallmark greeting card...3/4 of obama voters polled would go for edwards if it were hillary vs edwards...obama is the real buffer for the Clinton campaign...his opportunistic naricssism and shallow experience appeals to the naive i-pod/ espresso crowd much to the detriment of a real, necessary issues debate between edwards liberalism and clinton's "triangulate 'em" republican -lite
If Obama was savvy he'd offer Edwards Attorney Genral position for his resignation from the race, and his sending his delegates to Barrack....and Hillary would collapse.
Hillary's harshest critic is not Edwards, it's Mike Gravel. Funny how the corporate media got him excluded from the debates on grounds they got to make up, not on whether or not he's on the ballot. Disappeared! Corporate poll test! He got her on her Iran-war-enabling vote (her response: "ha ha ha" -- now THAT was a defining moment). He gets her on speaking "pablum." He gets her on her lack of national experience, only as First Lady, and the fact that her White House records are kept sealed and secret. We just don't get to hear that anymore. If anyone would seriously LOOK at who used their powers as senator to LEAD, Mike Gravel wipes the floor with her. But hey, don't look at that gorilla.
I am an Iowan caucusing for Edwards. Hillary would be my second choice. Paul Krugman's column today managed to perfectly state what I've long felt about Obama and his "audacity of hype--er, hope" schtick.
There's definetly a strategy here, but Paul here trying to pass of Edwards as less experienced than Obama is obsurd. His six years in the senate, plus before as a trial lawyer fighting against corproration, and more recently his fight against poverty; those add up to a more impressive resume than Obama. He's also more battle tested than Obama, having won in a red states as a Senator, and having been though the 2004 election as a VP candidate. Obama beat Alan Keyes practically in his sleep.
If we're going on experience it's the second and third tier candidates that have much more of it, but if we're looking just at the first tier it would Hillary first, Edwards second, and Obama last.
If it wasn't for Obama, JRE would have tons of money and he would be stomping Hillary. Obama has run for president at the wrong time, and he may cause us to lose the GE.
Bill looked pathetic on the show trying to explain the unexplainable. He looked unhinged and revealed the state of the crisis that exists in his wife's campaigmn. He even managed to show why HRC should not be President because Bill would ursur the office of VP, Secretary of State and the Treasury. He should exit the stage.
I saw Bill making the TV rounds this week-end saying that "we" NEVER NEVER NEVER expected Hillary to win in Iowa, although the people have been real decent to her, but they NEVER NEVER NEVER expected to win. Lowering expectations.
And clearly also trying to throw voters to Edwards in order to stop Obama.
But the funny thing is, I always thought Obama was in this race primarily to stop Edwards. Without Obama, Edwards could be beating Hillary hands-down. And Edwards has the true progressive agenda, not Obama. Sorry Obama supporters, but his agenda is DLC-Lite. He's no progressive, just another team player. Although maybe we're seeing a bit more spine as the campaign goes on.
But it seems to me that Obama was put in the race (whether he knew it or not) precisely to keep Edwards from gaining enough support to knock out Hillary. As long as Obama is drawing some of the support, Hillary's got all the money from her corporate owners and she can go on forever. Edwards will fall out.
So, these machiavelli minds in the DLC may have created a monster, never suspecting that Obama would draw more than 20% or so, and thinking he would just safely split the Edwards vote so they could place Hillary in office.
Vote Edwards. He's got the best platform and he's the only progressive in the top 3.
The stealth issue here is the agony of waiting for Bush/Cheney to be put out to pasture. All of the 'miss manners' comments about candidates neglecting their duties forget that every piece of constructive legislation gets vetoed.
So we get to entertain ourselves (media-dominated elections are entertainment) with a horse race (or beauty contest, if you prefer). It's equivalent to twiddling your thumbs.
I want to know which candidate is likely to have the longest coat tails. There's so much work to be done, it will depend on whether the American electorate has finally returned to its senses and puts Demos in DC.
You must be logged in to comment. Log in or connect with
