Edwards Will Again Push Clinton On Electability

Sen. John Edwards knows that Sen. Hillary Clinton's biggest vulnerability among Democrats is the perception that she is not electable. A polling memo prepared for internal campaign consumption but obtained by this semi-checked out column shows the reasons why.

Pollster Harrison Hickman summarizes the national numbers:

Nationwide general election polling shows John Edwards is the Democrat with the best chance of defeating the Republican candidate in the 2008 general election for President. Edwards is the only Democrat with a significant lead in a head-to-head match-up against Republican frontrunner Giuliani.

Against the other three major Republican candidates, Edwards’ average margin of victory is virtually identical to that of Barack Obama, and significantly higher than Hillary Clinton’s average margin. Edwards also outperforms the other Democratic candidates in match-ups with Republican candidates in key battleground states including Iowa, Wisconsin, and Ohio. Further, unlike other Democrats who must “run the table” in states where Democrats have been competitive in recent elections, Edwards brings new states into play. This provides alternate scenarios – and a margin for error – when it comes to amassing 270 electoral votes.

The buried news here is that Barack Obama does almost as well -- except against Giuliani, where Edwards does a little better. Edwards is smart to make an argument out of the Electoral College map: Giuliani puts New Jersey and Pennsylvania into play almost instantly, and the Democrats will need to find ways to force Republicans to spend money in previously red states... Virginia among them.

In looking at the overall win-loss-tie records, Edwards again stands out with easily the best total record.

At least one poll in the last two and a half months shows Clinton losing to every Republican
challenger, even Romney and Thompson, who neither defeat nor tie either Obama or Edwards,
confirming Clinton as the weakest major Democrat in the general election.

Edwards’ status as the best Democrat against frontrunner Giuliani is again confirmed by this
measure, as he suffers no losses, while both Clinton and Obama struggle to win more than they
lose in that matchup.

I've written about this elsewhere; I think the case is less cut-and-dried than Edwards makes it out to be, but it's not my case to make -- it's Clinton's.

Comments

it's pretty simple.

there is no one in a general election who would vote for hillary who wouldn't vote for Edwards, the converse is not true

Posted by outside the Beltway | August 29, 2007 9:51 AM

"there is no one in a general election who would vote for hillary who wouldn't vote for Edwards, the converse is not true"

Yup.

FWIW, if the wind is as strong at our backs in '08 as it currently appears, I do think HRC can win a general election. But one of the big advantages of having Edwards at the top of the ticket instead is what it will do for downballot races outside of solid blue CD's and states.

If you want a more Democratic Congress, nominating Edwards will be an enormous step in that direction.

Posted by Petey | August 29, 2007 10:06 AM

So Obama and Edwards are equally electable. That is interesting news. Frankly, I think these kinds of indicators aren't worth that much. Iowa will scramble the numbers, just as it did last time around. I'm still trying to decide who I'll vote for, but found the following helpful:

www.mensvogue.com/business/politics/feature/articles/2007/06/john_edwards

Posted by suzenews | August 29, 2007 10:20 AM

If you want a more Democratic Congress, nominating Edwards will be an enormous step in that direction.

Indeed. I'd also say, only half-facetiously, that if you want a more Democratic President, Edwards is the choice.

Obama has struck a frighteningly large number of mealy-mouthed "bipartisan" notes since launching his campaign, and some of Clinton's policy positions speak for themselves.

Posted by Will | August 29, 2007 10:21 AM

I'm sorry, but the numbers for Barack Obama are a joke.

I don't know of any honest, thinking person who believes that Barack Obama would be able to win a general election in 2008.

To get a good, honest assessment from the black community on Obama, don't ask Jesse Jackson or Al Sharpton. Ask comedians like D.L. Hughley, because in order to get laughs comedians have to be with the pulse of the community. You get more laughs if you know what you're talking about.

And Hughley, and several other black comedians would tell you that there is no way in the world this country is going to elect a black man named "Barack Hussein Obama" President in 2008.

They speak from first hand experience, and history is probably on their side.

In poll after poll, people always say they "would" vote for "a" black candidate, and then on election day, they don't. The subtext of their statement that they would support a black candidate should always be, "not that black candidate." Truth is, you may want "A" car, but not "THAT" car. Same thing, and you can make up any excuse for not wanting it..."I don't like the gas mileage", i.e., "he's not experienced enough," which is the common excuse thrown at Obama.

To become President, Barack Obama would have to win "STATES," statewide elections in order to get enough electoral votes to win. It's the same way for Senators. U.S. Senators have to win "STATEWIDE," so you can look to the U.S. Senate to judge the chances that a black Presidential candidate would have in 2008.

In the history of this country, only TWO STATES (ILLINOIS AND MASSACHUSETTS) have ever elected a black candidate BY POPULAR VOTE to the U.S. Senate....a federal STATEWIDE office.

Illinois elected Obama and Mosely-Braun.
Massachusetts had Edward Burke.

Two states, that's it, by popular vote...by the voters of that state. Two.

Are we really supposed to believe that all of a sudden in 2008, enough of the other 48 states would get with the program, and vote for Obama?

ODDS ARE ENOUGH WOULD NOT.

I don't for once believe the matchup polls about Obama. Those polls show that Americans are eager for "change," which Obama represents -- NOT BECAUSE OF HIS RACE. He's new and fresh, and that's what's reflected. But when it comes to election day, I don't for once believe, based on historical evidence, that enough of the other 48 states would go for Obama to elect him President.

The odds are too great in 2008 to take that big a risk. Obama's time has always been 2016, when Generation Xers and Yers are a more sizable, and much more dependable voting bloc.

I'm just going to be blunt. In 2008, the Democrats running Obama would be an "experiment" just based on the number of black candidates who the people have -- STATEWIDE -- voted into the U.S. Senate, and 2008 is too important to take that big of a risk.

Presidential candidates have to win states.

Only two states out of 50.

Statistically, that's a huge risk to take.

Posted by OEST | August 29, 2007 10:28 AM

Anyone who would call Obama's bipartisanship "mealy mouthed" fundamentally misunderstands Obama and bipartisan politics (practiced the right way), or is unconcerned with the truth altogether.

Indeed, the most ironic thing is that while so many Edwards supporters have at the same time rallied around Edwards as he throws fireballs at the Washington Establishment and lobbyists and at the same time insult Obama's bipartisanship, the biggest gains made on lobbying reform, ethics reform, and transparency in government were BIPARTISAN EFFORTS headed up by BARACK OBAMA.

I have to wonder if some of you even actually follow politics with any level of depth at all.

Posted by mopper | August 29, 2007 11:10 AM

I also love when those on the left condescend to the rest of the nation ("they'd never elect a black man! if everyone was enlightened as I am...that'd be different") and then wonder why it is so many moderate republicans view liberals as arrogant, out-of-touch elitists.

I see the rationale: "Of course Obama would be a good President...too bad the country is too racist/stupid/ignorant to ever elect him"

I reject that. Indeed, it was that very same arrogant assumption that left us with Kerry in the last election.

Contrary to popular belief, southern voters on teh whole are not wowed by war medals, white skin, or a southern twang. They want to know that a candidate understands and respects their worldview, just like the rest of us.

Posted by mopper | August 29, 2007 11:15 AM

"Contrary to popular belief, southern voters on teh whole are not wowed by war medals, white skin, or a southern twang. They want to know that a candidate understands and respects their worldview, just like the rest of us."

Exactly right. Which is why we should nominate John Edwards.

I tell you right now, if we nominate Hillary, we stand a very good chance of losing the governorship and at least one house in North Carolina.

Nominate Edwards, and we have the chance to lock out the Republican Party in this state for decades, and elect progressive dems instead of the conservative troglodyte dems we've had to put up with around here.

Posted by DrFrankLives | August 29, 2007 11:43 AM

And while I don't agree with his broad statements, I do think OEST has a point hidden in there somewhere.

History shows African-American candidates underperform on election day when measured against pre-election polling.

The percentage varies, but it's real.

That sucks.

Posted by DrFrankLives | August 29, 2007 11:45 AM

All of you Edwards supporters why don't you put your money where your mouth is or shut-up. Obama supporters do.

Edwards won't have to worry about whether he will win. He won't have the money to stay around.

So if you want to beat Hillary, Edwards supporters, you'd better be nice to Obama supporters we may throw you a few dollars once we max out.

Talk is cheap, put up or shut up

Posted by joyce | August 29, 2007 12:23 PM

It's hard to say with nominations... internal party horsetrading plays such a big role. Up here in Canada, the Liberal Party (centrist and federalist, not leftist) had a leadership convention that featured a very charismatic leader (Michael Ignatieff) and a well-know and fairly respected one (Bob Rae), and neither of them won. They were both favoured going in, but the way the process played out, a previously unknown party stalwart and a kind of a shrill guy ended up winning (Stephane Dion). Our nomination differs vastly from yours, but there is always an interplay between the candidates who have the momentum going in and the political machinations of the nomination process...

Posted by Obbs | August 29, 2007 12:24 PM

I continue to think there is something not authentic about Edwards. Last time around he ran as a centrist and supporter of the war -- the darling of the DLC establishment, Bill Clinton Jr. Now that these folks are forced (not using that word casually) to support Hillary, Edwards has no where to go except to appear to outflank Obama on the left. What he has settled on is truly disturbing. We are witnessing a return to old-style southern populism. While not overtly racist or sexist, he clearly implies it by making a direct emotional appeal to angry downscale white voters -- the "forgotten" ones. This is not about policies -- Edwards policies are not vastly different from the other dems. No, this is all about image and a glimpse into what his governing style will be -- us against them. Haven't we had enough of this nonsense?

The populist techinique is to find an obvious enemy who stands as the reason for all your targeted voters' woes. In Edwards' case he focuses on the fat, rich, corporate thieves that are stealing your kid's food and giving your jobs to the third world. Edwards poses as the one who can personally battle against this demon FOR YOU because he is strong and brave and you need HIM. No one else cares like he does -- promise.

Now substitute "Corporate Thieves" for "Islamic Terrorists" and Edwards for Bush and you will get an idea about how this strategy works -- just two sides of the same coin. It works not just because there may be truth to the argument -- but because the manner in which the message is delivered stirs such strong, blinding emotions. As Michelle Obama pointed out recently, its hard for people to think clearly when they are in the grip of fear -- and I would add as it applies to Edwards -- anger.

Contrast this with Barack Obama's message. "I am here because of you" "We have to do this together." "We can disagree without being disagreeable." He is trying to help people to think, emphathize and work with each other to find common cause and solutions to our problems.

So we have a serious choice here for what direction we want our government to take. We can choose rage like Edwards is pedalling, or we can continue with the status quo of fear like Hillary and the republicans are advocating, or we can choose to bring our creative intellect forward and figure out constructive ways to work for our shared future at home and in the world.

P.S. Regarding Edward's call today for giving up SUV's -- where exactly was he last election when we were going to war in Iraq over oil? Did he even recognize that oil dependence was/is one of our most important national security issues? I know he didn't take this issue seriously because I made a personal, direct appeal to his DLC advisor -- and was basically told that no one cared about this issue. By the way, the conversation took place in this fellow's SUV!

Posted by donna | August 29, 2007 12:41 PM

TAKE NOTE, DEMOCRATS. IT IS A FACT THAT JOHN EDWARDS IS NOT ONLY THE CANDIDATE WHO CAN WIN, HE IS THE CANDIDATE WHO WILL CLEAN UP THE WAY BUSINESS IS DONE IN AMERICA, HE WILL FIGHT FOR THE WORKING PEOPLE OF THIS COUNTRY, NOT JUST THE TOP 1%, AND HE WILL PUT A HALT TO THE IMMORAL CORPORATE RAPE OF OUR COUNTRY. HE HAS THE VISION, THE COURAGE, THE STRENGTH AND THE DECENCY THIS COUNTRY SO DESPERATELY NEEDS IN THE WHITE HOUSE. THIS ELECTION IS TOO IMPORTANT TO NOMINATE SOMEONE WHO MAY WELL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR PUTTING A REPUBLICAN BACK IN THE WHITE HOUSE. NEITHER HILLARY CLINTON NOR BARACK OBAMA, BOTH OF WHOM HAVE EXCELLENT QUALITIES, CAN WIN THE GENERAL ELECTION WHEN THE REPUBLICAN SWIFT-BOATERS GET THROUGH WITH THEM. FOR MONTHS NOW THEY HAVE BEEN HAMMERING AWAY AT EDWARDS (WHILE, YOU NOTICE, THEY HAVE GENERALLY GIVEN HILLARY AND OBAMA A PASS), AND HE'S STILL, WITH FAR LESS MONEY, THE PREFERRED CANDIDATE OF THE AMERICAN PEOPLE.

THOSE OF YOU AT THE CONVENTION WHO SELECT OUR NOMINEE HAD BETTER PAY ATTENTION TO THIS! OUR FUTURE IS IN YOUR HANDS! HAVE THE COURAGE AND THE WILL TO STOP THE POLITICS AS USUAL, AND DO THE RIGHT THING FOR YOUR COUNTRY. JOHN EDWARDS IS OUR ONLY HOPE. JOHN EDWARDS IS THE ANSWER.

Posted by rebelfriend | August 29, 2007 12:50 PM

No need to get snippy, mopper: I don't think I "fundamentally misunderstand[] Obama and bipartisan politics."

It's just that as a Democratic primary voter, the idea of "transcending partisanship" isn't all that appealing to me, and that seems to be a key Obama theme. After seven long years of Republican aggression and Democratic capitulation, I'm exhausted and frustrated by the notion of "making nice," even if only symbolically or rhetorically. To that end, I was disappointed - and remain disappointed - to discover this spring that Obama apparently isn't as frustrated as I am. Call me old school (or just continue to hurl insults), but I don't want to hear Reagan talk in a Democratic primary.

Posted by Willl | August 29, 2007 12:54 PM

REBELFRIEND -- doesn't his choice of ID say it all? He made my point for me in CAPITAL LETTERS.

Posted by donna | August 29, 2007 1:18 PM

Edwards has potential to win all 50 states if the rethug hubris continues but there is no way Hillary (because of who she is) and Obama (because he is not white) can win some of the red states. Any of the three will make a good president.

Posted by Aaron | August 29, 2007 1:22 PM

It's unsurprising to me that the white male candidate would be able to show that he is more "electable" than the woman or the African American. There is a percentage of potential voters who have indicated they will never vote for a woman and the same goes for an African American. Sadly, that's the world we live in and if electability is going to trump everything else, then the Democrats should only consider white guys. Who is more electable than a white guy?

Any of the major three Democrats are electable next year. All of them poll well enough to defeat the leading Republican candidates. Given that any of the top three (and probably well beyond) could win, electability seems like more of a media creation than anything else.

Moreover, electability in and of itself seems like a terrible reason to vote for someone. Things change and the person electable today, might not be 12 months from now. It also makes you sound kind of wimpy, "yeah, we don't really like him that much either, we think X would be a much better President, but because we think we can get you, non-Democrat, to vote for him even though we're not all that wild about him, we've nominated him. Now won't you please vote for him? He's electable."

Isn't that basically how we got John Kerry? The media going on about how crazy Howard Dean was and how the Democrats needed to show they were "tough on defense" and, hey, John Kerry was a war hero, so how could anyone question his toughness? He's so much more electable than Howard Dean. And maybe he was. Or maybe he wasn't. We'll never know (and we wouldn't have known even if Kerry had won, since that wouldn't prove that Dean or another Dem couldn't have also won).

I understand why Edwards is making this argument, he needs for folks who like his policies to vote for him and there's a danger with the media's tendency of framing the race as a two-way between Obama and Clinton that they won't. I just think Democratic voters should reject the media's focus on electability and instead look for a candidate, who may very well be Edwards, that appeals to them because there's a good chance, particularly in the current political climate, that such a candidate will appeal to other Americans, too.

Posted by BDB | August 29, 2007 1:54 PM

I also love when those on the left condescend to the rest of the nation ("they'd never elect a black man! if everyone was enlightened as I am...that'd be different") and then wonder why it is so many moderate republicans view liberals as arrogant, out-of-touch elitists.

I see the rationale: "Of course Obama would be a good President...too bad the country is too racist/stupid/ignorant to ever elect him"

I reject that. Indeed, it was that very same arrogant assumption that left us with Kerry in the last election.

Contrary to popular belief, southern voters on teh whole are not wowed by war medals, white skin, or a southern twang. They want to know that a candidate understands and respects their worldview, just like the rest of us.

Well, how many states have elected black candidates to the U.S. Senate?

The answer is only two.

What are the normal numbers when people are asked if they would vote for a black candidate for any office?

Last time it was 90%. It's usually somewhere between 70 and 90%.

The point. You can "HEAR" what you want to hear all that you want to. I'm just point out WHAT IS SO.

People say they would vote for a black candidate all the time...THEN THEY DON'T.

History has proven that. Since history has proven that, then regardless of what you believe, running Obama is a HUGE RISK, by HISTORICAL, STATISTICAL standards.

And I view you mopper as an idiot. You can call that "elitist," all that you want. I call it calling you what you show.

It's amazing how "Republicans" aren't seen as elitists because they put together great photo-ops with hunting rifles and fishing boats as they cut taxes for the SUPER RICH, and send poor people to die in wars over oil, while Democrats are even though they raise taxes on the richest Americans to help poorer people go to college, afford a house, and feed their children.

So, John Kerry...he's an elitist because he can speak correct english.

George Bush...he's a regular Joe because he can't speak well.

Excuse me, but when people come to conclusions like those, they are stupid.

Posted by OEST | August 29, 2007 2:02 PM

Just want to add that folks at the DLC were horrified at the thought of Howard Dean winning the nomination -- they thought he was too left wing. So Edwards' and his friends in the democratic establishment were quite happy to help make Dean look bad.

Posted by donna | August 29, 2007 2:10 PM

donna,

You have your facts and your timeline twisted and it's leading you to the wrong conclusions.

John Edwards has never been a "darling" of the DLC. When he got to DC, he probably thought that all Democrats were on the same team, but he was never a full-fledged member of the DLC.

Many in the Democratic establishment can't stand John Edwards, and they claim that he's into class warfare. ESTABLISHMENT Democrats are saying that. If they don't like what he's saying, then you can best believe that they know that he believes it.

John Edwards did not call for "giving up SUVs." John Edwards said the President should ask Americans to drive more fuel-efficient vehicles. People are fixated on "SUV," when John Edwards' point was about GAS GUZZLER SUVs. John Edwards drives a Ford Escape Hybrid, which is fuel-efficient, but it's still an SUV.

HE WAS NOT TALKING ABOUT SUVs!!!

He was talking about the gas guzzling SUVs. SUVs can be more fuel-efficient, you know? And if they are, then they are no longer the problem.

Did you even see the video where Edwards talked about that? THE COMPLETE STATEMENT, not some soundbite? Of course you didn't, so to form a solid opinion based on a fraction of a full statement is ridiculous.

Watch the video, and then see if you know what he was talking about. Stop believing everything that the meme-stream media tells you.

http://goiam.org

Posted by OEST | August 29, 2007 2:12 PM

Mr Marc Ambinder Where Do You Get Your #'s From I Noticed You Did Not Bother To Actually Provide Any Proff To The Contrary Of What you Posted,Hilliary Is Unelectable If Tha's The Case Why Don't You Just Let It Play Out Because If That's The Case You Don't Have To Remind People That She's Unelectable.All The Polls I Checked August,29 2007 Had Senator Clinton Ahead Of All RepubliCANTS & Democrats.Angus Reid,Realclearpolitics,Pollingreport,Pollsters,Gallup,& The Rasmussan.You And Your Right- Wing Crew Will Not Make This Election Another 2004 Like You Did To Kerry,Because Your S--T Is So Obvious That Your Own Party Don't Even Know Which One of The GOP Canidates They Want To Vote For,First It Were Mcain,Then Gilliani,Then Romney And Now Fred Thompson Dumb Ass,He's About To Be The Dumbest Of The RepubliCANTS I've Ever Had The Oppurtunity To Listen To.

Posted by Captain-Sky | August 29, 2007 2:19 PM

OEST-- two words - Deval Patrick. There were probably a whole lot of black people in Massachusetts saying the same thing about him. As Wilder said in his interview on Politico.com, Obama is not out pimping the race card. Black people, like D.L. Hughley, need to stop acting like crabs in a bucket and start supporting people, like Barack Obama who has consistently demonstrated a willingness to forego power and wealth to help those in need.

Guess what? If black people continue to believe the LIE that a Black man could ever be President and vote accordingly, a black man will never be president.

Posted by whatmeworry | August 29, 2007 2:22 PM

Another reminder -- Last election Edwards tried to run a civil campaign, consciously trying to remain positive while Bush was busy frightening everyone with his war chant. It was almost like Edwards wasn't engaged with what was happening while there was protesting in the streeets and just conceded foreign policy to Bush and the cowardly democratic establishment. In contrast, Dean was derided for being too angry and for this he was taken down. This time around we see its Edwards frothing at the mouth, yet still not completely dealing with our foreign policy and leaving a big opening for Hillary and Guiliani to continue the fear-mongering. Of the top tier dems, only Obama is really trying to sincerely think this through in a new way.

Hate to say it, but fear seemed to rule the last election and it will rule the up-coming one -- unless we have the courage to move forward and beyond our prejudices and fear. What shall it be this time folks?

Posted by donna | August 29, 2007 2:28 PM

OEST, do you think your comments are a way to "win friends and influence people?" You sound like David Duke. I hope you aren't a staffer for the Edwards' campaign because they should fire you. Your comments are RACIST and WRONG. I feel sorry for you.

Posted by Lynn | August 29, 2007 2:30 PM

Edwards was the DLC's candidate. I know these folks. And if the democratic establishment worries about about class-warfare speak, then its only because they think it would be a loser in the general election. If Edwards could win the election on his current platform, they would embrace him no matter what he says -- having full confidence that he won't be able to deliver any of his campaign promises without their cooperation.

So perhaps Edwards seriously believes his own rhetoric now. However, I see him using racial and gender prejudice to advance his way to power -- subtly I'll grant it, but ultimately just as damaging to our social fabric. For that issue alone, I could never vote for him.

I have to add, that whenever I have posted something even mildly negative about any of the candidates, the people who always go over-the-top nuts are republican zealots or Edwards supporters. This tells me that they are operating form the same emotional, hate-driven part of their brains. Not good for a world that really needs some rationality and healing.

Posted by donna | August 29, 2007 2:56 PM

The rumor and myth that Hillary can not be elected is a second-rate and pathetic excuse.

Edwards is really desperate if he thinks that this is a reason to vote for him.

He should go home and take care of his wife. I don't know anyone who would vote for him or BozObama rather than Hillary.

Posted by BionicWoman | August 29, 2007 3:23 PM

This is exactly the kind of polling data that makes me suspect and distrust polling data. Hillary is the strongest candidate in the race, and even Dick Morris has conceded that much.

Posted by wbboei | August 29, 2007 3:36 PM

The Bionic Woman wrote, "I don't know anyone who would vote for him or BozObama rather than Hillary."

Well, I know one individual that would VOTE for BozObama (as you call him) over Hillary Clinton,
Juanita Broaddrick would, the woman who told America that Bill Clinton raped her. She gave $450.00 to Senator Obama's Presidential campaign during the 2Q.

Posted by Lynn | August 29, 2007 3:45 PM

How many African-American candidates have run for statewide office? Statewide offices are more than just the governorship and Senate seats. I don't know about the last few years but eleven African-Americans sought statewide office in 2000; eight Democrats and three Republicans and four won. The Democrats were David L. Burgess, elected to the Public Service Commission in Georgia; James A. Wynn, to the North Carolina Court of Appeals; and Ralph Campbell, state auditor in North Carolina. Michael L. Williams, who was elected to the Texas Railroad Commission, was the only successful statewide Republican candidate.

Interesting that all were in southern states where the supposed racial attitudes would defeat Barack Obama. Also, the oft noted "Bradley or Wilder effect" which comes to us from way back in the 1980s says that black candidates' support in the voting booth is less than what polls say. But in an ugly 2006 race, Harold Ford, Jr's numbers were consistent with, if not higher than the final polls. It was a race he was given little chance of winning in a pretty Red state, Tennessee.

Posted by ag1960 | August 29, 2007 3:55 PM

Black Democratic Senate candidates were rejected in both Texas and Washington St recently too.

Posted by Ray Hern | August 29, 2007 4:52 PM

donna - Edwards rails against the bloated, fatcat corporations for ruining our nation BECAUSE THEY ARE DOING JUST THAT!

In a time when wages are flat and the cost of living is higher than ever, "the economy is great!" And why? Because CORPORATIONS are rolling in dough, with some of the highest profit margins in history, all gained by fucking over the little man.

You think the corporations aren't hurting us? Look at your gas prices. Look at your insurance prices. Look at the number of jobs being exported to China, and India, and Bangladesh, and...

Realize the truth - SOMEBODY needs to reign in the corporate masters. Is Edwards the best candidate to do this? Not necessarily, but he's a HELL of a lot better than Hillary, or even Obama...

Posted by Kevin | August 29, 2007 5:09 PM

"There is no one in a general election who would vote for hillary who wouldn't vote for Edwards, the converse is not true."

This mother will vote for Hillary, but would never vote for Edwards.

Posted by Another Mother | August 29, 2007 6:54 PM

Dear Kevin, The tone of your response and others here proves my original post again. In a populist campaign, such as Edwards is running, its always us-against-them. Its main energy is anger or fear. It doesn't matter who the enemy is -- they are always doing something evil and/or getting something at your expense. It is designed to get you railing against THE MAN -- whomever or whatever that is for you. Populism requires a charismatic leader to fix it all for you so you don't have to think. You just TRUST in your leader who has your best interest at heart. Sound eerily familiar? I guess it can work -- if at least the glorious leader is competent, let alone honest.

Assuming that Edwards is sincere, I agree with him that big business has a negative and disproportionate influence on our elected officials. However, I do think if Edwards were president, he wouldn't be able to reign in corporations one iota without the cooperation of his party and at least some of the republicans. So how would his policies become laws that help you without thoughtful persuasion? Anger is a big motivator, but what comes next? The big question is: How do you frame the argument so that your adveraries don't shut down, but in fact come to see your policies as benefiting them also? This is why I prefer Obama's approach to Edwards use of heated divisive rhetoric. He doesn't have to use the fist -- he uses his brain. I think Obama has a more respectful and deeper understanding of what motivates people to move in a positive direction, and therefore a better chance of winning a general election.

Posted by donna | August 29, 2007 6:56 PM

What is this "electability" business? In the last round, John Kerry won nomination because he was "electable" in the eyes of Democrats. Bush then chewed him.

Posted by eurydice | August 29, 2007 7:59 PM

Donna, you wonder how Edwards would accomplish his goals. The best way is to send a message to congress by electing Edwards in an overwhelming fashion. If we send the message to congress, they will have to comply or risk being voted out. If we stand by ourselves, we are powerless, but, if we are together, we can move a mountain. The only reason congress isn't moving on this war is that not enough people are pressing them on the issue. If there was a draft, people would be up in arms, and they'd get it done. Since most of us don't have a dog in the fight, many sit back and are happy if the gas goes below $3.00 and enough said! I have called my congress members and emailed and all of that but if my son was out there I'd probably pull a Cindy Sheehan and camp out. There aren't enough Cindy Sheehans getting in their face. And the guy that said Edwards has changed (claiming he was a centrist), get real. Did you ever hear his "Two Americas" speech in the last election? I did. While Edwards may be more vocal now, his heart has not changed. He has always been for the average Joe and if you can't see that, you need to start reading what his proposals are all about.

Posted by ksvoboda | August 29, 2007 8:55 PM

I heard the two americas speech and I personally know the fella who helped pen it -- top brass at the DLC, a pure Clintonista and Hillary supporter this time around. Its you who doesn't get that this populist posturing is merely a strategy to get the nomination. If Hillary wasn't in this race, Edwards would be running a centrist campaign as the DLC's favorite son. There was no room to distinguish himself this time except to carve out a place to the left of Obama. His latest push is to try to knock out Obama and he will use everything -- including race to do it.

I agree that if we all pull together we can move a mountain -- just prefer to be pulling with some one authentic and consistant in the lead. I think that is Obama.

Posted by donna | August 29, 2007 11:06 PM

I am a Democrat but will not vote for John and Elizabeth Edwards (yes, they are both running) if he gets the Democratic nomination. John Edwards is a fat cat himself - hedgefund investments that netted him millions of dollars. I don't trust him. I have never trusted or believed him. I just won't vote in the general if he is the nominee.

And the way his campaign is being run and from all the polling numbers over the past 8 months, I doubt very much that he will be the nominee.

Democrats, for the most part, don't like him.

Posted by Cynthia Edwards(no relation) | August 30, 2007 12:20 AM

Democrats, for the most part, don't like him.

Actually, a lot of Democrats like him very, very much. Not because he's more electable, but because he's acting and talking like a real Democrat -- a real progressive Democrat.

As for the analogies with the election of 2004, I think Edwards is this cycle's Dean:
-- he gets it right on the issues and leads the rest of the pack with him
-- he's attacked by the pundits and Washington insiders as being 'too angry'
-- he is openly despised by the MSM, who refuse to cover him unless Matt Drudge gives them their lede
-- and Joe Trippi is working on his campaign this time.

Posted by Katerina | August 30, 2007 11:22 PM