The Edwards-Clinton Mutual Sustainability Pact

John Edwards remains strong in Iowa, per a new Time Magazine poll.

John Edwards and Hillary Clinton have a mutual interest in seeing each other's candidacy prosper over the next four months.

Edwards wants Clinton's national poll ratings to rise, rise, rise. That way, if/when he beats her in Iowa, he will have slain a giant. Also, the thinking in Edwards land is that if Clinton rises, the press will conclude that Barack Obama is falling.

Clinton wants Edwards to keep his lead in Iowa and remain competitive nationally. Some of her advisers figure that Edwards and Obama are competing for largely overlapping pool of undecided voters.

Edwards also fires at Obama from his left and provides voters with a nice contrast, in the minds of the Clinton campaign, in terms of policy. It's probably true that some Clinton advisers are comfortable, right now, with John Edwards's being seen as the boldest candidate, policy-wise. Better Edwards than Obama.

Defeating Edwards in Iowa -- something the Clinton campaign believes is doable but not absolutely vital -- could clinch the nomination for Clinton if and only if Edwards remains strong enough to be...beaten.

Comments

"Defeating Edwards in Iowa -- something the Clinton campaign believes is doable but not absolutely vital"

It certainly is possible for Clinton to win Iowa. She's going to be able to focus a lot of resources and the reflected star power of her husband's administration on that state.

But if you believe it isn't vital for Clinton to smother Edwards in the crib in Iowa, you might believe Mark Penn likes busting unions because he's such a proud Democrat.

If Team Clinton lets Edwards get the first win, her firewalls are going to prove just about as strong as the New Orleans levees.

Hillary is selling nothing but inevitability. If Edwards takes that away from her in Iowa, say goodnight. The calendar isn't going to permit a Mondale '84 Empire Strikes Back strategy.

Posted by Petey | August 30, 2007 11:10 AM

Obama has a better shot at winning Iowa than Clinton does. It's a caucus, not a primary.

Clinton's support isn't fervent or grassroots-based, which is what you need to win Iowa. Thus, last cycle's Gephardt and Dean implosions.

Posted by Joe Justice | August 30, 2007 2:10 PM

In iowa there is going to be a big promblem with a Hilary win.. Yes people are saying she will win, but look at those who say's she will win. Karl Rove who i would not want to be line-up with, the lobbisty, and the political pundits. Who can stand another Bush-Clinton like scandals and promblems again which got this country in a turmoil. Bush wage one of the most biggest blunder that this country will not be able to get out of, and of course Hilary authorized it.

Posted by Lamont | August 30, 2007 8:08 PM

The first premise of this post is that Edwards' people believe that the Democratic electorate will feel a sudden shock of surprise and rethink all their assumptions if Edwards beats Hillary in Iowa despite her being way ahead in the national polls in the runup to Iowa. With all respect, if Edwards' people believe this, they are irrational. Their theory depends on the proposition that the same voters who pay attention to the news and would note a large Hillary lead in the national polls immediately before Iowa would somehow be ignorant of similarly well publicized polls during that same period that will show her behind in Iowa. The Edwards "shock" thesis therefore can work only if a series of Iowa polls in January erroneously show Hillary ahead there as well as nationally. Otherwise, there's no shock element to an Edwards victory in Iowa.

The second premise of this post is that Hillary's people believe Edwards is a weak candidate who has no staying power past Iowa, and that only Obama has potential to do well outside of Iowa. If they believe that, they would be right. Edwards is an enigma because he impresses people who see him in person addressing medium sized crowds, and he is thus the perfect Iowa candidate. He strangely comes off, however, as smaller than life -- a lightweight with no gravitas -- when on TV. It's peculiar but it's true. I was blown away by Edwards when he addressed a labor group of about 500 people in 2004, and then I continually experienced disappointment when I saw him on the TV thereafter: his convention address, debate performance against Cheney, and "Meet the Press" type appearances were all third-rate. And though I like his policy positions, he still seems small on TV.

If you are a progressive who wants to stop Hillary, I think Obama is the only candidate to support.

Posted by RaymondA | August 31, 2007 7:13 PM

The key to Edwards' potentially successful re-brand? His War on Poverty Redux? The "People Versus the Powerful" rhetorical mantra? His terrific recasting of the Fair Trade trope as "Smart Trade"? All of the above? We think not. We think Edward's re-brand is far less about substance than it is about a well-articulated repositioning and the further development of a powerful, unrelenting political voice.

The gloves are off and Edward's appears to be taking a page out of the Bulworth pagebook – and finally "telling it like it is." Clearly, this is resonating with Iowa's Democratic voters, who are craving the fiery "throw the bums out" rhetoric that Edward's and his wife Elizabeth are no longer loathe to express. And, in finally letting go of the prepackaged "presidential" posturing and returning to the innate passion that characterizes a man – and a family – whose background, obstacles, tragedies, and personal triumphs draw true empathy from a Democratic electorate comprised of working people – not the New York/Washington/Hollywood élites who tend to dominate the national Democratic discourse.

Indeed, the Time poll reveals that Edwards leads Sen. Clinton in the "likability" category by a mere margin of 32 to 12 – and the "best understands the concerns of people like yourself" section 30-23. At the same time, Edwards, who always held strong margins of victory in hypothetical match-ups with Republicans, is starting to solidify those leads with Rasmussen showing Edwards beating Guiliani 49 to 41 and Romney 45 to 38, dominating Sen. Thompson 49 to 35, and crushing McCain 52 to 36.

While Sen. Obama maintains similar leads, Rasmussen shows Sen. Clinton losing to Guiliani 44 to 47, barely edging McCain 48 to 46 and Thompson 48 to 44. Sen. Clinton's only margin of victory, outside of the margin of error, is her commanding lead over Gov. Mitt Romney 51 to 40. When combined with Sen. Clinton's 49 percent "unfavorable" ratings might be wonder if Hillary is the best person to not only ensure Democratic occupation of White House, but also maintain or expand Democratic control of Congress. Could Edward's be this person? The jury is still out, but at least Edwards is finally beginning to capture the attention and imagination of Iowa's Democratic some four months before they caucus. And some positive attention from the national press in process.

Democratic strategist "Mudcat" Saunders notes in the Washington Post: "Rural America is pivotal. It's where the battleground is going to be, and rural America is saying, 'To hell with the Republicans,'"Saunders said. "But you've got to have the right candidate, one who can get through to the culture."

If Saunders is correct, Edwards might be the ideal Democratic opponent to Sen. Fred Thompson: a young, homespun, but wealthy relative outsider, battle tested in fight for the people against the powerful – and, ultimately, an "authentic" voice for the millions whose fortunes did not multiply in almost two decades of economic expansion. In increasingly tough times, populist appeal might be just that – appealing. And in the Purple States, times are truly tough. Here, Edwards might be one of the few candidates, in either party, capable of culling voters from the other side.

If Democrats are willing to look who can win – with coattails – Edwards might well be "The Comeback Kid" of 2008.

Peter S. Cohl
The Political Brandwagon

Posted by PoliticalBrandwagon | September 1, 2007 12:55 AM