Edwards’ murky future

January 9, 2008

I mentioned earlier that yesterday’s results in the New Hampshire primary were probably the worst of all possible outcomes for John Edwards, and not just because his 17% support was lackluster (both Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama more than doubled Edwards’ vote total). I should probably flesh this out a bit.

After Iowa, there was a plausible scenario for Edwards moving forward — make it a two-person race with Obama, and argue that his vision of more forceful change was the more compelling one. It’s why I agree with Ezra’s take from last night.

A second in New Hampshire would have given them needed momentum. A Clinton second would have at least blunted her chances, and allowed them to continue with their “two candidates of change” argument. But this simply intensifies the coverage of the Democratic primary as a two-person race.

Quite right. Edwards has had two main hurdles to clear of late — bringing in more campaign contributions and generating more media attention. An unimpressive third-place showing makes both challenges more problematic.

I know Edwards supporters will object to this, but I don’t think it’s unreasonable to wonder whether Edwards played at least an indirect role in propelling Clinton to victory in New Hampshire. It was his criticisms of Clinton that drew a heated response (Hillary argued this morning that this was a key turning point), and it was his arguably cheap shot on Monday (re: The Tears) that contributed to additional sympathy for Clinton the day before the primary.

Tim Grieve added that Edwards’ role may have even been more direct.

Hillary Clinton’s campaign chairman declared Tuesday night that the Democratic presidential primary is now a “one-on-one race.” “Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama,” Terry McAuliffe said. “We’re excited.” Really?

Until Tuesday, the Clinton campaign has argued that Barack Obama and John Edwards were engaged in some kind of unfair, two-against-one fight against her. The campaign has decried the “politics of pile on,” Bill Clinton has complained that “the boys” were ganging up on his wife, and Hillary Clinton herself argued in New Hampshire that Edwards and Obama had aligned themselves in “a buddy system” against her.

Take Edwards out of the equation, and it’s hard to run on that kind of victim narrative. More important, if you take Edwards out of the equation, our money says the stunning but narrow victory Clinton won in New Hampshire becomes something that looks a lot more like the defeat that almost everyone was expecting.

It’s hard to say with any certainty where Edwards’ supporters would go if he weren’t in the race, but I think Tim’s probably right — they’re more likely to back Obama than Clinton.

Now, especially after seeing last night’s results, it’s clear that anything can happen. Maybe Edwards will figure out some way to rebound, or maybe he’ll get lucky and the top two will make some kind of huge mistake, leaving him to pick up the pieces. He’s been struggling in South Carolina, but he was born in the state, and won its primary in 2004. Who knows.

But barring any major changes to the landscape, it looks to me like Edwards’ presence in the race may very well continue to be a big benefit to Clinton. Given that Edwards seems more than a little anti-Hillary, one wonders if, at some point in the not-too-distant future, he bows out, just to make things a little tougher for her.

January 9, 2008 at 12:55 pm

I think Tim Grieve is being a little tricky there. Bill Clinton’s comment about “the boys” was weeks ago and referenced a debate where all of them were focused on targeting Hillary.

I see no reason for Edwards not to continue to South Carolina and beyond. He’s talking about important issues in a way neither Obama or Clinton are.

And evil as it may be, he’s got every reason to expect to pick up the ABBH and ABBO votes along the way.

New Hampshire and Iowa expect to filter out candidates and we spent days saying we hate that. I see no reason to make this a two person race when a four person race is just fine.

As an Edwards backer, I’d have to say your reading of his complicity in the Clinton revival is right.

I don’t think he’s dead yet, and reframing the state of the race — only two states out of 48 have spoken, the delegate count is close (25/24/18), etc. etc. — can help him stay afloat. He’s got a shot at both Nevada, where he has strong (but not universal) union support and South Carolina, where he did well last time and has been running the most ads.

But if he does go, I’d have to say that 80%-90% of his supporters go to Obama.

This Edwards supporter thinks that when he finished a distant second in Iowa, and barely finished ahead of Hillary, that Edwards’ chances got much, much smaller. His finish in NH, although expected, was disappointing. He has a money problem too.

My unscientific belief is that without Edwards in the race, the vast majority of his support goes to Obama. Edwards says that he will stay in the race until the convention. When I vote on February 5, I will vote for Edwards if he still seems viable. But if it looks more like a two-person race at that point, I will abandon him and vote for Obama.

But that’s just me.

At first blush last night, I too thought the polling results in some way reflected Edwards’ poor choice of words toward Ms. Clinton. Note to John Edwards – never tell anyone a woman should never cry! Oh, and maybe, just maybe men should learn to cry a little bit themselves – it may give them a better, more enlightened, idea of just what may come of their decision-making. -Kevo

It’s hard to say with any certainty where Edwards’ supporters would go if he weren’t in the race, but I think Tim’s probably right — they’re more likely to back Obama than Clinton.

Huh? Maybe they’re backing Edwards because they’re more conventional-minded- he’s the white male- and therefore they’re more likely to default to a white lady than Barack Obama.

Trust a Salon Internet pundit like Tim Grieve to argue that a Clinton victory is Clinton defeat!

Typical mainstream media type pundit: “And the real winner of the New Hampshire primary was John Edwards because he is still able to peel off some votes from Hillary . . .”

Just making fun. . .

They wrote McCain off too.

Edwards’ presence also makes Hillary, and even Obama, look quite moderate against John’s populism which is not really taking off with the general public yet. Whether it’s the message or the messenger that’s not resonating is up for debate.

Edwards does serve the party well by advancing the progressive message, and I wish him well in doing that, but for the more conservatives voters and regions he’s acting as a foil that makes the other two candidates more acceptable to reformed righties.

I think Tim Grieve has absorbed too many Fox talking points. When has Clinton ever enjoyed playing the victim? Seems to me she likes a good fight. It energizes her.

I hope Edwards stays in the race since he pushes everyone to the left. Both Obama and Clinton talk about bipartisanship and I don’t believe it’s possible until the Republican party remakes itself or dissolves.

As a supporter of Edwards, I was disappointed by his comment about Hillary’s display of emotion and think it did hurt him, but hurt him more that it helped her. Keep in mind that the media’s response to Hillary and the 16 long years of sexist spin the GOP has heaped on her had a lot more to do with what support she may have gotten than with what Edwards said.

I think Edwards has been taking more striking stances, like vowing not to see lobbyists as President, more out of desperation than inspiration. As much as I want to see him win or at least do well (as I want to move the Democratic Party leftwards and I see Edwards as the best way of doing that), he is slipping and doesn’t seem likely to win at this point in the campaign.

I like Obama and could support him, but Hillary Clinton would be o.k. with me too. The one thing that still irks me is Obama’s past “crisis” rhetoric about Social Security. If he starts in again about how we need to “fix” Social Security now, I will back Hillary Clinton, no doubt about it

I like both Obama and Edwards, and it may be true that Edwards helped Clinton but not because he did anything wrong. He’s criticized Clinton and Obama both, in ways that are mostly reasonable for the primary season. The cheap shot about The Tears was a blunder, but anyone is allowed an occasional blunder.

What I’m trying to get at is that sometimes you have a “spoiler” like Nader who after a point was in the race for no good reason, and served only to help Bush (and campaigned in ways and in states that clearly weren’t just about making a point he wanted to make, but about damaging the chances of the Democratic party).

Edwards hasn’t done anything comparable. It’s a 3-way race, and so the 3rd-place finisher always ends up helping one opponent more than the other. Nothing more than that.

What I hope is that if things don’t turn around dramatically for Edwards in the near future, he’ll drop out and throw his support to Obama. In fact, an Obama-Edwards ticket would be wonderful, and unstoppable.

If Clinton’s comeback in NH has taught us anything, it’s that this primary process (less than a week old) is not a trend but a series of snapshots. In other words, you can’t count Edwards out until after South Carolina.

Even then, Edwards’ future is only “murky” if Clinton gets the nomination. If Obama wins, Edwards has a job as a running mate.

Obama/Edwards would be my dream ticket. I agree with Fasdf that it would be unstoppable, and IMO, a darned good thing for America.

I have to say, if Huckabee actually made Stephen Colbert his VP candidate (as he said when he went on the Colbert Report), and it came down to Clinton vs. Huckabee, I’d be sorely tempted to vote for Huckabee. It’s awful, but I really do dislike Hillary that much.

If [Obama] starts in again about how we need to “fix” Social Security now, I will back Hillary Clinton, no doubt about it.

I agree with Dawid W’s point and Paul Krugman’s criticisms. Obama has to start to walk away from the right-wing frames, now!

I still plan to vote for Edwards in my April primary.

Maybe Edwards will be Attorney General under Obama presidency?

I perceive Edwards as the most progressive of the top three candidates. If he decides to save his money and drop out, my support would then go to Obama as the next most progressive candidate. I view HRC as the least progressive of them all….much more attached to corporate donors. I think many Edwards supporters hold this same viewpoint.

But…if Edwards turns out to have zip chances he becomes a spoiler for Obama as a first place contender …which might throw the game to Clinton.

And can we have an in-depth explanation of how the super delegates might impact the choice? My fear is that they will reflect & back the corporate (Hillary) candidacy.

When all is said & done I will take any Democrat over any Republican.

As someone who really likes Edwards, it pains me that to have to contemplate the calculus here, but as a realist, and someone who knows she is going to vote for the Democratic candidate in November, I think it only makes sense to do so.

I’m not ready to concede that it’s time for Edwards to go; I think having him in the race – despite the fact that he can’t even buy media coverage, unless he says something they think is stupid – is a good thing: it’s just way too early for this to be a two-person race, much less a one-person race – as the media seemed to be poised to make it until last night. [And as an aside, when Edwards was interviewed and asked about his non-comment comment, it went nowhere – of course]

I don’t know what his strategy should be. I think the most likely place for him to peel off voters is from Obama, not Clinton – and that ‘s a trickier proposition: if they’re both change-makers, what makes Edwards more likely to make the changes than Obama? Obama seems determined to appeal to people across party lines, mining the vein of dissatisfaction with the tone, while Edwards has been mining the vein of those who are dissatisfied with being left out of the equation. I think the latter will not go over to Obama unless they are convinced that their issues will not be sold out to those who are less angry and more polite. But does Edwards have enough of he issues that would appeal to that same group to be able to pick up some percentage points?

And what happens to the Richardson voters? He’s been pulling 4-5%, which is going to help someone – but the question is, who? Since he’s the other “experience” candidate, might that be a boost for Hillary?

I want the coronation to take as long as possible – just because I think the longer it takes, the less “fuzzy” these candidates can be and the clearer a picture we have of them the better the decisions that can be made by those in the rest of the 48 states, including those who vote after February 5. I agree that Obama’s speech-making is working in his favor, but after non-stop coverage of it, at some point the voters are going to be looking for more – and I think if the contest is still going, the better the chances that will happen.

And…I think we have to pay some attention to the whispers we will start hearing about VP possibilities – if Obama’s team floats names that are more Blue Dog than just-plain-blue, I think that will peel away some hard-core Dems who aren’t looking to be sold out, regardless of how hopeful Obama makes them feel.

Overall, I would have to say that all of this makes my head hurt.

I just want to second what David W. @#9 said. I too am an Edwards supporter, and I completely agree with what David said–from being annoyeds at Edwards for his statement about Clinton to being willing to vote for Clinton if Obama ever mentions the social security “crisis” again. In fact, I’d like to know if Obama’s unity stuff is going to mean not finishing investigations of the corruption in the Bush administration. There is only so far I want to come together. I think Obama could be a really inspiring president, but not if he’s too compromising. I’m from the Democratic wing of the Democratic Party, and that’s why I like Edwards–for all the issues he’s raising that no one else is. I also liked Dodd for fighting the constitutional issues. Neither Obama nor Clinton have taken brave stands on those things. Despite that, I’d be delighted to have either one–after the last 7 years. But social security is still a deal breaker.

If you saw Hillary’s acceptance speech last night, you heard her channeling Edwards’ populist themes–having “found her voice.” Imitation is the best form of flattery and of flattening Edwards’ message and trying to pick up his disheartened supporters. Sadly, this lip service may work.

Note that both Hillary and Obama strongly mentioned taking on corporate greed and special interests in their speeches last night. Two weeks ago, they never would have done that.

So Edwards is relevant for opening a “real” debate on the future of the Democratic party, for making universal health care, getting our of Iraq quicker, campaign financing, special interests, and poverty important issues. These are the real changes we need.

His voice is needed through Super Tuesday. After that, lets beat the Republicans and make a real change to our future.

Edwards, like so many others, seems to feel a genuine antipathy towards corporate loving Hillary.
Unless I underestimate his vanity: There’s no way he’d ever be her running mate.

When the time comes he will drop out and throw his support to Barry O.
We will see that sooner rather than later.
Perhaps immediately after S.Carolina.
That’s when the numbers will do the dictating.

Nor can I see, should Hillary win, Obama being her running mate.
She’d love to have him.
With him as veep she might actually win.
But he’s no dummy.
He’d have to spend the next 8 years of his life trying to mop up the country’s rancor towards her.

Nope.
He’ll pass. And wisely so.
She’ll pick Richardson or some other ill-suited suit.
Maybe Gen. Clark to underscore her willingness to bomb.
Either way, it is a losing ticket…
The right will come out to the polls in droves.
The left not so much so…
The smart will follow George Carlin’s advice.
McCain will win by an Ohio or a Florida.

The country will be a furiously divided.
We will have four more years of Iraq war.
The economy will seriously tank.

Obama will use his Senate time to tour the country and world repeatedly during those dark days…

Did I miss something? ***kevo*** Did Edwards ever say that a woman should never cry? I saw nothing of this coming from Edwards mouth. He said, “I don’t have anything to say about that”, (Clinton’s tears) and then went on to say how hard campaigning and being president is (hell, it will even make you cry sometimes) and that you have to be tough to do it (because my god, it can make you cry) and that he was tough enough and the toughest candidate to do this very difficult job ( in spite of the fact that it can make you cry). People twist motivations and hear what they want to hear (a woman should never cry?).

Now one of Edwards campaign staff known as “mudfish” or “catfish” who admits he is a “hick” and doesn’t think anyone should cry because it is a sign of weakness etc. ( an insensitive person to say the least) but he is not Edwards.

Not only do I think the whole affair of tears and Edwards response mis construed and blown way out of proportion but it was a complete distraction from policy issues. In this “horse race” I saw very little about the issues…just election numbers and campaign predictions. The difference is in the details and Edwards’ message represents the only “real” change. In National polls he is leading because of this message yet he has not reached the population at large for a lack of funds. If only we had public financing of campaigns, and media campaign profiteering was illegal then candidates would be on an even footing and the polls would reflect very different numbers.

With Obama and Clinton there will be no campaign finance reform or an economic overhaul as the very wealthy and the major corps will be appeased and our economy held hostage. They both talk in generalities and not specifics.

I look at how stubborn candidates are to progressive suggestions and how much they include the money party in negotiating policy. ’06 results gave me gave me hope that was quickly lost and my trust betrayed by those who once elected stopped listening to their constituents and refused to do what they promised during the election. Only Edwards represents a real deviation from the other two. He strikes me as one who will do what he has promised to do while the other two remind me of Pelosi and Reid who once elected will stop listening. Kucinich is the best but Edwards is the contender. MSM has declared war on Edwards to silence his message. We need him more now than ever. Don’t count him out based on media predictions…they lie.

Re #19

Your confidence that Hillary will lose the General Election just amazes me.

Are you sure this isn’t just a case of “I hate her, and nobody I talk to is willing to say they support her, so of course she’s going to lose”? ‘Cause, you know, when you are that vehement in your opinion you often don’t get truthful responses from those you talk to.

Edwards is the candidate that I agree most on the issues. But ironically, his comments regarding Hillary disqualified him from being president. I think he should leave the race. His supporters will go between 40% to 60% to the other two major candidates. If Hillary wins, Obama would be her running mate because of his energy, and who he brings to the party and because he is the future of the party. Concerning electoral college math, assuming it is McCain, who is the best GOP candidate, this is how I see it:
What states that have gone D/R the last two elections will switch? Only IA, NH and NM flipped last time. If John wins NM (likely unless Richardson is in the tix) and IA and NH stay D as the primary/caucaus results show- McCain wins by 5 votes as long as VA, FL, OH, WVA, AK, NEV, COL, NC (anybody want to add more states to the columnn?) don’t flip. My guess is that half of those states flip. For McCain, the electoral college math remains very daunting.

Why would anybody Obama picking the same running mate Kerry lost with would be a good idea?

I’m an Edwards supporter and will vote for him 2/5. I like his populist stances. And someone needs to move the Overton Window to the left, after 30 years of rightward yanking. And I think it’s great that because he is saying what he’s saying that borh HC and BO spoke of more populist issues in their speeches last night. And I sure wish he’d jump on the restore Constitutional government bandwagon now that Dodd is out. And please, if any of the front runners started talking about how illegal and immoral this admin has been for the last 7 years and vowed to pursue all investigation into the alleged wrong doings of the administration and NOT drop them as Bill Clinton did, I bet they would start getting a bunch of votes from Independants and from Republicans disgusted with this administration. I hope he stays in it up until the convention at least so he can get his viewpoint put on the party platform. But like, Ann and others, if he starts truly hurting Obama and not Hillary, then I hope he’ll drop out.

He’s saying important things and I’m afraid that if he drops out then around March when the economy really looks sour, the country will be clamoring for a candidate like him. So, hang in there John.

I think we aren’t looking closely enough at the lack of media coverage of Edwards’ campaign and its effect.

As a friend of mine said this morning – it looks like he’s been “Kuciniched.”

Look at what happens to those who threaten the status quo to some level or another – they get marginalized.

All of a sudden Edwards has become the persona non gratis. Why? Of the three frontrunning Democratic candidates he threatens the big money interests the most.

The media is part of the big money.

It doesn’t take much to connect the dots.

The media can create momentum and actually steer the direction in which the electorate looks, how they think, and, in turn, how they act – maybe not universally, but enough to have an impact.

Result – Edwards canpaign wanes.

I’m not an Edwards enthusiast, he could be as co-opted as the other two, but it is clear as day that he represents the biggest threat of the three to big money.

The more I listen to Obama and Clinton the more I start to see beyond the pose and style and see where they may very well lead us. Edwards may lead us there too – to just more of the same.

The people keep buying this hogwash and the media keeps serving up their drivel as if the deck isn’t stacked and they aren’t players in this fiasco.

~~Seabiscuit~~ Edwards is getting a distant third in both Nevada and South Carolina. If he remains in the race beyond those two, chances are that he splits the anti-Clinton vote and Clinton wins Super Tuesday.

It’s funny, there are a lot of Edwards supporters that insist that compromising is a bad thing, yet if they remain so rigid and simply hope* that Edwards can come out on top, the most likely result is that Clinton — the least desirable from a progressive view — is likely to get the nomination.

*which ironically is what they’re criticizing Obama for

As an Edwards supporter, I can tell you that if he pulls out, my support will go to Clinton. I do not trust Obama’s world view, and he’s shown poor judgement in my opinion when quizzed on foreign policy matters. For myself, I hope he stays in until the convention, if for no other reason than to protest the way the primaries are set up. The schedule virtually guarantees that whoever has the most money wins. Therefore, the game can be rigged before it even begins.

I’ve always assumed the Edwards’ supporters would be more likely to go to Obama and Clinton–both are outsiders, both are running against Washington/special interests and on change, Edwards has gone at lengths to say that the differences between him and Obama are small, but the differences between he and Clinton are large.

However, Clinton’s biggest advantages against Obama, aside from the gender issue, are her strong holds with low-income and low-education voters. Maybe I’m wrong on this, but I wouldn’t be surprised if a large portion of Edwards’ supporters are similar.

But maybe its just that the type of union/low-income/low-education supporter who would go for Obama is going for Edwards instead; the Hillary’s lead over him in that category is more a product of Edwards’ presence in the race than indication that she’d benefit from his departure.

However, the fact that Edwards tried to spin Iowa as demanding a 2-man race between him and Obama, and Clinton is now trying to spin NH as demanding a 2-man race between her and Obama, and it’s not crazy to think that both campaigns think they’d benefit from the exclusion of the other. Which would lead one to believe that both campaigns think they’re splitting up core voting blocs

I guess we shall see. Hopefully we’ll start to see some polling that includes both 3-person and 2-person races, and we can start to make some initial judgments

Edwards popularism is toothless if it does not attack the underlying systemic distortion that is endangering America and the World, which is the major financial institutions (IMF, World Bank, WTO and our Government) are all enthralled by the Chicago School of Economics and Milton Friedmanism, which promotes the total de-statism of all Governments around the world. These are the people who are responsible for Pinochet in Chile, the destruction of the Asian Tigers in the ’90s, and the total screwup that is Iraq today.

If we can’t create a response to them, which essentially means stripping them out of these institutions and punishing their cronies wherever possible, we are not going to change anything in the next four years.

Maybe Edwards will be Attorney General under Obama presidency? -Evergreen

That sounds like a fantastic idea. He’s certainly far more qualified than the AGs of late.

As an Edwards supporter, I can tell you that if he pulls out, my support will go to Clinton. I do not trust Obama’s world view… -susan

Which part of Clinton’s world view do you like? The one where dropping bombs on people with brown skin is SOP because we’re so frightened of them?

Your confidence that Hillary will lose the General Election just amazes me.

Even if she should win the country loses.
She is a divider not a uniter.
She is to the right as Bush is to the left: Loathed beyond all reason.

She can’t even cry without it becoming a national cat fight…

She is no damn good for America.
If she wasn’t blinded by her own ambition she would see that.

Another thing to consider: if Edwards truly does prefer Obama to Hillary (which I think is quite likely), and he finds that his presence hurt Obama, when he finally does bow out he could “throw” his delegates to Obama and then campaign on Obama’s behalf, giving Barack a big momentum boost.

Indeed, if he thinks he’s helping Obama by staying in the race, conversely, he can stay in as long as he can afford to, siphon of as much support as he can from Hillary, and then drop out, throw his delegates to Obama, and then go campaign for Barack.

So I think Edwards’ presence/absence in the race can be a win/win, if he prefers Obama to Clinton. Whether he splits the “anti-Hillary” vote with Obama or splits the “union/’beer-track’ vote with Hillary, when he finally does bow out he can help Sen. Obama with his endorsement and his delegates.

ROTFLMAO said: “She is no damn good for America.
If she wasn’t blinded by her own ambition she would see that.”

Well, that’s progress I suppose. Now she’s not unelectable, she’s just bad (and ambitious).

Like, any of the guys is not ambitious?

Like, I care if any of my three Rethug brothers don’t like her as President. Perhaps just having her in the White House will scare the stupid shits enough that they won’t automatically cawtow to the next Guiliani or Romney who wants to scrap the Constitution because they will realize that Hillary might inherit the power they so spinelessly handed over to the Executive Branch.

Besides WE have real reasons to loath Boy George II. What’s their reason? She didn’t divorce Bill?

The Iowa Caucus was certainly dramatic, especially considering it is so difficult to poll accurately, so no one knows what will happen. The real sea change was the masses of new people who came out and registered as Dems in order to caucus for the Dems. +100,000 new or so. This is good news for Democrats nationally – the kind of mass rising against Republicanism we should have seen 4 years ago.

I’ve been glued to the news and debates for a long time now. I want Edwards to win, but that is looking dim – though he’s done great with comparatively tiny amounts of money (I actually sent him some, a first for me). After watching that New Hampshire debate, with Edwards defending Obama and calling Hillary the status quo, I think Edwards may be positioning himself for a VP nod. He’s said he wouldn’t do that, but he’s young. Seems like either VP, or political death, take your pick.

An Obama-Edwards ticket would be powerful (though I’d prefer the reverse). Obama is all media hype, glitz and star-power. He is trying to win this by running to the Right of Edwards and Hillary both. I think he is all platitudes myself. “Bring the nation together” my ass. This is TIME to be PARTISAN. The road block is ~49 republican die-hards in the senate, clawing to hold on to their crumbling 8-year old power structure. They need to be fully vilified and swept away – which is the direction Edwards would take us. Obama talks about sitting down and compromising. Those 49 are the ones who won’t compromise – nobody else has a problem.

I hate the relativistic idea that we need to find “common ground.” We do NOT need to find a way to “compromise” with the awful arrogant people who have run roughshod over the middle & working class (not to mention the Constitution) for the last 8 years. They have always been in it only for themselves and no one else. That you cannot “nice” them to death is very true – they will laugh in your face as long as they have a lever of power to hang on to (the senate filibuster, at present – assuming we win the presidency), and plot how to trick their way into power again in the future.

I am all for Edwards using the “bully pulpit” to build up the animosity toward them so that their entire movement is destroyed and never recovers – and to get more like-mindeds elected to congress. Obama would apparently not use the bully pulpit that way. I saw a great line recently: “As soon as Lieberman told him to back off in the name of “comity” that would be the end of the road for meaningful change.” Edwards can either go after Obama with both barrels to distinguish himself as a better agent of change, or moderate his message and angle for the VP. I don’t know which he’ll do, but judging from the NH debate, it looks like the later.

Obama and Edwards could do a nice good-cop bad-cop routine – especially if Obama would allow a powerful vice-presidency… a “good” version of Cheney. With Biden as Sec. of State. At this point, I would prefer Clinton to Obama in the abstract – the Clintons are not going to give the Republicans an inch, and I think I am done with Obama’s platitudes. But I’d rather see Edwards as VP than see Clinton as Pres and Edwards out of politics forever…

What I want to know is what is the chance of Edwards leveraging himself into a VP slot by continuing to win enough delegates that, if directed to go over to Obama for example, would propel Obama ahead of Clinton in delegate count? I have not studied the concept of a “brokered convention” enough to know what the deal is here… anybody know details?

I just don’t get the Obama/Edwards ticket meme.

Does one really add something to the other?

I, too, fail to see the strength of an Obama/Edwards ticket. The “inexperience” meme would stick like super-glue. Not only that, but, the right wing has already “feminized” Edwards, as they can easily do to a candidate with movie-star looks (which Obama also has. Two Hollywood-handsome men on one ticket is all too easy a target for the Rethugs). If Obama gets the nomination (which I certainly hope he does,) he needs a VP with a substantially different resume from his own. Someone with a more hardscrabble appearance wouldn’t hurt, either. My hope is that he picks Gov. Brian Schweitzer of Montana. An Obama/Schweitzer ticket would galvanize voters in the Rocky Mountain states, which is fertile ground for the Democratic Party’s growth. Contrast that with Edwards, who can’t even win his own home state, and who got his arse handed to him by Dick Cheney– DICK CHENEY!– in the ’04 debate. Come on. Edwards would add absolutely NOTHING to Obama’s (or anyone else’s) ticket!

#35 Lance said: “I just don’t get the Obama/Edwards ticket meme. Does one really add something to the other?”

——–

Maybe so (I think they could be complementary, to a degree) maybe not, but that is another argument and not the point of my post. My point is very simple:

(1.) Edwards can prevent Obama from winning by splitting the anti-Hilary vote. Think of New Hampshire if Edwards had not been in the race. If Obama received at least three fifths (3/5) of the 47,000 that voted Edwards, Obama beats Hilary (assuming she got the other 2/5, which may be a stretch – she’d be lucky to get 1/4 I think.) I think this pattern is likely to hold in other primaries: Edwards sucking away crucial votes from Obama, with Clinton benefiting.

(2.) Assuming (1.) is true, if Edwards were to drop out now in exchange for an announcement from Obama that Edwards would be his VP, and Edwards direct his followers to vote Obama in the primaries, then Obama would likely beat Hilary. It doesn’t matter that Edwards and Obama are similar candidates. What matters is that both Edwards and Obama are helped (big time) by the arrangement, and without the arrangement they both lose: Hilary beats Obama, and Edwards ends up out of politics.

That they are somewhat similar candidates has to take second place to the force of the overarching logic – assuming you accept the premises.

PS- I just read about brokered conventions. Decent article at wiki. The horses could be traded there instead, rather than by an immediate (say, post-South Carolina or post-Florida) announcement. Two choices, with different tactical/strategic consequences…

Lance: No.

Edwards angry populism wholly contradicts the message Obama is winning on – uplifting, sunshine-y hope.

People either are attracted to change using Obama’s approach, or Edwards, but rarely both.

And Edwards for AG? He has never done anything administrative, his legal background is almost entirely in tort law, which is almost never an issue the AG deals with, and his temperment seems ill-suited to being a bureaucrat, no matter how highly placed (a trait i can strongly empathize with).

Just to add, Edwards also does not overshadow Obama. Whereas both would overshadow, say Clinton, with respect to charisma. That was part of the awkwardness with Kerry and Edwards. Edwards’ was literally having to tone himself DOWN not to make Kerry look even more boring.

Re: # 37

I despair of all this “Anti-Hillary vote” crap. We don’t have the Republican’t field. Democratic voters are voting FOR their candidates. Obama and Edwards ought not to be splitting anything.

Lance said: Re #19 Your confidence that Hillary will lose the General Election just amazes me. etc.
19. ROTFLMAO said: [Edwards] will drop out… should Hillary win…

And no mention of Obama leading the ticket in this particluar world history. Well who knows how the wave function will collapse. RO..LAMO seems kind of undecided though otherwise. Even wether he will vote republican or democratic. No, that was the other day, now it’s won’t vote. Wonder if there is a truthiness to the idea that there aren’t undecided citizens when it comes to the Clintons. We know them from back in the day, how can you be undecided, and from the stridency of some peoples expressions about them, they seem polarizing to some. You know, I heard someone say California’s Demcratic party will allow undeclared, independant voters to participate in that states Democratic primary, and Republicans, no independants in the CA primary.

Here’s an old-fashioned idea. Maybe Edwards figures that both Hillary and Obama are going to go into the convention with relatively equal-sized collections of delegates, and he’ll be able to go in with a smaller bloc that he can use to bargain for something. Until it’s clear that one or the other is going to have a delegate majority, why not stay in and see what happens?

I’m an Edwards supporter, but I think they he is splitting the progressive vote with Obama. After NH, I think he should quit and endorse Obama. The longer he stays in, the greater Hillary’s chances.

All I can say is brace yourself boys and girls because this is going to be long ride to the Edwards Presidency because there’s a new “Come Back Kid “on the block!

Comments are closed.