The Elizabeth Edwards strategy

August 14, 2007

When a presidential campaign gets to the general election, party nominees will often pick running mates whose job it is to aggressively go after the other candidate. There are a few reasons for this, most notably that it helps a ticket go negative while creating some distance between the presidential candidate and the attacks.

Obviously, in a primary campaign, the candidates don’t yet have running mates, so they can’t designate a high-profile attack-dog to go negative on the campaign’s behalf. But I’ve noticed something lately: John Edwards’ campaign seemed to be utilizing Elizabeth Edwards as if she were his running mate — going after Edwards’ rivals in ways the candidate probably wouldn’t.

There are a variety of examples of this, but this is the latest.

In an interview in August’s edition of The Progressive magazine, Elizabeth Edwards, wife of former Senator John Edwards, D-N.C., takes candid shots at the other candidates battling for the Democratic nomination against her husband.

“The problem for me with the other candidates is I don’t know what it is that drives them,” she explained, “I should think the president has to be somebody who has that kind of vision outside themselves.”

The former senator’s wife didn’t hold back much. She chastised Hillary Clinton for not apologizing for her Iraq war vote and questioned whether she could be a “leader.” Elizabeth Edwards also took on Barack Obama, accusing him of behaving in a holier-than-thou way.”

Mrs. Edwards also expressed her disapproval of both Clinton and Obama on healthcare policy, and accused Obama of “using a lot of John’s 2004 language.”

The criticism seems to be part of a trend.

Last week, for example, Elizabeth chastised the media for not giving her husband enough attention and for undermining his fundraising efforts.

Elizabeth Edwards, the wife of Democratic presidential candidate John Edwards, is gaining attention for recent comments on why her husband may receive less attention from the media — and campaign cash — than the two leading Democratic candidates.

“We can’t make John black, we can’t make him a woman,” said Edwards, referring to Illinois Sen. Barack Obama and New York Sen. Hillary Clinton during an interview with Ziff Davis Media about the Internet’s role in the 2008 presidential election. “Those things get you a certain amount of fundraising dollars.”

And less than a month ago, it was also Mrs. Edwards who went after Hillary Clinton over women’s issues.

Elizabeth Edwards sought to punch holes in the notion that New York Sen. Hillary Clinton is the women’s candidate in the 2008 race for the White House. For Edwards, that title falls to her husband, former North Carolina Sen. John Edwards, who is competing against Clinton for the Democratic presidential nomination.

“She’s just not as vocal a women’s advocate as I want to see,” Elizabeth Edwards said in a wide ranging interview with the online magazine, Salon. “John is.”

And two months ago, Mrs. Edwards took the lead in confronting right-wing clown Ann Coulter.

[O]n ABC’s Good Morning America, Coulter said, “[I]f I’m gonna say anything about John Edwards in the future, I’ll just wish he had been killed in a terrorist assassination plot.” She has previously called Edwards a “faggot.” In 2003, she wrote a column claiming that John Edwards drove around with a bumper sticker saying “Ask me about my son’s death in a horrific car accident.”

During an hour-long interview with Coulter … on MSNBC, host Chris Matthews announced that Elizabeth Edwards was on the line. Edwards referenced the attacks above, saying, “I’m the mother of that boy who died. These young people behind you…you’re asking them to participate in a dialogue that is based on hatefulness and ugliness instead of on the issues, and I don’t think that’s serving them or this country very well.”

I don’t necessarily have a point here; I’m just noting what I think is a provocative and unusual campaign strategy. Candidates’ spouses are becoming increasingly prominent in presidential campaigns, which is not necessarily a bad thing, but I can’t recall ever seeing a candidate’s spouse taking on the aggressive role that Elizabeth Edwards has.

Is this good or bad? Clever or risky? I’m not sure, but I think it’s interesting.

Can’t say whether it is good or bad–odds are any particular conclusion would depend on the spouse’s qualifications, demeanor, past experience–but I have no doubt that Mrs. Edwards’ health condition has given to her a stronger sense of urgency and/or purpose. She truly believes John Edwards is the right man for the job and has the right policies for this country and her children, and she understands her time on this earth to help him and the country is potentially short (I sure hope not, though).

  • Risky. Very. First, to those really thinking about it, it may appear that Team Edwards has concluded that a “wife with cancer” is someone that people cannot hit back and that they are “exploiting” this asymmetry. Let me be clear I am not making this accusation. I suspect that Elizabeth, having had a taste of mortality, and being a strong and opinionated woman, has decided she needs to say what is on her mind, period.

    Second, one of the knocks on John, fair or not, is that he is a “pretty boy” (or, more negatively, a Breck girl.) To the “Reagan Democrats” – the blue collar midwestern guys I grew up with – having his wife fight his battles for him will only reinforce that already negative “sissy” stereotype. One could easily say “if they think that way, screw ’em, we don’t need those macho simpletons.” Except that there is a huge overlap, at least in the midwest and south, between Edwards’ most targeted audience — the poor, those in the wrong half of the “Two Americas” — and the anti-60s country music listening former-union-laborers-until-they-were-laid-off sometimes Democratic voters to whom “sissy” is a major putdown.

    So while I loved watching her go after Coulter, I think this is a risky strategy. That said, John Edwards is in a position where he probably has to take some risks right now.

  • It’s too bad Kerry didn’t pick her for VP in 2004. Edwards let Cheney pound him into the ground, when we needed a fighter.

  • I definitely get the sense that she really wants to know in her heart that she did everything she could do to get Edwards elected. She certainly is a sympathetic figure – not sure if that qualifies her as knowledgeable on the issues that she talks about, but then that isn’t usually a requirement to be listened to in this country.

    Homer

  • I think Mrs. Edwards and her husband’s campaign need to think over this new strategy very carefully, if strategy it is. She got a lot of sympathy for her battles with breast cancer and has always come across as a level-headed person.

    But if she’s going to be constantly on the air whining about this and complaining about that, she could soon be seen as some kind of harpy while her husband sits passively in the background.

    Not good, for him or her. I’m hardly in a position to sit in judgment of someone else’s initiatives, but she’s starting to creep me out a little bit and if it’s happening to me it could be happening to others as well.

  • I’m not sure it’s a strategy — my take on it is that she is speaking out strongly and he is not about to call her on the carpet for stepping out of bounds. I’m guessing he tacitly approves, without coordinating a message — and if she goes over the line once or twice, most of the time she doesn’t. I’m guessing she has a sense of urgency and of “what are they going to do to me?” attitude about it.

    That’s just my theory, I have no insight into the campaign.

    I think having her speak out so much *can* lead to the “his wife is fighting his battles” meme, and sometimes it will seem out of bounds. I am supporting Edwards in general. I think her comments directly attacking Obama and Clinton — while I might agree with them — don’t feel right coming from the candidate’s wife. Obama and Clinton never went after her, after all.

    She can attack Ann Coulter all she wants.

  • Interesting points on the strategy’s risks & effectiveness, but I find myself more reactive to the context and content of her remarks; I view them as on target on both counts. Probably naive on my part, but maybe the Edwards’ have more inner conviction and focus on important issues.

  • Edwards also took on Barack Obama, accusing him of behaving in a holier-than-thou way.”

    This from Mrs. Same-sex Marriage Goes Against My Religious Beliefs. Sure.

    I don’t think it’s a strategy and I don’t fault her for being outspoken. I think she says dumb crap but it seems to be her crap, not scripted crap. Further, I would be suspicious if E. Edwards suddenly stopped speaking to the press.

    I think what we’re seeing is just E. Edwards. J. Edwards might score points with female voters because he doesn’t make his wife shaddup and smile pretty but that would be incidental/accidental.

    As a side question, did anyone catch Michelle Obama telling reporters to shut up with the “Black enough,” bs? (OK, she called it nonsense.)

  • I think Elizabeth Edwards battle with cancer has probably changed her outlook, and she is freeer with her opinions, but I also think there is a calculated strategy that her illness has innoculated her against retaliation form the opponents. That may last, it may wear off. Either way, as someone noted above, the public perception of her may sour before Hillary or Obama swing back if they’re not careful.

  • Dave M said:

    Probably naive on my part, but maybe the Edwards’ have more inner conviction and focus on important issues.

    Yeah, like figuring out how to integrate their mutual concern for the (most) important issues of environmental degradation and energy conservation with clearcutting the room for their 20,000 square foot dwelling.

    But, I’m sure the attacks on Obama and Clinton were nothing personal – Elizabeth just knows that John cares about such things more than those other two do.

  • Risky.

    I’ve admired and respected Elizabeth Edwards since the ’04 election.

    But, as an Obama supporter, hearing her try to play spin politics like that really takes her down a notch in my eyes.

    Um, Elizabeth? Ever hear of a place called Hope?

  • Effective but risky.

    Have you noticed that negative campaign ads almost always use a woman for the voice-over? Many people react to a woman’s voice as less threatening and aggressive than criticism coming from a man. Elizabeth is very articulate, and has a pleasant manner when she delivers her daggers. (Ann Coulter called her a “harridan!” Can you imagine a better example of the kettle and the pot?)

    It’s a risky strategy for all of the obvious reasons, most of which have already been mentioned. But John Edwards will need to take some risks to distinguish himself from the Clinton/Obama blockade in front of him, particularly because of this front-loaded primary election cycle. This will probably work as long as Elizabeth keeps it real. Obama does sound preachy sometimes. Hillary hasn’t been particularly vocal on women’s issues recently. And Elizabeth definitely won her round with harridAnn Coulter.

  • I really like Elizabeth Edwards; she’s smart, and she’s likeable in ways that Hillary is not, which might be part of the problem – if there is a problem. I sense that Elizabeth’s role is not only to speak candidly, but to show the voters that there is no chance that John is going to leave “women’s issues” behind. Sometimes I think Elizabeth is being the woman that Hillary Clinton cannot afford to be because she (Hillary) thinks it is better to conduct herself in ways that don’t make people so conscious of her gender.

    It may be a risky strategy, but with the national numbers Hillary has, John cannot allow himself and his message to be drowned out by the noise being made by the Clinton and Obama campaigns – what both John and Elizabeth are out there saying is edgy enough that it is keeping the Edwards campaign on the media’s radar screen. Without the coverage, he can’t get anywhere.

  • Thank God there is one candidate out there who is willing to buck the conventional wisdom.

    Kudos to Edwards for letting his wife be herself and Kudos to Elizabeth for speaking her mind.

    We’ve had too many elections where progressives got scaredd of what idiots like colonpowpow say. Keep speaking out Elizabeth.

    Edwards is the Dems best chance at taking the White House. When the party nominates Hilary and then loses the general election, we’ll all realize that. if you don’t think the Republicans want Hilary or Obama to be the candidate, you haven’t been paying attention. They fear Edwards most.

  • Doubting Thomas said:

    “what idiots like colonpowpow say”

    Excuse me, sir, but the personal attack is completely uncalled for. We take to a higher standard here at CR.

    And the inaccuracy of my statement about the Edwards’ hypocrisy inherent in this strategy (the topic of this thread) is exactly what?

    Accepting your apology in advance, I remain

  • I would have a much bigger problem with it if she was wrong. As it is, she hasn’t really said anything that’s inaccurate, or at least that isn’t a legitimate opinion.

  • I agree with commenter #2, although I love that Elizabeth Edwards speaks out the way she does. I can’t speak for the rest of the American people, but I, for one, appreciate people who say what they mean, and mean what they say. Elizabeth comes across as one of these kinds of people. If this is a “strategy,” then John needs to follow suit. Not to say that he needs to make wild and crazy assertions all over the media, but I think a little well-placed candor is refreshing. Take his campaigns official response to Rove’s resignation. It was perfect.

  • Actually, Mags, Edwards’ response was sophmoric and snarky. Great sound bite, but come on – he’s smarter than that.

  • I think it is more than laudable to confront the political liars, which is what Elizabeth Edwards has done.

    Of course, it is a different approach. We certainly need more truth-telling and since she is a lawyer, she is more knowledgeable about what goes on in government and in the courts than the other candidates’ wives.

    The truth is that Americans cannot stand to be told the people they elected are ordinary confidence men. They would rather hear the pretty lies that tell them they are “right.”.

  • It’s pretty plainly not effective, because Edwards hasn’t budged in the polls for quite a long time. Still, I like seeing them running such an unorthodox (and substantive) campaign. They certainly wouldn’t get anywhere by having her be demure, gracious, and barely visible.

    And colonpowwow, I don’t see why an affluent couple shouldn’t have a big house. Do presidential candidates need to take a vow of poverty to avoid charges of “hypocrisy,” whatever that means?

  • Mike B. said:
    And colonpowwow, I don’t see why an affluent couple shouldn’t have a big house.

    And I don’t see why the point that I made is so elusive to you. It’s called personal responsibility and leading by example. If you’re going to position yourself as the friend of the working man, a champion of the environment, and a spokesman for energy efficiency as policy, and then you go forth and clearcut a big swath of land and build a ground-up 20,000 square foot (!) house with an indoor basketball court (what couldn’t they find one to recycle in Newport or something – then you are open to the same sort of criticism you level when you (or your spouse) starts denigrating other candidates’ level of commitment to women’s rights, etc.

    You have no trouble pointing out hypocracy in someone’s personal life when it’s some politician you disagree with – like Cheney’s chickenhawking, Bush’s phoney ranching, Nader’s stock portfolio, etc.

  • colonpowwow (what a hideous handle), you don’t know that they clear-cut anything. They may have built their house in a pasture for all you know. We have a lot of those in the Carolinas. At least they don’t have three mansions like Mittens.

    Elizabeth is a steel magnolia, and thank heavens for it. She lashes out about women’s issues, against witches like Coulter, and promotes her husband whom she truly believes in because it is exactly what she should be doing. Imagine the backlash against John if he had made a full frontal assault on Coulter? Then the wingnuts would have portrayed the episode as the big bad man attacking the poor little woman.

    Women who hear Elizabeth speak about her husbands committment to women’s issues hear and understand the message, whereas when it comes out of the mouth of a man, we know we’ve heard it all before and can’t be sure of the veracity. We know that she speaks the truth because we know that she has little to gain and a legacy to lose. We can believe in the authenticity of John Edwards because we know that she is authentic. Which cannot be said about either Hillary or Obama.

  • Bluekat – SInce when did it become fashionable for Edwards supporters (and his spouse too, I guess), to think that they win points by starting off with personal attacks. I’m sorry I wasn’t clever enough to come up with a handle as sharp as Bluekat, but FYI, I actually play in one of the Midwest’s most popular blues bands.

    If you look at a Edwards mansion construction site photo on the tubes. Look here: http://www.carolinajournal.com/exclusives/display_exclusive.html?id=3848
    you will see that the entire area surrounding the construction was clearcut. Also, I understated the actual size of the house, it’s 28,200 square feet.

    Finally, if you can’t respond in a factual manner to a progressive Democrat (I’m a Kucinich supporter and worked on three Democratic campaigns in Wisconsin) – how are you going to handle it when the Republicans attack candidate Edwards for these same hypocrisies?

    It isn’t even my favorite one. When Edwards left the campaign trail, he went to work for an offshore tax-dodge, where he made the money to build his environmentally-friendly digs. This was after campaigning with Kerry strongly denouncing these offshore tax shelters. I wonder if he already had the job lined up in case his campaign wasn’t successful. I don’t know, just wondering.

  • Oh, and one more thing. Do you know how my favorite Democrat (Russ Feingold) first captured the imagination of Wisconsin voters with his clever commercials?

    His first one showed him standing outside the houses of the two major Democratic candidates he was running against in the primaries. One of them had a large mansion on a hill and Russ stood outside the gate and talked (I’m not sure I remember his name, but I think it was Jim Doyle). The next scene had him standing in front of Congressman Jim Moody’s Georgetown townhouse. Now Jim Moody is actually more of a progressive than Mr. Edwards (Moody’s was one of the campaigns I worked on), but Russ’s point was well-made and razor sharp.

    Finally, Russ showed his own modest house in Middleton, WI, with his platform written on his garage double doors.

    Hope you enjoyed the story and the lesson.

    • Comments are closed.