The enemy of my enemy…

There was a point in the early summer in which it looked like John Edwards looked at Barack Obama as a rival to be targeted. Edwards publicly questioned Obama’s electability, and accused the Illinois senator of “stealing” some of his policy proposals.

As a strategy, this made perfect sense. With Hillary Clinton leading the field, and establishing herself as the frontrunner early on, the race for the nomination would likely shape up as a two-person race between Clinton and someone else. Obama and Edwards would fight for the slot, and only one would make it. The rivalry was likely to get intense.

Except it didn’t. As of late Friday, John Edwards told reporters, “The differences between Sen. Clinton and myself are much more dramatic than the differences between Sen. Obama and myself.” Noting that neither he nor Obama take contributions from lobbyists, Edwards added, “I think also on some of the substantive issues we’re closer than I am with Sen. Clinton.”

Ben Smith adds an interesting piece to the broader Obama-Edwards dynamic, including a great anecdote from Saturday night in Iowa, after the Jefferson-Jackson dinner. The scene: 2am, on the sidewalk outside the Hotel Fort Des Moines, with Hillary Clinton’s campaign chairman, Terry McAuliffe, just inside the hotel’s glass doors:

The organizers were men and women in their 20s, and all dressed identically: jeans and red T-shirts with Obama’s logo and his call to arms, “Fire it up.”

When a man on the edge of the group yelled the slogan, they answered with the response they’d been chanting all night: “Ready to go.”

“Fire it up!” the rumpled, older man yelled again.

“Ready to go!” the crowd shouted back again. “Fire it up!” he called. “Ready to go!”

“Let’s kick her ass,” the cheerleader finally called out, and the crowd roared.

The cheerleader — Joe Trippi, chief adviser to Sen. John Edwards, new-politics guru, and all-around mischief maker — glanced gleefully over at McAuliffe.

Trippi, of course, is not supposed to be firing up Obama supporters, even if it is just for McAuliffe’s benefit. So what’s going on?

The Obama and Edwards campaigns have come to view each other — warily on Obama’s side, more warmly on Edwards’ — as arms-length allies against [Hillary Clinton]. […]

The shared tactical goals of the Edwards and Obama campaign fall far short, at the moment, of the true coordination between Sen. John F. Kerry and Rep. Dick Gephardt in 2004, when — former staffers of both campaigns say — aides to the campaigns secretly coordinated their attacks on the insurgent Howard Dean.

There’s no evidence of actual behind-the-scenes links between the Obama and Edwards campaigns, and while their attacks on Clinton reinforce one another, they also fly from differing, and sometimes contradictory, perspectives.

Still, at Saturday night’s Jefferson Jackson dinner, their messages seemed to echo one another.

Last week, the two did trade mild shots at one another. Edwards questioned whether Obama was prepared to be partisan enough to fight for progressive causes, and Obama responded by suggesting Edwards’ populism is a new-found trait for a former moderate. Maybe this would escalate a bit? Not even a little — shortly thereafter, asked about Obama’s criticism, Edwards reemphasized how much he and Obama have in common, and said Obama’s rebuke was the result of a misleading question from a reporter.

I suppose the strategy may be that Edwards and Obama still want a two-person race, but they want it to be them, with Clinton out of the mix. But who really thinks that’s possible? Clinton leads in every state, and in every national poll. Surely these two don’t really think they’re going to force Clinton out of the top two at this point.

Perhaps they’re hoping to be a possible running mate with the other? Maybe, but that seems a little far-fetched, too. Especially if Obama manages to win the nomination, it’s hard to imagine Edwards wanting to be the running mate for two different Democratic candidates in successive elections.

I can’t really say what’s behind the thinking, but it’s an interesting dynamic to keep an eye on. If anyone has any theories, I’m all ears.

This is totally OT, but I wanted to say that I’m in the middle of Craig Unger’s utterly fabulous book, Fall of the House of Bush, and I want to heartily recommend it. (No, I’m not a paid shill!). Unger explains in clear, concise terms the dreadful coalition of neo-cons and evangelists (of all stripes and denominations) who together created George W Bush and his presidency.

It’s the best book I’ve read so far about Bush and Iraq.

  • I would love love LOVE to vote for an Obama/Edwards ticket. I think that such a team would be exactly what this country needs: intelligence, gravitas, and heart. A diplomatic approach to the world coupled with a populist approach to domestic issues. Why wouldn’t Edwards want in on that?

  • Someone mentioned earlier that those who support Edwards or Obama aren’t inclined to support Hils. Put the support of those two together and suddenly, Hils is either behind or her lead is much much smaller to the point of statistic tie.

    Doesn’t seem so odd anymore.

  • Great. Obama/Edwards. Hooray.

    Edwards brings nothing to the VP side of that ticket. He brought nothing for Kerry and would bring less for Obama. His one strength is his “Two Americas” populist vision, and he’d have to change that mightily to conform with Obama’s “Unity & Comity” message.

    The one bit he brings is that he’s a white, Southern male. That didn’t help him bring anything to the ’04 election, and I don’t see that changing things here.

    OTOH – it makes a lot of sense for the two teams to gang up on Clinton. If one of them does it you risk a backlash where Clinton goes down and takes her attacker with her. But if both of them go after her then there’s a chance that neither of them go down with Clinton – it makes it look more like there are serious problem with Clinton and less like two politicians sniping at each other. That would be an interesting political gambit. Hopefully they’ll focus on attacker her substance and not play into right-wing talking points while they’re doing it. (I have little hope for Obama on this score – he seems to love the right-wing talking points lately).

  • That alliance also makes sense in Iowa on the off chance that in certain precincts either Obama or (more likely) Edwards is not viable – they they realign to each others’ group to deny HRC the Iowa win. A more likely result is that the lovefest (or HRC hatefest) helps ensure that other candidates groups that are more likely to be non-viable (Kucinich, Dodd, Biden, Richardson) break for one of the “not-Hillary’s” than for Hillary.

  • I think, the only way either Obama or Edwards win at this point is if Hillary falls. They can both duke it out over who lurches ahead at that point, but right now, number two won’t cut it. You have to knock Hillary out of the top spot and upset the apple cart so it’s anyone’s game. Right now it’s Hillary’s game.

  • This is cute and all but one of them (and I’m looking at you Obama) should step aside so the other can mount a serious challenge to Hillary. The longer that the progressive/anti-Hillary vote is divided by two “leading” candidates the better it is for Hillary.

  • Betcha Edwards is thinking about Obama as his VP, not vice versa. I’d like that ticket better since Obama refuses to strongly address ending the Bush warmongering — a LOT better than Hillary and Obama.

  • memekiller

    I think the Democratic Party mavens may be suprised and alarmed at the vote in 2008 from what they’ve assumed is their base. I wouldn’t be surprised at ALL if there is a “darkhorse upset”, though I don’t think it will be a Republican.

  • Hmm.

    Interesting.. Iowa is not essential for Hillary to win, I am actually surprised she is spending as much time and money as she is there.

    As for Edwards, he comes off as just plain nasty and bitter and a hipocrite about the special interest deals.. He reminds me of one those dogs that keep nipping at the ankles, he is just annoying, whereas Obama comes across as a gentlemen.

    It sure is getting close to showtime, it should be most interesting and dare I say fun to watch who emerges out of this race…

    Whoever it may be, He or She will have my FULL support and vote.

    Republicans are NOT an OPTION.

  • I expect they both just feel they have no shot at winning, unless they take Hillary down. Since Edwards is running third, he needs an ally in pulling the leader down the most.

  • it’s hard to imagine Edwards wanting to be the running mate for two different Democratic candidates in successive elections.

    I think this is wrong, wrong, wrong. These days there is no better launching pad for the presidential nomination than the vice presidency. Mondale, Bush I, and Gore all proved it. The fact that both Bushes picked veeps with no presidential ambitions proves it more (no need to worry that the VP is working for the next administration instead of yours).

    If Edwards succeeds Obama as president, will anyone even care about the Kerry campaign? Nope. He’ll be laughing from the treadmill on Air Force One.

  • This is cute and all but one of them (and I’m looking at you Obama) should step aside so the other can mount a serious challenge to Hillary. -Steve Balboni

    Any good reason why the consistent number two should drop out and let the consistent number three slide up or is that just your personal choice?

  • I really have a pretty low opinion of that Ben Smith guy. He was the one who broke the Edwards haircut story, did it kind of a sleazy way I might add, and I have noticed a couple of pieces he’s written since then that I would tend to classify as further attempts to create news, rather than just passively sit around waiting for it to happen. So my first guess would be he just happened to catch Joe Trippi having a little fun goofing on some Obama people while clearing out of a bar at closing time, then went out of his way to cast it in the most portentous light possible.

    I’d also tend to suspect there are two main reasons Edwards and Obama have been kind of leaving each other alone up to now in favor of going after Clinton. One would be for much the same reason that John Dillinger robbed banks (because that’s where the votes are) — leaving aside Iowa, if either of them were able to poach every single one of the other’s supporters, they would still be in second place everywhere else. The other would be that each of them probably views the other (rightly, I’d say) as easier to beat than Hillary Clinton.

    But I would also tend to guess that any informal truce between the Edwards and Obama campaigns, be it intentional or coincidental, might tend to start show some signs of strain if, as I suspect we may see happen in the next couple of weeks, some of the ABC (anybody but Clinton) contingent among Obama’s share of Iowa, NH and SC start to decide they like Edwards’ brand of attacking Clinton better than Obama’s. If Edwards and Obama were to swap positions in Iowa, for example, we could easily see the landscape change dramatically.

  • That’s about what I figure. I’d further guess that of the 1/3 or Obama fans that favor Edwards over Clinton, a fairly high percentage may be there as much because he seems like the most viable anti-Clinton in the race. If it were the case that as much as 20% of Obama’s support turned out to be transferable, that plus a few points shaved from Clinton could put Edwards in second place.

  • Comments are closed.