Event Calendar
February 2012
(view month)
S M T W R F S
* * * 01 02 03 04
05 06 07 08 09 10 11
12 13 14 15 16 17 18
19 20 21 22 23 24 25
26 27 28 29 * * *
<< (add event) >>


User Blox 4
- Put stuff here

Barack Obama
"Lincoln Sells Out Slaves"
by: Rob Kailey - Sep 13
1 Comments
If You Haven't Seen This
by: Rob Kailey - Apr 28
5 Comments
Impeach the President?
by: Rob Kailey - Mar 16
15 Comments
It's the system, stupid!
by: Jay Stevens - Oct 25
7 Comments

Search




Advanced Search


Rob Kailey is a working schmuck with no ties or affiliations to any governmental or political organizations, save those of sympathy.

Career-ending result for Edwards: he outpolls the Republican field

by: Jay Stevens

Fri Jan 04, 2008 at 14:52:55 PM MST


Just wanted to bring your attention to the sordid underbelly of David Brooks' column today, which while praising Obama left, right, and center, took this gratuitous shot against John Edwards:

He's made John Edwards, with his angry cries that "corporate greed is killing your children's future," seem old-fashioned. Edwards's political career is probably over.

It's the conventional "wisdom." Edwards is toast. Why hasn't Edwards dropped out? He's dead in the water. Some folks on the left see the Iowa caucus -- what with Obama's message of bipartisanship (and flying pigs) polling so well -- as an end to progressive populust economic policy. (As obviously does Brooks.)

A couple of things to remember. First, both Clinton and Obama took Edwards' lead in setting policy. Universal health care? Withdrawal from Iraq? Edwards took the stand, it polled well, Clinton and Obama scurried to match his stance. Ezra Klein said it best, Edwards "set the agenda and finished second."

Second, Eric Kleefeld noticed something interesting about the caucus results, compared with pre-caucus poll: if such a comparison can be made, then it appears Edwards was the biggest recipient of second-choice delegates. What does that mean? It could mean that, as second-tier candidates drop out of the race, Edwards' numbers improve. Also, if the primary gets ugly, it's likely Clinton and Obama who take the swings at each other. Edwards could end up smelling like a rose in a couple of weeks. One word: youneverknow.

And third, and the most striking fact about John Edwards' results at the Iowa causus are the results, compared to the Republican candidates. According to the The Group News Blog, some 356,000 Iowans voted during the caucus. Of those, 20.5% -- or approximately 73,000 -- pulled for Edwards. That's more votes than Mike Huckabee and Mitt Romney earned combined. That's about a thousand less than Romney, Huckabee, and Giuliani combined.

While Edwards may not win the Democratic nomination, Edwards' populist policies outpolled nearly the entire Republican field in the Iowa caucus. End of his career? Death of his message? Where are the columns dedicated to the death of the Republican party as a national force in politics?

Jay Stevens :: Career-ending result for Edwards: he outpolls the Republican field
Tags: , , , , , , , (All Tags)
Bookmark and Share
Print Friendly View Send As Email
Apparently Matt Singer (0.00 / 0)
feels Edwards is done as well..I think the fight has just begun and Hillary is the first victim...she will not be the "comeback kid" in NH next week...a poor second or maybe another third....her negative campaigning will be read by New Hampshire voters as "it's true, I am a bitch".

The pundits want Edwards and Huckabee gone...they threaten their cozy status quo...

David Brooks is an idiot, but I'm surprised Singer has given up on Edwards so quickly.  


Not all Hill-dawg (0.00 / 0)
Senator Clinton isn't the only one campaigning negative. Edwards has done more than his fair share if not more or worse. If anyone in NH says that they won't vote for her because of negative campaigning they are full of shit.

[ Parent ]
Not so much given up (0.00 / 0)
To some extent, I'm sick of the focus on the Presidential race. It's clearly the biggest game in town right now, but as in past years, I'll focus more on the down-ballot stuff.

At the Presidential level, I've never even met any of the top three. I don't know 'em, can't really be sure how significantly different any of 'em are, and my ability to move the election is close to nil. So I focus on other things.


[ Parent ]
Corporate Establishment candidates (0.00 / 0)
It appears to me that Hillary, Romney, and Guiliani are the ordained and annointed candidates of the Corporate and Globalist big business establishment- and they'll do anything to stop Edwards, McCain or Huckleberry...

Already the corporate Republicans are bashing Hucklebee every way they can-- and they always have McCain....

The talk at the coffee shop the other day was that GW Bush might finally get his legacy "As the person who's administration got the first black man elected President"...  


How style relates to substance (0.00 / 0)
I like Edwards' message but I'm a bit of a brawler by temperament anyway. What I hear from a lot of people are questions about Edwards' motives. There is something in his presentation that people just do not trust. It's not that they doubt his sincerity. No one believes his populism is opportunistic. They seem to think he is angry with the powerful forces he rails against because of what they did to him in 2004 and not so much because of what they are doing to the poor and disenfranchised he speaks about fighting for. Edwards was a trial lawyer, after all, and in that profession he navigated complex structures on behalf of clients--doing for them what they could not do for themselves. That sort of thing can lend itself to paternalism that might be surfacing in his speeches and turning off those people who say they can't trust him and aren't sure exactly why. I don't think there is anything sinister in it but it might be off-putting nonetheless.

Obama, on the other hand, most people don't doubt anything about his motivation (although there's the occasion note that his personality is more prickly than comes across in his speeches). What they doubt is his ability to make change happen. He doesn't claim that he can muster the force to make change happen--many of the same changes Edwards speaks about--but continually portrays himself as the catalyst, the crystallizing substance that can make some change come about. What everyone seems to be wondering about is whether the people power Obama is investing in exists. Iowa, at least, suggests it does.


interesting... (0.00 / 0)
...point.

My take on Edwards is that this is the genuine candidate, and the 2004 version was him playing the game. I'm thinking he's thinking he didn't win by compromising in '04, why not give it a go as the real Edwards in '08? He's certainly got my attention.

But I like the personal vs. catalyst difference between the two. And it's true. Edwards talks about fighting for folks, how it's a personal battle, etc, while Obama keeps talking about being the point man for a movement that crosses ideological and party lines, a message I like, too, namely because I think everybody's progressive at heart...except for a few cranky old-timers sulking in the corners...


[ Parent ]
Menu

Make a New Account

Username:

Password:



Forget your username or password?


Bookmark and Share

Poll
Voting. Useful or not?
Yes!
No!
Maybe, but only if you vote my way.
There are theories that ...
Meh ...

Results

Blog Roll
  • A Secular Franciscan Life
  • Big Sky Blog
  • David Crisp's Billings Blog
  • Discovering Urbanism
  • Ecorover
  • Great Falls Firefly
  • Intelligent Discontent
  • Intermountain Energy
  • Lesley's Podcast
  • Livingston, I Presume
  • Great Falls Firefly
  • Montana Cowgirl
  • Montana Main St.
  • Montana Maven
  • Montana With kids
  • Patia Stephens
  • Prairie Mary
  • Speedkill
  • Sporky
  • The Alberton Papers
  • The Fighting Liberal
  • The Montana Capitol Blog
  • The Montana Misanthrope
  • Thoughts From the Middle of Nowhere
  • Treasure State Judaism
  • Writing and the West
  • Wrong Dog's Life Chest
  • Wulfgar!

  • Powered by: SoapBlox