Yesterday, I noted that John Edwards' recent swings at Hillary Clinton had a whiff of silliness and/or desperation to them. He has equated her position on the Iraq war (create a plan for troops withdrawal once elected) with support for continuing the war, and Edwards blasted her for laughing at the economic dislocation caused by Nafta when she had merely chuckled at a reference to a quasi-infamous debate on Nafta between billionaire Ross Perot and then-Vice President Al Gore. But this is not to say that there is no argument for Edwards to make. Yesterday, he summed up his case against HRC:
I saw that Senator Clinton gave a speech that talked about change versus status quo, and I agree that that's what this election will be about. But I believe if you defend the system in Washington as Senator Clinton does, you're for the status quo. If you want to continue the occupation in Iraq, you're for the status quo. If you're not willing to stand up to Bush and Cheney on Iran, then you're for the status quo.
We need change very badly. When I'm president, I will shake things up and end the corruption in Washington and say no to donations from federal lobbyists. I will end the U.S. occupation of Iraq. We need a leader with the strength to stand up and refuse to go along with the Bush Administration's aggressions against Iran. And as much as Senator Clinton attempts to blur the lines with this talk of change, I believe at the end of the day the American people understand the fundamental differences between the system she has chosen to defend and the change I will bring to America.
Aside from the reference to Clinton's alleged support for occupation in Iraq, this ain't a bad argument. And I take Edwards at his word when he says he's for overhauling Washington--and, as he has declared elsewhere, for addressing poverty in America.
But Edwards does have a problem. During his relatively short stint in public life--the six years he spent as a senator--he did not legislate or agitate as a full-throated, populist-minded agent of change. He was no Paul Wellstone. And when he was on the ticket in 2004 as John Kerry's veep choice, he did not rage against the Washington machine in such a manner. As a trial attorney, he indeed confronted powerful corporations in courtrooms. Yet his Washington career was not that of a rabble-rouser.
So he's caught on the wrong side of a fundamental political rule: it's better to show than tell. He now has to tell potential voters what sort of leader he will be if elected, when he did not as a senator show voters this.
The fellow who would have a better shot at presenting this sort of case would be Senator Barack Obama. Though he's been in the Senate only a short while, he has pushed for reform that would diminish the influence of lobbyists. And his past experience as a community organizer, civil rights attorney, and reformist state legislator is more in sync with a throw-the-rascals-out cry.
Like Edwards, Obama has made lobbyist-bashing a part of his Clinton critique. But given that he rose to prominence as a preacher of the politics of hope, he can only go so far in slamming any political target--whether it be Hillary Clinton or the moneychangers of Washington. In fact, he keeps talking about how he will bring folks together if elected president. So while Obama's personal history is more in tune with a populist change theme, his personality and preferred political positioning prevents him from being the firebrand Edwards is campaigning as.
And there's another factor. One question in this election is, can a black man become president? Another related query is, could an angry black man become president? Obama has succeeded (so far) by not coming across as a mad-as-hell black political leader. Whether a matter of political strategy or personal temperament, he depicts himself as "fired up," but not angry.
Obama with Edwards' message? Edwards with Obama's past? Hollywood would solve this problem by having the two men wake up one day inside the skin of the other. But even though the two men do have overlapping messages of reform, their respective cases are self-hindered. And who benefits from that? The gentle-lady from New York.
![[RSS]](http://67.192.49.194/templates/images/rss_icon.gif){kind=icon}
Comments
I believe an Edwards/Obama ticket (which as pres and which as vp I don't know) would soundly win the election, but to get to that Clinton has to be defeated somehow. I don't get why people trust her, every time I see her speak I get the impression of someone putting up a front.
Posted by: eyes_open
| November 20, 2007 12:22 PM
" He was no Paul Wellstone."
So sad to remember a real progressive fighter.
No, Edwards was no Paul Wellstone but neither is Hillary.
We need someone with ten percent of what Paul Wellstone brought to the table.
It will be easy to beat Hillary in the primaries, we just need more votes for one of the other candidates. How great it would be to have a real upset - maybe a third tier candidate like Kucinich?
I know, I can keep dreaming.
Thanks
Posted by: capt
| November 20, 2007 12:39 PM
Obama Tops Clinton in `Critical' Iowa Race, Poll Says
Nov. 20 (Bloomberg) -- Barack Obama has edged ahead of Hillary Clinton in Iowa's first-in-the-nation presidential contest, according to a new poll that suggests her commanding advantage in the Democratic nomination race is slipping.
The Nov. 14-18 Washington Post/ABC News poll showed Obama backed by 30 percent of Iowa Democrats, Clinton with 26 percent and John Edwards with 22 percent. Obama had a 1 point lead over Clinton in July. Among Democrats who said they're ``absolutely certain'' to vote, Obama's lead over Clinton narrowed to 2 points. The results were within the polls' error margins.
``Iowa Democrats obviously have more mixed feelings about Senator Clinton than Democrats nationally do,'' said Dennis Goldford, a politics professor at Drake University in Des Moines.
*****
I think the “national” polls are not being “weighed” correctly. Clinton is the candidate foretold but she is not the winner of anything yet.
"If Edwards Were Obama...Or Vice Versa"
Maybe the change of "skin" is not even necessary to wax the gentle lady from New York.
Posted by: capt
| November 20, 2007 1:22 PM
I think the (so called) debate missed the really big question for the NY senator:
Thong or granny undies?
(okay I just grossed myself out)
Posted by: capt
| November 20, 2007 1:24 PM
boxers :P
Posted by: eyes_open
| November 20, 2007 1:30 PM
HA!
(and a protective cup?)
Posted by: capt
| November 20, 2007 1:42 PM
The Relaunch
[...]
“I think Hillary is committed to a much more conventional approach,” Obama said. “I believe that we face unconventional threats, and that is going to require a level of personal Presidential diplomacy that can repair the damage that’s been done by George Bush. I think that means the President being involved in talking directly to our enemies, and not just our friends, and being less worried about the conventions of, you know, who we meet with, and what level envoys are sent, and so forth.
“I think we have a very real difference on Iraq,” he went on, citing Clinton’s public statements and her support of the Senate resolution, co-sponsored by Joe Lieberman and Jon Kyl, which was intended to warn Iran about meddling in Iraq. “She believes that our force structure in Iraq should in part be designed to blunt the impact of Iran in Iraq. I think that is too broad a mission and I think sending that signal to the Bush Administration while they’re still in office potentially gives them cover to engage in more aggressive military action.”
*****
Altogether a good four page article - it discusses some of the process in Iowa.
Posted by: capt
| November 20, 2007 3:15 PM
A vote for Hillary is a vote for the same old shit: Lobbyists buy influence for corporations, which fund campaigns which propagate broken government of, by, and for the war machine, the fortune 500 and last if not at all, government for the people.
No Hillary has a lot going for her, including some issues her opponents have but make no mistake, she would be the second most hated president of the United States if she wins. George Bush has a lock on first.
Posted by: Neil
| November 20, 2007 7:59 PM
Corn, why not roll your blog into the mother jones blog where you already post weekly? the comments feature is better and you'd attract a larger audience.
Posted by: Neil
| November 20, 2007 8:00 PM
"One question in this election is, can a black man become president? Another related query is, could an angry black man become president?"
David, I know you don't mean anything unpleasant by that and it has a serious point - but surely you can see why the tone of that question is pretty offensive?
It may well be that voters in the United States of 2007 still like their black leaders to be quiescent, but I don't think such racism should be accepted without comment or challenge.
And if the press allow the spectacular temper tantrums of very angry white guy Giuliani to go unremarked while watching the evdiently generous Obama closely to see if he looks threatening, their prejudices should be confronted directly.
Posted by: Alex Higgins
| November 21, 2007 2:31 PM
Post A Comment