Dan Balz's Take
John Edwards: Spoiler, Surrogate or Surprise?
John Edwards making a pitch in South Carolina. (AP).
By Dan Balz
John Edwards is the forgotten man in the race for the Democratic nomination, but not an inconsequential candidate.
Edwards, the angry populist of Iowa who may become southern fried Democrat as the South Carolina primary unfolds, has a critical decision ahead. How long can or should he keep his candidacy going?
In a largely two-person race between Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton, it's clear where Edwards's sentiments lie. If he can't be the nominee, he strongly prefers Obama to Clinton.
If there were any doubt before, his performance in the Jan. 5 New Hampshire debate answered that question definitively. It was Edwards who leaped to Obama's defense when Clinton raised doubts about him -- aggressively challenging the New York senator as a creature of a frightened status quo.
"I didn't hear these kind of attacks from Senator Clinton when she was ahead," he said. "Now that she's not, we hear them. And any time you speak out -- any time you speak out for change, this is what happens."
Edwards has played that role before, although not in quite such an explicit way. Trained in the combat of the courtroom, he is a more natural debater than Obama -- and more naturally confrontational, too. He has used the debates effectively to keep himself in the thick of the Democratic dialogue even though he generally trails well behind Clinton and Obama in the polls.
Edwards put everything on the line in Iowa, a state that was a must-win contest for him. He was able to keep his campaign going largely because he managed to beat Clinton by a whisker for second place. The shift of a few votes would have reversed the order between the two and he would have been history.
His New Hampshire performance was far more disappointing. He and his wife, Elizabeth, had worked the state far harder than they did in 2004 and built an organization superior to that of four years ago. In the end, it did him little good and he finished a distant third. Still, he vowed to keep going.
"I want to be absolutely clear to all of you who have been devoted to this cause," he told supporters in New Hampshire last Tuesday night, "and I want to be clear to the 99 percent of Americans who have not yet had the chance to have their voices heard, that I am in this race to the convention, that I intend to be the nominee of my party."
That pledge notwithstanding, Edwards has two weeks to think about the future. He is certainly in the race through Nevada and South Carolina, the next two contests on the calendar, and at least one reason to keep going that long is that he is likely to be a help to Obama in the Palmetto State.
Obama and Clinton have competed heavily for the African American vote in South Carolina, and the Clinton campaign fears that Obama will now win the majority of that vote, perhaps a sizable majority.
Clinton's chances of winning would depend on the white vote, but as long as Edwards is running there, she would have to split that vote with him. That alone was one reason that, before Clinton unexpectedly won in New Hampshire, her advisers were seriously considering skipping the state.
After South Carolina, the choices become more difficult for Edwards. At that point, he could begin to hurt Obama as much as he hurts Clinton, particularly with some of those change-oriented voters who are disinclined to support Clinton.
Edwards has offended many Democrats with his candidacy. They question his authenticity and see his shift from optimism to anger as the sign of an opportunistic politician. He and his most loyal supporters argue that such is not the case, that the Edwards of 2008 is a reflection of a changed country and his and his wife's changed personal situation.
Edwards had hoped that a Clinton loss in New Hampshire would have effectively ended her candidacy, leaving him a last opportunity to have a fight for the nomination with Obama over how best to change the political culture of Washington and the nation. Her victory last Tuesday robbed him of any real likelihood of that happening.
Clinton and Obama are committed to a fight for states and delegates through Feb. 5. After that it's anybody's guess whether the race will be decided or headed for a war of attrition. But Edwards is not financially equipped to fight anything approaching a long war.
His aides always said that his only realistic hope for the nomination was to win Iowa, survive New Hampshire and then win Nevada and South Carolina. In a year that has proven all the prognosticators wrong, Edwards may think there is still a path for him. Who knows? But against two opponents as skilled and as well financed as Clinton and Obama, the space for an underfunded Edwards, particularly an Edwards who hasn't won a contest, diminishes rapidly.
No candidate in the heat of a campaign can see his or her way through these questions with any clarity. They are focused on the moment -- the next debate, the next ad, the next applause line, the next contest. That may be where Edwards is now.
But Edwards is someone who never stops thinking about strategy -- and he has a remarkable ability to step out of the moment and analyze the state of play with a clear eye. That tells me he is thinking about what happens after South Carolina. If he concludes he cannot be the nominee, what will he conclude about the role he wants to play -- if any -- to influence the eventual outcome? That's why he should not be forgotten.
Posted at 1:40 PM ET on Jan 11, 2008
| Category:
Dan Balz's Take
Share This: 
Technorati
| Tag in Del.icio.us | Digg This
Get This Widget >>
Posted by: mtracy0905 | January 13, 2008 1:13 PM
People who know have said that John Edwards is probably one of the best trial lawyers ever. What this democracy needs right now is exactly that--someone who has the genius skills to wrestle the country back from special interests who have stolen from everyone. Why can't people see that? John Edwards is offering his skills to us and voters are saying they want the glitz... frustrating.
Posted by: behome | January 12, 2008 10:18 AM
Only ego keeps Edwards going. And hatred towards Hillary! He touts his early days in "poverty" ignoring the fact that he left those days behind a long while ago. Even with personal wealth of $ 60 million Edwards tenaciously clings to his "poor father who worked in the textile mills in South Carolina" while Obama scarcely goes through the proverbial log cabin routine - considered mandatory for black politicians.
Edwards is wasting public money continuing his campaign. He must be doing so only to help Obama as he draws white votes away from Hillary, hoping to be his running mate. If Obama wins South Carolina it will only be because Edwards would have split the white vote while blacks forgetting all that the Clintons did for them vote Obama only out of race loyalty.
Posted by: padmanabhan40 | January 12, 2008 7:12 AM
Edwards has to win South Carolina to have any viability in this election (and he won't). The most important decision in this race will be Edward's...whether he drops out before or after Super Tuesday. Obama needs him out, and will cut a deal for the VP slot to have him out.
Edwards effort to be the Democratic nominee for President is over.
And considering this is the second time he has run for the Oval Office, another shot at VP is the ONLY shot he has of ever being president.
Personally, I'm intrigued by Clinton, Obama and Edwards. As far as Edwards goes, I feel he would be a great force for alteration (see, I didn't say change) in curtailing the blank check so many Lobbyists have surfed aboard in Washington.
I also happen to have the environment as one of my main concerns when evaluating a candidate. And if Hillary wants to run on her 34 years of experience, i have to point out how weak Bill was on the environment (I voted for him twice). I'm not a tree snugger, carbon credit sucking environmentalist. But I do think it would be nice to have an environment on this planet. Based on Bill's record, Hillary really has nothing to stand on. If she disagreed with his environmental policy, why didn't she speak up during her 34 years of action...if she agreed, what does she have to say now? She was wrong? She reaffirms her "old guard" badge because she never admits when she was wrong (see Iraq vote). I think the main thing I'm looking for in a President right now is the strength to admit when they've made a mistake.
Obama/Edwards sounds great to me.
Posted by: seanachai1 | January 12, 2008 2:15 AM
Considering the FACT that John Edwards has a much better chance of winning a GENERAL ELECTION than Barack Obama does, I think he should stick around until Democratic voters realize this.
Regardless of how much people "LIKE", Obama the media knows, just like Republican strategist do, that the General Electorate is not going to make a one-term (going into 3rd year), 46-year-old black Senator President, especially not one whose middle name is "HUSSEIN" and whose last name will be "FREQUENTLY" misspoken by Republicans as "OSAMA" instead of Obama.
Edwards shouldn't go somewhere.
He has to save the Democratic "GROUPIES" from themselves.
Posted by: framecop | January 11, 2008 8:12 PM
Who has forgotten Edwards? I know lots of people who want to vote for him. This is what is so screwy about the way we do elections. Three primaries and if you don't win one of them you are out. How dumb! Maybe California would put him over the edge.
Posted by: bghgh | January 11, 2008 7:59 PM
Clinton is proposing fossil fuel subsidies in the form of government-subsidized heating. Let the market decide. Maybe the electric blanket is a better answer.
She is also proposing housing subsidies which reward and subsidize crimes against America such as sprawl.
It's a 70 billion dollar economic stimulus package that has some positive aspects but it doesn't represent change. Drill, drill, drill, more of the same; government subsidized sprawl and government-subsidized fossil fuels just like under Arbusto George.
Posted by: Open1 | January 11, 2008 7:41 PM
As an Edwards supporter, I am quite very disappointed at his advisors:
They have not understood that Edwards is neither Obama nor Clinton --- two celebrity politicians who, for popularity reasons, were annointed from the very start. That made them able to immediately rake in the big bucks and party machine support.
Edwards needs to STRUCTURE his campaign VERY VISUALLY differently from Obama and Clinton, who can more or less try to out-last each other, because they have, each, over $100 million to spend.
Edwards doesn't have that kind of public money to spend; nor is he a Michael Blomberg, or Mitt Romney, though Edwards among the very rich Americans.
Edwards SIMPLY must use very different presentational styles and structures, if he hopes to move up and ahead. If he continues at this same style and thinks it is going to beat celebrity politicians like Clinton and Obama, Edwards and his advisors are very badly mistaken.
The AVERAGE AMERICANS take their celebrity very seriously!
Edwards SUBSTANTIALITY --- makes me think of Robert F. Kennedy's speeches --- will always be silenced by the feel-good, I am a change agent and you are for change oratory skills from Obama, as well as, the I have more experience than any one here Clinton.
Edwards does not lack understanding, speaking skills, or any of such things. As his wife said: Edwards is neither a celebrity woman nor a celebrity Black. He is an old White guy.
I am sadden Edwards will not have a fair chance --- not many more days --- to put his thoughts on a larger national audience.
He will either drastically retool his presentional styles and get some tractions, or he will quietly exit the scene, which is being dominated by two super star celebrities.
HINT: Edwards needs to adopt FORMER GOVERNOR GERRY BROWN ("govenor moonbeam") original, creative styles of appealing to the people. Shy or that, short of any thing as creative as that, and Edwards will simply go quietly away, within 2 weeks, at the very longest.
That's sad for those of us who believe in Edwards.
But I am more than okay with either Clinton or Obama as president. My first preference is just Edwards.
Posted by: HerLao | January 11, 2008 7:39 PM
The assertion by "more" that Edwards was ignored, and I would add, a victim of the press is factually true but he is not the only victim. That is my understanding and conclusion as a person who maintained neutrality and worked on behalf of all six active Democratic campaigns throughout 2007 in the Iowa caucus and as someone who has read the joint Project for Excellence in Journalism (PEJ)-Shorenstein Institute's study of the first five month's of the primary season (http://journalism.org/node/8187). It wasn't until I saw the research from the study that I knew that what I was seeing and feeling about the media's manipulation of this election was true. Within the first five months of the primary season, January to May, the media had winnowed the field of candidates to five frontrunners, two Democrats and three Republicans by giving the majority of coverage to those five and by focusing the content of coverage on campaign strategy and financing and poll results as opposed to personal characteristics, resume and performance as the American people had called for when asked during that period. I'm not aware of research covering the remaining months but my sense is that the distortion continued. All the Democratic candidates are victims, the favored ones because they have to wonder if would be in the lead without the presses' manipulation and the invisible ones because they didn't have a fair opportunity to present themselves and their case to the American people. We the American people were victims as well. My impression is that the impact of the distorted coverage was especially great on working people with little discretionary time who get their political information from the network or cable TV or drive time radio news they can fit in between getting a paycheck, raising kids, caring for an elderly parent or helping out their church or community. The questions I have now are why did the media behave this way after its failure in the run up to the Iraq war and is there a way to organize to get our press to do their traditional role in preserving and promoting democracy?
Posted by: jpathart | January 11, 2008 7:36 PM
Remembah, Edwahrds is foah Change. He Bahlieves in Change! Change is change! When Changes occahr Change is what Yah Get! Change! Change Change's Changing Changes, Foah Change! It's ah Changed Change!
Did Ah Mehtion Change?
What do Ah Prohpose to Change-Whah, Change!
But What Changes Ahr a Gonnah Change, mahght Change! Cause ah believe in Change!
Posted by: rat-the | January 11, 2008 7:29 PM
A classic of the type.
"Edwards has offended many Democrats with his candidacy."
You mean, "Edwards has offended many REPORTERS with his candidacy."
In constrast to Senators Clinton and Obama, "Edwards is not financially equipped to fight anything approaching a long war."
Have you noticed that neither Mr. Balz nor other reporters (at the debates or otherwise) have contrasted Clinton's and Obama's rejection of the public financing system with Edwards' acceptance of it?
No questions about how you can be a candidate of change and depend on dollars from big money donors (yes, Obama too)??
As others have observed in response to this column, there's a lot more navel gazing (and admiration for being a "successful" fund-raiser from a horse race point of view) than there is reporting.
Posted by: richardvanders | January 11, 2008 7:22 PM
A classic of the type.
"Edwards has offended many Democrats with his candidacy."
You mean, "Edwards has offended many REPORTERS with his candidacy."
Unlike Senators Clinton and Obama, "Edwards is not financially equipped to fight anything approaching a long war."
Have you noticed that neither Mr. Balz nor other reporters (at the debates or otherwise) have contrasted Clinton's and Obama's rejection of the public financing system with Edwards' acceptance of it?
No questions about how you can be a candidate of change and depend on dollars from big money donors (yes, Obama too)??
As others have observed in response to this column, there's a lot more navel gazing (and admiration for being a "successful" fund-raiser from a horse race point of view) than there is reporting.
Posted by: richardvanders | January 11, 2008 7:22 PM
John Edwards is the only Democratic candidate that beats all GOP challengers, and corporate America is afraid of him. That in a nutshell is why Mr. Balz and the rest of the media are writing him off while giving Republicans in much worse positions every chance in the world.
As for money, the mainstream media uses that to gauge candidate's chances because they are who is going to get that money.
And when we get to the general election, any Democrat (even DINO's like Obama and Clinton) is going to have all the money they need against the pathetic GOP.
Please people, don't listen to these propagandist/pundits! Support John Edwards and reject the media narrative.
Posted by: meade | January 11, 2008 6:19 PM
I appreciate anything written about Edwards these days but I shouldn't. It is entirely the fault of the media that he is in an underdog position. He is clearly the strongest on the issues (you know, the things that are what we are supposed to be voting on). I can only conclude his being third is a result of the media's ignoring him in favor of woman v. african american and his (justifiably) angry attacks on corporations (which own all of you in the media). Oh, and he is more electable than Obama and Clinton. NH proves that Northeastern Democrats are ignorant as to the rest of the country, which loathes Clinton to no end. Obama will probably win but he will struggle because he is not going to be assertive enough to handle all of the low and brutal tactics that we've come to expect from the Republican Party. Fortunately, the media and polls have proven ignorant and worthless (as they usually do) so hopefully Edwards will pull out a surprise victory in SC, Nevada, or Florida. If he can get one victory before Feb 5 (and I think he can) he could still win this and we could finally get an assertive liberal in office. I know he has made mistakes in the past, but I do not think he is being opportunistic, I think he is genuinely showing the anger and disgust towards the status quo and I am glad someone is out there talking about it (thank you too Kucinich). Oh, and on a final note, Edwards and Obama are not hurting each other per say. Enough Democrats want change that they could go 1 and 2 in these next three states with Clinton at 3. Though, if Edwards or Obama did drop the other would start getting landslide victories.
Posted by: mcgratsp | January 11, 2008 6:10 PM
Some great points here and in my opinion, Edwards has indeed been pushed out of this race due in no small part to the media. Although I hate to say it they are in love with the media frenzy that follows "african american male vs. caucasian female". If people really studied the issues, pmorlan1 is absolutely right. Edwards has been out in front of all of them. The other candidates seem to almost copy his positions and claim them as their own. I found it ironic listening to Obama the other night his statement that he would drive the corrupt lobyists out of Washington, etc... Sounds familiar;) We still have the opportunity to wrong a right. Vote for Edwards!!!!!
Posted by: gjgoeders | January 11, 2008 5:57 PM
I worked hard for John Edwards in NH because I totally believe in him and in his message. It is absolutely apparent to me that John is not angry. All of you columnists describe him as angry when he is a realist. Who can deny that we will get virtually nothing done in Washington unless we eliminate the power of the lobbyists? Look at the energy bill that all of you columnists are praising. The energy companies that are making record profits are still getting government subsidies despite an effort to eliminate them and put that money into research for renewable energy.
How can we change all of this? Only with a president strongly committed to changing the culture of Washington. And John Edwards could do that.
Why didn't he do better in NH? Oprah, Bill, rock star candidates and people who truly do not understand how important it is to stop the lobbyists in their tracks.
I grieve for America.
Posted by: barbaraj.massed1 | January 11, 2008 5:55 PM
Perhaps no Democrat will lock up a majority of delegates before the convention. Besides making the convention the most interesting in several decades, that outcome would give important leverage to anyone who conrolled a bloc of delegates that could tip the nomination. I don't know if Edwards wants to run for veep again, but he'd make a fine, activist attorney general in a grateful administration.
Posted by: pundito | January 11, 2008 5:26 PM
You know Chris your characterisation of the SC voters as white people will vote for Hillary or Edwards and black people will vote for Obama is so offensive it makes me sick to my stomach. I believe this is the last column of your I will read, as your level of anaysis is about as sharp as your average 5 year old.
There are many many black people who will vote for Hillary and many white people who will vote for Mr Obama, as we have seen. The colour of their skin is of little or no importance.
When you are grotesquely wrong in your assumptions again, particularly about who is better organized and supported in Nevada, Clinton by far, perhaps you will take a breather from your oh so estute commentary.
How did you get this job anyways? Is the editor your uncle or something. I have already taken you off my links and favorites. There is no need for me to visit your site again.
Posted by: slbk | January 11, 2008 5:17 PM
"If he concludes he cannot be the nominee, what will he conclude about the role he wants to play -- if any -- to influence the eventual outcome?"
Notwithstanding the negative comments coming in, Dan Balz's question remains both crucial and unanswered.
Posted by: FirstMouse | January 11, 2008 5:16 PM
Some observations:
1. This whole implication of "stealing votes" boggles the mind, because (as in 2000), it implies the votes were some particular one's in the first place. Nothing could be further from the truth. No candidate owns any vote.
2. Agree totally with "Gharza" on the disingenuousness of labeling passion or some other emotional stake necessarily "anger." And even if it is anger--which I hardly think it is--good for Edwards, good for our nation. Hell, as the bumper sticker says, if you're not angry, you're not paying attention (to the last seven years). Props to "carnie.rehor."
3. "more" writes that the media ignores Edwards. You should be a Kucinich supporter. The guy rocks in numerous polls (including polling third in a current LA Times version), but still gets shut out by the MSM.
4. Electability: Edwards is electable, of course, he is. Hell, he was the VP candidate in 2004, and what about all those votes as evidence of his electability. Moreover, and again as Kucinich said in a talk I attended and I paraphrase, "Am I electable? If you vote for me, damned straight I am."
5. "sv reader" writes that Edwards "viciously attacked" Clinton? What? Did he beat her with a club? Stick her with a shiv? This is politics, this is sausage-making. Hardly vicious.
Lex DeNovo
Posted by: lexdenovo | January 11, 2008 5:00 PM
Its good to know the race is "really" down to two candidates, neither Edwards. Sadly, our elections are a farce, where we have one party, the Corporate Party, which pretends to be two parties: the extreme right-wing Republican party and the very right-wing Democratic party. Each has discordant elements that want such silly things as real congressional oversight, enforcement of anti-trust and immigration laws, single payer health care, peace, and respect for the US Constitution including the liberties of the people. But thank goodness corporate media stands ready to point out our actual choices.
Posted by: washingtonpost14 | January 11, 2008 4:52 PM
It appears that former Sen. Edwards would have lost his reelection to the Senate; that's why he never ran.
He is whining about being outspent when it's no ones fault that he did not raise enough money to compete in the primaries. He is a populist that worked for a hedge fund that invested in the subprime market. He couldn't even carry his state in the 2004 general election. He spent almost four years camped out in Iowa and barely edged out Sen. Clinton.
Mike Huckabee had less money and spent less time than Romney did, yet he beat him in Iowa. McCain did the same in New Hampshire. Obama is a new candidate and whipped both Edwards and Clinton in Iowa. Obama was the front runner in New Hampshireand Clinton whipped him.
Edwards needs to look at Edwards. When he keeps losing the union vote to Clinton every time it should tell him something. Win or go home.
Posted by: LadyEagle | January 11, 2008 4:45 PM
John Edwards
Joe Biden
Bill Richardson
Chris Dodd
Forgotten? Hardly. As one of the posters aptly mentioned, these candidates were intentionally ignored by our corporate media. Like it or not, the bulk of Americans who have the slightest bit of interest in politics tune in to the Big 3 networks, CNN, MSNBC and Feaux News. Others get their news from news Web sites such as this one.
Nonetheless, these mega-media corporations have a financial stake in who gets the heavier news coverage. Clearly, this election cycle it's been Clinton and Obama. Edwards is getting a fair amount of coverage, but he's stained himself with the viral attacks he's been spewing at Sen. Clinton. He's hinted very strongly that he's an ally with Obama, a strategy that could be fatal to his campaign.
Edwards' populist message is not resonating. The special interests tune is not getting any traction. If his advisors were a little brighter, they'd dumb down his rhetoric so that the less educated population would know what he's talking about. It's probably a bit too late for that.
Edwards is history. He'll be pictured in our history books as the populist Democratic vice-presidential candidate who "lost" in 2004 and the populist Democratic presidential candidate who will lose in 2008.
Posted by: robcmor | January 11, 2008 4:39 PM
John Edwards unfortunately has no chance at this point, but could be securing himself a position as a VP to Obama. So his position after South Carolina would become I believe a spoiler. In your opinion what do you consider him to be?
http://www.youpolls.com/details.asp?pid=1508
Posted by: usadblake | January 11, 2008 4:38 PM
You guys who are piling on the get Edwards narrative are being played. Wake up!
U.S. corporate elite fear candidate EdwardsReuters Friday January 11 2008
http://www.guardian.co.uk/feedarticle?id=7217369
January 11, 2008, 2:34 pm
D.L.C. Leaders Cut Edwards Out
By Ariel Alexovich
http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/01/11/dlc-leaders-cut-edwards-out/
Posted by: pmorlan1 | January 11, 2008 4:34 PM
Clinton, Edwards and Obama are good and viable candidates. They all are targets of attacks from all kinds of quarters including the media.
They should continue to debate their respective programs but refrain from attacking each other and providing the other side with amunition for the general campaign.
See also,
http://www.reflectivepundit.com/reflectivepundit/2008/01/post.html
Posted by: bn1123 | January 11, 2008 4:32 PM
I believe John Edwards to be sincere but the problem is this, he doesn't have a chance to win. By staying in the race he hurts Obama. Why is this a concern? Because the best chance of a GOP win in November will be if the Democratic nominee is Clinton. There are candidates that people vote for and candidates that voters cast their vote against. Clinton is too devisive and will not carry the independent voters.
Posted by: harringtonjj | January 11, 2008 4:30 PM
One more thing Mr. Balz. I want to know who is behind this clearly organized "get Edwards" effort. Because if an average voter like me can see what's happening why can't you? And if you can, why aren't you writing about it?
Posted by: pmorlan1 | January 11, 2008 4:28 PM
We're losing our vote to strategists, pollsters, pundits, and columnists through consolidating media outlets.
One only has to ask, "Who among the candidates comprises the biggest threat to the expansion of our corporate media?" to understand why press coverage of Edwards has been so negative when it existed at all.
Wake up people.
Posted by: john13 | January 11, 2008 4:26 PM
Edwards has fatally shot himself in the foot.
I had him as my second choice until he viciously attacked Hillary Clinton.
No male candidate gets treated with the same level of hatred and gets the same number of cheap-shots thrown at them.
Edwards is the farthest thing there is from a "southern gentleman."
Neither Obama or Kerry has the slighest respect for him.
Edwards will look like a world-class lacky if he gives Obama his delegates.
Posted by: svreader | January 11, 2008 4:23 PM
Mr. Balz.
Instead of trying to push Edwards out of this race why don't you actually do some reporting about why so many in the DLC & DNC are trying to push Edwards out of this race. That would be a much more interesting story for your readers. Why don't you report about so called Democratic consultans/pundits who frequently appear on right-wing poltical shows (Tucker & Beck) and eviscerate Edwards? People like Peter Fenn, Amy Stoddard & Bill Press are regulars on these shows and they never miss an opportunity to attack Edwards. They even attacked him for his Christmas commercial. Why don't you report about that? Why don't you report about why Lawrence O'Donnell, another Democratic pundit, wrote a vicious hit piece on Edwards in the Huffington Post today?
You are still a journalist aren't you? Or are you only allowed to write Edwards needs to get out pieces?
Posted by: pmorlan1 | January 11, 2008 4:23 PM
Dan Balz has offended many Democrats with this Anti-Edwards blog post.
Posted by: tracker2 | January 11, 2008 4:13 PM
This is one Democrat who is not offended by some strength and anger. I am fed up with the corruption and greed too! I agree with the previous poster who said that Edwards is not forgotten, he is ignored. The media does not give him the coverage that they give the other two candidates and that is not just because of lack of funding. He does not have as much cash because he does not take money from special interest. If the media had not built this as a two person race and given him equal coverage, I think he would be the front runner.
Posted by: carmie.rehor | January 11, 2008 4:11 PM
"The percentages appear to be swapped. This seems highly unusual"
I suppose you might think that, if you had no idea what you were talking about.
Posted by: zukermand | January 11, 2008 4:08 PM
This page is an evolving compilation of outstanding citizen investigation of the highly suspicious New Hampshire primary voting results. We are borrowing and synthesizing from many sources cited and credited here.
Thursday 1/10: Bruce O'Dell writes:
Theron Horton and I have confirmed that based on the official results on the New Hampshire Secretary of State web site, there is a remarkable relationship between Obama and Clinton votes, when you look at votes tabulated by op-scan versus votes tabulated by hand:
Clinton Optical scan 91,717 52.95%
Obama Optical scan 81,495 47.05%
Clinton Hand-counted 20,889 47.05%
Obama Hand-counted 23,509 52.95%
The percentages appear to be swapped. This seems highly unusual.
Recall that the specific model of Diebold op-scan [1.94w] and central tabulator in use in New Hampshire are proven by demonstration [Hursti Hack] to be vulnerable to insider manipulation.
Theron Horton and I are proceeding with the intra-county and demographic analysis.
More to come.
Bruce O'Dell
Co-Coordinator for Data Analysis
Election Defense Alliance
Bodell[at]ElectionDefenseAlliance[dot]org
Posted by: osirisravanz | January 11, 2008 4:05 PM
Edwards is the MOST ELECTABLE candidate the democrats have.
The corporate media have managed to hide this, and create a perception that Hillary was, and Obama is.
The corporate media are afraid of Edwards, and try to marginalize him. It is an indictment on our system.
The people may yet have a chance with him. He is polling almost twice the percentage of Rudy in his party.
Posted by: river845 | January 11, 2008 4:00 PM
I think Edwards's attacks helped Clinton more than hurt her in New Hampshire, to the extent that the spectacle of his and Obama's ganging up on her in the debate helped catalyze the "sympathy" surge of support from women that brought Clinton back from the political dead.
As the Times has pointed out, Clinton's opponents (not to mention the press) tend to get caught up in the thrill of the attack, and they forget the sympathy backlash that inevitably follows. It happened to Lazio. It happened re: both Clintons after impeachment. It just happened in NH and probably played a part in Bill's '92 comeback there.
I don't see any reason it shouldn't continue happening, particularly if Edwards stays in the race as Obama's loyal anti-Clinton attack poodle.
Paul Festa (undecided voter)
San Francisco
Posted by: paulf | January 11, 2008 3:57 PM
To thechaoticlibra: There is a candiate who possesses the qualities you describe - his name is Barack Obama. Don't be so quick to dismiss him just because he is black. If you listen to his speeches, he is not running as a black candidate or looking to advance the democratic agenda. He is an AMERICAN candidate pursuing an AMERICAN agenda!
Posted by: NMModerate | January 11, 2008 3:53 PM
Back Down South, Edwards get's the BIG STAGE!
LOL! ;~)
Seriously, Folks, it is a Obasama/ Pretty Boy Socialist Ticket!
John Kerry, one of the First to actually call it the Democratic Socialist(Love those Greens!) Party, was photo'ed making Moves on Obama!
True Love!
Sigh!
Posted by: rat-the | January 11, 2008 3:49 PM
I am an ardent supporter of Mr. Edwards.The main reason is that I honestly believe in what he stands for and believe him to be a man of honor and great ability.With growing anger and much sorrow,I have watched as he has been trivialized and consistently misquoted by the all knowing gods of the msm.I am a daily reader of the WAPO and the lack of factual reporting of his campaign is a both a disgrace and a disservice to your many readers.I fully understand that the first woman and the first African American candidate with a real shot at the Democratic nomination is a sexier storyline than one that might include the usual suspects but this election is too important to sacrifice for the sake of a more compelling column or two of newsprint.Mr. Edwards is not only the most qualified,he is the only one that is electable.I don't give a damn what any poll says,all it takes is a little common sense and a review of the Republican tactics of the past few elections to see with awful clarity what the result in Nov. will be.As a lifelong Democrat,I am once again witnessing our party snatching defeat from the jaws of certain victory.I can only conclude the sad fact that this has been the plan all along.I have nothing against Mrs. Clinton or Mr. Obama.Either would be better than anyone from the other side.There is no one who would motivate Repubs.to turn out more than HRC.And after watching Rove and party turn Kerry the war hero into a swift boated lying coward can anyone truly believe that America will suddenly become a land of prejudice free,well informed voters willing to elect a black man with the name of Barrack HUSSEIN OBAMA to the presidency?35% still believe Iraq was involved in 911!The Repubs do nothing quite so well as smear and instill fear when it suits them to do so.Wake up Democrats!Rush is praising Obama.Peggy Noonan just wrote a flattering piece about him in the WSJ.The right wing pundits can't praise him enough.And I'm sure they will all vote for him once the curtain closes.You bet.Wake up!
Posted by: balancedheart | January 11, 2008 3:47 PM
Edwards has definitely been on the forefront of several issues. I also think he is sincere, but it takes more than that to be President.
1. Edward's fundraising is poor. You have to be able to convert positions into contributions. Look at Obama, he has raised a ridiculous ammount of money under the same restriction as Edwards--that is, no lobbyist money.
2. Edwards really didn't capitalize on his popularity. Look at Hillary's perception of inevitability which grew from buzz stemming from her Senate reelection. As a former VP candidate, you would think Edward's could have achieved something similar.
My only point is that Edward's lack of success is due-- at least in part-- to his shortcomings as well. Sometimes the media does prefer Barack and Hillary, but there were some things John could have done better.
Posted by: dagreater1 | January 11, 2008 3:28 PM
Dan,
I cannot believe in todays day and age with all the real problems we are facing, that these are the choices we have for President? Why are we not asking, in fact demanding better choices? We sit here and squabble over race and gender while this country faces real problems that are going to require a real leader to deal with them. Instead of having a person to vote for we get to debate over a persons ability to obtain more white or black votes. When are we going to get an American candidate? A candidate that represents the American people as a whole and not as a political party that is only concerned with advancing their own agenda.
I just wish the Washington Post would be brave enough to say to these candidates "Go away, we refuse to accept you as our choice for President!"
But that is just my opinion.
Posted by: thechaoticlibra | January 11, 2008 3:19 PM
I am getting totally confused by all of this coverage of the '08 Dem primary.
Why is it that when Hillary lost Iowa and went into New Hampshire with a theme of victory and the same message she used in Iowa, the pundits said she was being arrogant and naive, but when Edwards does the exact same thing he is characterized as being a fighter?
How does Edwards' symbolize change in a more substantial way than Hillary? He is a very wealthy, white, highly educated man from a Southern state. He was in the Senate. He voted for the war. As far as I can tell, the only thing that sets him apart from the other candidates for the Dem nomination is that he would represent the least amount of change for this country.
Masking his lavish lifestyle behind a "populist message" doesn't impress me. It comes off as inauthentic and tired.
In fact, Edwards' whole shtick is so tired, its practically comatose. Let him stay in the race as long as he wants, the clock is ticking away on his 15 minutes of fame.
Posted by: crumbrye1 | January 11, 2008 3:17 PM
Mr. Balz,
Indeed, the media insists its a two person race due to the laziness of the press cops, yourself included. Certainly it is easier for you to cover when there is a simply duality - Senators Clinton v. Obama.
However, Clinton lost the 1st contest. Furthermore, Clinton & Obamahave have moved closer to Senator Edwards' positions throughout the last 4 months.
And, Edwards got more votes than Clinton in Iiowa, despite having been vastly outspent. Don't you see how MUCH that means? That even though his position was communicated 3-5 times less often, he got the second highest number of votes. What does THAT tell you about his message? Furthermore - by telling the readers of the Washington post that he is a spoiler you are - out of laziness - ABANDONING your role as part of the process. Doesn't it matter to you that if Edwards' message was SO MUCH more resonant in Iowa that the American people deserve to have it reported to them? Or, is the simplicity of the 2 person race just too irresistible to you as a dramatist? But...I suppose this is not drama, not TV writing we are up to here, yes? Future of the country after 8 years of gross mis-management.
Finally - your laziness is almost outdone by your racial troglodyte-ness. Why don't you just say all women in South Carolina vote for women and African-Americans only vote for African-Americans. While you are at it, why not lump in other groups? Would you say all Italians will vote for Guliani? Come on - don't stop there? Keep going? You should be ashamed for this race & gender baiting. (Not that I now think you are smart enough to figure that out.)
More importantly, (for the nation, though not for yourself) you are missing the fact that John Edwards' message took second despite being VASTLY outspent. That message has resonance. A sincere journalist would not shy away from it, despite the fact that it would take you away from the leisure you will enjoy covering a "Two-Person" race. Enjoy your six-figure income, there. I have to get back to work.
Posted by: name.witheld1 | January 11, 2008 3:15 PM
People who think Edwards steals voters from Obama are wrong. Obama steals voters from Edwards. If John would have so much money as Barack and Hillary have, he would be a clear front-runner.
Posted by: darwinek | January 11, 2008 3:06 PM
more- I completely agree. The Edwards campaign has been pushed to the back of all media coverage. His pledge to continue his candidacy until all Americans have had their voices heard is great in this ridiculous primary system. Edwards is not a spoiler for anyone in the upcoming primaries, he is a viable candidate. So spoiler, surrogate or surprise? Surprise. Don't count him out.
Posted by: moore.steph | January 11, 2008 2:49 PM
The longer he stays in the race, the better it is for the process irrespective of who he hurts. This about electing the best overall candidate. Not worrying about how it effects votes based on ethnicity or gender. And BTW, since when speaking out with passion automatically makes you angry. What kind of narrow view is that? Please. Let the process play itself out, in particular when he's gotten more votes in Iowa & NH than any of the GOP candidates have. Now that is something to ponder looking forward. The winner of the Democratic primary looks like a lock in November numbers wise.
Posted by: Gharza | January 11, 2008 2:48 PM
Dan, you've got this wrong. Edwards is not "forgotten" in this race, he's "ignored." And it's a two person race because the media has continually chosen to cover only Obama and Clinton. They apparently like the idea of a black man versus a woman and are dedicated to ensuring that no other candidate has a shot.
That's sad, considering how much time Obama and Clinton have spent in Edwards' wake on so many policy issues. He has continually been out in front on issues ranging from health care, to an increase in the minimum wage, to predatory lending.
I find it disgusting that this race is more about color or gender than the candidates position on the issues. If this country really has got past it's racist/sexist past, then why are we talking about anything other than the issues? If we allow the media to manipulate us into deciding for reasons unrelated to the issues, then we may not get the best candidate for the job, we may only get the media's pick. Those aren't necessarily the same thing.
Posted by: more | January 11, 2008 2:41 PM
Am I missing some clear reason why Edwards splits the "white vote" with Clinton? It seems that in the first couple of contests, Edwards has eaten into the "change" vote and that has hurt Obama. Now he is supposed to hurt Clinton. Is the assumption that because he is white, he will split the white vote with Clinton? That seems to be a pretty outrageous statement without any sort of background or supporting evidence.
Posted by: cg_tgt | January 11, 2008 2:14 PM
So, I guess Dan's navel is OK.
Posted by: zukermand | January 11, 2008 2:04 PM
The comments to this entry are closed.
The lost focus is which Democrat will beat the Republican nominee? Caucuses have one job - to select a nominee. But the media doesn't ask the question of which Democrat can beat a Republican because it tends to remove the "American Idol" and reality show crowd, leaving them murmuring "huh"?
Wake up Democrats: the point is to win the Presidential Election, not cut new social inroads. Geraldine Ferraro didn't help Mondale. Colin Powell didn't run because he knew Republicans wouldn't support him. 8 years of Republican "conservativism" haven't changed that dynamic.
Let's be brutally realistic- neither a woman or black man, especially as a Democrat, can win Republican votes. Especially not THIS woman. She will never shake the connection to her husband in Republican minds. Perception is reality and this is the Republican reality. In the voting booth, Republican women are Republicans first, women second. Democrats have to break that. Perhaps Edwards can. But only if 1) his own party remembers this is about winning an election in November, not February's popularity contest, and 2) the media reports on the candidates instead of trying to make one.