Eric Alterman writing in The Guardian: Whither John Edwards?

[flpoljunkie]

Whither John Edwards?
Things haven't been going his way lately. But running against a black man and a polarizing woman, he's still the most electable Democrat.

Eric Alterman

July 20, 2007 8:00 PM

http://commentisfree.guardian.co.uk/eric_alterman/2007/07/whither_john_edwards.html

Although anything could happen anytime to upset the pundit apple cart, I'm wondering what the deal is with John Edwards' campaign.

Based on his recent fund-raising totals, which are barely a third of Hillary Clinton's and Barack Obama's, and an anemic performance in a New Hampshire poll in which he placed behind the running-for-vice-president Bill Richardson, the Powers-that-Be are getting ready to rewrite the playbill with Edwards kicked out of the front tier.

Clinton's campaign is running according to plan. She's the Establishment candidate with the added bonus of being the first woman presidential nominee - a perfect plus in a Democratic nominee. She's got her problems, no doubt, but her campaign is an impressive machine, and in a Democratic year, the hysterical anti-Hillary animus she inspires is hardly a magic bullet. "Kerry plus Ohio" is the Hillary supporter's mantra - meaning that to win, she would need to carry the states John Kerry won plus Ohio - and it looks pretty credible today.

Obama's campaign is also in about the best place it could be. Obama is this year's Phenomenon. His funding base is the most impressive of any candidate in history, in terms of sheer numbers, but no less significantly, in number of donors. The media love him, and if YouTube is any guide, so do 'the youth."

<>Ditto Edwards' poor people campaign. A recent Wall Street Journal article persuasively argues that it is Edwards who is defining the agenda for the Democratic campaign.

Well if that's the case, then what's the point of Edwards? He is, I should add, one of the most compelling campaigners I have ever witnessed in a small group of people, almost magically so. But that's not terribly relevant in a presidential campaign. And his positions make him the most progressive of the electable candidates as well.

But here he is handicapped by the fact that his past is not as progressive as his present and so he is vulnerable to the charge of opportunism. And one wonders what will happen should he become president and is subject to the same pressures that turned Bill Clinton into the friend of so many CEOs and so few liberal activists.

more...

[saracat]

1. I just do not understand why more so called "progressives" are not supporting Edwards.

He is electable and is delivering on what should be their causes.Until Edwards dramatically illustrated poverty in America , NONE of the candidates gave a rats ass about it.And he is the single candidate to have thought out plans for every issue.It seems some of the Democratic primary voters are stupid enough to want to punish a good candidate for being part of what they conceive as a losing ticket in 2004.This is outrageous but it is the usual Dems hurting themselves i fear.

[flpoljunkie]

2. Saracat, I think Alterman answers your question-Edwards past opens him to charges of opportunism.

"But here he is handicapped by the fact that his past is not as progressive as his present and so he is vulnerable to the charge of opportunism. And one wonders what will happen should he become president and is subject to the same pressures that turned Bill Clinton into the friend of so many CEOs and so few liberal activists."

Edwards is my second choice, after Obama. I am NOT.BACKING. HILLARY.

[saracat]

3. Well, except for the fact that so many of the so called "progressives" are backing Hillary!

And many think Bill walks on water.

[flpoljunkie]

4. Not this progressive!

I defended the Clintons when they were ruthlessly attacked by the right wing and a complicit "liberal" media. That said, Bill Clinton, ought to have resigned and let Gore assume the presidency, but he did not. Bill put his own ambition and arguably that of his wife, above the country and the party.

[FredStembottom]

5. And, until Bush II, who did the greatest harm to America ever?

Clinton and his NAFTA/GATT/WTO obsessions.

We live the declining results of all that every day.

[paulk]

25. oh, bullshit

Reagan/Bush era deregulation hurt us far more.

Christ - the garbage that gets posted on this website is beyond belief...

[saracat]

13. Well, I wasn't that impressed with Bill as Prez but he is one heck of a pol

and a charming guy.What I don't get are those who slam Edwards for his war vote and find Hillary acceptable! The hypocrisy of our party is starting to be GOPish.Some people say Edwards will say anything to get elected and is power hungry well? Again look at Hillary. I am not saying she is any of those things, but the accusation is equally fair .All of this just makes no sense to me.I can understand someone supporting Kuccinich and not liking Edwards but Hillary? It is like those who are outraged about what Edwards said about Iran but give Obama a pass when he said the same thing ! I think this stuff is unfair to all the candidates and is very sad for our party!

[calteacherguy]

15. I agree with a lot of what you wrote there, but show me where Obama said the same thing re: Iran.

I'm not comfortable with what either one of them has said, because it seems to me neither is willing to consider all the ramifications of a military strike on Iran.

However, it would seem Edwards is taking the more extreme view, much like he did supporting the Iran war. And, I'm not going to give Edwards a pass for any qualifications he has put on his previous extreme, hyperbolic outbursts.

[saracat]

22. This is what Obama said in the Debate

"Iran possessing nuclear weapons will be a major threat to us and to the region. ... If we have nuclear proliferations around the world that is a profound threat to the security of the United States," Obama said of the threat from Iran."

"I'm not planning to nuke anybody right now," he later joked when pressed whether he would take military action against Iran off the table. But he would not take military action off the table"

[calteacherguy]

24. Well, that is much different that what Edwards has said, in my view.

Of course, it would be a major threat. I would say the ramifications of attacking Iran could also be a major threat, and should be considered. However, it is only Edwards making irresponsible, hawkish statements like "it's the greatest challenge facing our generation."

That kind of talk is just irresponsible, nutty pandering. Worse, there's always the risk Edwards might actually believe it and inspire others to believe it. His record leading up to the Iraq war does not inspire confidence.

[draft_mario_cuomo]

27. Obama, who you claimed to support a few days ago but "forgot" about...

supporting has said he would consider missile strikes again Iran (in 2004). I have yet to see you even acknowledge this fact as you go on and on with your "concern" posts about Edwards on Iran. It is clear your real concern is not with policy toward Iran...

P.S. Have you straightened out your "story" yet? Do you support Obama or no Democrat? Or does it change by the day?

[calteacherguy]

30. What do you mean "forgot about supporting?"

As I have said, my vote at this time would be for Obama. That has not changed.

All candidates have acknowledged the need to keep the military option on the table, and I agree with that view. That's just common sense.

I don't see your point here...you are making no sense, just throwing out accusations which have no basis in reality. Unlike some here, I do not blindly support anything and everything a particular candidate says or does. I prefer to think for myself.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=3389949&mesg_id=3391190

[draft_mario_cuomo]

32. In another thread you were asked if you supported any Democrat

(a question prompted by your constant attacks on Democrats) And you apparently "forgot" about "supporting" Obama, who just a few days prior you had declared your support for, since you failed to mention him. Odd isn't it?

No one is accusing you of being a blind supporter of any Democrat. Of course, several people are on to what you are doing at DU. ;)

[calteacherguy]

33. If I left his name of the list, it was not intentional.

As I said, the list was incomplete. You are reading more into things than there are.

[WCGreen]

18. That wasn't even a possibility...

Clinton's numbers were in the mid to high 60% range when Impeachment took place...

[calteacherguy]

7. Easy...character issues. They don't see him as genuine. I happen to agree. nt

[saracat]

11. Yeah but you are just a "hater"! You jump into any remotely positive

Edwards thread to bash him.I still question why you don't just support whoever you support?

[calteacherguy]

31. No candidate is above criticism or below praise. I prefer to think for myself. nt

[Auntie Bush]

23. I don't see him as genuine either. Seems like he is playing a role and

is constantly looking for something to get him/votes instead of campaigning on something he firmly believes in. Frankly I don't trust him. I just have this feeling that he would be a different president than he says he is...but maybe Elizabeth would keep him on he straight and narrow path he has carved for himself.

[jenmarie]

26. I'm with you

on this. I don't trust him, and do actually fear him. Granted, not as much as any of the Republic candidates, and I would definitely vote for him if he is the nominee.

I know many people are sick enough of voting for whoever the party throws at us that they are saying they won't vote, or will vote 3rd party. I can't do that. I won't work for them, or donate to them, but I will vote.

My name's jenmarie and I'm a Clarkaholic. ;)

[maximusveritas]

6. Pretty fair article, though Edwards' electability argument is starting to fail

The polls are now showing Obama and Clinton comfortably beating the Republicans as well. Meanwhile, Edwards has started to slip considerably in those polls. It looks like he is now the least electable of the top tier Democrats (if he is even in the top tier anymore).

[calteacherguy]

8. Good points. nt

[flpoljunkie]

9. The top three seem to be polling about the same against the top three Rethugs.

This is good. Check Rasmussen for the latest Edwards head to heads.

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/edwards_struggles_in_democratic_nomination_race_but_does_well_in_general_election_match_ups

[maximusveritas]

10. Interesting. That's quite a bit different from the Zogby poll

It showed Edwards tied with McCain, while Rasmussen has Edwards beating McCain by 16 points. Other polls have had the margin around 6, so that's probably closer to reality.

[Beaverhausen]

12. Most electable- yes. Especially in the South

He raised more money in the South than Obama or Hillary. This is important.

[Milo_Bloom]

14. Edwards as candidate = 3rd Party winner

Many democrats would jump ship with Edwards as a candidate. After all, he is the biggest sell out of them all.

He voted for and vigorously supported the war, lying on the floor of the senate, stating that Iraq's WMD were not in doubt, when in fact Scott Ritter had come forth a month before the vote explaining that Iraq had no WMD. He then tried to get away with the "we needed to get the inspectors in" lie, yet Iraq had agreed to the unconditional return of the inspectors in September 2006.

Still supporting the war in 2005 he stated, that Dean “is not the spokesman for the party,” dismissing the chairman as “a voice” with which he doesn’t agree", when Dean continued to launch attacks on the GOP for their support of bush. It was only after he found himself ostracized and wanting to run for president again, that he finally "apologized" for his vote and then had the gaul to shame those who hadn't, as if apologizing for the murder of hundreds of thousands of people somehow makes it okay.

He claims to support "poverty" as his cause, but supported bankrupcy legislation which is designed to keep the poor, poor.

He is every bit the "politician" and has proven he cannot be trusted.

A large % of the party will bolt from this person as the nominee and try to find a viable option elsewhere.

[saracat]

16. Well many could say the same of other candidates!

And many Democrats would be proud to have Edwrds as the nominee!

[Milo_Bloom]

21. I do say the same of other democrats

I would exactly the same thing about Clinton, Biden, Dodd, Richardson and any other who supported the war.

What makes Edwards even more contemptable is the crocodile tears he has shed in trying to shame other people to "apologize", as if that somehow excuses the lack of judgement.

In end, Edwards is someone who I consider dangerous, because he has proven he cannot be trusted and is only interested in power.

[last_texas_dem]

29. Can you offer any (non-anecdotal) proof for your contention

that "many" Democrats would jump ship with Edwards as a candidate? A "large %"?

[bhumikag]

17. still viable

edwards has things going for him: his focus on poverty, not as polarizing as clinton, more experience than Obama, plan on national health coverage..he is still a viable candidate..i don't why dems don't have much faith in him..

here is his plan on national health coverage

bhumika
politics desk,the newsroom

[BeyondGeography]

19. Alterman basically says Edwards is the most electable candidate because he's a white guy

how inspiring...

[Cameron27]

20. White southern guy,

yep. But he does bring up the point that the votes that Obama will lose to racists, is more than made up by the black community. I don't think Obama will have a problem in the general.

On edit: I read it wrong, he's talking about the primaries:

"The Black Thing, it must be added, is also a perfect positive in a Democratic primary, since whatever racists do vote in these contests are more than outnumbered black people themselves. And what liberal Democrat does not tingle a bit at idea of electing an eloquent and inspiring black man to replace these evil &%@!$%! currently ruining our good name all around the world?"

I still think that Obama can win in the general though.

[saltpoint]

28. Alterman is excellent on the points but tends to underplay the

emotional impact Edwards has on a group of people in a room.

And those tend to be the folks who show up for primary elections. The connection between those two things is the point.

John Edwards didn't place a strong second in Iowa in 2004 on his campaign budget, which was meager. He placed that high because of who he is and because of the effect he has on Democratic primary (caucus) voters.

I think he's a contender, and a strong one.

[defendandprotect]

34. Edwards isn't popular with those who support Clinton/Obama . . . why?

I hope Edwards gets the nomination --
I'll vote for Hillary, if I have to --
but Edwards is a better candidate --