DLC "endorses" Edwards?
And then Al From, the D.L.C. founder, said he was “very happy about the two candidates” Americans are considering.
i.e. stick your fork in Edwards and your finger in a Liberal's eye. I happen to agree that Edwards is cooked, but if the DLC says that's good, it must be bad. My impression has been that Obama is a sort of inverse Howard Dean: he sounds more conservative than he is, rather than the other way around. But Al probably knows more than I do, so maybe I'm being too optimistic...
Advertisement
Heh. Amazing how From and Ford are hanging on, trying to be relevant.
I mean, Lieberman's McCain endorsement and Ford's inability to answer the question asked of him by the reporter both speak volumes.
January 11, 2008 5:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hey! I think Mr. Ford does a valuable service by reminding us of the important South Carolina Asian community.
These clowns really need to move on, maybe join Bloomberg's Grand Unified Party or something. I get the feeling they may be the last two in the DLC building.
January 11, 2008 10:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
First off, the Clintons pretty much own the DLC. So anything they do is for one person: Hillary. Her campaign simultaneously put out the same press announcement.
When Obama is winning, she'll say the opposite, to talk up Edwards, and siphon votes away and break Obama's momentum. It's politcal ratcheting of perceptions to push oneself forward and opponents back.
It's also becasue she just had a narrow win, but if you total Edwards' and Obama's vote as "change" and Hillary as "status quo" she's the minority candidate. A point she'd rather not highlight.
January 13, 2008 3:59 AM | Reply | Permalink
Interesting take. It sounded to me like a desperate attempt by the DLC to remain relevant after repeated embarrassments (e.g. Lieberman): "No, really! Things are going our way!"
But still, it seems like Clinton should want Edwards in the race as long as possible, to split the anti-Clinton and anti-establishment votes, regardless of whether she is leading Obama. No matter how many times she says "change," and no matter how much she claims that she and Obama are similarly conservative, I can't imagine Edwards expats not breaking for Obama if Edwards drops out.
January 13, 2008 2:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
CNN appears to be saying more or less the same thing. Their most recent (Jan. 12) poll (you can download the pdf here - it was posted in TPM Election Central) didn't even poll John Edwards! Edwards came in second in Iowa, yet CNN did poll Republican candidates who haven't registered more than a blip in the two contests we've had so far. We've only had two contests so far, so I have to ask what criteria is CNN using that could possibly justify excluding Edwards?
I don't want the media to make my decisions for me, which they've been doing ever since the contest started, when they crowned Hillary as "inevitable." Then Obama was "inevitable." There are three viable candidates in this race, and CNN is doing a disservice to our democracy by refusing to consider one of them. Let me put it more strongly: this is undemocratic!
I can't provide a link but I've heard that some previous polls showed Edwards doing the best of all the Democratic candidates against every one of the Republicans. What exactly is it that the DLC and CNN are afraid of?
"Fear not the path of truth for the lack of people walking on it." --Robert F. Kennedy
January 13, 2008 12:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
I sure wouldn't put money on Edwards now, but agree that he should still be in the polls. It's a shame that he had to run in a race with two rock star candidates this time around, because he would be a decent candidate in an ordinary year. But he's always been a long shot this time around, and as the other long(er) shots drop out, CNN is just acknowledging that fact.
The Republicans, on the other hand, have no rock stars (though Huckabee can jam). Since their race is genuinely up in the air now, it makes sense to include more candidates. I personally would have cut out Giuliani, who seems about as much of a long shot as Edwards, but at least he can say that it has always been part of his plan to suck in the first few states.
Here is the list of pairwise matchup polls, which seem to agree with you that Edwards would do well in the general election.
January 13, 2008 2:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
Edwards has indeed gotten caught in a media-generated vicious circle. The media virutally ignored him for months, while enthusing over Clinton, and then Obama; the voters then gravitated to the two "frontrunners," before a single vote had been cast.
I found the Real Clear Politics National Head to Head Polling data. Edwards does better than either Clinton or Obama in the match ups with any of Reprublicans. Yet even RCP seems to have written him off, only listing his numbers at the bottom, while Clinton and Obama matchups are at the top. But in the latest polling, Clinton loses to McCain, while Obama barely squeeks by.
I'm steamed.
"Fear not the path of truth for the lack of people walking on it." --Robert F. Kennedy
January 13, 2008 2:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
To be fair, it's not just the media. The donor classes also dismissed him: Edwards was always way behind in the money primary and, like it or not, that's the first test separating frontrunners from long shots. Then there's the whole business of "making history" with a viable female/black candidate, versus a 44th white male.
His best shot was 2004, when the Dems had a number of viable but flawed candidates and a weak anointed front-runner (Kerry).
January 13, 2008 2:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
Oh, I agree. But doesn't it bother you that the way things work now, it's wealthy donors who get to decide for the rest of us? That's precisely what Edwards wants to change. No wonder they don't like him.
And the media are still complicit, because they surely understand this and shouldn't go along.
"Fear not the path of truth for the lack of people walking on it." --Robert F. Kennedy
January 13, 2008 3:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yes, this is a huge problem, perhaps *the* problem. But I've never really bought that Edwards can (or even intends to) change this. No amount of populist rage, sunlight, or regulation will help. Federal politicians need money, and have the power to grant large, narrowly-targeted favors. These favors are large that their recipients can afford to buy the necessary politicians and craft legal loopholes. Broad reform just can't do much to curb these narrow interests.
Maybe the real problem is stupid, suggestible voters. When pols can "move their numbers" by dropping millions of dollars in misleading TV ads, and can't create "name ID" without them, what hope is there? When dollars can be translated so directly into votes, we're just hosed.
January 14, 2008 12:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
Deleted - posted in wrong place. Sorry.
January 13, 2008 3:21 PM | Reply | Permalink