If you’re not sure about any of the Democratic candidates and can’t decide
who to support you really need to watch the video above, but watch the whole
thing. That’s especially true if you want no residual forces in Iraq. I disagree
strongly with Richardson on Iraq as I’ve said many times before, because I believe
we may need residual forces in 2009 and that we also have no idea what manner of
havoc Bush could cause in the last months of his term, so we should not promise
what we may not be able to deliver. Our
differences are also why I haven’t been covering him. There was a recent overture
towards me to see if I wanted to talk with him one on one but the campaign dropped the
ball, a minor infraction, but it doesn’t inspire confidence either. His gaffes sure don’t, but they happened when no one was paying attention so nothing seems to have stuck. The truth is also that many activists and primary
voters want someone who has a plan to do what Richardson is proposing. Watch the video.
While Obama is stalled in second, Clinton’s campaign continues to run fairly flawlessly,
and Edwards can’t seem to get anything going anywhere but Iowa, Bill Richardson
has decided to get aggressive. Mike Lux wrote an interesting post on the top
tier that leaves Richardson out of the mix that I think is basically correct.
It’s also likely why Richardson’s
decided to make a move.
Another interesting thing about my conversations with the Obama and Clinton
staffers is that they were almost completely focused on each other rather
than Edwards. I don’t think anybody is counting him out in Iowa, but my sense
is the Clinton and Obama staffers are skeptical that even if he wins Iowa,
he may not have the ability to sustain a campaign too far beyond Iowa. However,
I think both the Clinton and Obama teams feel that being beaten by the other
in Iowa makes the going tough in New Hampshire and beyond and that finishing
second to Edwards isn’t the worst thing that could happen, but finishing third
to Edwards and the other frontrunner would be horrible.I think Edwards still has a very solid shot at winning Iowa, but as I’ve
written before, by not being very bold in his policy proposals, he’s not distinguishing
himself enough for the long haul. He has an opportunity to really set himself
apart from the two frontrunners who are focused on each other, and he’s not
taking advantage of that.If the caucuses were held today, I’d think Hillary would win, Edwards would
finish second and Obama third, but for all you political junkies out there,
the thing to watch for is whether Obama can surge at the end, fueled by folks
who have never gone to a caucus before. … ..
That analysis is right on, especially when it comes to Edwards’s challenges
beyond Iowa. The trouble is that Edwards has missed some opportunities, because
his campaign has been run poorly and he went in all sorts of different directions.
Instead of focusing on Iraq he got sidetracked on important issues, but ones
that do not win elections. He should have stayed on Iraq. Nothing had the power
to elevate his campaign more than the war.
With the Congress having screwed up what they were sent back to Washington to do, many people are furious and disappointed. They’re waiting for someone to tap into how they feel, especially on Iraq. No one is doing it right now. Besides, people don’t vote on just policies. They vote on excitement, inspiration, and especially emotion. Nothing has the power to bring people out to vote more than tapping into their emotions on Iraq. But no one is doing it.
Richardson is taking advantage of the void. No one is talking the way he is
on Iraq; I think for good reason, but that’s beside the point. He’s an experienced man, and people are hungry for an end to this war, which is an understatement. He’s making a whole new play for voters based on his stance on Iraq,
which comes with a big resume to back him up. It’s the
play for him to make. It’s the move Edwards should have made but didn’t
a long time ago.
Comments are closed.