 |
| “Known by his backwoods nickname, “Mudcat,” he’s a self-described “rural liaison” who is helping Edwards craft a populist message of economic equality for “Bubba,” that catchall for the traditional white, male voter living in rural America. Interview with Mudcat Saunders |
On “Meet the Press” yesterday (video), John Edwards’ worst nightmare came
true.
MR. RUSSERT: A week ago Wednesday in the New Hampshire debate, Democrats woke up the next morning, I think somewhat surprised that the three top candidates, Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama and John Edwards, all said that they could not pledge that all American troops would be out of Iraq by the end of their first term in 2013. Another one of your opponents, Governor Bill Richardson of New Mexico, issued this statement about you. He says, “Edwards says” “he would get all of the combat troops out of Iraq, but he would leave behind thousands of non-combat troops in the middle of a civil war.” This “is not ending the war… Leaving behind thousands of non-combat troops contradicts Army doctrine and common sense. It is simply irresponsible. … History teaches us that putting undermanned forces in the middle of sectarian conflict, whether in Somalia, Lebanon or anywhere” “is a recipe for disaster. John Edwards would change the mission. I,” Richardson, “will end the war.”
Is he correct?
SEN. EDWARDS: No, of course he’s not correct. They will—unless we’re going to close the embassy in Baghdad and have the only American embassy in the world that we provide no protection for, there’d have to be some troops in Baghdad for purposes of protecting the embassy. Now, what I’ve also said that is also ignored in that statement is that we do need to maintain quick reaction forces just outside of Iraq.
Now, there are some real differences between myself and Senator Clinton on this issue. … ..
Bringing Richardson up to Edwards
level of play, using the topic that should have been his issue, Russert’s opening
salvo represented exactly what I warned about recently. Instead of Russert comparing
Edwards to Clinton, he was instead compared to a second tier candidate. Of
course, Edwards answered by bringing the topic back to a competition between
he and Hillary Clinton, but the message was as unmistakable as it was devastating,
because team Edwards wants the fight to be with Clinton, not a comparison with
Bill Richardson, especially considering Richardson is down from 10% to 8% in Iowa, which
actually isn’t as bad as Edwards, who has been expected to win Iowa, and has gone from 29% to 23%.
Hillary Clinton has climbed into first place in a new Des Moines Register
poll of Iowans expected to participate in the state’s Democratic presidential
caucuses, with John Edwards and Barack Obama both in striking distance.The Iowa Poll shows 29 percent of likely caucusgoers preferring Clinton,
a New York senator, an improvement from the Register’s most recent poll
in May. … ..
Edwards losing ground in Iowa is by no means fatal yet, but his deceleration is anything but good news. However, it’s their own fault. Newsweek showed Obama ahead last week, so Iowa is a barnburner.
An apt metaphor, especially considering Obama decided to skip Saturday’s Jackson
Cty. event. But the problem for Edwards is that in the last two polls he’s in
the game, rather than leading the pack. For all the time he’s spent in that
state, Iowans are deeply ambivalent about all the top candidates. A stronger
message could not have been sent.
Then there’s Edwards channeling Mudcat Saunders, which he did again on “Meet
the Press,” saying he’s the candidate that can win everywhere,
even in bubbaland is the inference.
SEN. EDWARDS: Here’s what I think. I am the candidate running for president on the Democratic side who’s actually won an election in a red state running against the Jessie Helms political machine. I know what you have to do to win in battleground states, and to win in tough, tough congressional districts, and what you have to do to put out your message that works in those kind of places. People—I understand people who vote in those places, and they connect and relate to me. So I do believe when I am the Democratic nominee for president that there is no place in America that I can’t go and campaign and help our congressional candidates and help our Senate candidates.
I guess that means southerners won’t vote
for a woman, an African American or a Hispanic? Winning “everywhere” seems
to be the latest in a cavalcade of reasons to vote for Edwards. It’s dizzying.
Thomas Schaller in his book, “Whistling Past Dixie,” rejects the
Saunders campaign tactic out of hand. As a progressive, Schaller shouts Democrats
can win without Dixie if they go west, in fact demanding that we “de-southernize
our politics,” to quote Thomas Frank, the author of “What’s the Matter
with Kansas?”, who praises Schaller’s book. Schaller will be on my radio show tomorrow, so maybe he can explain it, because Edwards sure didn’t help Kerry in the south in ’04, and there was even evidence that he couldn’t have won a second senate term very easily either.
That is not to say that Democrats should reject the 50-state strategy, because making
Republicans campaign for every seat is important, as in running Democrats who
can win in traditionally conservative counties. But we’ve learned with
the Blue Dog Democrats that while moving a Democrat into office over a Republican
is a good thing, it doesn’t mean they’ll support progressive causes. Running progressive is the main goal, but it’s a long, slow campaign to get that done. The main focus
of our campaigns has got to be building where our natural strengths and allies lie, instead of
trying to make amends to southern voters who will not give us the nod come general
election time. We can, should and must reach out to all states for congressional reasons, but I’m hardly convinced that counting on OK is smart.
On domestic issues, Edwards is terrific, though on Iraq and the Middle East he’s the same as the other top two. But as I say time and time again, people vote on emotions, not issues. It’s the
fact so many people seem to forget when they get entangled in supporting a candidate.
A stock campaign slogan frequently uttered in Democratic circles goes something
like this: “When Democrats talk about the issues, we win.” Obviously,
this statement is patently false. Democrats talk plenty about the issues,
more so than Republicans do. For all the sneering by Republicans that Democrats
have no ideas, it is the Republicans who usually want to turn elections into
discussions about the character of the candidates rather than substantive
debates about the issues. … .. (“Whistling Past Dixie,” p.218)
The Edwards I can win everywhere pitch, backed up by Mudcat Saunders’
urging to go south, is filled with pitfalls. It’s yet another reason
why the Edwards campaign is having so much trouble today. They’ve never had
a cohesive strategy and now that they’ve walked away from the one issue, Iraq,
that could win them solid support, it illustrates a deep issue within the campaign
that, along with the public financing realities which Markos and others outlined
so well, proves that the campaign is utterly clueless when it comes to message discipline and unprepared right now on how to win a general
election. It makes me unbelievably nervous, because we simply must win back
the presidency in 2008, or we will see the Middle East go up in flames and the
arms race explode. Threading the southern needle seems a prescription for heartbreak.
Additionally, bubbaland is filled with people we could reach, but only if you cut out the
conservative cretins, which Mudcat and Edwards seem to want to try and convert instead.
The Democrats must use caution and be specific when criticizing the conservative
South. The party should not antagonize anyone unnecessarily, just as Republicans
make clear that they are attacking northeastern liberals rather than northeasterners.
The bull’s-eye should be affixed squarely to the back of southern conservatives
… .. and its their political agenda against which Democrats must stand forthrightly
and unapologetically in opposition. Most Americans reject the political philosophies
of the conservative South. So oppose them Democrats must, and by name if necessary.
… (“Whistling Past Dixie,” p.276)
That said, Edwards is the exact type of red state candidate for president
that could win voters over and win the presidency. Unfortunately, the Edwards
campaign has not come close to utilizing the built in advantages their candidate began with. He
launched his campaign from New Orleans instead of the small town roots of his
birth, which would have cemented his bio and defined him first before anyone
else could do it, offering the biggest offense against all the haircut and hacienda
hit jobs that inevitably and predictably occurred. Because he didn’t, Edwards
has been reacting defensively from the start. I know people don’t like to hear
it, but Edwards should have mimicked the Man from Hope tactic, flooding the
zone with his mill town roots story before anyone else could come at him. Edwards also apologized for his war vote and began a strong anti Iraq war campaign, but didn’t
trust it and went off into all sorts of other directions talking about issues
that do not inspire the masses, no matter their importance, allowing Richardson
(and Dodd, though his profile is too low to get the job done) to take the issue
from him. That mistake culminated on Sunday with Russert’s opening question comparing Richardson
to Edwards, elevating the former and bringing the latter down a notch. Now Edwards
stresses his national electability, talking about his strength in the south and everywhere, which is hardly guaranteed.
Iraq would have been his strongest way to solidify Iowa, but considering Edwards now won’t even commit to getting out of Iraq by 2013 he’s lost Iraq as his best driving issue. Richardson’s got it now.
Edwards is a terrific candidate and his path to the presidency should have been mapped out long before he launched his bid. He had been through this before, knew the layout, had people already in Iowa, and had to have learned a lot from Kerry’s mistakes. But his campaign for president has been a disaster. This
latest Mudcat move talking about Edwards being able to deliver everywhere, code word for bubbaland, may show up in polls, but I’d hate for the ’08 race to come down to depending on the south voting Democrat yet again, only to find out we’re squandering the west. I hope he can get traction again. If SEIU decides to endorse him it would be terrific. But given all the natural plusses he started with it should
never have come down to this.
Comments are closed.