Is Edwards the Real Anti-Clinton Candidate?
Obama and Clinton have almost identical
votes on Iraq in the Senate.
Obama voted to label the Iranian Revolution Guards a terrorist organization
last spring. Clinton just did that same with Kyl-Lieberman. They’re
thinking is basically the same.
Obama and
Clinton
(even Dodd) are for an expansion
of NAFTA. Edwards is not.
Obama talks about “change,” but there’s no policy beef, especially
when you have him talking about a Social
Security “crisis” that plays right into Republican hands. His
death penalty views
are an additional problem. His
generational 1960s attack backfired badly, further illustrating that the
man doesn’t understand the importance of policy and fighting for Democratic
beliefs, some of which still haven’t been implemented.
Edwards’ populism is much stronger than anything Barack Obama talks about.
Besides, change for the sake of it without ideology is worrisome, because it
smacks of the types of bipartisan compromise that ruins the hopes of middle
America. If Edwards can get his campaign gurus to quit running amok, he could
make a move and cut in on the action. But only if he focuses on policy differences, not just
blind attacks. David
Sirota:
It’s the populism, stupid.
Huckabee and Edwards are the only two major candidates staking their campaigns
on an indictment of economic inequality, corporate power and corruption. As
the latest Democracy Corps poll shows, these are the very societal ills angering
a middle class whose real-life struggles with stagnant wages, layoffs, debt,
foreclosures and health care costs chafe against a pop culture and political
system that glorify fabulous affluence. The country, in short, seems ready
to embrace Huey Long’s “Share Our Wealth” ethos, and these two southerners
are resurrecting the best of the famed Louisiana governor’s legacy.… .. Edwards presents arguably the boldest challenge to the political Establishment
of any major presidential candidate in contemporary history. Proposing sweeping
health care, tax, trade and labor law reform, he says the only way “people
who are powerful in Washington” are “going to give away their power
is if we take it away from them.” The system, he says, is “controlled
by big corporations, the lobbyists they hire to protect their bottom line
and the politicians who curry their favor and carry their water.” …
..Meanwhile, Obama tells America to “hope” as he raises big money
from Wall Street and endorses a proposed expansion of job-killing, NAFTA-style
trade policy. …
Edwards biggest challenge is message discipline, as well as realizing his
target isn’t just Clinton. It’s exposing Obama’s thin policy passions that don’t offer
any hope for anyone. But right now his team seems more in awe of the enemy of my enemy is my friend strategy, which leaves Mr. Obama unscathed, something that will not serve Edwards as much as Obama. That is unless you think making deals with Republicans for the sake of getting along, disguised as getting things done, is good for Democratic progressives.
It’s what I wrote about in this
post, talking about even though Clinton is the frontrunner we
need to know what Obama stands for beyond change, because right now we don’t.
Greg
Sargent points out the patronizing words of the Washington
Post, talking about Edwards trying to “elbow his way into the Clinton-Obama
rivalry.” Again, this race isn’t over.
Edwards talks about fighting the lobbyists and special interests, because you
can’t befriend them, let alone offer them a seat at the table. There’s no evidence
that Obama won’t welcome them in to get things done. Edwards wants to challenge
their power. Depending on what happens at the CNN debate and whether Edwards
and his team can keep focusing on Obama’s actually policy beliefs as well, with
help from Clinton who is on the attack, Edwards could emerge as the true anti-Clinton candidate.
As I said when Clinton came out for an expansion of NAFTA, it’s a
potential break for Edwards, but only if his advisors stay out of his way.
It’s the first time in a very long while that Edwards has had a chance the change
the dynamics. But he doesn’t need the personal attacks. The issues could do
it for him alone, but only if he goes after Obama as well.
Allowing Obama to stay on “I’m change – Clinton is establishment”
is good for Obama, and bad for Clinton, but it leaves Edwards out in the cold.
Edwards focusing on Obama’s policy beliefs is very bad for Obama, and good
for Edwards, especially if Clinton is included in his attacks, which he’s doing
daily. It just depends on whether Edwards has the discipline to get the job
done and if his deal with Obama to take down Clinton isn’t his only focus. He hasn’t done it so far, but people are now paying attention and the race is
changing fast. Just look
what is happening in New Hampshire, though public financing is still a real problem for Edwards.
That said, right now the money is still on Clinton. Anyone who knows their history also knows when they’re up against it they almost always deliver. But the traditional media will also have their say. (Added note: Chris Matthews is running a full on Obama-fest today, for instance.) The days until the primary basically freezes on Thanksgiving are going to be just too much fun.
Comments are closed.