OCTOBER 25, 2007
-
Read Later
READ LATERAvailable only to subscribers. SUBSCRIBE TODAY
-
Listen
ARTICLE AUDIO
- Font Size
Chris Cillizza has a good post up pointing out that the only two times Hillary Clinton has been knocked back on her heels this campaign--over her ties to lobbyists and her support for the Kyl-Lieberman resolution on Iran--John Edwards was behind it. Chris then takes up the question of who stands to benefit from this:
[W]hile recent evidence suggests that it is Edwards not Obama who is best carrying the anti-Clinton message, it may not matter all that much when the actual votes are cast. Due to the underlying dynamics of the race -- the organizational and financial strengths of Clinton and Obama -- Edwards may wind up getting very little credit for the efficacy of his messaging. In fact, Obama may actually benefit from Edwards strongly carrying the anti-Clinton message as it ensures voters are aware of the potential problems with her candidacy while not blaming Obama for breaking his pledge to not engage in traditional negative campaign tactics.
I think this is basically right, though I'd quibble with the idea that there's just one "anti-Clinton" message, as Chris suggests. There are actually two threats to Hillary at this point: The first is from the left--she's too moderate, too hawkish, too close to big business, too establishment. The second is on electability grounds--she's too polarizing, she'll rally the GOP base, she'll hurt down-ballot candidates in the South and West. Edwards has generally been leveling the first critique--and quite effectively, as Chris points out. Obama has partly been leveling the first and partly the second, neither one very successfully.
The problem, as I've noted before, is that this is a little backwards: Obama has a lot of credibility when it comes to leveling the first critique (he opposed the Iraq war from the get-go, hasn't spent a lot of time in Washington) and not as much credibility on the second (as magnetic as he is, we still have no idea how an inexperienced, African-American senator will play in a national election). Conversely, Edwards has a lot of credibility on the second critique (he's a charming white guy with a thick North Carolina accent) and less so on the first (he voted for the war, ran as a moderate in 2004). Which is to say, if voters end up rejecting Hillary because they think she's too moderate,* they're probably going to vote for Obama instead. And if voters end up rejecting Hillary because they think she's unelectable, they're probably going with Edwards instead. I think that's just baked in the cake to some extent.
So while Edwards really is making a very compelling case against Hillary from the left, I tend to agree with Chris--he probably ends up helping Obama somewhat. Likewise, when Obama subtly derides Clinton as too polarizing, he's probably helping Edwards.
Having said all that, if I'm Edwards, and I'm fighting for my life in Iowa, then I probably hit Hillary with anything I think will stick and worry about the rest later. (And, for the record, the Edwards campaign has begun to highlight his electability advantages during the last week or two.)
*I'd originally written "liberal" rather than "moderate" here.
--Noam Scheiber
8 comments
"The second is on electability grounds--she's too polarizing, she'll rally the GOP base, she'll hurt down-ballot candidates in the South and West."
I think this is weaker than the argument that says she's too polarizing to be effective -->as president<--, and that's the version of this argument that Obama is trying to make on the coattails of his "I have a record of bringing people together" bit.
- ralphnelle
October 25, 2007 at 6:28pm
ralpnelle -- I think it's more unseemly for the candidate himself to make the electibility argument outright (that so-and-so can't be REpublicans in a general election). They need surrogates to do that. One reason is that you may eventually be supporting or even serving on that ticket so you can't trash it during the primary. Still, the trick is to cast it in the positive and say that I have the best chance at knocking off the other party in the general.
Republicans are doing that by going after Hillary. Obama should lay into Giuliani or Romney. Beating up on Bush and Cheney is no longer satisfying.
- stgla
October 25, 2007 at 6:53pm
As for the electability grounds, Hillary basically beats all the Rep candidates in the national polls. If this is the big issue Edwards hopes to be elected on he is going to be disappointed. Besides, being "electable" is not enough in a presidential election. Kerry was electable too.
- twtrader
October 25, 2007 at 11:15pm
If I'm John Edwards, I'm telling my friends to put up a pathetic website:
http://www.dcourage.com
If I'm Obama, I'm hoping that John Edwards' friends get their act together and come up with a more cohenrent attack on Hillary. Because Democratic Courage, which, if you believe the hype, will be funded enough to run some TV ads, is the dumbest thing I've ever seen. And John Edwards' campaign is equally dumb at this point. His main rationale for staying in the race:
"My wife has cancer and Ann Coulter called me gay!!!"
- virginiacentrist
October 25, 2007 at 11:34pm
Twtrader:
1. If you think Hillary is more electable than Obama/Edwards based on some name ID 18 months out polls, then you are an IDIOT.
In addition -
2. If you think Kerry was EVER electable - then I'd like to get your email address. Here's why:
You are the prototypical Democratic primary voter! You're (1) naive (2) susceptible to really superficial media narratives (3) completely ignorant about political science and (4) dumb.
Let's get you into a focus group and ask you a bunch of questions. Because I think you're the best person to interview to understand the democratic primary electorate.
- virginiacentrist
October 25, 2007 at 11:37pm
Hey, virgiacentrist, cool it with the ad hominems. We don't take kindly to posters calling people IDIOT and DUMB around here.
And to answer your specific points
1. Twtrader never said HRC was more electable than Obama/Edwards. She/He just said HRC was electable, full stop. And she is, obviously so.
2. You completely (intentionally?) missed trader's point about Kerry. Whether or not Kerry was "electable" in some essential, Platonian sense of the word is irrelevant to the question at hand. Trader was, I think, saying that PERCEPTIONS of a primary candidate's electability are an invalid predictor of their likelihood of success in the general elections. Which, stripped of the invective, is more or less what you said yourself.
But to repeat my original point: CHILL OUT!!
- aeromonas
October 26, 2007 at 4:35am
In response to my previous item about possible critiques of Hillary, a Democratic strategist writes in
- Anonymous
October 26, 2007 at 10:50am
In response to my previous item about possible critiques of Hillary, a Democratic strategist writes in
- Anonymous
October 26, 2007 at 10:51am