Is Edwards the True Anti-Hillary?

[JohnLocke]

Is Edwards the True Anti-Hillary?

Ever since Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.) made clear last year that he would enter the 2008 presidential race, the contest has been cast as a two-person affair between a Clinton and an anti-Clinton.

Former Sen. John Edwards.The "Clinton" is this case is Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-N.Y.), the establishment favorite for the nomination from the get-go thanks to her organizational and financial heft. Obama, with his message of a shakeup of the political status quo coupled with his unexpectedly strong fundraising ability, has widely been seen as the candidate best positioned to fill the anti-Clinton role.

But, as the political year has progressed, Clinton has widened her lead both nationally and in the majority of early primary states. Meanwhile, Obama has struggled to translate the politics of hope into a cohesive political strategy that can keep Clinton from the nomination. (For more on that struggle, make sure to read legendary Post columnist David Broder's piece today.)

All of which leads us to wonder whether we've misidentified the real anti-Clinton candidate in the field. Is it possible that moniker rightly belongs to former Sen. John Edwards(N.C.) rather than Obama?

Let's examine the evidence.

Clinton has been rocked back on her heels only twice in this campaign. (That, in and of itself, is a remarkable achievement.)

The first time came at the YearlyKos forum in Chicago where Clinton was forced into a halting defense of lobbyists -- "A lot of those lobbyists, whether you like it or not, represent real Americans," she said.

Who forced her into that slip-up? Edwards, who earlier in the forum had proposed that all of the candidates on stage pledge not to accept any more contributions from Washington lobbyists. Edwards tag-teamed with Obama to force Clinton into a corner but it was the former North Carolina senator's impassioned speech against the lobbyist culture in Washington that had primed the pump for the attack.

The second time Clinton found herself on the defensive was when she tried to explain her vote recommending that the Iranian Revolutionary guard be designated a terrorist organization by President Bush.

Who first alleged that Clinton's vote was the first step in authorizing the use of military force against Iran and a possible repeat of the same mistakes made in Iraq? Edwards. The former Senator brought it up in a debate in New Hampshire the same night the vote was cast. Edwards noted that both he and Clinton supported the 2002 use of force resolution against Iraq but "we learned a very different lesson from that. I have no intention of giving George Bush the authority to take the first step on the road to war with Iran."

Edwards was the first person to use Clinton's Iran vote against her. What happened in the intervening few weeks demonstrates the challenge he faces in turning this race into a three-way affair.

Although Obama did not vote on the Iran measure (he was in New Hampshire), he has quickly moved to capitalize on Clinton's potential vulnerability. Not only has he ramped up his rhetoric on the stump as it relates to Iran and Iraq, he has also sent out a direct mail piece in Iowa drawing attention to the fact that he is the lone top tier candidate to oppose both the 2002 Iraq measure and the Iran legislation. Obama's mailer came just days after Clinton had sent out one of her own, seeking to explain to Iowa voters why she supported the bill.

The Iowa mailbox war reinforces the idea that this race is really a contest between Clinton and Obama -- with Edwards running a noble but ultimately second-teir candidacy. Edwards fed that two-person dynamic with his decision earlier this month to accept public financing for the primaries -- a move that caps his spending in early voting states like Iowa and New Hampshire, making it very difficult for him to keep up with the extremely well-financed efforts of Clinton and Obama.

So, while 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.

http://blog.washingtonpost.com/thefix/2007/10/is_edwards_the_antihillary.html

[MichDem10]

1. Simply put.... Yes!

Senator Edwards appeals to independent and disenfranchised Republicans. Edwards will carry Ohio. Anecdotally - many that I know in Ohio who voted for GWB will vote for Edwards and no other Dems.

[David Dunham]

2. No. They both spend lots of money on their hair cuts.

[calteacherguy]

3. Why do we need a "anti-Clinton?" Why be anti? What a negative campaign Edwards is running. nt

[slick8790]

5. The article is from the Washington Post.

How is that edwards running negative?

[cali]

4. maybe

but he better hurry up.

[jgraz]

6. If they ever bump into each other they'll annihilate in a giant ball of photons

:nuke:

[Basileus Basileon]

7. Both were for the Iraq war before they were against it. nt

[denem]

8. (deleted)

[denem]

9. No: Edwards talks big, Hillary talks

but Edwards is happy to promise things he can't deliver.

"We must stop American jobs going overseas!" Yeah. but how exactly John. All your renegotiations will have a marginal effect at best. Raise false hopes, then say "I did my best". No dice.

[Trajan]

10. As a supporter of all the candidates ....

I presume you can prove Edwards cannot deliver ?

Renegotiations will have a marginal effect ? ..... It's as if you are saying that those who strive for change cannot ever affect change ...... I greatly doubt that Edwards 'cannot change' our situation through negotiations ...... On the contrary: I believe the winning candidate will HAVE to negotiate for change ..... This should be obvious to everyone ....

I would posit that your assertion about Edwards is nothing but pure unadulterated cynicism .... IF Edwards were to win, AND he made an effort to 'change' things from where they are now to where they should be, he should have our unbridled support .....

I wonder where the Candidate-Haters will go when their own preference goes down in flames .....

[denem]

11. American jobs have been going overseas since the mid 70's

No president has "stopped" it. Edwards makes it sound simple: It's just a matter of will. He is wrong. He does himself and his campaign a disservice. A complex concerted effort encompassing short and long strategies are needed: one's that look beyond the six price on an executive's stock options. Hell, just look at decades of mismanagement in Detroit. It's a long term problem.

Thery're closing down
the textile mill
behind the railroad tracks
A lot of people
are leave town
and they're not coming back
to your home town

Springsteen, 1984

Yeah, it was always NAFTA, CAFTA and China, especially in 1980s. The problems are deeper. You can't renegotiate decades of misinvestment in education, infrastructure and knuckleheaded management focussed on their next financial statement. As always, it IS working men and women who pay the price.

Compared with the US , the Chinese have 4000% more honors graduates in science and engineering each year, almost all on scholarships. How much does a US college degree cost these days?

[fightindonkey]

12. Edwards is Not The True Anything

[jmp]

13. Of the major candidates?

Absolutely. Obama is more Clinton wannabe than a true alternative.

[Nimrod2005]

14. Nah