Iowans have a reputation for rejecting negative campaigning. Common wisdom is that Howard Dean helped sabotage his campaign in Iowa when he allowed himself to be drawn into tit-for-tat negative television advertising with Dick Gephardt. It drove Dean’s negatives up and people opted for their second choice, which had always been John Kerry. Edwards was also a beneficiary, as he leaped ahead of both Dean and Gephardt, and used that as a launching pad for his selection as vice-presidential candidate.
I’m not sure that this pat explanation is 100% on target, but it is now common wisdom. With this in mind, Armando suggests that John Edwards is falling into the same trap that ensnared Howard Dean.
Here’s my point, the John Edwards campaign is looking more and more like the Gephardt campaign of 2004. He is supposed to have union support, experienced caucus goers, etc. He has gone strongly negative against the perceived frontrunner. He is not a new face for Iowa, thus the change argument is difficult for him in terms of actually being a new candidate.
Most importantly, in my opinion, his dominant narrative now is one of a candidate whose campaign is dominated by personal attacks against the perceived frontrunner. Like Gephardt…
…And this campaign choice by Edwards is utterly perplexing. He was very viable in Iowa. He had a positive agenda…
I think it is clear now that the Presidential race is a two person race in that only two people can win now. I think Edwards can not. And he did it to himself. The most baffling campaign decision I can remember.
You might think this is typical shoot-from-the-hip Armando-style analysis. After all, Edwards is, according to the polling, doing just fine in Iowa. He’s in a three-way tie for first place. Yet, Armando does have some history on his side. If Edwards tries too hard to drive Clinton’s negatives up (among Democrats…they’re already stratospheric among the general population) he will almost inevitably drive his own negatives up at the same time. And the likely beneficiary of that will be Barack Obama.
Here are my observations:
There is no question that Edwards would be better off if someone else took on the job of attacking Clinton. Obama would be the best case, but Edwards can’t expect too much from the Audacity of Hope candidate. However, there has been some squabbling between the Clinton-Obama campaigns this week (see Larry), and Edwards may benefit from it. Bill Richardson has taken on the roll of Hillary’s protector in the debates. It’s a clear sign that Richardson hopes for a vice-presidential nod, and it also augurs badly for the Iowa caucuses, where Richardson will probably throw his excess votes to Team Hillary…helping her over the hump. Regardless, Edwards can expect no help from Richardson. The other candidates are struggling to be heard at all, and are unlikely to spend their limited resources on an anti-Hillary advertising buy (particularly over the Holidays).
A different question is whether Edwards can prevail in a three-way race if no one is making an aggressive case why Hillary Clinton should not be the nominee? Maybe he can. But it seems imperative that someone make the case that Team Clinton does not represent the progressive (or Democratic) wing of the Democratic Party. And if no one else is going to do it, Edwards may have no choice.
Edwards wants to run as the Washington outsider, which makes sense in a race made up of sitting U.S. senators. He wants to tap into voter dissatisfaction with Washington.
Gallup’s latest poll finds only one in five Americans approving of the job Congress is doing at this time. The public’s rating of Congress had shown slight improvements in recent months, but the current rating is down again and is among the lowest that Gallup has ever measured dating back to 1974.
Say whatever you want about Hillary Clinton, but she is an insider’s insider. If we want fundamental change in the way that Washington does business, the former First Lady is not the most obvious choice. Edwards has to make this point in order to explain what’s wrong with electing Hillary. He can’t very well make that case without being somewhat negative.
Edwards must do a balancing act. He must sound optimistic and positive about what he can accomplish, but pessimistic about what the Washington Insider candidates will even try to accomplish.
Even though the race is currently in a three-way tie, I see Clinton as the favorite. The reason is simple. I think Richardson will throw his unused votes to Hillary. Neither Edwards nor Obama will have a similarly large bloc of votes to scoop up on caucus day. In 2004, Edwards benefited from Dennis Kucinich’s leftovers. Hillary should benefit much more from Richardson’s. For that reason alone, with the race basically tied, I put Hillary in the lead…slightly.
That means that Edwards needs to keep pushing. If he is going to have any chance, he must prevent Hillary from winning Iowa. He can do a better job than he is currently doing, but Armando is wrong. There is nothing perplexing about why Edwards is attacking Hillary’s record. He has to. I mean…does he want to be president, or not?