It’s my contention that the policy differences (on health care, energy, and foreign policy) between Edwards and Obama are minute. Others disagree and think they are significant. Anyone can pull out an example where there are differences (like their original positions on the war, or how quickly they promise to bring the troops out of Iraq), but my focus is on the significance of those differences when contrasted with the potential upside of an Obama campaign. Can Edwards, by himself, get the kind of record turnout we saw in Iowa (and most likely will see tomorrow in New Hampshire)?
At the core of my analysis is the insight that real change requires a political realignment. Maybe this will be easier to see if we take some of the emotion out of it by looking at the Republican side. Mike Huckabee is running on a Fair Tax that would abolish the Internal Revenue Service (IRS). If Huckabee is elected, he will never be able to implement a Fair Tax. He would need huge filibuster-proof majorities to get that kind of radical change enacted. When we look at health care, I notice that some people don’t think Obama’s plan goes far enough. Two points on this: 1) the health care plans of the three frontrunners are sufficiently similar that they would all wind up in about the same place after Congress got done voting on amendments. 2) Obama has said that, if he were starting a system from scratch, he would go for a single-payer system.
Let’s think about this. If Obama can elicit the kind of record turnout he produced in Iowa, in November, we’ll have huge Democratic majorities in both houses of Congress. The Dems will probably have a filibuster proof Senate. In that political atmosphere, which is so different than our current atmosphere, the entire universe of what is possible shifts. It’s this potential upside to Obama’s campaign that dwarfs some of the distinctions between his policy positions and the positions of Edwards.
Now, I recognize that this turnout is a hypothetical. It might not materialize…or it might be that Edwards can accomplish the same thing. But I think it will materialize and I don’t think Edwards can do the same thing because the media hates Edwards.
If you disagree with this analysis, let me know why.
And let’s face it. Whoever is president, Al Gore will descend on them like a ton of bricks if they are doing the wrong thing environmentally. That’s the issue I fear least, because we have a knowledgable, strong leader who will not be shy if the President is not doing the right thing.
I agree re healthcare as well. As I said on a private list, I’m less interested in what they say now, because it will inevitably change once they get into office.
I think all we really have to go by is one’s record in the past, regardless of what they say they’ll do in the future. And Obama just has more of a record for us to evaluate. Edwards is a bit more of an unknown in that regard.
Edwards served substantially longer in the Senate than Barack Obama has so far. Obama’s elected record is only longer than Edwards’ if you consider his time in the Illinois legislature, in which case I think it’s fair to consider Edwards’ far longer career as a lawyer. Both, I think, have enough of a record to consider as far as that goes.
What we don’t know about either of them is how they would perform in the executive branch. Depending on how much of the Clinton governorship and presidency you ascribe to Hillary Clinton, she is the only Dem candidate with an executive record to speak of.
This may be why, with only three exceptions, all US presidents have served as governors, vice-presidents, generals, or cabinet members prior to becoming president. Even then, only a small minority of them have been legislators in addition to executives. This may be one of the exceedingly rare occasions when a former legislator is elected president simply because no experienced executives were available.
Edwards served substantially longer in the Senate than Barack Obama has so far.
huh? edwards only served a single term in the senate. obama is halfway into his single term. that is a 3 year difference, i suppose, but it’s really a stretch to call two first-term senators as having a “substantial difference” in senate experience, especially considering the number of really long term senators there are out there.
BooMan, After 8 years of Bushco disaster, the turnout this November will likely be huge no matter what names are on the ballot.
Yup. Even people that have never paid any attention to politics are sick of this BushCo crap and want the old guard out this year.
I don’t disagree.
OTOH, if the Congress were as willing to rubber stamp under a Dem as they did for Bush, then I think Edwards would be more likely to use the bully pulpit to enact sweeping change.
But that’s unlikely even with a huge Democratic majority (as it should be, IMHO).
Obwards / Edbama 08!
I think you may be making long-range predictions based on immediate and possibly temporary swings. What happens with Obama as the frontrunner is anybody’s guess. Will the glamor last? It just might, but that’s far from certain. What is certain is the eternal cycle: a candidate breaks out big-time in an insignificant arena, the press and public way overreact, the hype becomes intolerable and the novelty wears off and a counter-reaction sets in. The big question is, how will Obama fare in the inevitable counter-reaction and counter-attack?
He’s got a lot going for him, but as time goes on will have to successfully shift his focus away from “hoping” and “reaching out” to more specific and substantial stuff. I’ve seen him make speeches that brilliantly accomplish that. But will he be able to shift the basic tone of his campaign? If so, he’s probably unstoppable in the primary and the general, and will have long coattails. If not, voters in later primaries might just send a message that they’ve had enough candy. By that time the beneficiary would have to be Edwards.
A lot depends on how well Edwards does in NH. I hope he does extremely well, certainly better than where the polls have him now.
I don’t think the media will go against Obama in the way they did with Dukakis, Clinton, Gore, and Kerry.
There just isn’t much negative to say without getting your ethics questioned. And they like him, they like the idea of him, they are certain that he and Michelle can sell magazines.
In contrast, Edwards’ anti-corporate message means that the corporate press will be vicious.
Part of Obama’s appeal is that there are so few avenues of attack. Lack of experience is pretty much it, and the Republicans are not exactly offering up foreign policy giants. McCain is the only guy they have that make a decent case that he has better foreign policy experience than Obama.
But, you’re right about cycles in politics. People will tire of Obama’s rhetoric by November.
That’s one thing Obama is doing better than Dean, though. He does change his stump speech over time. One of the criticism Dean received most in the final days before Iowa and New Hampshire is that too many by then had heard it all before.
His speechwriters tried to write new things for him, but when they weren’t drawing the cheers from the audience he was used to, he’d revert back to the old crowd pleasers, which old fans loved, but new people thought tiresome.
So yes, it’s important he keeps evolving his message.
Good point re his ability to sell magazines, too. They are indeed fresh faces with a bit of that celebrity appeal.
By “new people” I meant people who had seen him on TV, but where hoping for something new when they saw him, for their first time, in person. Sorry – that isn’t clear.
Boo,
You are right – wording in reading the plans does not show significant differences between Edwards and Obama.
However, it will be extremely difficult for Obama to force change on those industries, that hold his mortgage
I realize reality is not welcome here – but facts are facts for this crusty old Granite Stater.
What’s interesting about what you say is that that already kind of happened, in Iowa. When Obama first entered the race, he entered with some positive publicity, due to having written a NYT Bestseller (“Dreams of My Father”).
But for many months, his numbers edged slowly downward. It wasn’t until the last month of the campaign that he got a sudden surge upwards.
I wonder what happened. Maybe more Iowans were tuning in for the first time? Maybe he got better as he went along? It would be worth knowing.
“Will the glamor last?”
That question has been asked now for over a year.
The big question is, how will Obama fare in the
inevitable counter-reaction and counter-attack?”
Obie’s one cool dude. but don’t attack. His counter-attack is a polite double smackdown
Missed the ABC debate?
BTW, Obama writes his own stuff.
I read the Clinton camp expects to lose South Carolina to Obama. I anticipate super-duper Tuesday, February 5th, will be equally devastating. Betcha a huge turnout among Afro-Americans and coincidentally, it just happens to be in February, Black History month! when the awakening comes into play. Wakey, wakey.
Whatever, history is already made.
l don’t doubt that turnout has the potential to be very high for a variety of reasons, perhaps record setting; but, to extrapolate what happened in iowa to the national scene is a bit of a stretch. l say this because 1: it was the first real test, and 2: you’re dealing with a self identified democratic activist base in a caucus environment.
the gotv numbers for the dems were indeed impressive, while the RATpubs were dismal; but they really didn’t have much reason to show up, given the field of candidates, and it isn’t a particularly positive omen that the ones who did were behind the huckster, imo.
the general is a different matter entirely, with a very different dynamic.
let’s wait until the larger states have an opportunity to weigh in before we make sweeping prognostications about outcomes, shall we?
lTMF’sA
Well, it is hard to argue this point but we are talking about a big and very uncertain if there. Now, we would certainly hope this would be the case, but at this juncture, with only Iowa to go on, it might be premature to bet the farm on it. Though I, like you, think that the turnout phenomena was not a one time fluke. I think we will continue to see this be the case and that with each successive turnout it will feed on itself.
There does not seem to be much doubt that the media has focused on Edwards to be the recipient of their Gore-ing this go election go-round. It is obvious that the media is hell bent on keeping Edwards marginalized and will continue to flog their “Edwards is too angry” and “Edwards is a faux populist” narratives. I suspect that Edward’s progressive policy line is seen as too significant a threat to the corporate masters to which the mainstream media is beholden. He must be stricken down. They will find a way to deal with Obama later. And you can be that he will be dealt with if he continues this impressive surge during the coming weeks.
The media have obviously decided to simply write Edwards out of the script (their concocted narrative of a two-person Obama vs. Clinton race. Nevermind that Edwards beat Clinton in Iowa.)
But I don’t think you can infer from this how Obama will be treated by the corporate media once he’s secured the nomination. Kerry was relentlessly fluffed by the media for his “electability” and “war hero” status until Dean was successfully destroyed. After he secured the nomination the TV was like “All Swiftboat – All The Time.”
Also, I think that a lot of the frustration of Edwards supporters is primarily over the obvious anti-Edwards bias from the media rather than resentment of Obama’s success.
Amen to that. It’s frustrating to see, even at ostensibly liberal outlets like the Huffington Post, current poll numbers for the number one and number three candidates in the headlines, with nary a mention of number two.
Frankly, I think the final contest for the nomination will be between Obama and Edwards. I don’t think Clinton will last until the end. Too much of her support is from corporate backers who are less concerned with ideology than they are with betting on the winning horse. Now that Obama has, at least tentatively, established himself as an electable candidate, Clinton’s support will evaporate like morning fog.
I assume you say number two because of Edwards second-place finish. But I fear the media is looking at poll numbers both in NH and nationally, which continue to place Edwards third. So I can see their point in concentrating on whoever is going to do well ‘next’, as opposed to previously.
That said, I’d much rather see an Obama-Edwards race to the finish than an Obama-Clinton one.
Unfortunately, I don’t think I can. If, after coming in second in Iowa, Edwards is treated by the media as if he were as hopeless as Dodd and Kucinich, it’s not hard to foresee the result, barring an upset in New Hampshire.
I am, however, waiting for Super Tuesday to give up and start hoping Obama will pick Edwards as his veep.
I think Boo is right on this. Obama is the only politician in my lifetime to affect the younger people this way. They turned out for Obama, not Edwards. These kids showing up is what’s going to give us the record turnout and they will probably vote a straight democratic ticket even if they’ve never heard of the other offices on their ballot. That makes no republican seat safe. As much as I like Edwards, I don’t think he could deliver the young voters like Obama can. In fact, if the Republicans try playing the race card through surrogates and whatnot, as they undoubtedly will because that’s all they know how to do, you’re gonna get some really pissed off young people who will show up in droves to stick up for their guy Obama who inspires them like no old white guy can.
and don’t discount crazy registration from blacks and record urban turnout. What do you think might do for someone running for U.S. Senate in Kentucky, or the Carolinas, or Tennessee, or Virginia?
If we had an election where only the people that didn’t vote in 2004 were allowed to vote, the Dems would probably top 75%. Turnout favors the Dems in a massive way, which is why the Republicans do everything they can to suppress it.
I think in urban settings, we could see lines for hours like we did in Ohio 2004 just because no one could possibly have predicted the turnout of the new voters from the black and hispanic communities. This will be an important election for both.
With record turnout in NC Jim Neal might finally unseat Cruella, I mean Liddy Dole.
My guess for Obama’s running mate – as I said a year ago – would simultaneously maximize the Black vote and embody Obama’s message of national unity through an end to petty partisanship. The chances of it actually coming to pass are probably pretty slim – the General’s wife would probably hack him into a million pieces before consenting to him accepting the VP spot – but I think it’s possible, them having conferred and all…
You are kidding!! The differences are important and significant. Obama is taking money from the people who are trying to stop a national/universal health care system. That’s significant. He’s taking money from all the big $$ people that have controlled BushCo. for all these years. That’s significant. Somebody who is talking about restoring the middle class and refusing to take $$ from the people who have most to lose by restoring the middle class–that’s significant. This is about a class war being fought on the political level instead of in riots in burning cities.
It’s a little more nuanced than you make it out to be.
just shak’n my head here people….
the first time someone stands up and says what we ALL have been blogging, ranting, about, since the bushco begining…we toss him to the dogs along with the corporate media….
yeah, let’s go with whom the media portray’s and says all the sweet things about…and give’m a big smile, while they walk us down the prim-rose path again…
so fuck’n sad….
you expect the corporate controlled media to do you any favors????
geesh people, get some balls, and stand with the one that offers to fight the lobbyist, and corporate ass’…
talk about faux….
do you think any of us will have a chance after this round…LMAO