Hillary to Headline The Second Night of the Democratic Convention

The Obama campaign announced today that Hillary Clinton will be his featured speaker, the second night of the Democratic Convention.

She will be speaking on the 88th Anniversary of the Woman’s Sufferage movement.  The next day Obama will be accepting the democratic nomination for President - the 40th anniversary of Dr. Martin Luther King’s “I Have A Dream” speech.

While the theme for 2008 might be change, it seems the Democrats are also intent on emphasizing history.

CORRECTION: She will not be the keynote speaker. -john

Sphere: Related Content

A Picture’s Worth A Thousand Words (3)

Political cartoons have long been staples in American politics.  Before television, internet cartoons, and very controversial New Yorker covers, editorial cartoonists rawly exposed political happenings and projected their interpretations into the minds of their viewers.  William Tweed, a corrupt political machine politician in 19th century New York City, once commented:

I don’t care a straw for your newspaper articles, my constituents don’t know how to read, but they can’t help seeing them damned pictures.

Here’s a look at some of this week’s political cartoons and what message they are trying to get across.  It is important to note where and what papers these cartoons are published in, as they provide important insight into the minds and messages effecting local voters.

Starting off in Wisconsin, Joe Heller of The Green Bay Press-Gazette comments on the McCain ads that portray Obama as a celebrity.  According to Real Clear Politics, Obama enjoys a steady 8 point lead over McCain in Wisconsin:

Dick Locher of The Chicago Tribune looks at Obama’s percieved ego.  I find it very interesting that some of the most critical portrayals of Obama come out of Chicago.  Given his faux presidential seal and shadow cabinet, this cartoon is not too far off:

Cal Grondahl of the Utah Standard Examiner examines McCain’s VP potential.  I do not think that either Romney or Huckabee are serious choices, but this cartoon does reflect McCain’s general challenge in this election - his weak economic credential and weak support from the Christian Right of the Republican Party:

Read more

Sphere: Related Content

FLAHSBACKS: John Edwards is an Ass

Let me count the ways:

1) Cheating on his wife.

2) Running for President with this skeleton in his closet. What if he were nominated or chosen as VP?

3) Holding out his endorsement as meaningful when this was in the news, knowing the truth underneath.

4) Releasing a statement in which he tries to play the victim. You’re not going to guilt your way around this one.

Now, we’ve noted the problematic nature of John Edwards’ character before:

Edwards Initiates Operation Apology Drop

Edwards Campaign Conceals Internet History

Bob Shrum Blasts Edwards in New Book

Franky, there’s been little substance in either of Edwards’ too runs for presidency aside from the health care plan this time around, which was almost certainly something from Elizabeth, and not him. Edwards’ hubris and self-righteousness is really quite astonishing.

PS: It’s too bad that Kucinich’s network of spies couldn’t break this news earlier.

Sphere: Related Content

Quote of the Day

John Edwards to Matt Lauer on May 23, 2007:

They’re gonna judge me as a human being whether I have the characteristics, integrity, honesty, openness to be President of the United States.

And no, the context doesn’t make it any less hypocritical.

Sphere: Related Content

Presidential Candidates As Batman Super Villains

With all the silly political talk of comparing the Bush Administration to Batman, I thought I’d take a look on the lighter side and compare various Presidential candidates to different Batman villains. This isn’t serious political analysis, but dammit, I have this site as a forum and I intend to use it. (And frankly, if it’s good enough of a topic for Wall Street Journal editors, It’s good enough for me.) I picked super villains arbitrarily. I don’t want to get into a “who is Batman and who is evil” argument. That’s just boring.

Barack Obama as Harvey “Two Face” Dent: The idea that spawned this post. While others are doing strange things like comparing Dick Cheney to Batman or something like that, given that the arch of the story is the rise and fall of newcomer and beacon of hope DA Harvey Dent, I’m surprised there’s not more comparisons between the two. There’s this article, sure. But that seems more intent on criticizing platitudes than it does at looking at something deeper: are figures of hope like Obama and Dent doomed to failure? Clearly they are doomed to dim. Wile the article criticizes Obama for lack of particular details, it’s ultimately Dent’s drive for only results that dooms him. When pushed towards the edge by his horrific scaring and in TDK the (spoiler!) death of Rachel Dawes, Dent is concerned only with the ends, not with the means, of resolving problems. One gets the feeling that more contemplation on platitudes would have helped him, not hurt him. So I think Obama differs in that respect. On the other hand, that side of Dent always existed; it was just hidden by both his meteoric rise and previous success. After all, anyone can keep their secrets hidden while succeeding.

Bill Clinton and Hillary Clinton as Ra’s al Ghul and Talia al Ghul: In the comics, they are father and daughter; here they are husband and wife. Let’s just gloss over that difference. In the comics, Ra’s could not be killed thanks to the Lazarus Pits; where he could rise from the dead. Surely, this reminds everyone of the numerous times that Bill himself rose from what was surely political death. The intrigue between the al Ghuls rivals the reported intrigue between Bill and Hillary. Bill has actively and inadvertently hurt Hillary in the past, as any sane person would admit. In the comics, this antagonism even leads Talia and Batman to sleep together. Similarly, Hillary and Obama used to be close allies, with Hillary even fundraising for Obama at one point during his Senate run, the political equivalent of sex if there is any. Moreover, this also means that the normal Clinton confidantes are known as the League of Shadows. Just as in Batman Begins, they are regarded as formidable by Ra’s, but in the end do absolutely nothing to help him, and only allow the enemy to take him down. One can imagine Obama as Batman goading Bill to please bring on four pawns (Mark Penn, Harold Ickes, James Carville, and Terry McAulliffe) instead of just four. Although in reality, it’s because the four will get in each others ways. Of course in this analogy, Hillary as Talia has her own henchwomen, who are none the more competent (Patti Solis Doyle) for the most part. (You’ll never, ever hear me say anything negative about Maggie Williams, mostly because I think she would have me killed for real.)

Tom Tancredo as the Dr. Jonathan Crane, aka The Scarecrow: A candidate who bases his entire campaign on fear. But more than that: Tancredo never intended go through with his campaign. In Batman Begins, Ra’s al Ghul states that Scarecrow believes the plan was to hold the city to ransom. It seems Tancredo’s entire campaign was based on the premise that he would hold the Republican Party hostage unless they elected someone he agreed with. And then they decided not to anyways.

John McCain as the mob. Yes the mob as a whole. Carmine Falcone, Sal Maroni, the whole bunch. In the comics and in the Dark Knight there are factions of the mob, just like they are factions of McCain supporters. Rick Davis, John Weaver, Mike Murphy, Steve Schmidt and others all had their time to be in control before circumstances forced them out, and they all do not like each other, and do not work well together (as seen in the mob scene in The Dark Knight before the Joker arrives. Each of them backstabs and steals from the other, ostensibly to protect the rest). Moreover, there is no control over them from the mob as a whole. McCain is said to be a laissez faire manager just as the mob as a whole favors looser rules. Moreover, McCain absolutely seems to abhor Barack Obama, just as the mob abhors Dent for the type of change he wishes to bring. They want things to change to, but jsut to the way things used to be. They are in a way as old as McCain is. In the movies, the mob is somewhat like McCain in that they refuse to go away. Like the Hydra, you can cut off one head, but two more will sprout in its place. McCain similarly seems to never go away no matter how many times he seems out. Like the mob turning to Joker in the Dark Knight, McCain also seems to have no good plan whatsoever, and changes plans on the fly when things turn out to be different than he thought. Does this say anything about what McCain is doomed to be? I don’t think so. The mob keeps on existing, but never in the same format. It’s certainly not predestined in any movie that the mob will lose. Indeed, the only comparison seems to be that McCain’s campaign could turn out to either be the Joker tormenting the mob’s opponents, or the Joker later threatening the entire barge full of mob associates with death. Also like the mob, McCain functions better when backed into a corner. Lastly, McCain lacks a certain shine and appeal that the mob also lacks in comparison to other “freak” type villains.

Mitt Romney as Oswald Cobblepot, AKA the Penguin: Whereas the Penguin used his ownership of the Iceberg Lounge to gain entry into Gotham, Romney uses his leadership at Bain Capital for much the same purpose. There was always a question of taking what Penguin says as truth: he never comes across as sincere. Romney may not have come across as insincere as Penguin did in, say, Batman Returns, but his numerous problems with flip-flopping caused serious problems for him this cycle. Moreover, his sons are everywhere, just like the Penguins were seemingly in Batman Returns. And just as the Penguin in One Year Later seemingly abandons crime for a legal presence, Romney also aborted what was a previous hard line stance against McCain suddenly to endorse him shortly after Super Tuesday. Most superficially, the Penguin is the high society type criminal compared to all the rest; similarly, Mitt Romney seems the most high society of all the candidates, due in large part to his massive wealth. Note: If there is one supervillain Romney is not, it is Deadshot.

John Edwards as Waylon Jones, aka Killer Croc: The easy choice for Edwards is Two Face. Running a completely different campaign than his first time, being an impressive trial lawyer and all. But in reality, the specific flaws and details of Edwards this cycle have nothing to do with the flaws and defining characteristics of Harvey Dent. Killer Croc is the one villain whose entire existence is almost entirely defined by his appearance: his reasons and justifications for doing what he did are inconsequential, if they exist at all. In this campaign, despite the support he got (which, compared to all but Obama and Clinton, was very substantial), Edwards was doomed because of the perceptions he allowed to be created about himself: the expensive haircuts, the video of him combing his air, etc. Essentially that he came to be defined in the market place as someone really, really vain. Killer Croc is the only Supervillain similarly concerned with image. While Edwards allowed himself to be defined by his, Croc hid and acted out because of his image. And yes, there’s also that small matter of Edwards sneaking around in basements of hotels being stalked. Very Croc-ian.

Dennis Kucinich as Jarvis Tetch, aka the Mad Hatter: Like the Mad Hatter was inspired by Lewis Carroll, Kucinich seems torn out of a different era of politics, one where William Jennings Bryan and Eugene Debs were the constant candidates. The delusion of the Mad Hatter strikes me as exactly the same as the delusion of Kucinich that he can win. His many tricks in the comics are similar to Kucinich’s tricks in politics. Tetch was seemingly run over by a train, only for it to turn out to be a trick; similarly, Kucinich was thought done when he ran the city of Cleveland into bankruptcy, only to emerge years later as a Congressman. Moreover, anyone who is not his supporter wonders why he is still trying. I’ll just end with that there’s something of a physical resemblance as well.

Fred Thompson as Bane: Bane was introduced in the comics as essentially the negative version of Batman: awesome power, awesome intellect. He ended up breaking Bruce Wayne’s back. But I’m not comparing Thompson to that Bane. I’m comparing him to the Bane in Batman and Robin, the horrible fourth batman movie. In that movie, going on the legacy of the comic book Bane, Bane instead becomes an unimportant tool who only serves as muscle; That is regularly noted as one of the worst transitions from comics to movies ever. Thompson similarly entered the race to great fanfare, only to find out he was far too little far too late. Thompson, like Bane, was a supposedly fierce character who when put into a campaign fizzled beyond what anyone expected. The comic Bane is the Fred Thompson that people expected; the awful film version is the one people got. I also have no problem comparing Holly wood to a South American prison. Many suggest that a new interpretation of Bane in the current Batman series could be widely successful; I’m not so sure. Wildly intelligent, strong, and athletic people tend to not sneak around in masks. While the true believers may never admit it, the concept at heart just is not very believable. Note: Just because Thompson and Clayface both were actors does not make them similar in any meaningful way.

Ron Paul as Lennie Adkin, aka Anarky: One sentence in Wikipedia says it all: “Lonnie Machin, a teenage prodigy who, believing in Anarchism, creates improvised gadgets and attempts to subvert government in order to improve society.” Paul himself was not young - the opposite of it - but he certainly attracted youth en masse to his libertarian oriented campaign. And while some would say the dominant Paul story as the racist old newsletters, Paul had no chance to win before or after that story broke. Moreover, Paul’s campaign innovated on the internet in ways few others have ever done, either their notable moneybombs and extensive social networking (and comment bombing). Moreover, the obvious comparison is in the goals of Adkin and Paul: both wanted substantially smaller governments (Adkin clearly went further than Paul). Does Adkin’s failure indicate that Paul’s crusade will never be successful? I don’t think so. There will probably never anytime soon be an extensive, successful libertarian movement, but there can certainly be small steps made in that direction. As a bonus, the character was created in part from Paulite hero and Alan Moore creation V from V for Vendetta.

Rudy Giuliani as Eddie Nashton, aka The Riddler: The Riddler, simply put, is known for leaving riddles after crimes; it’s a dare to be caught, whereas conventional wisdom would normally lead criminals to, you know, try to get away with the crimes they commit. The defining tactical decision of the Giuliani campaign was skipping all the early states that conventional wisdom said he had to at least get a symbolic if not a real victory in for him to be competitive in later states such as Florida. He decided not to. Moreover, the Riddler is covered with question marks all over his suit that give away not only his identity but also his only useful sentence was a Riddle to lead people to him. And while Giuliani’s innumerable references to 9/11 were not at all that pathological, there was clearly something in Joe Biden’s joke that ever Giuliani sentence contained a noun, a a verb, and 9/11. In short, Giuliani was the Riddler in that a lot of his campaign was built on one very simple and repetitive riddle.

Mike Huckabee as Arthur Brown, aka The Cluemaster: The Cluemaster was a failed game show host, and if there’s any four word phrase in Batman history that could define Huckabee, it is ‘failed game show host’ - with the possible exception of ’successful game show host’. The rise of Huckabee’s campaign was in large part due to his charm, and the fall of his campaign was ultimately responsible for his inability to transcend that charm as, say, Ronald Reagan did. The comic plight of Cluemaster is largely not very similar, except that Cluemaster ends up doing surprisingly well and survives a battle even when many thought he was dead from being shot in the chest. Similarly, Huckabee’s campaign refused to die even when it was mathematically impossible for him to win.

Bill Richardson as Catwoman: Get your gender jokes out of the way, I’m not interested in them. Good? Ok. The essence of the history of Catwoman as defined by Wikipedia: “Selina Kyle, starting as a criminal who wore a cat-themed costume and often operated as a burglar, has a love/hate relationship with Batman. For years, she skirted on the edge between villain and antiheroine. However, she has largely reformed in recent years, adopting the role of the guardian of Gotham’s crime-infested East End, though she still comes into conflict with Batman on occasion.” This mirrors Bill Richardson in many ways. First of all, Catwoman is the ultimate resume villain: she’s done it all. For evil, for good, she’s been there. If I had a nickel for every time Richardson said “Look, I’m a governor” this election as to prove what he has done, I would be able to hire someone to write this post. Moreover, Richardson essentially had a love-hate relationship with all his opponents. Clinton supporters liked him when he defended Hillary during debates, and then were outraged when he first appeared to help Obama on Iowa Caucus night and then endorsed Obama after allegedly promising not to. (Obama supporters were the opposite). In the end, Richardson was distrusted by all and left to run hos own state which was shockingly bad in most rankings. Similarly, the most recent Catwoman movie was shockingly bad by even the most generous standards. The Catwoman character, like Richardson, is championed by a small minority who think it is essential to Batman; others think its inclusion in any TDK sequel would be repetitive and boring. I’d be inclined to agree with the latter. The Catwoman character is played out and in the end not very interesting. A jewel thief who is athletic? In the Nolan’s Gotham, that’s about as small and pointless as they come. Meanwhile, just like some predicted Richardson would be a dark horse candidate, once people got a long look at him,  he disappointed; the more the Catwoman character has been exposed in movies, the less popular they have gotten. It’s fair to say that to some extent the character was a failure in Batman Returns and was again surely a disappointment in Catwoman. Also, Catwoman would probably defend cats as innocent ipso facto them being cats, just as Richardson accidentally defended Alberto Gonzalez in the first debate just because he was Hispanic.

Duncan Hunter as Garfield Lynns, aka Firefly: I don’t even have to add comment on this one. Wikipedia on Firefly: “Garfield Lynns, an orphan who became a pyromaniac and has developed a fireproof suit and flamethrower to further pursue his ‘hobby’. He was originally known as a cunning criminal who invented numerous weapons that use light to commit crimes with.” And Eve Fairbanks on Duncan Hunter: “During the trip, we stopped at a gold mine, and Hunter got the idea that the Brobdingnagian ore haulers (whose wheels alone are ten feet tall) would make good troop vehicles in Iraq since they’d resist IEDs. (Possibly true, but they also resist steering.) These kind of pie-in-the-sky, mad-inventor brainstorms earned the nickname “Hunter Specials” among staffers on the committee he chaired, Armed Services. I wondered occasionally if Hunter’s ruthless thrashing in the GOP primaries had dampened some of his unusual style of enthusiasm, but apparently it didn’t. This morning’s Post carried the story of a Hunter Special for the ages: He submitted a request to our embassy in N’Djamena, Chad, to personally hunt and serve wildebeest to needy Darfurian refugees there. ” Wow. Easiest one yet.

Last but never least: The Joker after the jump. ….

Read more

Sphere: Related Content

Veepstakes News Roundup (July 4, 2008)

If you’re interested in the happenings with the candidates’ search for a running mate, then here’s a roundup of recent news…

• Florida Governor Charlie Crist announced that he will be marrying his current girlfriend; they have been dating for nine months.  Crist is often discussed as a possible running mate for John McCain, however, his bachelorhood combined with rumors of homosexuality have prevented many from seriously discussing him.  This marriage is seen by some as a way to deal with these roadblocks.
• John Edwards and Karl Rove are set to debate in September.  The smart folks at FiveThirtyEight see this as a strong indication that Edwards is definitely out of the VP running.
• Alaska Governor Sarah Palin is discussed as a potential choice for McCain (Phoenix Business Journal)
• Jonathan Alter makes the case for why Sam Nunn should be Obama’s VP choice. Meanwhile, Michael Goodwin discusses Hillary Clinton’s rising VP prospects (extra commentary on Clinton from PoliGazette here).
• Andrew Romano profiles Gov. Sebelius in his most recent veepstakes profile. (I only recommend reading this if you are REALLY intersted in Sebelius.  Otherwise, I wouldn’t).
• Rachel Maddow spews insanity when she says that Jeb Bush is currently McCain’s top VP choice.

Sphere: Related Content

2008Central.net Presidential Election Podcast (04/05/08)

During this show, the gurus discuss the state of the race, the Clinton tax returns, Obama’s strategy in Penn., McCain strategy, a general election preview and much more….

[Subscribe to 2008Central.net's Presidential Election Podcast]

Feel free to email us questions/suggestions for our next podcast (you can also email an audio file of your question and we’ll include it in the podcast). 

Sphere: Related Content

Edwards “Suspension” Speech

Whoops, not that suspension. This one:

Incidentally, I think Chris Beam has the best analysis of why Edwards failed. The whole ‘blame the media’ thing is, to paraphrase someone else, one of the biggest fairytales I’ve ever heard.

Sphere: Related Content

John Edwads Drops Bid For White House

John Edwards exits the Democratic nominating contest today. He will deliver a speech at 1pm est in New Orleans. It makes sense, since he’s been dropping hints about it the past couple of days. I really don’t have anything else to say at this point, other than tomorrow’s Democratic debate just got a lot more interesting…

Oh, and he won’t be endorsing anyone anytime soon.

[Photo Credit: Indecision 2008]

Sphere: Related Content

On Political Coverage This Weekend

The Clinton campaign pushed hard for free media coverage in primetime this week, and was rebuffed:

Insiders tell TVNewser the Hillary Clinton campaign was prepared to give exclusive access for the next 48 hours to ABC’s 20/20, but because of a scheduling conflict, ABC News passed on the offer. Sources tell us the campaign had wanted ABC to accompany Sen. Clinton for a 48 hour period beginning today, with the report airing Friday night on 20/20.

With the Super Bowl airing Sunday, and thus presumably lower than normal viewership for 60 Minutes, an appearance on 20/20 would have been the Clinton campaign’s best shot at getting a prime time network audience before Super Tuesday. Nightline’s Cynthia McFadden will spend tomorrow with the candidate for a “day in the life” story which will air tomorrow night.

Candidates are not going to get much of a chance after the CNN debates to change the perception of them before Feb. 5, with the Super Bowl this weekend. Unless someone does something dramatic on Saturday, I suppose, but even then…

The debates tomorrow (for Republicans) and Thursday are looming especially large.

Sphere: Related Content

John Edwards Admits He’s Going to Lose … Sort of

Hat tip: TPM Election Central

His campaign manager elicited a desire to the NYT to be involved heavily in a brokered convention today:

But they have also floated other rationales for a continued Edwards candidacy, suggesting that his delegates could be used to promote his platform or to help him act as a power broker at the Democratic convention.

“We’re still hoping that John is the nominee,” said David Bonior, the national campaign manager. “But with a chunk of delegates, you can leverage what you’ve been fighting for and standing for. You can raise these issues to where they should be on the Democratic agenda. We’re running for those two reasons: to get the nomination and to have his voice heard on his issues.”

t’s
This is essentially the only reason Edwards can run anymore, and makes him the 2008 version of what Dennis Kucinich famously did in 2004. Will Edwards get in trouble with the FEC if it becomes clear mathematically that he will not get delegates, as Kucinich did?

As for who this helps, it’s hard to say. You can make reasonable arguments for Edwards prescence drawing away from either Clinton or Obama, although Edwards would more than likely lean towards Obama should it actually get to the convention, which still is highly unlikely. We’ll discuss this more in upcoming podcasts.

Sphere: Related Content

2008Central.net’s Presidential Election Podcast (01/27/08)

This podcast looks at (1) results of the South Carolina Democratic Primary; (2) a brief discussion about the media coverage of identity politics and (3) a look ahead to the Florida and February 5th primaries…

[Subscribe to 2008Central.net's Presidential Election Podcast]

Feel free to email us questions/suggestions for next week’s podcast (you can also email an audio file of your question and we’ll include it in the podcast).

Sphere: Related Content

Obama Wins SC; Big Endorsement Coming Sunday?

As expected, Barack Obama won SC. However, few expected the margins to be this substantial.

In addition, Lynn Sweet says a big endorsement is coming and it may be Al Gore or Ted Kennedy.

We’re going to record a podcast tonight after the speeches wrap up [subscribe]. Clinton likely will not be giving a speech (as she’s flying to Tennessee tonight) but Obama speaks at 9 pm eastern. I’m unclear about Edwards right now.

[Update]

Sen. Clinton has released a statement indicating that she has called Obama to concede and congratulate him; she also juxtaposed this defeat with future contests (including Florida), saying:

“We now turn our attention to the millions of Americans who will make their voices heard in Florida and the twenty-two states as well as American Samoa who will vote on February 5th.”

Speaking in Independence, Missouri right now, Bill Clinton repeated pretty much the same line about the next contests where millions will get to vote…

Sphere: Related Content

Why Is Bloomberg Not Considered In Electability Scenarios?

Mike Bloomberg has dropped hints of running as someone who can fix bipartisan bickering and get things done. He gave a major economic speech in Washington today. People are more than happy to cover what Bloomberg is doing.

But no one, and I mean no one, looks at Bloomberg in the context of election scenarios. He’s less likely to run against McCain or Obama, as either of them would take away a lot of his bipartisanship appeal. But the rest of the candidates certainly seem like fair game. Even against Hillary Clinton, Bloomberg rumors have floated.

Take this entry from the Plank. Electability is gone over with a fine tooth comb, just completely around the elephant int he room. Angelo just pointed out that absolutely no one is considering Bloomberg when discussing Edwards electability issues.

Or more recently, Obama commented to David Brody that while he could get Clinton’s supporters, he did not know if she could get his. And people went into a tizzy (see here, here, and here), speculating on whom Obama’s supporters might gravitate towards. Did any of them consider Bloomberg? Absolutely none of them. (Props to the commenters who did, though.)

Look, I’m not saying he’s definitely going to run against Clinton or definitely will not run against Obama. I doubt even he’s made up his mind. But it’s absurd to discuss him as a potential candidate and refuse to look into how he actually might affect things, particularly when you’re trying to look into the future.

If you want to know why so much horserace analysis is so bad, this is a perfect example. People need to look at what is right in front of them, and not just what they think is right in front of them.

When you have the likes of Al Gore, Mike Bloomberg, and Newt Gingrich going far beyond what candidates from either side are saying, it’s worth considering the viability of a candidate who could literally drop billions in the race, especially with the delegate leaders being those of limited appeal like Clinton and Romney right now.

[Image Credit: Flickr User wallyg under a Creative Commons license]

Sphere: Related Content

Edwards’ (Seriously Flawed) Electability Argument

The Edwards campaign latest justification for remaining in the race is that John Edwards is the ONLY electable Democratic candidate (as opposed to a similar but very different argument that Edwards is more electable than the other candidates). The campaign started making this argument after Iowa and has expanded on it ever since. Recently, Edwards has been arguing that he’s the candidate that can take on John McCain, saying:

“I think it’s important for us to have somebody run against McCain who can beat him..And national polls show that I’m the one who beats John McCain in the general election.”

Rural Adviser to John Edwards, Mudcat Saunders echoed the campaign’s assertion-fest with a post on Huffington Post. Saunders states, but doesn’t really substantiate this contention:

It should be clear to anybody with over a 50 IQ that my boy John Edwards, with his combination of red state electoral experience and toughness, is the only candidate who can beat John McCain. Whether you believe polls or not, polls from CNN to Rasmussen say just that.

And it should be equally as clear to anybody with over a 25 IQ that Obama and Clinton are going to render each other totally unelectable against any Republican, especially John McCain, by the time we get to the convention.

All the Republicans have to be loving this. Because the Democrat they don’t want to face, John Edwards, is getting sandwiched between the coverage of this murderous cat fight between two so-called “historical” candidates who, when all is said and done, will be just that. HISTORY.

To begin, it’s just flat out silly to predicate an argument for electability solely on poll numbers. Polls, as recently demonstrated, are not definitive. Moreover, polls 10-11 months ahead of an election are even more insignificant. Finally, the numbers for Obama v. McCain and Hillary Clinton v. McCain are not so unbelievably one sided as to suggest that it would be impossible for either Clinton or Obama to beat McCain should he be the Republican nominee.

Additionally, there’s inherent flaw within Edwards’ argument. He contends that based upon the current polls, only he can beat McCain. This, of course, requires the assumption that the numbers are inflexible, relatively static and thus unlikely to change come November. That said, if polls are legitimate indicators of support (as the campaign seems to suggest), then why should trends in the Democratic primary be any different? In other words, Edwards is arguing that you should vote for him, despite his very low poll numbers in the Democratic primary, because some polls show Hillary and Obama losing in a match up against McCain. Let me be clear, I’m not suggesting that the numbers aren’t flexible, I’m just demonstrating how silly the logic of Edwards’ argument is when analyzed.

The Edwards campaign also criticizes both Obama and Clinton for attacking each other and suggests that its the battled between Obama and Clinton that is undermining the Democratic Party’s chance for victory in ‘08. I’m unclear as to why Edwards has the authority to criticize either candidate for negative attacks, when his campaign has levied some pretty scathing attacks when they believed it would suit them, such as Elizabeth Edwards questioning Hillary Clinton’s record on women’s issues or Edwards suggestion that his rivals are corporate Democrats (just a few the past); and more recently, with Edwards adding to the Obama-Rezko narrative by recounting a private discussion with Hillary on the subject (isn’t this a very similar tactic that Joe Trippi attacked Mark Penn for?). It’s worth noting that I’m not necessarily criticizing Edwards for the aforementioned criticisms of his opponents. What I am criticizing, as I have in the past, is Edwards doing one thing and then later taking the high ground on the same issue. You simply cannot argue that your opponents attacks on each other are bad for the party, when you participated in tough attacks yourself. That’s really all I’m saying.

Moving on to the core of Edwards’ electability, I offer the following considerations…

1) Edwards opted into public funding: Edwards’ decision to use public funds will limit his ability to spend money towards the general election. I recognize that there are discrepancies regarding what the specific limitations will be; however, this means that the question is really over the degree of how limited he is. Further, his campaign’s argument to rely on 527s to make up the difference, is just not a good idea. [JW discussed this issue prior to the Iowa Caucuses, and although a few of the details have since changed, the general gist of that post remains legitimate]

2) A dormant inconsistency that could bite Edwards during the general election: In addition to polls, Edwards has argued that he’s most electable against McCain because of his position on campaign finance reform, arguing:

“This is a guy [John McCain] who’s made central to his political life campaign finance reform. It seems to me we ought to be putting somebody up against him who’s never taken money from special interest PACs or Washington lobbyists. Between the three of us, that’s me.”

However, how’s it going to play in the general election, if McCain were to challenge Edwards on the Edwards’ campaign position that if the Republican nominee didn’t opt into the public finance system for the general election, then the Edwards campaign would also not opt into the public finance system come the general election. [And no, this does not contradict the first consideration, because there are two phases - the primary phase, which lasts up to the convention and the general election phase which begins after the conventions].

3) And if the nominee isn’t McCain: Then what? Could Edwards’ fiery rhetoric turn off potential donors, thus leaving him cash strapped? Meh, I’m not sure there’s much to that potential issue, but the question is worth raising nonetheless. Further, with the economy likely to be a key issue, could Edwards’ image as a class warfare guy scare a majority of the electorate away from him? (I’m not necessarily saying Edwards is arguing class warfare, but that’s an image that he has and certainly something a GOP opponent will capitalize on)

4) And what about Edwards’ evolution on several issues: Like it or not, the Republicans will rail on Edwards for several inconsistencies in his record. Just look at the following remark from Sen. Feingold, who has not endorsed a candidate yet, and imagine how the Republicans will tackle the same topic:

“I did notice that as the primaries heated up, all of a sudden, all the presidential candidates — none of whom voted with me on the timeframe to withdraw from Iraq — all voted with me and when we did the Patriot Act stuff.

The one that is the most problematic is (John) Edwards, who voted for the Patriot Act, campaigns against it. Voted for No Child Left Behind, campaigns against it. Voted for the China trade deal, campaigns against it. Voted for the Iraq war … He uses my voting record exactly as his platform, even though he had the opposite voting record.

When you had the opportunity to vote a certain way in the Senate and you didn’t, and obviously there are times when you make a mistake, the notion that you sort of vote one way when you’re playing the game in Washington and another way when you’re running for president, there’s some of that going on.”

5) The Bloomberg Factor: If Democrats nominate Edwards, would it create half of the required scenario for Mike Bloomberg, who is reported to be prepared to spend $1 billion on the campaign, to enter the race? Earlier last year, a former Bloomberg adviser indicated that a Bloomberg candidacy would be likely if both parties nominated “extreme” candidates (adviser’s word choice, not mine); the adviser went on to mention Edwards and Romney as examples (its worth mentioning that this consideration may or may not apply to Hillary Clinton, but this a post about Edwards, so I will table that discussion for now). I’m not sure what weight voters should give to the Bloomberg factor, but since it’s a growing possibly and relates more to Edwards than it does to Hillary and certainly to Obama, it’s worth mentioning.

—

To be clear: I am not trying to argue that John Edwards is unelectable. I am simply trying to point out that if a candidate starts to argue electability, then instead of only offering poll numbers and an amorphous campaign finance reform argument as support for the contention, he/she should actually develop the argument. Look, Edwards lost the primary in 2004 to John Kerry…was underwhelming in the 2004 campaign (this is more likely the fault of Kerry and less of Edwards, although he did fail to deliver his home state of North Carolina)… and despite intense focus on Iowa, he failed to win that critical state. Thus, if he is going to present a plausible electability argument, he’s going to need to offer a lot more than he is currently offering. Basically, I’m saying, “Where’s the beef?” Edwards needs to offer some real substance to the electability claim…some real reasons.

And countering this critique by blaming the media is not very compelling. Granted, they aren’t doing the best job now, but they certainly haven’t shut Edwards out and leading up to Iowa, Edwards got plenty of attention. Indeed, Edwards has some legitimate gripes with the press coverage (but not anywhere near what his campaign has been suggesting). The media isn’t going to suddenly change between the primaries and the general election. If he can’t manage them now, why should voters believe he will suddenly be able to better manage them in the general election? If Edwards loses the general election, what good will complaining about the media coverage do for the Democratic party?

Sphere: Related Content

Live Blog of South Carolina CNN / CBC Democratic Debate (January 21, 2007)

5:51: The debate starts at 8 pm tonight on CNN. It’s been a yin/yang sort of day, with the candidates making nice over Martin Luther King while Obama calls Bill Clinton a liar, more or less. Lucky us, we have master of the subtle Wolf Blitzer to guide us through the minefield. Also, note that Clinton might be pressed on reports that she’s not going to be back in South Carolina after tonight until Friday.

5:59: One other thing; thankfully, we’re Kucinich-free tonight as well. He’s not a viable contender at this point, so spare me the whining.

7:40: Back. To commenters, the debate is streaming on cnn.com. Right now Howard Dean is addressing the audience. Presumably, he’s not scheming to steal their delegates. (But he also is not addressing a silly emerging controversy that is completely his fault.)

7:42: Rules of the debate. Apparently the Secret Service did not allow any cell phones or pagers into the building. CNN is also excited to show America the candidates walking onto the stage, citing transparency. Hey, they’re CNN, they do dumb crap like show candidates walking instead of debating or talking policy. The first half of the debate is a podium debate with rules, and the second half is candidates seated with ‘no rules’! CNN is sadly excited about having no rules (if they are so excited, why not do the whole debate in that format?).

7:46: CNN cannot find Wolf. I’m serious. With any luck, he’s lost and we’ll get a real moderator.

7:47: CNN presses for applause on 40 members of Congress showing up. Well, they’re not busy doing anything else, there’s no excuse to not be there.

7:48: The CNN Washington Bureau Chief says his Blackberry is going off, and a disembodied voice demands that he get applause; he’s run out of things to talk about, and a member of the audience demands he start telling jokes.

7:50: They found Blitzer. Damnit.

7:52: Blitzer says it is fun, and his fourth debate. He introduces himself. Regarding his name, he “did not make it up for the first Gulf War” and it is his real name. This is absurd.

7:54: This is a two and a half hour debate? What the hell? I’m betting 65% of it is pointless. Blitzer says it’s not easy, and he’s right; picking out inane topics to fill so much time is a tough job. Blitzer is concerned and has a guy ‘fix him’ to ‘make sure he looks good.’ He asks the audienceif they have any questions, and they demand to know where he was; he laughs it off, which is emblematic of the whole program.

7:57: Joe Johns and Suzanne Malvaeux are there. Blitzer says he always saw Malvaeux covering ’some ugly story in Washington’ every night. Good to know his true opinions of Washington, apparently.

7:59: Disembodied British voice congratulates me on watching the process, whatever that means. I feel like I’m watching dirty laundry, if that makes any sense.

8:00: If there are no rules in the second half, can Dennis Kucinich wander up on stage? CNN is really pushing no rules, but at the same time, half of the debate has the same rules they’re criticizing.

Alright, we’re actually starting, apparently.

8:01: It’s Martin Luther King Jr. holiday, Wolf tells me. He announces the candidates are not on stage, but the press pool is. Thanks, Wolfman. Edwards is introduced first, Obama second (to slightly louder cheers than Edwards, whom he gives a half hug to), and Clinton (to regular cheers). She loudly welcomes Barack, John, and Wolf by name. No half hug for Hillary.

8:03: Clyburn in the house, as Malveaux says people want substance. Well, no shit sherlock. But we’re watching people takes pictures of people hugging.

8:04: You can’t have a moment of inactivity without Dean popping back up onstage. Joe Johns says people want to know who is on the ballot. Groundbreaking analysis from the best political team on television, or meaningless drivel? You be the judge!

The press finally starts to get out of the way.

8:06: More housekeeping, although ironically without an illegal immigrant. Maybe they are coming for Blitzer’s job? Blitzer says they are on the honor system for time. Good luck with that.

8:07: He’s still going on as if this is a new idea, not the 98th debate or whatever it is.

8:08: Joe Johns asks Clinton about the economy, and worldwide markets in a tailspin. He wants to know how much the average South Carolinian will get. Umm, WTF? Clinton talks about most of her plan going to deal with the mortgage crisis and a moratorium on foreclosures. She also talks about freezing the interest rate for 5 years, and giving people $650 to deal with energy costs; she segues from that to creating green jobs; she says rebates need to be done right and need to target seniors and ‘working people’ who do not pay income tax. Thanks the CBC for leading on the issue. Obama points out the King march on Washington was for jobs and not only for justice. Says Bush ruined the economy and failed with his leadership on the war and education. He says that Clinton caught up with him on rebates after he mentioned tax cuts, and mentions the same demographics as Clinton. Blitzer asks if $650 is enough. (Seriously, this is what is being discussed). Obama says Social Security is a manner through which you can provide rebates and money for energy. Edwards starts by making up for his gender and race by talking up the CBC and the work of King, and how bad poverty is. He does admit there is no rebates in his package, but says he wants to end poverty. He says the difference is that he provides long term benefits in energy. Clinton just talked about doing this. Edwards says there is a difference on jobs, and the Peru trade deal hurt South Carolina … but Blitzer cuts him off and distinguishes the candidates on long term v. short term. This is an unfocused mess, with everyone giving their own talking points on the economy.

8:16: Obama says green jobs are important, but a long term focus. Says an immediate stimulus is necessary, not just long term. Obama says there are textile mills closed because of Nafta (and hits Clinton on it again). On Peru, Obama says Peru had standards for environment and labor, and the economy is the size of New Hampshire, and concludes by hitting Edwards on China. This is a hard hitting debate from Obama and Edwards so far. Clinton says that her original plan allowed for rebates, but does not want Republicans to alter the tax code, but now is too late and there is no other option. She criticizes Bush instead of responding in turn to Obama. She also talks up the green jobs, specifying some program in Oakland, before allowing that it is a long term issue. Says the CBC will lead on green jobs. This is awful and unfocused. Edwards says his green jobs would be created within 30 days. Edwards’ father is in the audience. Edwards says enforcement of standards lies with Bush. Obama says that he’ll be enforcing the laws in a year. Obama says Edwards gives powerful talk, but he’s taken action on the matter as a community organizer. Obama is criticizing Edwards for talk as compared to his action. Interesting turn of the tables.

8:22: Question for Obama on fiscal responsibility. Obama says that what Clinton said was not true, and it’s part of a pattern of factually inaccurate statements. Wow, Obama on the warpath. Criticizes Bill’s statements on his position on Iraq, or statements on ideas since Reagan. Says improvements matter, and that he’s tried to run a substantive campaign.Clinton responds that’your record and what you say does matter.’ Says Obama continually has to clarify what he said. Clinton says Republican ideas were bad, but Obama liked them “and we can give you the exact quote.” Says there is no evidence on his site on how he would pay for foreign programs. Says that he did oppose the war in 2002, but took the speech off his site and agreed with Bush and voted to fund the war. Says it is about words v. action. Obama said Clinton just lied about his statements and the two start bickering. Criticizes Clinton for being a corporate lawyer on the board of Walmart, and he spent a lifetime fighting Reagan’s policies. Says that appealing to independents and Republicans to build a working majority. Says Clinton and Bill Clinton praised Reagan in Brokaw’s book. Edwards starts yelling and Clinton goes off. Obama jumps in that he does not know who he is running against. This is great. Obama says he did not say the ideas were good ones. Clinton brings in Rezko and calls him a slum landlord, and Blitzer goes … to Edwards, who complains about being left out. Edwards says this squabbling helps no one, and is not about candidates personally. Goes back to fiscal responsibility and touts his plans. Edwards says Obama and he both talked about reform of Social Security, but Hillary does not talk about raising the cap even though it makes sense economically. Says Clinton does not want to talk about raising taxes.

8:33: Johns asks Edwards if lenders have specifically targeted African Americans? Edwards says yes, it’s a racial issue. Then he immediately backs off and says they targeted the lowest income families who tend to be black. Says we cannot pretend there is not a history of slavery and discrimination; that leaves African Americans more vulnerable to predatory lenders. Says he saw 38 foreclosures in one block in Cleveland. That’s because there’s no jobs there, John. I lived there. Says people need to be taught financial responsibility. Blitzer says Greenspan that plans like Clinton’s would prolong the agony by having a freeze. Clinton says economists were wrong for the past years, and it is destroying dreams of Americans, and it is a ‘work out’ not a ‘bail out.’ Says banks can borrow money from Abu Dhabi but people lose their homes. Obama says that helping people is important, not helping the speculators. He says it is not new, and there is a long history of preying on poor people. Echoes Edwards in that more people need access to banks. He talks of his action in introducing a bill two years ago and what he did in Illinois. Talks about the bankruptcy bill of 2001, and Clinton’s statement that she voted for it but hoped it would not pass. Obama gets a chance to respond to the charges on Rezko. Says he did five hours of work in a long firm for a church group, but the biggest issue is people trusting leaders. Clinton responds that she regretted voting for it and said so, and opposed a similar bill in 2005. Talks about an amendment of credit card companies charging over 30 percent interest and Obama voted for it. Also says that Obama did bidding for insurance companies in Illinois on health care. Says she is used to taking fire, and you have to expect attacks ‘in this arena.’ Obama says he voted for it but the limit was too high, and he opposed the bill the entire time. Oh, legislation. This is why Senators are not elected president. Clinton says Obama never takes responsibility and talks up the present votes. It’s a really dishonest line of attack. Obama says he feels bad for Edwards. Obama says he sponsored the bill in question. Says that he’s had family members be victims, and there was a legal problem with it. Says it presents one issue in the wrong light. Says people cannot say anything to get elected.

8:46: Edwards says that it is important to take hard positions. References the CBC taking hard positions. Wonders why Obama voted present. Obama says present votes indicated you had problems with a bill that you would otherwise vote for. Edwards says it would be safer to just not show up. Obama says there was technical problems with votes. Says he opposed legislation that put juveniles in the system as adults, and spoke out against the war. Says Illinois is different from Congress. That took too long.

8:49: On health care, now. Why are African American women better off under Clinton’s plan? She says it is not not government run and includes everyone. Says it will withstand attacks from the right. Says bills will be passed on to everyone, not just those sick. Johns asks if his plan covers illegal immigrants. Obama says it does not, since there are limited resources. Says there is an obligation to cover children. Says the critical issue is how to cover everyone. Says Clintons tried to pass health care in 1993 in the wrong way, that you have to have negotiations in a public setting. Says responsibility includes Congress as well, and that can only be done through the people. Edwards says none of the three plans covers illegal immigrants. Says you can strengthen the net of health care that could include people if there is comprehensive immigration reform. Edwards goes on to say that Obama’s plan is not universal. Obama says he received money from employees, not lobbyists. He says this is a legitimate policy debate, and that he disagrees with a mandate on adults that forces people to buy health insurance. Says Edwards allows that it might mean taking money out of people’s paychecks. Segues to his stock discussion of lowering costs and copayments. Says his plan reduces costs through catastrophic accident. Obama says that it allows for anyone to opt in, and that Edwards and Clinton do not coverthose with hardship arguments. Obama mentions Massachusetts, and Edwards says this is like the Social Security debate. Clinton says that you cannot get universal health care if you do not start out by standing for it. Says this is a core Democratic issue, and she will ‘go to the mat for it.’ Talks about Obama being for single payer in the past, and this being separate. She links it back to the ‘present’ votes and cites Sweet (I think) who said it was taking a pass. Obama gets 30 seconds and Edwards wishes him luck. Says if you are not making health care affordable that you cannot mandate it. Says that people will purchase the health care if it is affordable. Says that a single payer is only preferable in theory. Says that Hillary’s presentations have evolved. This is tense.

9:03: Moving to Iraq for the first time in a long time, it seems. Question about her statement that the next president has to end the war. Does she want to end the war or win it? She says she wants to bring troops home, and there is no military solution. Says that ‘the so called surge’ was able to pacify some areas, but the purpose of the surge was to move the Iraqi government quickly towards resolution. Says the political debate is motivating Iraqis. Blitzer asks Edwards about McCain saying the surge is working. Edwards says the surge was intended to create an environment for political progress. He jokes about even Bush recognizing it. Says there has been no meaningful political progres, then just a little. Edwards says everyone is committed to ending the war, but how quickly and aggressively is a question. Obama gives the careful getting out as careless getting in line. Says it depends on what happens in the next year, but creating a stable Iraqi government with no permanent bases is the goal. Obama says that financially the war is not sustainable, and Al Qaeda is stronger than ever since 2001 and needs to be addressed. Clinton says she will move as quickly as possible, and agrees with Obama on not knowing what will be inherited from Bush. Clinton mentions Bush’s argument of pushing for permanent bases in Iraq without the consent of Congress. Touts the CBC working on this legislation.

Time for a commercial debate. No rules, coming up. I hope Kucinich wanders up on stage. That would be high comedy.

9:15: The crowd laughs at the inability of CNN to exchange podiums for chairs.

9:19: Seven minutes later, the chairs are in place. Question for Obama on Rangel saying that black voters should do not what makes them feel good but is what is best for the country. Obama says the notion is right and women should vote that way and white males, Says he is running because he wants to bring the country together, and looks forward to working with him as President. Awkward question.

9:21: More awkward question, on whether African Americans will be seen differently if there is an African American president. Says that he is on the vanguard of issues Kings worked for, like poverty. This is as pointless as the MSNBC debate. Really, really, really dumb. Clinton respects his commitment to end poverty, and talks of working at the Children’s Defense fund after graduating law school. It’s why she is in legal service, etc. She