Edwards wrongly focuses ‘Fight Club’ strategy
 |
| Former Sen. John Edwards |
If the Washington punditry has been right about anything, they accurately predicted that the early start of the 2008 campaigns would result in substantially greater negativity from the candidates’ camps, and that the normally recognized "pleasantries-only" grace period would be significantly reduced. Democrats, with the exception of Bill Richardson, summarily dismissed Ronald Reagan’s golden rule of not criticizing candidates within their own party during the MSNBC Democratic debate on September 26. Although the criticism levied during that debate was more candidates differentiating themselves, than, as some suggested, personal attacks. Regardless it was indeed a tipping point.
With a little more than eleven months remaining before the general election, candidates no longer are debating the issues; instead they attack their opponents’ character and debate each others’ 30-second ads (candidate authorized or 527’s on their behalf). Sadly enough, these sound bites are the single most influential factor in voter’s decision-making. And moreover the two candidates - Barack Obama and John Edwards - whose campaigns are purportedly premised on change and ushering in a new era of political philosophy are increasingly moving towards the Karl Rove, Lee Atwater brand of campaigning. Although Obama’s attacks pale in comparison to John Edwards, neither of their tactics has been on par with those of the Clinton campaign’s.
John Edwards initiated this past weekend’s last-call campaigning in Iowa with a direct jab at the frequently characterized intellectual-approach of Barack Obama’s campaign.
"What Iowa caucusgoers [sic] are looking for - they’re not looking for academic and they’re not looking for analytical," Edwards said in a Friday interview with Iowa Public Television. "They’re looking for somebody who speaks from right here, from their gut, and who believes deeply and passionately in what they’re talking about."
Edwards not only made a personal attack on Obama, he belittled Iowans. While Iowans and many others are seeking a candidate that speaks truthfully and is willing to vehemently serve as their advocate; that does not by default reduce their capacity or desire to engage in cerebral discussion, reflection, and contemplation.
Obama countered the next day, but far more subtlety and within the boundaries of appropriateness, by questioning Edward’s sincerity about changing politics. He was specifically referencing a 527 group that is allegedly preparing to spend $750,000 on television ads promoting Edwards.
"I don’t just talk the talk, I walk the walk; I’ve been doing this all my life, and John has not had that same record," Obama said in Oskaloosa.
John Edwards is indeed intelligent and considering his proven skills as a highly successful litigator, he should have promptly realized his remarks on Friday were anything but flattering. One could assume human frailty was in play and somehow Edwards innocently misspoke, and consequently he should have quickly recovered his gaffe. However he did not. Instead, he continued to be condescending towards Obama and disparaging towards Iowans.
Edwards, a onetime courtroom lawyer, portrayed Obama, a former constitutional law professor, as cool and abstract in his thinking. "From my perspective, this is not an academic or a philosophical question," Edwards said. "This is about who has the toughness and fight to take on corporate greed and win."
I beg to differ. Selecting a presidential candidate can and should be academic and philosophical. I fail to believe the majority of Iowans or voters from other states perceive they are trying to decide whether Brad Pitt or Ed Norton should be president/leader of the Fight Club.
That is precisely what was done in 2000 and 2004, and I dare say it did not work out that well, nor do voters have an overwhelming desire to repeat the mistake. In fact, according to a recent Washington Post/ABC News poll, "overwhelmingly, Democrats want a new direction, but so do three-quarters of independents and even half of Republicans. Sixty percent of all Americans said they feel strongly that such a change is needed after two terms of the Bush presidency."
Obviously the majority of voters view negatively the omnipresent Bush-Cheney Fight Club mentality, and I doubt seriously the majority of voters appreciate being reduced to the level of those they seek to remove.
Quite honestly, I am personally disappointed with Edwards’ remarks. I have thought and discussed here that Edwards would be a fitting president, but belittling voters is uncalled for.
It is not hard to understand Edwards’ message that the next president will have a difficult struggle, at best, implementing the programs and policies he and most other Democratic candidates support. But lately it seems as though he’s had his bell rung while dancing in the ring.
Edwards needs to resurrect his erstwhile strategy and leave the Fight Club competition to Pitt and Norton.
Update I: If the new ARG Iowa poll is indicative of how John Edwards’ remarks were received, they received them well. Edwards rating increased two points putting him in second place. Obama dropped six points placing him third, and Hillary Clinton jumped 5 points giving her a 14-point lead. More info is available here.
Update II: Paul Krugman agrees with John Edwards and takes particular exception with Barack Obama. Krugman says Edwards’ "populist message resonates with labor" and that Obama does not enjoy the labor support Edwards does "in part, perhaps, because his message of “a new kind of politics” that will transcend bitter partisanship doesn’t make much sense to union leaders who know, from the experience of confronting corporations and their political allies head on, that partisanship isn’t going away anytime soon."
Generally speaking, I agree with Edwards’ populist message. Moreover, I firmly believe Edwards is firm in his convictions and will follow through if elected. But it was not the populist message I disagreed with. It was my perception that Edwards was dismissing the intellect of the people. Of course I know not everyone has an IQ of 190 nor does everyone have an IQ of 100. Krugman’s argument makes sense and put in the proper context is certainly applicable. On that point I will stand corrected.
Krugman goes on to eviscerate Obama for his attack on Edwards.
O.K., that’s politics. But now Mr. Obama has lashed out at Mr. Edwards because two 527s — independent groups that are allowed to support candidates, but are legally forbidden from coordinating directly with their campaigns — are running ads on his rival’s behalf. They are, Mr. Obama says, representative of the kind of “special interests” that “have too much influence in Washington.”
The thing, though, is that both of these 527s represent union groups — in the case of the larger group, local branches of the S.E.I.U. who consider Mr. Edwards the strongest candidate on health reform. So Mr. Obama’s attack raises a couple of questions.
First, does it make sense, in the current political and economic environment, for Democrats to lump unions in with corporate groups as examples of the special interests we need to stand up to?
Second, is Mr. Obama saying that if nominated, he’d be willing to run without support from labor 527s, which might be crucial to the Democrats? If not, how does he avoid having his own current words used against him by the Republican nominee?
Part of what happened here, I think, is that Mr. Obama, looking for a stick with which to beat an opponent who has lately acquired some momentum, either carelessly or cynically failed to think about how his rhetoric would affect the eventual ability of the Democratic nominee, whoever he or she is, to campaign effectively. In this sense, his latest gambit resembles his previous echoing of G.O.P. talking points on Social Security.
Beyond that, the episode illustrates what’s wrong with campaigning on generalities about political transformation and trying to avoid sounding partisan.
Krugman argues his point well, but semantics comes into play with Obama’s criticism of Edwards, which may be the salient point. Where Obama’s message may not be received well by a given audience, the same can apply to John Edwards or any other candidate. It doesn’t make any candidate right or wrong from a general perspective, however, the quibbling over less important matters such as Barack did in his criticism of Edwards’ 527 support are distractive and counterproductive. And unfortunately it is such matters that consume most of the debate between candidates.
0 Responses to “Edwards wrongly focuses ‘Fight Club’ strategy”