Clinton Doomed!

I think the netroots support of Edwards has more to do with what seems to be a conscious effort to be the first mover on netroots issues. Case in point being the Fox debates - being the first one to bow out certainly made an impression on the websites that had been trumpeting about the issue for days.

Judging from his actions, appealing to the netroots is a strategic priority for Edwards.

What I find more interesting, though, is the difference between support on the Kos/myDD polls and the fundraising numbers garnered through the internet. Both can be construed as different varieties of netroots support - but while Obama is merely strong in those polls - generally running second to Edwards, he blew everyone else away in net fundraising. I find the differences between those two groups quite interesting.

I'm intrigued by the fact that Edwards is so much stronger among the netroots than among Democrats at large.

The netroots like to be stroked, and he strokes them. Examples: The netroots don't think the elected Democrats are doing enough to end the war, and Edwards says as much. The netroots hate Fox, and Edwards is the first to drop out of the Fox debates (both times). The fact that he never really stopped running for president and was building up "anti-Hillary" mojo online before Obama entered the race probably plays a part.

A favorite theme on the right-wing blogs (and among some pundits, like Barone) is that the netroots are issuing commands to Edwards et al. That's mostly bullshit. The netroots are VERY VERY CLEAR about what they want, and the candidates that notice this and feed them red meat reap immediate rewards.

"The netroots like to be stroked, and he strokes them."

No doubt.

But I think the fact that Edwards is running substantively to the left of the field shouldn't be discounted either.

-----

"In theory, Edwards' electoral center of gravity should be among the white working class and perhaps among older voters."

I think Edwards needs to show support in both the wine and beer tracks to defeat a juggernaut like the HRC machine.

You're not going to be able to just sneak by her on the margins. She won't allow that. You need to go right through her if you really want to win this thing.

Edwards is wooing an audience that includes big parts of the netroots -- Dem early adopters. He's not doing this in order to win DKos straw polls, he's doing it to establish support in Iowa and New Hampshire, but netroots support is a side-effect of that, I think. If he plays the summer right, I think Richardson could make significant gains against Edwards in the netroots by Labor Day, but I don't know if he can do that also in IA, NH, NV, SC et al.

"Edwards is wooing an audience that includes big parts of the netroots -- Dem early adopters"

Yup.

Edwards has an oddly diagonal base of support -- high-information liberals and low-information moderates. The first group decides primaries; the second group decides general elections.

(Well, maybe the high-information liberals don't decide primaries, as such. But they vote in primaries in fairly large numbers.)

How underrepresented (relative to voters, or the population) are women in this polling, do you suppose?

What I find more interesting, though, is the difference between support on the Kos/myDD polls and the fundraising numbers garnered through the internet. Both can be construed as different varieties of netroots support - but while Obama is merely strong in those polls - generally running second to Edwards, he blew everyone else away in net fundraising. I find the differences between those two groups quite interesting.

I do as well. I'm not sure if it says more about Obama, his supporters, or Kos/myDD. I'm personally starting to think of the Kos/myDD crowd as more entrenched 'establishment' political sites, even though that's probably not a supportable opinion in a lot of ways. I certainly don't mean that as an insult to politicians who do well on those sites.

Obama must be drawing largely from online donors who are newer to political blogs (though they're obviously internet users in general), ignore them altogether (except for Obama's website), or people like me who are frustrated with those types of online blogs and have largely left those sites. But I don't know exactly how he's drawing from them. It's an interesting coalition of folks.

The polling I've seen suggests women are outnumbered about 2-1 among progressive blogreaders.

Obviously, the blogosphere and the national polls are worlds apart when it comes to HRC, but I think the blogosphere can make a decent case that the party as a whole will come around to its way of thinking in the end. Not that Hillary will end up in the single digits, of course, but it's entirely plausible that she'll be snowed under in the end.

The prototype for this thesis is the Lamont primary run, which was widely derided as a quixotic effort by a bunch of far-left loony tunes on the blogs. Lamont, of course, ended up winning a convincing victory over a popular incumbent in a way that occurs once in a blue moon, and it's likely he would have won the general as well if the Republicans had put forward a credible candidate. But focusing solely on Lamont's primary (since we're talking about the 2008 Dem primary here), it's clear that the progressive blogosphere was way ahead of the curve of public opinion.

I'm not making any guarantees or predictions, mind you, just saying that the blogs have a pretty good batting average of late. As public opinion has caught up to the liberal blogs on the war, the blogs have looked smarter and smarter.

How underrepresented (relative to voters, or the population) are women in this

I sure would like to know.

I think the idea Edwards appealing to working class men to be more than a bit wrong headed. That video, which I presume is on utube, showing him playing with his hair and whipping out the compact at the end would be enough to sink him.

In addition, his talents seem to begin and end with the ability to tell a good tear jerker. That seems to be his only 'legal' skill too. BC is/was a master of this art form too, but it wasn't the only thing he could do as seems to be the case with Edwards. That won't do it for working class guys. I think that in a general election he loses badly amongst working and middle class white guys and if he needs to to at least not get creamed with that demographic he doesn't stand a chance.

The only thing we know at this point is that it looks like a genuine race. As HRC's campaign seems to be shaped around the idea that Dem voters should bow to the inevitable, that's probably not a great thing for her. But I thought the same thing about Kerry as well, so who knows?

"Well, maybe the high-information liberals don't decide primaries, as such."

With that caveat added, I can wholly endorse Neil's previous "oddly diagonal base of support" comment.

Specifically for j mct.

I do not know which of the very credible candidates you support on either side of the spectrum, but accusing a candidate of vanity and constructing an ad hominem around him is not the way to go about a civil discourse on democratic leanings.

In the fundraiser I hosted, a white senior citizen who had worked as a mechanical engineer his whole life said that Edwards reminded him of Carter. I would say more Bobby Kennedy, because of the conviction that you call tear jerking evocation.

Please do not disparage candidates based on random videos. We have all seen the Rudy-Trump gigs. Less said the better. Which presidential candidate does not have a hair dresser? I am rooting for him/her.

I do not care what I look like. But I also do not care if someone cares because other people would like him to care. And I care when people are not careful with what they think people should care about. It just is crass carelessness.

I think the idea Edwards appealing to working class men to be more than a bit wrong headed.

I think this is very much the case. I don't see why Edwards is supposed to appeal to working class men.

"I think the idea Edwards appealing to working class men to be more than a bit wrong headed."

I have heard of working-class white voters complaining that his rhetoric comes of as too much "rich people = evil," which they find akin to racism. There is a difference between "It's the economy, stupid" and Edwards's rhetoric. In part, the first reflects the people's already-stated concerns and the second is what an educated guy thinks working-class people should worry and care about. The Dems try this line every so often and it never really seems to find an audience.

With Obama and Clinton so busy triangulating, it's only natural informed liberals turn to Edwards.

Yes, there is a lot of hubris emanating from Obama, in that he thinks he doesn't need to offer anything tangible to the base to win the nomination.

Edwards has an oddly diagonal base of support

...and has always had. While J. Hacker is correct that Nat'l Dems don't need to (and shouldn't anyway) pander to the physical South by being reactionary, the point of a southern candidate in 2008 is not necessarily winning any southern states' electoral votes. It's about winning the 'South of the Mind' (to paraphrase JW Cash), which exsists in every state in the country. There is, even now, nothing quite like a Southern Liberal for potency. Some 'high information' Democrats are slightly squeamish about this fact, but that doesn't mean it's not still a fact.

I think we on the dem side need to keep in mind the idea that political polarization itself is a very long-running and very concious GOP tactic - Rove is just the apotheosis. When we talk about who's 'running left' or 'right' in the current race, we may be descriptively correct (and the insight may have some local utility), but in a broader sense, it's hard to see that mindset as useful to anyone except the GOP, because it's their context (not unlike Colbert's 'President Bush: great president? or greatest president?'). Edwards would probably win the general election because lots of people - both 'liberals' and 'moderates' - like what he says and proposes: 'little people' (AKA 'working people', AKA the majority) very often don't get a fair shake; do radical healthcare reform; get out of Iraq; clean up the money sewer in DC, etc. Our best candidates (Edwards and now Obama) know that the voters are ahead of DC in many ways, and are further aware that 'polarization' is a GOP trick. The logic of Edwards' focus on poverty is that it's the opposite of polarization, alienation, atomization, Reaganism. Both candidates are unity candidates, explicitly.

I'm obviously not the first to think along these lines, but I think it bears repeating: regardless of its efficacy, polarization is a tactic. An important way to fight against it to simply not believe in it. It's also a good way to lead.

Which is a long winded way of saying that the country actually wants (still) most of the things which are considered 'left' in punditland - an old trope, but there you go. Edwards appeals to a lot of on-line people for the same reasons he appeals to other people, or will if he is nominated.

"Yes, there is a lot of hubris emanating from Obama, in that he thinks he doesn't need to offer anything tangible to the base to win the nomination."

I don't think it has anything to do with hubris. Both Obama and Clinton have made the strategic calculation that they can't offer anything tangible to the base and still win the general election.

They don't triangulate because they're bad folks. They triangulate because they have to.

I actually think it's admirable on both of their parts. (And while that may sound snarky, it's actually genuine. If my guy can't win the nomination, I'd still like my party to win the general.)

Of course, there's a candidate out there who has enough general election strength that he's able and willing to tie himself to the base, but that's a different topic...

So does this mean Edwards is the candidate that middle-class people think working-class people should like, as opposed to the candidate they actually do like?

"It's about winning the 'South of the Mind' ... which exsists in every state in the country. There is, even now, nothing quite like a Southern Liberal for potency."

I love how even Tom Schaller thinks nominating Southern Liberals for the Presidency is a good idea.

"Yes, there is a lot of hubris emanating from Obama, in that he thinks he doesn't need to offer anything tangible to the base to win the nomination.
Posted by: Ron on April 17, 2007 04:19 PM"

What strategic value comes with putting forward your entire platform 8 months before the primary and giving primary opponents and the GOP even more time to pick it apart and look for ways to spin things? Kerry had plenty of bullet-point plans, yet nobody ever really read them. He won the nomination because the base thought a guy with experience and a war record could win in the general. They didn't go gaga for the language of his healthcare plan.

"Edwards has an oddly diagonal base of support -- high-information liberals and low-information moderates. The first group decides primaries; the second group decides general elections."

It’s not that odd, if high information folks won't hold an inability to elected against a candidate (think Howard Dean) then they certainly won't hold an ability to get elected against you.

I would argue that the belief that Edwards plays well with moderates is among his chief appeal to high information liberals and the primary voters in New Hampshire and Iowa. Nobody wants to back the next Dean.

"So does this mean Edwards is the candidate that middle-class people think working-class people should like, as opposed to the candidate they actually do like?
Posted by: too many steves on April 17, 2007 04:28 PM"

Probably so. Since Vietnam, when Dems run on being "the party that helps poor people," they lose. When Dems run on being "the party that is good for the economy," they win. Edwards is doing the first while Clinton did the second in 1992. To a certain extent, Gore ran as an Edwards-style populist agains the worst GOP nominee since Herbet Hoover and still lost (or came too close to losing, depending on how you cut it) when he could have embraced the Clinton legacy and won. Gore should have been able to blow Bush out of the water to the point Florida wouldn't have even mattered, yet he still failed to pull it off.

Do the polls show that Edwards plays better among moderates than Obama and Clinton? Honest question - I haven't seen those numbers, or if I have I wasn't paying attention.

I'm going to have to agree with Ron above; I think the polling reflects an undercurrent of resentment for Obama's percieved strategy of tapdancing above the issues, trying to remain 'unsullied' by any specific positions. With Hillary obviously seen as in the pocket of the DLC set, it seems right to say Edwards becomes the default candidate for people who pay closer attention to how the candidates are likely to govern, more so than their impressing gravitas or force of personality (though of course Edwards is incredibly telegenic himself).

Obama on the otherhand I'd speculate is getting the fantastic fundraising numbers that he is through wooing those who might not be as invested in the process, who see him more as a charismatic fresh face than neccesarily a champion of the progressive cause.

"Gore ran ... agains the worst GOP nominee since Herbet Hoover"

You've got an "interesting" view of political history.

Gwen, there's a Pew Poll from a while back showing Edwards' favorability rating among independents at 68 and his favorability among Republicans at 48. This beat every other Democrat they tested, and blew away Hillary's 53-28 numbers, although Obama wasn't in the mix at that time.

I haven't seen any recent polls that break things down by ideological affiliation.

http://blog.washingtonpost.com/thefix/2005/11/pew_poll_good_news_for_mccain.html

Oops, Hillary was at 58 among indies and 23 among republicans. That's still a solid win for Edwards.

Edwards is doing the first while Clinton did the second in 1992. (...) Gore should have been able to blow Bush out of the water to the point Florida wouldn't have even mattered, yet he still failed to pull it off.

Candidates are not interchangable, nor are particular points in time. I'd suggest that 2008 more closely resembles 1932 or '36 (post '20s) than 2k, and would further suggest that Gore doesn't resemble Edwards very much. I'd also point out that many people didn't quite believe Gore's shrum rhetoric, saw it for what it basically was.

"Candidates are not interchangable, nor are particular points in time."

Of course, but this doesn't mean similarities don't exist.

"Gore doesn't resemble Edwards very much. I'd also point out that many people didn't quite believe Gore's shrum rhetoric, saw it for what it basically was.
Posted by: jonnybutter on April 17, 2007 04:51 PM"

Well, Gore in 2000 is not the same as Gore in 2007. However, you can't really deny that Gore ran a bit of a populist campaign in 2000, much like what Edwards is trying to do today. The type of liberal, help-the-poor populism hasn't really been shown to resonate with voters in the past few decades, which is why they have tended to vote against their economic interests while real wages have stagnated. The type of people (lower class) Edwards's rhetoric is aimed at already vote Democratic in the general elections while middle class voters aren't comfortable voting for the guy who seems to be the poor guy's candidate. We already have locked up the making under $25,000, didn't attend any college demographic and the upper-middle class, attended graduated school demographic, but in between is where we need to make gains. Someone can help the poor a lot more when they don't run as the poor people's candidate unless we are in the middle of a huge, worldwide depression, as we were in 1932. Being the poor guy's candidate is not the same thing as being the strong economy candidate. The latter guy wins, but the former does not.

"But I think the fact that Edwards is running substantively to the left of the field shouldn't be discounted either."

TRue, but you can't really seperate the two things. Edwards ain't gonna capture the netroots or activist base by running to the right of the field, that's for sure. It's a calculated strategy, and a necessary one. Without the left wing you might as well just stick a fork in him now.

Let's keep in mind that Obama's campaign is all of two months old. That said, he has clearly described his approach to governing and life in general in two very good books. Edwards may have written more policy specifics in the four years he has effectively been running for president, but Obama speaks more to a hunger that a large portion of the electorate seems to feel. They're less interested in minutiae at this point. That may change as the campaign goes on, as will the detail in Obama's specific policy proposals.

Edwards has the opposite challenge. Having outlined specifics and converted much of he left-blogosphere, he needs to show that his message speaks to the general public beyond those who have supported him so far.

Either Edwards or Obama would stand a far better chance of winning the general election than Hillary, especially if the Republican nominee is Giuliani.

Gore ran on a very center-right platform in 2000. Nothing resembling universal health care, balanced budgets, free trade...

He "lost" because of Clinton fatigue, and because he was a beltway insider.

RM, I don't think the Poor Guy / Strong Economy contrast works the way it used to before welfare reform. Now that that's out of the way -- and perhaps especially post-Katrina -- demonstrating your strong moral convictions as an advocate for the poor will work better than it did before.

I'd also add that given the public preference for populist-seeming candidates over technocratic-seeming candidates, I'd want my candidate to be infused with as much red-blooded populism as possible. If talking about poverty is the most efficient way to carry populist fire, all the better.

"I don't think it has anything to do with hubris. Both Obama and Clinton have made the strategic calculation that they can't offer anything tangible to the base and still win the general election."

What? For Clinton, I can buy this argument. Obama? No way. By far the biggest threat to his campaign is the "empty suit" counter-narrative that's been developing. He'd be a fool to try to triangulate or talk his way to the nomination... it's impossible.

It's obvious the real reason that Obama doesn't have a universal health care plan, for example, is that he hasn't finished developing it yet. It's equally obvious that he'll have one sometime within the next few months. And lots more plans in the pipeline as well.

Fascinating thread, even for someone who would never vote for Edwards (but could conceivably vote for Hillary or Obama). One point that kind of got obscured above is whether Edwards is attempting to appeal to "moderates" or to "working class". The two are not necessarily the same thing. Neil posted some polling on Edwards' appeal to moderates/independents. But is there any polling on who of the primary candidates appeals to the working class? That, I'd be interest in.

Al would vote for Hillary? Can this be the real Al?

The type of liberal, help-the-poor populism hasn't really been shown to resonate with voters in the past few decades, which is why they have tended to vote against their economic interests while real wages have stagnated. (...) Someone can help the poor a lot more when they don't run as the poor people's candidate unless we are in the middle of a huge, worldwide depression, as we were in 1932.

That second statement sounds more like what appeals to you rather than political science (which is fine, of course). I still think you are confusing two different times. The late 90s and now are rather different. No, there is no Great Depression, but the ordinary voter is pretty well aware by now that the 'system' is rigged and that they are getting chiseled, that we've been in a time of excess, etc. which is at least akin to the post-20s era. I don't know if you've noticed, but the GOP steamroller is running out of steam. An era (your 'last couple decades') is ending. Most of Edwards' rhetoric is about work and working people, including but not limited to poor working people. You think appealing to people who work and running against Washington will be unpopular? Au contraire, mon frere.

My father-in-law likes Edwards quite a bit, and he's as working class as you get. When he hears Edwards talk in that Southern drawl about the value of work and rewarding work, not just wealth, he absolutely loves it.

Al would vote for Hillary? Can this be the real Al?

I already did vote for Hillary once - last year. In fact, she was the only non-Republican I voted for. Having a woman President is not quite as important to me as having a black President, but it is still something I'd have to consider.

Al, for future reference, to pull the "oh I might vote for Hillary or Obama, but never that dastardly Communist Edwards" troll card, you need to be able to make people plausibly believe that you might, in fact, vote for Hillary or Obama. You have, on the other hand, established that you shamelessly whore for the Republicans. Come on now, for what they pay you they deserve better than this.

Famously, most everyone in this country thinks of themselves as 'middle class', which means, since not everyone actually *is* middle class, that 'middle class' is a state of mind. The GOP has used that to advantage in recent years, but it can work the other way, too. And 'work' is just as sacrosanct a concept as 'middle class' - everybody believes in 'hard work' (even Bush pays lipservice!). So we're all middle class and all workers.

. I'd suggest that 2008 more closely resembles 1932 or '36 (post '20s) than 2k

If you honestly believe that, you're a complete loon. The Great Depression was, by a lot, the worst thing to happen to the US in the last century. The Iraq War is much more like WWII than today is like the Great Depression.

Having a woman President is not quite as important to me as having a black President, but it is still something I'd have to consider.

Allow me to translate: "If there's either a woman or a black man in the White House in '09, I believe my strong Southern brothers will rise up and liberate America, making it, once again, the beacon to humanity it was only 150 years ago."

Edwards has good numbers and great organization in the early states. As of early April, he was ahead there...and he has been, off and on, for months:

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/ia/iowa_democratic_caucus-208.html

If Edwards can take Iowa, things could happen awfully quickly. He's only behind Obama by 2 points in New Hamphshire, pulling a solid 20%:

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/ia/iowa_democratic_caucus-208.html

I'm not sure what his numbers are like in South Carolina, but I assume wins in Iowa and New Hampshire would play well in southern states.

Obama, Edwards & Hillary are fine Vice-Presidential timbre, nothing more. i pray there's someone w more substance and experience waiting in the wings. (why oh why does the Dem Party put out as its front-runners 2 candidates who -- purely as a type, nothing personal u understand -- have never held the highest office in the US, namely: a woman and an african-american. recall BIll Clinton's cabinet: a more under-achieving bunch you couldnt find, but they "looked like America".

I'd suggest that 2008 more closely resembles 1932 or '36 (post '20s) than 2k

If you honestly believe that, you're a complete loon. The Great Depression was, by a lot, the worst thing to happen to the US in the last century. The Iraq War is much more like WWII than today is like the Great Depression.

Do you know what the words 'more closely resembles' mean? You are trying pretty hard to miss my point, which has less to do with the Depression than with the similarities between the 1920s and the 1990s-2000s. I didn't think I'd have to spell that out, but I guess so.

"Al, for future reference, to pull the "oh I might vote for Hillary or Obama, but never that dastardly Communist Edwards" troll card..."

I believe Al is quite serious. And quite correct.

Al is a high information political type who is a strong Republican Party partisan. He thinks the right has better solutions for the nation's problems than the left. He recognizes that President Edwards is far more likely to move the political direction of the nation to the left than his competitors, and thus he quite rationally opposes Edwards.

As an Edwards supporter, I proudly accept his dis-endorsement on behalf of all progressives.

"Gore ran as an Edwards-style populist agains the worst GOP nominee since Herbet Hoover and still lost (or came too close to losing, depending on how you cut it) when he could have embraced the Clinton legacy and won. Gore should have been able to blow Bush out of the water to the point Florida wouldn't have even mattered."

This is nonsense. No Dem has received more than 50% of the vote since, well, for all intents and purposes, forever. Gore did not run a bad campaign.

BTW, I think Edwards is, at this point, unbeatable in a general election. But I'm still undecided, all of the (real) Dem candidates are allgood with me. Eyes on the prize people.

"Edwards is wooing an audience that includes big parts of the netroots -- Dem early adopters. He's not doing this in order to win DKos straw polls, he's doing it to establish support in Iowa and New Hampshire"

I think it's even more than that.

Check out a current piece of news like Mario Cuomo saying nice things about Edwards.

In his original post, Matthew noted that Edwards only had real support among "highly educated upscale" voters in the 2004 primaries. I think this is not due to reasons of class, but instead because "highly educated upscale" voters tracks almost perfectly with "high information" voters.

And low information Dem primary voters rely heavily on "vouchers" to make their choice.

It's why a classically "wine track" candidate like Al Gore could be the "beer track" candidate in the 2000 primaries. Low information voters were able to read that he was the party loyalist choice, and they followed.

The early adopter support Edwards has time around will force low information voters to look more closely at him, and thus they will have far greater exposure to the various facets of his core message than they did in 2004.

"The early adopter support Edwards has time around will force low information voters to look more closely at him, and thus they will have far greater exposure to the various facets of his core message than they did in 2004."

In 2003, Howard Dean had all the early adopter support. This did indeed force low information voters to look closely at him, which is why he was able to lead national polls at points during late 2003.

However, low information voters didn't like Dean's persona and core message once they'd looked at him, and thus he fell into the hole of being a "wine track" candidate. I think Edwards' persona and core message will resonate far better among "beer track" voters than Dean's, and thus he has a much better opportunity to leverage early adopter support into a nominatable base of support.

No one in Iowa is low information. Iowa killed Dean. He never got a chance to play for low informed voters.

"No one in Iowa is low information. Iowa killed Dean. He never got a chance to play for low informed voters."

Hmmm... Many Iowa voters were low information months before the caucuses, and that's why Dean led Iowa at times. His early adopter support had given him an early shine among low information voters.

But, yes, you are entirely correct on the larger point that the early states have many more high information voters due to the intensity of the campaign. And that's why Edwards is doing better in the early states than he is nationally. His support still tends toward high information voters. But he's got a real chance to use his big support among early adopters to vouch for him to low information voters and get them to look at him seriously.

Edwards's support among the netroots outpaces his support among the general population for a simple reason: the general population hasn't tuned in yet. When they do, they'll know what most of us know, that's he's both the most progressive and the most electable of the BIg three. He'll win Iowa, and then Dems around the country will think, why the hell not? As for this nonsense about Edwards not appealing to the white working class....He's crushing both Clinton and, more interestingly, Obama across the Midwest because of the support of white working class voters who are attracted to his populism.

If Edwards loses, and I don't think he will, it'll be because he doesn't get enough support from black voters.

Actually, I shouldn't flatter netroots people for undestanding of what's going on; as this thread shows, most don't. They still think Edwards is the Edwards of 2004.

How can someone as smart as Ygelesias be such a godawful political analyst?

I have to say I am surprised at the campaign Clinton is running and it makes me feel she knows something I do not know. If I were in her shoes, with the heightened partisanship of the country, and the impatience among Dems for a candidate who will stand and fight, I would have expected her with her very solid (too solid) centrist credentials to run to the left; the Republicans in ANY case will crucify her as a liberal; so it really is a primary strategy. She has lost a tremendous amount of support on the left; yet she continues to make incomprehensible noises about residual troops in Iraq which no one can understand (how they would avoid getting involved with a civil war and doubtless atrocities that will force them into the fray, I haven't a clue and neither does she). It is the wrong policy at the wrong time. I don't understand it as policy; i think it is a disaster as a campaign strategy. Any way it bodes what I want: Clinton's rejection by the Dems. (I think she is perhaps the weakest candidate to fact the Republicans ...any of Edwards, Obama, Richardson would be a stronger candidate in my opinion.

Just don't see it with Edwards. His biggest accomplishment is to admit making a mistake. He got trounced by Kerry in the '04 one-on-one debate and merely fought Cheney to a draw. He was ultimately a lackluster performer on the stump. He's been running for president for almost as long as he was in elected office. He has substantive positions as a result of running for president since '03. His liberal positions are transparently attempts to woo the netroots. (What did he lose with the Fox debates? Why is it considered brave to call for a tax increase when it's the exact one that just about everyone in '04 said was necessary?) Like Hillary, he's the less-impressive spouse.

All right, I'm playing the devil's advocate. But it's not all bollocks.

I wonder if Edwards can maintain his appeal to the working class after stories like this

http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/04/17/edwards.hair.ap/index.html

and this

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2AE847UXu3Q

So far the evidence for Edwards' moderate appeal seems to be:

1) Edwards' supporters say so, over and over.
2) Before the second place runner was in the race (months ago), Edwards polled better amongst moderates and Republicans than Hillary Clinton, a legendarily polarizing figure.
3) He provides a lot of substantively leftist policy proscriptions (so say his supporters), but those "low information" voters won't find out.

Wow, that's pretty impressive.

Meanwhile,

We have a failed presidential run, an unimpressive Senatorial career, and a generally uninspiring vice-presidential campaign.

I don't know how anyone could fail to be convinced by that resume.

I have been reading MyDD, Ezra Klein, and similar blogs for years now, and I have never been presented with a remotely convincing positive case for Edwards.

And that explains why Edwards supporters are so brutal towards Obama. I must admit that I have been fairly disappointed by how the netroots has behaved in the last few months.

All right, I'm playing the devil's advocate. But it's not all bollocks.

But it's mostly bollocks.

"And that explains why Edwards supporters are so brutal towards Obama."

Strange. I don't think most Edwards supporters are interested in denying the existence of Obama's appeal in the way many Obama supporters want to deny the existence of Edwards' appeal - much as you just did.

I don't have a problem with Obama. If Edwards weren't running, I'd likely be supporting Obama. And I don't support Edwards because of various canards I could come up with Obama - I support Edwards because I like Edwards.

Frankly, I can never figure out if Obama supporters act that way because of something endemic to the Obama candidacy, or if it's just because they're inexperienced about politics. I suspect the latter, but I'm not sure if it's something I haven't figured out yet about the former.

I wasn't surprised by Edwards strong showing. both Kos and mydd for the past 2 weeks have been having an Edwards lovefest going.
They have decided to declare him a Saint. perfect and can do no wrong.
On the other hand, they have both decided to thrash Obama on a daily basis. they spin and spin anything, even nothing, in an anti obama frame.
this sudden promoting of Edwards, turning their blogs into basically blogs dedicated to St. Edwards, I believe is due to resentment over Obama's strong fundraising and steadily cutting into Hillary's lead in the polling while Edwards is always a distant 3rd.

I have to say that I agree with one of the posts that stated the netroots love stroking and attention. They do not think that maybe, not is but, maybe, Edwards is playing a populist role. He was right of center until the 04 defeat. A year later he emerges as the great populist hope and the netroots sucked it up like nectar. They never delved into why this sudden image change.
It also fits into their nostalgia for another Dean. They are not much different from the right in this. The right dreams of another reagan (hence Thompson) and the netroots dreams of another Dean (hence Edwards).

"turning their blogs into basically blogs dedicated to St. Edwards, I believe is due to resentment over Obama's strong fundraising"

Why on earth would you think Obama's strong fundraising would make them resent Obama? The lure of net-based fundraising dollars is precisely why I've though Markos and Jerome would end up in the Obama camp.

I'm unclear on what you think the motivation for the supposed conspiracy is.

Do you think they're manipulating their straw polls too?

"I don't think most Edwards supporters are interested in denying the existence of Obama's appeal in the way many Obama supporters want to deny the existence of Edwards' appeal"

And thanks to vwcat for proving my point immediately after I posted the above.

Folks don't support Edwards because they might possibly like various things about Edwards, instead they support him because they delude themselves out of nostalgia, and because they get deluded by Edwards due to their stupidity.

O....K....

Edwards popularity amongst the nutroots is unsurprising. Not blessed with much in the way of mental acuity theyve fallen hook line and sinker for edwards patently insincere leftward turn. An obviously cynical response to obama supplanting him as the pleasantly vague guy and something I would expect him to backtrack furiously from were he to win the nomination.

I like Edwards because I'm sick of the Republicans ruining this country and he has the charisma to win. Elite liberals tend to ignore charisma because we don't care about it; I frankly don't give a rat's bottom if the president is a fun guy to go drinking with and would love to see a nerd president. But the rest of the country doesn't agree with me, and they elect the president, so I want Mr. Personality to get rid of the Republicans. Edwards is good-looking and a good communicator, and he's on my side of the fence.

> I have to say that I agree with one of the posts
> that stated the netroots love stroking and attention.

Could you explain to me what exactly "stroking and attention" mean? Is is the same thing as "thinks it has a good perspective on US politics today, and is working hard to have a strong voice in the future of the US"? Or does it mean something else?

Cranky

Obama's caution, vagueness, and moderation have turned off the netroots. As they should have. Bowers, Kos, Stoller, Armstrong et al aren't perfect, but I'm willing to trust that they've said (a few) nice things about Edwards for reasons other than their own vanity. It's amazing how much Obama supporters, their guy having fallen out of favor here, are sounding like centrist critics of the netroots. And I think it's great that Edwards is wooing the netroots. Better that than Obama's decision to woo establishement centrists. You might not be impressed that bloggers have praised Edwards. Well, I'm really not impressed that Obama has gotten love from Andrew Sullivan, Joe Klein, Marty Peretz, David Brooks, and Thomas Friedman.

I have been reading MyDD, Ezra Klein, and similar blogs for years now, and I have never been presented with a remotely convincing positive case for Edwards.

Damn, thank you, Patrick. (To be fair, I wouldn't say there's been no positive case for him, nor even irrational opposition to Obama, just not enough to warrant the enthusiasm for Edwards.) The Edwards hype has been slightly annoying until recently, when it became extremely annoying. Acting like he's bulletproof in the general a year before the primaries? WTF? Neil, Petey, and everyone else who assumes that any Hillary supporter is just like Al, you're too emotionally invested in this. No good will come of de facto endorsements this early.

Besides, if Obama wins the primary, we'll all get whiplash from watching you.

Could you explain to me what exactly "stroking and attention" mean? Is is the same thing as "thinks it has a good perspective on US politics today, and is working hard to have a strong voice in the future of the US"? Or does it mean something else?

How about hiring Amanda Marcotte and Melissa McEwan? Not to reignite that flame war, but either there was no grand design by the Edwards campaign in that snafu at all, or they were saying "we looove the netroots."

"Besides, if Obama wins the primary, we'll all get whiplash from watching you."

Of course. If Obama is the nominee, I'd be his biggest supporter. Same with Hillary, fergawdsakes. What's wrong with that? I'm a Democrat.

Wow. Hotline linked.

"Wow. Hotline linked."

Ambinder's take is quite reasonable. Worth a read.

All Democrats ought to be ecstatic if either Edwards or Obama gets nominated. I know I will be. I support Edwards because I think he's just the better candidate all around - he has a more integrated, developed rhetoric and program, is more experienced on the national campaign 'trail', and he's both ready and able to be as radical about some things as the times call for. But I can't think of anything to badmouth Obama for, and don't expect there to be anything in the future. I'm from Ilinois and already know Obama - sorry folks, notwithstanding all the hype, he's an excellent - outstanding - person and politician. I think it's early for a pres. run for him, but if he pulls off the nomination, great.

Armando linked too, making the utterly reasonable observation that Obama '08 = Edwards '04. Gotta be the Axelrod.

And I think it's great that Edwards is wooing the netroots. Better that than Obama's decision to woo establishement centrists. You might not be impressed that bloggers have praised Edwards. Well, I'm really not impressed that Obama has gotten love from Andrew Sullivan, Joe Klein, Marty Peretz, David Brooks, and Thomas Friedman.

Fair enough. Substantively, I happen to agree with you that pandering to a socially liberal middle class group is better than to a socially moderate-to-conservative upper class group. Snarkily, if they have to pander, of course they should pander to people like me!

But I happen to assume that's all it is. Barring actual promises made or deals brokered or whatever, I assume trying to appeal to one group or another is an electoral strategy, not a statement of heartfelt principles.

Also, if Obama is still this cautious, vague and moderate on the eve of the primary I might agree with you, but I won't hold it against him this early when there are so many possible reasons, some of which may even be good. (For what it's worth, the only time I've ever expressed a preference for 2008 candidates, I gave a wishy-washy answer like "either Edwards or Obama." It's the "which GOP candidate can beat Edwards? Nobody! LOL!" attitude I'm whining about, not Edwards himself.)

"Snarkily, if they have to pander, of course they should pander to people like me!"

FWIW, I don't give a good goddamn about whether a candidate is pandering to people like me or not.

In 2004, I didn't have much love for Dean, even though he was aiming right at people like me.

What I do care about is which candidate is most likely to be willing and able to take advantage of the current political moment and move the political center of the country clearly to the ideological left. And given what I care about, I think supporting Edwards is a bit of a no-brainer.

Your mileage may certainly vary.

I seem to have recalled reading that Edwards had commissioned to build and then moved into a 28,000 square foot house (about half the size of the White House). I think the netroots people are genuinely impressed that a populist (them vs. us) candidate would have that kind of chutzpah!
As I read the commentary from netroots and liberal bloggers generally, the only reason there seems to be any sympathy for Obama is because of his perceived electability.
I am sure that his claim to be putting forward a health care plan within a couple of months that will rival Edwards is just a gigantic con.

Whoa, this a sure a cynical site. Now I'm a skeptic. I will question people's motives, but I'm not God so all I've got a re people's actions to figure this out. The idea that Edwards is pandering to the netroots? Ludicrous. That means he's also pandering to poor people by creating a rural poverty program that includes bringing broadband to the rural communities like Roosevelt brought electricity. He's pandering to farmers by saying that we need to fight big agribusiness. He's also pandering to working people by joining picket lines and going against Wal-Mart. He's pandering to anti-war activists by demanding troop withdrawals now. He's pandering to anti-free market activists by demanding we lose fast track and protect our manufacturing base. Well, good lordy, and yeehaw! Somebody is finally pandering to the folks who people have forgotten. Somebody is finally pandering to those who have had no voice and are darn tired of being overlooked. And bull honkey to the guy who thinks Edwards doesn't appeal to real men. Standing up and preaching is not what we need out here in Montana and the West. We need to look under the hood. Edwards stands up to people who nobody else dares to. He also saw that the people are leading this parade. He's grabbed a sign and is marching with us. He's a brother. We get that out here even if the folks back in the swamp of D.C are still scratching their heads.

See what I mean? Still no substantive case for Edwards. Just bashing of Obama's "moderation, vagueness blah, blah blah."

I am willing to admit two things. One, there is a not crazy case to be made against Obama. I don't find it convincing, but it isn't crazy. Two, I don't have many problems with Edwards. If he is the nominee, then I won't be too upset.

BUT THAT ISN'T THE ISSUE.

Someone asked a question about why Edwards supporters feel he would appeal to moderate voters in the general. The response was:

1) An out of date, wrong context, utterly meaningless poll (notice that the question isn't which Democrats appeal to moderate the most, but who does better than Republicans on moderate voters).

2) He's southern.

3) Trust us.

Meanwhile, we have the fact he couldn't win his home state (couldn't even make it close). He had an uninspiring set of campaigns last time, and he has a lot of substantively left positions. Even the hiring of the Marcotte, while an interesting move for the blogroots, isn't something that was exactly designed to get moderates on board.

As I said before, that's very, very weak brew. I am not apriori against the case being made that Edwards will appeal to moderates. But if I am going to buy it, then someone better ACTUALLY make the case.

Just curious about the evidence that the voting public genuinely wants what Petey wants-- a move of the country to the "ideological left."
I am open to the argument, but see no evidence that that is the case--certainly not in the 2006 election results.
Were the country to come to believe (which I don't think they do now) that Edwards wants to take the country to the ideological left, I suspect that his poll numbers against Republicans would drop.

Just curious about the evidence that the voting public genuinely wants what Petey wants-- a move of the country to the "ideological left."
I am open to the argument, but see no evidence that that is the case--certainly not in the 2006 election results.
Were the country to come to believe (which I don't think they do now) that Edwards wants to take the country to the ideological left, I suspect that his poll numbers against Republicans would drop.

"which GOP candidate can beat Edwards? Nobody! LOL!"

Since I'm the guy who posted that on the Ezra blog a while ago, let me note that I've been backing it up with head-to-head polling data for quite a while now. According to Rasmussen today, "Former North Carolina Senator John Edwards (D) now leads all Republican hopefuls in Election 2008 polls."

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/Political%20Tracking/Presidential%20Match-Ups/April%202007/Edwardsvs.ThompsonGiuliani20070409.htm

When you have numbers like this, the attitude is entirely warranted.

Clinton is...smart, tough, street-wise, calculated, wonkish, worldly, ambitious, triangulating? All admirable qualities in my opinion!

In fact, Love it! LOVE IT! Thank you, I'll have another!

aaaaaa

aaaa

thank you good job

nice collection thanx

thank you very much

thank you good work

thank you very thanxx ;)

thank you good work nice ;)

thank you nice collection

super collection good work

thank you good job ;)

thank you matt

thanks matthenew you are numberone

thank you very much good job

thank you very very much

thank you very much

thank you nice work ;)

Thank you very much.

got to your blog using ccs tutorial, very nice resource.

got to your blog using ccs tutorial, very nice resource.

thanx

good job

t h a n k s .
drcetinerdotorg

Thanks
Best regards
mirc
mirç
mırc
mırç
mircturk
turkmirc
mirc indir
mirc yukle
mirch
mırch
mirc turk
turk mirc
mırcturk
turkmırc
mırc turk
turk mırc
forum
forum
turkforum
turkiyeforum
mirc
turkmirc
toplist
site ekle
pagerank
turkmirc
turkforum
sohbet
chat
sohbet odaları
bedava sohbet
bedava chat
türk
karar

seo yarışması thanks admin.
drcetinerdotorg

Thanks

thanks

In addition, his talents seem to begin and end with the ability to tell a good tear jerker.

What I do care about is which candidate is most likely to be willing and able to take advantage of the current political moment and move the political center of the country clearly to the ideological left. And given what I care about, I think supporting Edwards is a bit of a no-brainer..

thanks a lot

What about you, Tara? Did you give a talk at the YearlyKos thing

What about you, Tara? Did you give a talk at the YearlyKos thing....

thanks

thanks a lott.

thanks....

sex hayati bir tutkudur:P

thanks a lot, flovers.

thanks

thanks ok.

thanks a lot

thanks a lot

Thanks

Thanks

Thanks

Thanks

Thanks

Thanks

Thanks

thanks

thanks a lot...

wmwebtr ödüllü seo yarışması wmwebtr ödüllü seo yarışmasıwmwebtr ödüllü seo yarışması wmwebtr ödüllü seo yarışmasıwmwebtr ödüllü seo yarışması wmwebtr ödüllü seo yarışmasıwmwebtr ödüllü seo yarışması wmwebtr ödüllü seo yarışmasıwmwebtr ödüllü seo yarışması wmwebtr ödüllü seo yarışmasıwmwebtr ödüllü seo yarışması wmwebtr ödüllü seo yarışmasıwmwebtr ödüllü seo yarışması wmwebtr ödüllü seo yarışmasıwmwebtr ödüllü seo yarışması wmwebtr ödüllü seo yarışmasıwmwebtr ödüllü seo yarışması wmwebtr ödüllü seo yarışmasıwmwebtr ödüllü seo yarışması wmwebtr ödüllü seo yarışmasıwmwebtr ödüllü seo yarışması wmwebtr ödüllü seo yarışmasıwmwebtr ödüllü seo yarışması wmwebtr ödüllü seo yarışmasıwmwebtr ödüllü seo yarışması wmwebtr ödüllü seo yarışmasıwmwebtr ödüllü seo yarışması wmwebtr ödüllü seo yarışmasıwmwebtr ödüllü seo yarışması wmwebtr ödüllü seo yarışmasıwmwebtr ödüllü seo yarışması wmwebtr ödüllü seo yarışmasıwmwebtr ödüllü seo yarışması wmwebtr ödüllü seo yarışmasıwmwebtr ödüllü seo yarışması wmwebtr ödüllü seo yarışmasıwmwebtr ödüllü seo yarışması wmwebtr ödüllü seo yarışmasıwmwebtr ödüllü seo yarışması wmwebtr ödüllü seo yarışmasıwmwebtr ödüllü seo yarışması wmwebtr ödüllü seo yarışmasıwmwebtr ödüllü seo yarışması wmwebtr ödüllü seo yarışmasıwmwebtr ödüllü seo yarışması wmwebtr ödüllü seo yarışmasıwmwebtr ödüllü seo yarışması wmwebtr ödüllü seo yarışmasıwmwebtr ödüllü seo yarışması wmwebtr ödüllü seo yarışmasıwmwebtr ödüllü seo yarışması wmwebtr ödüllü seo yarışmasıwmwebtr ödüllü seo yarışması wmwebtr ödüllü seo yarışmasıwmwebtr ödüllü seo yarışması wmwebtr ödüllü seo yarışmasıwmwebtr ödüllü seo yarışması wmwebtr ödüllü seo yarışmasıwmwebtr ödüllü seo yarışması wmwebtr ödüllü seo yarışmasıwmwebtr ödüllü seo yarışması wmwebtr ödüllü seo yarışmasıwmwebtr ödüllü seo yarışması wmwebtr ödüllü seo yarışmasıwmwebtr ödüllü seo yarışması wmwebtr ödüllü seo yarışmasıwmwebtr ödüllü seo yarışması wmwebtr ödüllü seo yarışmasıwmwebtr ödüllü seo yarışması wmwebtr ödüllü seo yarışmasıwmwebtr ödüllü seo yarışması wmwebtr ödüllü seo yarışmasıwmwebtr ödüllü seo yarışması wmwebtr ödüllü seo yarışmasıwmwebtr ödüllü seo yarışması wmwebtr ödüllü seo yarışmasıwmwebtr ödüllü seo yarışması wmwebtr ödüllü seo yarışmasıwmwebtr ödüllü seo yarışması wmwebtr ödüllü seo yarışmasıwmwebtr ödüllü seo yarışması wmwebtr ödüllü seo yarışmasıwmwebtr ödüllü seo yarışması wmwebtr ödüllü seo yarışmasıwmwebtr ödüllü seo yarışması wmwebtr ödüllü seo yarışmasıwmwebtr ödüllü seo yarışması wmwebtr ödüllü seo yarışmasıwmwebtr ödüllü seo yarışması wmwebtr ödüllü seo yarışmasıwmwebtr ödüllü seo yarışması wmwebtr ödüllü seo yarışmasıwmwebtr ödüllü seo yarışması wmwebtr ödüllü seo yarışmasıwmwebtr ödüllü seo yarışması wmwebtr ödüllü seo yarışmasıwmwebtr ödüllü seo yarışması wmwebtr ödüllü seo yarışmasıwmwebtr ödüllü seo yarışması wmwebtr ödüllü seo yarışmasıwmwebtr ödüllü seo yarışması wmwebtr ödüllü seo yarışmasıwmwebtr ödüllü seo yarışması wmwebtr ödüllü seo yarışmasıwmwebtr ödüllü seo yarışması wmwebtr ödüllü seo yarışmasıwmwebtr ödüllü seo yarışması wmwebtr ödüllü seo yarışmasıwmwebtr ödüllü seo yarışması wmwebtr ödüllü seo yarışmasıwmwebtr ödüllü seo yarışması wmwebtr ödüllü seo yarışmasıwmwebtr ödüllü seo yarışması wmwebtr ödüllü seo yarışmasıwmwebtr ödüllü seo yarışması wmwebtr ödüllü seo yarışmasıwmwebtr ödüllü seo yarışması wmwebtr ödüllü seo yarışmasıwmwebtr ödüllü seo yarışması wmwebtr ödüllü seo yarışmasıwmwebtr ödüllü seo yarışması wmwebtr ödüllü seo yarışması wmwebtr ödüllü seo yarışmasıwmwebtr ödüllü seo yarışması wmwebtr ödüllü seo yarışmasıwmwebtr ödüllü seo yarışması wmwebtr ödüllü seo yarışmasıwmwebtr ödüllü seo yarışması wmwebtr ödüllü seo yarışmasıwmwebtr ödüllü seo yarışması wmwebtr ödüllü seo yarışmasıwmwebtr ödüllü seo yarışması wmwebtr ödüllü seo yarışması seo wmwebtr ödüllü seo yarışması wmwebtr ödüllü seo yarışmasıwmwebtr ödüllü seo yarışması wmwebtr ödüllü seo yarışmasıwmwebtr ödüllü seo yarışması wmwebtr ödüllü seo yarışmasıwmwebtr ödüllü seo yarışması wmwebtr ödüllü seo yarışmasıwmwebtr ödüllü seo yarışması wmwebtr ödüllü seo yarışmasıwmwebtr ödüllü seo yarışması wmwebtr ödüllü seo yarışmasıwmwebtr ödüllü seo yarışması wmwebtr ödüllü seo yarışmasıwmwebtr ödüllü seo yarışması wmwebtr ödüllü seo yarışmasıwmwebtr ödüllü seo yarışması wmwebtr ödüllü seo yarışmasıwmwebtr ödüllü seo yarışması wmwebtr ödüllü seo yarışmasıwmwebtr ödüllü seo yarışması wmwebtr ödüllü seo yarışması ödüllü seo yarışması wmwebtr ödüllü seo yarışması wmwebtr ödüllü seo yarışmasıwmwebtr ödüllü seo yarışması wmwebtr ödüllü seo yarışmasıwmwebtr ödüllü seo yarışması wmwebtr ödüllü seo yarışmasıwmwebtr ödüllü seo yarışması wmwebtr ödüllü seo yarışmasıwmwebtr ödüllü seo yarışması wmwebtr ödüllü seo yarışmasıwmwebtr ödüllü seo yarışması wmwebtr ödüllü seo yarışmasıwmwebtr ödüllü seo yarışması wmwebtr ödüllü seo yarışmasıwmwebtr ödüllü seo yarışması wmwebtr ödüllü seo yarışmasıwmwebtr ödüllü seo yarışması wmwebtr ödüllü seo yarışması wmwebtr wmwebtr ödüllü seo yarışması wmwebtr ödüllü seo yarışmasıwmwebtr ödüllü seo yarışması wmwebtr ödüllü seo yarışmasıwmwebtr ödüllü seo yarışması wmwebtr ödüllü seo yarışmasıwmwebtr ödüllü seo yarışması wmwebtr ödüllü seo yarışmasıwmwebtr ödüllü seo yarışması wmwebtr ödüllü seo yarışmasıwmwebtr ödüllü seo yarışması wmwebtr ödüllü seo yarışmasıwmwebtr ödüllü seo yarışması wmwebtr ödüllü seo yarışmasıwmwebtr ödüllü seo yarışması wmwebtr ödüllü seo yarışmasıwmwebtr ödüllü seo yarışması wmwebtr ödüllü seo yarışması seo wmwebtr ödüllü seo yarışması wmwebtr ödüllü seo yarışmasıwmwebtr ödüllü seo yarışması wmwebtr ödüllü seo yarışmasıwmwebtr ödüllü seo yarışması wmwebtr ödüllü seo yarışmasıwmwebtr ödüllü seo yarışması wmwebtr ödüllü seo yarışmasıwmwebtr ödüllü seo yarışması wmwebtr ödüllü seo yarışmasıwmwebtr ödüllü seo yarışması wmwebtr ödüllü seo yarışmasıwmwebtr ödüllü seo yarışması wmwebtr ödüllü seo yarışması