Stuck in the Middle With Illinois

Brian Beutler hails John Edwards' new line on electability:

I think most journalists would agree that I'm the most progressive, Senator Obama next, and Senator Clinton closest to the center. But I'd be willing to bet that if you ask most Americans the same question, they'd reverse it." That's not only, he says, because "she's a woman and he's an African American and Ah talk lahk thee-is. It's simple geography. Ask Middle Americans: You've got three Democratic candidates. One's from New York, one's from Chicago and one's from rural North Carolina. Who do you think is most like you?

I think we all can see what Edwards is driving at here, but in the real world Hillary Clinton grew up in the suburban midwest before moving to Arkansas. Barack Obama was born in Kansas and Chicago is actually in the middle of the country, whereas North Carolina is on the coasts. Maybe a better way of putting it is that Clinton and Obama both kind of sound like people who went to really, really, really good law schools where they learned to make arguments designed to sound good to other lawyers, whereas Edwards went to a less-good law school where they teach you to make arguments designed to sound good to juries.

Comments

Huh? UNC is an excellent law school.

Posted by Will | August 31, 2007 12:11 PM

School snobbery. We don't have enough of it.

Posted by Jeffrey Davis | August 31, 2007 12:14 PM

Actually, Obama was born in Hawaii. His mother was though, IRC.

Posted by Ken P | August 31, 2007 12:14 PM

Actually, Obama was born in Hawaii. His mother was from Kansas, IRC.

Posted by Ken P | August 31, 2007 12:15 PM

Or maybe it makes sense to recognize that no small part of dissatisfaction with the Republican Party is dissatisfaction with the Southernization of the Republican Party. Might not want to push the regionalism too hard. HRC and Obama are much more like me than some rural Southerner.

Posted by SomeCallMeTim | August 31, 2007 12:17 PM

If a politician says he should be supported because "Ah talk lahk thee-is", is it ok for us to hit him in the head with a hammer?

Posted by Jim W | August 31, 2007 12:18 PM

Damn Ivy Leaguers. Even when they try to make sarcastic, self-effacing jokes about their schools they still sound like insufferable elitists.

Posted by LaFollette Progressive | August 31, 2007 12:19 PM

I think the suggestion that UNC is inferior to Harvard and Yale in any real sense says more about how out of touch Ivy-educated pundits can be than it says about Edwards. It's not like he went to the University of Southern North Dakota at Hoople or something. UNC alums are just as likely to work at corporate firms as Ivy alums (perhaps not as likely to work at AmLaw top tens, but there are plenty of other excellent firms that do the same caliber of work).

I don’t support Edwards, but he has a point. He doesn’t sound like a snob. Hillary does. That’s an issue in an election, particularly outside of NY, SF and LA.

Posted by Brian | August 31, 2007 12:24 PM

That's some nice reverse-elitism from Edwards, saying Obama's from "Chicago" and not "Illinois." Illinois is not an icky, unrelatable liberal state. Ronald Reagan was born there. Chronicles is published there. Dennis Hastert and Henry Hyde came from the Chicagoland suburbs. Barack Obama moved there after being educated in New York and Massachusetts. He ran 20 points ahead of Kerry/Edwards in the state when he ran for Senate. (Yes, fine, he was running against Alan Keyes.)

But Edwards wants to make Obama seem like an elitist, so he says "Chicago." It's not much different than when Dick Armey jokes about Boston not being park of America.

Posted by Dave Weigel | August 31, 2007 12:24 PM

How come the less-good law schools teach lawyers more useful skills than the really, really, really good law schools?

(Did you really need three really's there, Harvard?)

Posted by Dan | August 31, 2007 12:25 PM

Or maybe it makes sense to recognize that no small part of dissatisfaction with the Republican Party is dissatisfaction with the Southernization of the Republican Party.

Project much? I don't like southern conservatives either, but I'm not so foolish as to believe the rest of the country has suddenly overcome the stereotype that southern and western Americans are more "authentic" than northeasterners and west coast residents are. Disenchantment with the GOP over the last several years has stemmed from the war, and to a lesser extent a rejection of the party's right-wing economic agenda. Rejection of southernness has nothing to do with it.

HRC and Obama are much more like me than some rural Southerner.

If you honestly believe this, I suggest you don't much about Clinton or Obama.

Posted by Christmas | August 31, 2007 12:26 PM

North Carolina is on the coasts

I think "the coasts" doesn't really include anything between Washington DC and Fort Lauderdale.

Posted by Al | August 31, 2007 12:27 PM

If a politician says he should be supported because "Ah talk lahk thee-is", is it ok for us to hit him in the head with a hammer?

That's not why he's saying we should support him. He's saying that he's perceived to be the most centrist candidate, while at the same time he's actually the most progressive. Unless I'm very much mistaken, this is precisely the argument Yglesias used to argue for Edwards in the past, before he jumped onto the Obama bandwagon (and the inverse of the argument Yglesias uses to argue against Clinton: that she's the most right-leaning candidate, but is perceived to be the most liberal).

Posted by Christmas | August 31, 2007 12:30 PM

t I'm not so foolish as to believe the rest of the country has suddenly overcome the stereotype that southern and western Americans are more "authentic" than northeasterners and west coast residents are.

Read around a bit. It's hardly only my explanation, or even only Democrats or unaffiliateds who believe it. And Illinois isn't on the coast.

If you honestly believe this, I suggest you don't much about Clinton or Obama.

Could be. Could be that we have different estimations of rural Southerners.

Posted by SomeCallMeTim | August 31, 2007 12:31 PM

Christmas,

Here's the excerpt from Beutler's post:

That's not only, he says, because "she's a woman and he's an African American and Ah talk lahk thee-is."

So, he's implying that one (albeit not the only) reason to support him is that he talks like Gomer Pyle, whereas Hillary is a woman and Obama is black.

Posted by Jim W | August 31, 2007 12:34 PM

You are a genius. You appeared to be making the point that Edwards is of the people and his chief rivals are not. You could have taken the easy way and written that he went to NC State and they went to Columbia and Wellsley. Instead, you proved that graduates of these elite schools can't even make a simple point without coming off as an elitist. Very subtle.

Posted by Peter Driscoll | August 31, 2007 12:37 PM

Let me clarify. Edwards isn't saying that this is directly why people should support him, but he is saying that it is why he is perceived by the rubes out there to be the most centrist, and therefore the most electable. Personally, I hate this identity-driven stuff.

Posted by Jim W | August 31, 2007 12:38 PM

That argument from Edwards would sound better had his presence on the 2004 ticket helped in any way. Also, if it weren't incredibly cynical. Edwards isn't more electable than Obama or Clinton because both Obama and Clinton (and Dodd) have substance over flash.

Posted by David B. | August 31, 2007 12:38 PM

"I think the suggestion that UNC is inferior to Harvard and Yale in any real sense says more about how out of touch Ivy-educated pundits can be than it says about Edwards."

wow. for all the terrible things unmoderated message boards like xoxo have yielded at least they've done sufficient damage to horrible opinions like the one above. yes, there are UNC grads who have done just as good as harvard and yale grads (judge sentelle (arguably one of the most powerful lower court judges) is a clear example). but this just doesn't not hold for most people who go to unc or similar schools. most will be unemployed and in deep debt because people like you keep propagating this bullshit about thin differences between law schools. the differences are stark to everyone who does not have a job. and that list does not include 98-99% of harvard and yale grads, while it will include at least 45% of UNC grads.

Posted by anon | August 31, 2007 12:42 PM

The context doesn't even seem to be mildly opaque. He is saying that the way he talks (or more realistically that he is associated with North Carolina) is the reason that he is perceived as being more conservative.

One could make an argument for voting for him in the primaries based on this. Something like, "progressives should want both a progressive candidate and an electable candidate. I happen to be the most progressive candidate so progressives should most want me to win. But because of the misperception about me, I also happen to be the most electable because I will bring in the most independent and moderate voters."

This argument may be accurate or not. But it does not seem to be one that merits a hammer to the head.

Posted by Lon | August 31, 2007 12:42 PM

The real problem with this argument is that no one's afraid of the Republican nominee at the moment. Most people assume the action's on the Dem side, and that whoever gets the nomination will be favored to win the '08 election.

The argument Edwards should be making is that what you care about is what happens after the election, when you're not paying attention, and that his values are more in tune with Democrats than those of the other two. OTOH, I think Obama should be making the same argument.

Posted by SomeCallMeTim | August 31, 2007 12:43 PM

They may have more substance over flash, but, based on what I have seen, their substance on the police state and war without end is nothing for a libertarian or liberal to like.

And as for what Edwards is saying being cynical, the fact of the matter is the whole discussion of "electability" is an exercise in cynicism, because you are by definition talking about perception over substance. Edwards hardly invented the topic.

Posted by Jeff in Texas | August 31, 2007 12:45 PM

So far, Edwards is the only candidate to come out in favor of the restoration of Constitutional government -- unlike, I might add, either Obama, or the Beltway's candidate, Hillary.

So, regardless of the law school Edwards went to, apparently he learned the right things there.

Posted by lambert strether | August 31, 2007 12:46 PM

Edwards may not have gone to an Ivy League law school, but of the three there's no question who has been the most successful lawyer.

Posted by Jose Padilla | August 31, 2007 12:47 PM

Correction: Dodd has raised this issue, too. I should have said "top tier" candidate.

Posted by lambert strether | August 31, 2007 12:48 PM

where they teach you to make arguments designed to sound good to juries.

Sounds like you've made Edward's electability argument while criticizing it. Jurors come from the voter rolls after all.

Posted by Lynn | August 31, 2007 12:48 PM

anon,

As others have pointed out, UNC is a very highly regarded law school. I can't imagine too many of its graduates are unemployed. Hell, I went to a much less well regarded place and yet seem to have kept a roof over my head for a couple of decades.

I'm a big Edwards fan, but these kind of electability claims are not something I much like either. Say what you stand for -- don't do the horse race thing.

Posted by Klein's Tiny Left Nut | August 31, 2007 12:51 PM

Where the hell is Petey? Him missing this is tragic.

Posted by nolaboyd | August 31, 2007 12:54 PM

I think Yglesias is dicking around on the law school thing. He's pretty well located to realize that UNC is an excellent school, and likely to have an excellent law school.

Posted by SomeCallMeTim | August 31, 2007 12:54 PM

Anything Edwards says these days is suspect -- his populist rhetoric is all opportunistic posturing to suck left-leaning voters from the proven reformer in this campaign, Barack Obama. Even if cynical political observers accept that this steal and switch tactic is within fair boundaries, Edwards has gone much further into sleazy territory by using the issues of race to distinguish himself as the ony "electable" candidate. Edwards is now actively courting the "rural" vote -- uneducated downscale white males, i.e code for folks that would vote republican before they would ever vote for a black (or Hillary.) There are many statements that both he and Elizabeth have made including today's pronouncement which reveal who they truly are -- people who are not above whipping up racist undercurrants to further John's bid for power.

Regarding his policies, Edwards pushed the same two-americas agenda in the last election when he was the centrist DLC's golden boy -- just the presentation has changed to shore up the left and knock out Obama. Hillary is the public face of the democratic establishment this time. So, what is really going on here?

I think Edwards figured out early that he can't go anywhere with Obama in the race. I agree with Ambers on this and I think Edwards and Hillary have cooked up a backroom deal to work in concert to squeeze out Obama -- Edwards from the left and Hillary from the right. Its works to advance both of them. Hillary and Edwards are old allies -- just picture that video clip of them huddled together at the democratic debate. All his apparent picking on Hillary is superficial. Obama is the real target -- the biggest threat to entrenched power.

Posted by donna | August 31, 2007 12:54 PM

It's not like he went to the University of Southern North Dakota at Hoople or something.

Well, really--it's not like anyone goes to USNDH to study anything other than musicolology.

Posted by James Gary | August 31, 2007 12:55 PM

"but this just doesn't not hold for most people who go to unc or similar schools. most will be unemployed and in deep debt because people like you keep propagating this bullshit about thin differences between law schools"

So, you are saying that about half of UNC law grads will be unemployed? Are you fucking kidding? Go look up some statistics on that and please report back.

As for the thin differences between law schools, the fact is that once you are talking about the top 50 schools, the differences in quality of the education itself are minimal. The difference in reputation is staggering, and reputation becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy. I have worked with or supervised summer clerks from law schools all over the country, and some of the least capable clerks (and the poorest writers, for some reason) have come from Harvard and Yale. But those kids were VERY smart, and had the sort of academic backgrounds to get into schools like Harvard and Yale. It does not mean the actual education they are getting is practically speaking worth a damn, and it does not mean they will not get their asses handed to them by a Texas Tech grad, or a UNC grad (not to equate the reputations of those two schools, because UNC's is much better).

Posted by Jeff in Texas | August 31, 2007 1:01 PM

To reiterate what someone said above, there's absolutely do ambiguity in terms of who is the best lawyer. Judged in terms of legal talent and career performance, Edwards >>> Clinton > Obama.

Posted by dry_fish | August 31, 2007 1:03 PM

What the candidates were taught law school and the quality of their instructors was likely almost identical.

If Edwards knows how to talk to middle American jury pools its because he spent his career trying to persuade them. The post-JD careers of Obama and Clinton are very different and you're probably right that they are used to trying to persuade a different class of people and that that might affect their relative skill on the campaign trail.

But where they went to law school is irrelevant, except to the extent that those degrees offered different career opportunities.

Posted by Joseph Hovsep | August 31, 2007 1:04 PM

Judged in terms of legal talent and career performance, Edwards >>> Clinton > Obama.

Sweet. I'm totally supporting Edwards for county prosecutor. When does the election for Nfong's old job come up?

Posted by SomeCallMeTim | August 31, 2007 1:06 PM

Aside from being an excellent school, UNC Law does not "teach you to make arguments designed to sound good to juries." It's not part of the curriculum. In Edwards' day, the curricula at UNC and Harvard were almost identical; Yale was slightly different. Too bad they don't teach you to make arguments designed to sound good to blog readers at Harvard.

Posted by old guy | August 31, 2007 1:11 PM

Edwards is the least electable of the three because he will be the easiest for the right wing noise machine to smear. He's so incredibly unprofessional and politically untalented that he's been reeling from stuff like the $400 haircuts and now this take-my-SUV-please schtick all year long, without any real effort on the part of the right wing to attack him. He doesn't even need any help from the right wing to be painted as a hypocritical, elitist phony. Not saying that's true, or that that's abnormal, but that's the lens through which he's going to be filtered from now on, and genuflecting on the wonders of his health care plan isn't going to change the fact that he is awful at presenting a coherent public image (populist with a huge mansion?) and he's a terribly overrated debater and speaker, at least in my opinion. He's out.

Posted by Lev | August 31, 2007 1:12 PM

Frankly, I'd be surprised if UNC Law School taught students how to make arguments for juries. Most law schools don't do very well in transmitting actual courtroom skills. Perhaps North Carolina is an exception, but if it is that would have nothing to do with its alleged status as a "less good law school" and a lot to do with having a commitment to actually teaching those skills. (I understand Georgetown is very solid in this area, notwithstanding the fact that it also has a good academic reputation.)

Most of the really good trial attorneys are naturals, and Edwards strikes me as very much one of those.

Posted by Colorado Luis | August 31, 2007 1:13 PM

What old guy said -- they don't teach you how to argue to juries in law school.

And handing some Ivy League clown his ass in a court room is something we third tier guys live for. (or is that "for which we third tier guys live.")

Posted by Klein's Tiny Left Nut | August 31, 2007 1:15 PM

Shorter Edwards: conservative southern whites are so stupid that they'll eat up my leftie rhetoric just because I can deliver it with a southern drawl.

Remind me again of why Democrats are so easily stereotyped as condescending elitists.

Posted by Ken P | August 31, 2007 1:16 PM

> And Illinois isn't on the coast.

To the extent that Obama is "from" Illinois, he is from Chicago. And per my central Illinois relatives in voting for him they were balancing their utter disgust with Ryan (sex-scandal Ryan) on the one hand with the fact that Obama was "from Chicago" on the other. Note that Obama being black was only a small part of the negative side; it was being "from the city" that was the big minus. In the end they tipped over to Obama (at least so they say) due to his extensive involvement with his church; they figured that had to cancel out some of his Chicagoness.

Chicago is also a lot closer to New York or London culturally than it is anything else in the Midwest (at least the part of Chicago that gets national attention - not the south side / south region of course).

Cranky

Posted by Cranky Observer | August 31, 2007 1:17 PM

HRC and Obama are much more like me than some rural Southerner.

Not so fast there, Timbot. This UNC grad who spent his elementary school years in rural east NC is more like you than either Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama.

Posted by apostropher | August 31, 2007 1:21 PM

His school choice does mean that Edwards has less La Crosse watching experience than his rivals or Mr. Yglesias.

Posted by AJ | August 31, 2007 1:21 PM

People identify Bush with Texas despite the fact that he was born in Connecticut. Place of birth matters less in constructing political stereotypes than one's previous political office.

Posted by Neil the Ethical Werewolf | August 31, 2007 1:24 PM

Edwards was not just a 'good' lawyer, he was a stunningly accomplished lawyer, making his career on difficult and interesting cases, not just the run of the mill stuff. By the end of his career, well-regarded litigators at national firms were afraid to try anything against him.

Nothing against Hilary, but she was a successful corporate lawyer, nothing more nothing less. There are thousands like her out there practicing even as we speak. Obama's relatively brief career certainly would be called successful, but I'm not sure you'd really call that much attention to it as such.

As for the snobbery, I think given the recent run of things, we could stand a decade where Harvard and Yale grads were banned from public service. Note that I didn't say Ivy League, I said Harvard and Yale; I think we could use a lot more Columbia, Penn, Brown and Cornell grads in government (Princeton, Dartmouth grads would be allowed in, but would be have to serve a probationary period). Seriously, would we not have been better off in the last decade if this rule had been in place?

I think the stink (I mean really, a presidential election where 2 members of the same Yale secret society face off? Please ...) is limited to Yarvard. Must be something in the water.

Posted by drinkof | August 31, 2007 1:24 PM

More to the point, Edwards has a much more direct and earthy way of making his points than his rivals, which is likely to wear better in the general election. To my hear, Hillary always seems to be reading a script, while Obama wavers between lecturing and giving a commencement address.

Posted by AJ | August 31, 2007 1:28 PM

How abouÈ1

Posted by Maynard Handley | August 31, 2007 1:31 PM

UNC Law is an excellent law school. Ivy League elitists like Matt should give it a rest.

Sincerely,
NCProsecutor
(UNC Law grad)

PS -- UNC *does* have an excellent trial advocacy program.
PPS -- Anon, you are on crack if you think 45% of UNC Law grads are unemployed.
PPPS -- Hey Apo!

Posted by NCProsecutor | August 31, 2007 1:34 PM

UNC is one of the top law schools in the country. Beyond that, you're making the assumption that its the school that determines how smart (or how good a lawyer) someone is. For all we know Edwards could have gotten into Yale or Columbia but chose to go to a state school for the cheaper tuition.
In terms of career, from clerking for a federal judge to to retiring from the law in his 40's as a multimillionaire, he was a very successful attorney.

Granted a lot of personal injury lawyers don't have the grades or smarts to do something more prestigious, but Edwards didn't have to go into that field if he wanted to have classier clients. With his credentials and work ethic, he could have been an associate and made partner at any number of big law firms. Who knows, he might have even made it to the Walmart Board of Directors (without marrying the governor of Arkansas first).

The thing about the path his legal career took, he never had a conflict between defending powerful clients and his personal beliefs. In his new book the Trap, Daniel Brook profiles corporate attorneys who make their living defending horrible corporate clients (earning fees defending the use of slave labor, to give one example) and then salve their conscience by donating money to liberal candidates or causes. In that sense, Edwards (or Obama, who didn't have to be a community organizer) never had to apologize to himself for whom he was using his abilities to represent. And that's worth something.

Posted by beowulf | August 31, 2007 1:34 PM

Good trial lawyers are born, not made. I don't think it has much to do with the school they went to. Of course public speaking skills can be tought to a certain extent, but the best trial lawyers already have an innate advantage in charm and persuasion skills.

Posted by blah | August 31, 2007 1:40 PM

Not so fast there, Timbot. This UNC grad who spent his elementary school years in rural east NC is more like you than either Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama.

Fair point. But that you live in a very Blue part of the state now is not irrelevant, I think. And I don't think any of the candidates are significantly closer or farther from me, really, at some sort of personal level.

Posted by SomeCallMeTim | August 31, 2007 1:45 PM

"Some" people have no idea how stupid they actually are...and I doubt it is because of which school they went to...more likely it's genetics.

This dem obsession with the "South" is getting old to this dem...don't want Southern dems votes?...fine...fuck off. There is barely any difference in the dems and repubs on the issues that can tank this country anyway.

As for "schools"...my husband went to Duke, my cousin went to Yale, my older brother went to UNC, my two younger brothers both went to Harvard..and out of the whole mix one of the ones that went to Harvard is the biggest idiot in the family.

So much for the school crap.

Posted by Southerner | August 31, 2007 1:46 PM

I also think that Matt makes a false distinction between sounding good to other lawyers and sounding good to juries. Persuasion skills are largely transferrable and persuasive speakers are especially adept at adjusting their message to fit the audience. As a trial lawyer, Edwards had to persuade judges and opposing counsel all the time. And who is to say that Obama or Clinton couldn't have made good trial lawyers if they wanted to? (Well, Obama at least).

Posted by blah | August 31, 2007 1:47 PM

More to the point, who is actually saying Edwards is more electable? Anyone spouting that kind of foolishness must have forgot that Edwards already tried his act in the last national election. Nobody bought it then, and nobody's gonna buy it now.

Just because the guy has a twang doesn't mean "most like you." It just means he sounds the most like you. It says absolutely zero about substance, and sounds suspiciously like Edwards is begging the press to give him the George Bush treatment and pretend like he's regular folk when he's just another hopelessly rich lightweight. Except Bush wasn't a lightweight when it came to winning elections. Edwards can't even win his own state.

Mostly, Edwards seems like he felt the need to point out that he is a Southern man running against a woman from New York and a black man from Chicago. Like he's trying to play the gender card, the race card, and the "elite" card all at once.

What is the endgame for Edwards? Because he ain't winning the nomination, and nobody would be so foolish as to pick him as a running mate again after his pathetic and cowardly performance the last time, when he seemed to forget we expect VP nominees to actually fight to win. And he simply isn't qualified to run State, Defense or Treasury. Maybe Education is where he ends up.

Posted by TheCarpetmuncher | August 31, 2007 1:48 PM

"Really, really, really good" is in the eye of the beholder. When Ray Mabus was campaigning for governor in the Mississippi Delta, someone asked him where he'd gone to law school.

"Harvard," he replied.

"Aw, honey," drawled a little white-haired woman sympathetically, "wouldn't they let you into Ole Miss?"

Posted by peggy | August 31, 2007 1:52 PM

This dem obsession with the "South" is getting old to this dem.

Hey, me too! If we get Southern votes and Southern states, great. If not, fine. We'll try to do better next time around. But it's pretty clearly not the best pond for us to fish in, and it's certainly not the only one available.

Posted by SomeCallMeTim | August 31, 2007 1:55 PM

Of course this is right. I've had a half-dozen low-knowledge voters tell me they're worried about voting for Edwards over Hillary and/or Obama because he's too conservative.

Reality check, folks. Since 1965, a Southern Democrat running for President has only lost once--Jimmy Carter's second term. (Al Gore won the election). Midwestern Dems? Northeastern Dems? Name one who's won.

Even in New York, Hillary has more trouble getting elected than any other Democrat. In 2000, Gore won New York by 25 points, Hillary won by 12. She, Spitzer, and Schumer all ran against Republican sacrificial lambs, and she won by smaller margins than the other two. It's also worth noting is that her 2006 opponent was significantly more nutty than Spitzer's or Schumer's, and that Schumer's campaign was in the tougher 2004 cycle.

Posted by anonymous | August 31, 2007 2:02 PM

Shorter Edwards,

I'm a stealthy progressive candidate. I carry liberal views that will be difficult to peel away from my "aaaw Shucks" exterior.

I know progressives hate this stuff, but really, since at least Reagan, we've been having the crap beat out of us by this kind of stuff.

For the record;

Despise Clinton as a Republican-lite. But she does have Zombie-like followers, which is what you need in primaries.

Think Obama is overly ambitious and green...with no record, he's a crapshoot. He does look weird in some photos. He too does have Zombie-like followers.

Am lukewarm on Edwards, because he's not aggressive enough, though I like his policies best. Follows are...lukewarm...not good.

Like Dodd, but not a chance.

Kucinich, why do dweeb looking guys keep running for president? Adlie? Simon? Did I miss any...note to Kucinich, get memo.

Posted by S Brennan | August 31, 2007 2:02 PM

His school choice does mean that Edwards has less La Crosse watching experience than his rivals or Mr. Yglesias.

I thought LAX was a specifically Southeastern preppie thing. In New England, rich kids play hockey and it's a little frightening. In NYC where I grew up people play tennis or ski.

Posted by Matthew Yglesias | August 31, 2007 2:02 PM

More to the point, who is actually saying Edwards is more electable?

All the general election poll match-ups at the moment.

Posted by Christmas | August 31, 2007 2:04 PM

No, no, no! I am almost laughing out loud! As a Midwesterner born and bred for 29 years and a New Yorker for a couple of decades after that, I just gotta say---

You're ironically (double triple irony) looking at it through an elite East Coast filter with all your talk about law schools. Law school, schmal school. Nobody he's talking about knows (or cares if they do know about that crap,) that status game you've been playing in the northeast for a century or two, including most Californians I'd bet (many of the latter I know would roll their eyes behind the back of someone who bragged about an Ivy League education.)

He knows exactly! I am surprised at his astuteness on this. He's got his finger right on it: superficially, out of the gate, he's got the Southern populist image, which translates to most people as "blue dog" type or bubba, Hillary's a latte liberal (who married a bubba, but none of bubba rubbed off on her, she still thinks her shit doesn't stink,) and Obama the classic liberal kumbaya/MLK Jr. minority. I betcha anything this could be backed up with polls. It will change as people learn more about the candidates, but it's probably spot on right now.

Posted by artappraiser | August 31, 2007 2:12 PM

LAX was a popular sport when I was in grade school in southeastern Mass., which I assume isn't what you mean by "southeast". I was too young, and left too soon, to get a sense of whether it was a class-coded thing there; hockey certainly didn't seem that way to me at the time. My high school in San Francisco had a good lacrosse team, but and there it definitely seemed like a prep schools only type activity.

Posted by Quarterican | August 31, 2007 2:12 PM

P.S. That said, thanks for pointing that graph out! That was your inner Midwesterner talking when you caught it. :-)

Posted by artappraiser | August 31, 2007 2:14 PM

P.P.S.! The McMansion thing helps reinforce his bubbaness. Every bubba appreciates a nice McMansion. The haircut story does not.

Posted by artappraiser | August 31, 2007 2:18 PM

Matt,

You really ought to read Sen. Obama's autobiography, "Dreams from My Father."

Posted by Steve Sailer | August 31, 2007 2:19 PM

Is Edwards really a stealthy progressive candidate, or is this all a bunch of political positioning because the presence of Obama in the race has forced him to run hard to the left? Considering his DLCish record in the senate and his conversion on the road to Iowa regarding the Iraq war, I think that it is a fair question. In any case, I'm getting a little tired of this idea that only southern white men should be nominated by the Democrats forevermore. If we are going to call ourselves progressives with some degree of conviction, we shouldn't worry about pandering to the haters in this country who would probably be unwilling to vote for any Democrat, regardless of gender, racial or regional origins. Furthermore, considering how much Edwards did to help Kerry in the south in 2004, he's the last person who should be making this kind of argument. Really.

Posted by Ken P | August 31, 2007 2:22 PM

What old guy said -- they don't teach you how to argue to juries in law school.

There was an article a few years back by the dean of a law school that made the following observation (paraphrased):

"Why do I have to spend all this time after graduation learning the law? Isn't that what I spent 3 years and a bajillion dollars on law school for?"

"Oh, goodness, no. You went to law school to learn to think like a lawyer. Unless you attended an elite school like Harvard's, in which case you went to law school to learn to think like a medieval philosopher."

Anyway, I think there's still a kernel of truth in Mr. Edwards' observation that he's a "stealth" progressive. There are members of my family who are sufficiently uninspired by the current Republican field that they would probably stay home if Edwards, Biden, or Dodd were the nominee, but would leap into action to vote against that extreme leftist Hillary Clinton or that Muslim Obama. Now, I think that Senator Obama is actually also something of a "stealth" progressive, and would have a shot at soothing the concerns of all but the hardcore. But Senator Clinton will engender a firestorm of shrieking hatred. And for what gain? To manage at best to barely elect a hawkish moderate Republican under a Democratic label? Hooray.

Posted by mds | August 31, 2007 2:23 PM

Edwards is the most electable because racists and misogynists can become disgusted by Republican corruption, dishonesty and incompetence, but they won't vote for Clinton or Obama. It isn't a very satisfying or compelling concept, but I think it is accurate.

I think that any Democrat will win in 08 so electability isn't that big of a deal. Edwards would have the most coattails, Clinton or Obama would have better long-term party strengthening effects. It's all good.

Posted by Njorl | August 31, 2007 2:44 PM

My father was a Professor of Law at the University of North Carolina.

He earned his advanced law degree at NYU where he studied Philosophy of Law.

I used to see books by Plato, Aristotle and John Rawls on his desk.

Just for the record.

Posted by John Navin | August 31, 2007 2:45 PM

I think Yglesias is dicking around on the law school thing. He's pretty well located to realize that UNC is an excellent school, and likely to have an excellent law school. - SomeCallMeTim

I second that. MY doesn't sound like he's being an Ivy-League elitist here. I took his comment to actually be a slap at Ivy-League law schools that don't actually teach their students anything useful 'bout lawyerin' and also a slap at those who put too much stock in Ivy-League credentials (i.e. HRC, et al., getting good gigs based on their credentials when the schools involved actually do a less good job of teaching what needs to be taught).

Posted by DAS | August 31, 2007 2:55 PM

Honestly, this "only a Southerner can save the Democrats" nonsense is the number one reason I don't want to see Edwards win the election.

Posted by Jinchi | August 31, 2007 2:57 PM

When people repeat this "only a white southerner can save us" garbage, to my ears it is starting to sound a lot like "it's nothing personal Barack, but we need the racist vote, so go to the back of the bus, boy."

Posted by Ken P | August 31, 2007 3:18 PM

considering how much Edwards did to help Kerry

Now, wait. Tell me the last time a VP candidate did *anything* to help a presidential candidate. People don't vote for the vice-president.

Posted by apostropher | August 31, 2007 3:43 PM

North Carolina is on the "coasts"?

I suppose you could argue that the Outer Banks are on the coast of the Atlantic on one side and the coast of Pamlico Sound on the other, but I think the state is generally considered to be on just the Atlantic coast.

Unless Chapel Hill has opened a franchise in Monterey or something.

Posted by Cash | August 31, 2007 3:47 PM

Say what you stand for -- don't do the horse race thing.

Right, Adlai. Saying what you stand for and being realistic about politics are diametrically opposed, aren't they? We'll win again when the Moon is in the Seventh House; and Jupiter aligns with Mars...

The point is to define - ourselves - what 'progressive' means, what the baseline is. Right now the GOP defines the spectrum. That is the problem with HRC - her progressiveism is in the GOP/90s/early 00s context - and even the problem with Barack to some extent (although much less so). When majorities agree with your party's basic policies - healthcare reform, Iraq, taxes, etc. - but those positions are deemed 'too left' by the reigning context (as it were), change the context. That is the basic argument for Edwards: move the baseline left. It's imaginary, or more precisely, it's simply defined. Do most regular voters really think in terms of left and right if they aren't taught to? Do 'independents'? No. Quite sensibly, they couldn't care less - not really.

BTW, I'm perfectly OK with Obama (I like him a lot, actually) - the above is not a slam at him at all. But his approach is at least partially a reaction to the context we're in rather than a redefinition.

Posted by jonnybutter | August 31, 2007 3:49 PM

Jonnybutter,

I am not arguing against being realistic (although I am an Aquarius) in politics -- I am happy that Edwards is staking out a somewhat lefty postion on economics. What I was objecting to is the strange habit of candidates to characterize themselves as candidates -- I am a reformer with results for instance -- which to me always sounds stilted and inauthentic. In other words, better to simply BE the candidate with the twangy voice than talk about it.

Posted by Klein's Tiny Left Nut | August 31, 2007 3:58 PM

I am happy that Edwards is staking out a somewhat lefty postion on economics.

It's also a mainstream position.

What I was objecting to is the strange habit of candidates to characterize themselves as candidates -- I am a reformer with results for instance -- which to me always sounds stilted and inauthentic.

Well, I think Edwards had hoped that others might figure this out on their own (like MY did). Strange that it's not in the CW mix. It is awkward that Edwards has to point it out himself, but...this *is* the Democratic party, after all. Not very sharp when it comes to politics (which was my point above). Of course it's better for others to say it about you than to say it about yourself. It's no less true for Edwards' saying it, though.

Posted by jonnybutter | August 31, 2007 4:50 PM

MY doesn't sound like he's being an Ivy-League elitist here. I took his comment to actually be a slap at Ivy-League law schools that don't actually teach their students anything

Even then, it's still a deeply stupid claim. There just isn't an appreciable difference in the curricula of the law schools at Harvard, Yale or UNC, either now or at the times that Obama, Clinton and Edwards attended.

Posted by Gabriel | August 31, 2007 5:51 PM

One lawyer calling another lawyer elitist is exactly why Democrats have trouble appealing to regular people.

And the way people define "electable" as someone who fits a certain stereotype is absurd. Electable means you can win for real. Not win in some vacuum.

Edwards is a guy who left the Senate knowing if he ran again he was going to lose his seat. Running as Kerry's VP was all Edwards had going for him, and he seized that opportunity the way he should have.

But Edward's performance in that election was not something you bounce back from. Dick Cheney put Edwards in his place every bit as much as Lloyd Benson did to Dan Quayle. Being exposed as a lightweight like that is a fatal injury. And after getting knockd down by Cheney, Edwards simply gave up, and tanked it the rest of the way.

Edwards simply can't be trusted by Democrats to fight the hard fight. Which is what it's going to take for the Democrats to win this or any election. The Republicans are hurting, and have lost the country, but they will pull out all the stops to not lose the Presidency.

No candidate is going to sweep in just because the country is fed up with Bush. This is the very same attitude that cost Al Gore the election back in 2000, the whole "we can't lose" talk.

John Edwards would get crushed like a bug by Rudy. Politics wouldn't even be the issue anymore. It would become about personality, the way it has in every single election since Dick Nixon last sat in the Oval Office. And if it came to that, Edwards would get eaten alive.

You can't call a guy most "electable" when he has issues like Edwards does. You need to actually be able to win elections to be electable, and Edwards has shown he doesn't have the stomach for that.

Posted by The Carpetmuncher | August 31, 2007 6:58 PM

John Edwards would get crushed like a bug by Rudy.

Like I said, Democrats (assuming they're not concern trolls) are not what I'd call 'sharp' about politics.

Posted by jonnybutter | August 31, 2007 8:56 PM

> Adlai? Simon? Did I miss any?

Tsongas.
Nader.
Pat Paulsen.
Harold Stassen.

Posted by joel hanes | September 1, 2007 3:24 AM

I just wanted to point out that Yglesias does not explicitly compare UNC to Harvard or Yale. He says:

Maybe a better way of putting it is that Clinton and Obama both kind of sound like people who went to really, really, really good law schools where they learned to make arguments designed to sound good to other lawyers, whereas Edwards went to a less-good law school where they teach you to make arguments designed to sound good to juries.

He's talking about the way they sound, not about where they went to school. Hell, Edwards could have gone to Harvard, and the other two some community college in Buttfuck, Nebraska, it wouldn't invalidate his assertion. If MY is an Ivy League elitist, it doesn't really show here.

Posted by Gordon Lightfoot | September 1, 2007 4:17 AM

"Reality check, folks. Since 1965, a Southern Democrat running for President has only lost once--Jimmy Carter's second term. (Al Gore won the election). Midwestern Dems? Northeastern Dems? Name one who's won."

Humphrey, 1968 - Third choice after McCarthy fizzled out and RFK was killed and an unpopular president's VP.

McGovern, 1972 - Too far left for most people on defense and pissed off much of the party.

Mondale, 1984 - Promised to raise taxes.

Tell me how much of these losses had to do with these candidates being Midwestern? Being a Massachusetts liberal hurt Dukakis and Kerry, but these three candidates had baggage that was specific to them and their campaigns. The Midwest, Florida and Virginia are where we can pick up votes. Trying to hard in the South is likely a waste of time. Virginia is in play because it is becoming less and less culturally Southern and Florida was never really that Southern to begin with, having large Cuban, Puerto Rican and Jewish populations. The Midwest has less racial baggage than the South and would likely elect a black man or a woman if they liked their positions and their campaigns. Midwesterners take pride in Lincoln coming from Illinois and fighting on the right side of the Civil War and aren't the biggest fans of the Confederate flag. If you want to win the Midwest, go with a Midwesterner. That's the part of the so-called "Middle America" where progressive policies have traction. After all, Russ Feingold (who I hope is VP) is from Wisconsin.

Posted by Reality Man | September 1, 2007 9:56 AM

-- I'm so glad others stomped hard on your anti-UNC slur, so that I don't have to.
-- Chicago is on the North Coast. Any city that has oceangoing tankers is on the coast.
-- I wish Edwards and all other Dems would QUIT WITH THE PROCESS TALK. It does no one any good to share theories of what "voters out there, the ignorant masses" think -- just CAMPAIGN FOR THEIR VOTES.
-- That said, Edwards's analysis is exactly right. He is not talking about substance, he's correctly reading the optics of the three leading candidates for the general election. I am worried about Clinton's chances -- her (unfair, ridiculous, but still real) 90s baggage will resurface, and people will think she's "left-wing," and if she wins we get another conservative Dem. I like Obama a lot, but he's to the right of Edwards as far as I can tell. I think Edwards not only has the best chance, he has the best agenda. People will think he's a common-sense centrist, and when he wins we have a chance at saving the republic. I think Obama's chances to win depend on a surge in percentages of black voters -- which would be a great thing, and might happen, but it's a longer shot than Edwards.

Posted by rm | September 1, 2007 10:40 AM