Risky Business

Tom Schaller ponders John Edwards:

Edwards, IMHO, enters a crucial period between now and Halloween. He somehow needs to shake things up. He should take some chances -- —perhaps a junket to Afghanistan to remind Americans about our abandoned efforts there and that what’s-his-name who masterminded the September 11 attacks, or he might pair up now with a vice presidential running mate to earn some free media. There'’s not room in the Democratic primary for two Hillary-alternative candidates, and if Edwards wants to steal that mantle from the far better funded Barack Obama, now'’s the time for him bust some moves.

Honestly, this doesn't seem like brain surgery to me -- the chance-taking, things-shaking-upping position to take would be to join Bill Richardson in calling for a real withdrawal of American troops from Iraq. The fact that none of the main three candidates have engaged with each other on the Iraq issue and, instead, all seem to have combined to prevent efforts by Biden (from the right) and Richardson (from the left) to make this a big deal seems pretty weird to me.

Comments

Possibly this means that opposition to "real withdrawal" merits a second look.

Posted by SomeCallMeTim | September 4, 2007 1:28 PM

From my vantage point, the thing to do would be to say "Bill Richardson is right that we must have an end game in Iraq without residual forces. But six months is dangerously fast, both for American troops and for Iraq."

I still have yet to see Edwards come out and affirmatively say "we must keep X troops in Iraq" and he mentions only "protect the embassy" as a goal for those troops stationed in Iraq, which leads me to /think/ that he favors a smaller residual presence. But you're right, nothing's concrete.

People still aren't paying attention, though. I'd make the announcement a few days before the 1/6 debate in Johnson County.

Posted by Nicholas Beaudrot | September 4, 2007 1:33 PM

If Edwards really wanted to a) differentiate himself from his opponents, b) attract support from those beyond the leftwing of the DemParty, c) hit his opponents right where it most hurts them, d) do something good for the counry, and e) actually practise what he preaches he could come out in strong opposition to massive illegal activity and massive public and private corruption. So, why is there not a snowball's chance that he'd do that?

Gosh, maybe he is a fake after all.

Posted by TLB | September 4, 2007 1:40 PM

I still have yet to see Edwards come out and affirmatively say "we must keep X troops in Iraq" and he mentions only "protect the embassy" as a goal for those troops stationed in Iraq

Doesn't Richardson also call for leaving troops to protect the embassy? And given that the embassy is actually a permanent military base with a diplomatic gloss, isn't this a bit of an issue for Richardson's position? As far as I know, only Kucinich and Gravel have actually come out for removing every single American soldier from Iraq, so using Richardson as the standard-bearer for this message is misleading.

That said, I'm pretty sure Edwards's position includes missions broader than "protection of the embassy," which itself is problematic enough to entail a significant residual force.

Posted by Christmas | September 4, 2007 1:41 PM

I'm not sure Edwards has to do anything at all. According to Petey, his election is virtually a fait accompli.

Posted by Steve | September 4, 2007 2:01 PM

Because they don't actually want the war to end?

Posted by soullite | September 4, 2007 2:03 PM

pretty weird. Yes indeed. They have other constituents. Honestly, think for a while about why great policy doesn't happen. It is not just because leaders are stupid.

That is actually why Hillary's pitch about knowing the system is a dog whistle to me. None of this stuff is easy. She is smart enough to have learned from health care, and I think idealistic enough to still have seen it as a lesson in how to do better, not how to be. Whether she has cultivated contempt for the rest of us, I do not know.

Posted by doug | September 4, 2007 2:27 PM

In 2009, when the Democratic President is left with the Iraq War to deal with and eventually when that President pulls out and is declared a cut-'n-runner, the Democrats are going to be quite angry they didn't get us out of this mess before the 2008 election. Oh yes, and in additional to the political, it's the right moral and strategic thing to do. Get us out of Iraq as soon as logistically possible. And until one of Obama/Clinton/Edwards says as much, I'm pulling a protest vote for Richardson.

Posted by Mike | September 4, 2007 2:32 PM

I'm not so sure Edwards thinks he has to take a chance. He's ahead among Likely Caucus Goers in Iowa, and he saw in 2004 that John Kerry used Iowa to catapult himself to election. It doesn't mean it will happen this way, but I'm quite sure he feels that he's not as far behind as that.

Posted by Joel W | September 4, 2007 2:45 PM

Joel: the problem with the "Likely Caucus Goers" bit is that it implies lower turnout helps edwards, while the caucuses will almost certainly be high turnout.

Posted by Nicholas Beaudrot | September 4, 2007 3:03 PM

I was as disappointed as anyone when Edwards began spouting the 'residual force' b.s. But I took this recent statement on Iraq at his website (which has changed since I blogged it; bad form, Edwards campaign) to signify the discarding of that worthless line.
Am I wrong?

Iraq policy page:
http://www.johnedwards.com/issues/iraq/

As it was on Aug 29:
http://alovelypromise.blogspot.com/2007/08/this-is-more-like-it.html

Posted by Nell | September 4, 2007 3:25 PM

Nell: it's close, but it relies on some sleight-of-hand related to "combat troops". Do we still leave people around for training? Counterinsurgency? Peacekeeping? How many?

Posted by Nicholas Beaudrot | September 4, 2007 4:04 PM

[Edwards] somehow needs to shake things up. He should take some chances...

Hasn't this been the story of his entire campaign so far, though? It seems like Edwards keeps following a lot of the advice coming from the liberal blogs. He called the "surge" an "escalation" in December, got some kudos from the bloggers, and then everyone moved on. He's spoken at events for, and contributed money to labor, ACORN, anti-Wal-Mart groups, but it doesn't do him much good. He comes out with a universal health care plan, Ezra Klein gives it an A, everyone, including Ezra, moves on. He goes on an anti-poverty tour, comes up with lots of really good progressive issue papers, etc., and it doesn't make any difference.

Schaller and other liberal bloggers keep demanding instant gratification and act surprised when it doesn't materialize into support in the polls. Successful campaigns are based on raising obscene amounts of money, having good organizations in place in key states, and fitting the candidate's character, life story, and issues into a convincing, compelling, and coherent narrative.

That's what people like Matt Yglesias don't understand when they write that Hillary Clinton is vulnerable among primary voters because of her position on Iraq, that her early lead is all just name ID like Lieberman four years ago, and that she's gonna inevitably collapse. Her public narrative, organization, and money base have been in place for a long time, and she's cultivated a loyal base of public and private supporters who identify with and admire her image as a tough, pragmatic woman navigating and succeeding in a corrupt world.

That narrative predates anything the others have going for them. In the eyes of most of the public, Lieberman in '03 and Edwards in '07 are just last year's losing VP candidates, while Obama is a "nice young man", (a description I've heard a lot from middle-aged to senior Democrats) but not someone they particularly identify with.

Liberals who think that if only candidate X would endorse their stance on this week's cause celebre, they'd become the overnight front-runner, are deluding themselves.

Posted by Chris | September 4, 2007 6:33 PM

Americans are children who want to elect parents who'll give them candy. God forbid they should have to grow up and be adults themselves.

Hence the deep denial about just how bad things are in Iraq, the fact that a good outcome is no longer possible -- if it ever was, it was pissed into the sand long ago. What we have to choose from now is bad outcome, worse outcome, and catastrophic outcome.

Save us, save us, Uncle Rudy!

Or, hey, maybe we'll grow up this year.

-F.

Posted by Fingal | September 4, 2007 7:53 PM

What Chris said, above.

Which is also why I've been in a sporadic argument with Chris Bowers for most of the summer. He's got a fairly strong belief that Iowa and New Hampshire will change the landscape pretty dramatically, based on the average of a number of primary seasons over the past generation or so, and (IMHO, at least) based on the idea that the 2004 primary season was fairly normative for the Democrats.

I see 2004 as pretty atypical, with 2008 almost at the far extreme (from 2004) of a norm exemplified by 1984, 1992, and 2000. We've got a leader who's well-known, well-funded, and who a lot of people believe in. She can afford to lose not just Iowa, but three or four early primaries before starting to win. If Edwards won the first four in a row, it would give him a slight edge going into Feb. 5, but that's about the extent of it, IMHO.

Posted by low-tech cyclist | September 4, 2007 8:59 PM

And, like Chris said above, Edwards has been doing quite a bit already to shake things up. The real problem is, the media have all but shut him out for most of this year, aside from the occasional haircut/house/hedge fund gaffe.

Edwards' best bet is to hope that, at some point, the media accept the fact that he's still around, and start to give him some coverage. There's a hint or two that that's starting to happen. And if it does, and Edwards picks up a few percentage points in the national polls, then they'll have to give him more coverage, which might get him past Obama in the polls, and if that can happen by December, he's got a shot.

But it's been a frustrating year if one is a supporter of Edwards, Richardson, Dodd, Biden, or Kucinich. It seems that the media have enough space in their minds to positively consider several GOP candidates in this cycle (now with new, improved Huckabee!), but have treated the Dem race like a strictly Hillary-Obama show, effectively freezing out the rest of the field.

Posted by low-tech cyclist | September 4, 2007 9:12 PM

One more thought about Edwards' prospects, then I'll shut up. Soon the national pollsters are going to have to admit Gore isn't running, and stop asking about him. That'll give Edwards' numbers a bump all by itself.

Look at the August numbers at RealClearPolitics. With Gore in the equation, Edwards' numbers are 8,10,13,9,11,6, averaging to 9.5%. Without Gore, they're 14,14,16,12,17,16, averaging to 14.8%. Hillary goes from 39% to 41%, and Obama from 21% to 22.3%, with/without Gore.

So not only does Edwards seem to get the biggest share of the Gore vote, but even if it were more evenly divided, it would mean the most to Edwards anyway - taking him from the edge of single digits and irrelevance to a reasonably solid third place with a shot at second.

So when the polls stop asking about Gore, Edwards' numbers will rise, and people will think he's more viable, even though nothing's changed.

Posted by low-tech cyclist | September 4, 2007 9:28 PM

A Democratic President inheriting this war will be a total disaster for the Democratic party.

Think Vietnam, Chicago, 1968.

The Republicans haven't had this problem because there's not a lot of opposition to the war within their party.

Posted by kafka | September 4, 2007 10:17 PM

@Nicholas B:

Thanks for the response. This will take further pinning-to-the-wall, but it's a big step forward from the previous delusional CW.

Counterinsurgency is definitely combat troops. So I'm not worried there.

Peacekeeping: This is right out. No one's envisioning a postwithdrawal Iraq where any kind of de-arming takes place. As is "guarding reconstruction or humanitarian projects".

Training: This is nuts, and you're right, he does continue to talk about increasing training of Iraqi troops, at least between now and withdrawal. {Sigh}

Posted by Nell | September 4, 2007 11:53 PM