What is John Edwards Thinking?

Garance Franke-Ruta runs through some options:

And so I offer three ways to interpret what's going on here: a) the Edwards campaign is irresponsibly punting on the question of being able to win a general election until it can get through the primary, despite stakes that couldn't be higher for the nation, and has private data that shows Clinton to be its major competitor (call that one the Markos theory); b) the Edwards campaign is making a short-term tactical mistake by ignoring the impending Obama threat while taking on Clinton; or c) Edwards is a person of principle who sees in the Obama campaign more of what he would like in the White House, and is going to go down in such a way as to try to take Clinton with him.

Usually these things are overdetermined. Can't the campaign be thinking some mix of all three of those things?

Comments

"Can't the campaign be thinking some mix of all three of those things?"

Actually, I think GFR is being even more hacktackular than usual here.

It's none of those things, as should be reasonably obvious to even a casual observer of politics.

Posted by Petey | October 2, 2007 8:37 AM

The reason the Edwards campaign is trying to differentiate themselves with Clinton more than they're trying to differentiate themselves with Obama has to do with the fact that Clinton is on the inside-track to the nomination, and will win unless she is derailed. If someone is on top, and you don't think they're going to fall of their own accord, you have to go at them.

-----

The question I'm curious about is why Garance writes daily hit pieces on Edwards. I offer three ways to interpret what's going on here: a) Garance is in the pay of the Clintons b) Garance is seeking a future job writing for The Corner and is seeking to hurt the strongest Democratic candidate to ingratiate herself with her new conservative overlords c) Garance just ain't too sharp, and unthinkingly writes whatever spin is spoon-fed to her by Howard Wolfson.

Pick one of the three. Any one of the three you like.

Posted by Petey | October 2, 2007 8:46 AM

You forgot a couple: d) GFR really, really, wants a woman president; e) GFR thinks the Clintons are going to win anyway, so she might as well get her practice in on defending Hillary/attacking political rivals.

Posted by Clark | October 2, 2007 8:56 AM

And as to why Edwards is taking public financing, which also seems to elude Garance Jean Lopez:

- It allows him to be competitive with Clinton and Obama for the duration of the primaries, despite his less upscale donor base.

- It allows him to further differentiate himself from Clinton on the clean government issue, and allows him to further emphasize that core element of his message.

- Given the basics of 527 functioning, which Garance seems willfully ignorant of, he will be able to remain on the air for the general election campaign during the spring and summer with the same basic level of vibrancy that he would have been able to without opting in to public financing.

In short, public financing is a decision with lots of upside for Edwards, and only some pretty minor downsides that are all quite dealable with.

Posted by Petey | October 2, 2007 9:01 AM

The question I'm curious about is why Garance writes daily hit pieces on Edwards.

I've always been curious about this myself. It's obvious that Franke-Ruta is rooting for a Clinton win, even if it's not completely obvious to me why she likes Clinton so much (I suspect that she simply feels more comfortable with Clinton's center-right politics than either Obama's or Edwards's, although this isn't the argument she made in her pro-Clinton Prospect piece). But Franke-Ruta has always been a ready adopter of Beltway CW, and the CW has always made Clinton's biggest obstacle out to be Obama, so you'd think that as a Clinton-booster she'd be slamming Obama every day. Instead it's hit piece after hit piece on Edwards. Is she just that allergic to Edwards's economic populism, or what? It's hard to get a bearing on this, because GFR very rarely writes on actual policy; especially for a Prospect writer, she seems terribly bogged down in the muck of the horserace.

Posted by Christmas | October 2, 2007 9:04 AM

"You forgot a couple: d) GFR really, really, wants a woman president; e) GFR thinks the Clintons are going to win anyway, so she might as well get her practice in on defending Hillary/attacking political rivals."

(d) is the true answer, I think.

And if she'd just be intellectually honest about the whole matter, I'd have respect for her position.

But instead, she has chosen to pursue that position with a bottomless quiver full of sleaze and misdirection. And I have nothing but contempt for her because of that.

Her tactics are no better than Jamie Kirchick's tactics.

Posted by Petey | October 2, 2007 9:05 AM

I prefer extending his list to trying to peak inside GFR's head ... I don't want to peak inside his head, I'm eating breakfast.

(d) Edwards really means what he has been saying since he launched this campaign. That people should "be the change they have been waiting for", and that he can't "win it without you".

The contributions he will be asking for when he has won the primary will be contributions in kind: form/join a OneCorps chapter, go out, campaign. Download files from the net and print them yourselves. Share ideas of what to do, and experiences of what worked well.

(e) Once he has raised $50m, Edwards will be able to spend all of his time campaigning, and will not have to spend eight hours a day or more fundraising. And neither Clinton nor Obama, locked into a fundraising arms race, will have the same time to commit.

And of course, as already raised

(f) Without the Presidential campaign shaking people down for money throughout the spring and summer (see [d] above), some of that money will be available for 527's, which will be free to attack the Republican nominee in a way that no Republican nominee has been attacked for decades.

I think its a combination of (d), (e) and (f) ...
... and has nothing whatsoever to do with (a), (b) and (c).

Posted by BruceMcF | October 2, 2007 9:52 AM

What Garrance is thinking, "Everyone in the know knows public financing is passe, that's why we all link to each other, because we are just so in the know. So I'll play along and write something snarky even though I don't know anything about it."

Posted by AJ | October 2, 2007 10:13 AM

The item I wrote was about Edwards and OBAMA, not Clinton. It was not a defense of Clinton, but a question about what I see as a real threat to the Edwards campaign from Obama, as Obama's campaign stands as a direct refutation of the Edwards message that there are only two options: public financing or relying on the wealthy and/or lobbyists.

Obama raised more than Clinton in the first two quarters by relying on small donors, and has a more intensive ground team in place in Iowa than does Clinton, as well. Edwards will have just as difficult a time going forward if he is surpassed in Iowa by Obama as by Clinton, and while the Edwards team wants to make this a two-person race between Edwards and Clinton, it is not.

I know Petey wants to turn everything into a certain sort of narrative, but it is simply factually untrue that this was a piece about Clinton, and his three accusations on The Atlantic magazine's website against me are nothing but pure slander.

Indeed, Petey's writing has degenerated into such a blatant stream of false and outrageous accusations of late that he is now banned at both Daily Kos and Tapped.

Posted by Garance Franke-Ruta | October 2, 2007 10:52 AM

As stated, no better than Jamie Kirchik's tactics.

Posted by Petey | October 2, 2007 10:59 AM

"Indeed, Petey's writing has degenerated into such a blatant stream of false and outrageous accusations of late that he is now banned at both Daily Kos and Tapped."

Also, I'm confused. Are you asking me not to post on TAPPED on the honor system? I just tried a test post, and I'm not technologically blocked.

Posted by Petey | October 2, 2007 11:04 AM

GFR:

you're not actually denying that you really want a female President, are you? I disagree with much of the language Petey uses to characterize you and your work, but I feel fairly confident that, based on your posts, most fair readers believe that you favor HRC because she's a woman. I'm not sure why that would be a bad thing. It's not like Yglesias doesn't have a favorite candidate for reasons that track his FP interest.

Posted by SomeCallMeTim | October 2, 2007 11:04 AM

"you're not actually denying that you really want a female President, are you? "

Stop slandering Garance on The Atlantic magazine's website!

Posted by Petey | October 2, 2007 11:09 AM

I'm also confused -- nothing new -- I have to admit: why does someone who writes for a living say that a commenter on a blog is guilty of slander, despite the fact that the slur in question was written? Either Petey has libeled, rather than slandered, GFR or he's guilty of nothing so much as saying some mean stuff. All of this semantic nonsense is a way of saying that if it's just the latter, if Petey's just being kinda mean, GFR's reaction seems a bit over the top? Maybe there's more bloggy history to this squabble than I know about. Alas, the hardships of being an outsider.

Posted by ANMIK | October 2, 2007 11:35 AM

"Alas, the hardships of being an outsider."

It's no easier to figure out on my end.

Best I can tell, a) Garance is having a really bad day b) It's an impostor who read the comments after Garance's daily hit piece on Edwards yesterday and is having some fun c) Howard Wolfson put Garance up to it, and she just went along because she'll do anything Wolfson asks.

Pick one of the three. Any one of the three you like.

Posted by Petey | October 2, 2007 11:55 AM

And if she'd just be intellectually honest about the whole matter, I'd have respect for her position.
But instead, she has chosen to pursue that position with a bottomless quiver full of sleaze and misdirection. And I have nothing but contempt for her because of that.

That's slander?

I used to comment on GFR's intellectual dishonesty a lot, but got tired of doing it. I don't know what her motivation is, but I suspect it's careerism, because it's the sort of thing beltway/insider journalists cultivate over time. It's a curious phenomenon because it's not willful dishonesty, but rather an obtuseness, a blindness to one's own biases.

What good does banning civil - if vehement - commenters do, BTW??

Posted by jonnybutter | October 2, 2007 11:58 AM

Garance is the same person that told Eric Alterman on Bloggingheads that people like her supported the Iraq War because all their friends were doing it, and had no social ties to antiwar voices. This from someone paid to read and write.

Posted by mad6798j | October 2, 2007 12:26 PM

I still don't understand the argument that public financing is supposed to cripple Edwards in the general election. As far as the general is concerned, 527 ads have recently been a lot more effective than candidate ads, and that's where the majority of the Feb-to-Aug ads will come from. Of course, Trippi can't explicitly say that 527s are part of the campaign's strategy, but I'm sure they are.

Posted by Neil the Ethical Werewolf | October 2, 2007 12:30 PM

"I still don't understand the argument that public financing is supposed to cripple Edwards in the general election."

I believe it is a sophistical argument, not a serious argument.

Posted by Petey | October 2, 2007 12:35 PM

I don't want to imply that she supported the war, just that her acceptance of that type of thinking was troubling.

Posted by mad6798j | October 2, 2007 12:42 PM

Garance's argument is silly. She worries that Edwards is attacking Clinton but ignoring the impending threat of Obama?

Nobody runs for 2nd place and if Edwards and Obama were attacking each other simply it would simply make a Clinton win more likely. Edwards knows that. Obama knows that. Clinton knows that. I have no doubt that Garance knows it too.

If Obama ever becomes the frontrunner, I'm sure Edwards will change his target.

Posted by Jinchi | October 2, 2007 2:47 PM

"I still don't understand the argument that public financing is supposed to cripple Edwards in the general election."

Wow. Sophistical arguments with extreme vengeance. I do believe the long knives are out.

Posted by Petey | October 2, 2007 4:01 PM

Check out these special offers!
checking the appropriate boxes next to each offer.

Posted by pizdecdaitenapivo | October 4, 2007 5:16 PM