A Win for Clinton

HRC picks up the endorsement of The Des Moines Register. Their 2004 endorsement of John Edwards was thought to have given his campaign a substantial boost, helping to propel him from also-ran to second-place. Now they say:

Edwards was our pick for the 2004 nomination. But this is a different race, with different candidates. We too seldom saw the "positive, optimistic" campaign we found appealing in 2004. His harsh anti-corporate rhetoric would make it difficult to work with the business community to forge change.

This seems like a perfect set-up for an Edwards campaign line about how "If we don't take the power away from these people, they're not going to give it up."

Comments

This is the print version of concern trolling.

"We support economic reform, but we feel that anyone who actually talks about reforming the economic system is being counterproductive. Oh, and it's a coincidence that we're wealthy."

APS

Posted by Ape Man | December 16, 2007 12:25 PM

I had the same reaction. It seemed like a golden opportunity for Edwards to make lemonade from the lemons, water, and sugar the DMR just handed him, and publicly agree 100% that he would be the candidate most strongly advocating we reel ourselves in from 30 years of handing more and more of the nation to giant corporations. Sort of the opposite of damning by faint praise -- rather, unintentional endorsement via soft criticism.

That's what he did this morning on one of the shows, Face the Nation I think. Saying, yes, this is one of the disagreements I and the DMR had.

Posted by El Cid | December 16, 2007 12:26 PM

Indeed, Edwards (and Dodd and Biden, not so much Richardson) gets more out of the non-endorsement than Obama gets out of his (apparent) near-miss. Edwards gets his narrative strengthened, Dodd/Biden get called statesmen, Obama gets called an inspiring, impressive guy who can't "accomplish the daunting agenda that lies ahead" the way Bill Clinton's wife and coterie o' thugs can. She can run the same ads and mail but credit her talking points to the DMR. Obama would have been better off not mentioned at all.

Posted by Dave Weigel | December 16, 2007 12:55 PM

Indeed, Edwards did make that point, and forcefully.

Posted by idlemind | December 16, 2007 1:01 PM

Poor John Edwards... he had worked so hard in Iowa and "she who is inevitable" wanted to pass Iowa up.

I guess this is what happens when your the Clintons. They just expect things to get handed to them on a silver platter without having to work for it. I think the DMR is counting on Bill's experience to carry us through because it is my opinion that she is a mess when it's crunch time and I've heard she is difficult to work for behind the scenes.

By the way, I'm voting for Obama. He has all the experience needed ...eleven years elected plus working from the bottom up community organizer(roll up your sleeves kind of experience), law, multicultural -and oh my goodness judgement and civility!

Posted by beth | December 16, 2007 1:14 PM

1. Ask FDR how helpful the business community is in "forging change"

2. "Forg[ing] change" is exactly the kind of shitty editorialese that dooms newspapers.

Posted by Delicious Pundit | December 16, 2007 1:22 PM

"His harsh anti-corporate rhetoric would make it difficult to work with the business community to forge change."

They seem to be drinking the same kool-aid the libertarians are. Pow-er? What is this power you speak of? How does that have to do with this supply-and-demand graph, I have here? Are you some sort of Marxist or something? If you want change, you have to ask the business community nicely and they will stop polluting and start giving healthcare.

Posted by d | December 16, 2007 1:24 PM

Delicious Pundit:

If you are interested, this is a great article about that very subject. Really worthwhile.

Jacob S. Hacker and Paul Pierson, “Business Power and Social Policy: Employers and the Formation of the American Welfare State,” Politics and Society (2002) 30; 277-325.

Posted by d | December 16, 2007 1:30 PM

"EDWARDS: Well, we just -- what I just said. I mean, they have a position. I respectfully disagree with it. I think that if we're going to have serious change in this country, universal health care, attacking global warming, a tax policy that works for most Americans instead of just a few, a trade policy that creates jobs instead of costing jobs, I mean, all those things are going to require us to have a president of the United States who's tough and willing to fight these powerful corporate interests that stand between us and the change that we need.

And I think the notion that you can sit at the table and negotiate and compromise, and these powerful interests will give away their power, I think is a fantasy. If it were true, it would have been working over the last few decades. And it does not.

I think we have a huge fight, an epic fight on our hands against those powerful interests, not against politicians. Nobody cares about politicians fighting. But I think we need a president who's tough enough to take these people on and win, and I've been doing it my whole life."

Posted by mickslam | December 16, 2007 1:35 PM

Matt,

I am curious. You say:

"This seems like a perfect set-up for an Edwards campaign line about how "If we don't take the power away from these people, they're not going to give it up."

Do you believe that you can really curtail the power of special interests? Do you believe that you can take away the ability to influence outcomes?

Or do you choose to disregard this as a piece of convenient rhetoric from a guy you otherwise agree with?

Posted by Nick Kaufman | December 16, 2007 4:19 PM

It was lovely that they said Edwards is just not corporation-friendly enough for us. They could have said the same about Obama, but they couldn't have called his rhetoric harsh, because he's Mr. Smooth, so they jumped on the experience red herring. They don't give a rat's ass about experience - if they did they'd endorse Biden or Dodd - and they gave themselves away with the Edwards line.

Posted by Phoebe | December 16, 2007 8:51 PM

If history is any guide, we now know that Clinton definitely won't be the Democratic nominee in 2008.

The DMR's previous endorsees have been Paul Simon in '88, Bill Bradley in '00, and John Edwards in '04.

They're 0 for 3 in picking the nominee.

----

And history aside, I'll take Culver over the DMR any day of the week. The DMR doesn't have any troops.

Posted by Petey | December 16, 2007 9:38 PM

Also, with Joe Lieberman's endorsement tomorrow of John McCain, shouldn't we expect Hillary Clinton to follow suit and also endorse McCain?

Posted by Petey | December 16, 2007 9:58 PM

Or do you choose to disregard this as a piece of convenient rhetoric from a guy you otherwise agree with?

No, I think it's perfectly good rhetoric and the Des Moines Register are acting like idiots.

Posted by Matthew Yglesias | December 16, 2007 9:59 PM

Also, with Joe Lieberman's endorsement tomorrow of John McCain, shouldn't we expect Hillary Clinton to follow suit and also endorse McCain?

Too late. She's already endorsed Romney.

Posted by Jasper | December 16, 2007 10:35 PM

Clinton got the Corporate/Special Interests endorsement from The Des Moines Register, and McCain will pick up the Lieberman War-Mongering endorsement tomorrow.

Posted by Courtney Squires | December 16, 2007 11:32 PM

I'm actually curious, is Lieberman's main motivation for his endorsement to help McCain, or to hurt Obama and thus help Clinton?

The stronger McCain is in NH, the more it cuts into the Obama vote in NH.

And given that big rally Clinton held for Lieberman on the eve of the '06 CT primary - a rally which helped to permanently estrange Clinton from the Party base - they certainly are holding a BIG favor to call in from Lieberman.

-----

For most of 2007, I've been trying to figure out if the Obama bid helped or hurt Edwards. I've continually been able to interpret the evidence both ways. But as we get closer and closer to the voting, I think it's turning out to be a clear help to Edwards.

The Clinton campaign has been making all of their decisions all year long with Obama in mind. They didn't want to go left out of fear that Obama would get to the right of them. They decided to not draw distinctions with the Edwards healthcare plan because they preferred to draw distinctions with Obama. And in the final month, all of their dirty politics attacks are focused on Obama instead of Edwards.

And as a result, if the Clinton campaign ends up in a two-person race with Obama in February, I think they're well positioned to beat him. But they are completely out of position for a two-person race with Edwards in February.

Posted by Petey | December 17, 2007 2:27 AM