Rocking the Boat

This effort from Stuart Rothenberg really makes me hope John Edwards wins. The best part is when he explains that working class voters should fear Edwards because his populist rhetoric will case stock market declines:

Scare the stuffing out of Corporate America and watch the stock market tumble. That’s certain to make retirement funds – including those owned by labor unions and “working families” – happy, right?

Uh huh. Look. If you think Edwards' substantive policies are radically left-wing and bound to crush the national economy then, obviously, people have no good reason to vote for him -- working class or otherwise (for the record, the vast majority of stocks are owned by a small minority of very wealthy people). But Rothenberg doesn't so much as try to make the case. After all, it's a hard case to make. It's an especially hard case to make since Rothenberg wants to negatively contrast Edwards with the more mainstream talk coming from Clinton and Obama. But they all have similar policies. But to Rothernberg, the main thing is that we don't want anyone who'll say mean things to those poor little CEOs. We all feel super-sorry for them, sure.

UPDATE: I actually probably should have said this more seriously -- if Edwards wins in Iowa by running left and pissing people off, that'll be a good thing for the world. By contrast, while there's a lot I like about Barack Obama, if he wins Iowa it won't have been by running hard on the things I like best about him.

Comments

Joe Klein had an anti-worker post today just as stupid as Rothenberg's.

The folks inside the capital can hear the army being assembled in the provinces. And they're getting nervous.

This is 1980 in reverse.

Posted by Petey | December 31, 2007 4:09 PM

Right. If Edwards got his entire wish list passed by Congress, the US would still have a public sector that is one of the smallest in the rich world relative to GDP. And last time I looked, plutocratic capitalism was alive and well in places like Toronto and London.

Posted by Jasper | December 31, 2007 4:11 PM

As the Clinton 90s demonstrated, "A rising tide lifts all boats" --- for the first time in years, the poor and middle class actually made some gains, and everybody benefitted.

Let's start talking about "trickle-up economics". If you improve the situation of the people at the bottom of the economy, the improvements trickle up (not least because the poor end up spending a lot of their gains, increasing demand for the goods and services provided by those higher up).

Posted by dm | December 31, 2007 4:13 PM

Intrade is starting to hear the same thing that is making Klein and Rotherberg wet themselves.

Posted by Petey | December 31, 2007 4:14 PM

But to Rothernberg, the main thing is that we don't want anyone who'll say mean things to those poor little CEOs.

"Whore defends johns, film at eleven."

Posted by pseudonymous in nc | December 31, 2007 4:23 PM

Intrade is meaningless.

Posted by Antid Oto | December 31, 2007 4:38 PM

"Joe Klein had an anti-worker post today just as stupid as Rothenberg's.

...

This is 1980 in reverse."

Oddly, that is also what the accursed Klein said.

Posted by Kyle | December 31, 2007 4:40 PM

Edwards' populist demagogue schtick might work in the Iowa primary but it doesn't stand a chance in the general election. All he's doing is paving the way for a Hillary win. Thanks a lot, John.

He and his insatiable ambition had their chance in 2004. They should give someone who has walked the walk (Obama) a shot. Until 2005, Edwards was the stereotypical triangulating, DLC Democrat. He wasted his term as Senator and now we're supposed to give him a second chance because he's suddenly all about the working man? Puh-leeze. This guy will say whatever it takes to get elected.

Posted by waka waka | December 31, 2007 4:47 PM

Edwards' populist demagogue schtick might work in the Iowa primary but it doesn't stand a chance in the general election.

There's a solution to that: it's called running to the center in the general election. And it's been tried by just about every successful candidate in the post-war era.

This guy will say whatever it takes to get elected.

I regard that as a feature, not a bug.

Posted by Jasper | December 31, 2007 4:51 PM

"Oddly, that is also what the accursed Klein said."

Yup. I'm using it in a different way than JK is using it, of course.

Back in 1980, there was a left-of-center consensus inside Washington that got terrified as they heard the right-of-center army being assembled in the provinces.

In 2008, the polarity of that scenario is reversed.

Posted by Petey | December 31, 2007 4:55 PM

Keep telling yourself that Wakka. If voters wanted more of the same, Guiliani/Romney and Clinton would be over 50% nationally by now.

Posted by soullite | December 31, 2007 5:01 PM

It's amazing how much this race has shifted over the past 72 hours.

Now, I'm the one worrying about the McCain indie vote in NH.

And even this morning, I was ridiculed in a comment on an earlier post where I forecast Edwards at 39% in Iowa. Now a poll just came out showing a re-allocated vote for Edwards at 41%.

Posted by Petey | December 31, 2007 5:05 PM

They should give someone who has walked the walk (Obama) a shot.

Because there isn't a right-wing talking point that Obama won't embrace? Walking the walk, indeed. Remember, trial lawyers are bankrupting Social Security, and only Obama can bring corporates to the table so that he can dazzle them with his smile while they piss on his head.

Posted by pseudonymous in nc | December 31, 2007 5:10 PM

It's kind of nice having a major Democratic candidate "pander" to me by using the rhetoric I think needed and advocating policies I think important, rather than a more "authentic" candidate continually lecturing me on what a crazy dirty fringe hippie extremist I am and how my policy ideas are mad and radical and how we just got to forget everybody but some mythical undecided independent moderates who matter a million times more than the base of their own friggin' party.

Go ahead and pander to me some more, and keep it up while you're at it.

Posted by El Cid | December 31, 2007 5:20 PM

I just heard from a friend in Ames, Iowa, a strong policy-focused Dem who has spent the last 18 months sizing up all candidates as they hung out at the local diner, eating apple pie with the locals. She'd been undecided until this week but is now planning to caucus for Edwards, Something's going on. Half of my pro-Obama friends here in New York are now leaning Edwards. Maybe because he's been the most detailed about his (domestic) policy positions?

I really like Obama but don't quite know what he stands for, other than his post-partisan, transformational persona. That could lead to improving the U.S.'s relations with the world . . . or not, as Reza Aslan suggests in today's WaPo.

As my wife said to me this morning, Obama won't stake his presidency on comprehensive healthcare reform and Edwards would. Which led me to ask her, "What, exactly, would Obama stake his presidency/legacy on?"

Posted by BryklynLibrul | December 31, 2007 5:29 PM

I heard Edwards saying good stuff on C-SPAN, but at this point, I gotta wait and see.

Posted by sglover | December 31, 2007 5:51 PM

I love Rothenberg's implication that while Obama and Clinton recognize the importance of working with the GOP and business interests, in an Edwards administration if the CEO of IBM or the GOP minority leader calls the Oval Office he's just going to scream "screw off" and slam down the phone.

RG

Posted by Raul Groom | December 31, 2007 5:59 PM

I love Rothenberg's implication that while Obama and Clinton recognize the importance of working with the GOP and business interests, in an Edwards administration if the CEO of IBM or the GOP minority leader calls the Oval Office he's just going to scream "screw off" and slam down the phone.

Right, it's silly.

Posted by Matthew Yglesias | December 31, 2007 6:15 PM

I love Rothenberg's implication that while Obama and Clinton recognize the importance of working with the GOP and business interests, in an Edwards administration if the CEO of IBM or the GOP minority leader calls the Oval Office he's just going to scream "screw off" and slam down the phone.

Right, it's silly.

Posted by Matthew Yglesias | December 31, 2007 6:15 PM

"Back in 1980, there was a left-of-center consensus inside Washington that got terrified as they heard the right-of-center army being assembled in the provinces.

In 2008, the polarity of that scenario is reversed."

Except that it doesn't sound like Klein is especially terrified at the thought of the Dems winning. He's just unimpressed by the tone and substance of Petey's favored candidate.

Posted by Kyle | December 31, 2007 6:16 PM

I'm not sure if we are at the right electoral moment for John Edwards to be vowing at every campaign stop that if elected he will personally behead every CEO of every corporation in the world.

I mean, I know he's just pandering to the base, but it sounds a little extreme.

Plus it would probably take a long time, and his decision to not use publicly financed guillotines has destroyed his chances.

Posted by El Cid | December 31, 2007 6:34 PM

What we are seeing in the polls is what we knew all along - there is only room for one not-Clinton in this election. First it was Edwards, then it was Obama for the better part of a year, and now it is Edwards again. Now the question is when Obama comes in third in both Iowa and New Hampshire who does he endorse?

Until recently I assumed Edwards would be sent home early and would endorse Obama. Given Edwards rise and Obama's rhetoric, Edwards early demise and eventual endorsement of Obama are no longer certain.

Posted by realist | December 31, 2007 7:00 PM

Matt, I have to disagree.
I like Edwards but, there are too many things that just don't feel right with him.
I keep wondering, who is the real Edwards? two years ago he was a DLC centrist and now he is raving populist.
I have seen several things of him saying one thing and finding out another.
If he was more consistent or did a gradual change over it would be plausable but, given things,I wonder which persona we end up with if he is elected.
And I cannot shake that feeling.
As for Obama. His style is different. That doesn't mean he is not progressive.
He learned how to get things accomplished with roadblocks from his community organizing days.
His campaign, his approach to working and getting his agenda passed, ect., is all rooted from the skills he learned from then.
Edwards learned to win by being confrontational from being a trial atty.
Obama learned to win by using community organizing skills that stressed inclusion.
Both men are progressive but, they just approach things different from their early experiences.
Who cares if it is confrontational or inclusive as long as it gets the job done.

Posted by vwcat | December 31, 2007 7:39 PM

I saw both the Rothenberg piece and the Klein piece earlier today and both pieces were fearmongering at best. They both used the "angry man" narrative when in reality they are the angry ones, not Edwards.

I hope Edwards not only wins Iowa but wins big. A win big enough that the corporate media can't spin it like Nagourney was trying to spin today. According to Nagourney if the vote is close then it won't matter who finishes in what place because there will be no real winner, it will be a tie and they will go back to square one in NH. No bounce, no nothing.

Another spin I've seen is that an Edwards win is a vote for Hillary. This spin is trying to get the anti-Hillary vote to go with Obama who they feel Hillary can more easily beat.

Posted by pmorlan | December 31, 2007 8:27 PM

Because there isn't a right-wing talking point that Obama won't embrace? Walking the walk, indeed. Remember, trial lawyers are bankrupting Social Security, and only Obama can bring corporates to the table so that he can dazzle them with his smile while they piss on his head.

Edwards is still rinsing Dick Cheney's piss out of his hair.

Posted by JB | December 31, 2007 9:49 PM

"I keep wondering, who is the real Edwards? two years ago he was a DLC centrist and now he is raving populist."

So DLC centerists say things like:

Today, under George W. Bush, there are two Americas, not one: One America that does the work, another America that reaps the reward. One America that pays the taxes, another America that gets the tax breaks. One America that will do anything to leave its children a better life, another America that never has to do a thing because its children are already set for life. One America -- middle-class America - whose needs Washington has long forgotten, another America - narrow-interest America - whose every wish is Washington's command. One America that is struggling to get by, another America that can buy anything it wants, even a Congress and a President.

Raving populists, on the other hand, say things like:

To get real change, we need a president who will stand up against the big corporations and powerful interests who control Washington.

Thank you for clearing that up.

Posted by Kenneth Almquist | December 31, 2007 10:28 PM

Edwards' populist demagogue schtick might work in the Iowa primary but it doesn't stand a chance in the general election.

You make mistakes like the above when you think about politics with mental forceps. The fact is, Edwards' tack is going to work even better in the General than it has been doing in the primaries. Using words with buiilt-in, and unexamined, value judgements like 'populism' just muddy the water.

Posted by jonnybutter | January 1, 2008 10:34 AM

" . . . including those owned by labor unions and “working families” . . . "

What's with the scare quotes? I must say, I have this picture of him pursing his lips distainfully as he says it . . .

Posted by Dan Solomon | January 1, 2008 12:53 PM

One of the emerging storylines of Campaign '08 is so-called hyperpartisanship, the bitter and increasingly divisive conflict between Democrats and Republicans that is said to be fueling cynicism - and apathy - among voters. In Iowa, Barack Obama proclaims that he will transcend partisan cleavages, while John Edwards vows to fight. Meanwhile, thw Washington Post reports that New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg will meet next week with prominent figures from both parties to encourage the 2008 candidates to form a "government of national unity." But lost in the cries of hyperpartisanship is the undeniable fact the Republican Party is almost exclusively responsible for it, aided and abetted by an "infotainment" media that has transformed politics into theater.

For the details, see:
"That's Entertainment: Hyperpartisanship and Politics as Theater."

Posted by Furious | January 1, 2008 2:26 PM

A few years ago, I could have sworn Matt Yglesias wrote a post which I considered absolutely brilliant. I can't find it now, and I wish I had saved it because it was brilliant.

The gist of the post was about how talking and governing were two different things, and how to be a successful politician the key appeared to be to speak like a Moderate, even as you governed like a Liberal. The reasoning was basically that by using Moderate words to define Liberal policies, you shift the definition of Moderate to define Liberal.

But now here you are saying the exact opposite. That Edwards is screaming like a radical, but if you look at his policies they're quite reasonable, so it makes no sense why there should be any political opposition to him. So Edwards is basically working to define moderate policies as being radical liberal, helping to shift the debate further to the right.

Again, it must have been someone else who wrote that post. I wish I could find it now.

Posted by The Other Steve | January 1, 2008 4:48 PM