Endorsement Season

Chris Bowers says he'll vote for John Edwards. Markos says it's Barack Obama. I agree with both of them. The difference is that while both of them are unenthusiastic about their choices, I'd be pretty enthusiastic with either. The trouble is that I think a lot of people set their expectations for politicians too high, and then wind up unduly disappointed when reality strikes home. To me, one of the signal characteristics of this race is that thanks to the competition she's faced and to her own political skill, Hillary Clinton has really raised her game and become a much more progressive figure than I'd expected she would be at the beginning of this process. Her platform compares favorably to John Kerry's in 2004 or Al Gore's in 2000 in almost every way.

Still, I think we could do better with Edwards or with Obama. If I got to vote in the Iowa Caucus, I'd probably try to first improve my understanding of caucus mechanics, and second vote tactically. And in principle, of course, events -- including the debate that I'll be watching soon -- could change my mind. It's a close-run thing. But if you made me choose, I'd agree with Chris that Edwards' willingness to embrace progressives and the progressive movement deserves to be rewarded over Obama's aloofness.

Photo by Flickr user alexdecarvalho used under a Creative Commons license

Comments

That's a mighty shiny Edwards you've got there.

Posted by southpaw | December 13, 2007 1:29 PM

That's some pretty epic art.

Posted by Nicholas Beaudrot | December 13, 2007 1:31 PM

Petey's long campaign ends in victory!

Posted by otto | December 13, 2007 1:34 PM

I guess lowering your expectations enough helps avoid depression, but it's pretty hard to get excited about this lot. "compares favorably to Kerry's 2004" is to me, damning with faint praise. I can't imagine a better chance coming along in decades for the Dems to swing a mandate dig out of the policy doldroms they've been wallowing in for ages. Somewhere buried deep in that party is a progressive vision, but none of this sorry lot are going to find it, or would know what to do with it if they did.

Posted by soup | December 13, 2007 1:36 PM

thanks to the competition she's faced and to her own political skill, Hillary Clinton has really raised her game and become a much more progressive figure than I'd expected

This is important not only in itself but as a signal for how she will respond to pressure from the left once in office. If we push hard enough, she will move.

Those who are disappointed at the lack of a strong left-leaning presidential candidate need to remember that progressive change always starts with mass movements, not with leadership from above. It's up to us to force, cajole, threaten and persuade elected Democrats to do the right thing.

Posted by lemuel pitkin | December 13, 2007 1:40 PM

...Edwards' willingness to embrace progressives and the progressive movement deserves to be rewarded over Obama's aloofness.

I agree with this in spirit, but the language makes me want to tear my hair out.

There is really no sense in which "progressive" is a better or more accurate way to describe Edwards' than "liberal".

When do we get to be liberals again?

Posted by bob | December 13, 2007 1:41 PM

I should add that (a) cynics like soup just make the job of building a progressive movement harder and (b) as others have noted, that is a simply stunning photo of Edwards. I'd been tempted by Obama on aesthetic grounds, but a few more pics like that and I might become an Edwards man.

Posted by lemuel pitkin | December 13, 2007 1:43 PM

Bob-

Liberal, progressive, they're just words. Much better things to dare your hair out about, if you ask me.

Posted by lemuel pitkin | December 13, 2007 1:44 PM

I know this is a full service politics blog, Matt, but you're a foreign policy wonk at heart, what with the book and all, and it would seem to me that Edwards has been more of an AIPAC-panderer - and is more likely to attack/allow an attack on Iran - than Obama. I'd like to see you justify Edwards over Obama in terms of international and ME politics, since we have - you know - a war going on.

Posted by otto | December 13, 2007 1:49 PM

bob says:
"There is really no sense in which "progressive" is a better or more accurate way to describe Edwards' than "liberal"."

I'm not so sure about this-- I'd be OK with the notion that "progressive" means "more about economics than about culture". And it's an important point-- I think that if Democrats succeed in making next year's election about economics then, it'll be game-is-over for Bush-style Republicanism.

Posted by MattF | December 13, 2007 1:52 PM

I'm a liberal and I support Hillary. I not only want someone who can actually win the presidency if nominated but someone who knows her way around Washington well enough to enact a liberal agenda.

I suspect that the right wing attacks on Hillary over the last 15 years have convinced people like Matt and Kos and many other younger folk that she is too toxic to represent them. Chalk that up to the right wing cultural war on America.

But her long running battle with the right wing is exactly why she is the best candidate we have and why I support her. She has been tested many times and each time comes out stronger. I know what she stands for and she know who her enemies are. Edwards and especially Obama will just be sacrificial lambs slaughtered by conservative sleeze once the campaigning agaist them begins.

Posted by ken | December 13, 2007 1:54 PM

I'm an Edwards' supporter, but I'm not looking for any candidate to be the savior of American politics and life. In comparison to what we've suffered for the past few years, and in a larger sense the past 30 years of Reaganite / New Rightist lunacy, it may seem like hoping for a change from that mess would be like looking for heaven on Earth. There really is a power structure in this country, and institutions over time really are dominated by upper class and concentrated wealth interests, and that doesn't vanish just because the occupant of the White House changes.

But I still think that even if Edwards were elected, the job of struggling to push through decent, maybe even transformative policies is our responsibility; I just hope he might be somewhat less resistant, maybe even more supportive, than the others.

Posted by El Cid | December 13, 2007 1:55 PM

Doesn't Matthew believe in affirmative action? You would think that a liberal (sorry, progressive) like Matthew, where the other factors are all so close, would give some extra emphasis to the fact that Obama is black. This is a short post, so surely doesn't go in to all the factors in making his decision, but I don't think I've seen Matthew address the issue in other posts.

Or affirmative action only something for other people?

Posted by Al | December 13, 2007 1:56 PM

lemuel-

Maybe you're right - and maybe I'm old - but it grates my ear. Similar to when you hear someone commit an error of grammer that bothers you.

I think one could, and I'm sure people have, spin some story of the semiotics of identity and how abandoning terminology like this errodes solidarity or some such thing - but this doesn't seem germane to the thread and I don't want to hijack it.

MattF -

"Populist", maybe? But I really don't think "progressive" means that.

Posted by bob | December 13, 2007 1:59 PM

"that is a simply stunning photo of Edwards"

Yup.

Posted by Petey | December 13, 2007 2:03 PM

Damn, that *is* a nice haircut.

Posted by too many steves | December 13, 2007 2:05 PM

High expectations? I expect liars and thieves. Anyway, I was going to vote for Obama because I thought he'd probably govern more liberally than Clinton or Edwards - based on their records, not their campaign promises.

But then Obama had to make it too expensive for me with his Social Security idea; so now my preference is any Democrat except Obama. Sorry that I'm so selfish.

Posted by Gary Sugar | December 13, 2007 2:08 PM

I don't entirely disagree with your conclusions, but there's something really irritating about this phrase: "Edwards' willingness to embrace progressives and the progressive movement deserves to be rewarded over Obama's aloofness."

Nothing against Kos, the netroots, etc., but they aren't the end all, be all of the progressive movement. Nor should attitudes copped during the primary campaign season be mistaken for a political philosophy. Let's not forget that we're talking about the relative merits of a community organizer from the Southside of Chicago, and a wealthy trial lawyer who first ran for the Senate as a Southern moderate prior to discovering that he's a progressive.

I'm playing Devil's Advocate here, I know-- I respect Edwards and I suspect his current progressivism is more genuine than his prior tactical moderation-- but it seems to me that an awful lot of people who ought to know better are acting awfully naive about campaign tactics.

You see, Obama has a higher melanin content than Edwards, and as a result he has to overcome what we might call a "stereotype" in order to win votes. There are a lot of people in this country, I'm sure you will be shocked to learn, who view black community activists with suspicion. He needs to appease moderates in order to win the nomination. Edwards, who voted for the Iraq War, had to appease a different set of Democrats in order to have a shot at the nomination. None of this tells us much about how these men will actually govern.

I give Edwards a great deal of credit for the fact that his actual policy proposals have generally been more progressive than Obama's. However, the theatrical aspects of the campaign... "embracing" certain interest groups or maintaining "aloofness"... should never be taken seriously by anyone who wasn't born yesterday.

Posted by LaFollette Progressive | December 13, 2007 2:12 PM

Ah yes, Obama, "The One", who says -- with a straight face! -- that we "need" nearly 100,000 more soldiers, because our military-centric foreign policy has been such a smashing success. Maybe he'll do Darfur "better" than Bush did Iraq?

And Edwards, who voted for the Iraq disaster, but now wants us all to believe what a great learning experience it was, how much it taught him about "following one's instincts".

And, of course, HRC, who seems likely to ride her last name all the way to the Big House.

Golly, how could anyone be discouraged by this line-up?!?! The Jackass has never had such a glossy coat, such bright eyes!

Look, the whole thing's a shuck, it's broken. The only vote that matters is the one you refuse to cast. Abstain in '08.

Posted by sglover | December 13, 2007 2:19 PM

Personally, I'd say Obama's decision to courageously oppose a very popular (at the time) initiative to needlessly murder 3,800 brave American servicemembers should be rewarded rather than Edwards' and Clinton's decisions to suppor it.

Posted by Dilan Esper | December 13, 2007 2:20 PM

A blessing on you, good Matthew.

Posted by Neil the Ethical Werewolf | December 13, 2007 2:23 PM

John Edwards will fulfill the promise of Bobby Kennedy.

Edwards is the Cadillac
Obama is the set of steak knifes
Clinton is you're fired

Posted by Glen Garry Ross | December 13, 2007 2:24 PM

"He needs to appease moderates in order to win"

Clinton and Obama have both made the calculation that they have to run defensive campaigns to appease moderates to win the general election.

I follow their logic.

But what's in the best interests of their campaigns may not be aligned with what's in the best interests of the Democratic Party and the progressive movement.

The fact that Edwards can run to the left like we haven't seen in this country in 40 years and still have strong general election strength is what matters.

"However, the theatrical aspects of the campaign... "embracing" certain interest groups or maintaining "aloofness"... should never be taken seriously by anyone who wasn't born yesterday."

Policy matters, but politics matters too. Edwards has the potential, precisely by running on a lefty politics currently seen as being out of the mainstream and winning, to move the national political mainstream to the left.

This is the maneuver Reagan executed in 1980 to the right.

Clinton and Obama, precisely because they've made perfectly sensible decisions to run to the middle, can't shift the political mainstream.

What you call "the theatrical aspects of the campaign" is what I call politics. And as stated, policy matters, but politics matters too.

Posted by Petey | December 13, 2007 2:28 PM

I know this is a full service politics blog, Matt, but you're a foreign policy wonk at heart, what with the book and all, and it would seem to me that Edwards has been more of an AIPAC-panderer - and is more likely to attack/allow an attack on Iran - than Obama. I'd like to see you justify Edwards over Obama in terms of international and ME politics, since we have - you know - a war going on.

NOT ONE of these supposed standard-bearers of progressivism will dare come within a light-year of snubbing AIPAC. Just as none of them will even hint that maybe we ought to think hard about what a trillion dollars in "defense" spending is really getting us. But of course, pointing that out, speaking candidly about the shabbiness of the Democratic Party, might stunt the growth of the oh-so-delicate "progressive movement". Mum's the word.

Posted by Samuel Glover | December 13, 2007 2:28 PM

None of this tells us much about how these men will actually govern.

I disagree with you here, LP. Political calculations don't end when the candidate takes office. If Obama thinks the path to winning elections involves moving to the center, he'll probably think that successful governance as president involves moving to the center as well.

Posted by Neil the Ethical Werewolf | December 13, 2007 2:28 PM

Glen Garry Ross wins.

Posted by Petey | December 13, 2007 2:30 PM

When was the last time Richardson's name appeared in this blog? Or any blog? I'm not complaining, I was just watching the Des Moines debate and was startled to see him there. Chris Dodd gets more mentions on blogs than Richardson. It's weird.

Posted by Martin | December 13, 2007 2:30 PM

Neil, I love your posts, but isn't GWB about the most devastating counterargument to that statement?

Posted by Martin | December 13, 2007 2:33 PM

Martin, no. GWB didn't run to the center the way everyone thought he did. He did talk about a more humble foreign policy, but what that really meant was no more interventions for humanitarian reasons and no more attempts to play above-it-all negotiator for Israel and the Palestinians. Despite the rhetoric that was built into neoconservatism, it's not a humanitarian effort. It's about having an enemy, not about beating one. And there was never any talk by him or anyone else that the Iraq sort of fight was beyond the pale. Indeed, he threw around lies about military unpreparedness, giving every indication that he thought we needed to expand the military-industrial complex. Mission accomplished.

And he did talk about compassionate conservatism, but what that really meant was lower taxes for the upper-middle class and higher, no increases on taxes anywhere else, an expansion of domestic spending, faith-based initiatives, eliminating funding for any organization that performs abortions or contributes to abortions abroad, increased assimilation of Latinos, and no more talk of "welfare queens." The result is that the first three combined to drive up the deficit, the fourth and fifth eroded the line between church and state at the expense of more broad-based social services, the sixth was killed by others in his party rather than himself, and the seventh still hasn't really happened (until universal healthcare became an issue). But none of these is a result of Bush running away from his campaign rhetoric.

Bush governed more or less the same way he said he would. It's just you had to be listening the right way to notice. Many of us, even those of us who didn't vote for him, didn't really hear it right the first time, but we hear it now looking back, and it makes total sense. Parsing campaign rhetoric matters.

Posted by jhupp | December 13, 2007 2:54 PM

What you call "the theatrical aspects of the campaign" is what I call politics. And as stated, policy matters, but politics matters too.

There's politics, and then there's primary season politics. Every candidate's goal in the primary is to make themselves look appealing to a larger percentage of primary voters than their opponents, without generating any footage that can turn up in a Republican attack ad in October. It's not a meaningless process, but it's always something of a drag show.

If Obama were actively bashing progressives and angling for "Sister Souljah" moments, that would tell us a great deal about his political instincts. I don't think that maintaining his "aloofness" tells us much of anything.

Also, what Martin said.

Posted by LaFollette Progressive | December 13, 2007 3:05 PM

If I got to vote in the Iowa Caucus, I'd probably ... vote tactically.

Well, I agree that I'm going to pull the lever for Edwards or Obama. But this is more than theory, I live in S.C. and I'd like to know what voting tactically means in this case.

Posted by none | December 13, 2007 3:08 PM

If Obama were actively bashing progressives and angling for "Sister Souljah" moments, that would tell us a great deal about his political instincts.

Well, some of us thought the whole Donnie McClurkin business had a distinctly Sister Souljah-like stench to it, but YMMV.

Posted by Uncle Kvetch | December 13, 2007 3:16 PM

jhupp: That we can reconstruct GWB's eventual governing style from parsing his words very selectively in hindsight does not alter the surprise of, say, a moderate Republican Bush voter who did not like the way Bush governed at all. If that voter was surprised -- and he was -- then the maxim that "governs as campaigns" is simply false. In other words, your answer is not a counter to my point but a long way of establishing why my point is correct.

In other words, there are cases in which people govern differently from the way they seemed to campaign. Since politics is very much about perception, the distinction is nonexistent.

Posted by Martin | December 13, 2007 3:19 PM

Yglesias has been endlessly touting a bloggingheads video in which the two speakers came to the conclusion that Obama is best positioned to have a massive landslide in November 2008. Think about that when you think about tactical voting.

Posted by Martin | December 13, 2007 3:21 PM

But if you made me choose, I'd agree with Chris that Edwards' willingness to embrace progressives and the progressive movement deserves to be rewarded over Obama's aloofness.

I also agree, although I wasn't thinking in exactly those terms. Obama's willingness to go along with the "conservative" con about the Social Security "crisis" set him back several squares on my personal game board. It doesn't mean I won't support him. But it does mean he needs something on the other side of the ledger to offset that. With Edwards that is not the case.

I would probably be equally satisfied with an Obama presidency and an Edwards presidency. Another Clinton presidency, not so much.

Posted by Roddy McCorley | December 13, 2007 3:38 PM

Luntz's Iowa Dem voter focus group thinks Edwards won the debate in a fucking landslide.

They agree with Edwards' rhetoric and agenda, and they think he's the real deal to get it done. They buy his authenticity.

The focus group hates Clinton. Really, really hates her. Canned answers. Represents status quo. Used dirty politics over the past week.

They're warm on Obama, but luke-warm.

-----

This doesn't give Clinton what she needed - a way to stop the bleeding.

-----

And you've all thought Petey was crazy for the past few months, but watch what happens over the next 7 weeks, cuz it's already started.

Posted by Petey | December 13, 2007 3:41 PM

I'm not sure I understand your point. The surprise/disappointment of a moderate Republican is a result of the same failure to see what Bush was really saying that could have plagued a liberal who also missed it. He was never a moderate; he was always way out on the wings. Bush didn't move to the right once he took office; he was campaigning there. Bush just dressed it up to disguise it from those who didn't like his issues.

If that's the argument you're making here -- that Obama is like Edwards but dresses it up nicer -- then that's a different take than "where you campaign isn't necessarily where you'll govern." I think I may be hoping for more of the latter than the former from Obama, because talking about social security being "in crisis" isn't a case of dog whistle politics to the left designed to appeal to the right. It's a straight-up attack on the left's policy preferences on social security.

Yglesias and Douthat talked about Obama's "respect" for conservatives, which is more in the vein of dog whistle politics. But there's an obvious qualitative difference between that and the social security thing. However, I think a dog whistle-based argument could be made for the other things, like healthcare mandates (policy difference, but only short term to avoid sounding bad) and his choice of onstage costars (that preacher will go nowhere near the policy desk). My general sense is if you get enough of these lined up, you start to think it's something very much apart from wink-and-nod liberalism, but a counter-argument could be made.

Is this the sort of thing you're getting at, or am I way off?

Posted by jhupp | December 13, 2007 3:46 PM

Clinton third in Iowa. You heard it here first.

Posted by Petey | December 13, 2007 3:47 PM

I've been beginning to get the feeling that I ought to support Edwards too. Although I still want to support Obama, because I've spent a lot of time in Chicago (for family and school reasons alike), so I consider myself something of a Chicagoan (although still mostly a St. Louisan). I mean, maybe it's a shallow reason to support someone, but I mean: Obama's quite good on the merits, and by the standards of Chicago politicians he's very good. (soft bigotry of low expectations and all that)

So I'm conflicted, but I've been leaning more Edwardsward. Well, I won't get to vote until Super Tuesday at any rate, and by then perhaps the non-Hillary candidate will be more clear.

Posted by Julian Elson | December 13, 2007 3:48 PM

"Although I still want to support Obama"

Edwards/Obama '08!

Barack gets the WH in 2016, when he'll be almost precisely the age that Edwards is now.

Why take only 8 years when you can have a 16 year ticket?

Posted by Petey | December 13, 2007 3:53 PM

I'm heartened this year by fact that I could vote for just about any of the dem candidates. This time I want to vote for the one that can win. Which of them can win the general no matter what slime comes from the right? Which of them will not fold to the preasure? I sense Hillary and Edwards want it bad. Obama could wait and so could soften in the general. Hilary seems best positioned and toughest of the lot.

Posted by Judson | December 13, 2007 4:10 PM

"Which of them will not fold to the preasure? Hilary seems best positioned and toughest of the lot."

Given the way Clinton has folded like a cheap tent over the past 45 days, that seems an "interesting" conclusion to me...

Posted by Petey | December 13, 2007 4:13 PM

I'm with Obama. First, in terms of America's place in the world, his election would improve America's standing far more than any other act could. His foreign policy team also includes the best and the brightest center-left minds who nearly all had the foresight to oppose the Iraq War. His public willingness to break with decades of US policy in actually engaging adversaries shows how Obama has the right instincts to dig the US out of its current predicament. He also seems to me to be the leader who can best address the big issues of the day: climate change, the constitution, and terrorism, in a way that will be able to disarm the right and push things forward.

I understand Edwards' appeal. If my core concerns were standard domestic issues, I'd probably support him. But they're not, although I think Obama will do a great job on domestic issues as well. With the republic hanging on by a thread, I trust Obama more to do what needs to be done to put America on the right path. It's not that I don't think Edwards would want to do the same. I just don't think his "give 'em hell" style is the most effective way forward on these crucial issues right now.

That being said, if Edwards were to win the nomination, I would enthusiastically support him.

I still don't know why Hillary Clinton wants to be president, and would not be nearly as enthusiastic with her candidacy, although I'd still pull the lever for her.

Posted by Dave | December 13, 2007 4:14 PM

"Luntz's Iowa Dem voter focus group thinks Edwards won the debate in a fucking landslide."

The CNN Iowa Dem focus group reached the same conclusion.

They walked in undecided, and walked out:

39% Edwards
26% Obama
22% Clinton

-----

I've been trying to tell y'all, Johnny is a vote-getter.

Posted by Petey | December 13, 2007 4:20 PM

Policy matters, but politics matters too. Edwards has the potential, precisely by running on a lefty politics currently seen as being out of the mainstream and winning, to move the national political mainstream to the left.

This is the maneuver Reagan executed in 1980 to the right.

I agree here, but I think there's a better analogue. Reagan moved the political center to the right, but that movement was a ripple compared to the tidal wave of 1964.

Lyndon Johnson with an anti-war platform is the ultra-optimistic analogue here. A sweep in Congress, a southern president prepared to go to bat for progressive causes, and a war on... that the candidate instead wants to end.

Obviously there are problems - LBJ was a great technocratic leader while Edwards has not proved himself. And history means that stuff that happened 40 years ago is different. But that's what I like to imagine - another Great Society presidency, programs that even another Reagan would again fail to really roll back, paired to a legitimately anti-war foreign policy. Wow. That's what I thought going over the clips from that debate.

Posted by DivGuy | December 13, 2007 4:20 PM

I'll buy that for a dollar, DivGuy.

Posted by Petey | December 13, 2007 4:25 PM

Petey, I've never thought your 'Edwards is going to win' claims were crazy, I just thought they may have been strongly influenced by wishful thinking. Politics is unpredictable enough (and we've seen plenty of discussion about how nobody really knows anything when it comes to election forecasting) that picking a runner up with plenty of cash like Edwards is plenty justifiable.

Edwards/Obama '08

This reminds me of the Chris Rock skit where he talks about how if he was president, he would want a mexican vice president as insurance. Normally, being president is a pretty risky occupation. I kind of wonder if having Obama as your VP would really reduce your risk or not.

Posted by mpowell | December 13, 2007 4:26 PM

A CNN focus grouper says she doesn't think she can trust Clinton to keep any of her promises on any topic.

A couple of the Fox focus groupers went out of their way to say that they thought Edwards was very trustworthy.

Posted by Petey | December 13, 2007 4:29 PM

I mean, what are the final Iowa numbers going to look like?

45% Edwards
35% Obama
20% Clinton

Paper on January 4th:

A1) Edwards and Romney Win Iowa
A1) How did Edwards Stage His Comeback
A1) How did Romney Fight Off the Huck?

A8) Can Clinton Recover from a third place finish?
A8) Where do Huck and Obama go from here?

Posted by Petey | December 13, 2007 4:38 PM

I agree with your assessment that Kos and others have their expectations TOO high. However, I think it is they who are aloof, not Obama.

Furthermore, it strikes me as strange that you're willing to reward Edwards for suddenly jumping on the progressive boat after he left Washington in order to run a more liberal campaign (because it's more popular to be liberal now than in 2004). I do not have a problem with Edwards, but to state that as a form of praise and then call Obama aloof is a bit absurd.

Posted by MK | December 13, 2007 4:43 PM

jhupp, you're being obtuse. Posit that candidacy predicts governance, this is your position. If that is true, then in principle nobody would be surprised by anything a sitting president did, adjusting for the impact of unpredictable events. Since we don't live in a perfect world, things don't work out that neatly. But the principle still has validity. If a large number of people found themselves shocked at Bush's eventual direction, then ipso facto candidacy does not predict governance.

And by the way, your own language about "dressing it up" makes my point precisely. If a candidate has some agenda that he wants to enact but daren't mention it to the electorate, well, isn't that what we're talking about? That policy directives are not predictable from candidacy behavior? I don't understand why you keep making my point and then saying I'm wrong.

As to Obama and Edwards. I frankly do not know if Obama will be "as liberal as" Edwards. I do think he is engaging in some dog-whistle politics, and I also think with Obama what you see is what you get, that is to say, he will always talk in terms that placate conservatives while pursuing liberal ends.

I also think that if you take liberal/conservative out of it, Obama would end up doing more to change the nation into the kind of place Yglesias readers would approve of, without necessarily being doctrinaire liberal as Edwards might be as president.

Posted by Martin | December 13, 2007 4:49 PM

"Furthermore, it strikes me as strange that you're willing to reward Edwards for suddenly jumping on the progressive boat after he left Washington"

You might want to review Edwards' Life Story from yesterday to get a glimpse of where he's actually coming from.

Posted by Petey | December 13, 2007 4:53 PM

I think its real nice that Hillary's platform compares nicely to Kerry's etc.

The problem is that when it comes to supporting illegal wars that lead to the deaths of a million Iraqis, its not clear that her platform compares well to Saddam Hussein's. And when it comes to fighting against the decline of the republic and defending of the Constitution its not at all clear that her platform compares favorably to Bob Barr's. But I guess her agriculture policy is pretty good. She's got that going for her.

And Barack is a big triangulating pussy.

Posted by The Fool | December 13, 2007 5:05 PM

Indulging the Edwards-suddenly-becomes-the-front-runner conceit for a moment, it strikes me that there are two storylines Edwards will have to contend with:

1. Lets talk about the 2004 campaign. How good was John's relationship with that other John, really? What were the reasons for their 2004 position on the Iraq war? Does Edwards bear any responsibility for the defeat?

2. Oh great, so it's going to be white men again. What does it say about the Democrats, and indeed the country, that when given the historic opportunity to nominate the first woman or the first black man, they are choosing to yet again return the presidency to the white patriarchy?

For what it's worth . . .

Posted by southpaw | December 13, 2007 5:08 PM

"Indulging the Edwards-suddenly-becomes-the-front-runner conceit for a moment, it strikes me that there are two storylines Edwards will have to contend with:"

.............

Those are the storylines Edwards would have to respond to if they were being put out there today. But they're not.

And if they try to use them on January 4th, they'll find them of no more than minimal effectiveness.

The Clinton people decided they could only knee-cap one of the two candidates, and they decided to skip my "non-viable" candidate.

Posted by Petey | December 13, 2007 5:16 PM

"Indulging the Edwards-suddenly-becomes-the-front-runner conceit for a moment, it strikes me that there are two storylines Edwards will have to contend with:"

.............

Those are the storylines Edwards would have to respond to if they were being put out there today. But they're not.

And if they try to use them on January 4th, they'll find them of no more than minimal effectiveness.

The Clinton people decided they could only knee-cap one of the two candidates, and they decided to skip my "non-viable" candidate.

Posted by Petey | December 13, 2007 5:16 PM

southpaw said, "What does it say about the Democrats, and indeed the country, that when given the historic opportunity to nominate the first woman or the first black man, they are choosing to yet again return the presidency to the white patriarchy?"

I supported Jesse Jackson in 1988 but not Barack Obama in 2008. It has nothing to do with my views on race and everything to do with the fact that Barack is a triangulating pussy and Jesse is not.

Posted by The Fool | December 13, 2007 5:16 PM

"Indulging the Edwards-suddenly-becomes-the-front-runner conceit for a moment, it strikes me that there are two storylines Edwards will have to contend with:"

.............

Those are the storylines Edwards would have to respond to if they were being put out there today. But they're not.

And if they try to use them on January 4th, they'll find them of no more than minimal effectiveness.

The Clinton people decided they could only knee-cap one of the two candidates at a time, and they decided to skip my "non-viable" candidate this time around..

Posted by Petey | December 13, 2007 5:17 PM

it was chapelle not chris rock...

Posted by future man | December 13, 2007 5:21 PM

I don't think I've ever had a triple post before.

While I don't know what I did I will still graciously issue a strong statement:

Petey wishes to issue a strong statement on the triple posting mishap: mea culpa.

Posted by Petey | December 13, 2007 5:21 PM

Matthew,

You recently wrote about (and discussed with Ross on BloggingHeads.TV) Obama's supposed "trick" in appealing to conservatives.

While I see this less as a trick and more of a reflection of Obama's political philosophy and temperament, it is true that he is more progressive (or liberal) than conservative supporters (or admirers) probably realize.

In the same vein however it seems clear that Obama is also more progressive than many progressives realize (or give him credit for).

This is due, I think, to an (apparently) long-held belief on Obama’s part that he can reach more people, and convince them of the rightness of progressive positions, if he frames those positions as common-sense and based in reason, rather than as specifically or uniquely progressive.

In this sense, I think that Obama believes that he can transcend the false perceptions that many Americans continue to hold regarding “liberal” or Democratic policies (and values), by re-defining what a Democrat or progressive candidate sounds like.

Again, this does not mean that he is not progressive or that he his embarrassed by progressive positions (he most certainly is not); only that he believes that there is a better way to frame these positions.

Similarly, while I admire the progressive stances Edwards has taken throughout the campaign (and since the end of the 2004 election) his embrace of them has been consistent with his campaign’s strategy; that is, to be the "anti-Hillary" candidate by running to the left of her as the populist (progressive) alternative.

Now, I do not mean to insinuate that Edwards has embraced the progressive movement for purely political considerations, as it is clear (to me) that he sincerely believes in his positions (which is why he is my clear second choice).

I would argue, however, that Obama's philosophy of trying to frame progressive policies in a different, (perhaps) less confrontational manner places him in a better position to actually mainstream progressive policies in the future.

Unfortunately it appears that the same approach that has allowed Obama to (supposedly) “trick” conservatives into supporting him, as had the opposite effect on some progressives who have withheld their support for (and at times have attacked) Obama for appearing "aloof" on their key issues. Whereas, I would argue, he possesses the greatest potential for mainstreaming progressive policies and positions as President.

In addition, I think that his history as a community organizer, a civil rights lawyer, and as a legislator has demonstrated, more than any other candidate’s history, his commitment not only to the support of, but the realization of progressive goals and objectives.

Mark Kleiman summed this up nicely on his Reality Based Community blog, when he wrote, http://www.samefacts.com/archives/barack_obama_/2007/12/obamas_trick.php (in response to Matt's original post on “The Trick"):

"What Obama offers (conservatives), simply, is respect, and the only "trick" is his knack for making that respect seem genuine. Maybe I'm being fooled along with everyone else, but I think it probably is genuine: Obama seems to me to have both the philosophical open-mindedness and the Christian charity to encounter difference without feeling animus.

As to Matt's first puzzle — why this transparent trick, which disarms opposition without sacrificing principle, should be offensive to some progressives — the obvious answer is that some people, n both sides of the aisle would rather triumph over their enemies than achieve their policy goals."

Also, Matt's original post is here: http://matthewyglesias.theatlantic.com/archives/2007/12/the_trick.php

I should also note that Professor Kleiman added an update to his post:

"Footnote Yes, I'm aware that not all actual Christians are charitable. Nor, for that matter, are all actual philsophers open-minded. Christianity and philosophy are concrete activities and institutions, and as such necessarily imperfect, but they are also ideals: a Christian ought to be charitable (that is, generous of spirit) and a philosopher ought to be open-minded."

Posted by Aaron M | December 13, 2007 5:22 PM

Those are the storylines Edwards would have to respond to if they were being put out there today. But they're not.

And if they try to use them on January 4th, they'll find them of no more than minimal effectiveness.

I should have been clearer that I don't think Obama or Clinton would raise those questions. Trail reporters, national columnists, Newsweeklies, etc. will raise them. "Are the Democrats making a historic mistake (and what does it mean for our future)?" Whether they will present a serious challenge to Edwards gaining the nomination, I can't forecast.

Petey, I accept your gracious mea culpa and I regret that your new hampshire co-chairman has decided to leave your campaign.

Posted by southpaw | December 13, 2007 5:36 PM

John Edwards is likable, as Gore, Kerry and Hillary never were.

Posted by David | December 13, 2007 6:46 PM

2. Oh great, so it's going to be white men again. What does it say about the Democrats, and indeed the country, that when given the historic opportunity to nominate the first woman or the first black man, they are choosing to yet again return the presidency to the white patriarchy?

This is why I wrote above that I'm surprised that Matthew (and Democrats generally) who think that the substantive differences between Obama and Edwards are slight appear not to be advancing an affirmative action rationale to support Obama. You would think that Democrats, if anyone, would be willing to give a black man a bit of extra support based on race.

If you believe schools ought to give extra consideration to black applicants, why oughtn't Democratic primary voters give extra consideration to a black candidate?

And I say this as someone who is considering supporting Obama in the general election based in large part on his race (if it came down to Huckabee vs. Obama, I almost certainly would choose Obama).

Posted by Al | December 13, 2007 7:00 PM

I just wanted to weigh in on the whole "idealist" thingy. I was all googly-eyes once for a candidate, Reagan (or Satan's little helper as I call him now). All I got was lied to. I understand the need to be involved and active and fresh and idealistic with rosy cheeks and a twinkle in yur eye, and such (or as Matt would say "whatnot"), but I've never felt compelled to create a "hero" out of a politician since. Why anyone would be suprised that their choice is flawed is beyond me. Since everyone is flawed, it seems rather silly to think otherwise.

Yet, on the other end of things, I truly cannot stand the cynical "Boo-hoo, everybody is corrupt tools of the ruling military-industrial-lapdancer-complex. We must resist the urge to participate in this fraud and instead spit bean curd at voters, or robots (giggle followed by saliva sucked through teeth) as I like to call them, who dare cast their 'votes' in this travesty of an injustice of a coronation of the ruling corporate swine pigs, blah, blah, blah." Hey, I'm up for any conspiracy theory (even considered starting one or two), but this crap about not voting for anyone, or voting for Ralph Nader or his successor Ron Paul, or "a pox on bith your houses", or the greatest lie of them all "the Democrats are exactly the same as the Republicans" is bogus. This election is some serious shit, get over the socio-politico-purity garbage, it's always gonna be a compromise, whoever the candidate is, and yes, some candidates are lunatics that shouldn't be allowed near the Whitehouse (may have to taze sum a them just to keeps em out).

Oh, then there's the "I told ya! I told ya Edwards was coming on strong". EEESH! Ya know, I like him, and I'll vote for him if he gets the nod, but it gets to be a bit much after a while, ya know, Petey? And Obama and the Old BattleAxe aren't that bad as alternatives, really, but we'll see what happens next. I guess all I'm saying is that if everything you're saying comes true, please promise me that you'll just sit there quietly offline, with a strong sense of self-satisfaction, and shut up about it for a while.... ;)

Oh, and Al, do get over it...Puuuulllleeeeaaasssssse...

Posted by Rihilism | December 13, 2007 7:20 PM

Martin, I'm really not trying to be obtuse. It strikes me that sometimes the "surprise" is less the fault of a candidacy and more the fault of an insufficiently inquisitive public. One type of candidate is a candidate who says things that are pleasant to his most entrenched base in a way that is pleasant-sounding to his opponents. But he still says the controversial things, just in a different way than we are used to. This is what I think Bush did in 2000.

The counterpoint to this is a candidate who is running an explicitly centrist campaign who turns out to be a rabid left- or right-winger. In this case, the candidate does not say or makes false statements about the more controversial things. It sounds to me like this is what you think Bush did in 2000.

Dressing it up and being false are very different things to me, which may be where we're crossing wires. My argument isn't that we can construct his presidency by selectively parsing in hindsight, as you put it. My argument is that we could have seen it back then, but we failed to see it for lack of experience or insufficient curiosity.

To illustrate by example, we could not have known that Nixon's Law and Order candidacy was a cover for the (to that point) least law-abiding President because that's the opposite of what he said. We could have known that George W. Bush -- especially on domestic policy -- was going to do the things he did because that's what he said he would do. He just said it funny.

Posted by jhupp | December 13, 2007 7:54 PM

Rihilism - what am I supposed to be getting over?

Posted by Al | December 13, 2007 8:23 PM

Does it matter to anyone that Edwards is a complete phony? Disgusting to watch.

Posted by Bub | December 13, 2007 8:48 PM

They're all too good for the job

In the Presidential race, I'm for "none of the above", but not for the usual reason that I'm disappointed with all the candidates, don't think any of them measure up, or anything of the sort. Actually, I think that none of the Dems deserve to be saddled with the travesty we have let this office become.

The very best that one can say of the office is that it is completely unnecessary. The idea that Congress might need some check, someone with the veto, to keep them from going collectively mad with their power, though obviously foolish in an era when Congress would sooner be waterboarded than be forced to actually run anything, never made any sense even in the Founders' day. Congress has the inherent and internal check that it is made up of many competing wills. It checks itself quite sufficiently to remove any danger to the republic of Congress running wild with power.

To balance this complete lack of any benefit to the Union from the Presidency, we have the ultimate cost, a risk that we have already seen realized, even if the incumbent lacks the intelligence and work ethic to have run mad with power on the order of a Hitler, that the Presidency has evolved into an elected dictatorship.

Zero benefit, infinite harm. This doesn't seem like a hard or close judgement to me. Instead of choosing a President this year, let's choose to end the Presidency. Let's elect none of the above, no one, to the office. This is the one and only thing that could possibly get Congress to resume its Constitutionally mandated duty to run our government. Leaving the office vacant is the only thing that could give us back our republic.

Posted by Glen Tomkins | December 13, 2007 11:33 PM

MY - Chris Bowers says he'll vote for John Edwards. Markos says it's Barack Obama. I agree with both of them. The difference is that while both of them are unenthusiastic about their choices, I'd be pretty enthusiastic with either. The trouble is that I think a lot of people set their expectations for politicians too high, and then wind up unduly disappointed when reality strikes home.

Would it be too much to expect of some 80 million Democrats that they come up with candidates that have proven, executive leadership success in the military, business, and government BEFORE dredging up the Obamas, Edwards, Kuchinichs, AND Hillarys? WTF is the issue with the Democrat talent pool?

No Generals? Not even an officer or NCO past where they at least led a squad? No Governors or high Fed exec officeholders that did amazingly well in fixing problems. What about the business success stories Dems have that show they can deal with complexity, imperfect info, and competition?

And the one they DID find, Richardson, comes across as a flummoxed graduate of Special Ed.

Hillary claims she was Co-governor, Co-President - but suspicions she is a Potemkin in Pantsuit will accumulate until she provides documentation she is listed on the critical policy memos and recorded by Little Rock and White House secretaries as attending the crucial decision meetings of Clinton's time. For now, all those records are being kept from journalists by Clinton lawyers and the Presidential Records Law that allows Bill Clinton to control access to all those who met or got memos related to his (and his Co-Whatever) decisions. We just have Hillary and Bill's word for it, and who relies on the "personal word and assurances" of either of those natural-born liars?

Other than that, Hillary has no litigation history, just nepotic Arkansas jobs and prestigious Board appointments Bill Clinton got her.
She failed the DC Bar exam.
Yet we are supposed to believe that unlike other First Ladies, she is qualified by virtue of an extensive Decision-maker history of which the whole paper trail is now under Bill's lock and key.

Posted by Chris Ford | December 14, 2007 1:27 AM

jhupp: That's fine. We're probably closer than we think we are. As an aside I think re-centering the argument on Nixon's ability to be honest is a mistake, because that's kind of an extra-political concern in some way. It's like blaming a candidate for halitosis or something.

I think we should split the difference and just say that Bush did not seem like a moderate Republican or an extremist Republican. He seemed like he was in the middle of the Republican pack, purely as a matter of the spectrum. Indeed, this is why he was the anointed GOP candidate several months before New Hampshire. Because he seemed to offer the right mix of conservative and moderate planks, just as a quite unexceptional, ordinary, not-extremist, not-moderate Republican is likely to do. To a liberal, an unapologetic, non-extremist Republican may often sound quite hard-line.

Re-reading your last post, I think you blur the lines between a media and populace insufficiently curious (don't disagree, but remember scrutiny in 2000 was still incredibly high, it was a long campaign just like this one will be), and a candidate intentionally cloaking his less acceptable views, which you state several times, Bush did. So if someone is actually wearing camouflage, to what extent is it "just" the public's fault for not seeing him?

I'd feel a lot better about your argument if you cited chapter and verse Bush saying things that were considered politically unacceptable before November 2000. But you haven't. If he was saying them about things like the International Court that the public doesn't care much about, does that mean I win the argument? Does calling Jesus his favorite philosopher count?

Posted by Martin | December 14, 2007 3:12 AM

Oh, and one last thing. Bush is a complicated person to be arguing about because in one crucial sense, he did not change once he became president -- by which I mean he kept wearing the camouflage in some ways. There was a poll, I think it was after the 2004 election, in early 2005, that disastrous year for Bush, when his support was declining but he still had, you know, non-ideologically rabid supporters (remember those days? yes, it did once happen.). Anyway, they polled Bush voters and asked them about all sorts of nice-sounding positions that Bush did not hold. So they'd ask, "do you think Bush supports the U.S. being on the International Court?" Bush voters would say yes, of course he does. (He doesn't.) Similarly, "do you think Bush favors enforcing decreased emissions on automobiles?" Bush voters thought that Bush did favor this. (He doesn't.) Bush conveyed "decency/uprightness" so strongly to his supporters (if no one else) that even they had trouble understanding who it was they had voted for. It's a condemnation of Bush's policies (i.e. he can only govern effectively if people think he's a crypto-Democrat), but maybe a partial explanation for the idea that he ran as a hard-line conservative.

Posted by Martin | December 14, 2007 3:23 AM

Hillary Clinton has really raised her game and become a much more progressive figure than I'd expected she would be at the beginning of this process.

Did you not read "It Takes a Village," or did you just forget the part about forced communal child ownership?

Hillary's political beliefs peg her somewhere to the left of "Socialist Radical" and just to the right of Joseph Stalin. The only political groups to the left of her are Communists, misleadingly-named "Libertarian Socialists," and Neoconservatives.

Posted by Shinyk | December 14, 2007 3:54 AM