Edwards’ (Seriously Flawed) Electability Argument
By 2008Central.net | Related entries in 2008 Election, Barack, Bloomberg, Democrats, Edwards, Elections, McCain, NewsThe Edwards campaign latest justification for remaining in the race is that John Edwards is the ONLY electable Democratic candidate (as opposed to a similar but very different argument that Edwards is more electable than the other candidates). The campaign started making this argument after Iowa and has expanded on it ever since. Recently, Edwards has been arguing that he’s the candidate that can take on John McCain, saying:
“I think it’s important for us to have somebody run against McCain who can beat him..And national polls show that I’m the one who beats John McCain in the general election.”
Rural Adviser to John Edwards, Mudcat Saunders echoed the campaign’s assertion-fest with a post on Huffington Post. Saunders states, but doesn’t really substantiate this contention:
It should be clear to anybody with over a 50 IQ that my boy John Edwards, with his combination of red state electoral experience and toughness, is the only candidate who can beat John McCain. Whether you believe polls or not, polls from CNN to Rasmussen say just that.
And it should be equally as clear to anybody with over a 25 IQ that Obama and Clinton are going to render each other totally unelectable against any Republican, especially John McCain, by the time we get to the convention.
All the Republicans have to be loving this. Because the Democrat they don’t want to face, John Edwards, is getting sandwiched between the coverage of this murderous cat fight between two so-called “historical” candidates who, when all is said and done, will be just that. HISTORY.
To begin, it’s just flat out silly to predicate an argument for electability solely on poll numbers. Polls, as recently demonstrated, are not definitive. Moreover, polls 10-11 months ahead of an election are even more insignificant. Finally, the numbers for Obama v. McCain and Hillary Clinton v. McCain are not so unbelievably one sided as to suggest that it would be impossible for either Clinton or Obama to beat McCain should he be the Republican nominee.
Additionally, there’s inherent flaw within Edwards’ argument. He contends that based upon the current polls, only he can beat McCain. This, of course, requires the assumption that the numbers are inflexible, relatively static and thus unlikely to change come November. That said, if polls are legitimate indicators of support (as the campaign seems to suggest), then why should trends in the Democratic primary be any different? In other words, Edwards is arguing that you should vote for him, despite his very low poll numbers in the Democratic primary, because some polls show Hillary and Obama losing in a match up against McCain. Let me be clear, I’m not suggesting that the numbers aren’t flexible, I’m just demonstrating how silly the logic of Edwards’ argument is when analyzed.
The Edwards campaign also criticizes both Obama and Clinton for attacking each other and suggests that its the battled between Obama and Clinton that is undermining the Democratic Party’s chance for victory in ‘08. I’m unclear as to why Edwards has the authority to criticize either candidate for negative attacks, when his campaign has levied some pretty scathing attacks when they believed it would suit them, such as Elizabeth Edwards questioning Hillary Clinton’s record on women’s issues or Edwards suggestion that his rivals are corporate Democrats (just a few the past); and more recently, with Edwards adding to the Obama-Rezko narrative by recounting a private discussion with Hillary on the subject (isn’t this a very similar tactic that Joe Trippi attacked Mark Penn for?). It’s worth noting that I’m not necessarily criticizing Edwards for the aforementioned criticisms of his opponents. What I am criticizing, as I have in the past, is Edwards doing one thing and then later taking the high ground on the same issue. You simply cannot argue that your opponents attacks on each other are bad for the party, when you participated in tough attacks yourself. That’s really all I’m saying.
Moving on to the core of Edwards’ electability, I offer the following considerations…
[Continued at 2008Central.net]
This entry was posted on Wednesday, January 23rd, 2008 and is filed under 2008 Election, Barack, Bloomberg, Democrats, Edwards, Elections, McCain, News. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.
January 23rd, 2008 at 10:07 pm
The Blog entry CNN Refuses to Post
Edwards is obviously the greatest threat to Republicans of the three candidates. Republican strategists have admitted so. Three focus groups on three different occasions have considered him the winner of previous debates. He has practically been given no coverage. I guess because of the other candidates advertising war chests.
In watching the democratic debate last night, I was disgusted to see a political party that has thoroughly degenerated into a bi-polar, schizoid mass of narcissistic personalities living in an almost farcical dark fantasy where nuances and style are paramount over substance. They seem to share a tabloid symbiosis with a corrupt, bias and shallow media, neither of which can be taken seriously. Both players are complicit in appealing to our basest instincts and interests.
With $3.19 per gallon gas prices, war with Iraq, nuclear ambitions of Iran, bleeding borders and budgets, the framing of the debate between gender and race, between only two of the three candidates had beauty
shop gossip quality. The panelists asked pathetically thin questions.
Example:
I felt sorry for Obama when asked the absolutely inane but charged question.
“Do think Bill Clinton was the first black president?â€
(It would take volumes of pages to critique such a queer question and the real insult that it should be to African Americans. Can’t we have real Negro be the first black president? Please do not take that away from us.)
>
This loaded question is like asking a kindergarten teacher, in room full of children if there is a Santa Claus?
From a black candidate there is no correct answer to it. If the mantle of first black president was to be awarded to any white man then :
> I think Lincoln was the first black president.
Let us a free and full debate!
>
I certainly think the Democratic Party is missing its best opportunity with John Edwards. He has earned his way through life and has fought the good fight and deserves some serious consideration. He seemed to be left behind on the stage and so have the issues and we mainstream democrats. I believe if that’s the case, either of the other two candidates will be left behind by the voters in the general election. Please Vot Edwards
January 23rd, 2008 at 11:05 pm
Umm, sorry but neither Clinton or Obama are electable, both are corrupt and would only offer a continuation of the bad economic policies Bush has given us. Read the article below. I’ve supplied the text, however you really should read the original on tpmcafe.com, because there are links to the source articles that delve fully into the dirty deals Obama engaged in with Rezko. Imagine the hey the right wing will be able to make out of this, once they get an easily defeatable candidate as the nominee. Edwards is a candidate of principles, the worst they could throw at him was that malarkey about a haircut.
http://tpmcafe.com/blog/coffeehouse/2008/jan/22/didn_t_obama_watch_the_firm
Didn’t Obama Watch the Firm?
By Larry Johnson | bio
I guess Senator Obama was just too busy working for the poor and homeless in Chicago to take time to watch the Tom Cruise movie, The Firm. Because if he had the Tony Rezko case would not be biting him in the ass. In case you forgot, Cruise played a white version of Barack Obama–a charming, up-and-comer fresh out of law school idealist who fell in with a crowd of scalawags who were tied to the mob.
But I digress. Here’s the problem. Why is Barack not coming clean about his relationship with Antoin “Tony†Rezko, who is facing charges on federal corruption charges? If there really is nothing there, then don’t do the Bill Clinton shuffle. Just tell the truth.
But Obama can’t or won’t do that. And I wonder why? During Monday night’s Democratic debate, Hillary Clinton brought up Obama’s past association with Rezko. Wolf Blitzer gave Obama a chance to set the record straight:
BLITZER: I’m going to go to Suzanne Malveaux in a second, but I just want to give you a chance, Senator Obama, if you want to respond. Senator Clinton made a serious allegation that you worked for a slumlord. And I wonder if you want to respond.
OBAMA: I’m happy to respond. Here’s what happened: I was an associate at a law firm that represented a church group that had partnered with this individual to do a project and I did about five hours worth of work on this joint project. That’s what she’s referring to.
So he was just associated with a law firm that partnered with Rezko? Just some guy? This is not true. In some circles it is called a lie. Now I don’t know about you, but when someone starts tap dancing about simple, easily investigated facts it means they are covering something up. Obama had more than an incidental relationship with Rezko.
FACT. Obama bought property with Tony Rezko. Here are the facts from Obama’s own mouth:
Q: Senator, when did you first meet Tony Rezko? How did you become friends? How often would you meet with him, and when did you last speak with him?
A: I had attracted some media attention when I was elected the first black President of the Harvard Law Review. And while I was in law school, David Brint, who was a development partner with Tony Rezko contacted me and asked whether I would be interested in being a developer. Ultimately, after discussions in which I met Mr. Rezko, I said no.
I have probably had lunch with Rezko once or twice a year and our spouses may have gotten together on two to four occasions in the time that I have known him. I last spoke with Tony Rezko more than six months ago.
Q: Did you approach Rezko or his wife about the property, or did they approach you?
A: To the best of my recollection, I told him about the property, and he developed an interest, knowing both the location and, as I recall, the developer who had previously purchased it.
Q: Why did you not publicly disclose the transaction after Rezko got indicted?
A: At the time, it didn’t strike me as relevant. I did however donate campaign contributions from Rezko to charity.
Doesn’t everybody buy an adjacent piece of property with a casual acquaintance whom you barely know?
FACT. Rezko has been a major contributor to Obama’s political campaigns. According to the Chicago Sun-Times:
During his 12 years in politics, Sen. Barack Obama has received nearly three times more campaign cash from indicted businessman Tony Rezko and his associates than he has publicly acknowledged, the Chicago Sun-Times has found.
Obama has collected at least $168,308 from Rezko and his circle. Obama also has taken in an unknown amount of money from people who attended fund-raising events hosted by Rezko since the mid-1990s….Sources close to both Rezko and Obama, however, said Rezko raised money often for Obama….
Tony was one of the biggest fund-raisers.â€
FACT. Obama used his political position to lobby on behalf of Rezko’s business interests.
Taylor Marsh provides the details:
There’s also been a lot of back and forth about the letters Obama wrote on behalf of a project that Rezko owned. One story has Rezko’s attorney saying adamantly that his client didn’t ask Obama to write the letters. Obama still wrote them. Another letter written by Obama was on behalf of New Kenwood LLC, a company formed by Obama’s former boss, Davis, and Rezko.
“I am writing in support of the New Kenwood LLC’s proposal to build a ninety-seven unit apartment building at 48th and Cottage Grove for senior citizens,†Obama wrote in separate letters, each dated Oct. 28, 1998, to city and state housing officials. “This project will provide much needed housing for Fourth Ward citizens.â€
At the time he wrote the letters, Obama was also a lawyer with Miner Barnhill & Galland, the law firm Davis formerly headed. Among the firm’s clients were several companies owned by Davis and Rezko. The firm did not represent New Kenwood.
Davis and Rezko hired Daley & George, the law firm of the mayor’s brother Michael, to help them get $3.1 million from bonds issued by the city of Chicago. … ..
I am sick and tired of the word parsing. I did not like it when Bill Clinton did it, but at least he could argue he was trying to save his marriage. Hillary took too long to admit her mistake in supporting the Iraq war resolution in 2002. And George W. Bush takes the prize. We have had seven, going on eight years, of him flat out lying about terrorism and war, and Americans have died because of it.
So excuse me if you expect me to take Senator Barack Obama seriously while he claims not to know some guy who was his neighbor. Yeah he ate lunch with him but only twice a year for several years. Tony somebody. And then there’s that matter about Rezko giving him hundreds of thousands of dollars for his campaigns. Anyone who has ever run for public office does not give a rats ass about anyone willing to pony up hundreds of thousands of dollars for their campaign. And I am sure Obama feels the same way. Why would he remember a generous contributor?
And finally, Senator Obama, you don’t know this guy but you’ll write two letters using your good name to shill for his business enterprises? Cut me a break. If you are going to lie at least do it with some style. You don’t know dick about Tony Rezko? I don’t think so.
January 24th, 2008 at 12:04 am
John Edwards is a southerner, and as a nominee he would have the clout, the following in which to compaign strongly and he’d win southern states like Texas, South Carolina, North Carolina and Georgia. He’d also win Ohio and Florida. This is common sense. It’s not about what polls say but what the polls reflect regarding electibility.