Network News

X My Profile
View More Activity

Edwards Campaign's Closing Memo

In a new internal memo outlining the campaign's planned message in the final days before the Iowa caucuses, the deputy campaign manager for former senator John Edwards (N.C.) argues that his candidate's middle-class message is working while predicting New York Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton will spend the next week parroting the campaign tactics of the current Republican president in an attempt to frighten voters.

"We know that Senator Clinton will spend the week touting her national security credentials in a move that echoes George Bush's 2004 campaign," writes Jonathan Prince, deputy campaign manager for Edwards. "We believe Democrats will not be fooled by efforts to play on their fears."

As for Sen. Barack Obama, Prince writes that "it's no accident that Obama's criticisms of Edwards coincide with Edwards' uptick in recent polls."

The pointed criticisms of his candidate's main rivals in Iowa are part of a three-page memo that outlines Edwards's closing argument for voters in Iowa.

Over the final eight days of the Iowa campaign, Edwards is planning a series of "small round table discussions and community meetings" in the state designed to push his positive message of lifting up the middle class, writes Prince.

In truth, that's not such a major leap from the underpinnings of the Edwards campaign from its start. He's sought to paint himself as the only person whose life experiences enable him to stand up to the entrenched special interests that both he and Obama have railed against for most of the race.

"'America Rising' [Edwards's new campaign slogan] is compelling because it relates the challenges and triumphs of Edwards' own life to those the country faces right now and calls on Iowans, and all Americans, to rise up and use the power they have to bring the change we need," writes Prince.

The campaign believes strongly that the message is resonating among voters, a point Prince makes several times in the memo -- citing crowd sizes and debate response as evidence. "We enter the final week before the Iowa Caucus in a position of strength," writes Prince. "Nearly every poll finds Edwards enjoying momentum that places us in a statistical tie with Senators Clinton and Obama for first place."

It's true that Edwards does seem to be on something of a roll of late -- although it's not totally clear how much of the roll is a creation of the campaign and how much is a genuine grass-roots uprising. It's worth noting that Edwards closed extremely strongly in the final weeks of the 2004 campaign. It's also worth pointing out, however, that the 2004 race was far more fluid than the current contest.

Prince closes the memo by rebutting the idea that even if Edwards wins Iowa he simply doesn't have the organizational heft to carry the momentum. He notes that Edwards has eight times more staff in New Hampshire than he did in 2004 and just added 24 staffers in Nevada. Prince also points out that Edwards was the first candidate on television in South Carolina and notes that the senator won that state in 2004.

The final week of the campaign will be filled with jousts and parries just like this one. Edwards enters the final week with a spurt of momentum he is hoping to keep up through a mix of positive messages about his life experience and a contrast message about the mistaken tactics adopted by his two main opponents.

The wonderful thing about politics is that in eight days, we'll know whether the Edwards strategy was the right or the wrong one.

By Chris Cillizza  |  December 26, 2007; 12:03 PM ET
Categories:  Eye on 2008  
Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   Del.icio.us   StumbleUpon   Technorati   Google Buzz   Previous: Pro-Edwards 527 Hits TV Airwaves in Iowa Today
Next: McCain vs. Romney: The Sequel

Comments

"His opposition to earmarked pork and his demolition of the corrupt deal between Boeing and the Air Force have not enchanted fellow Republican politicians."

McCain's positions on pork and his attempts to expose corruption could make him my favorite Senator even if he were from Mars. But since he was born in US Territory he is
eligible to become President, and damn well qualified.

The quote is from a conservative columnist,
everybody's least favorite, Mr. Novak.

Mr. Novak does not even mention that it was McC who exposed Abramoff.

I suppose that it is sorrowful to note Mr. Novak's view of other Rs in the Senate, by contrast.

Posted by: mark_in_austin | December 27, 2007 8:32 AM | Report abuse

urban4: Not suggesting anything at all, just what some other blogs are about. Like this one, there are days when it is almost impossible to see anything but from a couple of the "Nuts or Wackos" that are prevalent here at times.

Posted by: lylepink | December 27, 2007 2:24 AM | Report abuse

GOSH Chris, that is SO EXCITING! howEVER did you get that Insider Information? Isn't it COOL that you got the double-secret inside campaign memo!

Please.

Nice of you to post the wishful thinking of the Edwards campaign, all dolled up in the guise of an "internal memo" that just happened to make it to your desk. And so handy that it carries such sunny predictions for the Edwards campaign!

The truly galling thing - and what keeps campaigns using such a convenient Message Delivery System - is how many folks on this thread seemed to jump right in and contest the memo without any indication they realized its incredible artifice.

If you're going to play the part of the mailman, at least deliver, you know, Actual News.

Otherwise please change your byline from now on to Chris Shillizza.

Posted by: ericd1112 | December 27, 2007 12:50 AM | Report abuse

While I sincerely wish that beckerbeavers' take on Edwards' chances would play out, I can't help but think that even if he wins Iowa, there won't be enough momentum to win either NH or SC. Second place finishes in both of those places might go a long way toward making it a two person race, but even that seems excessively optimistic.

Why is it that politicians, and apparently their supporters, constantly predict victory after victory? Does that really make anyone decide to vote for them? What would that say about the electorate if it did, that we are a bunch of fair weather fans? I suppose we can add how assured a candidate is in their own success to those other all important qualifications for the highest office in the land...how much do they pay for haircuts and can I picture myself having a beer with them at a barbecue?

If there was ever anything that even remotely resembled a rational consideration of whose interests a candidate's policies would work toward, the race would be down to Kucinich and Edwards and Republicans would poll about 15% in the general election.

Is it too much to ask that people pay a little attention, read a whitepaper or two, and vote on the substance of policy? If it is, then it is time to divide the country in half and let the greedy multimillionaires, the gun toting paranoids, and the creationists bunk together while the rest of us build a country worth living in.

Posted by: evereye3 | December 27, 2007 12:47 AM | Report abuse

Lyle-- Re your 10:19 post, check your sources. Sounds very biased to me.

I hope you are not suggesting that 50% of the African American voters are part of the "loony left and media as a whole".

Posted by: urban4 | December 27, 2007 12:19 AM | Report abuse

The Senate is, and almost always has been, a reactionary institution. Why? Because of the way it is set up.

Wyoming, with only a half million people in it, has the same representation in the Senate as California, with 36 million. Wyoming has fewer people in it than Washington, DC, which has no representation in the Congress.

Put it another way. California has more people in it that the twenty states with the lowest population. That is 40 to 2 in Senate votes.

Now, add to that the ability to use the filibuster, "Democratic" Senators like Lieberman (I-Israel) and a fascist President with the veto, and is it any wonder that there was little productive progressive legislation passed?

Speaking of the Presidency, the Electoral College is also influenced by this undemocratic Senate. In every state the number of electors in the "Collage" is equal to the number of its Representatives plus the two Senators. That means that Wyoming has one elector for every 171,667 voters, California has one elector for every 662,854 voters. That means that the Wyoming resident has 4 times the voting power of a California voter.

Of course, that means that the Wyoming voter should take 4 times the blame for allowing this kleptocracy that is called the Bush Administration.

As far as Edwards is concerned, he has my vote. Coming from the lower middle class he became successful through hard work and not through connections.

He's a success because he worked for the weak against the powerful, not sucking up to power.

He's struggled through family tragedies, and they've made him stronger.

He's not afraid to make a decision, or to admit to a mistake. That's true strength.

His wife, Elizabeth, is everything I would want in a first lady and partner to the President.

That's more than I can say about any other candidate.

Posted by: capemh | December 26, 2007 11:35 PM | Report abuse

It finally looks like John Edwards is riding the rocket ship to come in Number 1 in Iowa on January 3rd. One can assume that the momentum gained from Iowa will change the outcome in the New Hampshire contest - with Edwards winning New Hampshire too. With two wins - the momentum for Edwards will be too strong to deny and he will clean South Carolina too.

Afterwards, Barack Obama will drop out of the race and send his support for Edwards.
It is at that juncture that Edwards will eliminate the Clinton wagon train.

It will be obvious soon that Edwards will be declared the nominee for president.

Senator Clinton will then publicly proclaim her strong support for Edwards. Former President Clinton will finally disappear from the headlines and move to Bora Bora.

Posted by: beckerbeavers | December 26, 2007 11:04 PM | Report abuse

urban4: What I have found on several cites described as Obama support is coming from "The Loony Left and Media, as a whole." Taking this into consideration, it is apparent Hillary is strong among the average everyday folks, and Obama gets his support from the "Hillary Haters" and most right-wing groups that are out to stop Hillary.

Posted by: lylepink | December 26, 2007 10:19 PM | Report abuse

Looks like poor KOZ didn't get the Betsy-Wetsy doll he was jonesing for. Even by his standards he has filled this thread with bile and bitterness.

Posted by: Spectator2 | December 26, 2007 10:11 PM | Report abuse

What about Huckabee's campaign to enlist ministers?

Posted by: drindl | December 26, 2007 9:41 PM | Report abuse

Lyle -- One thing is sure. At least some of these ministers were not actively seeking to support Obama, but were called by the campaign to support him. My guess is that the same is true for Clinton's list and I would be surprised if there weren't inaccuracies there too.

The dynamic of African-American support for HRC and BHO is fascinating to me. It seems that most of the AA political leaders support HRC. The majority of popular AA support was heavily pro-Clinton a year ago but is decidedly pro-Obama now.

http://online.wsj.com/public/article/SB119759876506928645-dSmOz6FXuP4vNl_0_wNkgx7ROc8_20080113.html?mod=tff_main_tff_top

Posted by: urban4 | December 26, 2007 8:44 PM | Report abuse

urban4: This is something I have been running across for about two weeks or so about the Obama campaign. There seems to be a little bit of distorting "FACTS" as noted about the Ministers. Taken separately these mean little, but when they are a consistent pattern, I, myself, began to wonder if it is calculated in the hope nobody notices.

Posted by: lylepink | December 26, 2007 8:26 PM | Report abuse

JCA-- That would be an interesting scenario. A threeway tie would be good fro Edwards and Obama and bad for Clinton.

However, we would only know the percentage of delegates awarded to each candidate. Popular vote numbers are not made public by the Iowa Dem. See this link for an explanation:

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/18/opinion/18cranberg.html

The number of precinct delegates is determined by the number of caucusgoers in the past 2 elections (2004 and 2006), not the same for each precinct.

Posted by: urban4 | December 26, 2007 8:26 PM | Report abuse

Or the closet, as it were.

Posted by: JKrishnamurti | December 26, 2007 8:00 PM | Report abuse

oh, before I go.

zouk is a fascist clown. look at teh archieves. The women lost it long ago. Your all better to let him toil in irrelevance where he belongs. Where all the fascist propognadist belong. In the basement.

Posted by: JKrishnamurti | December 26, 2007 7:59 PM | Report abuse

Is that true about drudge signing on with the WaPo. I thought I couldn't hate these fascist propogandists any more. I'm done with this site for good. What is a newsperson with zero credibility? A propogandist? if they are professing fascist principles? A fascist propogandist? YEs they are.

I'm done wasting my time. coming here is like me watching fox. i think I'm hitting them where it hurts but they are laughing to the bank. I;m done with this garbage site. What a waste of time.

Keep holding it down drindl and crisis.

May God shine his wisdom on you and protect you for eternity. Hold this site down. Hold it down for another week. I'm done.

Obama- Dodd 08

Posted by: JKrishnamurti | December 26, 2007 7:55 PM | Report abuse

If Edwards wins the most precinct delegates (by being well organized in rural area precincts with fewer caucus goers) but finishes a close 3d in the total vote of caucus goers, how will that be treated in the media? A win? A win if the total numbers of caucus goers overall arethisclose? Igonred?

(As I understand it, every precinct awards the same number of delegates regardless of number of caucus attendees. Please correct if I'm wrong).

Posted by: jca-CrystalCity | December 26, 2007 7:51 PM | Report abuse

Lyle,
I was also surprised by HRC's apparent rebound in Iowa, even if it is within the margin of error. she does seem to work very hard for the votes and it shows. I disagree though on the newsworthiness of the SC minister story. It is really a tempest in a teapot. Two mistakes on a list of 130 is not that bad.


Posted by: urban4 | December 26, 2007 6:15 PM | Report abuse

Roo -- I also thought that the NYT piece on HRC's experience was balanced and factual. If anything, it supports HRC's claims of experience in diplomacy and public policy by providing specific examples.

Posted by: urban4 | December 26, 2007 6:07 PM | Report abuse

LOL, drindl made a funny. she changed one word and reposted it. ha ha.

I wish I was smart like Loony Old Liberal, LOL

simple simon is that plaigerism or just unoriginal thinking?

why am I asking you?

Posted by: kingofzouk | December 26, 2007 6:02 PM | Report abuse

Posted by proudtobeGOP:
"Here's a clue Hillary - without the taxpayers, you don't have anything to give. Why should we feel grateful for getting some back from you? It's NOT yours, to give, or anything else. What a sense of entitlement this woman brings to government. Sheesh!"

Sense of entitlement, eh? Well gee, poster-with-the-way-too-long-name, I guess the hated Hillary Clinton has something in common with the current commander in chief, no?

Posted by: vegasgirl1 | December 26, 2007 5:59 PM | Report abuse

'the usual hate-filled bile from the king of delusion. another day of overly hysterical nastiness.'

you describe yourself well, koz.

and what do you do for a 'living' koz? it keeps constantly changing, like bushie's reasons for invading Iraq.

Posted by: drindl | December 26, 2007 5:57 PM | Report abuse

kingofzouk: I hate to like, tell you this, but, like, conservatives use the exact same slang -- not just "liberal moonbats." Please grow up, sir. Your postings are very sad.

Posted by: vegasgirl1 | December 26, 2007 5:56 PM | Report abuse

roo - can't you get the rules down yet? printing 40 above-the-fold stories about
Abu Ghraib, wherein we "tortured" prisoners by putting panties on their heads is far and away more important than the "experience" of the likely Dem presidential candidate. so far one story on that.

While we are on the MSM rules, also recall that O"reilly has the highest ratings on cable news because the viewers don't understand the tormented rantings of Krazy Keith, who speaks truth to power every day at his own peril. and kruggman's columns didn't work as a pay site because the NYtimes felt the people deserved his wisdom at no charge. don't try to figure it out logically, you will just have to memorize these rules. and try to keep the definition of the word "is" straight. If you have any questions, take a poll.

Posted by: kingofzouk | December 26, 2007 5:54 PM | Report abuse

urban4 - if you think that simple simon has thoughtful writing than I must surmise that your lack of grammar skills points to something more sinister than typos and rapid posting, perhaps stupidity is to blame.

Posted by: kingofzouk | December 26, 2007 5:47 PM | Report abuse

Your poll watcher is back again after some Peanut Butter Pie for X-Mas. Rasmussen has Hillary ahead in Iowa again, this must be about 20 or so polls I've seen in the last month or so about Iowa. There seems to be a win in here for Hillary, if only the women caucus goers get another friend to accompany them. Some news from SC about Ministers endorsing Obama, seems there are a few on his list that are not supporting him. With about half the primary vote made up of black folk, this could have a negative effect there as well. Apparently the miracle we Hillary supporters had for Iowa is now becoming more of a reality.

Posted by: lylepink | December 26, 2007 5:45 PM | Report abuse

Cross from another thread:

claudialong--"The Post has become a rightwing joke. today the NYTIMes ran a similar hit piece on Hilllary on the front page. They always do as their rightwing publishers wish, when push comes to shove."

The Clinton picture idiocy was terrible judgement, just like the Obama "muslim rumour" stuff (although I do not seem to recall certain board regulars complaining about THAT one.)

The NYT piece is not a "hit," though. It is the very first time in this campaign that an MSM outlet calls Clinton out on her "superior experience" claims. It is fairly objective, actually. If you have any problems with its content or presentation, I would be happy to hear specific rebuttals.

Posted by: roo_P | December 26, 2007 5:41 PM | Report abuse

JD -- Even with his history of plagiarism Biden remains orders of magnitudes more original and better man than KOZ.

Bsimon -- keep posting. Your thoughtful writing makes it worth to wade through the toxic dump that KOZ is turning this blog to.

Posted by: urban4 | December 26, 2007 5:39 PM | Report abuse

Does LOL mean loony old Liberal?

you moonbats always use this like, every other, like, word and it sounds like, you know, like you don't have much of a like, you know, LOL, commmand of the language, you know? LOL

FYI - you don't have to like, you know, write loony old liberal in each and, you know, every post to sound like a teenager. Like, you know, LOL, your name gets , like, signed at the bottom, like, you know, automatically.

TTFN

Posted by: kingofzouk | December 26, 2007 5:39 PM | Report abuse

"I am sorry your reading comprehension seems to be as retarded as your logic and reasoning skills... add something to the dialogue here, instead of the usual insults and vacant opinion you typically offer..."


LOL

Posted by: bsimon | December 26, 2007 5:37 PM | Report abuse

simple simon, I am sorry your reading comprehension seems to be as retarded as your logic and reasoning skills.

I will type slower for you:\

I was suggesting that a worthy goal for YOU in the new year would be to add something to the dialogue here, instead of the usual insults and vacant opinion you typically offer. Maybe drindl's pack of jackels could follow suit and the Fix would improve.

Until then, I guess we can expect more of drindl's star*studded prose.

Posted by: kingofzouk | December 26, 2007 5:34 PM | Report abuse

bsimon says, "Most people would call copying someone else's work without adding anything of your own 'plagiarism'."

Um, you mean like Biden did?

Posted by: JD | December 26, 2007 5:26 PM | Report abuse

"you have seized upoon a worthy goal for yourself in 2008."

LOL. I think we have enough Readers Digest affiliates posting here already. I'll leave that job to you & others.

Posted by: bsimon | December 26, 2007 5:24 PM | Report abuse

I see all that "quality time" with her family has gotten drindl all worked up.

the usual hate-filled bile from the queen of mean. another day of overly hysterical nastiness.

maybe if someone, anyone, would actually pay her to write something. but it seems the market is fully aware of the value of her contributions and priced them accordingly - $$0.00

Posted by: kingofzouk | December 26, 2007 5:24 PM | Report abuse

"add a certain something to the dialogue here"

you have seized upoon a worthy goal for yourself in 2008. coming from where you are starting, we don't hold high hopes for your progress. but maybe you can outwit and outspell rufas for your first accomplishment. Let's make it a stretch and assign this before the end of July - OK?

I know your green religion which worships al gore abhors science and citations which rely upon facts and figures but if you want to have religious discusssions based on faith, we can accomodate you also. Just try to keep the two straight.

Posted by: kingofzouk | December 26, 2007 5:17 PM | Report abuse

'we academics' hilarious. first a scientist, then an economist, then an academic. quite a busy schizophreniac, since you live on this board.

and Rudy -- qualified?

LOL -- Rudy, the biggest wh*re in government -- the biggest mouth at the government trough, the biggest contractor for secret, overbilled and underscrutinized big government giveaways, the biggest collector of middle class taxpayer's money, the biggest wh*re for the fascist dictaorships he does business with, the biggest sympathizer/investor in terrorist-harboring govenments that aid al Queda, a crooked, scheming, loony, power-hungry neo-fascist hater of the Constitution...

yeah, he'll be even better than bush.

Posted by: drindl | December 26, 2007 5:16 PM | Report abuse

"Santa clinton is going to give us all sorts of gifts and no one has to pay for them"

koz , What? You mean her commercial was just a hoax? Darn!

But relly, after watching her holiday commercial I thought if I wanted Santa for President, I'd move to the North Pole and vote.


So, she's going to take your tax dollars and give them back to you, or, more likely, someone or something else that she deems more important, and that's giving??? Only if you have a huge government mindset. Maybe it's my Hillary bias, but this really ticks me off. How presumptuous.

Here's a clue Hillary - without the taxpayers, you don't have anything to give. Why should we feel grateful for getting some back from you? It's NOT yours, to give, or anything else. What a sense of entitlement this woman brings to government. Sheesh!

Posted by: proudtobeGOP | December 26, 2007 5:16 PM | Report abuse

Yes, everyone knows the Libs obsession with tax-and-spend policies. Saint Reagan and Lord Bush have shown us the way it should be -- *borrow* and spend!

(Oh, and no-bid defense contracts and massive tax cuts for the wealthy. Mustn't forget those.)

Posted by: bearpaw01 | December 26, 2007 5:14 PM | Report abuse

"but we academics were taught to support our ideas with facts, reason and outside sources. when written particularly brilliantly and succinctly, we are encouraged to quote it in its entirety."


Most people would call copying someone else's work without adding anything of your own 'plagiarism'. Though I suppose, since you've credited the original source, we can call your posts the "Readers' Digest" contribution to The Fix. Again, thanks for contributing - the cut and pastes with no original content add a certain something to the dialogue here. If you want to feel better about yourself, you're not alone, drindl has been doing a bit of that as well.

Posted by: bsimon | December 26, 2007 5:10 PM | Report abuse

I apologize for using citations simple simon. I know you Libs vastly prefer to just make up stuff and voice opinions. even when stolen elsewhere you don't like to credit the buffoonery.

but we academics were taught to support our ideas with facts, reason and outside sources. when written particularly brilliantly and succinctly, we are encouraged to quote it in its entirety.

but I can clearly see why you prefer to insult and cynically offer your conspiracies and other moonbattery. why come to a match of wits unarmed when you can just change the subject? your head jackel drindl must be proud of her little progeny.

Posted by: kingofzouk | December 26, 2007 5:06 PM | Report abuse

Proud, you have to be careful when you you use that "new" math. before you know it, you will conclude that raising taxes is good for the economy and spurs it on, creating new jobs. you will conclude that Santa clinton is going to give us all sorts of gifts and no one has to pay for them.

Posted by: kingofzouk | December 26, 2007 5:01 PM | Report abuse

Zouk 'writes':
"Yes indeed, we can do better:
Robert Roughsedge: No one is better qualified to be President than Rudy Giuliani"

May I be the first to complement you on outdoing yourself with the cut and paste jobs? Your effort today, at 4:29 PM, Eastern has outdone all your prior efforts. The post today at 2:42 PM, Eastern, was amateurish by comparison. You have truly reached the pinnacle of your craft. All artists & craftsmen should aspire to reach such heights in their own work. But you, sir, are the master cut and paster. Nobody can do it better, certainly nobody here at The Fix. Kudos to you, Zouk. Premier Cut and Paster for 2007. Well done, sir.

Posted by: bsimon | December 26, 2007 4:58 PM | Report abuse

"Pelosi had vowed to cut the earmarks in half this year (to two thousand). The result? 9,000 earmarks in the gov omnibus bill, 2,000 in the defense bill. GOP had 3000, Dems 8000"

JD, you mean 2000 doesn't equal 8000? Generalissimo Pelosi and Leftenant Reid were just using the new math, and hoping voters wouldn't notice.

The explosion of earmarks in the last 10 years is truly staggering, up over 240% since 1994. Maybe legislators need reminding that, as Ronald Reagan always remembered, they were sent to Washington because of the principles they pledged to defend, not because the constituents thought they needed a change of address.


"The federal government spends too much money, squanders precious resources on questionable projects pushed by special interests, and ignores the priorities of the American taxpayer."

-Senator John McCain

And here we see, year after year, powerful members of Congress diverting taxpayer dollars to special interest pet projects with little or no national value.

This practice is especially egregious during wartime, when any federal spending wasted on parochial programs to satisfy special interests represents a failure by the federal government to properly steward tax dollars. The Democrat Congress gets a failing grade on fiscal discipline. F- for Reid and Pelosi.

Posted by: proudtobeGOP | December 26, 2007 4:49 PM | Report abuse

Yes indeed, we can do better:

Robert Roughsedge: No one is better qualified to be President than Rudy Giuliani
By ROBERT ROUGHSEDGE

16 hours, 28 minutes ago

I SUPPORT RUDY GIULIANI for President because he has demonstrated a remarkable ability to lead in the government sector. This is no small accomplishment.

New York City was the most crime-ridden city in America when Rudy took over, and he made it the safest large city in America. New York is also the third-largest government in the United States. Big government traditionally means bureaucracy and inefficiency. Rudy transformed this Democratic stronghold into, as George Will described it, "the most successful episode of conservative government in this country in the last 50 years."

Rudy inherited a $2.3 billion budget deficit and turned it into a multi-billion dollar surplus by reducing taxes 23 times, cutting regulations and reducing the size of the bureaucracy by 20 percent. The economic revival of New York City created 423,000 jobs and helped move 640,000 people off of welfare -- a 60 percent reduction.

This is an amazing accomplishment. Add to that the leadership he displayed under pressure and during a crisis of monumental proportions after the brutal attacks of 9/11 and the choice is clear. To paraphrase an old line, "If he can make it there, he'll make it any where . . ."

Rudy's experience and accomplishments under the most difficult circumstances are unmatched by any of his rivals. When pressed for why people support other candidates, the usual arguments are: Romney is a decent, honorable man; McCain is a hero; Huckabee is a deeply religious and practical man; and Thompson is a true conservative. These are all fine qualities, but these qualities alone do not assure a successful presidency.

http://www.unionleader.com/article.aspx?headline=Robert+Roughsedge%3a+No+one+is+better+qualified+to+be+President+than+Rudy+Giuliani&articleId=d9bf52b9-e5aa-442a-bf9f-b651ed87da99

Posted by: kingofzouk | December 26, 2007 4:29 PM | Report abuse

Cam8 - are you one of drindl's new jackels. you sure sound like one.

Posted by: kingofzouk | December 26, 2007 4:27 PM | Report abuse

"But will you?"

Not if the parties nominate Giuliani & Clinton.

Perhaps the point that you don't get is that, when I say "We can do better", I am not talking about a party, I am talking about a country.

Posted by: bsimon | December 26, 2007 4:27 PM | Report abuse

Hey Proud, I see that the Dem Congress just passed through the omnibus bill. Pelosi had vowed to cut the earmarks in half this year (to two thousand). The result? 9,000 earmarks in the gov omnibus bill, 2,000 in the defense bill. GOP had 3000, Dems 8000.

Hey, how about that ethical congress. Good to see Pelosi is so intent on sound government.

Posted by: JD | December 26, 2007 4:21 PM | Report abuse

Mark, one could argue that the 2004 Dem process was more fluid because of the apparent (though ultimately superficial) strength of Dean and the rapid rise and fall of Clark, both minimally known prior to running. In contrast, this year an anticipated contender has led in national polls throughout. As your comment suggests however, this may be due to the unusual stability of this year's race than to a tumultuous '04 race.

Interesting ARG Iowa poll of likely voters shows each of the top 5 R's within the margin of error of the person ahead of them. Poll was taken Dec 20-23.

Posted by: CJMiva | December 26, 2007 4:19 PM | Report abuse

We can do better.


But will you?

Posted by: kingofzouk | December 26, 2007 4:16 PM | Report abuse

"Lib policy disasters"?

That's rich, coming from someone who swears blind allegiance to a group of people who are responsible for the housing crisis, two economic recessions in the last 20 years (with a third on the way), locking the U.S. military into an occupation of Iraq with ill consequences that will last for decades to come, energy policy written by oil companies, education policy that has no hope of raising education standards, the costly, poorly executed "War on Terror" and "War on Drugs", and who had a fairly unhealhy obsession with a president's genitalia.

Posted by: cam8 | December 26, 2007 4:16 PM | Report abuse

proudtobeGOP writes
"[John Edwards's] outrage is fake, his memorized speeches are fake, everything about him is fake and contrived."

What is most annoying about Edwards is his apparent presumption that the only way he can help the less fortunate is by running for President. Had he spent more time & energy working to change the conditions that created the 'two Americas' against which he rallies, his arguments would hold more weight. At this stage, he seems, to me, to be the wrong person for the job. We can do better.

Posted by: bsimon | December 26, 2007 4:09 PM | Report abuse

mccarrie writes "All this garbage about John Edward's wealth disqualifying him from advocating for the poor"...

Garbage? What garbage? The only garbage you hear is that which is spewing forth from John Edwards' crooked mouth. His outrage is fake, his memorized speeches are fake, everything about him is fake and contrived...although he is somewhat convincing as a phony after years in the trenches as a product-liability litigator. Fighting for the little guy, yeah, right.

But who can blame him for sticking to his same, worn out message? He has absolutely zero foriegn policy experience, so for him it's best to stay away from pesky issues like national security and such.

Posted by: proudtobeGOP | December 26, 2007 3:46 PM | Report abuse

It is their job in the minority to avert the disaster that would be Lib policies. clearly they don't fear losing elections by doing this, on the contrary, it is an election winning strategy.

Overall , the Dem leadership style and substance is one of no compromise and lurching left. If they were effective in the least, they would figure out a way to govern under any conditions, not only in an environment of overwhelming majority, which is now never going to happen.

so their campaign theme for next year can be - elect more of us or you can expect nothing out of us. that's real Dem leadership for ya.

Posted by: kingofzouk | December 26, 2007 3:38 PM | Report abuse

'without the rest of your pack of slobbering jackels, you really stick out as a mean old misfit, drindl.'

wipe the drool and spittle off your face before you address me, con stooge.. you are a very ugly little man.

Posted by: drindl | December 26, 2007 3:34 PM | Report abuse

KOZ,

I suppose we're supposed to ignore the fact that the Republican minority in the 110th Congress broke the record for use of the filibuster in just one year?

The record was 61, over a two year stretch. Mitch McConnell, trying to do his best impersonation of McGwire breaking Maris' record, has employed the filibuster 62 times this year alone.

Harry Reid has screwed up; I don't deny that. I want him out. But the worst mistake the majority has made is failing to keep America informed that the Republican minority has been the most obstructionist in the history of this country, and by a wide margin.

Posted by: cam8 | December 26, 2007 3:31 PM | Report abuse

without the rest of your pack of slobbering jackels, you really stick out as a mean old misfit, drindl.

when the other stooges show up every day, you mix in and your brand of loonyiness seems almost normal - to the moonbat contingent.

Posted by: kingofzouk | December 26, 2007 3:26 PM | Report abuse

one last: happy days are here again, as con policies destroy the market for a long time to come:

NEW YORK (CNNMoney.com) -- Home prices fell 6.7 percent in October, compared with a year ago, according to the S&P/Case-Shiller 10-city home-price index. It was the largest drop recorded since the index began in 1987.

It marked the 10th consecutive month of price depreciation and 23 months of decelerating returns.

"No matter how you look at these data, it is obvious that the current state of the single-family housing market remains grim," said Robert J. Shiller, chief economist at MacroMarkets, in a statement.

Case-Shiller's 20-city index fell 6.1 percent. Shiller noted that 11 of the markets in the 20-city index posted a record fall.

"This is just the beginning," said Peter Schiff, a Darien, Conn.-based investment adviser. "Pressure is there for much, much lower prices."

Posted by: drindl | December 26, 2007 3:25 PM | Report abuse

since this site is people entirely by morons this aftenoon [zouk the proto-fascist and rat--the well-described functional idiot] you might as well give up and go on vacation, CC.

Posted by: drindl | December 26, 2007 3:22 PM | Report abuse

A vote for the Dimocrat Socialist Party, is a vote for Amnesty(Which will mean having to get in another 20,000,000 Invaders to replace the one's who are now Un-Employable-But, able to colect welfare, BECUASE Employers want Un-Documenteds to hire-No Beni's or rights!)

AND, Libbie Judges! You know, like the one's on the Ninth Circuit that BLOCK efforts to crack down on ID Thieves!

Mas Libbie Judges Por favor! Viva La Ivasora! Viva Reconquista! Viva Dimocrat Socialists para Hispanola!

Ho Ho HO!

Hee Hee hee!

Posted by: rat-the | December 26, 2007 3:18 PM | Report abuse

Easy to see that Edwards is in desperation mode. He might have an outside chance if Hillary vs. Obama gets uber-nasty again; and if Edwards stays out of petty squabbles.

http://www.political-buzz.com/

Posted by: parkerfl | December 26, 2007 3:07 PM | Report abuse

All this garbage about John Edward's wealth disqualifying him from advocating for the poor is the biggest bunch of sophistry I have ever seen. The logical induction is that if you're very wealthy you're OK as long as you don't give a squat about those less fortunate than yourself. Based on this reasoning, no politician can, or should, govern with the interests of the common man in mind since all politicos are well off. Unfortunately, it has virtually become a prerequisite for running. If the American people buy into this nonsense they will be assured of one thing; living in a society where the government is of the wealthy, for the wealthy, and by the wealthy.

Posted by: mcccarrie | December 26, 2007 2:57 PM | Report abuse

One California newspaper summed up the Democrat's first session well.

"The D in Democrat stands for Do-Nothing."

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi's hometown paper joined in the criticism, blasting her for reneging on her party's promise to run a more open Congress.

The San Francisco Chronicle went on to attack Pelosi for forgetting her promises about budget discipline. Even the liberal Huffington Post berated Pelosi's Democrats for "crawling out of town."

A beaten-down speaker admitted last week that if she were asked whether she approved of the job her Congress was doing, she would say "no."

Maybe that explains Congress's historically low 18 percent approval rating.

Or maybe it's because this Democratic Congress broke just about every promise they made to the American people last year.

Democrats promised to end the president's war and bring the troops home. Instead, they funded Mr. Bush's request to send even more soldiers into Iraq.

Democrats also promised to stop the president's wiretapping program. But they chose instead to cravenly codify the secret program into law.

On the campaign trail, Democrats promised to shut down GITMO. But today, it's still open for business.

Democrats promised to ban tough CIA interrogation tactics. But all they could manage on the topic of torture was a few hearings and scores of cheap headlines.

Harry Reid, the Senate majority leader, found himself beaten at every turn by the man he once called a "loser."

This past week, Reid and Pelosi left Washington, stunned by the president's refusal to buckle under pressure on issues like Iraq. But why should he? The Democrats always beat him to it.

In all, the Democratic leaders had 60 votes on Iraq and 60 chances to stand their ground. They lost every vote and backed down every time.

http://www.pensacolanewsjournal.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20071226/OPINION/712260306/1020

Posted by: kingofzouk | December 26, 2007 2:42 PM | Report abuse

America and the entire world is tired of the Republican Party's LSD fueled Facist agenda.

Bush has made the once proud phrase "American Democracy" the punch line of a thousand cruel jokes.

YouTube will be the downfall of the Republcian party.

All Democrats need to do to win is to post videos with any of the thousands of Bush and Cheney's LIES.

I'm looking forward to seeing my favorites: Bush's "Mission Accomplished" flight suit party, Colin Powell's UN fantasy romp, and, of course, Condi Rice's "We had no way to expect that Bin Laden would attack inside the US" (after she had seen the memo) speech, again, and again, and again.

Americans could see these classics a thousand times and still enjoy them, and they will.

"War, Lies, and Videotape", coming soon, and through next November, to a computer screen near you.

Remember, truth is the Republicans' greatest enemy.

We will give them all they can stand, and more.

Posted by: svreader | December 26, 2007 2:40 PM | Report abuse

GOP RACE BY THE NUMBERS

Number of delegates required to win: 1,191


Number of delegates chosen in 29 states that have primaries by Feb. 5: 1,313

Of the 29 states that have GOP primaries or caucuses by Feb. 5, 24 have conducted public polls in recent months.

Here are the current poll leaders in each state, and the number of delegates they will collect if they win in each:

RUDY GIULIANI

States leading: 13 (Michigan, Nevada, Florida, Arizona, California, Connecticut, Delaware, Illinois, Minnesota, Missouri, New Jersey, New York, Oklahoma)
Delegates: 758

MIKE HUCKABEE

States leading: 4 (Iowa, South Carolina, Arkansas, Georgia)
Delegates: 170

MITT ROMNEY

States leading: 4 (New Hampshire, Maine, Massachusetts, Utah)
Delegates: 112

FRED THOMPSON

States leading: 2 (Alabama, Colorado)
Delegates: 94

JOHN McCAIN

States leading: 1 (West Virginia)
Delegates: 30

STATES WITH NO PUBLIC POLLS: Wyoming, Alaska, North Dakota, Tennessee, Montana. Delegates: 149.

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/2007/12/26/2007-12-26_despite_polls_rudy_giulianis_not_done.html

Posted by: kingofzouk | December 26, 2007 2:30 PM | Report abuse

'a theory or system of social organization that advocates the vesting of the ownership and control of the means of production and distribution, of capital, land, etc., in the community as a whole.'

OH, oh, you know whenever drindl starts to actually write down facts there is always an embarrassing reality coming her way.

consider under a hillary administration

who controls the production and distribution of education?

who controls and distributes health care?

who controls and distributes retirement income?

who controls and distributes pre-K?

who controls and distributes political speech?

who controls and distributes energy?

who controls and distributes religion?

Hmmm, if it walks like a duck......

Posted by: kingofzouk | December 26, 2007 2:22 PM | Report abuse

well, except for... let's see, will the club for greed defeat the favorite? who will win this game? The corporate cons or the social cons?

'With the Iowa caucus just a week and a day from now, the Club For Growth isn't letting up on their anti-Mike Huckabee advertising. In fact, they're increasing their ad buy by $175,000, for a total of $550,000 spent against Huckabee in only three weeks by the anti-tax group.'

Posted by: drindl | December 26, 2007 2:20 PM | Report abuse

looks like huckabee, romney, mcain in Iowa, accoridng to poll take 12/24..

Meanwhile, on the GOP side Mike Huckabee leads with 23%, Romney has 21%, John McCain has 17%, and Rudy has 14%. Thompson, meanwhile, is completely in the toilet, with all of three percent.

Posted by: drindl | December 26, 2007 2:17 PM | Report abuse

Chris says, "The wonderful thing about politics is that in eight days, we'll know whether the Edwards strategy was the right or the wrong one."

Good one, Chris, ha, ha. Recently we have been told repeatedly that workers have not shared in the doubling of productivity over the last 30 years, yet no Democratic candidate (and certinly no Republican) has mentioned any plan to correct that. Hillary has said that she will "take a look" at NAFTA. Why not take that look right now? Why do we have to elect her to find out what she thinks? Bill Clinton, when running in 2002, said that he was undecided about NAFTA. As soon as he was elected, he decided. Workers have a lot of people "feeling their pain", but nobody has any concrete plans. If these jokers were applying for a job, they would not be able to tell us what was the matter with the other guy ("He is really ugly!") they would have to tell us what they are going to do; some details we could measure them by after they got the job.How is Obama going to pay for healthcare if only the sick have to sign up? How will Hillary close the wage gap between the top 20% and the bottom 20%? Looking at NAFTA? How come Hillary thinks that only low wage IT workers from India and China are "innovative"? Didn't IT workers born in the US, England, France, Germany, etc invent most of this stuff? Is there something bad in our water? We graduate twice as many PhDs as industry can use, and Hillary says we have to push the education button and wait 20 years for the engine to start. Can't these guys set goalposts that we can measure them by? Last time, Bill moved so far to the Right that he lost both houses to the Republicans. George Bush did much more for his party than Bill did for Democrats. Maybe Hillary wants to tell us how she will do better? No, Chris, we will know nothing after the Iowa dog-and-pony show. We will still hear the "oink" but we won't see any bacon. For the last thirty years, the fine print has removed the whole hog before workers get to eat.

Posted by: harrisonppicot | December 26, 2007 2:10 PM | Report abuse

This is all blithering nonsense, manifest proof that election reform is long overdue. The whole enchilada: 90-day campaign limit, public financing, NO TV ads, intelligent debate formats, multiple preference ballots, etc., etc. . . .

And as for Edward's wealth -- So what? Was it OK for FDR to advocate for the umemployed? What exactly is that talking point about?

Posted by: cdavidj | December 26, 2007 2:07 PM | Report abuse

More 'liberal media'

'Slate had long been one of those many "center left reputation makes it more effective at pushing its center right agenda" institutions that plague our political landscape. And its ex-publisher has found his new calling.

The GOP Web site is more interactive and user friendly thanks to the Republican National Committee's new Internet guru Cyrus Krohn.

..."I just came to the call of my party," Krohn tells Newsmax. "It struck me that this is a critical year in terms of electing another Republican to be president. What greater way to serve the country than to come and apply my experience to the party I'm such a strong believer in."

Krohn began his career as an intern for then Vice President Dan Quayle and worked at CNN as a producer on "Larry King Live" and later "Crossfire."

Posted by: drindl | December 26, 2007 2:05 PM | Report abuse

let me again post the actual meaning of 'socialism' so that the illiterates who used it improperly will possibly grasp their error:

'a theory or system of social organization that advocates the vesting of the ownership and control of the means of production and distribution, of capital, land, etc., in the community as a whole.'

No candidate in this country is espousing anything remotely like this. of course, I don't expect someone who apparently doesn't understand much of the English language to understand this.

You mean the 'Big Tent' with all the rich white males in it?let me again post the actual meaning of 'socialism' so that the illiterates who used it improperly will possibly grasp their error:

'a theory or system of social organization that advocates the vesting of the ownership and control of the means of production and distribution, of capital, land, etc., in the community as a whole.'

No candidate in this country is espousing anything remotely like this. of course, I don't expect someone who apparently doesn't understand much of the English language to understand this.

You mean the 'Big Tent' with all the rich white males in it?

'then maybe we could begin an actual adult conversation about how to solve some of the nations difficulties, without the empty rhetoric about free stuff from the government.'

of course. here's how we solve the 'nations difficulties' --free stuff from the government for rich folks -- more tax breaks!

Posted by: drindl | December 26, 2007 2:02 PM | Report abuse

so the NYTimes finally exposes some actual truth about hillary's "experience".

Laura bush for President - she has lots of experience too.

thankfully, the end of John edwards pitiful campaign is just around the corner. How totally dissappointing it must be for him to live in Iowa for 4 years, away from his mansion and servants, and then to end losing to hillie or barrie.

It will be very nice if the Dem party can moveon.org in 2008 away from the clintons, the edwards, the kennedys, the bidens, the dodds, the schumers, the reids and all the other 60s era socialists that have completely ruined their party.

then maybe we could begin an actual adult conversation about how to solve some of the nations difficulties, without the empty rhetoric about free stuff from the government.

Posted by: kingofzouk | December 26, 2007 1:56 PM | Report abuse

I shall let pass without comment the whiners from the Right who have shown their a$$es above, but.....

"It's worth noting that Edwards closed extremely strongly in the final weeks of the 2004 campaign."

gak! ........."extremely strongly"

You write for the nation's second most influential paper, do you?

Posted by: kuvasz | December 26, 2007 1:45 PM | Report abuse

Edwards is already hooking up with fellow Socialist, Barack Hussein. HE is going to be the "Hatchet" Man!

Look for Richardson to begin trying to wiggle in as well!

Biden, and the Clinton's need to admit that they have all outgrown the Childish Socialism antics the Green Based World Labor Party supporters are pulling, and come into the Big Tent with the rest of the Adults!

Posted by: rat-the | December 26, 2007 1:40 PM | Report abuse

Mark in Austin asks
"Is there actual evidence that... "the 2004 race was far more fluid than the current contest..." or was this said with the benefit of 20-20 hindsight?"

The statement is subject to interpretation. Yes, hindsight says the 2004 Dem primary in Iowa was more fluid than expected; and more fluid than we expect this race to be. The 2008 consensus is predicting a near tie between HRC, BHO & JRE (is that last TLA correct?). Perhaps we'll find, on Jan 4th, that this race is equally fluid, if not moreso than in 2004. Who can say?

My recollection of the 2004 race does not conflict with Mark's, but I wasn't paying very close attention either.

Posted by: bsimon | December 26, 2007 1:29 PM | Report abuse

I think it was less 'fluid' Mark, by far. There was less viscosity in the beginning on the D side, but I think most people knew bush had a lock on it fairly early -- the corporations were totally behind him from the beginning. But the r side is really fluid this time like I can't remember it and there is no candidate, IMO, that the party can really unite behind with enthusiasm -- hence i see a good chance for a 3rd party -- likely the paulites, who are a movement.

Posted by: drindl | December 26, 2007 1:24 PM | Report abuse

'Looks like Matt Drudge has gotten himself a new gig -- he's just been signed up as an assignment editor for The Washington Post.

So it seems, anyway. Let me explain: Early last week I noted here that Drudge and Rush Limbaugh were having a grand old time making fun of Hillary's wrinkles after Drudge posted an exceptionally unflattering pic of Hillary looking, shall we say, not at her best. Drudge left the photo up for days.

Now today's Washington Post has gone and run the photo. The paper's justification for doing this was to accompany it with an article that purports to discuss the journalistically "difficult issues" raised by the question of whether to run such an image, which WaPo calls a "hangdog shot." First, the writer of the piece, Philip Kennicott, acknowledges that the pic is just plain awful:

'The popular Drudge Report Web site recently ran a particularly notorious picture of Hillary Clinton, showing her face riven with deep furrows and wrinkles. She looked so awful that even some conservative commentators noted the unfairness of using such a manifestly unflattering image.'

But then, even though his own paper ran the very same pic, Kennicott tried to argue that traditional news orgs like WaPo approach the question of whether to run it so much more responsibly than the new media rabble do:;

http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/horsesmouth/2007/12/washington_post_15.php

This is exactly what I told you would happen -- as soon as the primaries drew near, every major media outlet would start trashing Democrats, as they always do. Now the NYTimes and WaPo are just simply handing over their pages to Matt Drudge and Rush Limbaugh and doing their dirty work for them. The 'liberal media' is such a tired and absurdist construction...

The Post has become a rightwing joke. today the NYTIMes ran a similar hit piece on Hilllary on the front page. They always do as their rightwing publishers wish, when push comes to shove.

Posted by: drindl | December 26, 2007 1:19 PM | Report abuse

His campaign manager says "Edwards is planning a series of "small round table discussions and community meetings" in the state designed to push his positive message of lifting up the middle class".

Yeah, right. Positive, my foot. John Edwards' stump speech is one of the most, if not the most repetitive, negative, substance-free rants I've ever heard. It's difficult to listen to, light on policy details, heavy on class warfare rhetoric, and I'd be very surprised if Iowans aren't so sick of hearing it by now they just tune him out.

For example, his "fighter" theme whcih he repeats once each minute while on the stump. "What America needs right now is America needs a fighter," says the candidate, "Let me tell you why we need a fighter. There's a wall around Washington, and we need to take that wall down. The American people are on the outside, and on the other side -- on the inside -- are the powerful, the well-connected and the very wealthy."

Sounds like a bit of class warfare -- coming from a man with a 28,000-square-foot house, $30 million in assets and a $400 haircut. "This is not class warfare," he continues. "This is the truth."

"Who's going to stand up to those people and fight? . . . This is going to be the fight of our lives. . . . You can win the fight."

The fighter theme climaxes in a paroxysm of pugnacity: "I fought. I did not walk away from the fight. I fought. I stood my ground. I took them on. And I beat them, and I beat them, and I beat them again. I won. I won . . ."

As Dana Milbank wrote: For further evidence of sincerity, he swaps his trademark smile for a pained squint when he speaks about the "disappointment" of the parents who have no money for their children's college, and he shakes his fist when he demands removal of the "wall."

There are many things Edwards does not say, however. While arguing that "it is not okay that No Child Left Behind has left us behind," he neglects to mention that he voted for that education legislation.

When he thumps the lectern and speaks of the need to "end this war" in Iraq, he omits the fact that he voted to give President Bush the authority to start the war.

And while it sounds good for him to say "I did not walk away from the fight" as a product-liability lawyer, he skips the part about walking away from the Senate in 2004.

Posted by: proudtobeGOP | December 26, 2007 1:13 PM | Report abuse

Lunch time. Is there actual evidence that

"the 2004 race was far more fluid than the current contest..."

or was this said with the benefit of 20-20 hindsight?

My recollection was that Gephardt was the candidate of the Plains and Dean was the bicoastal guy and somehow Kerry and Edwards beat them both and the entire process went downhill from there. But I do not remember that the process was thought to be a low viscosity fluid before it occurred.

Anybody? Truth? bsimon? Iowa and plains folks?

Posted by: mark_in_austin | December 26, 2007 1:00 PM | Report abuse

What Democratic Candidate do you believe will win the Iowa Presidential Caucus Nomination?

http://www.youpolls.com/details.asp?pid=1369

,

Posted by: PollM | December 26, 2007 12:28 PM | Report abuse

The comments to this entry are closed.

 
 
RSS Feed
Subscribe to The Post

© 2010 The Washington Post Company