Edwards versus Edwards

In a recent comment to a comment, we promised to say no more about John Edwards, given his irrelevance. But just like the folks running for office, you can't count on anything we say here.

A couple quick points. First, Edwards' campaign manager Joe Trippi now openly admits that Edwards' strategy is to stay in and see if he can become a spoiler, taking just enough delegates to deadlock the Democratic convention and become a Kingmaker.

How nice.

Second, we couldn't agree more with Charles Krauthammer's column in today's Washington Post, "John Edwards: Losing Ugly" on the basic problems with the man--today he's against just about everything he voted for in his brief stint as a U.S. Senator. Edwards is less grounded than Romney.

We liked John Edwards a lot in 2004. Had he stayed himself, he might even have had a shot this time around. We don't think he'll get to be Kingmaker at the convention. We sure hope he won't.

Touche'--Edwards And His Special Interest Money

A couple follow-ups to our post yesterday on John Edwards' lame campaign message.

In "Edwards--Too Cute By Half" The Hill's Peter Fenn neatly sums up Edwards' hypocrisy when it comes to taking special interest money, and his not so cute evasions about the 527 groups supporting him.

Among the other indictments of Edwards' cynicism is his response to a question about a 527 group run by his former campaign manager, Nick Baldick, which has funnelled millions of dollars in support Edwards' way: "It’s my understanding that the guy who runs the organization worked for me years ago. Yes, that is true." Years ago? Baldick's consulting firm was under contract to the Edwards campaign last year.

Cut the crap, John.

One other observation: yesterday, when oil spiked at $100 a barrel, Edwards predictably said it was "just another example of how corporate greed is squeezing the middle class."

Corporate greed is not the cause of $100 barrel oil. The cause is Americans' lavish, addicted-to-oil lifestyle, and the rest of the world's attempt to emulate it. What's Edwards going to do--impose price controls on oil? That would be silly and result in rationing. There's no sign in Edwards or his campaign of any effort to conserve.

People criticize Hillary for "triangulation" and "nuance," but hearing Edwards' simplistic themes makes us appreciate Hillary's attention to detail. Wonky? Yes, but that's the way the real world works.

What Is John Edwards' Problem?

Any astute reader of the Curmudgeon will have realized a good while ago that we're not all that fond of John Edwards this go 'round (we liked him in '04), but we thought we'd make it official. The guy has gone nuts.

In the past, we've mostly been critical of Edwards for his hypocrisy. All that talk about growing up poor in a mill town, yada, yada, while building a 25,000 square foot mansion and getting $400 haircuts makes us pretty cynical about the guy. You can have a lot of money and still live a modest lifestyle, but that doesn't appear to be Edwards.

In any event, Edwards has increasingly turned to an angry brand of populism in a desperate effort to jump start his campaign. Is Edwards really that angry, or is he just doing what he thinks will work? We think the latter. If this were 1960, and he was in the South, he'd instead be trying to out N-word the next guy, like Strom Thurmond or George Wallace, just to win.

Angry populism will always get a decent draw, especially in primaries where you can focus on a smaller segment of the population. But Edwards' current stump speech in Iowa, however successful it may be, is a sure-fire loser for the general election, so he's basically throwing it all away in the hope of just somehow getting the nomination.

Right now, Edwards blames "corporate greed" for all of America's ills. That's a bit simple-minded, to put it mildly. To begin with, a lot of our problems are simply due to seven years of George W. Bush in office. After all, before Bush, we were in pretty good shape.

Corporations make nice fall guys, but Edwards won't solve any problems with his corporate bashing. Yes, corporate CEO's are overpaid, but so what--that's not why richer Americans are getting richer. Further, when it comes to complex legislation (is there any other kind?) corporations should be heard, through their lobbyists, about how the bills will affect them and what they will do to jobs, profits, etc. The key, of course, is to listen, but not to kowtow. Edwards, however, says he wouldn't even listen.

Edwards is acting like a child. It might even work in Iowa--he could pull off a narrow victory. But it won't work past that, fortunately. Any Democrat who wants to win in '08 would be wise to take a pass on Mr. Edwards' brand of pop populism.

Will A Sex Scandal End Edwards' Campaign And Shuffle The Democratic Deck?

With just two weeks to the Iowa caucuses, the National Enquirer is reporting that John Edwards had an affair with one of his staffers, resulting in her pregnancy. The woman reportedly is in hiding, but the Enquirer claims to have statements from the woman's friends and an email trail. (The Enquirer previously reported, on Oct. 22, that Edwards had been involved in an affair, without naming the woman; it's new story names her. She denies that Edwards is the father of her child.)

Although the Enquirer is nothing more than a supermarket tabloid, it doesn't just make up stories, and typically requires fairly vigorous verification of its claims. Certainly, the Enquirer wouldn't want to go to press with a story like this against a very accomplished trial attorney without some plausible evidence.

Now the Edwards campaign faces a nightmare scenario--whether the claim is true or false, it could dominate the headlines for at least the next few days. And if Edwards denies the charge, the race will be on to prove him a liar. If true, then Edwards' campaign is over.

What could this do to the Democratic race? It could re-shuffle the deck, certainly in Iowa. It may help Obama: Edwards' supporters, in the short run at least, are likely to suspect Hillary's campaign--fairly or unfairly--for planting the story. In the long run, however, it may help Hillary. Our gut tells us that in a two-way race with Obama, Hillary is going to win. It may take awhile, but we think her superior organization, and a sense among Democrats nationwide that Obama is a bit of a risk, will propel her to the top.

The nightmare scenario for Clinton's campaign--one that had real potential--was to come in third in Iowa, behind Edwards. The Enquirer's story could make that a whole lot less likely now. The next week will be quite telling.

Edwards' Downward Spiral

In response to a recent post briefly noting that John Edwards' campaign appears dead in the water, one of our commenters wrote: "Edwards has a good chance of winning Iowa. See Friday's Post. Edwards is in a statistical dead heat in Iowa. If he wins or finishes second their and backs it up with first in S.C. then that's your nominee."

Let's examine that.

It is true that in today's Washington Post-ABC News Poll, Edwards is in a three-way tie with Clinton and Obama. That's NOT good news for Edwards. Although Iowa polls are notoriously tricky--trying to figure out who'll actually vote in a caucus is tough--until recently Edwards had a good lead in most Iowa polls, with Hillary second, Obama well back and no one else registering above 2% (unless you included Al Gore).

In the past month to six weeks, however, Edwards has steadily slipped in the polls, Hillary has stayed about the same, Obama has risen and Richardson has risen. Edwards has no momentum at all in Iowa. Essentially, his early lead, built on four years in the state following a solid second in the '04 race, has evaporated. We think a lot of the remaining Edwards supporters in Iowa are going to start making a decision between Hillary or Obama and Edwards will continue to slip.

The same is happening to Edwards in the early primary states and in national polls. In South Carolina, Edwards has never come close to leading any poll, and he's not likely to do well. Hillary and Obama are both well-liked in SC and most Democrats there don't have the time of day for Edwards.

In New Hampshire, Edwards is in free-fall, falling behind Richardson in some polls.

Edwards is also falling among the Netroots--he peaked in the monthly Daily Kos poll four months ago, and has been sliding ever since while both Obama and Hillary move up.

Part of the recent slide is because of Edwards' disastrous poverty tour. He's not RFK, and poverty just doesn't resonate as an issue today. The rest is that Edwards has no substance. He's had no job over the past four years besides running for President. He may be the son of a millworker, but he's building an energy guzzling 28,000 square foot house. Yes, RFK came from a wealthy family with several large homes, but at least he didn't build them himself while he was doing his poverty tour.

We don't know who the Democrats will nominate. But we are pretty sure it won't be John Edwards.

Could Eliz. Edwards Cancer Recurrence Resurrect Mark Warner's Campaign?

Despite the brave face put on by John and Elizabeth Edwards, the recurrence and spread of her cancer have to be devastating news. For now, John says he will continue the campaign, urged on by Elizabeth. We don't doubt their sincerity--Elizabeth is clearly a strong and resolute woman.

The lingering question, however, is where the Edwards campaign will be in six months or so. Treatments for Elizabeth's cancer are bound to take a toll. They have small children. And this is an unusually long election campaign. John Edwards is, by presidential standards, still a young man. He could ultimately decide to withdraw from the race to deal with his wife's illness and still make a comeback down the road (perhaps, at some point, running for Governor of North Carolina to get some executive experience).

IF Edwards were to withdraw by this Fall, it would open the door to reconsideration by former Virginia Governor Mark Warner. Although Warner withdrew from the race last year, citing the toll it would take on his family, he's still going around the country meeting with small groups of Democratic activists. He has enough personal money to jump start a campaign late in the season.

While the betting is that Warner is trying to position himself as the Dems VP nominee, he might very well see an Edwards exodus as an opportunity. It would be a tough calculus--on the one hand, getting back in would certainly burn all bridges with Hillary's supporters. On the other hand, we still think Warner ultimately would be a strong general election candidate, with tremendous appeal to moderate independent voters. While we think highly of both Hillary and Obama, we're concerned that in head-to-head polls with Guiliani and McCain, they generally lose.

One would think that at this point in the game, with Bush's popularity in the toilet and Republicans on the defensive, the head-to-head match-ups would go for just about any leading Democratic contender. That hasn't been the case, and while we're still a long way from the general election, it belies serious problems with how independent voters view the leading Democratic contenders.

(We also think there's still a good chance the Republican Party will melt down into Baghdad like strife, especially after Gingrich enters the race--which we're increasingly confident will occur--and either nominate someone besides Guiliani or McCain, or launch a splinter movement for a conservative third-party candidate. If that happens, Democrats chances in '08 vastly improve.)

We're not making any predictions, certainly not at this point. But if you have a "Warner '08" bumper sticker or pin, hang on to it, at least for now.