June 7, 2007

Go Away, Kid, Ya Bother Us

Robert Novak reports that John Edwards has problems within the Democratic Party, even though his candidacy seems to have gained some momentum in Iowa. He has disenchanted the power brokers with his move towards class warfare, and the revelations of his financial dealings make the Democrats very nervous about Edwards as a potential nominee:

Even though Edwards may end up being the party's nominee, prominent Democrats are surprisingly candid about him. Mark Siegel, a 35-year party insider, told me: "He came to Washington as a 'New Democrat,' but he's not that kind of Democrat anymore. He's into class warfare."

Edwards has not worn well with party colleagues. Campaign consultant Bob Shrum was enthusiastic about Edwards after working on his 1998 Senate victory in North Carolina and unsuccessfully advised Gore to make him his 2000 running mate. But Shrum chose Kerry over Edwards as his 2004 presidential client. In his newly published memoir, "No Excuses: Concessions of a Serial Campaigner," Shrum explains: "I was coming to believe he wasn't ready; he was a Clinton who hadn't read the books."

During the 2004 primaries, Democratic activist James Carville was enchanted when Edwards shifted his centrist posture to a populist depiction of "Two Americas." Carville told me -- and then repeated it on CNN -- that Edwards was the best stump speaker he ever had seen. When I asked him this week whether he still thought that was true, Carville replied: "Maybe he's not as good now."

In fact, Edwards's populist rhetoric sounds about the same today as it did three years ago. The big change is his performance away from the podium. Seldom has a presidential candidate undergone a trifecta like Edwards's this year -- reports of the $400 haircut, a $55,000 honorarium from University of California at Davis for a speech on poverty and the $500,000 hedge fund salary -- without his campaign imploding.

Novak has been in DC for decades and has plenty of connections. He got two significant sources on the record, too, including the Mouth of the South, discussing their unhappiness with Edwards. Novak also reports, without naming sources, that the unions may not throw their support to Edwards due to their questions about his viability even in the primaries.

Still, Novak is known more for keeping his finger on the pulse of conservatism than populism. Carville's site says that he no longer accepts consulting clients for domestic political races, but given his connections to the Clintons, one has to take his remarks to Novak with a grain of salt. If Edwards wins Iowa and shows well in New Hampshire and South Carolina, all of this quibbling will fall by the wayside.

Without a doubt, Edwards is a problem -- a man who has served a single term in public office, and spent half of that running for President the first time. In a general election, his inexperience and strident class-warfare rhetoric will almost certainly doom the Democrats, who would have then blown two easy chances in a row to win the White House. In fact, that's what makes this part of Novak's column so hilarious:

So Edwards must rely on true believers who will brave the bitter Iowa cold in the dark of night to attend caucuses. That's the kind of voter impressed by Edwards lashing out at Obama and especially Clinton on the war. Iowa Democrats in 2004 pulled back from catastrophe at the 11th hour and abandoned Howard Dean when they contemplated the impact of a Dean victory. Party leaders hope Iowans will take a similarly hard look at John Edwards.

Well, sure, Iowans did that -- and they selected John Kerry, maybe the only other man in the primaries who could have lost that election to George Bush outside of Howard Dean and John Edwards. They pulled back from catastrophe and instead selected mediocrity ... an improvement to be sure, but still a loser. If the Democrats hope to get the same kind of rescue in Iowa that they did in 2004, they may wind up with Dennis Kucinich as the nominee.

TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.captainsquartersblog.com/mt/cq082307.cgi/10168

Comments (9)

Posted by Bill Faith | June 7, 2007 7:32 AM

"... who would have then blown two easy chances in a row to win the White House." Ed, you sound like you've already given up before the fight's even started. Granted, '08's not in the bag by any means, but give the Reid/Pelosi congress a few more months to show off and a Republican who isn't afraid to say "George made some mistakes; I'm not George" can still be very competitive. I added a link to my 2007.06.07 !Fred (and assorted Dem dumbness) Roundup.

Posted by richard mcenroe | June 7, 2007 8:40 AM

Class warfare? Geez, you'd think a guy with a 28,000 sq, foot mansion already won it...

Posted by bulbasaur | June 7, 2007 8:43 AM

If they dislike Edwards class warfare rhetoric, you'd think they would really dislike Obama's observation this week that perhaps quiet riot preparations are underway among African Americans, i.e., actual class warfare, similar to the L.A. riots. His tone seemed to be that he would of course never condone such a thing, but he'd understand it. That was my interpretation.

Yet no democrat party insiders condemn Obama's insinuation, nor do they ask him to clarify exactly what Mr. Obama meant by his statement.

Posted by LarryD | June 7, 2007 8:54 AM

Did Obama sound like he was saying they were preparing to riot, or preparing to withstand a riot?

Posted by NC Boy | June 7, 2007 9:21 AM

Hopefully coverage of yesterdays Danny Glover tour with Edwards in SC will get some legs. It's frightning the similarities between Edwards policies and platform, and Hugo Chavez. Glover ties them together nicely. The fact that Edwards is well behind in SC, and polling behind Hillary in NC, should be a message to Iowa and others! We do after all, and unfortunately know him best!

Posted by Monkei | June 7, 2007 9:56 AM

08 is not in the bag for the dems ... yet ... only because McCain, Rudy or Mitt have not gotten the nomination. There is no way that either of them, or any combination of them, will secure the WH. The electorate, except for the 25 percent who still support Bush are sick and tired of hearing about 911 and the once tried GOP slogan, we are fighting them there so we don't have to fight them here, has become nothing more than a crapola line that no one believes. Mitt's religion that basically superceeds the Bible has no place in the Bible belt, will they support the Dem no, but don't expect them to flock to the polls to support a Mormon. Not to mention the 180s he has done on almost every major political topic. McCain ... toast. The only question is how burnt the toast is, either way he is toast. Newt ... wait till the Swift Boaters get ahold of HIS private life. Thompson, the race will probably further destroy his health, and I can hardly wait to see how his wife screen tests as a possible first lady! These are not good times to be a GOP running for the white house. About the only good thing about this crop is that no matter which one gets the nomination, and somehow wins the WH, they will be a success ... because we all know anyone succeeding this human waste of skin will be a political hero of monumental standards!

Then you got the other "runners" who think the world is 6,000 years old!

Posted by patrick neid | June 7, 2007 10:35 AM

john edwards never has had a chance of winning the dem nomination much less the white house. the whole idea that he is a viable candidate is a hoot. edwards like so many on the campaign trail, both dem and repub, are simply filler for the talking heads. people who say otherwise in the MSM are paid shills........

Posted by bulbasaur | June 7, 2007 11:36 AM

Mokei, even funnier, you've got runners who think there is no war on terrorism.

Actually, I take that back. It isn't funny. It's a disgrace.

Posted by docjim505 | June 7, 2007 12:57 PM

... Edwards's populist rhetoric sounds about the same today as it did three years ago. The big change is his performance away from the podium. Seldom has a presidential candidate undergone a trifecta like Edwards's this year -- reports of the $400 haircut, a $55,000 honorarium from University of California at Davis for a speech on poverty and the $500,000 hedge fund salary -- without his campaign imploding.

That's because Edwards REALLY believes in "Two Americas"... just not the ones he blathers about on the stump. He believes in one America for rich phonies like himself... and one for everybody else.

The fact that ANYBODY takes this vacuous prettyboy seriously as anything more than a hustling shyster speaks volumes about the ignorance and sheer stupidity of a segment (i.e. liberals) of our population.