Did Edwards' Slip Help Clinton in New Hampshire?

By Stuart Rothenberg

While some will suggest that Sen. Hillary Clinton’s New Hampshire victory can be traced to her emotional comments shortly before the primary, and others will credit Bill Clinton, there is some evidence to suggest that the collapse of the John Edwards campaign in the Granite State may have given Clinton a victory that multiple polls promised would go to Sen. Barack Obama.

Edwards’s weak 17% showing in New Hampshire was a significant drop from his 30% finish in Iowa just a few days earlier. (It’s probably more accurate to conclude that Edwards drew 23% or 24% in Iowa, not 30%, since that’s what the Iowa entrance poll found. Edwards undoubtedly benefited in the caucuses from realignment, which boosted his final percentage past Clinton, though more people went into the caucuses saying that they would support her. Still, Edwards’s 6-point drop between the Iowa entrance poll and the New Hampshire exit poll is worth noting.)

It’s not that Edwards is unpopular with his party’s voters. A solid 79% of New Hampshire Democratic primary voters had a favorable opinion of him, and many said that he “cares about people.”

But exit polling from New Hampshire shows that the former North Carolina senator flopped with a number of groups that, given the tone and message of his campaign, he should have scored with – groups with which Clinton made noteworthy gains.

Granite State Democrats seemed to regard Edwards as irrelevant on Tuesday.

Among the 61% of Democratic primary voters who said that they were “angry” with the Bush Administration, only 16% voted for Edwards, who clearly ran the angriest campaign of the top three Democrats.

Of the 55% of Democrats who said that the top candidate quality they were looking for was “Can bring about change,” Edwards drew only 12%, while Obama won the votes of 58% and Clinton drew the support of 27%.

Given that Edwards pounded away with a ‘change” message for months – and drew 20% in Iowa among those wanting a candidate who could “bring change” – his New Hampshire showing on this dimension was disappointing.

A majority of New Hampshire Democratic voters (58%) said that they were “very worried” about the economy. That was an issue that Edwards dealt with repeatedly. Yet among those Democrats who felt that way, only 17% voted for Edwards, while 41% picked Clinton and 36% picked Obama.

It would be reasonable to assume that Edwards’s former supporters would switch to Obama, the other “change” candidate in the race, and the Democrats who seemed to have momentum going into New Hampshire. But that apparently didn’t happen.

Instead, it was Clinton whose numbers generally rose as Edwards’s slipped.

This item also appeared on Political Wire on January 9, 2008.

Winners & Losers From Iowa

By Stuart Rothenberg

After months of speculation about who’ll win Iowa, we finally have winners and losers. Some of them are obvious, while others may not be. One thing for sure is that a rousing speech on caucus night doesn’t mean a candidate has won. In some cases, losers seemed to yell even louder than winners.

Iowa Winners

1. Barack Obama.
The easiest pick of the night, Obama’s win means that he goes to New Hampshire as a winner. No, the Democratic contest is not over, but if he wins in the Granite State, he’ll be hard to stop in South Carolina. And if he sweeps those three, he may never look back.

Entrance polling showed Iowa Democrats responded strongly to Obama’s message of change – half of Democrats said that the top quality they were looking for in a candidate was his or her ability to bring about change, and of those respondents, 51 percent voted for Obama. The Illinois Democrat’s campaign also clearly benefited from the surge in Democratic turnout and from the participation of Iowans who had never before caucused.

Obama won among caucus-goers who said the war was the top issue, as well as among those who identified the economy or health care as the most important issue. He won “very liberal” and “somewhat liberal” Democratic caucus attendees handily, and nosed out Clinton among self-described moderates. All in all, an impressive performance.

2. Mike Huckabee.
In May, Huckabee wasn’t even on the radar screen in Iowa. At the end of the day, he was outspent, and he won what is always regarded as an “organizational race” without much of an organization.

Huckabee clobbered the rest of the GOP field on two key candidate qualities: “shares my values” and “says what he believes.” That’s a good place to start when you are running for your party’s Presidential nomination.

But Huckabee did as well as he did on Thursday only because of the make-up of Thursday’s Republican caucus-goers. The former Arkansas Governor won the caucuses because he cleaned up among the most conservative and most religious attendees. Six out of ten GOP caucus-goes were evangelicals, and he won them 46 percent to 19 percent over Mitt Romney.

Among the 36 percent of GOP attendees who said that the religious beliefs of the candidates matter “a great deal,” Huckabee won 56 percent – five times more than Romney, McCain or Thompson. But New Hampshire doesn’t look like natural Huckabee territory, and the Arkansas Republican’s long-term prospects in the race are not as bright as they may look today.

3. John McCain.
Sure, McCain finished essentially tied for third with Fred Thompson, but Romney’s less than sterling showing could dry up some of the former Massachusetts governor’s support in New Hampshire, and that could boost McCain’s prospects on Tuesday. The only problem for the Arizona Republican: If the Obama bandwagon draws even more Granite State Independents into the Democratic primary, depriving McCain of potential supporters.

4. Rudy Giuliani.
The win by Huckabee means that the GOP race is as confused as ever, and that’s a plus for the former New York City mayor, who benefits from confusion in the early contests. Giuliani’s chances for the Republican nomination don’t look all that bright, but he would have been much worse off if Romney had won in Iowa.

Iowa Losers.

1. John Edwards.
Anyone who listened to Edwards’s caucus night speech had to be asking, “What’s he smoking?”

After drawing 32 percent in the 2004 caucuses and spending the next four years camped out in the state, Edwards finished essentially tied for second on Thursday. To make matters worse, the other “change” candidate in the contest, Barack Obama, finished first. And, Obama’s optimistic change message trumped Edwards’s angry, populist message.

Edwards, who railed against corporate greed, focused on jobs and trade and aimed his message at the “little guy,” lost union households to both Clinton and Obama.

Edwards will now have major resource problems, and he isn’t likely to do well in New Hampshire. If his comments last night are any indication, he isn’t likely to go quietly. But the former North Carolina senator is in serious trouble. He needed to win in Iowa, and he didn’t. It’s just that simple.

2. Hillary Rodham Clinton.
Clinton’s problem isn’t that Edwards nosed her out for second; it’s that caucus attendees preferred change over experience, raising questions about her fundamental appeal. The calendar isn’t her friend over the next month, and she’ll be peppered with process questions when she’d rather talk about things that voters want to hear.

Nobody should count the New York senator out. Iowa, after all, is just a single state, and Clinton and Obama ran virtually even among self-described Democrats in Iowa, which offers her hope in true closed primary states. But Clinton no longer is in the driver’s seat, as indicated by the fact that she lost women, 35 percent to 30 percent, to Obama in the caucuses.

3. Mitt Romney.
How do you go from a prohibitive favorite in the Iowa caucuses to a surprisingly distant runner-up to Mike Huckabee? Ask Romney. He did it.

Romney won with upscale Republicans, more moderate and urban GOP caucus-goers and those for whom the religious beliefs of the candidate didn’t matter a lot. But he got swamped by conservative evangelicals who wouldn’t vote for a Mormon. He won’t have that problem in New Hampshire, but he has a different one there: John McCain.

Romney needs a win in the Granite State or in Michigan to stay in the hunt. One of his biggest problems is that caucus attendees didn’t think that “he says what he believes.”

In Iowa, Will Edwards Divide and Conquer?

By Stuart Rothenberg

While the Democratic race has often, and quite accurately, been described as a choice between change (Barack Obama and John Edwards) and experience (Hillary Rodham Clinton), it has, in the final days before Iowa, become another kind of choice as well.

Democrats must decide whether they want a candidate who is angry and confrontational, and who sees those favoring compromise as traitors (Edwards), or a candidate who presents himself as a uniter (Obama), or a candidate who presents herself as someone who understands the ways of Washington and can get things done (Clinton).

While Clinton and Obama both acknowledge the importance of working with various interests, including Capitol Hill Republicans and the business community, to come up with solutions to key problems, Edwards sounds more and more like the neighborhood bully who plans to dictate what is to be done.

The former North Carolina senator is running a classic populist campaign that would have made William Jennings Bryan (or Ralph Nader) proud. Everything is Corporate America’s fault. But he’s also portraying himself as fighting for the middle class and able to appeal to swing voters and even Republicans in a general election.

Edwards certainly would dispute that there is an inherent contradiction between his populist rhetoric and his alleged middle class appeal. But his approach to problems is likely to frighten many voters, including most middle class Americans and virtually all Republicans.

For months, observers have noted that Americans are tired of the polarization and gridlock that has defined Washington, D.C. at least since 1994 (except for a brief period following September 11th). But if Iowa Democrats choose Edwards, they are choosing anger, confrontation and class warfare. In a sense, they are displaying buyer’s remorse (from 2004) and choosing a more attractive, charismatic Howard Dean-like candidate this time.

Ironically, Edwards criticized Dean for being too angry in 2004, yet this time the former North Carolina Democrat has adopted Dean’s confrontational style.

Edwards portrays himself as a fighter for the middle class, but his message is decidedly working class and left. The North Carolina Democrat’s message seems well-suited for 1933 or 1934, but not nearly as ideal for 2008. Yet, Iowa Democrats, like many of their partisan colleagues around the country, are so angry at President George W. Bush that they might be willing to give voice to their anger by voting for Edwards at the caucuses.

Four years ago, angry anti-war candidate Dean drew 18 percent of caucus-goers, while populist Dick Gephardt drew another 11 percent. Edwards, himself, attracted 32 percent of 2004 Iowa Democratic caucus attendees.

But let’s be very clear: Given the North Carolina Democrat’s rhetoric and agenda, an Edwards Presidency would likely rip the nation apart – even further apart than Bush has torn it.

On Capitol Hill, Edwards’s “us versus them” rhetoric and legislative agenda would almost certainly make an already bitter mood even worse. He would in the blink of an eye unify the GOP and open up divisions in his own party’s ranks. Congressional Republicans would circle the wagons in an effort to stop Edwards’s agenda.

Would Clinton or Obama fare better in the nation’s capital? It’s hard to tell, but the answer probably is “yes.”

Obama surely wouldn’t arouse the immediate resentment and opposition that Edwards would, giving the Illinois senator a far better chance of accomplishing important things during the first two years of his term.

And while many Republicans around the country revile anyone named Clinton, the New York Senator might not face as much hostility as some assume from Capitol Hill Republicans. After all, Senator Clinton has worked well with her colleagues from both parties, and she knows better than anyone how important it is to build successful bipartisan coalitions on Capitol Hill.

Just as important, a President Edwards might well find that his view of the American economy is built on sand. For while Edwards bashes corporate America and “them,” this nation’s economy depends on the success of both small business and big business.

Scare the stuffing out of Corporate America and watch the stock market tumble. That’s certain to make retirement funds – including those owned by labor unions and “working families” – happy, right? Stick it to Wal-Mart, and their 1.8 million employees are at risk. Beat up on IBM, and you are beating up on their 330,000 employees. Take a pound of flesh from General Electric, Citigroup, Home Depot and United Technologies, and you’ve put the squeeze on just under 1.2 million employees.

So, Iowa Democrats are faced with much more than a choice of change versus readiness for the job. They will be deciding what kind of party and what kind of country they want. And they will be making an important statement about the tone they want in Washington, D.C.

The question facing Iowa Democrats is whether they want to send a message of frustration, or whether they place a higher priority on getting things accomplished in 2009. Edwards’s bet is that, unlike 2004, they’ll choose anger and confrontation.

This column also appeared on RealClearPolitics on December 31, 2007.

Republican Race Twists & Turns Even Before Bhutto Assassination

By Stuart Rothenberg

Even before the death of former Prime Minister Benazir Bhutto on Thursday, there were signs of continued churning in the GOP race, with Arizona Senator John McCain pulling even with and ahead of former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney in New Hampshire, according to knowledgeable observers.

In Iowa, the Republican contest continues to be a two-man race, with Romney so far retaining considerable strength against former Arkansas Governor Mike Huckabee. In fact, in spite of a recent Los Angeles Times poll showing Huckabee with a 14-point lead over Romney, there is some reason to believe that Romney has closed that gap and that the GOP contest in the Iowa caucuses is much closer than the Times poll suggests.

While McCain is not yet in the mix in Iowa and shows few signs of joining Huckabee and Romney in the GOP top tier in the state, he could well finish a surprisingly strong third in the caucuses, which could get him positive media attention and boost him in New Hampshire.

For Giuliani, the Arizonan's growing strength is a significant problem. Fourth-place finishes for Giuliani in the first two contests, along with a resurgent McCain, could make McCain both more appealing to moderates and more likely to emerge as the consensus choice of conservatives as the race moves forward. That would make it much more difficult for the New Yorker to jump-start his campaign and almost impossible for him to pull away on February 5th, as he hopes to do.

The Republican races in Iowa and New Hampshire remain very fluid. But it now seems quite clear that reports of John McCain's political demise were far too premature.

The Bhutto assassination is likely to have an effect on both parties' nomination fights by elevating foreign policy and international concerns.

On the GOP side, McCain and Giuliani are likely to benefit, with Romney and Huckabee having a harder time to convince late deciders of their ability to handle an international crisis. Huckabee is in the weakest position by far, since his "good old boy" appeal becomes a weakness rather than a strength.

Democratic Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton is the obvious beneficiary on the Democratic side, since neither Illinois Senator Barack Obama nor former Senator John Edwards have the credentials or stature to match Clinton's. Still, it is far from certain whether the news from Pakistan will have a profound impact on the Democratic contest.

For many months, I argued that the focus on day to day developments and meaningless national polls was unwise and reflected a fundamental misunderstanding of the Iowa and New Hampshire decision-making process. Only in recent weeks have Republican and Democratic caucus attendees and primary voters been focusing on choosing a president - the same thing that happened in the 2004 Democratic race.

Given the difficulty in predicting turnout, particularly in Iowa, it's wise for pundits, journalists, talking heads and real people to spend their time watching the developments, including the swings in momentum, rather than in mindlessly picking winners and losers. Both nominations currently are up for grabs.

This column also appeared on RealClearPolitics on December 28, 2007.

Edwards, Clinton and Questions About Their Electability in ’08

By Stuart Rothenberg

For weeks now, the campaign of former Sen. John Edwards (D-N.C.) has been hammering away about New York Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton’s greatest alleged vulnerability: her electability. It’s a good strategy, at least in theory, since Democratic voters will not nominate someone for president who they think will lose the White House again.

Unfortunately for Edwards, there is little evidence that Clinton cannot be elected president or that Edwards has a measurably better chance of being elected than she does.

First, the good news for Edwards, as well as for critics of Clinton.

The former first lady’s personal negative ratings are higher than any politician would like. Her unfavorable ratings generally are about 10 points higher than either Edwards’ or Sen. Barack Obama’s (D-Ill.). Clinton’s unfavorable ratings in most national surveys fall in the 40 percent to 45 percent range, and they are in that same range in Quinnipiac University polls in key states such as Ohio and Florida.

Given those numbers, it isn’t surprising that a mid-September CNN/WMUR-TV poll found New Hampshire Democratic voters saying that Clinton is less likable than Obama or Edwards.

According to an early September NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll, one in five adults had a “very negative” view of the New York Senator, demonstrating an intensity with which other Democrats are not saddled.

Anecdotally, when I’m around the country talking about politics, I inevitably seem to run into Democratic voters who tell me they want to vote Democratic next year but don’t think they can vote for Clinton.

But the rest of the evidence argues that the New York Senator would be at least as strong a Democratic nominee as either Edwards or Obama.

On the question of “how confident” survey respondents would be in the various candidates’ “skills and ability necessary to be president,” Clinton easily bests her Democratic adversaries in the NBC News/Wall Street Journal survey.

Surveys also show that she widely is regarded as having many of the attributes needed by a president. An early September CNN poll found six in 10 respondents picked Clinton as having “the right experience to be president,” while only 15 percent picked the second-place Democrat, Edwards, and 9 percent picked Obama.

The same survey also found a plurality of voters (42 percent) selecting Clinton as the Democrat best described by “Is most likely to bring needed change to the U.S.” Obama was second with 30 percent, while Edwards was a distant third at 10 percent.

A CNN/WMUR-TV poll of New Hampshire Democratic primary voters found much the same. Clinton was seen by 54 percent of those polled as having “the best chance of beating the Republican nominee in the general election next November,” as having the “right experience to be President,” and as most likely to bring change.

Surely even a bigger problem for Edwards is that recent ballot tests show Clinton beating the leading Republican contenders, and in most cases, running as well or better than her main Democratic rivals.

August’s Quinnipiac national survey showed Clinton leading former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani by 3 points, while Edwards was up by a single point and Obama and Giuliani were even. Matched against former Sen. Fred Thompson (Tenn.), Clinton held a 49 percent to 38 percent advantage, while Obama was up 46 percent to 35 percent and Edwards was leading Thompson 49 percent to 32 percent.

CNN’s early September national survey found Clinton beating Giuliani 50 percent to 46 percent, while the former mayor held a 49 percent to 45 percent advantage over Obama.

Finally, there is the whole question of Edwards’ description of his own appeal.

On “Meet the Press” last weekend, Edwards said: “I am the candidate running for president on the Democratic side who’s actually won an election in a red state running against the Jesse Helms political machine. I know what you have to do to win in battleground states, and to win in tough, tough Congressional districts ... I understand people who vote in those places, and they connect and relate to me.”

Edwards beat incumbent Republican Sen. Lauch Faircloth in 1998, a bad year for Republicans nationally. He made Faircloth the issue and benefited from the contrast between the two candidates.

But had Edwards run for re-election in 2004, he might well have lost to then-Rep. Richard Burr (R). By that time, Edwards had established a relatively liberal record in the Senate, making him much less appealing to state voters.

Edwards, of course, couldn’t carry his own state during the 2004 presidential race, and the Democratic ticket didn’t carry a single Southern state (though it is certainly unfair to blame him entirely for the ticket’s lack of appeal in Dixie).

The former North Carolina Senator seems to think that his Southern accent and stories about his father’s work in a textile mill and his mother’s days as a letter carrier will ingratiate himself with moderate and conservative populists. But after Republicans hammer him for his expensive haircuts, huge home and liberal views, his appeal to swing and socially conservative voters will suffer. For now, Edwards’ negatives aren’t as high as Clinton’s because he hasn’t been a national target for more than a dozen years.

It is of course true that Clinton could stumble in the next few months. But for Democrats hoping that doubts about her electability will derail her candidacy, the current evidence is skimpy.


This column first appeared in Roll Call on October 15, 2007. Copyright 2007 © Roll Call Inc. All rights reserved. Reprinted with permission.

Will Voters Respond to a Message of Unity or of Division?

By Stuart Rothenberg

For months, many commentators have argued that voters are sick and tired of partisanship and division. The years of Clinton-bashing by conservatives and Bush-bashing by liberals have taken a toll on the less polarized American public, and Americans are looking for a true uniter. At least that’s what many observers are saying.

Illinois Sen. Barack Obama has gotten plenty of mileage from the message of bringing people together and crossing the deep ideological divide, which he first offered at the 2004 Democratic National Convention. “There’s not a liberal America and a conservative America — there’s a United States of America,” he asserted.

OK, for argument’s sake, let’s just say that we all buy that analysis for the moment. If that’s right, how can anyone possibly explain what former Democratic Sen. John Edwards (N.C.) is doing?

“The Washington establishment is trying to write us out of the campaign ... they don’t want people to hear what John Edwards is saying, because it will mean the end of big money’s stranglehold over our government,” wrote Edwards consultant Joe Trippi in a June 23 fundraising e-mail.

Two days later, Edwards’ deputy campaign manager Jonathan Prince wrote in an e-mail “The whole Washington establishment wants our campaign to go away, because they know that John Edwards means the end to business as usual.” The e-mail goes on to assert that everyone from “Washington lobbyists and PACs” to “political mercenaries and the chattering class” oppose Edwards’ presidential bid because he “doesn’t play by their rules.”

The e-mail says that “they don’t want the American people to hear the message,” adding, “They call him a hypocrite because he came from nothing, built a fortune while standing up for regular people ... [and] has the nerve to remember where he came from.”

Edwards is and has been running a classic “us versus them” campaign, built on class differences and economic populism. Candidates of both parties often run against Washington, D.C., but Edwards’ message is bigger than that. It’s far more class-based.

As such, the former Senator is running on an inherently more divisive message, which appears to strongly contradict the notion that America needs someone who can unify it. And that message isn’t new to Edwards, the man who spent almost an entire election cycle talking about “two Americas.”

Sure, I know what you are thinking. It’s direct mail, Stu, you aren’t supposed to take it seriously. Every candidate’s direct mail is over the top. Those messages are intended to get people to reach into their wallets and open their checkbooks, not to discuss things in a measured, thoughtful or even rational way.

Sorry, but Edwards’ campaign is using this “us versus them” approach more than in fundraising e-mails, and language like this, even in e-mails, contributes to the overall tone of our politics.

More than that, in this particular case, it’s intellectually dishonest.

Take another look at the quote from above. Here is the full quotation: “They call him a hypocrite because he came from nothing, built a fortune while standing up for regular people during some of their toughest times, and — heaven forbid! — he has the nerve to remember where he came from and still care passionately about guaranteeing every family the opportunities he had to get ahead.”

That’s not why “they” call Edwards a hypocrite. It’s not because he cares about guaranteeing every family the opportunities to get ahead. No, “they” (whoever they are) call him a hypocrite because he talks about helping people out of poverty but spends $400 of his own money on a haircut and built a 10,400-square-foot main house on 102 acres, with a total value at more than $5 million.

They also may call him a hypocrite because his new TV spot airing in New Hampshire is one of those feel-good “we’re all in it together” ads that offers a very different message from his direct mail. The future of America “depends on all of us,” says Edwards in the ad, titled “The Strength of America.” “It’s the American people,” he says, avoiding any us versus them rhetoric.

Maybe you think it’s unfair to compare the Senator’s e-mails and TV ads.

Sorry, but I don’t. Campaigns ought to be responsible for things they say, especially when we are talking about the written word or ads. While a candidate on the stump can make a slip or fail to consider the full implications of what he or she has said, consultants and responsible staffers have the opportunity to consider what they have written.

While Edwards talks about change, he, more than any other top-tier candidate in either party, uses the same divisive rhetoric and us versus them appeals that we’ve seen over the past decade (and actually, since William Jennings Bryan).

From a strategic point of view (and if he happens to have the resources to continue to deliver his message), Edwards may figure that this kind of message can motivate base Democratic voters. We’ll see if he is right. At the very least, given the apparent conventional wisdom of voter fatigue with partisanship and confrontation, his gamble is an interesting one. Unfortunately, it isn’t helping the tone of this campaign any.

This column first appeared in Roll Call on June 28, 2007. Copyright 2007 © Roll Call Inc. All rights reserved. Reprinted with permission.

Is Edwards Following the Dean and Gephardt Models Too Closely?

By Stuart Rothenberg

It wasn’t very long ago that I wrote in this space that, in the argument as to whether the Democratic contest for president is a two-person or a three-person race, I was a member of the “John Edwards is in the Democratic top tier” camp.

I argued his strength in Iowa, clear message and personal appeal make the former North Carolina Senator a serious contender for the Democratic nomination, though not quite the equal of Sens. Hillary Rodham Clinton (N.Y.) And Barack Obama (Ill.) In the Democratic sweepstakes.

I see no reason to change that view, but I’ll admit I’m scratching my head more often at Edwards’ seemingly insatiable desire to run to the left — far to the left — of everyone in the Democratic race with the possible exception of Rep. Dennis Kucinich (Ohio).

Increasingly, political observers are whispering that Edwards seems to be running much as former Rep. Richard Gephardt (D-Mo.) Did in 2004, wooing organized labor and recycling a class warfare message. Of course, I’m not suggesting that Edwards’ message is entirely new — in the previous cycle, his “two Americas” theme addressed issues of class and race as well — only that, of the credible candidates, Edwards has filled the “Gephardt slot” in the current race.

While almost everyone has nice things to say about the former Missouri lawmaker personally, and Gephardt has his share of loyalists, he finished a disappointing fourth in Iowa last time, something Edwards presumably hopes to avoid.

Edwards’ campaign strategy and message may well be due to the presence and influence of his campaign manager, former Rep. David Bonior (D-Mich.). Bonior, a national co-chairman of Gephardt’s 2004 presidential campaign, always has been close to organized labor, and he was a leader in the fight against free-trade measures during his years in Congress.

When the Edwards campaign announced in April that it had signed consultant Joe Trippi as a “key member of the media team and senior adviser,” it raised plenty of eyebrows. Trippi doesn’t merely like to think outside the box; he prefers to take the box, rip it into little pieces, pour kerosene on it and set it ablaze.

These days, Edwards’ campaign seems unable to pass up an opportunity to throw a political bomb, particularly about Iraq. Trippi’s past presidential client, former Vermont Gov. Howard Dean (D), was about as confrontational as anyone in the 2004 race, which inevitably leads to the question of Trippi’s influence on the former Senator’s message.

Since Edwards switched his position on Iraq long ago, far before Trippi joined the campaign, I’m not suggesting that Edwards is getting his voice on Iraq from Trippi. But the consultant’s hiring at the very least suggests Edwards is seeking to fill the Dean role — the angry, militant conscience of the party who eschews compromise — in this campaign.

Just a couple of days ago, I received an Edwards campaign news release criticizing a proposal to give the president half of the funds he requested and requiring a July vote on the rest of the funds.

“This is not a compromise; it is a concession,” Edwards asserted in the release. “Enough is enough. We don’t need to wait and see how the surge is going to do; we know the surge has failed. It is time to end this war. ... Congress should not back down to the president’s veto. They should pass the same bill they sent him last month, a plan to support our troops, end the war, and bring them home.”

That statement echoed one released a week earlier that demanded Congress not negotiate with President Bush on the end of the war. “Congress should answer the president’s veto by sending him another bill with a timetable for withdrawal. And if he vetoes that one, Congress should send him another and another until we end this war and bring our troops home,” said the former Senator, who was imitating either Jimmy Stewart or Cindy Sheehan.

Edwards received some good ink from Democracy for America, the self-described grass-roots political organization founded by Dean and dedicated to recruiting, training, promoting and funding progressive candidates for office.

A recent DFA e-mail, signed by Executive Director Tom Hughes, informed readers that Edwards was the first candidate “to state his position on Iraq in a video directly to you.” The e-mail, while emphasizing that the kind words about Edwards weren’t an endorsement, also noted Edwards was the first candidate to respond to the group’s challenge asking candidates for their plan to stop global warming.

More troubling for mainstream Democrats may be Edwards’ association with the innocuous-sounding Democrats.com, a shrill, pro-impeachment group that appears to be at the far end of the ideological spectrum.

Democrats.com recently sent out an e-mail including a message from Edwards praising the group and urging its supporters to sign his petition demanding a “binding exit plan for the War in Iraq.”

For the moment, Edwards’ message of confrontation, confrontation, confrontation probably looks pretty good to grass-roots Democrats who are sick of the war, distrustful of the president and once again longing for some of the anger and feistiness that now- Democratic National Committee Chairman Dean demonstrated during the summer of 2003. And unlike Dean (and even Gephardt), Edwards has personal qualities that make him more appealing to voters.

The question is whether, in the long haul, mainstream Democrats — and I’m certainly including liberal Democrats in that category — will find Edwards’ recent rhetoric and style too Dean-like for their liking. As we all saw four years ago, being angry and confrontational, and having the support of blue-collar union voters, isn’t always enough.

This column first appeared in Roll Call on May 14, 2007. Copyright 2007 © Roll Call Inc. All rights reserved. Reprinted with permission.

Say What? Ken Lucas Endorses John Edwards

By Stuart Rothenberg

I've been observing recently how much supposedly big news about the Presidential race will ultimately have little or no impact on the outcome of the 2008 Presidential contest, even for the Democratic and Republican nominations.

That fact, of course, doesn't make these developments in the Presidential race any less newsworthy or fun. It just means that they are unimportant in terms of the contests for the two nominations.

This week, we all got a perfect example of how even the most meaningless development can get treated as if it were important when the John Edwards campaign sent out a press release informing all of the world that former Kentucky Congressman Ken Lucas has endorsed Edwards for President. Of course, the Edwards campaign isn't alone in doing this kind of thing. ALL campaigns do it. Edwards is just a convenient example.

The release included the required quote from the person offering the endorsement about how wonderful the person receiving the endorsement is and what a great President he will be, as well as a quote from the person receiving the endorsement thanking the person making the endorsement.

There was nothing unusual here. And more than that, there is no reason to believe the endorsement - or the press release - will have the slightest affect on the Democratic contest. In fact, it would be significantly more important if three elderly ladies in Iowa had decided to support the former North Carolina senator at next year's caucuses.

But instead, we have a campaign bragging about an endorsement from a former congressman - who, by the way, comes from a Republican district in a Republican-leaning state that will have no impact on the race for the Democratic nomination - who can't vote for Edwards in one of the key early contests and is pretty close to irrelevant in the '08 nomination process.

So why would a campaign put out a press release about an endorsement? Obviously, the campaign hopes to create a bandwagon by sending out a release or two about endorsements each and every day. And somewhere, you can bet that someone is printing the release, and maybe they are even thinking that it's significant.

It isn't. But that's what happens in campaigns - especially Presidential campaigns where people have too much time on their hands, and where molehills get turned into mountains on a daily basis.

In Democratic Race, What Tier Should John Edwards Be in?

By Stuart Rothenberg

Now that former North Carolina Sen. John Edwards has announced that his wife is once again fighting cancer but that he remains in the presidential race, it’s time to ask the obvious question: Is the Democratic race a two-person contest between Sens. Hillary Rodham Clinton (N.Y.) and Barack Obama (Ill.) or a three-way race with Edwards also in the mix?

Edwards served more time in the Senate than Obama has, and he was his party’s nominee for vice president in 2004 after running a credible race for the top job on the ticket.

But he has been eclipsed by two celebrities — a woman and an African-American — who have more star power and fundraising ability.

Edwards’ strengths in the race for the 2008 Democratic nomination include a tenacity evidenced by his decision to keep running after his ticket’s defeat in 2004, a strong performance on the stump and a surprisingly strong second-place showing in the ’04 Iowa caucuses. Anyone who has seen the former Senator performing in the round, surrounded by a group of Iowa caucus attendees or New Hampshire voters, has seen his skill in talking to and connecting with his audience. He oozes sincerity.

Edwards’ “Two Americas” stump speech generally received high marks from neutral observers in the previous presidential cycle, and he begins with experience he didn’t have last time, a team that has been through this before and an important reservoir of support in Iowa, probably the single-most crucial state for him.

If Edwards can place first or second in the Hawkeye State’s caucuses, he can dramatically alter the Democratic race. Not only would it boost the buzz about the former Senator, but it also would create a media swarm around the third-place finisher, whether Obama or Clinton, who would have to answer questions about why he or she finished third.

Most observers think Edwards has some latent strength in Nevada, which is scheduled to have its caucuses on the Saturday after Iowa’s, because of his support within organized labor. And he has obvious appeal in South Carolina, where he was born and which he won rather convincingly in 2004.

But nobody knows for sure how influential the Nevada caucuses will be (since New Hampshire is likely to be the national media’s focus after Iowa), and South Carolina has two major problems for Edwards. First, he faces a very different field this time, since Obama and Clinton have appeal in the state that Sen. John Kerry (D-Mass.), the Rev. Al Sharpton and retired Gen. Wesley Clark did not. And second, the Palmetto State primary could be anticlimactic if one Democrat wins both Iowa and New Hampshire.

Obviously, fundraising questions surround Edwards since both Clinton and Obama would seem to be able to raise in excess of $100 million this year for their campaigns. And while Edwards’ experience in the presidential arena undoubtedly is an asset, he is not the fresh face that he was in his previous race.

Some criticize Edwards for “moving left” this cycle, a characterization that allies of the former Senator say is unfair. Edwards’ supporters argue that his views haven’t changed. That may be so, but the perception that his message is more explicitly liberal this time can’t be ignored.

Edwards’ international experience is no greater now than it was during his previous run, but he gets credit from Democrats for quickly saying that his vote giving the president authority to use force against Iraq was a mistake. However, the suggestion by consultant Bob Shrum that he made a political miscalculation in advising Edwards to vote for the measure — though Edwards quickly responded by dismissing the idea that his vote was politically calculated — seems to confirm the views of those observers who find Edwards too slick for their liking.

Edwards’ biggest problem right now may be the media’s tendency to define the Democratic race as a two-person contest, Clinton versus Obama. That makes fundraising tougher and may cause some Democrats in early states not to consider him as an alternative.

But the media attention to Elizabeth Edwards’ health, and to her husband’s commitment to her, is bound to boost Edwards’ presidential prospects short-term, creating both sympathy for him and an admiration about the relationship the Edwardses have, at least among Democrats.

I expect that Edwards will have time between now and mid-January to meet enough people and get his views out to be competitive. And if one of the frontrunners falters, he could be well-positioned to become an alternative. He remains the Democrat most likely to upset the Clinton-Obama apple cart.

What tier is John Edwards in? He’s either at the back of the top tier or between the top and second tiers. That certainly doesn’t make him a frontrunner, but it means, at least at this point, that he is in the ballgame.

This column first appeared in Roll Call on March 26, 2007. Copyright 2007 © Roll Call Inc. All rights reserved. Reprinted with permission.