Edwards Differentiates + Lux Obfuscates
by david mizner, Tue Jan 15, 2008 at 11:04:01 AM EST
I'm glad to see the Edwards campaign making a bigger effort to highlight the differences between him and his rivals. Here are videos contrasting him with Clinton and Obama on electability, trade, and lobbyists. (I'd like to see additional ads pointing out the Edwards is the only one of the leading candidate to reject nuclear power and the Bush's GWOT frame.) And a memo released yesterday articulated his argument against Obama and Clinton.
The lesson out of New Hampshire is that while the media have anointed two celebrity candidates, both are deeply flawed. Senator Clinton, we've known for a long time, is plagued with questions over electablility and continues to defend the status quo in Washington. Senator Obama's weakness was revealed Tuesday night: voters want a fighter. If Obama was thrown-off by Clinton's attacks last week week, that's nothing compared to what Republicans will throw at the nominee this fall. If Obama is too weak to stand up to Republicans, and Clinton is too corporate to offer voters real change, Democrats will seek a nominee who not only stands for change but who actually shows some fight.
This is pretty good, as far as it goes. But it's general. One of the odd things about the Edwards campaign is that although he'd led on policy, although he's put out a truckload of bold, detailed proposals, he hasn't made a big effort to highlight the differences between his platform and those of Obama and Clinton. On the one hand, this makes sense: voters don't make decisions based on two points of a ten-point plan. But specifics are needed as evidence for the philosophical and strategic case he makes above.
What does it means that Clinton is too corporate? It means that she supports the Peru Free Trade agreement and other NAFTA-style trade pacts. What does it mean that Obama isn't a fighter? It means that as president he would leave Bush's tax cuts for the rich in place until 2011.
I'd like to focus on that last point, because it's an important, horrendous position of Obama's that's gotten little attention. Unlike Edwards (and I believe Clinton: I've seen conflicting reports) who would roll back Bush's tax cuts for the rich, Obama would let them expire (scroll to bottom).
The additional revenue needed to fund the up-front investments in technology and to help people who cannot afford health insurance is more than covered by allowing the Bush tax cuts to expire for people making more than $250,000 per year, as they are scheduled to do.
The tax cuts for the rich were the centerpiece of Bush's regressive domestic agenda, but Obama wouldn't even move to roll them back. Why not? Does he buy the rightwing argument that a roll-back would hurt the economy? Does he fear the charge that he's a tax-raiser? Progressive minds wants to know.
What's worse, as you can see from the blockquote above, Obama would use the renevue from the expired tax cuts to fund his health care plan. The money wouldn't be available to 2011. Would he wait till then to push for health care reform? Or would he present a plan early, to be funded with money that's not yet available? Either way his moderation on tax policy would threaten the chance of health care reform. I'd love to see Edwards turn to Obama in tonight's debate and say:
Senator Obama, you say you represent change, yet you wouldn't even do anything to roll back Bush's tax breaks for the richest people in the country. What kind of change is that?
I don't think I'm the only Edwards supporter who's been frustrated by his decision not to aggressively challenge Obama. Edwards seems to genuinely prefer Obama and his reform message to Clinton and her corporate-sponsored New Liberalism. Fair enough. The only problem is that Obama is, as Paul Krugman says, less progressive than his rivals on domestic policy.
Edwards should by all means continue to critique Clinton for her indefensible defense of a broken system, but he should also critique Obama for positions that undercut his claim to bold change. On health care for example: Edwards should point out and keep pointing out that Obama doesn't have a plan for universal coverage. Obama has done a good job of clouding the issue by demonizing mandates, but the fact remains: his plan would leave millions of people uninsured. How to highlight this in the debate? Maybe like this:
Senator Obama, you say that under your health care plan, everyone would choose to get insurance. Yet all the health care policy experts say otherwise. They say some 15 million people wouldn't get insured under your plan. What evidence do you have that they experts are wrong?
Most voters around the country are just tuning in, and there's a chance to educate them. But if Edwards doesn't work to explain why he's more progressive than the other two, then people will buy the claim pushed by both the MSM and the sphere that the positions of the candidates are all the same. If people don't understand the differences between Edwards and his rivals, they'll vote for the celebrities.
--------------
Why did Edwards "only" finish second in Iowa? Mike Lux--a Hillary admirer who predicted that Edwards would fade and maybe finish below Richardson--has an answer: he was too angry! In any early entry for worst "liberal" blog post of the year, he writes:
I think the problem has been that the anger is the only thing that voters were hearing. The lesson of the Edwards failure to me is that anger alone is not enough: that we have to combine the righteous anger we feel with telling people about the new ideas we have. Edwards had produced a bunch of great policy papers earlier in the campaign, but his core message in debates and advertising felt like it was all about the anger. If we can give people a sense of how we are going to change things and solve problems, and combine it with our anger at injustice, then we can win elections.
Never mind that he beat the most famous woman in the world.
Never mind that Obama spent more money on TV in Iowa than Mitt Romney.
Never mind that he by most accounts won the DMR debate by focusing on his "fighting" message.
Never mind that he rose in the polls as his populism sharpened.
Never mind that his surge was stopped by the DMR's self-fulfilling outlier poll, which vastly overestimated the number of independents who ended up voting.
Never mind that the populace is angrier than at any time in recent memory.
Never mind that a healthy majority thinks Big Business has too much power in Washington.
Never mind that the press virtually ignored him.
Never mind that his hardcore populism is just about the only thing that got him attention.
Never mind that he didn't do enough to distinguish himself from Obama.
Never mind that he was hurt by the haircut stories.
Never mind that he would have won in a cycle that didn't feature celebrity candidates.
Never mind that his opponents are skilled pols.
Never mind that Lux and others pushed the idea that public financing made him non-viable.
Never mind the only people who think Edwards is angry are political opponents and journalists.
Never mind that Lux is using an Obama-Dodd-GOP talking point against Edwards.
Never mind that Lux mistakes outrage for anger.
Never mind that by portraying Edwards as angry Lux is stigmatizing populism.
Never mind that it's long been a practice of the establishment to depict threats to the status quo as "emotional" or "unbalanced" or "angry."
Never mind that Edwards bombarded people with mail detailing his policy proposals.
Never mind that he talked about those proposals in the hundreds of speeches he gave.
No, the problem was that Edwards conveyed too much anger. Please read Lux's entire post and tell me if there's any way to conclude that he's not an establishment hack. And think about this post next time the MSM depicts a populist as angry.
Tags: Barack Obama, differences, Health care, Hillary Clinton, John Edwards, Lobbyists, Taxes, trade (all tags)
-----------
myDD - skin
-----------
36 Comments