Democratic Strategist-Peter Fenn -"Expect Edwards To Go After Obama Hard Tonight"

[DemocratSinceBirth]

That makes sense... Hillary Clinton ,for better or worse, is the establishment candidate...She is this campaign's Walter Mondale...John Edwards and Barack Obama are the insurgent candidates...As "agents of change" they are competing for the same pool of voters...Attacking Hillary makes no sense for Edwards...Her supporters aren't going to go to him but if he attacks Obama , because they are both fighting for the same pool of voters, some of Obama's supporters may go to him...

If you look at the NH polls Hillary is holding steady, Obama is rising , and Edwards is declining:

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/nh/new_hampshire_democratic_primary-194.html


We don't have much research to work with but the little research we do have suggests Obama is rising at John Edwards' expense...If Edwards completely fades Obama will win... If Edwards can remain viable he gives Hillary a shot...I expect to see this dynamic continue as long as Edwards continues or remains viable...

As I said yesterday John Edwards is Hillary Clinton's Praetorian Guard...

[BlueManDude]

1. I don't see Edwards peeling voters away from Obama

his base is more old-line Dem - the ones who are supporting Clinton.

He's going to finish 3rd in NH, the question is does he continue after NH.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

9. I Respecftfuly Disagree

Rightly or wrongly , the frame is that Clinton is tied to the the past and Obama and Edwards represent the future... The media has decided Clinton is the retro candidate and Obama and Edwards are the noveau candidates...They are just new in different ways...

[BlueManDude]

11. but aren't the Independents driving the Obama train?

I don't see Edwards having much appeal there. There's some plling out indicatiing that Obama is surging and McCain is falling a bit IMO because they are both trolling for the same voter and Obama's generated the buzz out of Iowa.

[Adelante]

16. Obama led in Iowa among Democrats narrowly, only one point ahead of Clinton,

but 9 points ahead of Edwards. Again, that is among Democrats. And in a Rasmussen poll out this morning Obama is leading Clinton by five points among Democrats in New Hampshire. Obama is appealing to more than independents.

[Armstead]

12. I respectfully disagree

The frame is correct that Clinton is the candidate of the past. Before it became poilically unfashionable, she herself said as much with statements like saying she wants us to return to the way the country was in the 90's, and her whole "experience" line.

Her gender may signify change, but that's the only thing new about her.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

15. So You Don't Disagree

I said the frame is she is the candiate of the past...

I will say it's pure genius that Edwards and Obama have convinced folks that the nineties were a bad time for Americans...By any metric the nineties were a great generation for all Americans...We were at peace, unemployment was its lowest level in a generation, African and Hispanic unemployment was at its lowest level in a generation, infltuion was at its lowest level in a generation, the crime rate was going down, the abortion rate was going down, the level of famillies living below the level of the poverty line was at its lowest level in a generation, et cetera...

[Armstead]

22. I agree with the frame

I'm normally not a big fan of this idea of "framing." I kind of prefer straight talk.

But when a frame is correct I have to agree with it. Hillary does represent that past. Obama is new. Edwards has been around, but his approach is new in terms of putting the issue of corporate power and economic justice on the front-burner.

As for whether the 90's were a good or a bad time....Well, haven't time to go into the details of that right now. But I will say, in admittedly simple terms, the 90's were certainly better that the early 00's on many levels.

But on a larger term macro level, they merely perpetuated the underlying trends that were started in the 80's and were put on steriods by Bush. Rather than being a good period between bad ones, the 90's had a glossy surface with an Emperor's New Clothes shininess to it, but in reality our economy was becoming increasingly polarized and the middle class and lower class were being increasingly marginalized, and corporations were getting bigger and badder, with no restraints.

[jenmito]

24. It IS genius and it WILL hurt Hillary regardless of how successful Bill's presidency was...

Obama's talking about the DIVISION of the country at that time, the old fights of the 90s, the scandals, etc. People are tired of all that and if Hillary was our nominee, everything old will be new again and the Repubs. will have all that ammunition and all the old arguments back in play. Time to turn the page.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

26. Average People's Lives Were Good In The Nineties

The metrics I cited were very real...The more honest argument is it that it is folly to think you can go back in time and resurrect some glorious past...But to suggest most Americans weren't better off then than they are now strikes me as disingenuous...

[jenmito]

27. I didn't suggest most Americans weren't better off then than they are now.

I said people are tired of the division of the 90s and all the reasons for it.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

29. To The Average American The Fighting Was As Relevant To Their Daily Lives As Were Soap Operas

~

[jenmito]

32. No way. The whole country was divided-Clintons vs. anti-Clintons.

We don't need that again.

[Kahuna]

34. Bush and Rove were the first to convince America that they needed

a change from the Clintons. So why are you so surprised that the same argument is made today?

[Thrill]

2. I fail to see where he can go hard after anyone

All Barack has to do is remind people Edwards voted for the war. He won't be stealing any of Barack's supporters.

[Armstead]

13. I was vehemently against the war -- but I still support Edwards

It would be a wonderful world if we could have a la carte candidates, and we could pick and choose which of the positions or aspects of their records we are going to order. But ya gotta take the whole package -- good with the bad -- and despite his screwup on the war, Edwards still represents what I believe in much more than Obama otherwise.....A lot of peopel feel the same way.

[iamjoy]

3. Edwards Should Skip NH

he should skip NH and go to South Carolina, where he has a better chance.

OTOH - even though Edwards is not going to win NH, it will help him if Clinton rather than Obama wins. That's why if he's going to stay in NH it makes sense for him to attack Obama, not Clinton.

[cali]

4. He can't skip NH. That makes no sense. He's been there frequently

for over a year. And I don't think going after Obama is going to help him, though I know where he'll go after him: Health care. Edwards is not in a good position in NH. And he has no chance in SC, where African Americans make up 50% of dem primary voters.

His campaign, barring a miracle, is over.

[iamjoy]

7. Yes, But The SC Vote Is Divided

African Americans like Clinton, too.

The best hope for Edwards in SC is that the African American vote is divided and that he can pick up a significant majority of the rest.

Iowa really was his best shot, frankly, I'm disappointed in his showing there. I'm just sick of the media who has been turning it into a two person race for over a year. I don't want to have our nominee before the Super Bowl, for crying out loud.

[MadBadger]

28. You better believe that after Obama's win in Iowa, black support will be firmly behind Obama

[Joe the Revelator]

5. Edwards wants to turn this into a 2 man race by Feb 5th.

He has a much better chance of challenging Obama if he becomes the only anti-Obama candidate. He goes after Hillary tonight in order to put the nail in the coffin.

[Sparkly]

6. But Edwards is claiming he and Obama are "the two change candidates."

What's he going to go after him on?

[DemocratSinceBirth]

10. Because They Want To Achieve Change Differently

Edwards wants to blow the system up... Obama wants to make the system work by making everybody more congenial in the pursuit of a common interest...

[BeyondGeography]

14. Wrong...Obama wants to mobilize voters by making government as transparent as possible

exposing the arguments of special interests to the light of day and using the bully pulpit of the presidency to build popular consensus for change. He will also work to elect more progressives and build a new governing majority that includes moderate Republicans with whom he can work with.

Nice try though.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

18. What Special Interests Has He Specifically Targeted?

~

[BeyondGeography]

20. Here's a fairly in-depth conversation on how his health care process will work

and how he will deal politically with insurance co's and drug companies. You can apply the same method to any and all big legislation:

http://youtube.com/watch?v=RjsRcIfMj-E

[K Gardner]

17. This is exactly why he won't go after Obama. He would have signaled that in the

Olbermann interview yesterday if that were the case. I agree with the others who have said he needs to nail Hillary, he and Obama both need to do that tonight.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

21. If Hillary Represents The Establishment Or The Old Way

Why would people who like that abandon Hillary because Obama and Edwards attack her...

Wouldn't it make sense for one of the two candidates who represent change to attack the other candidate who represents change in the hope of poaching some of his voters?

[K Gardner]

25. I suppose. To be honest, given the bias in coverage, I'm not sure any of this makes sense

to me right now, or if it will matter what any candidate does or doesn't do.

[rucky]

8. Edwards needs to stay on message and keep playing to the base.

That's what he does best.

[goldcanyonaz]

19. I wish he would stay on message, but I believe he is going to attach Clinton, not Obama.

[Arugula Latte]

23. Nooo! Don't go negative! Team up for the ultimate Dream Team

Obama-Edwards / Edwards-Obama :loveya:

[incapsulated]

30. Of course he will

And Hillary will let him. It works for her.

[2hip]

31. Pay attention to how he's already framed the players

From his recent appearance on Olbermann - video here http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=385x80969

Clinton is the "Status Quo" or, in other words, old news.

Obama is the only other "Change" candidate but his approach is "intellectual" and "philosophical"...somebody who "just talks about it, for whom it's more of a political issue...the politicians are going to do the political thing." Translation: more of the same old-same old.

I expect him to marginalize them both in the upcoming debates...and I wouldn't be surprised if one or the other doesn't get visibly pissy to their own detriment as he backs them into corners. As a trial lawyer, he knows exactly how to pressure those in the hot seat so they incriminate themselves in the eyes of public opinion. Break out the popcorn for he next exciting installment. Edwards is bringin' it ON!

(Heh...as I was typing this, Susan Malveaux on CNN said pretty much the same thing!)



  Edwards '08 tees!

[Kahuna]

33. I don't think so. Why would Edwards want to help Hillary?

Doesn't make sense.