David Mizner at MyDD seems to think there are some favorable dynamics at play in the Democratic primary for John Edwards. Edwards is more or less tied in the polls with Clinton and Obama in Iowa. He’s further behind in New Hampshire and elsewhere at the moment, but Mizner argues that the debate in the Democratic primary is headed toward a frame that is quite beneficial to Edwards: who and how to effect change. As Atrios put it:
Obama: The system sucks, but I’m so awesome that it’ll melt away before me.
Edwards: The system sucks, and we’re gonna have to fight like hell to destroy it.
Clinton: The system sucks, and I know how to work within it more than anyone.
Mizner argues that these various approaches flow naturally from the prior history of the candidates. Hillary has been involved with politics her whole life and therefore wants to work within the system. Obama’s background is in community organizing and so he wants to form coalitions. Edwards’ background is in adversarial litigation and so he wants to fight.
For a generation of Democrats who are tired of Democratic leadership that comes off as a bunch of passive, spineless wimps cringing at the feet of their Republican overlords and begging for scraps, the idea of a fighter is appealing. (I know, I know — how can he fight with good hair?). To many of us, that’s what was so appealing about Howard Dean — not his liberal message (which, by the way, if you paid any attention, wasn’t very liberal; unless staying out of Iraq and getting out of Iraq as soon as possible is somehow “liberal”) — but rather the fact that he wasn’t going to back down from a fight. Bipartisanship is fine if both sides are playing the game. But, with a Grover Norquist style of bipartisanship akin to “date rape,” you have to arrange to negotiate from a position of strength. Perhaps if the process had been more adversarial, our information might have been better when Congress was deliberating on whether to authorize the invasion of Iraq.
So, as the saying goes, “interesting . . . if true.” Edwards still has to be considered quite an underdog at this point.
I cringe whenever I hear either a Republican or a Democrat start talking about a need for “Bipartisanship”. What does that entail, getting together to crush the Libertarians? Healthy adversarialship would do us much more good.
The strange theatre that is the Iowa system could definitely help Edwards. There’s that magic, goofy moment when no one gets the required percentage, and the lesser candidates start losing their supporters to the bigger ones. The number two or three guy or gal can pick up support from those voting against the top dog. That’s how we got Kerry.
The National Enquirer is reporing that Edwards has a “love child” on the way. Of course the woman is in hiding…and…well it is the National Enquirer…so…never mind.
Good move, National Enquirer. Peddling stories about a lawyer who made of career out of winning massive judgments from people. Just the kind of guy I would want to print false stories about…