TNR BLOGS

July 04, 2009 | 6:29 PM
July 04, 2009 | 11:58 AM
July 04, 2009 | 11:32 AM

March 09, 2009 | 5:19 PM
March 09, 2009 | 5:16 PM
January 07, 2009 | 12:20 PM

July 01, 2009 | 10:33 PM
June 30, 2009 | 8:42 AM
June 29, 2009 | 9:09 AM

July 26, 2008 | 2:24 PM
July 23, 2008 | 1:55 PM
July 17, 2008 | 3:56 PM

July 03, 2009 | 10:13 PM
July 02, 2009 | 12:57 PM
July 01, 2009 | 7:02 PM
COLUMNISTS
TODAY'S STORIES
11.01.2008
Does Edwards Prefer Obama?

I do this with great trepidation, but I think I'm going to have to disagree with Dan Balz, who, wondering if/when John Edwards will drop out, writes:

In a largely two-person race between Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton, it's clear where Edwards's sentiments lie. If he can't be the nominee, he strongly prefers Obama to Clinton.

If there were any doubt before, his performance in the Jan. 5 New Hampshire debate answered that question definitively. It was Edwards who leaped to Obama's defense when Clinton raised doubts about him -- aggressively challenging the New York senator as a creature of a frightened status quo.

"I didn't hear these kind of attacks from Senator Clinton when she was ahead," he said. "Now that she's not, we hear them. And any time you speak out -- any time you speak out for change, this is what happens."

Well, first of all, if Edwards was trying to help Obama, he sure did a lousy job of it--since it was his challenge to Clinton that prompted her angry moment which, in hindsight, was probably as crucial to her New Hampshire comeback as her teary moment. But I'm not convinced Edwards was trying to help Obama.

After Obama's victory in Iowa, the only scenario in which Edwards could win the nomination, it seemed, was to have the Democratic race boil down to a contest between Obama and himself--two "change" candidates--and then Edwards could try to paint Obama as too nice to accomplish change. So teaming up with Obama to take on Hillary during the debate could have been as much about Edwards's self-interest as it was his feelings for the other candidates.

Why does this matter? Because if Edwards truly does prefer Obama, then the smart play for him would be to stick in the race through South Carolina, where, as Balz later points out, he'd likely take white votes away from Clinton. Then, after South Carolina, he'd drop out, lest he siphon away "change" voters from Obama on February 5. If Edwards does that, then I think it'll be clear that he truly does prefer Obama. 

P.S. I'm tempted to say this is a golden opportunity for Edwards to butter up Obama to pick him as his runningmate (similar to the one Richardson had with Hillary); but I can't imagine Edwards would want to be a veep candidate again.

--Jason Zengerle

Posted: Friday, January 11, 2008 9:56 PM with 8 comment(s)

Comments

You must be logged-in to comment.

Not a subscriber? Click here to get a digital or print and digital subscription to The New Republic!

emh77 said:

What about Edwards as Attorney General? Seems like a perfect fit and something Edwards would probably relish.

January 11, 2008 5:32 PM

psantillana said:

Well, he IS sticking through SC, so that doesn't contradict the "prefers Obama" scenario. And even if he doesn't prefer Obama, then you can't deny that he's burnt to cinders any bridge to a Clinton administration. So if he wants a job in federal gov't, his best bet is Obama because he's not going to win this for himself, like it or not. But I really think he does prefer Obama. Trippi definitely does.

January 11, 2008 5:59 PM

mmathog said:

"-since it was his challenge to Clinton that prompted her angry moment which, in hindsight, was probably as crucial to her New Hampshire comeback as her teary moment."

It totally sucks that this is now the CW. As Andrew Kohut explains in the NY Times, the NH polling had a dramatic sample bias in favor of Obama. How? Poor people don't talk to pollsters! That's how.

I think the broadcast TV (as opposed to cable TV) debate DID have some impact, but I doubt the tears (or Chris Matthews being a douchebag) made any difference at all.

Poor white people are more likely for both class and race reasons to support HRC over Obama, if you don't poll them, you get skewed results.

As for Edwards, it was a matter of 'preference,' it was pure game theory. He thought he had a chance to knock HRC out making it a 2-man race. If Obama had shown the same weakness (e.g., if HRC had won Iowa by 8 points), he would've run up Obama's kitchen.

Finally, Edwards won't pull out before Super Tuesday.

January 11, 2008 8:15 PM

davybaby3 said:

Why wouldn't Edwards want to run for Veep again? What else does he have to do?

January 12, 2008 12:33 AM

teplukhin2you said:

Veep's a pretty cool job. That's a beautiful house next to the Naval Observatory, the hours aren't long, and you have all the upside with none of the risk. Yeah, I could go for Veep.

January 12, 2008 2:57 AM

arkiel said:

What Edwards prefers and does is one thing. Ultimately, though, it's more important what Edwards' current supporters do, once they have to choose between Clinton and Obama.  If people who vote for Edwards have done so mainly because they desire more secure jobs, improved healthcare, less inequality, etc., it would seem that Clinton has the best response to those concerns and could run away with the majority of the Edwardian voters.

January 12, 2008 1:53 PM

The Stump said:

In a good overall analysis of what's left for Edwards, Dan Balz suggests as much: Edwards has two

January 12, 2008 3:12 PM

The Plank said:

The other day I questioned Dan Balz's assertion that Edwards prefers Obama. Big mistake! Check out

January 13, 2008 2:04 PM