TNR BLOGS

January 08, 2009 | 8:20 PM
January 08, 2009 | 8:00 PM
January 08, 2009 | 6:03 PM

January 07, 2009 | 12:20 PM
January 07, 2009 | 12:13 PM
January 07, 2009 | 9:41 AM

January 08, 2009 | 6:31 PM
January 08, 2009 | 4:13 PM
January 08, 2009 | 2:50 PM

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

January 08, 2009 | 5:12 PM
January 08, 2009 | 3:25 PM
January 08, 2009 | 1:16 PM
COLUMNISTS
TODAY'S STORIES
31.03.2008
Why Obama (Might Have) Alienated Elizabeth Edwards

Did Barack Obama fail to close the deal with John Edwards by seeming arrogant and insufficiently committed to his policy agenda? New York magazine's John Heilemann seems to imply as much in a much-discussed article that appeared on Friday. My colleague Noam Scheiber respectfully disagrees.

Noam has better sources within the campaigns than I do (as, I presume, does Heilemann). So I'm really in no position to say who's right on the overall issue. But I can add a data point to validate at least one detail in Heilemann's story.

In his article, Heilemann says that Obama alienated Elizabeth Edwards over a discussion of health care policy. Here's the full passage: 

Obama blew it. Speaking to Edwards on the day he exited the race, Obama came across as glib and aloof. His response to Edwards’s imprecations that he make poverty a central part of his agenda was shallow, perfunctory, pat. Clinton, by contrast, engaged Edwards in a lengthy policy discussion. Her affect was solicitous and respectful. When Clinton met Edwards face-to-face in North Carolina ten days later, her approach continued to impress; she even made headway with Elizabeth. Whereas in his Edwards sit-down, Obama dug himself in deeper, getting into a fight with Elizabeth about health care, insisting that his plan is universal (a position she considers a crock), high-handedly criticizing Clinton’s plan (and by extension Edwards’s) for its insurance mandate.

Heilemann attributes this anecdote to "a Democratic strategist unaligned with any campaign but with knowledge of the situation gleaned from all three camps." It is important to treat such stories with a little skepticism--not because Heilemann is in any way untrustworthy (I like his stuff a lot, as a matter of fact), but because these sort of second-hand accounts aren't always that reliable, particularly when they involve poilcy discussions.

Still, the idea that Elizabeth Edwards would get into a heated discussion with Obama over health care policy rings true. She is a well-known health care wonk. Just this weekend, as a matter of fact, she gave the keynote address at this year's annual conference for the Association of Health Care Journalists--in which she offered a blistering, dead-on critique of John McCain's health care plan.

During the campaign, Elizabeth had played a key role in shaping her husband's health care policy. She lobbied hard for a single-payer plan, according to my sources. And when that didn't fly, she pressed for the most comprehensive plan possible. That's one reason the official Edwards plan--like the one Clinton eventually endorsed--included a requirement that everybody obtain insurance. 

So it makes sense that Elizabeth would consider Obama's arguments--that mandates for everybody aren't essential right away--a "crock." And given her passion for the subject, it also seems plausible that she'd make a big deal out of it.

Edit: Cleaned up some lousy prose from the original. 

--Jonathan Cohn

Posted: Monday, March 31, 2008 9:35 AM with 14 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!

s4200 said:

Finally, let us agree on a few points:

Obama was alway inferior to Edwards.

Obama unfairly targeted Iowa and stole it from Edwards, as Kerry did it from Dean.

The IOWA crime should disqualify Obama from a Democratic office for ever.

Ban Obama, who is poisoning the Democratic Party!

March 31, 2008 10:18 AM

AaronBBrown said:

Looks like a we've got the makings of a little blog war here among the staff at TNR.  Keep pushing this thing and maybe we'll get Noam to come out from behind the façade of his rapidly deteriorating journalistic impartiality and find out what he really thinks.  :-)

March 31, 2008 10:22 AM

ejbenjamin said:

"Unfairly targeted Iowa?"  Please explain.

March 31, 2008 10:35 AM

raylward said:

On the issue of health care, Obama is right and both Clinton and Edwards are wrong.  The mandate will be an easy target for the Republicans, will not pass the Senate anyway, and will doom health care reform.  And it isn't necessary.  The Obama plan includes cummunity rating (i.e., nobody can be excluded from coverage no matter his or her pre-existing condition).  And with community rating, it will be the insurance companies that will insist on the mandate (to spread the risk).  

March 31, 2008 10:40 AM

lymon1 said:

Edwards could have taken Iowa if he had come out against "green card amnesty" for illegal immigrants.  He could have been compassionate (crack down on employers, not immigrants, funds to help families return to their homelands if they wanted to), but by making the populatist/accademic argument against illegal immigration he would have distinguished himself.

March 31, 2008 11:02 AM

Wandreycer1 said:

Ah yes, the whole Obama-is-a-crook-for--having-the-nerve-to-win scenario.  I remember Bill Clinton putting up with that for years.  He somehow managed to do the hard work to win caucuses.  And Hillary didn't do the legwork herself to win Iowa because....?  Nothing is EVER that woman's fault, it's always some evil force out there in the netherworld of her imagination.

sounds like the syndrome Tom Tomorrow nails BEAUtifully this morning:

www.salon.com/.../index.html

I agree with Hillary on this one, even though I'm an Obama supporter.  

I love Elizabeth Edwards, but both she and John have an unfortunely high opinion of their say in this race.  John lost for very good reasons and a one term Senator who lost his own state isn't exactly a power player in any sort of position to dictate policy positions to the winning candidate. Sorry, them's the breaks.  If they don't want to endorse him, they have that right.  It would be rather hard for John to endorse Hillary when he spent a great deal of his campaign attacking her integrity, her honesty.  I *guess* it could be done.

Obama doesn't pander and good for him for not bullshitting about his intentions, even when it might have helped him - imagine that.

March 31, 2008 11:14 AM

Rhubarbs said:

The thing is, I've never heard anyone complain that they don't have healthcare because the government hasn't passed a law requiring them to buy it. People don't have healthcare because it costs too much.

So why is it accepted by the Clintons and Edwardses of the world that the solution to the problem of healthcare is not to provide it through the state, or to lower costs enough to make it affordable to all, but rather to pass a law requiring individuals to buy it? And what specific language of the Constitution allows Congress to impose such an individual mandate on citizens? And while we're at it, does the mandate include illegal aliens? If not, that's 4 percent of the U.S. population right there that's not included in "universal" mandates. If so, well, good luck with staging a revolution, because no elected Congress will pass that bill.

March 31, 2008 11:22 AM

Wandreycer1 said:

I do agree with Hillary and Elizabeth ideologically on this - but find the arguments against mandates (such as Rhubarbs) daunting.  There is no way John Q Public gives a hoot about my ideological preference.  

I guess Hillary's take is that she'll simply work harder and bully more to get it through.  After taking kajillions from insurance companies for years now.  Uh huh.

This just isn't going to happen.  

March 31, 2008 11:36 AM

blackton said:

yeah, I am with wandrey and rhub on this one. Besides, I am not sure how a person can be expected to have a meaningful discussion about a topic if the other person has called your position a "crock" and the only proper response is to take the others position.

I am also not sure what the Edwards camp think they gain by playing hardball on this issue. Getting in heated debates as a non candidate with the nominee is not exactly the best way to win a seat in the new administration, especially for someone like Obama who is looking to get beyond the yelling.

Beyond that, it is a shame that Edwards doesn't see that having 9/10ths of a loaf (from even her perspective) is far better than getting McCain elected and having none.

March 31, 2008 11:45 AM

moran@sbc.edu said:

This comment is off-subject a bit, but I have to say you are so iffy that i'm not going to pay too much attention. What's in the back of my mind, and this is the point of my comment, is that in the past few years TNR has been unreliable in terms of factual reporting. I am reconsidering whether I want to renew my subscription. What I need from your editors is the assurance that the stories we get are factual and have been thru the editorial checking process. I hold you to this for your on-line version as well as the printed version. It must be tempting to throw out stuff on-line that is speculative and not verified, but I have to tell you that more and more and more of your readers rely on what you say as being truthful. We can tell the difference between public blogs and your stories, so don't take on a "blog-mode."  It won't fly. You won't publish this of course, but please send it on to your editors. DM

March 31, 2008 12:08 PM

amyjbb said:

Maybe the real reason the Edwards do not support Obama goes beyond his insurance plan but his attitude toward differing opinions. He is running on a platform as a uniter but he does not seem to be able to bring people together on many issues, he's been more divider than uniter. How will he work with the middle east or any of the countries he says we need to meet with?  Frankly there are many unknowns with Obama and from a credibility standpoint I can see where Edwards may be hesitant to endorse. The mandates for Health care are necessary to keep the costs down-doesn't seem too hard to understand.  In regard to the constitutional issue, there are many things that we are unable to opt out of that do not pose a constitutional problem, think social security, medicare, taxes.

March 31, 2008 12:50 PM

kgrant1054 said:

Pish tosh.  The Edwards haven't endorsed because Obama clearly didn't bow and kiss the ring...of a politician that has failed twice on the national presidential campaign stage.  What was Edwards doing in Iowa?  Why couldn't he do better in his own state?  If his economic populism and stands on health care were so impressive, why couldn't he win one state this time around?

Edwards may be a great guy, with terrific policy instincts and proposals, but he was a horrible candidate.  He lost.  For either Clinton or Obama to suck up to him is beyond foolishness.  And unlike Dodd, Biden, and even Richardson, he doesn't have a political track record that would impress anybody, nor draw like minded voters along with him.  

March 31, 2008 1:35 PM

The Plank said:

Following up on Noam's and Jon's speculation about what's going on with John Edwards's

March 31, 2008 7:20 PM

The Plank said:

Political autopsies of the failed campaign for universal health care in the 1990s frequently focus on

July 3, 2008 8:26 AM