Is this a Clinton mistake?
I'm not enough of a macroeconomist to pass a judgment on the economic plans that Clinton is proposing, but I'm more fascinated by the political context of this big NYTimes leader.
Her language in the interview sounds far more populist than the actual bullet points of the plan, and I'm assuming that's an intentional effort to reach out to the Edwards voters, but at the same time, some of this language targeting Edwards voters may also come back to bite her in the general.
Interesting that the most risky bit is credited to advisers, not Clinton herself.
I think the key to interpreting this highly visible statement, though, comes on the second page, "Mrs. Clinton, whose campaign initiated the interview....."
They want this out there, and they want it out there now.
Yoo-hoo... Edwards voter.
Her language in the interview sounds far more populist than the actual bullet points of the plan, and I'm assuming that's an intentional effort to reach out to the Edwards voters, but at the same time, some of this language targeting Edwards voters may also come back to bite her in the general.
Interesting that the most risky bit is credited to advisers, not Clinton herself.
Republicans say that her tax increases on the affluent and her spending proposals would increase the deficit, but Mrs. Clinton’s advisers respond that she, like her husband, is a fiscal conservative. They add that reducing the deficit is no longer sufficient, because today’s problems have less to do with the size of the economic pie than the way it is divided.
I think the key to interpreting this highly visible statement, though, comes on the second page, "Mrs. Clinton, whose campaign initiated the interview....."
They want this out there, and they want it out there now.
Yoo-hoo... Edwards voter.
posted by mikevotes at
7:38 AM
9 Comments:
Obama's message is "Rise and work with me and together we can change how politics is done in America."
Clinton's message is "Elect me and I'll take care of you."
Edwards...? When I heard him in person he sounded a lot more like Obama than Clinton, calling people to be active in the process beyond just voting.
There are two types of Democratic voters. One want's to roll up their sleeves and be part of the process of governance. The other wants a strong advocate to take care of things for them. The question is, where (and how) do Edwards' supporters fall into these two camps?
By
-epm, at 9:47 AM
Where Edwards' support will go is likely to decide the election. That's why Clinton is trying to get out front here and coopt his message.
The question to me is whether the Edwards support is really issues that can be coopted or "Change/Fight/anti-Clinton."
We're going to have to wait and seee.
By
mikevotes, at 10:53 AM
Exactly. Edwards supporters are likely not monolithic. Some may be anti-Obama for not being populist/progressive enough, and some may be anti-Hillary for being too institutional or too slippery in here convictions.
I think it's fair to say, particularly after Nevada, that Edwards doesn't have a serious chance of winning the nomination. If he comes in anything other the #1 in the SC contest, then I say put a fork in it. I'm really interested to see if Edwards will actively support one of the another Dem candidates.
Interesting times... interesting times.
By
-epm, at 11:37 AM
It's funny. Edwards quitting has become the topic on the blogs today.
It's his call.
By
mikevotes, at 2:12 PM
If he comes in third in SC and doesn't pull out -- which is fine with me, he can do what he wants -- I simply want to know what he's hoping to accomplish by staying in the race. It seems to me he'd begin to look a little looney, in a Kucinich kind of way.
Richardson dropped out, but his integrity is still in tact. He's not some loopy politician trying to make a point... He's a serious, rational person. If Edwards wants to play a Quixote, fine, but he'll start appealing to a smaller and smaller group and he'll be less influential as the season goes on (not to mention the convention).
By
-epm, at 2:37 PM
I was thinking more Jerry Brown, but yeah.
I think part of the reason Richardson stepped out to maintain his integrity is that he still wants something from the eventual victor.
John Edwards has no real hope of going into either's administration. He's at the president or private sector point.
However, as much as he can have a legacy, it will be impacted.
By
mikevotes, at 2:45 PM
I disagree, epm. I'd like to see Edwards hang in there as long as possible. He's still collecting delegates, and he's therefore having an influence on the other candidates - as Clinton's come-on to Edwards' supporters shows.
By
Anonymous, at 6:17 PM
abi, fair enough.
I suppose to the extent Edwards is still covered by the traditional media his voice will have some gravitational affect on the other candidates. I expect a greater impact on Clinton's positions, which I think have evolved.
The delegate/king-making is also valid. But only to the extent he has an effectual number of delegates by the time of the convention.
I'm not suggesting John should bail today. Heck, I supported John early on and still like him as my second choice. My questions were based on a "what if." What if John doesn't make a significant showing in SC (and by extension Super Tuesday)? How long does he stay in the race before his influence is nil? February 6th? The convention?
By
-epm, at 7:24 PM
Again, there's no real reason for him not to except for the expectations of others.
I would argue that I don't think he'll be "kingmaking" for two reasons: 1)I think the Clinton Obama contest tips at some point. 2) Edwards is not likely to collect too many delegates once he's deemed impossible to win.
He's not like Huckabee who will likely draw 10+% in most states as long as he stays in.
I would guess the Edwards cutoff will be when he's cut out of one of the debates.
By
mikevotes, at 9:15 PM
Post a Comment
<< Home