Edwards Not Getting A Fair Shake

It's getting difficult to listen to commentary on the Iowa Democratic caucus without hearing someone say something about John Edwards akin to that asserted by Chris Wallace today on GOP TV Sunday: "It seeems like he's been living there since 2005."

Here, then, are some relevant statistics, courtesy of a 12/29/07 blog on dailykos:


Paid staff:
Kerry 2004: 120
Edwards 2008: 178
Obama: 300
Clinton: 400


TV advertising (in millions):
Kerry 2004: $2.73
Edwards 2008: $2.7
Obama: $8.3
Clinton: $6.5

Days spent in Iowa:
Kerry 2004: 76
Edwards 2008: 80
Obama: 78
Clinton: 66

To summarize: John Edwards has spent a few more days in Iowa than the favorites... and has a much smaller (paid) staff and has spent much less. And is running neck and neck.

Why such a close race, then? Iowa skews old, which helps Edwards. The nature of the caucus system (with Democrats) gives disproportionate weight to small gatherings, hence probably rural groups, and Clinton and especially Obama are weak in rural and small town America. Perhaps Iowa Democrats unlike, say, New Hampshire Democrats (many of them from suburban Boston and/or commuters to the Boston area) are somewhat populist economically. And unlike Democrats in the rest of the country, Iowans have come to know the candidates and thus do not overwhelmingly favor one over the other.

But the narrative having Edwards spending his entire life in Iowa has its advantages to the mainstream media. That way, depending on the outcome on January 3, the media already has its headline: a) Edwards loses, may have to drop out; or b) Edwards wins- but faces bigger hurdle in New Hampshire.

Why is this not mere paranoia on my part? Why do media figures persist in the ad hominem attack on Edwards as "angry?" In his salon.com piece of 12/19/07, in which he argues that Edwards, Huckabee, and Paul face similar elitist, anti-populist scorn from the establishment, Glenn Greenwald explains brilliantly:


It is very striking how little Edwards' substantive critique of our political system has penetrated into the national discourse. That's because the centerpiece of his campaign is a critique that is a full frontal assault on our political establishment. His argument is not merely that the political system needs reform, but that it is corrupt at its core -- "rigged" in favor of large corporate interests and their lobbyists, who literally write our laws and control the Congress. Anyone paying even casual attention to the extraordinary bipartisan effort on behalf of telecom immunity, and so many other issues driven almost exclusively by lobbyists, cannot reasonably dispute this critique.

Yet because that argument indicts the same Beltway culture of which our political journalists are an integral part, and further attacks the system's power brokers who are the friends, sources, and peers of those journalists, they instinctively react with confusion, scorn and hostility towards Edwards' campaign. They condescendingly dismiss it as manipulative populist swill, or cynically assume that it's just a ploy to distinguish himself by "moving left." In the eyes of our Beltawy press, the idea that our political system is "rigged" or corrupt must be anything other than true or sincerely held.


We will find out on Thursday whether Iowa Democrats are willing to buck the conventional wisdom of the insiders.

Quote of the Week

"The press, with Hillary Clinton, it's a poisonous relationship. It's a mutual disregard."

Dana Milbank of the Washington Post on CNN's Reliable Sources, 12/30/07

John Mccain continues his Modest Talking Express swing through the early primary/caucus states. Reacting on 12/27/07 in Urbandale, Iowa to the assassination of Pakistani opposition leader Benazhir Bhutto, the Arizona Senator astonishingly claimed "I think my record is clear -- 20 years, I've been involved in every national security issue that's faced this nation. And I have the judgment to handle it, and I've proven it."

Put aside McCain's early, fervent support for the disastrous war in Iraq. Chicagotribune.com reported Barack Obama declaring on August 1, 2007 "I understand that President Musharraf has his own challenges. But let me make this clear. There are terrorists holed up in those mountains who murdered 3,000 Americans. They are plotting to strike again. ... If we have actionable intelligence about high-value terrorist targets and President Musharraf will not act, we will." According to politicalticker.blogs.cnn (from cnn.politics.com), on Sunday, August 5, John McCain was quoted by the online edition of The State (a Columbia, South Carolina newspaper) as criticizing Obama's remark as "that's kind of typical of his naivete" for allegedly announcing beforehand that he would take action.

On 11/26/07 McCain responded to remarks of Mike Huckabee, who two days earlier had stated that if there were an "imminent threat" posed by terrorists inside Pakistan, he would respond regardless of Pakistan's sovereignty. Huckabee asserted "We need to make sure we are clear that if we have an actionable target in Pakistan, that we will take action on that target because if that helps save and preserve American people." The Repub sage from Arizona pounced, asserting "to say something like that is totally unnecessary and probably has a not beneficial effect on our Pakistani allies who are fighting against al Qaeda and with us in Pakistan."

The assassination of Bhutto, whether by a terrorist, some other militant, or a hit winked at by John McCain's buddy, Pervez Musharraf, has dealt a serious blow both to democracy and stability in Pakistan. But the mainstream media will continue to portray McCain as some sort of foreign policy expert as they imply that Obama, Huckabee, and John Edwards (the only candidate originally to agree with Obama's 8/07 position) as out of touch with global reality.

Quote of the Week

Just in time for Christmas, this from an American Baptist Church minister commenting on Jesus Christ:

"It's not what He would do that counts; it's what He wants from me."

-Peter Gomes, Professor, Harvard University, on the 12/24/07 edition of PBS' Charlie Rose


Happy (belated) Chanukah
Merry Christmas

As pollingreport.com indicates here, surveys consistently have shown health care to be either the second or third most important political issue to Americans. One of the critical issues faced by presidential aspirants in formulating their health care policies is whether to include mandates, requiring Americans of all ages to carry health insurance. As New York Times columnist Paul Krugman noted of the candidates, "without a mandate, they find, the plan will fall far short of universal coverage. Worse yet, without a mandate health insurance will be much more expensive than it should be for those who do choose to buy it."

Clearly, the health care plan of every Democrat running for the top office is superior to that of any Republican. (No, we do not have the finest health care system in the world and, yes, there is a proper, increased, role for government.) Still, on which side of the mandate question does each Democrat, according to his or her website, fall?

First, we'll dispose of Dennis Kucinich- favorably, because he is the only candidate publicly supporting a single payer system, which obviously would provide health care for all. And now, an excerpt from each website (excepting that of Mike Gravel, whom I can't bring myself to care about):

Joe Biden: "While insuring all children must be our top priority, it is also important to offer uninsured adults access to health care." Verdict: no (Beware the euphemism "access.")

Hillary Clinton: "Individuals: will be required to get and keep insurance in a system where insurance is affordable and accessible." Verdict: yes.

Chris Dodd: "Universal coverage will be achieved through a shared mandate on individuals and businesses: universal coverage through universal responsibility." Verdict: yes.

John Edwards: "Once these steps have been taken, requiring all American residents to get insurance." Verdict: yes.

Bill Richardson: " Like auto insurance, all Americans will have to have health coverage and employers will pay their fair share of employee health care costs." Verdict: yes. (Krugman: "....while the enforcement of car insurance mandates isn’t perfect, it does greatly increase the number of insured drivers.")

And most critically-

Barack Obama: "Obama will expand the number of options for young adults to get coverage...." Verdict: no.

President George W. Amnesty

White House insistence on granting retroactive immunity to telecommunications companies which have been sued for providing information to the National Security Agency reminds us of a disturbing tendency on the part of this President. Mr. Bush (in)famously granted Scooter Libby commutation of the prison sentence imposed upon the ex-Cheney aide for his role in exposing Valerie Plame Wilson as a covert CIA agent, and Mr. Bush has supported amnesty (oh, right, "Comprehensive Immigration Reform"*) for illegal immigrants. The list of Administration employees who have been involved in nefarious activities is long, and the involvement of Bush & Co. in illegal spying and selling of the war in Iraq have been well-documented. It is a Presidency which sniffs at lawbreaking and is partial to amnesty. An Administration allergic to the rule of law. The Amnesty Presidency.


*which is worse than amnesty, as I'll comment on at a later date.

Dead, for now. The effort by Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D.- Nev.) to amend the 1978 Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, euphemistically dubbed the "Protect America Act," has been tabled to January. The pernicious amendment which lead to a threat by presidential candidate Chris Dodd (D.- Ct.) would have granted telecom companies retroactive immunity against lawsuits for their role in providing information enabling the National Security Agency to listen to telephone and Internet conversations. Dodd never technically began a debate, reports Sam Stein on TheHuffingtonPost.com, but talked for several hours, leaving the floor only once, during which colleagues filled in. Eventually, yearning to pass an appropriations bill before the Senate is adjourned for Christmas/New Year's, Harry Reid, an ardent supporter of the bill, tabled the measure.

According to Jonathan Weisman and Paul Kane at washingtonpost.com, an effort is being made to find a compromise, perhaps by substituting the federal government for the companies as a defendant in ongoing action. This effort is being spearheaded by Pennsylvania's Arlen Spector, whom the mainstream media like to portray as a "moderate," in an effort, I believe, to reinforce Repub philosophy that "government" is the problem and the corporate sector the solution. But there is little time left before the break and a bill therefore likely will have to be passed by the Senate thereafter, and reconciled with the bill passed by the House.

With sentiment expressed by Democrat Charles Schumer of New York, quoted as saying "those like myself, who are against immunity, really don't want to punish the phone companies as much as we want to hold the government accountable," Reid's support, and White House lust, for the legislation, the struggle of Chris Dodd and his allies appears especially heroic.