Some Thoughts on John Edwards

Sen. Hillary Clinton has been receiving the most media attention among Democratic presidential candidates this week because of her new health care plan. Sen. Barack Obama was featured on NBC Nightly News Monday night to talk about, among other things, the tax proposal he is rolling out this week. Meanwhile, the national media seems to be talking less and less about former Sen. John Edwards.

The frustration with a lack of national media attention that the Edwards campaign may be experiencing manifested itself last week in their purchase of TV ad time nationally on MSNBC following Bush’s prime time Iraq address. Sen. Joe Biden appeared on MSNBC for a longer period of time, sooner after Bush’s speech, for free. The Edwards ad, which made the argument that the Democratic base wants to hear more effectively than any of the other Presidential candidates thus far, made Edwards look like a President to an audience who may not yet have pictured him in that role. It got replayed on cable news for about a day, and then it fizzled.

In many ways, it seems that the Washington establishment has written him off. The chorus of pundits sings only one tune about the former Senator, and it goes something like this: Edwards is an angry liberal, and he may well be running for President of Iowa, rather than the whole United States.

Indeed, Edwards is focusing intensely on early state caucuses and primaries. But the media that seems to be discounting Edwards for this strategy is simultaneously elevating former Gov. Mitt Romney to his second-place position nationally in the Republican horse race because of his standing in early states. The two candidates are, for sure, not occupying exactly the same spaces in their respective parties’ primaries, but there are comparisons to draw between the two of them here in Iowa. Romney needs to win Iowa as much as Edwards does, and if the caucuses were held today I’m confident that they would both pull it off.

And in many ways, Edwards continues to influence the Democratic race as much as anyone. Clinton’s health care roll out may not have happened at all if Edwards had not released his plan several months ago (the SEIU may not have demanded specific plans from candidates if no one had released them). Obama may not have committed to voting against all war funding bills that do not include a mandatory timeline for withdrawal if Edwards (and, perhaps, Dodd) had not helped to make the issue into something of a litmus test for the netroots and the antiwar left. The “insiders” and “outsiders” rhetoric of Edwards and, in less aggressive terms, Obama, has elevated campaign finance reform — not just in terms of lobbyist and PAC money but also public financing of elections — to its position as a regular section of stump speeches and a standard question in debates.

In general, Edwards has been out in front of the field on many issues that have become central to the presidential election, often at the risk of his own standing in the race. Releasing specific policy proposals before hearing what the other candidates are saying can be politically risky, because it gives pundits and surrogates from other campaigns something to attack. But, as Edwards’s supporters will argue, this tactic demonstrates transparency and honesty.

Edwards is also excellent on the stump. Clinton, Obama, Dodd, Richardson, and Biden are not bad at it, but none is as practiced as the former Senator. Members of the traditional media often speak under their breath about Edwards being an inauthentic trial lawyer with good hair, but he is the only candidate this cycle who regularly pulls off the sort of “I feel your pain” empathy that worked so well for the last Democrat who won the presidency. If stump speeches have any effect on election results (and I think this point can be argued both ways), it isn’t time to write Edwards off yet.

All this said, Edwards doesn’t sell papers like Obama or Clinton. He may have less of a mystique now than he did in 2003 and 2004, when Americans first got to know him. This campaign cycle, no one has any trouble finding out where he stands on an issue, which means that we don’t have to watch his every move to figure him out. And, as I already said, many voters who already know the former Senator may see this is a strength, but it seems to be inhibiting his ability to penetrate the national media. The result is that although his name ID is high, his support around the country appears to have hit a plateau. Is it the fault of the media or his strategists?