Want Some Hope?

by: Matt Stoller

Thu Jan 17, 2008 at 23:49


A strategic vision poll out done from Jan. 11-13 shows that Florida may be tightening.  Clinton is at 45%, Obama is at 39%, and Edwards is at 11%.  And Rasmussen has it at 38-33-12 for Clinton-Obama-Edwards in California.

Now these are one off polls, and all the usual caveats apply.  And I'm not particularly great at analyzing polling, so take some more salt with this post.  But given that Clinton's lead in Florida polling has been something along the lines of 52-27, this could be a significant shift.  Now, maybe I'm reading too much into my personal experience, but I grew up in the Democrat-rich Southern tip of Florida, and one thing I'll note is that people in Miami really don't pay attention to politics.  Now I know there's something of a sense of apathy throughout America, but in Miami and much of Florida it's really really acute. 

So I can believe a shift as big as the one that Strategic Vision is picking up is actually happening, as Floridians begin to notice that Hillary Clinton is more than just a person whose name they heard a few times in the 1990s, and that this Barack Obama thing is not actually a weird soft drink or weight loss program.

UPDATE:  Russ Feingold absolutely destroys John Edwards in this interview.  I know the update ins't super-relevant to the post, but it's not worth starting a new blog post just to highlight the interview.  Nevertheless, I think it's relevant and shows why Edwards has always had trouble gaining traction.  It's not just a media blackout.

Matt Stoller :: Want Some Hope?

Tags: , , , , (All Tags)
Print Friendly View Send As Email
Want Some Hope? | 32 comments
Living in Ft Lauderdale now (0.00 / 0)
You are 100% correct about So. Florida Matt!
And People aree starting to take notice.
very true (4.00 / 1)
i just moved down to miami from michigan, and the culture here is very apolitical. i think a lot of that has to do with the general hedonism in the air, but there's a powerful cultural echo from the pre-castro cuban ruling class as well.

miami is like LA in that everyone that matters is wealthy and beautiful. most people are too inwardly focused to be interested in collective action, and the poor people are in very concentrated areas (and there's no public transit, so people can basically pretend they don't exist).

Who will show up to a primary that might not count? (0.00 / 0)
Re: Florida, I've been wondering if the DNC sanction will depress turnout among those without an intense preference.  Can anyone in/from Florida attempt a guess?
-_- (0.00 / 0)
I suppose this is good news.

Too bad, I guess, that both the top contenders are pretty conservative and do not share our values.

Feingold on Edwards (4.00 / 2)
I assume everyone has now seen Feingold's assessment of Edwards:

On the Democratic presidential candidates

I did notice that as the primaries heated up, all of a sudden, all the presidential candidates - none of whom voted with me on the timeframe to withdraw from Iraq - all voted with me and when we did the Patriot Act stuff.

The one that is the most problematic is (John) Edwards, who voted for the Patriot Act, campaigns against it. Voted for No Child Left Behind, campaigns against it. Voted for the China trade deal, campaigns against it. Voted for the Iraq war … He uses my voting record exactly as his platform, even though he had the opposite voting record.

When you had the opportunity to vote a certain way in the Senate and you didn't, and obviously there are times when you make a mistake, the notion that you sort of vote one way when you're playing the game in Washington and another way when you're running for president, there's some of that going on.

On whether he'll make an endorsement in the Feb. 19 Wisconsin primary

Probably not. I'm having a hard time deciding between Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama, as are many people. Those are the two I take the most seriously.

I go back and forth, to be honest with you. I'm torn on this whole issue of who's more likely to be progressive and really seek change vs. who's ready to do the job today. It really is a true dilemma in my mind.

He makes some really good points.

i love Feingold... (4.00 / 4)
but let's be frank.  he's the only Dem with his record.  and differentiating amongst his remaining choices, Clinton and Obama, what do their voting records tell you?  anything useful at all?  all that bluster, and in three years they differ on Iraq only on one piddling general's confirmation vote?

this cycle it's the GOP candidates whose records fall across the map.  ours are mostly in line.  it's in the priorities and, more largely, the campaign rationale where we get a choice, and there Feingold and Edwards fall close together.

incidentally, Feingold notes "he uses my voting record as his platform".  if Edwards is the only one of the three doing that, well, ...

[ Parent ]
Its sour grapes (0.00 / 0)
It comes across as sour grapes.  Because Clinton and he are from complete opposite ends of the party.  And Obama has made it obvious that while he believes in changing the system, his actual politics are closer to Clinton than Feingold.

"Keep the Faith"
[ Parent ]
I really, really wonder why Feingold isn't running (0.00 / 0)
this seems to indicate that he seriously thought about it, and something from behind the scenes was holding him back.  I would have been so excited to pull the lever for Feingold. 

Ah well.

[ Parent ]
Also, (0.00 / 0)
I think I'd have sour grapes if I were him.  Standing almost alone like that during that 2002-2004 term, and then have everyone pretend like they were with you all along a few years later must be one of the more frustrating things that a political leader can go through.
[ Parent ]
This is a very insightful post, (0.00 / 0)
and I certainly get your point.
[ Parent ]
interesting phrasing (0.00 / 0)
I go back and forth, to be honest with you. I'm torn on this whole issue of who's more likely to be progressive and really seek change vs. who's ready to do the job today. It really is a true dilemma in my mind.

Seems like he means

I'm torn on this whole issue of who's more likely to be progressive and really seek change [Obama] vs. who's ready to do the job today [Clinton].

[ Parent ]
Feingold's comment means alot to me (0.00 / 0)
  As someone who has been undecided between Obama and Edwards(although I admit that I have leaned toward Obama since Iowa since it made him more likely to beat Hillary) , and with Fiengold not only being my clear choice if he had run, but the ONLY Senator I truly trust, this means a lot.

  The Senate is a very small place. Less than 25 Dems. when they served together. You have to figure that Russ got at least a feel for what Edwards is really about and he clearly doesn't trust him. That is enough for me

Me too. (4.00 / 2)
I have been supporting Edwards.  He is clear as a bell on ideology, in fact, I can't fault him on a single issue. His only weakness is his extremely conservative voting record. Each of the Democrats wants to be the  progressive candidate. The question about Edwards is, how real is his commitment?

Feingold's comment carries a lot of mojo for me. He is easily the most admirable senator in the progressive movement.  In fact, in a way, he is the progressive movement. Feingold not only has the ideology, he has the proven voting record to go with it.  To hear him say that Edwards' record is the opposite of his is a serious denunciation. As you say, hatbox, it's clear Feingold doesn't trust Edwards. That rings alarm bells for me.

I am now transitioning to uncommitted. To win my vote in the primary, Clinton or Obama must make serious representations that their claim to be progressives are true. If I'm picking on ideology alone, I'm picking Edwards.  He knows that the Constitution must be restored. Item one.

So the other two must show me more. I want a real commitment to the progressive cause, and I would prefer it be in the form of a commitment to stand wide of any judicial proceedings against actions against the Bush administration.

In other words, I want a promise of no pardon for Bush.  No amnesty for Bush admin. officials. No moving on and not looking back.  None of that kind of shit.  Whichever major candidate promises me that gets my vote. That means Edwards, too. Such a pledge would be practically the only proof Edwards, not being in office, could provide.  So it counts.

Maybe I should change my handle to TemporarilyUncommited.

[ Parent ]
Sen. Edwards and Random Note (0.00 / 0)
Didn't Edwards become one of the most progressive senators towards the end of his career, in 2003, 2004?  If true, considering that it was during the height of Bush's Iraq popularity, it should speak well on his behalf, no?

To me, the fact that he's refused to sell out his campaign to corporate interests, knowing full well it'd cost him, says a lot about him.

On pardoning Bush: My money is Obama as the most likely to let "bygones be bygones"--just like Bill Clinton did.  Unite!

______________

Somewhat random: I wonder whether OpenLeft will condemn Obama for his supporters (a 527) issuing a Spanish ad in Nevada that says "Hillary Clinton does not respect our people."  The Obama camp refuses to denounce the race baiting or the 527 issue, ironic considering Obama slammed Edwards in Iowa.  If he was held to the standard as Clinton was/is, he'd be skewered.

http://audio.cbsnews...

The campaign that injected race/bigotry most provocatively into the campaign has been Obama's (Jesse Jackson, Jr. being the most notorious).  Overwhelmingly, the racist charges against Clinton were baseless, willful misinterpretation.  However, let's look at how each side reacted to actual legitimate controversy: Clinton fired Shaheen and personally apologize, and Kerrey and Johnson apologized; while Obama has refused to fire Jackson or apologize, didn't fire anyone over D-Punjab, hasn't denounced the support of McClurkin, and supporter, Michael Eric Dyson, who made inflammatory remarks never apologized.

Fair is fair.

Ah, fuck it!  We're screwed if Edwards isn't our nominee anyways.

[ Parent ]
Sources (0.00 / 0)
In case, I get blasted for saying most of the attacks were "baseless" (which they were):

http://www.huffingto...

http://www.cjr.org/c...
Full Clinton clip: http://youtube.com/w...

[ Parent ]
Oh, god. (0.00 / 0)
That is crazy.  My (poor) translation:


Hillary Clinton doesn't respect our people.  Hillary Clinton's surrogates supported a measure that would prevent working people from voting this saturday.  This is shameful.

Hillary Clinton's partisans want to prevent working people from voting in their workplaces this Saturday.  Unpardonable!

Hillary Clinton is shameless*

Hillary Clinton shouldn't let her friends challenge the right for people to vote this Saturday

It's unpardonable.  There is no respect.

Senator Barack Obama is defending our right to vote.

Senator Barack Obama wants our votes.

He respects our votes, our community, and our people.

The motto of Obama is "Yes, you can!"

"Yes, you can" vote for a president that respects us, and respects our right to vote.

Obama for President: "Yes, you can"

Paid for by *garbled* campaign committee

*"Hillary Clinton no tiene vergüenza."  'vergüenza' is a really strong word, that translates to shame, but you usually see applied to cheating spouses and prostitutes


[ Parent ]
oops sorry for the late night math (0.00 / 0)
that's one in less then 50 dems
[ Parent ]
So why didn't he run himself? (0.00 / 0)
I clicked "place order" on a Feingold For President bumper sticker /3 hours/ before he held a press conference to announce there was no chance he would run for President in 2008.  Why not?  Does he fear that a Senator with his voting record would not be a contender?  That seems like trying to have it both ways.

sPh

[ Parent ]
Feingold is done (4.00 / 2)
First Wesley Clark sells out down the river by endorsing the only candidate who has actually helped the Bush administration pursue war with Iran, while running a movement to stop said war.

Then Feingold does this.  What a joke.  He questions Edwards' voting record, and completely ignores Obama's and Hillary's.  Why?  There are some horrible votes by all three.  Or are Obama and Hillary excused because they are running as moderates and not progressives?

I love Russ Feingold, but time and again he has proven himself incapable of forming the real coalitions that we need in the Senate.  And now we know why.  When a candidate explains his mistakes, and consistenly takes the most progressive stance of the top 3 candidates on every issue, and takes that stance before the other 2 he is given an anti-endorsement by Feingold.

Look at the actual interview.  He has 5 big proposals.  Health Care.  His thoughts on the subject show that he would be happiest with Edwards' or Kucinich's proposals.  No Child Left Behind.  Again, Edwards has said consistently that we must first attempt reform, but be willing to scrap it.  Just like Feingold.  Public Financing.  One candidate of the 3 has accepted public financing, like Russ wants.  And yet...  Clean Water Act.  Time and again Edwards has been the best on environmental issues.  Does anyone remember when MoveOn members endorsed the Edwards plan 2-1 over Clintons (who got 2nd) and Obama was 4th behind Kucinich?

He has lost a big chunk of credibility with me today.

"Keep the Faith"

The Feingold anti-endorsement is killer (4.00 / 1)
It's not necessarily the kind of thing that will change my outward support for Edwards. But in the voting booth that quote of Feingold's is going to come back to me and I'm going to agonize.

Luckily Edwards is going to be toast before Maryland anyway.

In that open left thread about endorsements a while back I answered that Feingold's was probably the only endorsement that would influence me... and here it is.

Damn.

Trust and Edwards (4.00 / 1)
Feingold's comments reinforce the worry I've always had about Edwards: is he really the most progressive candidate or is he just playing the role because he thinks that it gives him the best chance of winning? 

I've been inclined toward Obama from the beginning (well ever since Feingold announced he wouldn't run anyway), but the consensus in much of the progressive blogosphere that Obama is not a true progressive makes me conflicted.  I've often wondered whether I haven't given Edwards fair consideration.  But I've never been able to get over the lingering concern that his sudden progressive conversion might be a ploy.

More generally, this brings to mind a justification for the practice many people (myself included) have of picking a candidate based on an assessment of their character or judgment rather than purely on their stated policy positions.  The trouble is that politicians tailor their policy positions and rhetoric to the constituencies that they think will help them to win an election.  Thus, to pick the best candidate one needs to know more about the candidates than simply what policy positions and rhetoric they are using in the current election. 

True, it's a double-edged sword.  Sometimes people try to evaluate on character but it turns out the candidate they would most want to have a drink with is really the worst person imaginable to be running the country (e.g. 2000, 2004).  Still, I do think that you have to try and assess a candidate's underlying judgment.  Otherwise you'll often find that candidate you helped to win the election is not that candidate who takes up office.

[ Parent ]
If this isn't true, nothing is. (0.00 / 0)
...you can call me a cynic - I believe all of these candidates are, in some way, professional opportunists (And I say that about ALL politicians, even the best of them - Being a successful politician means seizing opportunities - that's just a fact). And in believing that, I then judge the candidates on what they decide their opportunity rests on. I don't really care why they came to see the opportunities they see. The only thing that really matters is what they see their opportunities grounded in - that is, what they see their political base as and who they believe they rely on for their current and future political survival and advancement.

These are the factors that tell us how politicians will behave in office, who they will act on behalf of, and what constituencies they think they answer to. Beyond all the gossip and the horserace and the pundit-driven chatter about which candidate has "charisma" and which doesn't, the only thing that really matters is what any of these people will DO once in office - and knowing what they perceive to be their opportunities and their keys to success is the best way to find out what they will do. Remember, Howard Dean was the longtime DLC-ish, NAFTA-supporting governor of Vermont, and then ran a populist campaign for president. Some of at first questioned the conviction of his conversion - but it became very clear that he had, in fact, gone through a real conversion in 2003 and 2004, and decided that his opportunity was to be a populist. We shouldn't question that - we should applaud it.  http://www.dailykos....


[ Parent ]
Basically... (0.00 / 0)
Battle plans rarely survive first contact with the enemy.

It's why I'm likewise supporting Obama.

[ Parent ]
Record and Rhetoric (0.00 / 0)
My rule of thumb is to look at both what politicians say and what they have done.  If the two agree then you can be reasonable certain you know what you will get.  If the two disagree then you have to pick one and hope you got it right.

[ Parent ]
Gore is more of a moniker (0.00 / 0)
and at best, he probably will stay out of the endorsements.
Par for the course... (4.00 / 1)
"He acknowledges none of the proposals are actually going to get passed this year, but he wants to at least move the needle on them. Build some critical mass to present to the new president. "

Getting pretty tired of ineffectual Democrats be they Repulicans or so called liberals.  No guts, no glory.  I don't see any of them willing to stand up and fight for principle.  Obama, the clever and silver tongued liar, being the worst.  At least Hillary owns who she is, and  Edwards knows which way is up.  If I can't have Edwards, I'll take Hillary. 

Did I read that correctly? (0.00 / 0)
Are you criticizing Russ Feingold for not being "willing to stand up and fight for principle"?

Or are you contrasting the behaviour of the candidates to the behaviour given in that quote from him? It's not completely clear.

[ Parent ]
A little of the first and some of the last.... (0.00 / 0)
Why are Feingold and Conyers silent on so many issues that are so important.  They always vote right, but they don't seem to be able to lead any real opposition to the Democratic leadership.  I would like some revolt in the rank and file; and if not them, who?  If things don't change dramatically after 08, I don't think I can vote for a Democrat again.

Second, Feingold's statement on the votes is misleading.  Is he supporting his fellow Senators because he has to live with them?  I can give you a list of votes made by Obama and Hillary that aren't worth a damn and are much more current than the votes cast by Edwards. 

I keep going back to this.  For me, it puts the whole thing into perspective. 

[ Parent ]
Suddenly the momentum seems to be in Obamas direction (0.00 / 0)
With the Nevada extra 9 caucuses open, these polls, and the ones in SC things seem to be trending towards Obama.

My opinion is that the polls for obama are based on the racial dispute.  Some of Hillary's support is based on wanting a woman president and those people are most likely to be turned off by her campaign's overreach. 

"Absolutely destroys"? (4.00 / 3)
In the interview, Feingold agrees with the conventional wisdom that progressives won't get their way in 2008, but he then spells out a strategy to improve their hand by keeping public attention on progressive issues.  Good for him.  But if this is what Feingold wants, why not support those same efforts in the presidential race by treating Edwards' shift on policies as a something to celebrate rather than slamming Edwards for lack of prior purity?

A Democratic nominee who has taken progressive stands in the campaign is more desirable than one who has kept to the middle.  Even if Clinton or Obama wins it, Edwards pushes them to the left in ways that would not happen were we lacking a credible candidate espousing his views.  The Democratic nomination has had a pattern since 1980 of 20-33% of the primary voters backing a progressive alternative to mainstream nominee (Kennedy, Jackson, Brown, Bradley, Dean) who rarely won a big state but nonetheless pushed the party to take progressive stands.  (The DLC and its southern primary Super Tuesday, begun in 1988, aimed at stifling this pattern.)  Edwards is by default that candidate in this election. 

He's more likely to stay in to the end than whoever looks like the loser between Obama and Clinton after Feb. 5 because the issues, not the candidate, are what need a hearing in the campaign.  Imagine this campaign if Edwards had dropped out after NH and left Kucinich to carry the left's agenda.  I think that scenario would make it that much more difficult for Feingold to, as he says in the interview, "move the needle" on progressive issues in the 2008 Senate.

Making the party's presidential candidates discuss progressive issues is a necessary step.  The horseracing of Edwards' candidacy -- Will he get traction?  When will he drop out?  Who will pick up his support? -- misses what is now the point of his candidacy and that is to keep progressive issues in the debate and keep the frontrunners and the eventual nominee from shutting out the left in this campaign.

I don't care if in the past Edwards voted for the war, busted unions, or spent his millions on hair-care products, he is talking about the rights of labor, ending the war, rooting out corporate corruption, and generally making no compromise with conservatism.  That argument needs to be pushed into the mainstream as much as possible, and it's to Edwards' immense credit that he's making the effort. 

Feingold should have run for president. That would have "moved the needle" on his five issues more than his plans for the 2008 legislative session will. Edwards may not win but he's doing more to make this campaign about progressive issues than are non-candidates. Feingold could show more appreciation for that effort.

The anti-endorsement as the nail in the coffin (4.00 / 2)
I have always liked Feingold or at least his policies.  He has been a driving force in defining the progressive movement.

I find the timing of his Edwards slam a little interesting.  It almost sounds like he is trying to get Edwards out of the way since he is no longer viable.  The voting record stuff makes me scratch my head since Feingold knows as well as anyone a Senator is there to represent the desires of his constituents. Edwards would never have been a Senator if he ran on Feingold's policies.  North Carolina isn't a progressive leaning state.  Now if Edwards feel there is a progressive-leaning majority in the entire country then why should he run a campaign based only on what Democrats in North Carolina want just because he felt obligated to vote that way? 

I think this is why legislators find running for president difficult.  They're damned if they do, damned if they don't.  Either they get elected to Congress by representing their state's pulse not the national one, but harm their ability to ever lead the nation, or they have to hide from the national stage and be a governor and don't get to be a creative force on legislation.

Edwards had been the only one of the top three to come close to offering progressive policies.  I am willing to elect him based on those promises.  Sure, if Obama ran the exact same platform I would vote Obama since it would be easier to think that the policies match his instincts, but now that he is running a centrist campaign I don't see how I can trust what I assumed to be progressive bona fides.

Feingold is sticking with the DC crowd....ignoring H and O's (0.00 / 0)
flip flops and media pandering, going with the image.  Who can trust either??

He's shying away from the anti-corporate message of Edwards.  Feingold just one of the Villagers...

Want Some Hope? | 32 comments
USER MENU

Open Left Campaigns

SEARCH

   

Advanced Search

QUICK HITS
STATE BLOGS

Home | RSS/XML Feed | Register | Contact

  © OpenLeft 2007-2010, Powered by SoapBlox

Powered by: SoapBlox