- ‹ previous
- 5642 of 8831
- next ›
Iowans Falling in Love with Edwards (Because He's White and Male?)
Here are the facts. Ever since Iowa Governor Tom Vilsack dropped out of the presidential race, John Edwards has gained fifteen points in Iowa. Hillary Clinton has dropped one point, and Barack Obama, who continues to draw huge crowds in the state, has dropped seven. Edwards and Clinton have pulled into a dead heat for the lead, months in advance of the caucuses.
Here are two conclusions. One, Edwards has been campaigning in Iowa off and on since he lost the 2004 election and all of that hard work is finally paying dividends. Two, there is a portion of Iowa voters who would consciously or subconsciously prefer to support a white man, and when their favorite drops out, they'll find another.
I'm disposed to the second explanation because, after all, why would Edwards' years of campaigning suddenly pay off right after Vilsack drops out? (Vilsack, by the way, looks like this.) Is that too simplistic? Thoughts?
Note that the poll was conducted before Elizabeth Edwards announced the resurgence of her cancer and Tom Vilsack endorsed Hillary Clinton.
The ARG poll is a little suspect. Previous Iowa polls from other firms have shown Edwards ahead by a few points. This is just ARG getting back in line with other polling.
It could be that people are recognizing that Edwards is the only candidate actually producing written, specific policies, and they are generally pretty liberal ideas. I think Edwards is running the best campaign so far, and that plays no small part in this.
Obama is short on specifics so far. During this same period, Clinton has steadfastly refused to apologize for her Iraq war vote, which Edwards has done.
I think there was probably tepid support for Vilsack (which is why he dropped out) in Iowa, simply as a native son. That tepid support was going to go somewhere; Edwards did quite well in Iowa in 04 and is running a good campaign there now.
I think you are giving far too little credit to Iowa Democrats. They take primary politics very seriously, and may simply just prefer the good, specific campaign to the vagueness of the Clinton and Obama campaigns. While a sexist/racist population probably exists, I think it would be an extremely small portion of the caucus voters.
What a sad day it is when political commentary relies on divining the "subconscious" preferences of voters (repressed white-power Midwesterners!) rather than, say, explaining preferred candidates based on the appeal of a consistent message (and its media coverage) to socio-economic groups. Who should be surprised that Edwards, whose candidacy was and IS based on populist reform of the economy and health-care, would lead in a part of the country hit hard by NAFTA (the Clintonian legacy) and the rise of global austerity? As for Obama--what IS his message anyway? No specific economic reform, no specific plan for healthcare, no compelling interpretation of American society--is he the candidate for those who love sweet-talking Harvard law school grads, presented by white liberal hand-wringers as a candidate of socio-economic sea-change? My answer, until he refines his message, is YES.
Too simplistic. I'm predisposed to vote for anyone BUT a white man, but if Edwards is the best candidate, he's the best candidate and I'll vote for him. It's a dirty race-card game if everyone who criticizes Hillary is a sexist, Obama, a racist, and anyone who votes for Edwards is afraid of difference. Plus, I hear Edwards is a really good speaker and has a lot more ideas than it seemed in 2004. (By the way, I have no idea who I'm going to vote for yet.)
I'm almost embarrassed to admit this around my liberal friends, but I, too, lean toward Edwards. Don't get me wrong... I love Obama's fire and oratory, and I applaud Hillary's work to prove she can do politics on her own terms. But when I think about the work the next president has to do... in reparing relationships with other nations, in curtailing the influence of business in Washington, in calling out industrialized agriculture, and in calling for a national commitment to a war on global warming, the chips fall for John Edwards. Not because he's white or male, but because these are the things he's already talked about!
This non-white lesbian's dream ticket is Gore/Edwards. After I came to that conclusion it occurred to me that it is somewhat sad that in a race with both a woman and an African-American, that this is the ticket I'd most like to see, but to avoid discriminating I had to go with the decision I made after evaluating the candidates. Could there be a subconscious bias? Maybe, but I doubt it.
The Gore decision, I think, speaks for itself. Edwards is more outspoken about the unequal distribution of wealth in this country than just about anyone.
Perhaps we Iowa Democrats don't want to vote for Hillary because of her stance on the issues. Also, a big draw to Vilsack is his genuineness, and Edwards has far more of that than Hillary. I won't vote for Hillary not because she is a woman, but because she is not the best candidate.
Just want to chime in and say I agree with what many of you have said here -- Edwards, though he doesn't fulfill my ache to vote for a demographic underrepresented in American politics -- has been putting forward the most populist message, and has been the only one producing detailed plans that find true progressive solutions to America's problems. It feels odd to be faced with a female candidate and a black candidate and then to vote for a white male, but as some of you said, if he's the best candidate....
But like Cameron, I haven't made up my mind, and there is plenty of time for things to change.
As an Iowa Democrat we learned our lesson on favorite son support when Harkin ran and the other Clinton got a pass. It took 12 years to get back in power because Iowa, in part, did not do its job of 'culling' the herd and making candidates speak out on important issues.
Vilsack was always a stalking horse for Hillary. The hope was she too could bypass Iowa by letting the favorite son win one like Harkin. However, organizational Democrats said not this time. And so now she has to run and she is just not presidential material no matter what some Democrats think.
So don't be hard on Iowa Democrats. We 'cull' the herd so others won't have to. If Democrats did not have Iowa they would invent one. Otherwise only the rich would be running for president and Harvard and Yale and the military academies would never lose because they would have candidates running for president in both parties every time, instead of just most the time like they do now.
As an Iowan, I can only be offended. I bet you're in California or along one of the coasts. I lived in California for awhile and found them to be incredibly ignorant of those of us in the Midwest.
I like Obama, myself. But I also like Edwards. I'm leaning towards Edwards for a variety of reasons having NOTHING to do with his color. In FACT, my dream team would be Edwards/Obama. Why? Because then Obama would have a way to the White House in 8 years.
Quit being prejudiced against Iowans.
My god, when did MoJo start hiring Republicans? Like Howard Dean before him, Edwards scares the crap out of the GOP because he has a ton of substance and a spine. People in Iowa (on average, the best-educated in America) are pretty sharp, and growing support for Edwards says only good things about him and Iowa.
Thanks, Jonathan, for chiming in when you did and for taking a curious tone instead of a knowing one. I agree with many here; intellegent and fair-minded people should not be voting based on skin color, whether it be to discriminate or to send a progressive message. Issues are what we need to be focused on and holdingthe candidates' feet to the fire over.
What's really galling about this post is the breezy way Stein assumes Iowans are teeming with bias because a candidate who has camped there for more than two years is polling well. What's really stupid about it is the stuff 'bout Vilsack, whose former constituents never considered him a serious candidate. Analysis that sees the departure of a third-tier horse polling slightly above dead as proof that Midwesterners secretly hate blacks and women need not bother with the former. It's just a prop that allows him to roll out the latter.
I trust that when, say, Mississippi Democrats go big for Obama that Mother Jones will suggest it's biggest he's the blackest dude around.