When principles aren't enough

Second, there is the matter of the primary calendar, which combined with the nature of the competition stacks the deck against Edwards. He had perhaps his best shot in Iowa, where his message resonated and the caucus system increased the percentage of Edwards-friendly party activists among voters. But Michigan, where his economic appeal might have struck sparks, became a non-contest because of a fight between state and national party officials, and two other big Rust Belt prizes, Ohio and Pennsylvania, won't vote till long after Super Tuesday.

Edwards' third problem was self-inflicted. At some point after his 2004 campaign he forgot that to be successful, an us-vs.-them message must place more emphasis on building "us" than tearing down "them." His "Two Americas" speech four years ago worked better because he dichotomized the country into mutually exclusive groups -- the rich and powerful to be reviled, and "the rest of us" with whom Edwards developed a shared identity. This time around, Edwards talks a lot more about the bad guys, from pharmaceutical companies to insurers.

Ironically, Edwards' fourth and possibly fatal flaw is rooted in his courageous transformation from a centrist Democratic senator last decade into a populist presidential candidate this decade. Though it's convenient to dismiss him as a populist-come-lately, Edwards embodies the process of ideological introspection and conversion many Democrats have experienced during George W. Bush's presidency. That metamorphosis creates a certain dissonance. Clinton defends the Senate record she compiled during Bush's first term, Obama doesn't have one -- and Edwards publicly regrets some of his. Wisconsin's Sen. Russ Feingold recently called his former Senate colleague the "most problematic" of the major contenders because Edwards voted for the Patriot Act, No Child Left Behind, the China trade deal and the Iraq war, "but campaigns against" them now. "He uses my voting record exactly as his platform, even though he had the opposite voting record," said Feingold, who is struggling to decide between supporting Clinton or Obama.

In sum, 2008 is an uncomfortable year for John Edwards. Clinton is a woman and Obama an African-American in a multiracial party whose highest elected official is a woman. Clinton and Obama talk about change more in terms of what the good guys should do rather than why the bad guys should be run out of town. Clinton stands for a restoration of the Democratic politics of the 1990s, and Obama presents himself as a new-era, post-partisan Democrat. As the rural white underdog who abandoned his centrist posture to refashion himself as a populist anti-corporate bulldog, Edwards will be remembered as the 2008 contender forever in search of a winning coalition that simply wasn't there.

How, then, do Edwards' fortunes affect the Clinton-Obama matchup? A stubborn Edwards promises to persevere regardless of the numbers that matter -- national polls, primary night results, or cash-on-hand totals -- and his determination to plow forward could cause headaches for both Clinton and Obama.

"Edwards' decline reflects the fact that most Democratic voters perceive the nomination contest to have come down to two candidates: Clinton and Obama," says American University political scientist David Lublin, an expert on Southern politics. "But the Democratic delegate selection process gives little incentive for Edwards to get out as long as he gets above the critical 15 percent of the vote. If the contest between Clinton and Obama stays very close, it is conceivable that Edwards could play the role of king- or queenmaker."

So will Edwards crown a king or a queen? "Both Clinton and Obama are convinced Edwards is costing them support. That's the beauty of trying to game out the Edwards factor," says NBC political director and television analyst Chuck Todd. "One of them is going to be right: Clinton's folks believe Edwards' rural, blue-collar supporters will end up in her camp, while the Obama folks believe once you've gone anti-Clinton, you don't go back. In South Carolina, it appears Edwards' share of the white vote is hurting Clinton, not Obama. But in other states, Edwards is probably hurting Obama."

When I asked Clinton advisor Doug Hattaway after Clinton's Tuesday press conference in D.C. if he thought the former first lady would benefit disproportionately from a windfall of former Edwards supporters, he was very circumspect. "I think it's hard to say," Hattaway replied. "I think the voters will make up their minds based on the candidates' standing, and I think it's pretty hard to determine which way people are going to go." When I pressed him to speculate on what specific demographic subgroups among Edwards backers might break toward Hillary and why, he put up his hand. "I'm not going there -- I'm not in the prognostication business." Though some Clinton insiders believe they will benefit from Edwards' abandoning the race, they are being extremely careful not to antagonize any potential future supporters that could drift their way as Edwards' chances fade.

The Obama campaign believes otherwise, and points to a recent Field Poll in California showing that Obama is the second choice for almost three times as many Edwards voters as Clinton. But the percentages -- 29 percent of Edwards' voters leaning toward Obama, 11 percent preferring Clinton -- are low, reflecting the fact that most Edwards supporters don't know where to turn if their guy continues to fade. "He's for the little man in America, and that's the backbone of this country," Edward Hodge, a white 66-year-old retired railroad worker from rural McColl, told me when I asked him why he supports Edwards. "If he doesn't win, I haven't decided who to vote for." On the decisions of such conflicted voters the outcome of the 2008 Democratic primary -- and quite possibly the general election -- may yet turn.

Story finder (3 ways to search Salon)

Search terms:

Salon the Web

Salon Directory (browse by topic)