. . . until the New Hampshire primary.
David Mizner makes a good case for John Edwards by conducting a thought experiment: contrast how would the media interpret a Clinton victory in Iowa with how they would interpret an Edwards victory.
If Clinton wins, this is what we'll be reading on the morning of January 4:
Observers said the [Edwards] loss called into question Edwards's strategy of using a populist message to try to appeal to the party's activist base. "He made the same mistake that Howard Dean made in 2004," said Will Marshall of the Progressive Policy Institute. "You can make some noise running left but you can't win a primary. Will these candidates ever learn?"
But if Edwards wins, the narrative is different:
Although Edwards had campaigned heavily in the state and pinned his hopes for capturing the nomination on a win here, it was still a striking upset, one that validated his emphasis on economic inequality. Crisscrossing the state he relentlessly sounded his populist themes, railing against corporate interests which, he said, had corrupted the political system and rigged it against middle and working class Americans.
"This is a real wake up call for the moderates in the party," said political analyst Stu Rothenberg. "This is not Bill Clinton's party anymore. Which means it might not be Hillary Clinton's, either."
I know which paper I'd rather read.
Comments