According to the AP, Elizabeth Edwards today “said she didn’t expect two of the other major Democratic candidates Sen. Hillary Clinton and Sen. Barack Obama to spend much time in the South.”
The facts don’t support her claim though.
According to the Washington Post campaign visit tracker:
Campaign visits for state: (Barack Obama, John Edwards)
Alabama: 3, 2
Arkansas: 1, 0
Florida: 12, 7
Georgia 4, 5
Kentucky: 1, 1
Louisiana: 4, 5
Mississipi: 1, 0
North Carolina: 1, 6
South Carolina: 15, 22
Tennessee: 2, 2
Texas: 9, 4
Virginia: 4, 2
Total Southern Visits: 57, 56
Looks like Obama edges Edwards out by one Southern visit here.
Also, the Edwards campaign should note that:
- Obama had 10,000 people show up to one of his rallies in Atlanta, GA. He also got 20,000 people to show up to one of his rallies in Austin, TX. I’ve never heard of Edwards getting these size crowds in the South.
- Obama also has a 21-percentage point lead over Edwards in South Carolina, the place where Edwards was born.
- Obama has more campaign offices in South Carolina than any other Democratic candidate, including Edwards.
I’m sorry Mr. Edwards, but you don’t own the South by birthright. You have to work for it just like every other candidate.
August 29, 2007 at 12:41 am
I knew this was wrong because Obama knows the south is crucial to winning. especially if the south goes for Obama, shows he can change the southern strategy as well as deliver it and get the southern black vote. I think he needs to proove more to the southern african americans more than in the north. Why. because there is more skepticism there by blacks about Obama (plus Obama owns the city of Chicago. I know. I live in Illinois about an hour out and that city is known as Obamatown). Most of all, from everything I have read and heard, it seems southern african americans, especially older ones, think Bill Clinton walks on water and is the black president. I could be wrong but this is the impression I get. the only way to break that hypotized hold from drinking way too much of the Clinton kool aid is for Obama to do it,.
August 29, 2007 at 11:58 am
I think there is something not on the up and up with Edwards. Last time around he ran as a centrist and supporter of the war — the darling of the DLC establishment, Bill Clinton Jr. Now that these folks are forced (not using that word casually) to support Hillary, Edwards has no where to go except to appear to outflank Obama on the left.
What he has settled on is truly disturbing. We are witnessing a return to old-style southern populism. While not overtly racist or sexist, he clearly implies it by making a direct emotional appeal to angry downscale white voters — the “forgotten” ones. This is not about policies — Edwards policies are not all that different from the other dems. No, this is all about image.
The techinique is to find an obvious enemy who stands as the reason for all your woes — in Edwards’ case “the fat, rich, corporate thieves that are stealing your kid’s food and giving your jobs to the third world.” Edwards poses as the one who can personally battle against this demon FOR YOU because he is strong and brave and you need HIM. No one else cares like he does — promise. Now substitute “Corporate Thieves” for “Islamic Terrorists” and Edwards for Bush and you will get how all this works. It is a successful strategy not because of the argument — but because the manner in which the message is delivered stirs such strong, blinding emotions. As Michelle Obama pointed out recently, its hard for people to think clearly when they are in the grip of fear — and I would add — anger.
Contrast this with Obama’s message. “I am here because of you — we have to do this together.” “We can disagree without being disagreeable.” He is trying to help people to think, emphathize and work with each other to find common cause and solutions to our problems. So we have a serious choice here. We can choose rage like Edwards is pedalling, or we can continue with the status quo of fear like Hillary and the republicans are advocating, or we can choose to wake up and figure out constructive ways to work towards our shared future at home and in the world.
August 30, 2007 at 11:45 am
As an experiment, I posted a version of the above critique on Mark Ambinder’s blog yesterday — which was angrily responded to by several Edwards supporters. Not surprising to me, the main argument was not a repudiation of Obama’s policies, but insistance that a black man cannot get elected. These are the folks that Edwards is so eager to court.
August 30, 2007 at 12:33 pm
John Edwards doesn’t have much else to run on against Obama.
He can’t run on his record, because Obama has a stronger record and has passed more legislation and more progressive legislation than Edwards.
He can’t run on experience, because Obama has been in public office longer than Edwards and has done more than Edwards did during his time in the U.S. Senate.
He can’t run on judgment, because Obama has him beat there as well with the Iraq War vote. Edwards has already admitted Obama had better judgment there.
He can’t run on being ‘new’ and being a ‘change’ because Obama really is the new kid on the block this primary season. We all know that Edwards has been a candidate before.
He can’t run on being “the most working-class, hard-knock-life” candidate because Obama grew up in a single parent home and the like.
The initial thing Edwards had over him was that Obama didn’t have specific plans but Edwards does. However, now that Obama has outlined detailed plans on health care, ethics reform, counter-terrorism, etc. Edwards can’t use that either.
He doesn’t have much else against Obama than all these crazy statements we keep hearing from his campaign, many of which are just contrived and unfounded. I expect that all he can do over the next few months is continue with the rhetoric and with playing on people’s fears and cynicism.
September 8, 2007 at 7:39 pm
[...] “Edwards Campaign Fact Check: Is Edwards Visiting the South More Than Obama?“ [...]