Ooh, That Spin—That Spin That Surrounds You!

|

Ben Smith over at the Politico highlights the increasingly-humorous spin that the Clinton campaign is feeding reporters—"as we look ahead to American Samoa" is a favorite. But nothing beats the spin we get from the John Edwards Campaign to Change America for Working Families Who Live on Main Street, or whatever it is today. From my inbox, the latest Edwards missive on how he will survive Tsunami Tuesday.

As we move into a campaign focused on the 22 February 5th states, our target demographics are:
– Voters fed-up with the broken system in Washington
– Voters who believe the middle class has been neglected by politicians in Washington
– Voters who have had enough of the personal and destructive attacks between our two rivals

Those aren't demographics. But I suppose Edwards can't get away with saying "we won white men in South Carolina and we can do it everywhere."

Numerous polls in the Palmetto state recently had Edwards roughly 30 points behind Clinton. But because of a strong debate performance and nonstop, personal and often bitter attacks between our rivals, Edwards proved this is a three way race.

Yes, Edwards narrowed the gap between himself and Clinton to nine points… while losing to Obama by 37 points.

The campaign has enjoyed an online fundraising boom – over $3.2 million raised online since the first of the year – most of which will be doubled by federal matching funds.

Alternate translation: "Since January 1st we have raised less than Ron Paul."

That's a pretty awesome fundraising gimmick, by the way.

I don't hate readers enough to excerpt much more of this. There's an odd prediction that the race will narrow to "one of the two celebrity candidates and us," and this will be good for JRE, because people hate celebrities. There are lists upon lists of endorsers in the February 5th states with a startling number of "formers" in front of their names. (He's got the 1998 nominee for governor of Massachusetts! How's that taste, Ted Kennedy?)

All of that aside, blogger Cicero has the best argument that Edwards could be viable if the Obama-Clinton contest goes down to the wire. At this hour Edwards still has a better shot at the nomination than, say, Rudy Giuliani.

Advertisement

NEXT: National Greatness Conservatives, Bearded in Their Den

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. “At this hour Edwards still has a better shot at the nomination than, say, Rudy Giuliani.”

    Poor Dondero.

  2. “At this hour Edwards still has a better shot at the nomination than, say, Rudy Giuliani.”

    Ding ding ding ding ding!

    Actually, he has a lower chance than Fred Thompson does, apparently, because God is on the side of Fred Thompson according to some.

  3. At this hour Edwards still has a better shot at the nomination than, say, Rudy Giuliani.

    something I’m eternally grateful for

  4. I don’t hate readers enough to excerpt much more of this.

    Um, exactly how much do you hate us?

  5. Never mind. I don’t want to know.

  6. All of that aside, blogger Cicero has the best argument that Edwards could be viable if the Obama-Clinton contest goes down to the wire.

    Before clicking the link I tried to guess what that argument might be. All I could come up with was, “The Democratic Convention will be populated by utter morons.”

    Then I clicked through and saw that I was right!

  7. Play “Spin Bird”!

  8. How much does Weigel hate us?

    “Can you hear me, Morpheus Reasonoids? I’m going to be honest with you: I hate this place. This zoo. This prison. This reality, whatever you want to call it. I can’t stand it any longer. It’s the smell, if there is such a thing. I feel saturated by it. I can taste your stink and every time I do, I fear that I’ve somehow been infected by it. It’s repulsive, isn’t it? I must get out of here. I must get free and in this mind is the key, my key.”

  9. If hate were people, I’d be China!

  10. All of that aside, blogger Cicero has the best argument that Edwards could be viable if the Obama-Clinton contest goes down to the wire.

    Before clicking the link I tried to guess what that argument might be. All I could come up with was, “The Democratic Convention will be populated by utter morons.”

    Then I clicked through and saw that I was right!

    Looks like it’s Edwards v Paul, then…

    In South Carolina, we beat Rudy again… Yet soon the race will be down to four candidates-Romney, McCain, Huckabee, and me, and there is no stopping us, as Tim Russert grudgingly pointed out the other night. Thanks to you, we are in this all the way through a brokered convention.

  11. P.J. O’Rourke: “Let us not forget Ron Paul who is very popular–with people who stay up all night in Ayn Rand chatrooms, bury Krugerrands in the yard, and think the Trilateral Commission causes sub-prime mortgage foreclosures.”

  12. Richard,

    Dont forget normal pissed off taxpayers, we’re a subgroup too!!!!

    My endorsement of Paul in no way constitutes an endorsement of all of his proposed policies, just like my likely vote for McCain doesn’t mean I would hesitate to kick him to the curb if an actual republican ran for president.

  13. Edwards seems to be hoping that neither Obama or Clinton get enough delegates and his 10% or so would push one of them over the top, which would allow him to throw them to the highest bidder.

  14. Edwards doesn’t have a clue. The scourge of the middle class are the nation’s lawyers.

  15. It sure is nice to see Hilary go down in flames, though…

  16. It’s pretty obvious Edwards has had far more of an effect on this race than Ron Paul. Ron Paul hasn’t shifted Republican rhetoric or issues a millimeter. Edwards forced Clinton and Obama to start talking about a LOT of his issues, and sound an awful lot like him.

    Good or bad, it doesn’t matter. Edwards shifted the debate on the left noticeably, Ron Paul didn’t.

    I will state that both seemed to get a bit screwed by the media — Ron Paul’s infamous “Who got 11% The label is blank on the returns pie chart” thing on CNN was far more egregious, but the media decided Edwards was out of the race the minute Obama and Clinton were in. He just wasn’t interesting enough.

  17. Obama’s rise could energize certain Ron Paul constituencies to pull out all the stops on donations. It’s a base he’s tapped into before.

  18. Morat20,

    Edwards was spouting a slightly modified version of what Clinton and Obama were putting out in any case. Its not so far a leap for them to cherry pick what they wanted from his rhetoric. Paul was rowboat trying to turn the SS GOP back around. I’d say they both had a similar effect in force, but people notice an incremental increase in the same direction more than they notice and incremental decrease in the same direction. Paul has also revealed a not insignificant base of consistant, broad based voting bloc (upwards of 5% of the population) that can affect the final outcome in November.

  19. This seems to be popping up a lot today, so let me make a bold statement:

    You do not get to cry about being ignored by the media if you support one of the following:

    D:
    Obama
    Clinton
    Edwards

    R:
    Guiliani
    Thompson
    Romney
    McCain
    Huckabee*

    Sorry, but unless you’ve been on an acid trip for the past year, these guys have been getting plenty of media attention.

    Tell your woes to Paul or Kucinich or Gravel supporters. Their candidates get little airtime, and when they do, it’s answering questions like, “no really, how kooky are you?”

    *post-Iowa

  20. My endorsement of Paul in no way constitutes an endorsement of all of his proposed policies, just like my likely vote for McCain doesn’t mean I would hesitate to kick him to the curb if an actual republican ran for president.

    If none of the candidates look like an “actual Republican,” at what point do you stop supposing that you know what an actual Republican looks like and start wondering if they’re the real deal and you’re the one who’s off the reservation? The accusation of inauthenticity always reminds me of the Socialist apologists who claimed that Communism wasn’t disproven because “Stalin and Mao weren’t true Socialists.”

  21. “The accusation of inauthenticity always reminds me of the Socialist apologists who claimed that Communism wasn’t disproven because “Stalin and Mao weren’t true Socialists.”

    Or when I point out the atrosities in the early Christian Church to Christians, they say, “Oh, they weren’t true Christians.”

  22. “Tell your woes to Paul or Kucinich or Gravel supporters. Their candidates get little airtime, and when they do, it’s answering questions like, “no really, how kooky are you?”

    I guess I’m kooky. I took an online profile of my views and the 3 candidates that came closest to my viewpoint were Kucinich, Gravel, and Paul.

  23. Palmetto tree, you’re in my way!

    Doherty and I have a longstanding discussion over the true meaning of “Sweet Home Alabama” – whether it’s pro- or anti-Wallace or just anti-outsider.

    I have come to the conclusion that the song is about the Mises Institute.

  24. Shem,

    My definitions of republicans date back to pre-2000. What the party has morphed into is for someone else to define. I’ll stick with my conservative, small government talking federalists and you can have the current moral majority, spendthrift powermongers.

    As no one has copyrighted the term “republican”, I feel I can use it in whatever way I find most advantageous to myself without concern of recourse.

  25. References to AM make me smile.

    They probably also deflower baby unicorns, but that’s really beside the point, isn’t it?

  26. Shem,

    Also, I accuse you of purposely or inadvertantly creating and burning a strawman because we aren’t arguing about governmental structures (democracy vs. communism), we’re discussing governing philosophies under a democratic structure. I think the arguments don’t intersect because communism offers rigid, inflexible structure where one party governs all whereas democracy provides for competing philosophies to be explored.

  27. 1) I’m not a Republican. Never have been and God willing, never will be. You can have the whole thing, because I’ll certainly never want any part of it.

    2) But the Statist Republicans can use the definitions however they want also. And given the fact that they seem to have all the power and influence, maybe it’s time to ask yourself; if things prior to 2000 were as you say they were, where exactly did all this come from? If they were truly always dedicated to the same values you were, why haven’t they continued to uphold them? In other words, are you really sure that it was them who left you, or did you never really understand that you and they only seemed to be in the same place all along?

    3) Re: the Communist issue: It’s called a metaphor, LIT. In the same way that those Socialists need to ask themselves why their policies gave birth to Stalin and Mao, you need to ask what it is in the past of the Republican party that allowed it to become the party of intervention and protection. In no way were you or any other Republican being called a Communist. If a metaphor were a perfect fit, it would be a comparison.

  28. “James | January 28, 2008, 3:07pm | #

    Edwards seems to be hoping that neither Obama or Clinton get enough delegates and his 10% or so would push one of them over the top, which would allow him to throw them to the highest bidder.”

    We have a winner. Edwards is running for VP. He wants to run up his delegate count. His ultimate goal seems to be to get his count high enough to the point where he forces someone to make him VP candidate.

  29. All of that aside, blogger Cicero has the best argument that Edwards could be viable if the Obama-Clinton contest goes down to the wire.

    Blogger Cicero… is he rebutted by Blogger Demosthenes? When will Ender save us from the buggers?

  30. Shem,

    Undoubtedly the party suffered the same problem every opposition party does when it gets in power. It assumes that people supporting its fight against the in power party equals a support of the opposition parties policies it would implement when it gets into power. However, I don’t believe I need to agree with all of the parties positions to believe that my definition of republican (which was the only view available when they functioned as the opposition party) is the view I support. Others can argue that my definition is unrealistic given the actions of the republicans when they were in the majority, but in regards to their actions as an opposition group, it is in line with my own. In practical terms, I hope for a return to the mid 90’s status quo where fighting policies of the democrats, which I also abhor, is the prime motive of the republicans without them being able to implement most of their own policies and in that regard, I hope to facilitate that situation by electing the republicans that exist (McCain), but would in a heartbeat trade for the republicans I hope for (Flake). Yes, you may argue that what I’m really hoping for is a libertarian in republican clothing, a republican that came in believing what I believed and functioned as opposition not just by coincidence, but because of philosophical agreement with me, but I don’t have that opportunity, and so i must play the game looking for the best outcome.

  31. you need to ask what it is in the past of the Republican party that allowed it to become the party of intervention and protection

    Beyond the fact that the closest thing to a coherent foreign policy position that both parties hold is that “Our party’s wars are good; the other party’s wars are bad,”
    the failure to prevent US involvement in the Balkans and the relative success of said intervention was the beginning of the end for a substantial non-interventionist vote in the GOP. How quickly we forget who was invoking the spectre of Vietnam the last time around.

  32. If Ron Paul only accepted Euro, he’d have his $5.000.000 by now.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.