Thoughts on John Edwards

Chase Martyn has an excellant post with some thoughts about John Edwards.

Here is part of it, but make sure to read the entire thing to get a feel for how the race in Iowa is playing out.

In many ways, it seems that the Washington establishment has written him off. The chorus of pundits sings only one tune about the former Senator, and it goes something like this: Edwards is an angry liberal, and he may well be running for President of Iowa, rather than the whole United States.

Indeed, Edwards is focusing intensely on early state caucuses and primaries. But the media that seems to be discounting Edwards for this strategy is simultaneously elevating former Gov. Mitt Romney to his second-place position nationally in the Republican horse race because of his standing in early states. The two candidates are, for sure, not occupying exactly the same spaces in their respective parties’ primaries, but there are comparisons to draw between the two of them here in Iowa. Romney needs to win Iowa as much as Edwards does, and if the caucuses were held today I’m confident that they would both pull it off.

And in many ways, Edwards continues to influence the Democratic race as much as anyone. Clinton’s health care roll out may not have happened at all if Edwards had not released his plan several months ago (the SEIU may not have demanded specific plans from candidates if no one had released them). Obama may not have committed to voting against all war funding bills that do not include a mandatory timeline for withdrawal if Edwards (and, perhaps, Dodd) had not helped to make the issue into something of a litmus test for the netroots and the antiwar left. The “insiders” and “outsiders” rhetoric of Edwards and, in less aggressive terms, Obama, has elevated campaign finance reform — not just in terms of lobbyist and PAC money but also public financing of elections — to its position as a regular section of stump speeches and a standard question in debates.

In general, Edwards has been out in front of the field on many issues that have become central to the presidential election, often at the risk of his own standing in the race. Releasing specific policy proposals before hearing what the other candidates are saying can be politically risky, because it gives pundits and surrogates from other campaigns something to attack. But, as Edwards’s supporters will argue, this tactic demonstrates transparency and honesty.

Edwards is also excellent on the stump. Clinton, Obama, Dodd, Richardson, and Biden are not bad at it, but none is as practiced as the former Senator. Members of the traditional media often speak under their breath about Edwards being an inauthentic trial lawyer with good hair, but he is the only candidate this cycle who regularly pulls off the sort of “I feel your pain” empathy that worked so well for the last Democrat who won the presidency. If stump speeches have any effect on election results (and I think this point can be argued both ways), it isn’t time to write Edwards off yet.