Let me start by saying I have a great deal of respect for Matt Stoller at MyDD. He's been a great fighter for progressive causes and I always enjoy reading his posts. But his latest post at MyDD attacking John Edwards for sending an e-mail asking his supporters if he should run for president (even though apparently the decision had been made) is just ridiculous. And I think this is a good time for us to discuss the issue of criticizing Democratic presidential candidates.
Now I don't think that we ought to hold back from criticizing Democratic presidential candidates when it is warranted. Better we point out their flaws now than remain silent and let them become the nominee and have the Republicans exploit these flaws and defeat them. But let's stick to legitimate criticisms and not spend time attacking a candidates for something trivial.
Stoller says:
Edwards almost gets it. But then his aides go and tell the New York Times that his supporters are irrelevant. If he had already decided to run, Edwards could have asked something like 'What do you want in your next President?' and taken in feedback. Instead he pretended to care about input and asked 'Should I run' when (1) he had already decided that he was going to run, (2) had announced he was going to announce in New Orleans, and (3) had aides tell the New York Times that he had already made his decision and that his supporters' feedback was irrelevant. The message to supporters is that they are gullible morons that are less important than sucking up to big media.
Please.
Every single presidential candidate acts like they "haven't made up their mind" for a while when we all know they have. Hillary Clinton is running, yet she "hasn't made up her mind." Barack Obama is "thinking about it" but "hasn't made up his mind." We all know they actually are running. Stoller's right that this is a stupid game, but that is what everyone does. It's just part of the silly media relations strategies that every candidate uses. If they say they are running, the media will get bored of them early and stop covering them. The announcement is designed to capture media attention. Stoller knows this good and well. But Edwards is the only one who Stoller takes to task for this. Remember when Bill Clinton went around Arkansas "asking permission" from voters to seek the presidency after he said he'd serve out his term as governor? Does anyone truly believe he hadn't made up his mind already and was just doing that for PR?
Then he continues, saying:
I don't know if Edwards is going to be progressive or not, but I do know that I don't trust him or his campaign because he obviously doesn't trust us enough to be honest about his intentions. I hope he gets it soon, but he's now in the risk-averse Obama box.
Let's see, John Edwards repudiated his vote for the war, is making poverty the focus of his campaign (which the Beltway says won't win any votes), and is by all accounts running a liberal campaign. But he's suddenly risk averse? What more does he need to do? Stoller's absolutely right that this part of the campaign is "silly season" but instead of taking Edwards to task for participating, he should criticize the process.
Anyway, the point is, let's stick to real criticisms of candidates. If you think Edwards is wrong to oppose trade deals, by all means say it. If you think Hillary Clinton was wrong to support and continue to support the war, by all means say it. If you think Barack Obama is being too cautious and needs to stop trying to win over the radical right (which he won't ever do), then stand up and say it. But don't go after a candidate for something trivial like pretending not to have decided to run when they really have.