I usually read the dead tree version of the New York Times, since, for all its many flaws, it is still probably the best MSM daily in America.
I really felt that the three stories on page A11 captured where we are at in the 2008 Democratic presidential primary.
The first article was Robin Toner's A New Populism Spurs Democrats on the Economy, which discussed how Democratic candidates are "pushing proposals intended to answer middle-class unease." Toner certainly got it right that a good chunk of the reason for Democratic success in 2006 (along with Iraq and Republican corruption) was the emphasis many candidates put on economic populism. Toner highlighted the senatorial campaign of Ohioan Sherrod Brown who used "sharp attacks on the trade and economic policies of recent years" to win by 12.5 points. Two years earlier, Kerry, running on personality and anti-Bush sentiment lost the very same Ohio by 2 percentage points. Toner discussed Clinton, Obama and Edwards but really failed to understand that the economic populist territory has really been staked out and seized by Edwards as he expands on his Two Americas theme from 2004 to include bold policies on universal healthcare, union organizing laws, minimum wage expansions, and trade agreement renegotiation to include labor, health and environmental standards.
The second story was by Leslie Wayne, Edwards Embarks on Tour in South to Focus on Poverty (apparently Pittsburgh and Cleveland are in the South according to the Yankees at the NYT). It was interesting to say the least that after reading the first part of Tonor's article on economic populism, which shockingly gave Clinton first billing, that one opened up the paper to see this article on Edwards Road to One America Tour meant to focus the nation on the issue of millions of Americans living in poverty. Wayne wrote that
Mr. Edwards is promoting himself as someone who cares about the poor and who has risen from the bottom himself. In doing do, he is staking a more populist stance than his opponents.
Wayne seems to understand the ideological positioning in the primary better than Toner.
The last article on page A11 was .Democrats Continue to Beat Republicans at the Donor Box by Michael Cooper and Michael Luo which noted that
... the eight Democrats running for president raised more than $80 million from April 1 to June 30, while the 10 Republicans raised less than $50 million....
Lastly, the other striking thing about page A11 were the two photographs (other than the ubiquitous Boston Medical Group's "Sex for Life!" ad).
- Edwards seemingly walking out of a corn-field to discuss poverty and poverty elimination in Iowa.
and
- Obama smiling and pointing and some rally with a note that he raised $32.8 million in the second quarter.
So, the two things I took from A11:
- Clearly, we've got an election where Democrats are in a good position to win (we've countered the goper direct mail small-donor and activist drive with our own internet small-donor and activist drive), so we ought to put up the candidate with the most progressive and populist economic message.
- Edwards and Obama have developed two very different strategies to take on the former Candidate Inevitable.
Obama has doggedly pursued fundraising so that he would be the equal of Hillary in the money race, but has largely decided to run an issue-less campaign, choosing instead to focus, in David Axelrod tradition, on personality and biography.
Edwards has decided to heed the message of 2006 (which was his message anyway) and is running as an economic populist, anti-war Democrat, and as someone outside DC (the trifecta this past November).