Scarcely a word about John Edwards in today's Washington Post except a passing mention that he came in narrowly ahead of Hillary Clinton in the Iowa caucuses. Now that attention has turned to the New Hampshire primary, ALL of the stories are about Obama, Clinton, Huckabee, Romney, or (to a lesser extent) McCain.
JRE was relegated to the final three paragraphs on the jump of today's long front-page story:
Edwards had counted on a victory in Iowa to keep his candidacy alive, but failing that, his razor-thin margin over Clinton provided him all he needed to take his case to New Hampshire voters. Arguing that Iowans voted decisively for change, he said New Hampshire voters now may choose between his confrontational message and Obama's call for unity and accommodation.
He drew a contrast between his candidacy and those of his leading rivals. "I am not the candidate of money," he said. "I am not the candidate of glitz. I am not the candidate of glamour. I am the candidate for president of the United States who is the people's candidate."
Edwards foundered in New Hampshire four years ago after a strong second-place finish in Iowa. In this campaign he has spent more time in the state, and campaign manager David Bonior said he has a far larger organization in place.
Apart from the fact that few but those who are looking for information about Edwards will even read the end of the story, his presence in the Post today is largely between the lines, i.e., as an also-ran who had a shot at the Democratic nomination only if he won in Iowa (despite the fact that he came in ahead of Clinton after being vastly outspent there in every way).
My questions come from the Post's demographic analysis of the Iowa caucus results:
* Why did Edwards come in behind (at 24 percent) both Clinton (34 percent) and Obama (30 percent) in Iowa's RURAL western counties when he is the only candidate who truly spoke to rural concerns?
* Why did Edwards come in last among UNION households (at 23 percent), behind Obama (36 percent) and Clinton (26 percent) despite the fact that he is the only true pro-union candidate and has garnered more union endorsements than any other candidate?
* Why do voters view Obama, not Edwards, as the "change" candidate -- garnering 51 percent of the "change voters," with Edwards (20 percent) and Clinton (19 percent) BOTH far behind?
Part of the answer, I'd venture, is simply that Obama and Clinton outspent Edwards throughout Iowa 6 to 1, including Obama's $9 million to blanket the state with television ads. (Clinton spent $7.2 million, and Edwards spent $3.2 million.)
Perhaps a greater part of the answer is that Obama has claimed the mantle of "phenomenon" in this race. One Iowa caucus-goer was quoted as saying that he switched from a second-tier candidate to Obama because "if [Obama] is a phenomenon, I want to be part of it."
Post op-ed columnist Ruth Marcus summed up voters' perceptions fairly well, I thought (perceptions that, I admit, the dominant MSM narrative has fueled) [emphasis mine]:
What was striking . . . across the state, was the pull of Obama's optimistic, inclusive message and the way his well-oiled field operation was able to translate that appeal into caucusgoers. Obama played the role of inspiring leader/transformer to John Edwards's fiery populist and Hillary Clinton's ultra-capable technocrat. Clinton was selling what one unaffiliated Democratic strategist described as the "charisma of competence" -- a la Scoop Jackson in 1976, and with similarly dreary results. If Obama was at times more gauzy than precise about exactly what change he would bring, that didn't seem to matter much to the voters who flocked to him in the end."
That Iowa caucusgoers saw Obama as the standard bearer for "change" even though he lacks the substance of change (including the substance of the comprehensive, detailed platform that JRE offers) is a problem. The voters in Iowa said they want change, but they prefer it in some kind of nonconfrontational, agreeable way, with everyone holding hands.
This leaves me with one more question:
* How does John Edwards overcome this delusional mindset among Democratic and independent (and even, in some cases, registered Republican) voters?
I hope that, somehow, he can accomplish that during tonight's debate in New Hampshire.