What will Edwards, Obama and Clinton bring to the potentially game changing debate in Nevada on January 15? What will the Nevada media, and Nevada electorate, be discussing on January 16, 17 and 18? And what will the voters in Nevada tell the country on January 19? What message will they send? No doubt, each one of the campaigns is carefully considering all of these questions, and planning accordingly.
For purposes of this diary, I want to consider how John Edwards and the Edwards campaign can focus on winning the Nevada debate, determining the "conversation" that takes place between January 16-18, and ultimately, winning the Nevada caucuses on January 19.
- Set the Terms of the Debate
One of the simple facts about the MSM is that they love a narrative. As such, a presidential candidate who plants, and successfully executes, a favorable narrative usually prevails over a candidate who fails to plant and execute a favorable narrative. In short, story invariably gets more media coverage than non-story. Story trumps non-story.
The most advantageous narrative that John Edwards can, and should, bring to Nevada from January 15-18 is to be the candidate that is setting the agenda, the terms of the debate, for the Nevada caucuses.
To set this agenda with precision and acuity, John Edwards must get some quality sleep (particularly after pulling those all-nighters) and wake up with a stronger and more focused campaign in Nevada. Auto-pilot speechifying is not going to do the job. Instead, John Edwards must focus like a laser on the task at hand.
How can John Edward set the terms of debate in Nevada? Of course, the answer is as basic as Politics 101. A candidate sets the terms of debate through candidate discipline and message consistency, through media interviews and ad buys, through signage and imagery, through audience selection and planned events, through debate preparation and debate performance, and through carefully chosen words and carefully executed delivery.
For Edwards, the present circumstances dictate all of the above and more. I think it would behoove Edwards to take the additional step of telling each and every journalist, whether it be on the record, or on background, that his goal is to set the terms of the debate for the Nevada caucuses. The hour is late. It is time to be explicit, and set the narrative.
- Who Will be the Strongest President for Workers and the Union Movement? John Edwards.
A significant portion of the voters in the Nevada caucuses will be members of unions. It would be a mistake to assume, I believe, that all of them will vote in lockstep for the candidate endorsed by their particular union leadership. As such, John Edwards should address, and appeal to, each and every one of these members as individuals. Now is the time to do it in a calm, deliberate and truthful manner.
In particular, John Edwards needs to make it clear that unlike Obama and Clinton, he advocates for workers, unions and the "union movement" in EVERY state of the country. Only John Edwards is building NATIONAL support for them and their union. Edwards needs to explain why this distinction matters.
Edwards can favorably tell the voters of Nevada:
If you are a union member in Nevada, you know that unions can help provide better wages, better hours and better working conditions. I ask you to consider this: which of the three candidates on this stage will be the best advocate for you, and your union, as President? Who will be YOUR president? Consider the facts.
Only one of us on this stage advocates for workers, unions and the union movement in every single state of this country. Only one of us is building national support for workers like you, your union, and the union movement. Only one of us.
Only one of us took the time to travel around the country to help pass minimum wage increases in many many states over the last 3 years. Only one of us.
Only one of us came here to Nevada in 2006 to support your effort to increase the minimum wage. Only one of us. Only one of us has traveled around this country to support over 100 union organizing efforts and strikes. Only one of us.
That candidate is me, John Edwards. And I will be your president.
If you are a union member in Nevada, I ask for your vote tonight. I am the one candidate on this stage who has stood by you, and your union, with strength, courage and conviction these past 3 years. I have walked with you. I have marched with you. And I have organized with you. The others have not. What does that tell you?
There are so many insiders in Washington, so many corporate lobbyists in Washington who want to crush you, your union, and the union movement. Do you doubt it?
Look, one of the candidates up here on the stage receives millions of dollars, millions of dollars, from those very same corporate lobbyists who want to crush you and your union. Does she deserve your vote? Her top campaign adviser has been paid millions to help bust unions. Does she deserve your vote? I think not. I hope not.
Another one of my opponents tells you that you and your union will get one seat, a single seat, at his big presidential table. Other seats at his table will include the Republican party, big business, and rabid free traders. Do you, and your union, want this man to be our next president? Do you want that single seat at his big table? I think not. I hope not.
Stand with me union members. This is the time I need you. I have stood with you in your hour of need. I ask for your help now. Together, on January 19, let’s prove the corporate insiders wrong. Let’s prove the corporate lobbyists wrong. Let January 19, 2008, be the day we send a message about the importance of unions and the union movement to all of America. Let January 19 be the day we revive the union movement in America, and begin our journey, once again, to spread the union movement abroad, to help workers in places such as China and the rest of the world.
Union members in Nevada, America is waiting to hear your voices. What will you say? Will you stand up? Will you be heard?
- Does Las Vegas Want More Nuclear Power Plants to Be Built?
One of the brightest dividing lines between Obama, Clinton and Edwards is on the question of who will build more nuclear power plants in America. A President Obama or President Clinton will build more nuclear power plants. A President Edwards will NOT.
Edwards must speak directly to this issue at all times in Las Vegas. He can use lines such as these:
If you want America to build more nuclear power plants, if you want even more nuclear waste to pile up, then Barack and Hillary are your candidates.
If you want a President who will NOT build more nuclear power plants that produce even more nuclear waste, but instead, use that money instead to promote renewable energy, then I am your candidate.
What will the voters of Las Vegas tell America: we support two candidates who want more nuclear power, more nuclear waste? I think not. I hope not.
Look, we all agree that nuclear waste should not be stored in Nevada, but why should ANY state have to store radioactive poisons that last thousands and millions of years? It is time for us, as a country, as leaders of he world, to take the next step.
It is time to elect a president who will NOT build EVEN MORE nuclear power plants, that make EVEN MORE nuclear waste.
Join with me, and together, we will send a message to America loud and clear: it is long past time that America stop building power plants that dump radioactive waste on America’s children and grandchildren, generation after generation, for millions of years. Are we really that selfish? I say no.
Join with me Las Vegas, and together, we will send a message to America. No more nuclear power plants, that produce more nuclear waste.
If you want your voices to be heard on energy. If you want your voices to be heard on America's energy future, NOW, RIGHT NOW, THIS ELECTION is the time to speak up...Tell America what you want! No more nuclear power plants, and no more nuclear waste
Of course, it goes without saying that Hillary and Obama do not want ANYONE in Las Vegas to know that they favor building more nuclear power plants. As capable, equivocating politicians, they will try to respond when asked about building more nuclear power plants with hemming and hawing.
But this hemming and hawing must NOT be tolerated by the MSM or the Las Vegas media. They must be called out and criticized for their hemming and hawing. They must be pinned down so that the voters of Nevada can make a decision on this. Anything short of this would be journalistic malfeasance.
In particular, the MSM and the Las Vegas media MUST press both Obama and Clinton to concede the truth: just last year both Obama and Clinton cosponsored legislation that would have provided $3.6 Billion to build more nuclear power plants. The Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) condemned the bill Obama and Clinton cosponsored as giving away billions of taxpayers dollars to subsidize the building of more nuclear power plants.
Of course, for Obama, it gets even worse. Obama also voted for the 2005 Bush energy bill which provided billions and billions more federal dollars to build more nuclear power plants. One of the questions that MUST be asked of both Hillary and Obama in Las Vegas is this: do they promise to repeal the billions and billions of dollars of subsidies to build more nuclear power plants that are still on the federal books from the passage of the 2005 Bush energy bill?
It is estimated that those provisions alone, unless repealed, will cause 30-50 more nuclear power to be built in America. I am guessing that both Obama and Hillary will refuse, and this refusal MUST be communicated to the voters of Nevada.
For those who have been following Hillary’s gesticulations on the issue of building more nuclear power plants, her history of floundering is ripe for discussion. Truly, she must be pinned down on this, once and for all, by the MSM and the media of Nevada. For example, on the campaign trail, Hillary has stated (in South Carolina) that she favors building more nuclear power plants, then, in the YouTube debate, she pulled out an amazing political first: she dodged by telling us she was now an "agnostic." What!? Hillary's state of intentional equivocation and confusion has forced the local media in Las Vegas to "guess" where she is on this. That guessing must end. It is time for straight answers to straight questions. She must be pinned down.
As mentioned above, the key question to ask Hillary is this: will she promise to repeal the billions of dollars in subsidies to build dozens of new nuclear power plants that are still on the books from the 2005 Bush Energy Bill? Curiously, in her detailed energy plan that she recently released, she leads the reader into believing, perhaps, that she is against building more nuclear power plants, indicating that she would not favor (a promise?) "new subsidies" for building nuclear power plants.
Okay, but how about the existing "old subsidies" that are now on the books, thanks to the 2005 energy bill?! Will you promise to repeal those? If not, than Hillary Clinton, like Barack Obama, favors the construction of 30-50 more nuclear power plants. End of story. Now tell the voters of Las Vegas this fact.
- Electability
Edwards should stress the electability issue, something that the entrance polls from Iowa show that Edwards beat both Hillary and Obama on. Edwards can say something along the lines of this:
If you want another nail-biter of an election, then I am not your candidate. I stand before you as a candidate who can, and will run strong in all parts of America.
- Who Performed the Best, Under Pressure, in the Recent International Crisis?
The assassination of Benazir Bhutto in Pakistan was an event of profound international significance, an event that necessarily forced all the candidates running for President of the United States and their campaigns, to respond. And respond they did...in very different ways.
An honest and sober assessment of their responses would provide the Nevada voters with valuable insight into how John Edwards, Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama perform under the pressure cooker of an international crisis. Of substantial interest to the electorate should be a very basic question: who responded the best to this international crisis...Edwards, Obama or Clinton?
Most of us would agree, I hope, that the responses from the candidates and their campaigns, ideally, should have been calm, coherent, intelligent and strong. Moreover, because the president is by definition a leader, it seems particularly appropriate to ask: which of the three candidates illuminated a clear, constructive way forward?
A second, closely-related question also deserves an answer: which of the three candidates and campaigns reacted the best IMMEDIATELY, right off the bat, and focused IMMEDIATELY on getting it right? Conversely, on December 27, 2007, who got it wrong (or only partly right) on the first day? Moreover, who had to take a day or two to EVENTUALLY get it right?
A third consideration would focus on the tone and actions of the candidate. Who projected strength and resolve?
A fourth important consideration would consider the unusual gravity of this particularly tense situation. In light of the gravity of the situation, which candidate(s) played politics with this in the middle of this international tragedy...to the potential detriment of the national and international interest in seeing this crisis resolved helpfully? Conversely, which candidate and their campaign, instead, focused like a laser on the job at hand and got to work?
With these considerations in mind, let’s evaluate and grade the responses from the candidates and their campaigns.
We start with John Edwards and his campaign on December 27, 2007, the day the crisis erupted. First off, we have the immediate, official response from John Edwards and his campaign to evaluate.
Benazir Bhutto was a brave and historic leader for Pakistan. Her assassination is a sad and solemn event, and our hearts go out to her family and to the Pakistani people. But we will not let this contemptible, cowardly act delay the march of progress in Pakistan for a single second.
I have seen firsthand in Pakistan, and in meetings with Prime Minister Bhutto and President Musharraf, the instability of the country and the complexity of the challenges they face. At this critical moment, America must convey both strength and principle. We should do everything in our power to help bring the perpetrators of this heinous act to justice and to ensure that Bhutto's movement toward democracy continues.
Clearly, John Edwards’ statement covered all the important bases. First, it praised Bhutto and her bravery, then expressed sympathy, reaching out to Bhutto’s family and the Pakistani people. Second, importantly, it immediately and explicitly looked forward: it made clear that Bhutto’s death will NOT stop the forward movement in Pakistan. Third, it wisely stiffened resolve by explicitly underscoring and calling for strength and principle in this time of crisis. Fourth, and most importantly for any leader, it intelligently and clearly charted the way forward. What did John Edwards tell the world? Find and punish the perpetrators, as yet unidentified, and keep the movement toward democracy moving forward.
Simply put, Edwards IMMEDIATE response was top of the line. It was strong, clear, intelligent and effective. In short, it was very presidential.
Let’s now turn to John Edwards’ immediate actions on December 27, 2007, the day of the assassination. What did he do? First off, all of his statements and actions that day were delivered in a calm, reassuring and intelligent manner. The tone was correct.
In addition, no one working on behalf of John Edwards, no staff member, no surrogate, no potential VP choice, was allowed to distract from his calm, reassuring and deliberate leadership. In short, Edwards kept the Edwards team completely under control, as a president should.
In the midst of the international crisis, John Edwards immediately sought the best information he could obtain in order to better inform himself and all his statements in the midst of the crisis. In particular, John Edwards called the Pakistani ambassador to the United States, and had a detailed, substantive discussion with the ambassador. This was the correct action.
Shortly thereafter, President Musharraf called John Edwards to discuss the crisis. (As far as I am aware, of all the candidates running for President of the United States in both the Republican and Democratic parties, president Musharraf chose to call only one of them, and that would be John Edwards.)
When Prime Minister Musharraf called John Edwards, what did Edwards convey to Musharraf? The press wanted to know. Edwards summarized the message he sent to Musharraf:
- I urged him to continue the democratization process because of how important it is to the Pakistani people and how important it is to his country.
- I also urged him to allow international investigators into Pakistan so that, for the rest of the world, there can be credibility in determining what the facts were and what actually occurred.
Notice also how these two forward looking points match, identically, with the two forward-looking leadership points shown in the initial, official Edwards’ response. A big part of leadership can be found in providing a strong and consistent message in response to crisis. Edwards nailed this: he started off with the correct message, and consistently and intelligently reinforced it with his actions on the day of the crisis.
Thus, both in his immediate response and immediate actions, John Edwards was coherent, reassuring, intelligent, strong, and perhaps most importantly, John Edwards illuminated a clear, constructive and intelligent way forward. Moreover, he did this IMMEDIATELY, on December 27, not a day later, or a week later. Edwards IMMEDIATELY got it right.
Finally, neither John Edwards, nor anyone involved with his campaign, distracted America and the world on the day of the crisis by playing politics on the day of the crisis. They showed exactly the poise, and deliberateness that this crisis required.
In this, the biggest international affairs test of this presidential campaign, John Edwards performed like a seasoned pro, a president. Accordingly, IMHO, Edwards earned an "A" for his response. Or, as the Washington post editorial board noted, John Edwards passed this presidential test "with flying colors."
Let’s now turn to Hillary Clinton and her campaign’s response to this international question. As we did with John Edwards, let’s first evaluate her official response immediately following the assassination.
I am profoundly saddened and outraged by the assassination of Benazir Bhutto, a leader of tremendous political and personal courage. I came to know Mrs. Bhutto over many years, during her tenures as Prime Minister and during her years in exile. Mrs. Bhutto's concern for her country, and her family, propelled her to risk her life on behalf of the Pakistani people. She returned to Pakistan to fight for democracy despite threats and previous attempts on her life and now she has made the ultimate sacrifice. Her death is a tragedy for her country and a terrible reminder of the work that remains to bring peace, stability, and hope to regions of the globe too often paralyzed by fear, hatred, and violence.
"Let us pray that her legacy will be a brighter, more hopeful future for the people she loved and the country she served. My family and I extend our condolences and deepest sympathies to the victims and their families and to the people of Pakistan.
This was assuredly a heartfelt and admirably ornate official statement. But does it identify the key issues going forward? Does it show strength? Does it show resolve? Perhaps most importantly, does it demonstrate leadership? Does it illuminate a way forward? Clearly, no, it does not.
An honest and sober assessment, I think, would have to conclude that Hillary’s official response on December 27, 2007, did little more than express sadness and sympathy. It was wholly lacking when compared to the statement of John Edwards. Set the two of them side by side. Hillary's is a "C" statement, to John Edwards "A" statement.
And how about the tone of Hillary Clinton on day one of the crisis? Was she calm and consistent in her messaging? Not really. Very early that day, Hillary made the mistake of injecting "horse race" politics into the eye of the storm, into the teeth of the crisis. Here is one of her very early statements to the press, on day one of the crisis:
It certainly raises the stakes high for what we expect from our next president.
Also, on day one of the crisis, her ostensible running mate, Evan Bayh, said this in the eye of the storm:
When there are unfortunate calamities like this, the Republicans [will say]: ‘See. See what we told you? We have to have someone who’s strong to defend America at a time of concern.’ Well, Senator Clinton is strong... and that’s one of the reasons why I’m supporting her.
In short, both Hillary Clinton and her surrogate running mate, in the middle of this crisis, injected "horse race" politics into the crisis. As we all know, so too did Barack Obama and his campaign. Considering the stakes for our country, and the world, what does this show about their judgment?
Later that day, Hillary and her campaign changed tack, and decided this was NOT a time to inject "horse race" politics into an international crisis. Better late then never I suppose, but clearly, Hillary and her campaign delivered a muddled and mixed message on day one of the crisis.
By day two of the crisis, Hillary and her campaign realized their mistakes on day one. They rightly decided that she should now provide some measure of leadership, beyond the political skirmishing and statement of sadness, of her day one actions. As such, on DAY TWO of the crisis, Hillary conveyed to the press her ideas on the way forward in Pakistan. Yet, obviously, clearly, John Edwards had provided this very same leadership on DAY ONE!
IMHO, Hillary Clinton and her campaign deserved a "C" for their performance: a wholly inadequate official response from the start, mixed messaging on day one, inadequate actions taken on day one, and an attempted, belated, recovery on day two. And this was from a supposed "day one" candidate? Not good.
Let's turn now to Barack Obama's official response to the international crisis:
I am shocked and saddened by the death of Benazir Bhutto in this terrorist atrocity. She was a respected and resilient advocate for the democratic aspirations of the Pakistani people. We join with them in mourning her loss and stand with them in their quest for democracy and against the terrorists who threaten the common security of the world.
Obama's unusually terse statement was peculiarly problematic. First, as others have noted, Obama's statement was Rovian in its use of Bush boilerplate language. It clumsily rushed to judgment by assuming that Bhutto was killed by "the terrorists," inviting us to conflate all terrorists, when in fact, Bhutto's actual assassins had yet to be determined.
But perform this simple task: contrast Obama’s boilerplate statement with Edwards’ statement, which absolutely hits all the points, and nails the fact that going forward, a key question will be to find and punish the actual perpetrators. When you compare and contrast the two statements, it is clear that Obama’s Bush boilerplate statement is a "C" effort, to Edwards' "A" effort.
And, when you combine that inadequate official statement by Obama, with the national distractions that Obama and his campaign manager David Axelrod created, in the eye of the storm, in the middle of the crisis, it is hard to reach any other conclusion but that Obama also earned a "C" grade on December 27, 2007.
The bottom line? John Edwards should ask the Nevada media, the MSM, and the electorate in Nevada to perform their own evaluations, and reach their own conclusions as to who performed the best under pressure. Who performed the best when faced with the international crisis that tested the three presidential candidates on December 27, 2007?
Those are some thoughts on how John Edwards can set the terms of the debate in Nevada, and place himself in a good position to win the Nevada caucus. Your thoughts?
(Published earlier, in part, at MyDD)