Picture Edwards, Obama and Clinton in your head - what do you see?

I think Mudcat and Hooter are playing with that argument. But I don't think anything that I've heard or read from Edwards crosses any line.

I'm not an Edwards supporter. For the moment, I prefer Hillary or Obama. But I have no problem with his current line of campaign argument. He's a southerner and a guy who targets his campaign at lower middle class America. I don't see a problem with any suggestion that Clinton and Obama are candidates of the elite who won't connect as well as he can with heartland voters. That's all I read into these comments.

Clearly this Tapper post has reached a pro-Edwards blog of some sort, so let me re-state Tapper's question. It is NOT whether Edwards is a good candidate. The question is what message Edwards and his campaign are sending when they ask possible primary voters to "picture in their heads" each of the top Democratic contenders campaigning in "tough places."

Is Edwards asking potential voters to respond to the assumed prejudices of some of the electorate in those "tough areas?" And if so, is there anything wrong with that?

flyover, no offense intended, and yes I was regurgitating what I learned from the reviews of that unfortunatly titled book. Your insight is appreciated. So...is Edwards connecting with the rural constituency in your opinion? My take is that the inevitability refrain is really beating voters down, including rural america.

It appears you are making an argument to support your own hypothesis. The truth is, John Edwards at the top of the ticket will do exactly what he has stated. Hillary particularly and Barack as well= downticket disaster. We need Edwards at the top of the ticket to help downticket so that we can gain the necessary majority in the Senate and House to begin making changes so many in this country hunger for.

I, like Mellencamp and Edwards, grew up in a small town. I also spent 17 years in NYC and LA. I live in a small rural town again.
There are rural areas in all 50 states, but no one except John Edwards gets that. And neither Gore nor Kerry bothered to show up here in Montana and other rural areas.
Edwards is seeking to be the first populist liberal to unite town and country, urban and rural working folks who share the same values of love of family and community and feel a responsibility to our democracy.
I know it sounds crazy, but there are a majority of us out here who aren't drinking the "greed is good, screw your neighbor" kool-aid. And it's not because we are naive or backward. It's because we have what Tom Paine called "common sense" and Suroweicki calls "the wisdom of crowds". It's how you get things done. It's how you get your barn raised or your cattle branded or moved to safety during a fire.
Most people want to be seen and heard, not ignored and told to go shopping and leave it to Daddy ...or Mommy, in this case. Edwards is running as a lobbyist for the people who have no access to one. Edwards will run and win everywhere.

Hey Spock - maybe if you took the time to look, Kerry didn't campaign in the so called red states and it wasn't Edwards to lose, being the VP nominee. Edwards has out raised Bracka and Hillary in South Carolina:

and is showing strong support in places like Oklahoma and Arkansas. Edwards will carry more than you think.

Are you even aware that no Democrat has won the presidency in the last 43 years unless he was from the South? Edwards is more electable than the others because he's from the South alone, not to mention that he is actually saying something about real issues and is far more eloquent and charming than Clinton and Obama put together.

Hey, look, if Obama were a gangly, awkward, long-winded white guy from Massachusetts (John Kerry) instead of a gangly, awkward, long-winded black guy from Chicago, he'd be just as unelectable. And if Clinton were actually Joe Lieberman instead of just being his female counterpart, she'd be just as unelectable.

Let's see: Clinton has very high negatives, particularly among Republicans; she will not help down ticket races in red districts. Obama is a novice who is not even showing leadership in the Senate where he either misses important votes or waits until everyone else has voted; he will not help down ticket races in red districts.

This isn't about sexism or racism, as hard as you are trying to make it so. It's about the cold hard facts in politics: Edwards-rightly or wrongly-is perceived as more moderate than either Clinton or Obama, has relatively low negatives and relatively higher name recognition. He is focusing on issues that are immediately accessible to rural voters, to people who are living paycheck to paycheck, to those who believe that the political system is broken and the status quo is unacceptable.

Seems like you are really reaching on this, trying to make what he said fit a conclusion you seem to have already made.

Nowhere does he mention race - only you do. Nowhere does he describe this "image" as one defined by race. It seems clear from the context that he is refering to them as candidates and not as racial caricatures.

Regarding rural voters, as others have mentioned above rural voters are really the key to winning in 2008, at the presidential and at the state level and Edwards has great policies for rural Americans and unlike Clinton or Obama, grew up in a rural small town. Polls have shown that rural voters are not only disenchanted with Republicans, but are favoring democrats.

You also make an assumption that Edwards thinks Obama is polarizing - Edwards has never said this. What he has said, and state leaders in red and purple states seem to agree, is that Edwards overall has the better overall package of policy and background to win battleground and red states.

Regarding North Caroline, you should also note that polls showed that had Edwards run for Senate in North Carolina in 2004, he would have easily won. People who say Edwards can't win a red state seem to either don't know that or conveniently forget. And of course he did win once before, against an incumbent. That alone seems to back up Edwards claims of electability more than anything else.

In comparison both Obama and Clinton have only won in very blue states, against weak non-incumbent oppenents.

Cordelia hit a nerve. Her comments were certainly accurate; Kansas voted pro business and pro “values”. Some expatriate actually wrote a book proposing that something was the matter with Kansas. The writer should be tarred and feathered for misusing a tree. Kansas and the rest of the country beyond the coasts did elect our President.
Kansas is a right to work state in that if an employer wants to end a relationship with an employee he or she can with no reason; unions are limited in their activities. Last year the personal property taxes on business property were all but eliminated. That all seems odd to some.
The “rural” issue has also puzzled me for years. I was not until I heard Bobby Jindal this weekend that I realized it is not “values”, not pro / anti business or worker, not nationalist pride, not abortion pro life, not upright citizenship or religion, no not self reliance either that drives the rural vote.

It is that “ruralers” do not want the American dream taken away from their children. So they do in fact vote self interest.

However that American Dream is defined within each citizen’s heart keeps the heartland vote conservative.

More enlightenment from Spock. Thanks for the thoughtful input.

It's hard to fathom what Edwards might be saying with his "picture in your head" comment other than that a white male has a better chance of winning swing votes than a woman or a person with dark skin. While, all things being equal, he might be right, it is more than a little unsavory to encourage people to cast their votes based on the assumed prejudices of others.

The irony is that it is hard to picture many "Bubbas in Buncombe" voting for Edwards. Indeed, to the extent that any of the leading Democratic candidates has had recent success wooing blue collar, rural voters, you'd have to say that Edwards has been the worst, behind both Obama and Clinton. Clinton has been particularly successful in the past few years way north and way west of New York City.

I have a very clear picture of John Edwards because I have seen him in N.C. many times. I picture the man who visited every county we have while he was Senator, listening to everyone and really seeing the challenges faced by real people. I see a man who believes in his plans and programs and who trusts people enough to think they will support him once they understand the details of his programs. When Edwards says he can win in the south, he does not think about being "the white guy". That is NOT the John Edwards I know. He is thinking that he is the candidate who can talk to people in honest language and gain their support for good ideas, and also win their support in electing Democrats in state and local races.

I think Edwards is right about the effect Clinton will have on down-ticket races. It is not about gender with Clinton; it's about her high negatives. Put simply, a lot of people do not like her. That translates into possible or probable votes for her opponent.

As for Obama, with all his hype and money, he is like, as George Will described him yesterday, a modern-day Adlai Stevenson. Barack Obama just does not matter.

The race for Democratic nominee is between Edwards and Clinton.

OH ant Picture just made me sick to my stomach - A nightmare like no other!

Nothing new here we all know Dems/lib politicians are racists to the core. Come on they honor a KKK recruiter.

Now the fact the Edwards was not able to help carry those so called Red States and Reagen-Dems in 2004, what makes him think he can now.

Though I find it funny that libs will give hime the benefit of the doubt, when it so obviuos, but if a Republican made the same comments that would want his hive! Hypocrisy at its best!

I give Edwards the benefit of the doubt. As for the validity of the point regarding the heartland voters, it's interesting. Wasn't one of the object lessons from 2000 and 2004 that rural states will vote against their own self-interest, e.g. Kansas, a working class and rural state, voted for pro-business Bush over pro-worker Gore and Kerry. I'm not sure if Edwards platform will really sway rural voters, although in theory it should, I guess. My point being that rural voters defy conventional wisdom, so prognostication is more or less a waste of time.