I had gotten the sense over the past few months that Edwards had realized that he couldn't win the nomination this year: he's short on funds, he can't get any (positive) attention from the media, and he's fighting against two juggernauts. My feeling was that he would fight as long as he could, and then wind up backing Obama with the hope of a veep pick or a high-level cabinet posting (most likely AG--he'd be credible for that post) and then hope for another opportunity. After all, the dude's only going to be 55 on Election Day, 2008. Grabbing the nomination at the age of 63 is not at all out of the realm of possibility, and a high-level cabinet post would increase Edwards's visibility and allow him to claim some more executive experience next time around.
This would all work if Edwards were prone to thinking strategically. But there is little evidence of that in this campaign. This is, after all, the guy who wanted to abolish the SUV (while presumably excepting his own). I understand that the media has ignored Edwards, thus necessitating ever-more-extreme gambits to grab attention. Still, there are quite a few of these sorts of miscues that come to mind. I loathe a horse race-centered view of politics, but I really do wonder about Edwards's ability to win a general election, as he hasn't exactly inspired me with confidence viz. his primary campaign.
At this point, though, one has to think that he's starting to believe that he can actually win this nomination. I'm reminded of a line from the pulp thriller Gorky Park when one of the characters notes something along the lines of the necessity of believing a lie if the lie is that you will escape. Edwards has toned down his rhetorical attacks against Hillary, and has tried to remain more "above the fray", whatever that means. When he was relentlessly attacking Hillary, the MSM CW was that he was helping Obama by doing the latter's attacking for him. Now that he's stopped, one can only assume that he no longer wants to help Obama because he sees an opportunity to sneak in between two warring juggernauts, just like he witnessed Kerry do, back in the 2004 race.
At this point, though, one wonders if he might not wind up being a spoiler working in Clinton's favor. Sure, Edwards might be able to win in Iowa, and that might prompt Democrats elsewhere to take a second look at the guy. But Edwards's problem is that it really isn't a second look. His problem isn't that he's unknown among Democrats, it's that he's not as popular among them as Clinton and Obama. He lacks either Clinton's extensive establishment backing or Obama's grassroots enthusiasm. It may be true that Hillary Clinton isn't as good an attacker as we thought she would be, but she would win the nomination in an Obama-less race because of several factors: first, she has managed to appeal to progressives while remaining the favorite of the more moderate party apparatchiks. It's difficult to see how Edwards could credibly attack someone who agrees with him on any number of policies: he could attack her forthrightness, but she could play that game with him as well. He could attack her on electability, except most Democrats (incredibly) think she's the most electable candidate. He could attack her for being a part of the special interest-driven politics he often complains about, but such attacks simply haven't worked so far, despite his making them repeatedly. Then there's Bill Clinton's enduring popularity with Black voters, who are currently more simpatico with Obama. There's little doubt they'd switch to Clinton without Obama in the picture. Edwards simply doesn't stand a chance, by any calculus.
Not that I'm saying that Edwards should just throw in the towel in Iowa--that would not help Obama as it would be seen, not unfairly, as a corrupt bargain--a quid pro quo in exchange for influence and power in an Obama administration, and it would destroy the ethical image upon which Obama has built his campaign. He should, however, be realistic. And he should keep up the offensive on Clinton, even if it damages his popularity in the state. Now I, of course, think that negative campaigning is an acceptable (and often responsible) thing if it's done properly, and by that I mean honestly. That is a discussion for another time.
