Edwards To Air Two-Minute Ad Tonight
John Edwards isn't going to use the usual method — a dry press release, followed by speeches at campaign rallies the next day — to rebut President Bush's speech tonight about Iraq. Instead, Edwards will run a two-minute ad tonight on MSNBC, set to air right after Bush's speech.
"Unfortunately, the president is pressing on with the only strategy he's ever had — more time, more troops, and more war," Edwards says in the ad, regarding Bush's expected plan to withdraw 30,000 troops from Iraq, conditioned on progress in the country.
"Tell Congress you know the truth," Edwards says. "They have the power to end this war and you expect them to use it. When the president asks for more money and more time, Congress needs to tell him he only gets one choice — a firm timeline for withdrawal."
Comments (10)
AJ wrote on September 13, 2007 9:30 AM:Great strategy by Edwards, using his campaign money to promote the progressive cause and fight back against the Bush spin.
Daniel wrote on September 13, 2007 9:39 AM:Thank you Edwards. The WaPo's Cizzilla was writing two days ago that Democrats really have no way of passing anything so the base should stop complaining and give them a break. That is completely absurd. As Edwards says, Congress might not be able to pass what it wants. But it can at least not pass what Bush wants.
www.campaigndiaries.com. oleeb wrote on September 13, 2007 9:57 AM:Bravo Edwards!
He's right. Congress has an obligation to use it's power to stop the war and it should use it. Edwards' forceful position continues to push the other Democrats and Congress to the left and that is a good thing.
Matt S. wrote on September 13, 2007 10:15 AM:This is a brilliant move on Edwards' part and you can just imagine how Clinton and Obama (both swimming in campaign money) are kicking themselves for not thinking of it first. I understand that this will cost Edwards probably $100K-$150 for these two minutes but it will no doubt pay for itself in visibility to America and the news cycle for tomorrow. One question though that I dont understand: why MSNBC? It's probably cheaper than a network ad but I wonder if it will reach a large audience. Hopefully, Edwards' Comm director knows what he's doing. Keep it up, John.
Hatch wrote on September 13, 2007 11:26 AM:Why MSNBC? That's easy. Olbermann's on before and after the President's address, so lots of Democrats will be watching.
Matt S. wrote on September 13, 2007 12:13 PM:I didn't know that but that's a good point. But then this begs the next question:
Even I, as a relatively well-informed and Countdown-watching Democrat, didnt know that Olbermann was going to be moderating this for MSNBC. Is it safe to assume that many other Dems are equally oblivious to this (thereby negating your argument that ppl will watch b/c of Keith)?
You bring up a good point, though.
bob wrote on September 13, 2007 12:26 PM:People will watch for Keith anyway, not knowing what time the President is speaking. Also, I think b/c of Keith, many active Dems have made MSNBC basically their home network, aka the anti-fox.
CNN only has personality driven shows in the evening. MSNBC caters work to politics and news junkies.
RaymondA wrote on September 13, 2007 3:09 PM:I'm not a strategist, so I may be way off. But those of who you think Edwards is being brilliant may be jumping the gun. There sometimes is admittedly a fine line between brilliant/bold, and desperate/pathetic. Sen. Jack Reed of R.I. is slated to give the "official" Dem response on the networks, not just MSNBC but all the outlets covering this. Has Edwards co-ordinated with Reed? Does he know Reed will say something fundamentally different from what Edwards will be saying? If so, Edwards may well be justified. If not, all he does is look like a granstander pulling a "stunt," and the trial lawyer meme could resurface, perhaps with justification.
If Obama or Hillary or any Sen Democrat did this, it would seem to me to be a major breach of the process that determines who gets to give the "official" response. Hillary and Obama would create resentment among her colleagues if she did this; and though Obama is running as an outsider who wants to shake things up, he is also trying to encourage less individual-politician-agenda-pushing and more consensus. He would also be jumped on as showing lack of sophistication if he were to try to upstage Jack Reed.
Also, Edwards' strategy is to go on MSNBC because he thinks that's where most anti-war Dems will be, then he knows that he will not only be preaching to the converted with this ad, but to those who already are committed to a prompt end to the war. What's needed is for someone to reach the people who tell the pollsters they are against the war and are in states whose senators are Republicans or reluctant-to-pull-the-plug Democrats. Will Edwards reach them? Does he care if he does? Or is he looking to jump-start his campaign with a stunt?
RaymondA: I think the primary reason Edwards is doing it is to communicate his message to a sizable audience. He obviously knows that the msnbc audience is nowhere near the size of all the people watching. It's an interesting move to make.
As a campaign move it could payoff, but personally I don't think it is any masterstroke, etc... just a smart move to communicate his message to a large swath of voters on a matter of great interest to them. The spot will also get wider distribution as news outlets, blogs, etc... cover the fact that it was on the air so the number of persons who hear his message could be substantial. In terms of reaching voters it seems like a reasonable gamble. I see it more as a means of broadly galvanizing support to end the war and pressure congress to stand up to Bush instead of once again caving in to him. I have little doubt it will piss off members who would rather fold again but so what? The more uncomfortable they are and the more pressure they feel to end the war the better.
As for competing with Reed I think it more likely that his spot will contrast with Reed's message than compete with or substitute for it. Reed will necessarily be stuck with a mealy-mouthed response since Democrats are not united in strategy. He will point out that Democrats are for withdrawal, but he won't be forceful or outline a specfic strategy legislative or otherwise that the Democrats will follow because he just can't. Edwards' will create a pretty stark contrast in juxtaposition with what Reed will have to say because whether you agree with him or not his position is clear and unequivocal. It will be interesting to see what impact it has.
I do not think it makes Edwards look in any way pathetic or desperate. He's strongly in favor of getting the hell out of Iraq. That's right in line with where the people of the nation are and certainly where Democrats are on the issue.
outside the Beltway wrote on September 13, 2007 4:44 PM:@ Raymond --
how can Reed give any kind of message that will excite the dem base? he can't
Edwards is free to say what activists want to hear and I'd bet MSNBC will have the highest percentage of Dem. activists of any cable channel.
finally - it could be a really nice contrast with the bumbler bush
