Why isn't John Edwards standing higher in the polls?

As I travel about the country, I ask nearly everyone I meet whom they support for president. Nearly universally, the answer is John Edwards. Admittedly, though it includes cab drivers and baggage handlers and bank tellers and real estate agents and baristas and people in queues of every kind, this sample is small and unscientific. Still, as you look at the polls, you have to wonder why the former U.S. Senator and vice-presidential candidate isn't the favorite. I think there are at least eight reasons.

1) His narrative doesn't suit the needs of the media: "John Edwards To Be 44th White Male President" can't match the "Hillary Clinton To Be First Woman President" and "Barack Obama To Be First Black President" story lines.

2) Barack Obama's presence has altered the dynamics of the campaign in Clinton's favor. His vaporous politics has offered Clinton cloud cover. If the Illinois senator weren't in the race, the contrasting visions of America's future being offered -- New Deal populism vs corporations über Alles -- would stand in clearer contrast; the media narrative would be "can idealism and bold ideas beat money;" the romantics in the party would have to make some hard choices, instead of patting themselves on the back for backing the black guy; and Clinton would be unable to position herself above the fray -- she must feel as lucky as Mary Chapin Carpenter: "Hey, Lyle. Hey, Dwight. C'mon, boys, you don't have to fight" -- and would be subjected to tougher scrutiny.

3) And partly as a corollary to 2), Edwards has a fraction of the money available to his two rivals, reducing his ability to present his case and making it harder to compete everywhere.

4) The front-loading of the primaries has given the moneyed candidates an even bigger edge than they already had (a similar dynamic on the GOP side hurts Mike Huckabee's dark-horse strategy).

5) As the only liberal with a chance of being president, when Edwards does get attention from the corporate media, he is frequently treated negatively.

6) Edwards has run a solid, issues-oriented campaign, but he hasn't played sufficiently to his strengths, especially "the only real Democrat" and "the Happy Warrior." Also, and this is ironic, with enough money, he could have made his "log cabin" narrative as compelling as the "first woman" and "first black" fairy tales.

7) Hillary Clinton has run a disciplined campaign, so far, undistracted by boldness or originality.

8) Most important: the fix is in. In 1992, the corporations wanted Bill Clinton. The big money poured into his campaign, and the media helped him ignore or mitigate a series of scandals and embarrassments, while they diminished his Democratic opponents in the primaries and ridiculed and belittled George the First in the general election. The same is happening now: it is clear from the pattern of contributions that the corporate interests see Hillary Clinton as the most reliable aspirant for the job, and from her speeches and policy proposals it is evident that she is happy to be their champion.

The odds are pretty long on an Edwards victory today, but politics is a volatile game. There is a lot of good will towards him in the party; party activists vote in the primaries out of all proportion to their numbers; Clinton could stumble; the peace movement could wake up to the fact that the New York senator is another run-of-the-mill politician in service to the empire; the unions could decide that another Democratic retainer on the payroll of capital might not be the best advocate for the interests of labor; and the demand for change could overwhelm the battlements of the status quo, at last.

It ain't over 'til the fat lady votes.

[For comments on this post, visit John Edwards Blog.]