By Jim Tankersley
Update, 10:30 a.m. -- The latest Los Angeles Times / Bloomberg poll supports the Edwards-aggressive strategy in the "21" game (see below). The poll shows the former North Carolina senator moving 10 percentage points closer to Obama since June -- a five-point gain for Edwards added to a five-point slide for Obama. The two candidates both trail Clinton, who has nearly half the support in the national poll. But now Edwards is statistically tied -- which is to say, within the poll's margin of error -- with Obama.
John Edwards and Barack Obama both love to hoop, so it seems fitting to explain their current presidential-primary conundrum through a basketball metaphor.
When only three players show for a pick-up game – not enough for even some half-court two-on-two – they often pass the time with a game called “21”. The rules are simple: One player has the ball and tries to score. The other two play defense. When someone scores, they shoot free throws and, if they make three in a row, get the ball back to try to score another basket. First to 21 points wins.
The strategy comes when you don’t have the ball. Do you aggressively guard the player trying to score, in hopes of forcing a bad shot? Or do you hang out around the basket, hoping the other defender will guard the player on offense, and position yourself to rebound a missed shot?
Play aggressively and you risk missing the rebound – but play back and you risk letting the offensive player score (in the event that the other defender does a poor job or, worst of all, hangs back for the rebound, too).
Right now, the Democratic nomination fight is a big game of 21. Hillary Clinton has the ball. Edwards is pressuring her aggressively. And Obama, for the most part, has looked content to wait for the rebound.
Consider the recent attacks on Clinton’s vote to designate the Iranian Revolutionary Guard a “terrorist organization.” Edwards was the first to criticize the vote, in a Sept. 26 debate in New Hampshire, as a first step toward possible war with Iran. He continued to pound the New York senator over the vote for the next month. Only later did Obama – who missed the Senate vote in question - jump in with criticism of his own.
Edwards was also the first to slam Clinton over taking presidential campaign checks from lobbyists (he and Obama do not) and for her sincerity, following a New York Times article that suggested her Iran vote was a move from “primary mode” to “general election” mode.
"Instead of moving from primary mode to general election mode, why don't we have tell-the-truth mode, all the time, and not say something different one time than we say another time?" Edwards said earlier this month. Obama’s Clinton criticisms have grown sharper lately, but not as sharp as that.
Obama and Edwards will face tough choices soon. It’s clear they haven’t stopped Clinton from scoring so far; recent polls show her padding her lead nationally and in key early states. Either Edwards or Obama – and maybe both – will likely need to crank up the defensive pressure to have any hope of denying her a slam-dunk nomination. That probably means negative television ads.
Problem is, the guy best positioned to reap the benefits of an attack-ad campaign is the one who stays out of it. In multiple-candidate races, voters often punish both the perpetrators and the victims of mudslinging.
In 21, two players can run each other all over the court, tire, and watch the third pluck a rebound, score at will, and win in the end. Of course, sometimes the aggressive defender steals the ball and pulls off the upset.
This is the Obama-Edwards conundrum as Iowa and New Hampshire approach. Who goes for the steal? Who plays for the rebound?
And, perhaps most daunting for both their campaigns, what happens if Clinton keeps sinking jumpers, no matter who guards her?
• 
• 
• 
Comments
"what happens if Clinton keeps sinking jumpers, no matter who guards her?"
Then in November 2008 she'll be elected president.
Posted by: BC | October 24, 2007 11:54 AM
Are you at all serious?
We're having an election to determine the leader of the free world, and you spend an entire article analogizing it to a game of 21? Why not just work for espn.com?
Why not talk about the differences between Edwards, Hillay and Obama? Ya know, like the fact that Hillary is the only one that takes lobbyist money; or that Edwards is the only one who takes public financing?
Posted by: Will Smith | October 24, 2007 12:34 PM
I am still at a loss as to why we are even considering continuing a family's legacy in the land of the free.
Bush... bush. Clinton... clinton. WTF?
Posted by: Russell T Clayton | October 24, 2007 1:12 PM
Don't you guys in the MSM know how to do ANYTHING but "report" on Horserace type strategy? Whatever happened to serving the public interest as contained in the Constitution. The Press is the only industry that is mentioned with a "hands off" in the Constitution. You guys are pathetic. Why don't you report on the differences (honestly) between all of the candidates on The FCC's desire to give the 6 corporate media superpowers even MORE media consolidation? Or how about some pertinant quotes from all of the candidates on the pressing issues of the day?
A Democracy cannot survive if the electorate is not informed through the dilligance of a free press.
I have one question for you.....
How does any of this "21" BS give me information on who is the best candidate for me to vote for, other than the fact, that we should engage in "group think" when voting?
We the People do not give a crap what a "national poll" of 426 uninformed people think about who should be President. It is criminal the way you guys use the power of the Mass Media to drive an uninformed public to make uninformed decisions through these ridiculous poll numbers. How is a poll supposed to change or be believed if all you report is who is "in the lead" without reporting any of their positions?
You guys are freaking criminals for what you have done to this country through misinformation, inuendo, and stenography from your favorite sources (like Drudge), and passing it off as reporting.
And now you want even MORE consolidation for the Rupert Murdochs and Clear Channels of the world through their surrogate Kevin Martin at the FCC?
I hope and pray that somehow a mirical takes place and the People get a president that smashes the institutions and policies that allow the Corporate Press to userp or Democracy.
Posted by: Steve McGuire | October 24, 2007 2:25 PM
I actually thought that the '21' analogy to the democratic presidential primaries was quite clever and fitting, but there's also another dilema that remains unknown:
What if the ACTUAL scores of the '21' game were 14, 13, and 11, but the player with 14 had, in their control, the guy controlling the scoreboard so that the PERCEIVED scores were 19, 10, and 8?
Ninety percent of the media are controlled by four corporations/entities: Murdoch, Viacom, CBS, and some German company. If its been proven that FOX News is just the mouthpiece for the Republican Party (research "linking memos to Fox"), why would it be so hard to believe that the Clinton Machine had the corporate media under their control?
This argument is further affirmed by that fact that the Republicans/Fox News WANT Hillary as the Democratic nominee to excite their base.
Jon Stewart's the most UNBIASED "news reporter" on TV (in addition to PBS), and I only watch FOX, CNN, MSNBC when I want a good laugh (the irony is too much).
P.S.: I wouldn't be surprised if Obama and Romney won their nominations. Don't believe everything the corporate media spews at you.
Posted by: Chandler | October 24, 2007 2:37 PM
Yeah, I remember how president Howard Dean was coronaded in the fall of 2003, just prior to the Iowa primaries.
The mass media is so gullible. Never learn.
Posted by: John | October 24, 2007 4:44 PM
The polls are used by the MSM to misinform the public and sway an election.
Anyone with any knowledge knows that the polls do not account for newly registered voters. IT ONLY counts for the numbers who voted in the designated party in the last election.
So there are millions of new voters, voters who are switching parties, voters that have categorized themselves as independent in previous elections and voters who will vote for the first time next year who are not accounted for.
The raggedy poll counts the MSM use for their horsetrading stories reporting HSC as a winner should not be taken to heart, or short term memory.
This poll report about Hillary winning the nomination is a crock of dog-dung, and hopefully the public realizes this.
Although much of the public is comatose, brain dead, on drugs and/or drunk; maybe, just maybe those folk who are a part of the unreported are aware of this. Hopefully those voters are maintaining some hope in this horrible, horrible fiasco of a so-called democratic election in a democracy which has yet to take place.
Posted by: scheduler | October 24, 2007 6:14 PM
I just can't picture the Breck Girl playing 21 on the playground: That's a foul - I'll sue. Worse yet, my wife will demean you.
Posted by: Terry | October 24, 2007 8:21 PM