July 06, 2004
Edwards: Pluses & Minuses
Presidential candidate John Kerry’s choice of 1st time Senator John Edwards as his V.P. candidate and running mate will likely not harm Kerry’s campaign any more than any other choice Kerry could have made. Edwards brings many pluses and two important minuses for those whose decision may be swayed by Kerry’s choice, one way or another, by his VP choice.
Edwards has a public charisma and is eloquent in his public speaking. Edwards has an astute mind capable of debate and via his legal training as a trial lawyer, has the capacity to decipher basic, central issues amidst a flurry of chatter, spin, and political hyperbole. His recognition of the dual caste society of have's and have-not's under Bush's slow and tepid economic recovery struck a chord with workers around the country and especially in the South where manufacturing jobs have not recovered. This recognition is an example of Edward's ability to sift to the underlying basic issue which voters are concerned about.
Edwards also has a southern accent having been raised in the South, and comes from working class beginnings. According to some pundits, this will serve as a plus for Kerry's campaign in November and in some key battle states like Florida. Kerry's professional career has focused on assisting and serving the common working person and this will resonate with workers as well. There are considerable pluses which will likely add some measure of votes to the Kerry campaign in November.
In the minus column Edwards has little experience in federal Government serving now only his first term in the Senate. He has no foreign policy experience to speak of and has held no executive positions of note in his life. Should he ascend to the Presidency through the unfortunate incapacitation of President Kerry, his role as Commander in Chief will be scrutinized, criticized, and possibly even undermined by his lack of experience in these areas.
More damaging for the Kerry campaign however, is Edwards status as a wealthy investor who stands to gain considerably if a host of major corporations and businesses profit during his tenure. For third party and independent voters, Edwards adds nothing to the credibility of the Kerry campaign to perform the duties of office with the welfare of the nation and the majority of its people uncompromised by personal and special corporate interests.
The GOP is wasting no time going on the attack, if one can call it that, with a 60 second ad which portrays Edwards as Kerry's second choice. I personally see the potential damage in this. Kerry's willingness to consider McCain and attempt to bridge the divisiveness which is diminishing Congress's ability to function and splitting Americans across the country into heated political warfare portraying Americans as enemies of Americans was a shrewd and noble move on Kerry's part, I thought. McCain having rejected the idea out of hand simply diminished my respect for McCain, while knocking my respect for Kerry up a notch. Nonetheless, this ad portends the GOP's determination to make Kerry's VP choice a liability to Kerry's campaing in any way it possibly can.
Much discussion is taking place on TV political shows about the increased role of the vice president, some even characterizing the role as having become a co-presidency under the Bush/Cheney administration. There is merit to the argument, but, whether the role of co-presidency by Dick Cheney was one of necessity is not in doubt. With a President such as George W. Bush, plain spoken simple guy that he portrays himself to be, a strong leader such as Dick Cheney as co-president was made necessary by the President's deficiencies, in this writer's opinion. Regretfully, Dick Cheney's agenda as co-president was not bound by the oath of presidential office and thus Cheney has in many ways pursued agendas such as Haliburton's no competitive bid appointment to Iraq war support, in place of obligations to hold American tax payer costs to an appropriate minimum.
It remains to be seen if Sen. John Edwards will serve as co-president under Kerry, but, it would appear from Kerry's experience and career in government that the need to depend upon his vice president will not be as necessary as President Bush's has been. In all, it appears to this writer that Kerry's choice will add more than it detracts from his campaign. But, the proof will be in the November 2 returns.
Posted by David R. Remer at July 6, 2004 04:56 PMEdwards always was my favorite of this year’s Democratic pack, and I’ve heard several other conservatives say the same. I’d even say I feel slightly better about Kerry for his having picked Edwards.
Of everybody running for president this year, only Edwards and Bush have been outwardly civil and free of obvious rancor when speaking of their political opponents, which is a good thing.
Edwards remains likeable to me even though I’m afraid he’s dumb as rock—a true Democratic Dan Quayle (though Quayle was probably several watts brigher than Edwards, Quayle was a Republican and didn’t the same pass from the media). As late as June of last year, the man didn’t even know who Yitzhak Rabin was.
Or how about the time, as a guest speaker at the California Democratic Convention when he said, “Like many of you, I grew up in a small town in North Carolina.” Seems like he saw a few too many episodes of the Beverly Hillbillies.
I do love his whole whole “two Americas” routine. The man shows a true gift, I have to admit, when he can get otherwise educated audiences in tears with stories of little girls crying themselves to sleep every night because they have to go to bed without any supper. He really does seem to think it’s the Great Depression and poor Oakies are wandering around America in Model-Ts looking for work.
“Papa got laid off the mill, lit’l Maibelle, because of big bad Dick Cheney, so here’s your cup of gruel. But mama’s gonna knit you a nice pair of socks to keep out the cold this winter, so don’t you cry. John Edwards is on the way to put a chicken in every pot!”
> though Quayle was probably several watts
> brigher than Edwards
LOL! You will soon learn just how laughably wrong you are about that. The story about Rabin is entirely apocryphal and is at best mere third-generation whisper-down-the-lane hearsay.
-Cf
Posted by: Christopher Fahey at July 6, 2004 07:33 PMThank you Martin, WatchBlog can use some political humor now and then.
Posted by: David R. Remer at July 6, 2004 08:35 PMAs someone desparately wishing for Bush to lose in November, Kerry’s Veep announcement provided tremendous relief to me this morning. I was coming to dread the possibility that he might make the disastrous choice of picking Gephardt for the job. Whoever thought Gephardt was a safer choice for the position is totally missing what the Democrats need: huge turnout. Do you really think there are more than a handful of folks out there on the fence about whether to bother to vote or not, who are going to get out and vote because they get to vote for Gephardt? Edwards in huge contrast will motivate large numbers of folks who don’t especially like Bush, but are lukewarm about Kerry to get to the polls after all. Drab is Kerry’s drawback - adding more drab would have been a huge error. And don’t think this is about regional balance either (other than the important fact that Edwards is NOT from the Northeast); Edwards is a National choice, and his selection may benefit the Democrats in Congressional races across the country if his addition to the ticket gets more to the polls, as I believe it will.
Posted by: Walker Willingham at July 7, 2004 12:14 AMIt will be interesting to see how Edwards effects the race—the talking heads seem to be all over the map on this one. I find they guy very hard to dislike even though I think he think he’s a total bimbo (and I dislike Democratic politicians pretty easily). He has absolutely no successes to his name as a Senator—none. He got his seat by using a personal fortune to massively outspend his opponent, and has since spent more time doing his hair and preening in front of the cameras than working on legislation. He has no executive experience at all, no foreign policy experience whatsoever, and no tangible qualifications to assume the presidency (should the need arise) other than a pretty smile.
I think the key to his likeability is that he actually seems to BELIEVE all those platitudes he mouths (a cartoonish populist rhetoric that’s been stale since the thirties). Unlike Kerry or even Clinton, who seemed totally insincere, Edwards really does look at the American economic and political landscape and see a Steinbeck novel!
This doesn’t say much for his brains, but it does show why he was a successful trial lawyer. He’s the kind of guy who could get somebody off for murdering their parents by generating sympathy—“Ladies and Gentlemen of the jury, do you really want to convict this poor orphan?”
He’s outslicks Willy—the best snake-oil salesman in the political realm.
Let me just start by saying, I don’t think that Kerry should ever go on stage without Edwards there from now on! He should have to be handcuffed to John Kerry so we don’t have to listen to Kerry’s monotonal tripe without something contrastive.
Kerry has a lousy stage presense, his wife is even worse. Edwards sunny-ness is a pure boon to this campaign!
But Kerry is still awkward and the verbal agility of John Edwards, as well as his optomistic influence, will hopefully bring out something less droll. Kerry has a buzzword and a canned phrase for everything. Edwards does too but his strangely are better like well, a trial lawyer bringing forth a case.
Hey Republicans!!!!! Now we are ready! I think we got us a winning pair!(eh)Daw-gonnit!
I also think that the DNC should get Teresa Heinz Kerry in a knitting club and off the campaign trail.
Did anyone else see the amount of gum-chewing in Pittsburg this morning? Now that’s a city that likes it’s gum. Almost every person behind Kerry this morning had gum. Maybe the RNC should harp on the fact that the liberals were handing out gum to get people to vote for them.
Dang liberal dirty tricks! Hey Ed Gillespie see that! They all have gum!!!! Call Karl Rove quick!
Oh, MARTIN: John Edwards is a trial lawyer hence finished lawschool which is no easy feat. Dumb as a rock, hardly. And that in itself gives him more credentials than Bush who ran on family name-recognition only. Oh I’m sorry did I “misunderestimate” him.
Posted by: SKBD at July 7, 2004 12:53 AMThe number of dolts with law degrees is staggering.
I’ll admit that getting one does mean that you’re not a complete imbecile (probably), but it hardly means that you’re ready (without further significant accomplishments) to hold high national office. Johnny Cochran anyone?
It’s true that Bush first ran on name recognition (like several Kennedys and any number of others, ie. John Glenn and the governor of California), but the difference between him and Edwards is that Bush ammassed a considerable record as a two term governor of a major state before throwing his hat in the ring.
Edwards is a one-term Senator and an especially unaccomplished one who would not even be able to retain his seat. He’s a likeable little puppy—no one disputes it. But many a likeable little puppy wanders onto the highway. I suspect that Edwards has done just that, and the Mack truck barrelling towards him is an American elecorate who wants more than a pin-up boy in these troubled times.
Posted by: Martin at July 7, 2004 01:14 AMDR wrote
He has no foreign policy experience to speak of
I don’t think that is quite accurate. He serves on the Senate Intelligence Committee.
Martin wrote
no tangible qualifications to assume the presidency
Actually, Martin his biography almost mirrors George Bush’s. Both spent most of their life in the private sector, and have six years of political experience. The most striking difference is that John “The Dummy” Edwards was a very good lawyer, and W failed at just about everything.
As for the larger issue of his selection, I must admit that he was my “second choice”. On substance, I preferred Dick Gephardt. John Edwards was the most marketable.
Incidentally, Dick Cheney was W’s second choice. His first choice was Colin Powell.
Posted by: Woody Mena at July 7, 2004 09:08 AMOops, I meant both men had six years of political experience when they ran at the presidential level.
Posted by: Woody Mena at July 7, 2004 09:09 AMThank you Woody, I stand corrected. That certainly gives him more foreign policy experience than Bush had upon entering office.
Posted by: David R. Remer at July 7, 2004 09:49 AMI do agree that Edwards was the smartest VP pick for Kerry. He’s a vote-getter. Whether he’d actually be good for the country if shoved into the Presidential role due to a Kerry heart attack, that gives me a tad bit more pause, but then Bush gives me at least that amount of pause. Not to hysterical leftist screamo levels, glomming onto Farenheidt 9/11 fallacies, but still… pause.
I listen to right-wing talk radio regularly (to balance out my consumption of left-wing TV and print punditry), and have absorbed the right’s critiques of Edwards:
1. He’s a trial lawyer who dares to be slick at it. This is somewhat amusing because there are also Republican trial lawyers (or those who serve Republican clients, like Bush’s own personal counsel advising him in the Plame outing scandal). I’m not a big fan of such cases as when they get multi-million dollar awards for spilt coffee, but it seems the right’s attitude about that profession is nearly identical to inner city ghetto attitudes about the police: evil incarnate until they NEED them.
2. Lack of experience. The tu quoque response from the left is Bush’s own lack of experience. The response is somewhat neutralized, though, when you dredge up Kerry’s own statements in the primaries about how the White House shouldn’t be a job training program. But then, maybe Kerry voted against inexperience before he voted for it. Or something.
3. Highly liberal. Well, what would you expect? The base of the Democratic party is quite a bit to the left of even Michael Moore, and they need to rally their base before they start to court the Swing Center. And the Swing Center might swing away from Bush without any effort on their part because of the war fiasco. The smart DNC jockeying this time around has been focused on keeping the Nader factor off the radar.
Posted by: Ciggy at July 7, 2004 11:47 AMIt’s clear to me that Kerry and his campaign wanted the ooomph that Edwards brings. Kerry is rather bland and boring to say the least, and Edwards is young, telegenic, and glib, as well as being from a Southern state.
Kerry chose image over substance to some degree. Now, I dont mean that as a slight to Edwards, but based on experience level, Gephardt would have been the choice. Problem is….Gephardt aint exactly exciting, now is he? A Kerry/Gephardt ticket would be a great antidote to caffiene, in my opinion.
So, I think Kerry picked the right guy for his needs. There is plenty to hit Edwards on, and the biggest thing will be how Edwards handles the experience issue, especially in comparison to someone like Cheney. Edwards is a smooth talker (what trial attorney isnt??), and will need to use his abilities to minimize the differences.
Expect the Repubs to focus on this and give Edwards credit for his “fast talking” abilities, in order to give Cheney some cover and set up the idea that while Cheney is a bit dull and boring, he has the “gravitas” and experience that Edwards lacks.
Should be an interesting run, eh?
Posted by: joebagodonuts at July 7, 2004 11:59 AMPerhaps the most dangerous parallel to be drawn is to cast Cheney as the Republican Lloyd Bentsen and Edwards as the Democratic Dan Quayle. (One anecdote to that end has already been dredged up—when Edwards didn’t know who Yitzhak Rabin was when people told him of his funeral.) Even if that rhetoric doesn’t quite connect in talk radio, debate strategy could wiggle into that paradigm.
“You, sir, are NO Bill Clinton!” (But then, that could backfire too.)
David,
I guess I’ll address the last of your points not already addressed.
I was a bit miffed, but impressed, as the Republicans tried to use the McCain/’First Choice’ ad as a storm cloud over our parade celebration. The GOP need not make an ad buy on Fox, I might add, they even played the spot twice for Sen. Libby Dole.
But, I was struck as to why the spot did not contain any newly produced footage, maybe featuring the Arizona Senator speaking directly to the camera and viewer. A good portion of those Independents and Undecided voters out there, are keenly aware of McCain’s disdain for Bush. And, only a direct and convincing performance by McCain in a Bush ad, could ever sway those voters.
I was also irked that the Dems or the Kerry campaign did not see this coming. I was wrong:
Thank you Martin, WatchBlog can use some political humor now and then.
Now, what a minute? I thought I was the self-designated WatchBlog smart ass/class clown, David??
Posted by: Bert M. Caradine at July 7, 2004 07:37 PMSo far it looks it was a plus. The few polls that have come out show Bush/Cheney losing to Hitler/Goebbels by 5-11%. (The 11% being without Nader.)
