Why Bother with Edwards?

The race is over.  Kerry's ready for them to bring it on.

So why bother with John Edwards?

Sure he's the best campaigner in the field, perhaps able to finally convince the American electorate that a populist economics is in line with their interests for the first time in 40 years.

But even more importantly, Edwards is also a Southerner.  And beyond arguments over whether the Dems can win the White House without any Southern states, there are 5 Democratic Senate seats up for grabs this year.  Lose 'em all, and we're looking at a filibuster-proof Republican Senate.  Lose 'em all and the Presidency, and we're looking at permanent one-party rule.

From this week's New Yorker:

http://www.newyorker.com/printable/?fact/040209fa_fact

"(Kerry) is plainly tougher than Gore, more sure of himself, less wooden. But outside of V.F.W. lodges he is hard-pressed to pass himself off as a man of the people, particularly in the South, a region whose support--or lack of it--has long been decisive for Democratic Presidential hopefuls. "On that level, Kerry's the same as Dean, a typical Democratic implosion device: Northeast liberals, they'll just get slaughtered," a former Clinton Administration adviser fretted. He believes that the Party's hope lies with Wesley Clark or John Edwards, the two Southerners in the race."

---

"If a Democrat does win the White House in November, he may not be able to do everything he's now telling voters he means to do. After all, a Democratic strategist said to me over drinks recently, "There are five--five!--Democratic seats in the Senate up for grabs in the South. We could lose four. I think we will. And the Republicans could have a majority for thirty to forty years. Do you understand what's at stake? George Bush with no concern about reëlection, a filibuster-proof Senate, a G.O.P. able to raise a billion dollars a year, packed courts, government shrunk to whatever level they like, gerrymandered districts." A colleague of the strategist, who was a bit soberer, agreed. "This has the potential to be one of those periods in the country's history when a single party dominates for a very long time--unless we nominate the right guy."

---

If this scares you as much as it scares me...

http://www.JohnEdwards2004.com/contribute

•  That's a possibility.

  Or you can support the other guy the former Clinton Adminstration advisor recommended: Wes Clark.

  It's really a toss-up at this point. Both men are broke. Both men are competing for the same slice of pie. Neither side wants to blink yet.

  You gonna go for the man with three decades of foreign policy and executive experience, or the man with the brilliant smile and crushed-out press corps?

  It won't floor me if you can't decide.

  by Maxwell on Thu Feb 05, 2004 at 06:18:47 AM PDT

  •  Re: That's a possibility.

    "You gonna go for the man with three decades of foreign policy and executive experience, or the man with the brilliant smile and crushed-out press corps?"

    Clark's dead.  Edwards is the comer.

    The brilliant smile is nice, but the silver tongue is what brings home the bacon.

    by Petey on Thu Feb 05, 2004 at 06:27:27 AM PDT

    •  Where's Edwards national campaign?

      I know how you feel about Clark, Petey. But doesn't make it so.

      Show me the money.

      by Maxwell on Thu Feb 05, 2004 at 06:30:19 AM PDT

    •  Where's Edwards national campaign?

      I know how you feel about Clark, Petey. But doesn't make it so.

      Show me the money.

      by Maxwell on Thu Feb 05, 2004 at 06:32:29 AM PDT

      •  Double trouble.

        Sorry for the redundant post. My computer is loading the page funny. I'm gonna have to shut down now.

        by Maxwell on Thu Feb 05, 2004 at 06:38:05 AM PDT

      •  Re: Where's Edwards national campaign?

        "Show me the money."

        Clark is tapped out.  The staff got their pay stopped yesterday.

        http://www.JohnEdwards2004.com/contribute

        by Petey on Thu Feb 05, 2004 at 06:39:08 AM PDT

        •  Peddle Crazy Elsewhere

          Nice spin on the story.  Self-serving bullshit, of course, but it's what one comes to expect from certain people.

          Clark raised over $250,000 in less than 8 hours online yesterday - which, I might add, was nearly double what Mr. Frontrunner raised.   Dean is the only other candidate who can raise that kind of money online.   Sorry.

          BTW - while you are contributing to the son-of-a-millworker, you might want to inform him that he did not 'tie' for first in Oklahoma.  He came in second.  Seems your candidate's 'reality' is tapped out.
          

          by Cory on Thu Feb 05, 2004 at 09:28:02 AM PDT

    •  What Petey said

       The brilliant smile is nice, but the silver tongue is what brings home the bacon.  

      Silver tongue action is the key to the whole John Edwards fantasy.  (I won't write another sentence like that, I promise.)  It's not just his powerful speeches to crowds.  The real thrill will come when he goes up against Bush in a debate.  Edwards made his money convincing the ordinary folks on Carolina juries to vote his way.  To do that, he had to present complicated arguments in simple language while seeming like a nice guy.  This is exactly what you do in a presidential debate.  

      I don't think Clark would fare as well in a debate with Bush.  I haven't been impressed with the way he answers questions.  You can't treat questions as if you're being given a test and you have to put down the correct answer.  You have to treat them as opportunities to display aspects of yourself and your policies, and otherwise do things, that make people want to vote for you.  Consider Clark's "nopes" on abortion in the Manchester Union Leader, and his handling of the Bush-deserter thing.  There's so much more he could have said if he understood what question-answering was about.  The larger point is that Clark doesn't really understand what one does to win an election.  He's a really bright guy, and I agree with him on lots of stuff (David Hume is his favorite philosopher!  yeahh!!) but he doesn't have the political skills that Edwards has.  

      by Neil Sinhababu on Thu Feb 05, 2004 at 08:16:01 AM PDT

      •  Extremely well said

        Even that part about the fantasy... er...

        Clark's done a hell of a job all things considered, but as you pointed out, he's a novice in politics and it shows -- how could it not? The comments his son made about the whole process were very telling. And the AP reported Wednesday that Clark's wife had to talk him into staying in the race after his disappointing "victory" in Oklahoma, against the advice of some of his backers. That kind of performance just doesn't generate the funding. I think Clark's done after Feb. 10.

        by MeanBone on Thu Feb 05, 2004 at 08:45:18 AM PDT

      •  I knew there was something troubling about Clark

        As a Peripatetic, I find your revelation regarding Clark's affinity for Hume to be both encouraging and damning.  It's encouraging in the sense that I think it's healthy for a leader to be skeptical about causal relationships. On the other hand, while I admire Hume the rebel challenger of assumptions and authority, I don't care for Hume the nihilist.  Being informed by Hume is one thing--he opens your eyes--but there's much more to life than what we can see (and I say that as an agnostic).

        It would make for an interesting contrast though--a follower of Hume vs. the Fundie in Chief.  Not much chance of that happening though--Clark just doesn't have the political aptitude to overcome Kerry or Edwards.

        by Bragan on Thu Feb 05, 2004 at 12:00:39 PM PDT

•  RE:

  I see Edwards as the best candidate against Bush, but at this point I kind of see how this primary is going to play-out, Kerry will win and if he has any sense he will pick Edwards as VP.  And I think Edwards takes it because even if they ticket doesn't defeat Bush, Edwards will be poised well for '08.

  You are spot on about his economic populist rhetoric - it plays well with me.

  by jg on Thu Feb 05, 2004 at 06:53:49 AM PDT

•  Time to put a fork in the Southern crap...

  There are many good reasons to support someone besides Kerry, including Edwards, but this southernor crap just doesn't fly.  If the Southernors are so biggoted against people from other regions then we just need to forget about them.  If they're not that biggoted then we can win with a northernor.  

  Anyway, I don't give much credence for this whole "southern solution".  I think the explanation of southernors' electoral success can be summed up in one word: coincidence.  

  by Asak on Thu Feb 05, 2004 at 07:04:29 AM PDT

  •  Re: Time to put a fork...

    "I think the explanation of southernors' electoral success can be summed up in one word: coincidence."

    since in the last 60 years, only one man from north of Missouri has been elected President, (and he got his head blown off in the South for his troubles), it's a pretty big coincidence.

    but the reasoning in my piece above isn't even about the Presidential race.  it's about nominating a Southerner to help hold Southern Senate seats...

    by Petey on Thu Feb 05, 2004 at 07:16:12 AM PDT

    •  Edwards is who the GOP fear

      I've heard this from too many Repubs to believe it's a grand conspiracy on their part. They're tricky in a used-car-salesman way, but they have no poker face.

      God, they were salivating over Dean. Kerry's marginally better, but they're not scared of him by any means.

      Edwards keeps them up at night.

      by MeanBone on Thu Feb 05, 2004 at 07:29:56 AM PDT

      •  Re: Edwards is who the GOP fear

        "Edwards keeps them up at night."

        Exactly.  

        Kerry can eke out a Gore-like victory.  But Edwards could blow Bush right out of the water.  Add just a couple of Southern states to the mix, and it's no longer a contest.

        Not to mention that Edwards would be someone who could really make Bush look bad in the debates, as well as showing him up to be an unpopulist son of privilege...

        by Petey on Thu Feb 05, 2004 at 07:37:27 AM PDT

        •  I don't think they'd even let....

          ...Dubya debate Edwards. Not a real debate, anyway. They didn't just fall off a turnip truck, they know what would happen.

          Of course, when they're trailing in the polls, they might get desperate and ... oh, man, something like that should really be on pay per view. "Warning: The following debate is R-rated for bitchslapping and asswhipping"

          by MeanBone on Thu Feb 05, 2004 at 08:13:12 AM PDT

    •  South?

      I know its technically not north of Missouri, but I don't think the 2 presidents from SoCal count as southerners. Not even sure Bush 1 can really count as a southerner. So if the Republicans can win in the south with 2 candidates from La La Land, certainly the south would vote for a northern Dem with the right message.

      by 54cermak on Thu Feb 05, 2004 at 11:51:56 AM PDT

  •  southern crap

    I'm tired of this - they're bigoted in the south and won't vote for a nothern candidate, so let's write them off.  Ok, you vote for a northern candidate and lose.  I will vote for a southerner and win.  The point is not why southerners win, but that they do. I could care less why.  So what if voters identify better with a southerner - the point is to get rid of Bush.  

    by dam on Thu Feb 05, 2004 at 01:27:30 PM PDT

•  Put up or shut up

  It there's any lesson all of us need to draw from this election season it's:  let's look at the votes.    No one, particularly anyone who opposed Dean's inevitability strategy, should be touting an abstraction such as "the best campaigner" as a reason to do anything.  If Edwards is such a messianic, silver tongued mesmerizer, he should have no trouble blowing out TN and VA. Then we'll talk about if he is a better bet than Kerry, the New Yorker not withstanding.  

  by paperbag on Thu Feb 05, 2004 at 07:27:49 AM PDT

  •  It will be a contest between...

    ...Edwards' campaigning ability and charisma versus Kerry's momentum factor and war-hero status.

    I'll take Edwards, by 7 in TN and 5 in VA.

    by MeanBone on Thu Feb 05, 2004 at 08:06:38 AM PDT

    •  The victory margins would be...

      ...larger, but Edwards only has a week to reverse the momentum. If he had more time, it would be double figures like in S.C.

      by MeanBone on Thu Feb 05, 2004 at 08:17:32 AM PDT

  •  Here's the difference

    The fact that Kerry's ahead isn't because Kerry's the better campaigner.  It's because he had all the endorsements from the big Democrats, at least those that didn't go to Dean -- Christie Vilsack in IA, Shaheen in NH, Clyburn in SC, etc.  These made him the big anti-Dean candidate in IA and NH.  Since he was 1st from IA, the media spun NH as Dean vs. Kerry.  (A story with two is better than a story with 3 or 4!)  Then the Time magazine cover story "What kind of President would John Kerry be?" comes out.  So Kerry gets loads of free press, while Edwards gets little outside the blogosphere.  The Kerry story has been about his decades as a Senator winning him endorsements from old colleagues, his endorsements generating a small advantage, and the media spinning this into a huge advantage.  

    Edwards, on the other hand, wins by actually getting people excited about his views.  He doesn't have the endorsements -- he just has the best message and the best skill as a campaigner.  These count in the general election.  Endorsements really don't.  

    by Neil Sinhababu on Thu Feb 05, 2004 at 08:29:24 AM PDT

    •  Well

      I don't necessarily agree with your analysis, which is a significant oversimplification, but it just reinforces my point.  Since Tuesday, the media spin (which you see as being key) has been that Edwards is the only man left standing against Kerry (although this is unfair to Clark).  So, VA and TN should be a fair test of whether Edwards is for real.

      by paperbag on Thu Feb 05, 2004 at 08:42:13 AM PDT

      •  Agreed

        Edwards has to flat-out win TN and VA. Of course, so does Clark, but I just don't see it.

        by MeanBone on Thu Feb 05, 2004 at 08:47:26 AM PDT

        •  TN

          is a must, VA is optional as it's not as truly southern--would not be suprising to see it go to Kerry.  But he will be hard-pressed to explain a TN loss, as it borders NC.

          by paperbag on Thu Feb 05, 2004 at 08:56:53 AM PDT

          •  VA borders NC as well

            I think to get sufficient Mo, Edwards needs them both. Just my opinion.

            by MeanBone on Thu Feb 05, 2004 at 09:25:06 AM PDT

            •  asdf

              Depends on if NC Chapel Hill won or not.  If they did, lower Edwards support.

              by TealVeal on Thu Feb 05, 2004 at 11:14:29 AM PDT

•  This article

  certainly serves up a lot of conventional wisdom.

  I have a question though-why isn't Edwards doing better in the primaries? I happen to think that it is "southerner fatigue".

  by Ga6thDem on Thu Feb 05, 2004 at 07:47:12 AM PDT

  •  Re: This article

    I have a question though-why isn't Edwards doing better in the primaries? I happen to think that it is "southerner fatigue".

    i remain convinced the problem is multiple Southerner personality.

    if Clark goes away...

    by Petey on Thu Feb 05, 2004 at 07:55:36 AM PDT

    •  I don't know

      whether Clark is drawing from Edwards or Kerry. I'm sure it's some of both. I wouldn't bet that all the Clark voters go to Edwards if he drops out. Some of these people are NS voters and would probably go to Kerry.

      by Ga6thDem on Thu Feb 05, 2004 at 08:07:57 AM PDT

      •  I think Clark is drawing some...

        ...of his support from the same veterans who are going for Kerry.

        Fortunately, there are also veterans who are looking for a really inspiring winner.

        by MeanBone on Thu Feb 05, 2004 at 08:21:35 AM PDT

    •  Edwards and Clark

      I agree, Edwards and Clark are sucking up each other's oxygen. I'm an Edwards supporter myself, but you can't fault Clark for staying in.  

      Clark did just win a primary (well barely, but that's neither her nor there), its the guy's one shot at the White House, why not play every hand you're dealt?

      In contrast, I am confident that John Edwards will some day be president. If he doesn't get it this year, time's on his side.  Heck in 2020, he'll still be younger than Reagan when he was first elected.  

      by Beowulf on Thu Feb 05, 2004 at 11:33:04 AM PDT

•  A bit of a tangent, here...

  ...but just curious what people think about this: Could the gay marriage ruling by the Massachusetts Supreme Court hurt Sen. Kerry, D-Mass.? Anybody have an opinion?

  This controversial (at least in many parts of the country) issue has gained prominence in the news since the court on Wednesday insisted that the State Legislature allow gay MARRIAGE and nothing less.

  Will this affect primary voters, even subconsciously? Should Edwards try to make it an issue in any way? Is this an opportunity for him to seek to distinguish himself as more electable in some parts of the country by criticizing the court or the ruling? If so, how can he do it without coming off negatively? (He's a lawyer, and a damn good one, but...)

  I think despite the fact that Kerry has said he's for civil unions, not gay marriage (more or less the same position that Edwards holds) the fact that this is happening in Kerry's home state might remind some undecideds that he represents a part of the country considered (at least by some) to be out of touch with much of the nation on certain issues.

  Edwards, by taking a stand against the ruling (while still advocating civil unions), might connect with voters trying to decide who can really win in a general election.

  In a general election, candidates "move to the middle," because they have to in order to win. And I'm thinking that on this issue it might be wise for Edwards to start making that move now and try to paint himself as more electable than Kerry (which according to exit polls is a huge issue among primary voters).

  Clinton was a master at this type of thing, finding that narrow piece of real estate right in the middle of an issue. The "Don't ask, don't tell" policy, for example. Nobody on either side was entirely happy, but they could all live with it. At least for awhile.

  Disclaimer: Personally, I'm for everyone having equal rights under the law, so I'd say any two adults should be able to enter a legal contract that includes the benefits normally associated with marriage. I think that legally, this should be called a "civil union" for everyone, and then if certain churches want to apply the term "marriage," whether to straight couples or gay couples or both, they can do so as they please; the First Amendment guarantees the freedom to practice religion without interference from the government.

  by MeanBone on Thu Feb 05, 2004 at 09:20:36 AM PDT

  •  I think it will

    hurt some. It would hurt a heck of a lot more if Kerry was the Gov. I don't know if Edwards using this would really help him. It's a tough issue because it could be a problem in the GE but if Edwards pushes it too much in the primary, he could start to sound like Zell Miller with Dem primary voters. Actually, I think this issue is a lose/lose proposition.

    by Ga6thDem on Thu Feb 05, 2004 at 09:35:47 AM PDT