I still believe Kerry s unstoppable, but, let's assum he isn't - is Edwards the answer?
I'm no enthusiast for John Kerry. In fact, I've gone from Clark to Dean, and apparently will become a free agent again tomorrow. I've never believed Kerry to be particularly electable, and in fact, believe that he throws away the issue that think will be the most powerful for us in the fall, the Iraq Debacle. (Particularly because of the coming reckoning on 6/30.)
Edwards is a far more appealing politician. He has charisma, political eloquence and clearly a very smart and able person.
Should I move to Edwards? My answer right now is no. In extended copy I explain why. Please feel free to tell me why he is.
That said, is Edwards the answer for the Dems?
While Edwards is certainly a more able politician than Kerry, will that be the dominating factor in this GE? I believe not.
While it is clear that Bush is losing the referendum on whether his job should be put in play, the first part of a GE with an incumbent President, I have always maintained that the second part of such an election is 'is the alternative acceptable?'
What will make the Dem nominee 'acceptable' to a majority of the electorate? I believe that the role of Commander in Chief remains a bar that must be met. Kerry may be able to pass it, depending on how the "weak on defense" line, votes on weapons systems, et al. plays out.
How about Edwards? His lack of experience is a major concern for me. Bush as wartime President vs. the novice trial lawyer will be the theme.
So is Edwards the answer? To me, no.