If we accept, as Kos has pointed out in his diary, that Ned Lamont's victory is the result of an issue-driven, reactionary, tough campaign against politics-as-usual, and if that motivation was enough to take down a force like Lieberman, who ran for V.P. in 2000, then it seems the Democratic party would be wise to embrace a national candidate whose appeal is outside the beltway and whose politics, while moderate, are anti-Bush and anti-administration. While he may not be the most experienced candidate in the field, it seems to me that his background, his southern twang, his boyish good looks, his intelligence and acumen, and his politics lend John Edwards a great chance at dethroning the Republican machine in 2008. Let this be an official call for the candidacy of Edwards, with Hillary Clinton thrown a bone as running mate, in the 2008 election.
In order to consider why Edwards is highly electable, we must first push Hillary out of the way. If Lamont's victory in Connecticut proves nothing else, it proves that at least a good portion of the population has had it with politicians who kowtow to conservative opinion and play the polls (though one could make the argument Lamont was playing the polls, considering 2/3 of the country wants out of Iraq). Hillary Clinton's record of being for the war and not being for it, but partly against it, suggests she will be vulnerable to attack ads and other such criticism in the 2008 election. Relying on McCain or Frist to be nominated--one has bent his politics to serve his funding agenda, the other has not bent his politics, excepting stem cell research, despite their unpopularity--is a poor strategy. That is, relying on an unelectable to be nominated and throwing out for competition the Dem's own unelectable (Hillary), seems to be a nice way of Cheneying oneself in the face. So out with Hillary, and we can talk more about that later.
Edwards comes from a middle class background. In that respect alone, he is contrasted with the current president. His service record seems like it may be a weakness, especially if he is running against McCain, but that weakness can be made up for in other areas, and directly perhaps by using it to point out he would be less likely to send troops to war, having not suffered through combat himself. What is more important is Edwards' positives. He not only comes from a middle class background, but a southern, middle class background, making him electable in some red states in which Hillary doesn't have a prayer. In fact, many of his qualities, aside from his having been a senator rather than governor, remind me of Bill Clinton, a candidate who, lest we forget, came out of nowhere to defeat a sitting George Bush Sr., a better president than his son, who this election will be about--let's remember that. This country is nothing if not, by now, anti-Bush (so anti-Bush the Repub's best hope for victory in '08, Jeb Bush, an intelligent, competent, if politically contrary candidate who locks up the ridiculously important state of Florida, can't run).
Edwards is photogenic, even more so than Clinton. His looks remind me more of Kennedy than anyone else. He has a kind of sweetness and genuineness in his eyes that suggests he really believes what he's saying--and I think he does. He doesn't quite get as close to perfect as Obama in that regard, but close enough. Women will vote for Edwards, which assuages a concern of not running Hillary (the female vote is exceptionally important, but Edwards, like a Kennedy, may capture more of it than Hillary. Imagine Edwards up there in debate against McCain or Frist. Just imagine what that would look like).
Edwards is bright. He proved that during his debate with Cheney, who despite his darkness (the man just strikes a person as lacking some human essentials), is a rather brilliant orator and politician. Part of the reason Edwards held his own, to be certain, was his good looks, but part of it was his passion, his rhetoric, which contrasted with Cheney's slow thoughtful(less)ness to bring the debate to just about a draw. And that was two years ago. Since then Edwards has supported his wife through cancer and has shown he is disciplined enough to hang back and see what happens--that is, he has shown the patience of an older, wiser man.
Finally, he's moderate. In contrast to this administration, he seems likely to take the stance I've been pushing in comments up here and when talking with my students and those I come into contact with: he will consider what is sound public policy. As un-sexy as that line may seem, America is starving for sound public policy. Her rants against the establishment are mostly rants against poor policy resulting from partisan politics. She just doesn't quite know it yet. We can push that line and take back the White House in 2008. Say it with me and giggle at how... moderate it is: sound public policy.
Edwards has a great chance. If nothing else, he would make a final attorney general toward a candidacy in 2016 (assuming Dems take the White House in 08 and run the sitting President in 2012). But I think it may be time to pull this one off, to bring in someone from the outside, someone whose politics cannot be labeled partisan or wishy-washy, someone whose background, charm, and intelligence make him a formidable adversary to a McCain or a Frist--or any other sitting politician immersed in the mess that Washington has become.