Is Edwards really a stronger candidate? Let's discuss.

[ludwigb]

In the wake of the Wisconsin primaries and the media-declared 2-man race, I think it's time to clean the slate and give each candidate an honest 2nd look. Let's start with Edwards--pros and cons.

I like Edwards on account of his background, his regional identity, and his looks (giving him the crucial ability to charm women and young people who are often swing voters). His wife and kids are really cute and they help back up his down-to-earth image. There seems to be no doubt that he is an extremely likable guy, but then this is coming from a liberal.

And I think his populism and likability may eventually play well with the older crowd. I see him as more likely to convince my religious-right Mom who always votes for the "nicer" candidate. For example Edwards' performance at a National Prayer Breakfast a few months back was really something special (I am trying to find a link!). Certainly, his background establishes a nice contrast to Bush (unlike Kerry in this regard). It's also beginning to become apparent that his youth, attitude, and message might make him less vulnerable to 3rd party candidacies (Nader and the Greens), which could still be decisive in states like Wisconsin and Minnesota.

I think his fair trade rhetoric MIGHT be a big help in the GE although I'm not completely convinced he's serious about running on it. He could get attacked hard on this but it would still help him in key Midwestern swing states to have that debate. It also helps distract attention from national security. Sure, Kerry could also use a protectionist VP to try to fire up the Midwest, but that doesn't change Kerry's positions and record. Indeed, I'd like to see whether Edwards' protectionsim was a key factor in attracting Wisconsin Independents and GOPers. In any case, this seems to be the major policy difference between Edwards and Kerry so it's worth discussing.

Because his IWR position is much more straightforward than Kerry's, Edwards may be harder to directly attack as equivocal on national security (although this has the dark side of alienating some leftists). I think his critiques of Bush's foreign policy (too disrespectful of the rest of the world, unserious about public relations, undisciplined) is somewhat incomplete but certainly right on and likely to resonate widely.

On the other hand, is he the right messenger on national security? Could his youth and inexperience be an excuse for people to vote against him? Certainly, he needs a strong VP, but that won't necessarily save him.

Another big question is--do nice guys finish last in politics? Or are Americans more inclined to vote for the nicer guy (that is, the guy they can have a beer with)? I would be interested in hearing more on this subject.

His main weaknesses? First of all he can come across as phony and people might associate this with Clintonism. Whether or not his likability can overcome this aura phoniness when he is exposed and in the limelight remains to be seen. Related is the trial lawyer charge, which is an instant turn-off for some. I hope that within the next 2 weeks we'll learn more about Edwards' history and thus have a better idea of how he would be attacked on this front. I don't expect Kerry to do this but rather leftist journalism (they savaged Clark, for example). Only much of leftist journalism seems to be getting behind Edwards now, so maybe they'll be reluctant to attack their guy.

As for the Right, it actually makes me uneasy that they haven't launched any full-scale attacks on Edwards--this suggests that either he really is clean and they are afraid to draw attention to him, or that they have something big that they're prepared to sit on, knowing it could practically insure a GOP victory should Edwards be nominated. Thus, I WANT TO KNOW RIGHT NOW how Edwards made those millions and whether he is vulnerable on that count. Are there any investigative articles out there on this count, perhaps left over from Edwards' Senate run?

[Widgetsfriend]

1. Good article on Edwards here...

http://www.laweekly.com/ink/printme.php?eid=51034

Since we need to be thinking about him and who he is. As a North Carolina native myself...I'd like for Edwards to be a really good guy who could turn the country around. The article helps to understand him.

[ludwigb]

7. Wow, thanks

A beautifully written article. Everyone should read it.

[flakey_foont]

11. in 1998

I voted for Edwards for Senate... I was quite impressed with him at the time, and remember being very inspired watching his victory speech on election night

[jpgpenn]

2. No he isn't!

BTW, with a subject heading like this, one reads it as if there is this boundless discussion on Edwards strength as a candidate. Funny, the majority of post I see highlight Edwards apparent lack of experience dealing with domestic or world affairs!

[atre]

3. Lauch Faircloth tried the "trial lawyer" angle in 1998

Considering how negative Lacuh went, if there was any dirt, it would have been brought up at that time.

Just like now, Edwards responded with a relatively positive campaign and succeeded in a largely conservative state.

[jpgpenn]

5. my friend , understand what happened in Wis.

A part of the votes Edwards recieved were from repukes that voted for him. It's an old ploy that both Dems and repukes use and have used in the past!

[uconnyc]

6. You just don't get it!

There are tons of Republicans that are sick and tired of Bush and looking for an alternative.

I live in a very affluent area of Tucson. Most my neighbors are Republicans and are sick and tired of Bush. They are looking for an alternative, but are scared to vote for the likes of Kerry and Dean because they think they are "Northeast liberals" that will be no better than Bush. Those people are attracted to someone like Edwards who they see as someone that is more of a centrist and shares their values.

[Darth_Kitten]

9. Your republican neighbours supported Bush, I say.....

who cares what they think? :) Dean a "northeast liberal"? They obviously haven't been paying attention to the facts.

They imagine themselves "centrists", though. Maybe they should start educating themselves, because we don't need any more ignorant voters!

[Timefortruth]

10. Every Republican I know who wants Bush to win "reelection"

fears Edwards the most. I don't know whether they are right or not that Edwards is more electable, but they had a list of preferred challengers and Edwards was always at the bottom.

These aren't pundits, my point goes to rand and file Republicans.

[PATRICK]

8. John Grisham style hero?

They also tried to get him on some disputable campaign financing early on and Edwards dealt with it so handily it vanished without a trace. Compare that to tarbaby Gore and the Buddhist temple "scandal".

As to the better candidate or the better president... With the understanding that whoever decisively wins the popular vote pretty much seals the deal no matter what the theoreticals are...

Edwards has the better campaign and electoral power wrapped in his person- if not the experienced and powerful traditional party powers.
He also takes us out of the somber clouds of perpetual war and perpetual rule by the wealthy class that is so enormously overrepresented in Washington. By virtue of his campaign skills I would think his bully pulpit communication to the nation and dealings with Congress would be more successful while more disarming- that despite his lack of Washington experience.

And as for experience and war service, W has so lowered the bar that
even the GOP would be grateful if at least some of that issue would just go away(which it won't). Edwards would get the party structurally back to its populist leanings its "New South" hopes.

He is the candidate whom I now have no apprehensions about and I was still positive about the others. Only, it appears that too often apprehensions have proved all too justified. The apprehensions that others hold about Edwards seem to carry less weight. If you put them on a scale of whether a candidate is a closet global imperialist for PNAC to whether the hair style is right I guess the apprehensions fall into the untested and unknown category.

Unfortunately for Edwards those critical attitudes are those of most of the public whom he can only begin to win by making strong direct contact- a nearly impossible feat for Super Tuesday. I am very happy in being right about his ability and campaign appeal, but especially that he will get a shot. The bigger the odds the better the proof that he IS the one and earned all on his own.

As well as he has done so far, he needs a miracle shift on top of his new "beginning". Stranger things have happened, especially if the people get the notion that they prefer someone other than the pronounced wisdom of our incompetent press and politically challenged party leadership.

[uconnyc]

4. Americans are fickle!

If the election were about experience, military background, etc. then Bush would have beaten Clinton, Dole would have beaten Clinton and Gore would have "beaten" Bush Jr.

Americans want a candidate that they can relate to, that inspires them, that "seems like he cares about me."

That is why I strongly feel Edwards has the best shot against Bush. If Americans are so rational, then Dems wouldn't have gotten beat as badly in 2000, 2002 and 2003.

In no way am I simply trying to say vote for JRE because people will like him better. I honestly feel he has a better vision for America and can inspire Americans like JFK (the real one) and Ronald Reagan. Also unlike Kerry he is very upfront and honest and does not try to play all sides of an issue. He also does not have Kerry's baggage, is not from Mass. and is not arrogant and aloof.

[Darth_Kitten]

12. it's rather patronizing to say that women will be

charmed by good looks. They do actually base their choices are more important criteria.

[DemDogs]

13. "As deep a passion as I remember

Here is another terrific article explaining "why Edwards" better than I could. I have put in excerpts only as required by the DU rules, but do yourself a favor and read the whole thing.

<http://www.prospect.org/webfeatures/2004/02/wade-a-02-09.html>

"I think Edwards' passion for the subject of equality of opportunity is at the core of why he's running, and that makes him possibly the first candidate since George McGovern who's running for president out of a passionate dedication to core democratic values (at least the first electable one.) Bill Clinton said he'd be with us till the last dog dies, but that was a statement more of empathy than a commitment to a set of beliefs. And I still don't really know what deep philosophical or political passions drove him, at the nonnegotiable core of his being. I don't know what bedrock political beliefs drive John Kerry, either. But I think I know with Edwards.
...
So the most important questions I ask about the candidates are: Who really believes, down to his bones, in the stuff Democrats are supposed to believe in? And who will fight like a badger to advance these beliefs? The answer I keep coming up with is John Edwards.
...
On Edwards' side are passion, the biggest talent for public speaking since Clinton (at least), and a lifetime of successfully fighting long odds for what he believes in. Kerry would eat Bush's lunch in a debate, but Edwards would eat his breakfast, lunch, dinner, and midnight snack. It'd be fun to watch.

Mainly, though, I'm for Edwards because I think he is his son's father. I think his desire to make this a fairer nation is as deep a passion as I have seen in a public official since I can remember."

[SerpentX]

14. Sidebar: What does Edwards need to do to win the nom?

One scenario:

1. Win ID and UT. Totally irrelevant states in the bigger Democratic picture, but it keeps the buzz going.

2. Figure out how to connect with minority voters.

3. Win decisively in GA.

4. Win OH.

5. CA is really four different states. Two are in play and can bring as many as 120 delegates. A two day campaign trip through the Imperial and San Joaquin Valleys could reel in as many delegates as Massachusetts has. How he does here depends largely on how he does on point 2.

6. Show up on the radar in NY. Its going to be a double-digit loss, but it'll be possible to wring a few delegates out.

7. Tie up Kerry in MD and MN. Make him spend.

8. Perform some sort of "Doolittle" raid and win one of CT, VT, or RI. Hit Kerry in his own back yard.

9. Double-digit blowouts in all of the 3/9 states.

10. Limp to the convention faster than Kerry can.

Edwards can win without a Kerry screwup, but he's going to have to gamble and win more than once. If he can pull off something like this, he'll have proven to me that he can beat Bush.

[in_cog_ni_to]

15. You're kidding, right?

his looks (giving him the crucial ability to charm women

First of all, I am female. 2nd...I would NEVER vote for someone just because of looks. 3rd... Edwards is OK looking until he opens his mouth and then he's very unattractive. 4th.....his "son of a mill worker" schtick was STRETCHING THE TRUTH. His dad was in management, he wasn't a laborer. 5th....he was an ambulance chaser. That's how he made his millions...by suing doctors! Do you have any idea how expensive malpractice insurance is now? Edwards helped to raise the premiums. 6th....His 2 Americas speech is hokey. He talks about the rich and the poor, but doesn't bother to say how he plans on fixing it. Funny, he didn't have a problem with the 2 Americas when he wasn't running for president....maybe because HE was living in the RICH America? I understand he also didn't give a hoot about his constituents in NC who voted for him either. He was elected and didn't bother to to help his state. He deserted them during hurricane Isabelle....he had more important things to do. He had to go to Ca. and campaign for Gray Davis. :eyes: 7th....THE MAN STILL, TO THIS DAY, SAYS WE WERE RIGHT TO GO INTO IRAQ!!!!! HELLO!!!!! NO WE WERE NOT! I can't believe that people have forgotten how PISSED off we were about that damn war and they are going to vote for a man who not only voted for the IWR, but STILL thinks it was the RIGHT thing to do! It wasn't! The war was based on LIES and Edwards STILL says we were right to attack Iraq????:grr: 8th....He cares about JOBS in America???? Really? Then why the hell didn't he show up to vote on the overtime bill? Please. Edwards is just saying anything he can to get elected. He's just another Washington insider who will change NOTHING IF he's elected.

He made his millions by suing doctors. I don't look at Edwards and think.."Nice guy." I look at Edwards and think..."fake."

[DaisyUCSB]

16. Almost all of that is extremely slanted conjecture or inacurate

or hypocritical when you're comparing him to Kerry.

[ludwigb]

17. Well, perhaps I went a it overboard

I mean that his looks will have an effect for SOME women. Also young people in general--Edwards' appearance conincides with a freshness that people are looking for.

As for the war in Iraq, this is a problem for me too. I don't know--Kerry may be stronger on this issue against Bush due to his presidential voice and bearing, his war record, and his expirience. However, we're dreaming if we don't think the GOP will jump all over Kerry's IWR waffling. They are salivating at the opportunity to pronounce him Gore II.