TNR- John Edwards vs John Kerry and the weeks ahead

[LiviaOlivia]

DAILY EXPRESS
Negative Feedback
by Franklin Foer
Post date: 02.18.04

If John Edwards is lucky, the next two weeks of media coverage will sound something like this: His campaign has achieved its surprising success, most recently in Wisconsin last night, by turning generations of strategy on its head. Instead of tearing his opponents a new one, Edwards has thrown out the old Lee Atwater attack manual and adopted niceness as his preferred mode of discourse. Edwards will be lucky if the press adopts this line, because it will provide him with cover to evolve his campaign to its next stage--the stage where he must abandon everything but the pretense of gentility and attack Kerry like hell.

<snip>

And, make no mistake, attacking Kerry presents Edwards with a very real chance of success. Particularly if Edwards seizes on Kerry's greatest vulnerability--his habit of taking both sides of every major issue. You can already see the press's growing unease with Kerry in the tepid reviews that they gave his performance in last weekend's debate--and the schadenfreude they're enjoying after his disappointing Wisconsin finish. For a concrete example of this nascent wave of anti-Kerry sentiment, see E.J. Dionne's column in yesterday's Washington Post. Dionne argued that the front-runner was reverting to his roundly panned, orotund, mealy-mouthed style of last year. The commentariat, in other words, is primed to turn against Kerry.

<snip>

But, according to one strain of conventional wisdom, Edwards will never adopt this more feisty tone because he has too much to lose from going negative. In particular, wouldn't going negative hurt his chances in the veepstakes? Maybe. But unless Edwards can cut some sort of secret deal with Kerry, campaigning for the second spot is a total crapshoot. Outside of Ronald Reagan picking George H.W. Bush, there are few recent instances of nominees tapping vanquished foes to be their running mate. And since Edwards has only won the state of his birth, he could have a hard time convincing the Kerry campaign of his political prowess. His best hope for getting on the ticket is to continue to show his electoral potential. And his best hope for showing his potential is aggressively campaigning and beating John Kerry in a few more states. Besides, Edwards needs to prove his inner political animal to the Kerry campaign. If he doesn't have enough grit to go after Kerry, how is he supposed to tackle Dick Cheney?

More important, Edwards doesn't need to worry about injuring his career. He has already cemented his reputation in the media for up-beat campaigning. And, fortunately for him, he has a light touch that is perfectly suited for sticking in the knife. When he's taken his shots against Kerry, as he did in the last debate, he's done so with humor and without rancor. "That's the longest answer I ever heard to a yes-or-no question," he cracked after one of Kerry's windier orations at last Sunday's debate. To invoke the overused trial lawyer metaphor: Edwards has shown his ability to deliver a sweet closing argument. But presumably he also has lots of experience tearing up opposing witnesses in cross-examination, without looking like a jerk. None of which has stopped Democrats from moaning that to attack Kerry is to supply quotes Karl Rove will recycle in ads--all the more so if Edwards attacks Kerry as a double-talker, the charge Rove is itching to level against him. But pulling punches doesn't help Kerry or the party. It merely leads to the nomination of an untested, unprepared candidate. Wouldn't it be far better to find out if Kerry can take a punch before he wraps up the nomination?

<snip>

http://www.tnr.com/doc.mhtml?i=express&s=foer021804
subscription req'd

[Tweed]

1. Edwards has run a clean campaign because he is so weak

Edwards has so little experience that him attacking someome would be like a child yelling "Hey over here!" to a massive grizzly bear.

[PurityOfEssence]

3. He's run a clean campaign because he isn't a dick

I absolutely dispute the oft-chanted belief that strength is the same thing as brashness. You can be decent, honorable and nice and still be strong, just as you can be confrontational and still be a weakling.

That kind of thinking is something I generally see among conservatives: destroy all opposition or you're some kind of Casper Milquetoast. No. It's an example of his deftness in dealing with people and publicity, but it's something that truly comes from within. When the time came, he did call Howard Dean "arrogant", and he did it in an open debate and to his face. Not only was that an honorable, direct confrontation, but it meant so much more because he hadn't cheapened his rhetoric with endless recriminations and derision. This is true strength.

[Dob Bole]

4. ? He's a freaking TRIAL Lawyer!

How clean is that? You might remember another tough debater who was a lawyer. His name was William Jefferson Clinton.

[Rooktoven]

5. Let's see how weak he is in a one on one with Kerry.

Oh wait-- it won't happen since the Kerry doesn't want the comparison...

[LiviaOlivia]

2. kick