Bush is playing into Edwards' hands---and so is John Kerry

[Shanty Oilish]

Bush is playing into John Edwards' hands. He isn't fighting back effectively, he's holding back. We'll know in a day or so, but if Edwards' momentum continues, he will either snatch the nomination from Kerry or go on winning enough delegates to insure a place on the ticket.

In the pre-9/11 climate, Edwards would have been the certain champion in the primaries. Back then we wouldn't have required a long resume, just a plan and an attractive presenter. And if the 9/11 wrath has been sufficiently discharged by the fury of the Bush reaction, Edwards still could win by being the candidate who inspires.

Bush's handlers have to know this. Kerry's long record makes a broad target, but Edwards has room to maneuver. When it comes to speech, Bush and Edwards are separated by nearly a species of difference. It doesn't help Bush that Edwards is not Massachusetts-liberal, that familiar bogeyman of past Republican victories. This time the bogeyman is under Bush's bed: the possibility of a personable, silver-tongued Southern boy, young enough to present inexperience as outsider quality, with a positive and compassionate message and not a molecule of scandal. Bill Clinton purified. Bush can't be sleeping well these days. Very likely he could be facing both Kerry and Edwards in the general election.

Yet every day the Bush people don't counterattack the Democratic candidates, America hears more of the Democratic message, Kerry doing most of the dirty work of shaming Bush, Edwards offering the bright future.

Kerry is mopping the floor with Bush---and letting John Edwards surf that floor.

I don't understand why Bush is not engaging the Dems, when every day his approval rating erodes---but no matter, the good guys are winning and growing coattails that will serve us all well in November. But why is John Kerry concentrating on Bush when hardly a quarter of the needed delegates are in his column?

I prefer Kerry. But if John Edwards should streak past him---well, that's politics. And we're winning. :)

[bushwakker]

1. Kerry is a stronger GE pick than Edwards

Post 9/11 demands a candidate with more experience than JE. Kerry/Gephardt gives Dems the best chance of winning.

[spooky3]

3. Polls consistently show that the economy/jobs is the biggest

concern for most Americans--by far--over security issues.

Kerry may be appealing to more traditional Democrats--or he may not; he may simply be convincing them that his experience will help him beat Bush--but it is not at all clear that he would be the better candidate to attract the swing voters that are essential to winning this campaign. Registered Democrats are fewer than 40% of the population now, and a smaller proportion vote.

[Shanty Oilish]

4. Kerry's talking about what Bush did

Edwards is talking about what we should do next. I think Kerry's being too reactive. Partly it's how the media plays it, of course.

[SangamonTaylor]

8. I agree. Kerry is being reactive, not proactive

He is not as focused on what exactly he wants to do...he's too busy saying what is wrong. That's not a winning strategy in my opinion. I prefer optimism and a positive future outlook for our nation.

[emulatorloo]

2. If Edwards attacks Kerry in the debates, Kerry will respond

Kerry is already comparing Edward's stance on trade at johnkerry.com; coming up w the unsuprising conclusion that they are very similar on trade.

On the other hand, Kerry's strengths in other areas (natl security) are being played up in his attacks on Bush.

I prefer Kerry, but Edwards would be ok with me if he wins the nom. However at this point I don't realistically see it happening. Am hoping for Kerry/Clark, Kerry/Gep, Kerry/Edwards. Any of those would be a great pairing to take on GWB

[sandnsea]

5. Kerry mopping the floor

Exactly. And Edwards hasn't mopped the floor with anybody. He's a nice guy, Mr. Optimism. It's going to take a whole lot more than that to beat Bush and so far Kerry is the only one who has ever put Bush on the ropes.

Sorry, I'll never believe it was Dean. Bush's numbers went UP when Dean was leading.

[AP]

6. Bush is playing the Nixon Opening.

Make them hate you so that the primairy winner defines himself according to you. Change yourself after the convention so that the candidate has no defintion of themselves.

It's also the rope a dope strategy. They want to have the Dems taking swings at Bush now. They're trying to look weak. This will all change.

[THUNDER HANDS]

7. John Edwards is NOT Bill Clinton

I wish people would stop saying that. It insults the political skills of Clinton.

Not that I have any love for Clinton, but I do respect his massive skills and political instincts.

Comparing him to Edwards is like comparing Pete Yorn to Bruce Springsteen.

[Shanty Oilish]

9. I was referring to image

Agreed, Edwards can't possibly have Clinton's political skills. He could equal or exceed Clinton in that good ol' boy appeal, though.

And political skills are crucial. That's why I support Kerry. He knows his way around the Hill. If you don't, you can win the presidency and have your agenda sitting unsailed in the garage for four years.