|
Jonathon Kohn wrote a piece in the New Republic arguing for Gephardt called "See Dick Run" Here is my response to his arguments:
Kohn: Geography- Gephardt has a geographic advantage over Edwards because Democrats have better prospects in the Midwest than South.
Response: Picking a candidate solely on the assumption that he/she will carry home state or have appeal in neighboring states is a mistake. Gore lost TN in 2000. Gephardt lost in IA, his own backyard, this year. In the age of national media, home state advantage isn't what it used to be. Furthermore, there are many closely contested states this year. We need a ticket with appeal to swing voters in all of the battleground states. Edwards demonstrated his appeal to disaffected Republicans and Independents in states like WI. Edwards finished ahead of Gephardt in IA. By making some of the Southern states contestable, Edwards forces Bush to spend time and resources there.
Kohn: Gephardt has a loyal labor base.
Response: Labor will be with us this year regardless of Kerry's running mate. The only substantive difference between Gephardt and Edwards here is the China vote. However, we can't really use this as a selling point because Kerry voted for China agreement. Furthermore, Gephart's labor constituency didn't demonstrate much loyalty to him in the primaries.
Kohn: Gephardt's somewhat more conservative social positions (Gephart voted for ban on partial birth abortions) will help us in the Midwest.
Response: To win a Senate seat in North Carolina as a Democrat, Edwards must be socially conservative enough to appeal in the Midwest. Besides Nader is running, Gephardt's vote to ban partial birth abortion could hurt us with potential Nader voters.
Kohn: Gephardt speaks language of blue collar workers in the Midwest.
Response: As someone who has worked in a mill himself,Edwards speaks it too. As I've already pointed out Edwards beat Gephart in IA.
Kohn: Gephardt is a better attack dog than Edwards.
Response: Gephardt is a clumsy attack dog. He hurt himself more than any of his rivals with his negative attacks in IA. Calling Bush a "miserable failure" won't help us in the general election. That kind of language turns off swing voters, allows Bush to dismiss our criticisms as attack politics as usual, and puts us in the position of defending ourselves. Edwards is an attack dog whose bite is worse than his bark. From his experience as a wildly successful plaintiff's attorney, Edwards knows how to attack Bush/Cheney's credibility withour damaging ours in the process. Edwards didn't win his trials by calling the defnedent's names. We won't win this election by name-calling. Edwards is the most qualified running mate to make our case against Bush/Cheney.
Kohn: Gephardt's political liabilities are well-known and he's overcome them in many elections in the past.
Response: Gephardt's liabilities make the Republican lines of attack against Kerry doubly effective. How many tax increases do you think Kerry/Gephardt have voted for in their 50+ years in Congress? How many contradictory positions have Kerry/Gephardt taken on issues during their long careers as insider Washington politicians? How much special interest money have Kerry/Gephardt taken and how many favors have they done for unpopular constituents? (This really hurts with potential Nader voters because it blurs the difference between Democrats and Republicans.)
Furthermore, Gephardt voted for the 87 billion in Iraq. Kerry didn't. This adds fule to the fire of Kerry as flip-flopper. Kerry is going to have a tough time explaining some of his "nuanced" positions on Iraq. Failure to reconcile Gephart's and Kerry's votes could be a serious blow to the crdibility of Kerry/Gephart.
Edwards, on the other hand, has a short voting record that, much to Edwards' chagrin during the primaries, is almost identical to Kerry's. Kerry/Edwards could present a unified position on Iraq.
Kohn: Gephardt has more experience and stature than Edwards. This would help Gephardt against Cheney and make Gehart a better vice-president or president if something happened to Kerry.
Response: Our main line of attack against Bush/Cheney is not going to be that they lack experience. If we are going to win, we need to successfully attack their record and their credibility and present our own competing vision for the future of this country. Edwards can do this better than anyone. Furthermore, Edwards has more foreign policy experience than Carter, Reagan, or Clinton when they were elected President. Edwards and Kerry were each beating Bush by about 10 points in recent national polls. This would not be the case if people didn't perceive Edwards to be qualified.
Choosing a vice-president is about shaping the image of Kerry in the public's mind. We need a vp whose close linkage to Kerry improves Kerry's brand and we need a vp who can effectively sell the Kerry package. Edwards is that man. Kerry/Edwards would be a ticket of optimism, change, and energy. Edwards is the best campaigner in our party today, he connects with voters and can sell them on Kerry. Kerry/Gephardt would be a ticket of old-style politics and Washington insiders.
Sometimes, the obvious choice is also the best choice. Please, please Senator Kerry and Democratic establishment, let's win this one. We would be crazy to pass up Edwards.
|
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
