What Does Edwards Mean?
Joe Gandelman analyzes what Edwards likely means to the Kerry campaign.
Two of his seven points:
(3) The Political "It" Factor. Ronald Reagan had "it" with voters. John Kennedy had "it" with voters. So do John McCain and Arnold Schwarzenegger. Michael Dukakis was the "anti-it". George Bush, Dick Cheney, and John Kerry have their moments but don't have "it." Edwards has some of "it" (and tries hard to get and show "it"). And he'll be the only one to have it. QUESTION: Will it wear well? If "it" fizzles or becomes a bore Kerry made a poor choice since it's clearly one of the factors he wanted.
(4) The SUSTAINED Republican Reaction and Democratic Reaction: The immediate reaction was Nirvana on the part of the Democrats and instant condemnation on the part of radio talk show hosts.
Yet on the Internet there was a more disapassionate analysis by conservative and liberal bloggers of Edwards than on radio talk shows, cable talk shows, etc.
If Internet pundits' cooler analysis prevails, the campaign will focus more on personalities (and both parties have segments that prefer a discussion of personalities rather than nuts-and-bolts issues) but if it remains a primary issue, Kerry's choice will prove to be a poor one.
Here's what I think; Kerry's main hope is to turn this into a
beauty contest battle of personalities. If the Administration manages to keep peoples' thoughts on the war and the rebounding economy, Kerry will have nothing to run on. In other words; as Hewitt says, this is a battle between Serious America and Silly America.
If he can bring out the people who vote based on visceral reactions - e.g. if the silly agenda, the agenda that worries about things like looks and other "soccer mom" distractions - then he has a decent chance.
Here's the part that I laugh at; Democrats continue to think that Edwards will clobber Cheney in the Veep debates. I think Cheney will mop the floor with Edwards. I think Edwards' trial-lawyer-y theatrics won't play as well as Cheney's decades of real-world experience.
Posted by Mitch at
July 7, 2004 04:23 PM
| TrackBack
Jeez, you really have drunk the kool-aid, haven't you? Dick Cheney will mop the floor with Edwards? The same Dick Cheney who just snarled "Do you want to hear this speech or not?" to a crowd? The same Dick Cheney who eloquently told Joe Biden to "Go F---" himself? Um, Mitch? Cheney is a pretty bad speaker and debater. It's not the worst thing about him, but it's the truth. Edwards is masterful. And as for "slick lawyerly tricks"--good lawyers use them because they work.
Dick will lose the VP debate. Period.
Posted by: Jeff Fecke at July 7, 2004 04:56 PMJeff, they said the same thing about Algore vs. Bush. Yet Bush won the series 2-1. And the "bad debater" Cheney beat Lieberman, who actually *had* a policy record, unlike Justin Edwardslake.
Prediction: Edwards will win over those who care about looks and/or are awash with hatred for Bush. Cheney will win most of the rest - at least, among those who care about the veep debates. Which is altogether maybe 5% of the vote.
Posted by: mitch at July 7, 2004 05:09 PMI believe it was Leahy that the Veep told to go "F" himself, not Biden.
Second, being a good trial lawyer does not necessarily mean you are a good debater. If Edwards had a history of appellate advocacy, that would be different. As it is, he may be a very good snake oil salesman, but that does not necessarily mean he will do well in a debate. Especially as Edwards seems to lack serious substance. Yes, he can wow the crowds with emotional platitudes, butwhen Cheney presses him on national security issues, he will wilt.
Posted by: James Ph. at July 7, 2004 10:05 PMSo its the debates which are of paramount importance as opposed to what the veep candidate actually stands for?
I could care less who "wins" a debate, I want to know what they stand for, their bonafides, the links and ties which will affect their decision making process.
this isnt american idol were talking about.
Posted by: JasonDL at July 8, 2004 01:01 AM"Winning" a debate mostly has to do with performance vs. expectations. The press is talking up Edwards so much that expectations would be very high for him and low for Cheney. I think Cheney would come across as more sober, more serious and more mature... which just might be what a country at war prefers! Cheney would skillfully lay waste to the persistent "No WMD" and "No Al Qaeda like" memes that never seem to die.
Posted by: chris at July 8, 2004 01:04 AMThe other issue is just how important the veep debates really are. Lloyd Bentson crushed Quayle (although I know conservatives say it wasn't as bad as that, and that other than the Jack Kennedy cheap shot Quayle held his own) and it didn't help Dukakis much.
Kerry's biggest problem is himself.
I just wish I could look like Edwards when I'm 51. Hell, I wish I could look like him at my current 37!
This assumes a Cheney VP candidacy, and part of me is waiting for a graceful health-related withdrawal and an entry by Condi. It would put in stark relief the white-ness, rich-ness and John-ness of the other ticket.
I mean "No Al Qaeda LINK." Must prufread.
Posted by: chris at July 8, 2004 01:06 AMSerious vs Silly America resonates more than Edwards Two Americas stump speech.
Posted by: Rick at July 8, 2004 07:59 AMThe importance of the bottom half of the ticket is wholly overrated, and even more so today, when regional loyalty is not nearly as strong. This ain't LBJ delivering Texas. It won't matter much how Edwards and Cheney do against each other in a debate, assuming that one doesn't announce affiliation with Al Queda.
This race will be won or lost by the quality of campaigning on the top of the ticket, and by events that neither have much control over at this time (in Kerry's case, no control over). Neither Bush or Kerry are highly talented or skilled campaigners, and handicapping a contest between adversaries with mediocre skill and talent is always difficult; skill and talent adhere much more closely to form.
Posted by: Will Allen at July 8, 2004 09:44 AMWhile it is currently a Beauty contest,the press will get tired of it. After the defining of positions and issues, the press will then dig as the race for for something new will drive the oulets. Any small bumps along the road will get magnified as the media searches for new stories.
How about questional campaign contibutions made by low paid legal staffers to the max of 2,000, some of which never contributed to a candidate before, had no party affiliation and in a couple of cases had just entered bankruptcy?
Or
The shamefull manipulation of facts and misrepresentations against Judge Pickering in his confirmation hearing for Fifth District court of Appeals.
You just have to dig a little, to start finding the dirt.
Posted by: The Doctor at July 8, 2004 10:01 AMSurely you don't expect the "media" to do that digging, do you? I don't think so. They're too hung up on "no WMD's", etc., etc. etc.
Posted by: Silver at July 8, 2004 01:19 PM