Centerfield

As I think you already know, Mathew, I've been in that camp that says "there's something about this Edwards guy" for some time. I think I joined that camp because I watched the Democratic primary debates in 2004, and because he did precisely what you say -- he often took on the substantive issue and pointed out what we needed to do, rather than relying wholly on Bush-bashing rhetoric (although he did plenty of that too).

I would point out that some of the biggest moderate Republican bloggers said similar things. For example, both Drezner and Tacitus were *really* impressed by him.

The talent is there. The curious thing is that he needs either (a) executive experience, or (b) foreign policy experience, but he doesn't seem positioned now to get either.

Just from what I've read here... and not factoring his history as a litagator -because that'll nullify my next comment- he sounds a lot like President Carter...

Which means he's too good to be President.

Yeah Bill, I saw the debates also, and I was impressed, but there was something different about the man from what I saw on CSPAN. Maybe it is the experience of losing an national race, maybe it is his wife having breast cancer, but there seems to be a sense of mission coming from Edwards now, that wasn't there before, and it is about more than political ambition. I think it would take someone really great to become President without the experience you speak of, but what I saw was that good.

Ryan,

Too good to be President? Maybe, but it is depressing as hell if that is the case.

Great post, Mathew. I went up to NH during the primaries last year to see the candidates, and Edwards was far and away the best of those I saw. I really think he "gets it." He talkes about issues nobody else is discussing, and he does it in a way that is thought-provoking and critical without being nasty. I'm a Republican, and I came out of the event knowing full well that if he emerged as the Dem's nominee, I wouldn't mind casting a ballot for him (and did, for veep).

Bill's right, he does need some more executive and/or foreign policy experience ... but there's definitely potential there.

Yeah, I was surprised edwards didn't stay in the senate to gain gravitas. Might he have lost a re-election bid. Merits aside, I question his Prezz viability as a 1-term senator. Presumedly he'll make a resume-polishing move soon?

I think Edwards is more pragmatic than Carter. And he's more focused on the Clinton/DLC style of politics -- projecting a sense of optimism and a positive view of America, even while discussing serious issues.

Clinton said "There's nothing that's wrong with America that can't be fixed by what's right with America."

Edwards took hold of that DLC optimism theme during his 2004 campaign, and even gave speeches "In Defense of Optimism".

By contrast, Carter's key failing was that he couldn't smile and look into the camera and reassure Americans that things were going to get better.

I think Edwards has the raw talent, but I wonder if he has the right advisors to help him find the right path. It's kind of amazing that Clark was the candidate associated with the Clintons in 2004, rather than Edwards. And Hillary is obviously the Clinton candidate for 2008, so Edwards can't really get guidance from that direction.

As I watched Edwards during the campaign last year, I was also impressed with him in a number of ways. But I always had a nagging negative feeling that I couldn't quite put my finger on. I finally decided that the one word that fit my impression of him was "shallow." By that I don't mean unintelligent; I mean lacking in conviction, or at least in the depth of his political beliefs. The fact that he's a trial lawyer adds to that impression because of his obvious skill in taking any side of any argument and convincing people that he really believes it.

That concern was reinforced recently when I heard him in a TV interview respond to the question of whether he would be a candidate in 2008. He demurred and said, "Right now I'm focusing on ending poverty as we know it." I kid you not. He's off my list.

Tom,

Okay, granted... He is a southern trial lawyer and talks like one. A southern trial lawyer who does have a record of defending lower income clients mind you, but what exactly is wrong with ending poverty as we know it, or someone working to that goal, or talking aboout working to that goal?

His comments on poverty relate to his current work at the Center on Work, Poverty, and Opportunity at the UNC, of which he is the director. He also is co-chairing a task force on Russian-American relations for the Council on Foreign Relations. And he may be doing other things too (i'm only aware of these two).

So while not in the public eye, it sounds like he's still working on building his credentials for a run in 2008.

Mitch,

Thank you for that info... I didn't know any of that.

I think that the Democrats could do far, far worse than John Edwards. "And I suspect they will", but that's another matter. He's southern, optimistic, populist (by which I mean, "America first" - tougher on immigration, fair trade over free trade) he seems comfortable with matters of faith, he's a little less willing to buy into the Howard Dean / Jesse Jackson culture war version of the Dems, so there's a lot to reccomend him over the alternatives. For all that, though, I still maintain that he's a smarmy trial lawyer, who is deeply in the pocket of the trial lawyers associations; a President Edwards would mean, I suspect, kissing goodbye to meaningfull tort reform.

I've always liked Edwards because even in the 2004 primaries he'd be the only Democrat to bring up issues of poverty. The fact that he's still out there, working on ending poverty tells me the man has true convictions. I don't agree with all his solutions, but I admire his willingness to address an issue that is almost always ignored (even by most Dems).

Also, I always thought it odd that while he voted for the war but against the 86 billion just like Kerry, when Edwards explained why, it made perfect sense. Then Kerry would answer the question and it was down the rabbit hole time. Edwards knows how to speak. After going on 5 years of Bush and having to listen to Kerry clause himself to death all last year, it's refreshing to hear a politician who can speak well off the cuff.

For the record, Edwards finished 4th in New Hampshire, not 2nd. I voted for him in the Mass. open primary on March 2nd.

He's a trial lawyer. He's not above anything.

"Trial lawyer" is an unfair epithet. Prosecutors are "trial lawyers," too, after all. Let's try "plaintiff's attorney," since that term more narrowly describes civil litigation lawyers representing victims (usually) for a percentage of the judgment.

Edwards was not a serious candidate in 2004 and I doubt he will be in 2008 either. He only survived as long as he did because he comes from the south. If he came from just about anywhere else he would have dropped out much earlier.

If you are looking for a southern Democrat for 2008 try Phil Bredesen or Mark Warner. Either would be a better choice than Edwards. He is one of the weaker choices for 2008. Just about any of the likely candidates is stronger and better; Bredesen, Warner, Biden, Richardson, Rendell, Bayh, and of course the Big H. I don’t see him lasting long in that field.

I do happen to think that Edwards is the best choice for 2008, not just because he has the personal skills and talents to be competitive politically (after all, he was a one term senator who rose to be second in the democratic primary field and eventually the democratic veep nominee), but he truly believes in what he is fighting for. I remember that he was the only in 2004 who had a plan for everything: right from how to develop rural communities, protect nuclear power plants, reform public education so that there are no "two" education systems in America, fix the broken health care syste, promote small business growth, etc. ... he can provide this country the new "new deal" that we are ready and in need for.

Some pointed out that he sounds like Carter, I disagree. First, he has a far more charismatic personality and presence as a leader. Second, he has the passion ... I believe that the Carter presidency lacked passion in more than one way... Edwards has a passion for the things he fights for and that is the first step towards leading the nation towards those causes. Third, Edwards is much more politically astute. While he has great convictions like Carter, he also has the talent to turn them into policies. He is a persuasive debater and I do believe that he has that Blair thing going on ... which is a combination of both slickness and authenticity.

As for the trial lawyer crap, what's wrong with being a trial lawyer? He defended a poor girl whose intestines were sucked out due to the manufacturers drive to save money and not put a cheap few-cents screw .... her family spends thousands of dollars to feed her through tubes for 12 years daily. Heck, I want a lawyer who would stand up for those who've been wronged. The republicans scrutinized his career very well and they fould NOTHING against him... because everyone agrees that his career has been focused on the right kinds of cases. So, it's time to stop buying into the myths and judging the man on his own work.... which I think he is rightfully proud of.

By the way, I actually think he has the most meaningful tort reform in his plan... he outlined that he would put the responsibility on the lawyers themselves i.e. he would require that every personal injury case that comes into the system must first go through an independent inquiry by experts in that field (for example, in a neurology case, an independent council of scientists reviews it) and if certified as meritorious it can be tried. If a lawyer fails to adhere by this, once he gets three strikes, he is out of a job. I think he believe that a major problem with the system is that cases that do not belong in the system are often tried and even won, and his plan is to take out of the system the cases that should never have been there in the first place. He does not support putting arbitary caps on injuries... and I think that is right.

Well Alf, unless you're concerned strictly with the Dem candidate's ability to beat the Repub candidate in '08, Edwards is one of the "weaker choices" only if few decide to support him (which at this point is entirely moot), and not in the context of whether he's actualy going to be liked by the Dem voting populace.

It's silly to call someone a "weaker choice" in '08 while he has 3 full years to improve on his weaknesses.

Scott, Edwards is not a weaker choice because of how “he's actually going to be liked by the Dem voting populace.” He’s a weaker choice because a) the other choices I mentioned have more to say and say it better and b) Edwards is an empty suit.

Edwards had the “Southern Guy” niche to himself in 2004. (I know about Clark, he was running as the Military Guy not the Southern Guy.) In 2008 There will be plenty of competition for the role. Competition that does what he does only better.

More importantly virtually everybody else running has better things to say about policy and says them better than he does (With the possible exceptions of Gore and Kerry). Take a look at what Warner or Bredesen has done and said. Edwards has nothing on these guys. Governors win the presidency, one term senators do not.

Looks like many centrists like Edwards. So it's a lock he won't get the Dem nomination. Same equation for McCain and the Reps. We're not the center of power in either party; it's irrelevant who we like.

Actually, Kreiz, I am pretty optimistic about 2008. We have a lot of good choices on the Democratic side so we won’t have to depend on hasbeens and wannabes anymore. Factor out Edwards, Gore, and Kerry and we have a pretty good lineup.

It looks like Bush and the GOP establishment are quietly lining up behind McCain. That could be the difference he needs to get over the top. If I were more of a conspiracy theorist I might wonder if Bush and McCain cut a deal in 2000.

So it's your own opinion he is the weaker choice. Gotcha, just wanted to get that straight.

This "Southern Democrat" and "Southern Guy" niche or role or whatever doesn't mean anything to me, and shouldn't mean anything generally. I know about Warner and Bredesen and find them interesting, but on their own, not because they're "from the South." The "from the South" thing is just a Dem electoral calculation strategy, and I personally don't care about it because the Dems winning in '08 isn't an endgoal of mine in and of itself.

I like Edwards. I thought he deserved the nomination. It bumped my non enthusiasm for Kerry (whom I found wooden) when he joined that ticket. If he runs, I'd definately vote for him in the primaries, and in the general election later. He has a good message and he's a good schmoozer. You HAVE to be good at charming people to get people to play ball. Part of Bush's problem, IMHO, is he doesn't have that kid of talent.

Alf: obviously I'm the pessimist. I'd applaud a McCain or a Biden or Edwards nomination. There's much displaced GOP animus against McCain, probably because of his "shockingly low" ACU rating of 72% in '04 (83% lifetime). Regarding the Dems, if Sen. Clinton declines (a big if), the race is wide open. Edwards may have a chance; he'll be painted as 04's lackluster veep candidate. Biden, unfortunately, lacks pull and money. At the end of the day, both parties are too polarized to allow these relative moderates to prevail.

Unfortunately you are absolutely correct, Kreiz. Moderates get the shaft in both parties. Anyhow it is way too early to start sniping at each other over 2008. Let’s at least wait until the 2006 elections are over.

Oh, and Scott, you’re right, we are focused on different things. I am worried about the direction the Democratic Party is moving in and I hope to move the party away from certain themes and candidates. I understand that those of you who are not Democrats might be more concerned with other things.

Also Alf, as it relates to Southern Democrats, it may be instructive to know that Bill Clinton would have won the '92 and '96 elections without the help of the electoral votes he won from Southern states.

Alf: sniping? I know better than to snipe at you. Besides, you're right- it's way to early to start speculating on '08.

Senator Edwards is young. He won't be a contender in 2008, but he may be the future of the party, especially if they want to make a play in the south rather than writing it off altogether.

If the Democrats win in 2008, they would be wise -assuming he's not on the ticket- to set him up with a cabinent position. Maybe Attorny General...

Scott,

You have to remember that there has been a census since then in which the south gained electoral votes while the northeast and rust belt midwest lost electoral votes. Would Clinton have won at all if he had to contend with today’s electoral map? For that matter, would Clinton have won in 1992 without Perot? The answers to these questions are much more interesting to those of us who want to move the Democrats forward than the fact that Clinton could have won without the south.

Re: electoral votes, that's a good point Alf. I'll look into the differences in electoral count between 92/96 and 04.

Maybe you're misunderstanding me...my comment was simply to state that generally a little bit too much importance may be attached to the region where a candidate is from. Nothing else really.

Scott,

That makes sense.

CA +1 (blue 92-04)
CO +1 (blue 92, red 96-04)
CT -1 (blue 92-04)
FL +2 (red 92, 00-04; blue 96)
GA +2 (blue 92, red 96-04)
IL -1 (blue 92-04)
IN -1 (red 92-04)
MI -1 (blue 92-04)
MS -1 (red 92-04)
NC +1 (red 92-04)
NV +1 (blue 92-96; red 00-04)
NY -2 (blue 92-04)
OH -1 (blue 92-96; red 00-04)
OK -1 (red 92-04)
PA -2 (blue 92-04)
TX +2 (red 92-04)
WI -1 (blue 92-00; red 04)

AZ +2 (red 92, 00-04; blue 96)