Look, John Kerry is going to make an awful candidate. He is an elitist, aloof, have-it-both-ways rhetorician who is the least able of all the remaining candidates to identify with the working class. For a pol of over two decades, the senator has precious few legislative accomplishments, and his wayward political compass has led him to the wrong side of way too many issues.
But try as I may, I just can’t get excited about the prospect of John Edwards at the top of the ticket. Don’t get me wrong: Edwards is a great campaigner, notwithstanding the tired “son of a mill worker” rationale he weaves into almost every statement. But where’s the beef?
Let’s examine, for a second, Edwards’ bio, which is supposed to provide proof positive that the neophyte politician is right for the position of Leader of the Free World. Edwards worked magic on juries for 20 years as a phenominally successful trial lawyer before winning Jesse Helms’ open senate seat in South Carolina. Barely three years later, with virtually no legislative accomplishments to speak of, and having voted for the Iraq war, the Patriot Act and No Child Left Behind, Edwards began retaining staff and mapping out his future run for the presidency.
Edwards says “I’ve been preparing for this fight my entire life,” and I believe him. He’s a great salesman, and seems to have decided in a rather Clintonesque manner to run for the presidency because, well, he can.
So even though I dislike Kerry, I think his opponent is best kept at the bottom of the ticket. Because so far, it seems the only thing John Edwards has been good at is selling himself.
you mean you prefer Kerry-Edwards to Kerry-Clark?
By the way, last Sunday’s NYT profile of Kerry made clear that while he hasn’t written much legislation, he has had other notable accomplishments in the Senate, particularly in investigations he’s led and in the normalization of relations with Vietnam. I think he’s served well as a Senator.
As for “have-it-both-ways”, while I completely agree, that’s also just what they said about Clinton. Slickness is in asset in politics. Clinton and Reagan were the slickest of slick. Dean is the anti-slick.
Yes, I think Kerry-Edwards is a better fit because Clark was emphatic throughout the campaign that congress “made a mistake in giving the president a blank check to go to war.”
Besides that, Edwards is simply a better campaigner. Maybe after a stint as governor, Clark will be better on the trail.
Quick nit: Edwards won Lauch Faircloth’s seat, not Jesse Helms’
–|PW|–