On John Edwards as Candidate (Great Read!)

For the positive energy John Edwards brings to the Kerry campaign, he also brings a few large, elephant-in-the-room type problems.

It would be interesting to know the exact number of broadcast hours and column inches spent analyzing (what has been called) the remarkable bravado in Nominee Kerry’s selecting John Edwards as his vice presidential candidate. Conventional wisdom before Tuesday held that Dick Gephardt was the safe choice and Senator Edwards the wild card, but a quick perusal of Kerry’s short list shows Edwards was the only logical choice.

New Mexico Governor Bill Richardson had made it clear from the beginning he was only interested in serving the people of New Mexico; no one outside Iowa knows or cares who Governor Tom Vilsack was, and still doesn’t; Gephardt was a substandard leader in the House, basically drummed out of power by his own party for failing to take the fight to Republicans; Bob Graham is a neurotic and unserious man weighed down by bad ideas; Hillary Clinton … well, she’s Hillary Clinton, and far fewer Democrats like her than are willing to admit openly. Only John Edwards made sense; only Edwards glowed in the polls, only Edwards made Kerry look good.

But whatever positive energy Edwards brings to the campaign, he also brings with him a few large, elephant-in-the-room type problems. The same party that so readily questioned Candidate Bush’s intellectual curiosity and interest in the world outside the United States will never ask why Edwards rarely voted before running for office, why he has barely traveled outside the country, or point out that he has no real foreign policy experience.

Moreover, the same party that has so vehemently suggested Vice President Cheney and Halliburton are connected with a battleship’s anchor chain will not summon the inquisitiveness to investigate whether Edwards has remained unrealistically indebted to trial lawyership, nor will it ask if he will remain or become so indebted as vice president. The same Democrats responding so enthusiastically to irritating populist tripe like Two Americas won’t remind follower travelers that both Kerry and Edwards populate the Upper Crust America. See, if Republican multi-millionaires are inherently out of touch with regular people (they occupy the Other America) by virtue of their wealth, Democratic multi-millionaires must also be equally out of touch, in order for the theory to be either true or believable.

Senior Kerry campaign advisor Tad Devine has an answer for anyone concerned about such a thing. On Hardball Tuesday, Devine noted that both Franklin Roosevelt and Jack Kennedy came to the presidency wealthy and it didn’t seem to matter much; what mattered was the strength and integrity of the men themselves. (Are we thinking of the same Jack Kennedy? The one whose family’s wealth and influence bought him the presidency in a crooked election? The same Jack Kennedy whose strength and integrity lead to countless extramarital affairs?) Devine was trying to say that because Edwards got his start in the common man’s America, he’s better qualified to understand the plight of the common man. Well, not necessarily, but if that’s going to be the campaign line, why not just come out and say so?

Obviously, wealth is a happy diversion from terrorism, and how to combat it. Hoping to capitalize on the Left’s ideological discomfort with killing people who deserve to die, a commercial featuring John McCain, speaking on the president’s behalf, was released. The scene is a recent stump speech in which Senator McCain elaborated upon the president’s anti-terrorism credentials. “America is under attack by depraved enemies who oppose our every interest and hate every value we hold dear,” McCain says. “It is the great test of our generation, and [President Bush] has lead with great moral clarity and firm resolve. He has not wavered. He has not flinched from the hard choices. He was determined and remains determined to make this world a better, safer, freer place.”

Here Democrats will argue that it was precisely the president’s firm resolve that got us into this mess, meaning Iraq. On this I will concede that, if all things were equal and both Bush and Kerry were seeking their first terms in the face of resolute terrorist outfits, Kerry could make a better case for selection. But things aren’t equal. No matter how you see the “war on terror,” President Bush has been baptized in fire and stands at the head of a legitimate war of civilization and freedom versus barbarism and repression. The idea that such a duty should be passed off midstream rings irresponsible, even if as a Republican you find yourself disagreeing with so many administration policies.

The same Democrats responding so enthusiastically to irritating populist tripe like Two Americas won’t remind follower travelers that both Kerry and Edwards populate the Upper Crust America. See, if Republican multi-millionaires are inherently out of touch with regular people (they occupy the Other America) by virtue of their wealth, Democratic multi-millionaires must also be equally out of touch, in order for the theory to be either true or believable.

Kerry and Edwards are the most out-of-touch candidates ever to run for high office.

McCain says. “It is the great test of our generation, and [President Bush] has lead with great moral clarity and firm resolve. He has not wavered. He has not flinched from the hard choices. He was determined and remains determined to make this world a better, safer, freer place.”

The last Democrat that could be said about was FDR, and if one of today's 'rats was in office in 1941 we would probably be speaking German today.

I'm an ex-Dem, and I now look at presidential candidates chiefly on how they would defend the country. The Dems don't seem to have a clue that we are in a war. They're so power-hungry and/or ignorant that they want to fight domestic battles that already have been won. Millions of Americans don't go to bed hungry any more. Most Americans at either end of the income range go to bed pretty well stuffed.

Edwards was the obvious "charisma" choice for Kerry who has none. That Edward's is about as deep as his hair spray does not matter in the slightest to the libs. Getting power back and passing more legislation to make Americans more dependent on big government is their goal. Their message to Americans is an exceptionally insulting one: You're all stupid and you all live miserable lives, except for the one percent greedy rich, and you need lots of government programs to help you make it through life...OR YOU'RE DOOMED!!!!!

Well, get used to whatever ideas of defense that they bring to the table. With "Little John's" ability to channel, he can prove in court that the dead fully support them, and should be allowed to vote accordingly.

On this I will concede that, if all things were equal and both Bush and Kerry were seeking their first terms in the face of resolute terrorist outfits, Kerry could make a better case for selection.

I won't. Kerry's had a long tradition of appeasement, equivocation, and the view of moral equivalence, apparently as an outgrowth of his father's views, including the view that America was just too darn strong, dang it, and had no right to be. Kerry has constantly kissed asses of tin pot dictators that he should be kicking (USSR, Nicaragua, Viet Cong, etc.) and can't show me different.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.