Edwards can spice up old Democratic values

7 July 2004

I had been hoping John Kerry would choose Iowa Gov. Tom Vilsack, if only because he presented an endless opportunity for puns about Vlasic pickles and Heinz ketchup. Instead we've got North Carolina's John Edwards, a 51-year-old freshman senator who is so youthful looking he still gets carded regularly at the liquor store. Edwards is the yin to Kerry's yawn, a man with a reputation for giving speeches so compelling that those listening will do everything but vote for him.

The last, of course, is a problem, one that raises the question: Why pick Edwards out of a field of luminaries such as Vilsack, Dick Gephardt and Bob Graham?

Unfortunately, the question may be the answer. With John McCain having refused his advances, the field available to Kerry was thin. Former Gen. Wesley Clark was out of the running because, reportedly, he and Kerry didn't get along. Hillary Clinton would have been an electrifying choice, to be sure, so much so that people would have forgotten Kerry was on the ballot. Of the colorless and mostly unknown possibilities left, Edwards was the standout.

Kerry deserves much credit for the way he managed the process. For one, he made his decision three weeks in advance of the convention (itself is a rarity; most nominees announce their choices either right before or even at the convention). By all accounts, Kerry's vetting of candidates was studied and methodical. He restrained himself from talking to the press. He interviewed possible running mates, conducted thorough background checks and spoke to other prominent Democrats, seeking their thoughts while betraying little of his own. Far from being a waffler, he looked sure and decisive.

In addition, Kerry's decision-making compares favorably to Bush four years ago. Back then, Dick Cheney was in charge of finding a vice president. Lo and behold, Cheney discovered that he was the best guy. While Kerry seemed firmly in control of his process, Bush's, in contrast, appeared as if it were hijacked. It didn't help that Cheney's principal merit as vice president was that he added gravitas to a nominee perceived as a lightweight.

And what merits does Edwards bring? Not intellectual firepower. He's certainly smart enough, but few think Kerry chose him for that reason. Instead, the conventional read on Edwards is that he provides the dull Kerry with a little life. While Edwards didn't get much in the way of votes, his charismatic speechmaking took him much further than his weak resume would justify. He inspired audiences and got them fired up. Kerry's strong standing in the polls today is more a consequence of Bush's failings than Kerry's successes. He needed someone like Edwards who could sell a positive message.

And what is that message?

In late May, the Kerry campaign unveiled a theme that provided a concise, bumper-sticker rationale for the Democrat: "Stronger at home, respected in the world." It was a clever message that touched on domestic concerns but clearly spoke to the sense that the United States had lost focus on the war on terror, blew it in Iraq, needlessly alienated the rest of the world and damaged its own credibility through horrors such as those at Abu Ghraib. It was a calculation that foreign policy would drive the November election and, quite frankly, would have been perfect if McCain had been part of the ticket.

With his choice of Edwards, however, Kerry seems to be making a new calculation: Domestic issues matter more.

He may be right. For one, the installation of a new government in Iraq may dampen down concern over the situation there. Absent some new calamity, Bush credibly can argue that there is now a clear path to the United States exiting. Moreover, Kerry has always had a problem saying what he would have done differently from Bush. During the primaries, Howard Dean made that point incessantly and it remains a problem today. (For example, in an April 21 ad, Kerry bluntly proclaims, "Let me tell you exactly what I would do to change the situation in Iraq," and then gives a milquetoast answer, saying, "I would immediately reach out to the international community in sharing the burden." That position won't satisfy those frothing at the mouth after having seen "Fahrenheit 9/11."

Meanwhile, Edwards on the campaign trail inspired many traditional Democrats with his talk about "two Americas" and his concentration on jobs, education and health care. Kerry touched on those subjects as well, yet for Edwards, they were a passion.

So does the pick of Edwards mean that Kerry in effect backs away from his stress on international affairs? Does it mean that despite an improving economy, the campaign believes that domestic concerns dominate? So it would seem. Democrats have always believed they were at their best advocating for bread-and-butter issues. With Edwards, they play again to that strength.