Edwards and his effect
Wed Jul 07, 2004 at 11:06:57 AM PDT
First, I would like to address the "inexperience" issue. As expected, Republicans want to paint John Edwards as an "inexperienced liberal trial lawyer" who doesn't meet standards when compared to Cheney. (Moonie rag WT story
here) I say if they really want to compare Edwards to Cheney then let them. We will win that one hands down. But as my friend
Maryscott has admirably pointed out already, Edwards compares well with the experience of previous presidents, including George Bush, who soon will be a previous president. Besides this, it was Republicans who picked the all-time lightweight Danforth Quayle as a veep and, as
The Note noted this morning, there is "little press credence in any Quayle comparisons." My favorite quote of the day goes to Raleigh News and Observer's
Dennis Rogers:
"Looking over the list of fools, felons, wannabes and has-beens who have been vice president of the United States, it is surprising that a bright and go-getter politician like Raleigh's U.S. Sen. John Edwards would get within shouting distance of such a loser job."
OK, back to that part about being a "liberal trial lawyer." The now familiar NBC poll says roughly two-thirds of Americans have no problem with a trial lawyer. But that interesting statistic doesn't really show us the full range of possibilities Edwards brings to the ticket. First, he has a palpable appeal to middle class America. As Mary Beth Cahill (who did a darn good job on the morning talk shows!!) said to Today, "John Edwards is an American success story. He came from humble beginnings to being a wealthy man and a fighter for the rights of the middle class... That's something the American people admire."
Nick Kristof put it this way, "Senator John Edwards is America's best natural politician since Bill Clinton, and he'll help with the Democrats' most crucial task: reconnecting the party to Middle American voters."
Far from being too liberal to appeal to red state voters, the choice of Edwards brings appeal to the south and rural America. The Raleigh News and Observer's Lynn Bonner writes, "The tremors of Edwards' selection rippled beyond North Carolina to South Carolina, Arkansas and Louisiana." The Charlotte Observer's Tim Funk and Jim Morrill write that "Kerry gave his presidential campaign a boost of energy and signaled his intention to carry his campaign into the South." Though they will not say so on the record, Republicans also are worried about the Edwards effect in the south and midwest. In the Boston Globe, Anne Kornblut gets some off-the-record handwringing that Edwards might make states such as Tennessee and North Carolina competitive and attract moderate Midwesterners who were otherwise unsure about the Democratic challenger. The Wall Street Journal's Al Hunt (cited here ) writes that Democratic strategists believe that if Edwards is able to help Kerry win back 10 to 15 percent of the rural vote, "it will be an election clincher."
One of the few clouds looming on the Edwards horizon is from big business, which has an intense dislike for trial lawyers. There is thunder rumbling all over the place as the SCLM tries to help make an issue of it. WaPo,
the NYT and The Hill all have pieces about how upset the business community is. But I think this actually is a good thing rather than a bad one. I think this gives us an opportunity to create a good wedge issue by showing how the GOP cooperates with big business (and vice versa) to cheney the working class. (Previous diary on that here.) As Peter Canellos writes in his Boston Globe column, the picking of Edwards "says Kerry believes that working-class voters are a swing constituency across the country and that he needs more help with them than with upscale professionals." The Wall Street Journal's Jake Schlesinger and David Rogers (cited here) also note that Edwards' selection shows that Kerry is betting that the economy is the key to the election. They combine this with an observation about how Edwards "makes executives nervous" and specifically mention a focus on predatory lending.
I think outstanding trial lawyer Edwards can make a good case that under Bush the big business fatcats are getting fatter while the working class starves. Here is evidence that the Bush tax cuts went to the rich and big business fatcats instead of small business. Here is some good evidence that the working class got no real tax cut. More on how the long term deficits will hurt the working class here. Some more good prima facie evidence from EPI showing that the fatcats are getting a gold mine while workers get the shaft:
Go get 'em Johnny E.!!! Tell the GOP and their fatcat friends to cry you a cheneying river with their crocodile tears.
Permalink | 17 comments