Jonathan Last argues against the emerging conventional wisdom to the effect that "John Kerry was a lousy candidate." But he doesn't think too highly of John Edwards.
Edwards's only electoral victory came in his 1998 Senate race against a 70-year-old first-term senator. Then he lost every presidential primary save South Carolina, delivered a disappointing convention speech, was beaten in the vice presidential debate, and was an ineffective campaigner for Kerry down the stretch. His supposed strength was that he could connect with Southerners, but forget carrying his home state: Edwards couldn't even carry his home precinct. Never has so large a reputation been created by so little actual success.
My opinion is that the only reason that people get excited about Edwards is his boyish good looks. (And his hair!) His main--only?--message--is about "two Americas": one where the people have complete financial security and no worries, and the othere where a 10-year old girl "somewhere in America," goes to bed "praying that tomorrow will not be as cold as today, because she doesn't have the coat to keep her warm."
The irony is how out-of-touch this scenario is. John Tierney of the NYT wrote back in February: "After all, clothing has become so cheap and plentiful (partly because of textile imports, which Mr. Edwards has proposed to limit) that there is a glut of second-hand clothing, and consequently most clothing donated to charity is shipped abroad. The second-hand children's coats that remain in America typically sell for about $5 in thrift shops." The same article quoted Robert E. Rector of the Heritage Foundation: "Since the typical American family below the poverty line has a car, air-conditioning, a microwave oven, a stereo and two color televisions with cable or satellite service . . . it was implausible to assume the family could not afford coats."
If your main message is this trite and off-base, I don't see how Edwards could be considered a plausible presidential candidate in 2008 or beyond. What about Kerry, who has indicated to friends that he's considering another run in 2008? Kerry's brother told the Boston Globe that John Kerry will "be a voice for the 55 million people who voted for him." There's only one problem. Virtually no one voted for John Kerry. Those 55 million votes were votes against George W. Bush. Besides, you know you ship is sunk when the editors at the left-of-center New Republic respond to the idea of Kerry running again by writing: "Our reaction to this is ... how to put it? Well, here goes: No. Please. Stop."
Which leaves....Hilary. (Discussion will have to wait for another day.)
