In his announcement, Mr. Kerry provided clues to how his estimation of Mr. Edwards had risen. "I've seen John Edwards think, argue, advocate, legislate and lead for six years now," he said. "I know his skill, I know his passion, I know his strength, I know his conscience, I know his faith."
"John Edwards is ready for this job," Mr. Kerry said. "John Edwards is ready for this job," he repeated, adding, "I am determined that we reach out across party lines, that we speak the heart of America, that we speak of hope and optimism, and John Edwards will join me in doing that."
-- NYT Report
I was going along my business today and passed the cover of the NY Post, our city's very own personal FOX News, and ala "Dewey Beats Truman," it had a "scoop" -- Gephardt was chosen by Sen. Kerry as his running mate! Oh, I was pissed. "Could they be wrong," I wondered. Perhaps, given they aren't exactly you know as steady or as reliable as say Judith Miller, but I was pretty sure that for something like that, they wouldn't jump the gun. I thought through what I would write here, you know, the usual "What were you thinking, John," stuff.
They, of course, were wrong -- the predictable occurred, and Sen. John Edwards was chosen, the man I symbolically voted for in the primary in March, after Kerry's win was assured. And, it is a good choice, as Legal Fiction discusses here. The people (at least those who had an opinion on the matter) clearly favored Edwards. He supplies balance to the ticket, including the important excitement factor. He will help provide support for key congressional races, especially certain Southern Senate seats.
Edwards brings youth to the party, as much in style as in actual age, which was a major flaw with the Gephardt option. He has a good economic message, surely as a rhetorical matter. And, except for inexperience (a mixed bag anyway, given sometimes experience might be a bad thing, again look at Gephardt; and what sort of experience did President Bush have?), there really isn't a major down side. Heck, he's Ralph Nader's choice! [On why not to vote third party, see here.] And, the choice of many working class people, Southerners, rural voters, and others who might be a bit suspicious of Kerry. Sen. McCain also supplied a nice blurb for the back of Edwards' book, Four Trials.
Don't be too excited, says James Ridgeway in a piece called "Kerry Picks Edwards and Business as Usual." They both supported the war, one in a clearer voice than the other (Edwards to my mind at least was more honest about the whole thing), though I'm unclear what sort of viable anti-war candidate was truly out there (other than yeah Nader, I guess, but even he supports the guy!). They really aren't liberal, aiming their message to middle class voters (Kerry) and "regular folks" (Edwards). This is a bit of a low blow, since Edwards clearly made an effort to discuss poverty and the problems of the working poor.
It is true that in various ways they are members of the "Clinton Wing" of the party as compared to the Dean Wing, who supported a few too many things that might be deemed Bush Lite. They both are not really people one would call "outsiders," so you have that "business as usual" feel to things. All the same, a combination of facing reality and a honest look at the candidates will tell you that a Kerry/Edwards ticket is not really that bad, James.
They both have actually spoken out with some passion concerning various progressive causes, Kerry having a pretty consistent liberal track record, while Sen. Edwards (arguably a bit less pro-free trade) didn't vote much differently than Sen. Kerry. In fact, in some ways, Howard Dean is less progressive than them, including the compromises he made as governor regarding business interests. State liberals were not gigantic fans of Gov. Dean. It is unclear as well how Dean would have responded if he was in Congress and had to make some of the choices these two faced. So, lay off a little -- this from someone who finds Kerry a tad hard to take sometimes.
I like the ticket ... it one I can honestly support with some degree of feeling with Sen. Edwards adding that extra degree of energy that I felt was missing. Gen. Clark, if available, might have given it some gravitas. Gov. Tom Vilsack of Iowa a bit of different flavor, with some of the positives of Edwards, and an additional bit of executive experience added into the mix. They both would have certain problems though, and really on balance Kerry/Edwards would be as good or better if a complete accounting was done. Other match-ups really had no serious interest. Kerry/Edwards was the expected, probably the safest, and overall likely the best choice.
Show us why, guys.