To all;
The selection of Senator John Edwards as the running mate to Massachusetts liberal John Kerry has gotten me thinking on this choice, as well as some other recent VP candidates.
First of all, the scoop on Edwards, and how he pertains to this years election. The main reason, as it would seem, behind the Edwards choice is the very outermost reasons. He is young (seemingly, he is 51 though), good looking, and very non threatening. He brings very much needed energy and charisma to what has become, quite quickly and quite obviously a dull and rather boring presidential candidate. Edwards brings the flare, personified in that glowing smile, that the media loves. What he brings to this year's election is on the surface; nothing but positive. That is however, essentially the limit of his contribution.
Edwards in reality, brings little to this years election, much less then a Dick Gephardt, or even John McCain would have brought. He has been consistently divisive on several key issues as Kerry. He is rather inexperienced in different facets of governance, especially foreign relations. It is in this field where he becomes the biggest liability. I concede the George W had a relatively equal level of foreign relations experience when he was elected in 2000. His learning mostly came from on the job, and he has done an absolutely remarkable job. Bush's team, which involve some of the most intelligent choices in recent memory definitely assist him in these areas, which is their purpose. Edwards cannot bring states to Democrats side, much less territories. How do the Democrats expect to win the South, with the stereotypical Massachussets as president, and someone who probably would not be re-elected as Senator (Edwards chose not to run for re-election, well before his being selected as Veep). Edwards simply is not ready to become president; in the future perhaps, but not today. Someone like McCain, Gephardt, and yes Dick Cheney could become president if the duty called. Ultimately Edwards is a damaging choice, once you get passed that surface appeal. He certainly does smile purty for the press.
The choice for VP is a very interesting one when it comes to politics as well as politicking. Should it be the runner up in the primaries? Should it be a party loyalist? Should it be a surprise choice? Lets examine the surprise choice first. Kerry pondered the Governor of Iowa, who's name I believe, and corrrect me if I'm wrong, is something like Tom Vilicic. Surprise choices can bring tremendous amounts of appeal, interest, and attention, all very good things. Geraldine Ferraro ran as VP in 1984 with Mondale, the first woman to run as VP for a major party. True, she and Mondale were destroyed by Reagan, but the choice received a lot of attention. Party loyalists, are always pushed for, this year that person was Dick Gephardt. A long time Democrat, it had seemed Gephardt had paid his dues. He was not going to win the presidential nomination, but a VP choice would be the respectful thing to do. This pressure however usually takes the freedom away from the presidential candidate, and that is why they often, ultimately, are not selected. The runner up choice usually takes precedent. We already got the most popular guy on the top of the ticket, why not have second place play second fiddle. Edwards (after the Dean fiasco) was that person. In 2000 it was well known that Bush asked McCain to be his Veep (which he quickly turned down). The runner up selection makes sense numerically speaking, and has somewhat mixed results.
The choice of Edwards is interesting to say the least, and only time will tell how it plays out.
-Mr. Right.
"I knew Jack Kennedy; Jack Kennedy was a friend of mine. You sir are no Jack Kennedy."
-Lloyd Bentsen to Dan Quayle in the 1988 Vice Presidential Debate
after Quayle compared himself to President Kennedy.