Slate's Jacob Weisberg on the difference between Edwards & Kerry

[dolstein]

"Simply put, Edwards is one of the most talented political speakers I've ever seen—on nights like last night, Clinton-level. He has a way of turning a hall into a courtroom, completely engaging with the audience as if they were members of a jury. He uses his hands to express himself so vividly that it looks like he's doing his own simultaneous translation into American Sign Language. Edwards may not have the foreign policy background of a Kerry or a Clark (and his speech was notably thin on that subject), but he has something that may be much more valuable: a genuine affinity for ordinary people.

The most important aspect of this may be the way he still identifies with the working class, much as Clinton did. Edwards may be rich now, but he seems to think of himself as a guy from the wrong side of the tracks who made good. When John Kerry listens to the stories of poor people, he reacts in a seemingly sincere way: My God, people shouldn't have to live like this, and I'm going to do something about it. John Edwards reacts in a very different way: I've been through it too, and by God, we're going to do something about it."

http://slate.msn.com/id/2094064/entry/0/

Weisberg nails it. I've thought the same thing too, I just haven't been able to say it so succintly.

[lancdem]

1. Do you think Edwards has a real shot?

Is he expected to do well in the Feb. 3 primaries?

[rumguy]

4. yes

[poopyjr]

7. I doubt it. If this wasn't "post-9/11", Edwards would be a potentially

unstoppable candidate. Now, experience seems to be such a big deal. Edwards has little governmental experience (which I like), but the electorate might not. I see Edwards as Kerry's potential veep though. Kerry-Edwards would keep the WH in our hands for the next 16 years :)

[AP]

10. Edwards is going to take America back to caring about the thing we should

have been caring about had there been no 9-11, which I think is what all Americans desperately want.

[Printer70]

17. Little substance but a charismatic speaker

In a post 9-11 world, I don't think Americans will entrust the presidency to someone with no real foreign policy experience and who hasn't finished one term in the Senate- no matter how slick of a salesman he is. It's not his time, yet.

[spooky3]

19. Again, these posts about substance that make no reference

to the very detailed proposals on Edwards' website are completely unconvincing.

[Printer70]

20. I'm talking about perception

Most Americans will not read Edward's policy documents online. They will ask what his experience is (less than 1 term) and what are his policy achievements (I don't most Americans can name any).

[poopyjr]

2. Edwards reminds me the most of Clinton

His ability to stump speech is ridiculous. Very good stuff. I'll watch Edwards on CSpan just for the entertainment value. He's that good.

[rumguy]

3. Edwards has the magic

[David Dunham]

5. Edwards Will Make a nice VP candidate

Edwards will make a good VP candidate. But his resume is too thin for him to win the nomination, especially on national security issues.

[dolstein]

9. Funny, but Dems said the same thing about Bush four years ago

The fact is, if the 2000 election had been decided on the basis of the candidate's resumes, Gore would have won in a landslide.

Edwards has something better than a resume -- he has a compelling critique of the Bush administration, a coherent argument for why he should replace him and a magnetic personality that allows him to connect with ordinary people. He's got the kind of campaign skills than money can't buy. He's a natural, and if you put him up on a stage next to Bush, it will soon become obvious to voters what a phony Bush is.

[sangha]

6. Weisberg did a good job

Edwards is a good man and he has a lot of Clinton in him, as far as campaigning goes.

[SangamonTaylor]

8. well put

Edwards is holding steadfast as my number 1 candidate (with Kerry following nicely behind him!)

My mom back home has actually asked me to "bring home that Edwards book you've been reading when you visit this weekend" (Four Trials)

Now this may seem like nothing, but my parents are staunch republicans. They hate the fact that I have more progressive/populist leanings. However, they have been hurting financially just as much as the rest of us, and hopefully, my dear mother will keep an open mind.

I'm telling you, the republican party is going to get hit hard should Edwards earn the nomination.

[carolinayellowdog]

11. TPM puts it even more strongly

http://talkingpointsmemo.com

quote:

His comfort level with a crowd, his ability to roll with and into their moods and reactions, and his ability to craft his talk into a resonant story (a narrative, as we used to say) is simply light years beyond what Kerry or Clark can manage. (Dean is sort of in a whole different category --- he tries for something different.) He’s down-to-earth, gesticulating all over the place, with folksy aphorisms and punch lines all put in the right spots, but in an unforced, uncontrived matter.

[shivaji]

12. The ONLY 2 negatives for Edwards are,

that Rove will exploit his lack of foreign policy experience and they will keep the mantra of ambulance chaser throughout the campaign.
Should there be a large attack by Al-Qaeda just before election, that
will certainly weigh heavily on nominee Edwards.

Kerry has no such handicaps. If Kerry can connect with the southern states, he will be unstoppable.

I am still not counting out the doctor just as yet.

[rumguy]

13. Edwards could pick a VP with a national security background, and

that "ambulance chaser" garbage would be DOA.

The rethugs tried it in 98 and he beat them over the head with it.

Remember, he represented people, not corporations. And he has the clients to vouch for him and prove it.

[dolstein]

14. "If Kerry can connect with southern states . . . "

Well, if I had wings I could fly.

Sorry, but Kerry isn't going to connect with Southern voters. His New England roots are bad enough, but on top of that there's his wealthy, Ivy League background. And he often comes off as pompous. He simply doesn't talk like normal human beings talk.

Yeah, I know. JFK carried states in the South. But Kerry's no JFK. He lacks JFK's wit and charm. And let's not forget that JFK was running before national battles over civil rights legislation drove huge numbers of white Southernors into the Republican Party. Indeed, JFK was running against a Republican who was at least as liberal on civil rights as he was. And JFK didn't come from the liberal, Adlai Stevenson/Eleanor Roosevelt wing of the Democratic Party.

[spooky3]

16. Every candidate has a weakness than can be exploited

by a determined opponent. And the most Rovian of opponents can invent weaknesses and sell them to a number of people.

So Kerry, unfortunately, is not immune.

The question is--which are *true* weaknesses vs. bs? And how well does the candidate handle the attacks?

I'll be pleased to support Kerry or any other Dem who is nominated, but Edwards has what it takes to win over the substance voters as well as the casual voters. Style and substance--hard to beat.

[spooky3]

18. Don't forget the winning candidate needs to do well in the midwest too.

I believe that Edwards has just as good a shot at doing this as Kerry.

[spooky3]

15. this is a great article--thanks!

I liked the discussion of Elizabeth's appearance as a substitute for John in a town hall, and how the loss of their son in the auto accident led them to decide to change the direction of their lives.

If they are phonies (and I believe they are not), they are the best damn phonies I have ever encountered.