K/E: filing for divorce after a brief separation?

[TayTay]

http://www.hillnews.com/thehill/export/TheHill/News/Frontpage/060105/edwards.html

Read the whole thing.
Tell me what you think.

[whometense]

1. I read it earlier this morning.

It made me want to throw something though my monitor, so I thought maybe I shouldn't post anything on it.

This makes me ill:

His supporters remain more enthusiastically loyal than the erstwhile allies of his former running mate, Sen. John Kerry (D-Mass.), one Democratic fundraiser said.

“The guy is great to be around,” the Democrat said. “People around Edwards love that guy, and I don’t know that’s the same for Kerry. … They hang on his every word.”

Not to be immature, but gag me. It's taken a herculean effort on my part the past week or so to not go around bashing other dems, but puhleeeze. Now you've gone and goaded me into opening my mouth...

Just for the record, I think John Edwards is a nice guy. I adore his wife, who I would vote for in a heartbeat, but him - not so much. I really hoped Kerry would pick Clark as his running mate. (I also understand the pressure that was on him to pick Edwards, so I'm not criticizing Kerry for his choice.) I think Edwards is callow and not all that deep, and his ambitions outrun his qualifications by a country mile.

Keep it under your hat.

[CBHagman]

44. Political coverage is generally quite catty.

Reporters buy into all the stereotypes and memes and catchphrases. There was a Washington Post article the other day on Bill Clinton's international efforts, and John Harris, the reporter, just HAD to bring up Monica Lewinsky, even though he'd gone almost the whole article focusing on issues. :mad:

It's the same with Kerry, Gore, or anyone else. The reporters just can't seem to help themselves, and don't even get me started on the pundits. :mad:

[whometense]

2. BTW, hear Feingold on Morning Sedition?

He's starting his own PAC too. Something about helping dems win in normally deep red states.

[TayTay]

3. Everyone's got a PAC nowadays!

The fact that Kerry has one and is raising money pissed off DKos. (Well, that makes me feel good.) The DKos folks want all the money to go to the DNC. The potentials or the powerful want money so that they can spread it around for '06 and engender IOUs. (Hey, who wouldn't)

Personally, I don't think Edwards is going anywhere. Nice guy, but he doesn't have the chops. He made his shot too soon and should have gone for another term in the Senate. I think he was on the ticket because he was Teddy K's protege and JK owed Teddy and because he was 'Johnny Sunshine' and the rank and file liked him. But he didn't do much and his debate skills were less than stunning.

[whometense]

4. Was meditating on this this morning

while listening to Feingold talk.

Had an uneasy feeling about all these PAC's. I understand the power they bring, and why aspirants are doing it, but does it seem to you like it may be divisive to the party? It occurred to me that I'd probably support Kerry's PAC, but wouldn't send money to any of the others. And that sounds sort of like early primary wars. Or am I being stupid? I mean, more dem money for more dem causes is a good thing, right?? I think I need a week at the seashore.

[TayTay]

5. Of course it is!

Everybody is positioning, just like they always do. It's okay as long as good things come out of it. (Ahm, they are politicians dear. It is part of the job description.) As long as the focus remains recruiting and funding good Dems in '06 then where is the harm? (Hillary has one. BTW, did you read the profile stuff on her in WaPo? Wow! She wants to go forward by going back and going Centrist like in the '90's. That won't work.)

[ginnyinWI]

6. Kerry's supporters less loyal than Edwards'???

I find that very hard to believe. JK has over 600,000 on his email list, doesn't he? And at DU, our group had 29,415 posts when I looked, and the Edwards group has, uh, 364.

The person who made that statement is totally biased toward Edwards, that's all. So I'll try to forgive it!

I really don't think Edwards is in a very good position as far as running in 2008. He's not in public office now, and that is huge. Maybe in a future race, but he's got some catching up to do.

I agree, he's a nice guy, but I didn't have nearly as much confidence in him as I had and still have in John Kerry. There is such a big difference in their resumes. If JE were to ask me, I'd say he should run for governor--because given his interest in wiping out poverty he could be very effective on a more local level. His foreign policy experience is pretty anemic, althugh I believe he would have been brought up to speed on it quickly by working alongside JK, had he become VP. The guy is brilliant, just like his running mate.

[BlueIris]

23. Oh, I know.

"The guy is great to be around,” the Democrat said. “People around Edwards love that guy, and I don’t know that’s the same for Kerry. … They hang on his every word.”

Well, I love Kerry, and most Kerry supporters I know also love him. Just one person's opinion, I know, shouldn't let it piss me off, blah, blah, but: ECH. Those are the kinds of comments I HATE. HATE.

[ginnyinWI]

29. as for me,

I hang on John Kerry's every word! :loveya:

[karynnj]

33. Same here

More than any politician in my life. I love the way he says things even when they are not prepared statements.

[rox63]

7. It's the gravitas, stupid!

Kerry has it, Edwards doesn't. I like Edwards, and I came to like and respect him and his wife even more during the campaign. I think he would have been a fine VP. I was a bit worried during the campaign about his lack of experience. But he also seemed to be a quick study, so I wasn't too upset about it. Partly because of the wealth of experience and intelligence that Kerry has. And the gravitas. The president should be someone who takes his job and his responsibilities seriously. So tell me again how we ended up with *?

[TayTay]

9. I agree on the gravitas

JK has the chops from 20 years in the Senate. (All those commerce, banking, finance and foreign relations committee assignments. It showed in the debates.)

I like John Edwards and I like his family. I wish them all the good luck and best wishes in the world. It's not personal. I just don't think he is the best guy to lead the nation. That's all. And I would do whatever it takes to put in the person who I believe is the best to lead the nation. (Hey, it's just business, ya know!)

[Mass]

8. I read it this morning

Unfortunately, this seems to be part of a pattern that started a few weeks ago. There was this interview in the Financial Times last week where he implied that Kerry was wishy-washy (did not use the word, but that is what he meant, and a number of things.

I agree with your assessment of Edwards and of his wife, and i really hope he will not run again (independantly of what Kerry does). He is a great speaker when he can use his stump speech, but I always thought that he was less good in debates when the answers could not be extracted from his speech.

I like Feingold. He look great and I like his way to speak clearly (though he is not a great public speaker IMHO).

While it is way too early to speak of 2008, he is the second preferred in my list.

[TayTay]

10. It started Nov 3rd.

As soon as the concession speech happened, Edwards started to distance himself from the campaign and imply that 'it wasn't his fault' they didn't win, that it was Kerry's. (Not personal -- I understand they are all friends and live near each other in peace and harmony and stuff. I understand that. It's not personal.)

Edwards is a talented guy (though his wife is even better) and I wish him well. But I will not send him money or work for him. Nice guy. But not my choice for the Pres.

[politicasista]

13. I remember the MSNBC story about Edwards' joke about Ms. Cahill

During the some fundraiser (I think) someone asked him, what lessons had he learned from the campaign and 2008, he said "Don't listen to Mary Beth Cahill." They said that the whole audience got quiet and that Cahill turned red-faced. I think he thought that her passive attitude against the SBL and other things cost Kerry the election. He said he was only joking though.

[BlueIris]

24. I still don't know if I believe that the Cahill comment was real,

but if it was--it's representative of the qualities I like least in Edwards.

[whometense]

11. I like him too.

He's smart, and he has gravitas. Not as much as Kerry - but then, no one has as much as Kerry.

I think we're seeing a backlash against Kerry from the right wingers and their media enablers who thought they'd killed him off and are pissed that he's still around and making noise. They're worried about US. Kerry's army. That's the dirty secret, I'm convinced. The more they talk and write about how "no one likes Kerry," the less I'm convinced they really believe it. They're just using psy-ops on us, trying to demoralize us. :P

[karynnj]

14. Think you might be right about psych-ops

The media never helped Kerry at all in the last election. Kerry will never be their candidate. What is particularly bad is that they continue to repeat all the RW slurs - windsurfer, equivocating, etc which are clearly not true. I'm amazed by how hard he works and how much he obviously cares. It's been fascinating seeing how his new comments have evolved. (I thought they were great when Tay Tay summarized them from the Boston talk - but he has really improved them since then.)

They keep referring to Edwards as charismatic but although I really liked Elizabeth, I was disappointed in Edwards' convention speech and thought that he barely held his own against Cheney. In the primaries, Kerry was far better than Edwards in the debates.

Kerry's current speech addresses some of the same issues as Edwards' 2 Americas speech, but Kerry's seems less rhetorical and more colloquial, and less pretentious. Kerry's call to activism is also interesting in that for those who do even minimally respond, it may give a sense of being part of a larger thing. If people are currently disaffected and feel they have no voice, by reaching out to the people on his list and to the people in organizations likely to be responsive, Kerry is both listening to and leading them in demanding things they need.

I wonder if anyone has looked at the relative popularity of the potential candidates as far as how they compete in the red, blue, and purple states. I would bet that Kerry may be better regarded in the purple states (swing states) because a larger percent of the people would have actually seen him and many others may have seen the local media. It may be that people in blue states, are by a large margin picking Hillary over Kerry, because they are convinced she can win and they still have no clear image of Kerry.

[karynnj]

12. Kerry hid Edwards to not be over shadowed?

Neither Kerry or Edwards was given as much press as they deserved or wanted. How would Kerry hide Edwards if he wanted to? I'm sure the team would have taken any good press they could get - and if was Edwards, it would simply affirm Kerry made a good choice.

This article seems to be a non-story in that all the comments are unattributed and some make no sense. (Especially after the first Kerry knock, they say only Hillary and Kerry are more popular with Democratic voters.) Also, why is Kerry getting decent crowds on his kids' first trips - even though there's no election up-coming.

The last similar article in the NYT at least mentioned the 2 men said they had become good friends and mentioned the little kids went to visit Teresa. Both may run. They're ambitious and each will try if they perceive they have a chance.

[beachmom]

15. All of this enhances Lieberman's image for me

Although I think Lieberman is wrong on many issues and that kiss from * was bizarre, at least he had the decency to wait for Gore to decide whether he would run or not in '04. Only when Gore said no did Lieberman jump in. I admire many things about Edwards, but it just seems like his ambition always comes before any other consideration. Also, unlike Republicans, Democratic VPs aren't so much the attack dogs. But in '04, an attack dog (a role I can't quite imagine JE playing) would have been helpful, against the SBVT (although I still say fellow veterans would have been the best surrogates on that issue) and all of the BC04 lies. Upon reflection, maybe Clark would have been a better VP pick. But it's easy now to second guess campaign decisions. My admiration for Kerry is very great, but mistakes were definitely made in the campaign, including possibly the VP pick. Since it does now appear that terrorism was THE issue, a double muscular ticket might have pushed them over the top. Hope you all don't mind this critique.

[karynnj]

16. Lieberman's and Edwards' situations were somewhat different

Although it has been said that all Senators fantasize that they could become President at sometime in their lives, some have a far greater chance than others. Joe Lieberman, who is an orthodox Jew, very conservative for a Democrat, not attractive, and not charismatic would not have been a likely candidate until picked by Gore. Edwards was identified as a superstar from the moment he entered the Senate because of his good looks and the fact that he was an excellent speaker (gee, which new 1984 Senator would this have also described) and from a Southern state was considered to be a possible superstar.

The awkward thing if they run against each other is that both have said very positive (superlative laden) things about each other. But, with a few exceptions, both ran more based on their own advantages and good qualities than against the others.

[blm]

18. Actually, Clark was alot of people's first choice.

And Kerry preferred him, too. I heard it was the Carville-Clinton folks who pushed Edwards.

[TayTay]

21. Oh, don't worry about the criticism

As long as it is not mean spirited (and nobody here is, not in my tenure here anyway) criticism is fine. The SBVT thing was completely baffling to me. I was completely flabbergasted as to why they didn't have the rebuttal script written and ready to pull out of a drawer for when that attack came. (The Liars Club had previewed that attack plan earlier in the year.) It was a tragic mystery to me as to why they didn't quickly respond.

Kerry had been pilloried three times before in his career by Rethugs over his war record and his VVAW protests. Three times. The first time he was just a kid and naive and they blindsided him. (The 5th Cong. district race.) They were just dumb kids and the Nixon White House put pros in to screw them over in that race. It worked, they were screwed. (Ratf*cking, remember. That and other despicable things that were done to Kerry were the reason why Chuck Colson wrote him that letter apologizing for what he (Colson) did to Kerry back in the '70s.)

The second time was the '84 Senate race. Rethugs brought in one Rep. John McCain to campaign against Kerry in Boston (Southie, a big blue-collar, vet area.) Kerry assembled his crew and fought back and the charges dissipated as a political force. It happened again in '96 when David Warsh at the Boston Glob smeared Kerry's record and implied that he had shot an unarmed teenager in the back and didn't deserve the Silver Star. Kerry assembled his crew in Springfield, MA and effectively neutralized the charges and generated sympathy. (In fact, this might have swung the election to him.)

I cannot understand why this was given the free press it was for days on end. They fought back, but the damage was done. (And not. I also think there was a counterbalancing effect, especially when the ChickenHawks at the Rethug Ball in NYC wore purple heart band-aids to mock the wounds of American veterans.)

The other thing that drove me crazy in that election was the windsurfing. (Don't yell at me. It did.) I don't actually care what people do in their earned leisure time, as long as it's legal. But there must have been someone on staff who was not tone-deaf who could have said, "Ahm, Senator, do what you want, but don't INVITE the press to your vacation. These people are not your friends, and want to find goofy pictures of you to print and want to portray you as elitist. Don't give them ammunition. Windsurf where the press can't see you." That incident, along with the SVBT Lies put me in a bad mood until the NYU speech last year. (Which was so wickedly awesome and such a great Bush-basher that I felt better. That was a barn-burner of a speech. My fav of the whole campaign.)

[Mass]

17. As we are talking about Edwards, he is the guest blogger on TMPCafe

if anybody is interested:

http://www.tpmcafe.com/section/tableforone

[LittleClarkie]

19. One quick comment, and I'll come back later when I have time

"one Dem fundraiser said" beware the anonymous source.

[sandnsea]

20. circular firing squad

Ladies, we really do need to go DC. We need to find every one of these so-called strategists, analysts and consultants; and present them with muzzles.

I gotta go, I've got company.

[LittleClarkie]

22. Okay I have more time now

I see the same "Everyone loves blank, nobody loves Kerry" crapola. I wonder who the anonymous fundraiser is. Did he fundraise for Kerry, or Dean or Edwards or what?

It just sounds like somebody pumping Edwards up and putting down Kerry to do it.

I don't think Edwards himself is really in on it. He's not even quoted.

As far as "hiding" Edwards, well there's more than one take on why he was out in the rural areas. For one thing, he himself said he asked to be there. He thought he would be most effective there. He was put more front and center after his debate, I think, because he showed he could handle himself. That might have been a concern because he really doesn't have a ton of experience under his belt.

Kerry wanted to win. He wasn't going to care if Edwards was a star. If they won, he was still only going to be VP.

Edwards wasn't blowing anyone's socks off. He certainly doesn't blow my socks off. He has too much huckster in his delivery. He only lost that once when I listened to his goodbye speech in the Senate, and that was when he talked about John Kerry. The sincerity in his voice was obvious. And then it was gone.

I'd like to write a letter to the Hill and tell them that I don't hang on his every word when I see him on the tv. But I DO sit and watch CSPAN when the Senate is in session, hoping to catch a glimpse of Kerry. If some people don't get that, that's their problem.

[BlueIris]

25. More on the "hiding" Edwards issue...

well, not much more, but just basically--I thought at least that Edwards may have "thrown" the VP debate, probably because Kerry performed so well in the first debate with Bush. What do I want to post about this--that I don't care if Edwards was less visible? That even if he was, as would be appropriate because he was the running MATE, and VICE-presidential candidate, a fair number of people waaaay out West, where I was, still characterized themselves as "Edwards supporters" long after his individual effort was over? That ultimately, if Edwards didn't like being less visible, ultimately, it was his choice to accept Kerry's invite to be on the ticket as V.P.? That whatever the strategy was, it DID work, because everything I've read tells me Kerry and Edwards should be in the White House right now? Yeah, pretty much all of those things.

[Mass]

26. The main way a running mate is visible is if he attacks

Edwards typically does not attack front and center, as Cheney would do, which is probably why he did not get much press. Being Mr. Nice Guy does not give you front pages, especially if you are the number 2 on a ticket.

Not that they reported much on Kerry either, anyway.

[karynnj]

37. The strategy of saying that Edwards' was given little visibility

is a double edged sword. Last year, Edwards brought his career as a lawyer, one term as a Senator, good looks, a pleasant personality, his life story, intelligence, and a great family as his assets. It was not enough, even though he was credited by the media with Clinton like charm. What he brings 3 years from now will be the above plus being part of the campaign and whatever he does between now and then.

I think that Edwards gained some recognition, but he gained little from his two biggest opportunities. The Cheney / Edwards debate was probably a draw possibly due to the very constrained format of the debate with Cheney and Edwards sitting at the table. Given Edwards' reputation of being a fantastic speaker, his convention speech was merely ok and suffered when compared to Kerry's, Obama's and Clinton's. So, unlike some losing VP candidates,I think that Edwards came out about where he was when he was chosen.

If his friends feel he did little to improve his stature by running as the VP, they may feel that by arguing he was given very little visibility, they diminish any tarnish due to losing. I like Edwards, but think he made a mistake running for President rather than fighting for his Senate seat. I also didn't see any real growth in Edwards (though he was hard to see) over the campaign.

[saracat]

27. I am sure Edwards is running again and I can't blame him.

Edwards really has his heart in the right place and he would be a great candidate. He is loaded with charisma and really projects himself as a man of the people. I adore John Kerry but we could do far worse than John Edwards! He was chosen by Kerry exactly because he wasn't expected to hide.Edwards was supposed to humanize Kerry and he did.They were wonderful together! Each brought out the best in one another.
John Edwards is a brilliant guy.I don't think he threw the debate with Cheney, but the debate was structured to give Cheney the edge. I also think that being the great trial lawyer he is expectations were ratcheted up too high and we made ourselves a victim of Rove!
Much as I love Kerry, I see no reason for Edwards not to take another shot at the presidency.He will be exactly the right age and maybe in a better position to strike. If Kerry wants to run again, he will simply have to re defeat Edwards for the nomination.I don't understand why some feel that it is alright for Kerry to have ambition from a young age and pursue his dream yet feel it would be "overreaching" for Edwards.
Both men make no bones about wanting to be President and will take whatever route gets them closest. The fact that they are friends should not deter them.I am thrilled that we have a party that offers us many viable choices!

[whometense]

28. Edwards is obviously

not listening to me, so my opinion hardly matters.

I have no argument with his ambition at all. I do have an argument with his lack of experience. That's just how I feel. Not setting myself up as any kind of expert. If he were the dem nominee I'd vote for him, but I wouldn't be enthused.

[ginnyinWI]

30. same here

I saw him on Cspan this morning speaking at the Campaign for America's Future convention. It was a stump speech. Almost the same one. I thought, how can he get away with saying the same thing, the same way all the time? It was really disappointing, partly because he lacked--I don't know, a touch of humanity I guess you would call it. True, he really cares about all the causes he talks about, but he just doesn't reveal the authenticity that JK does.

Do you know what I'm trying to say? I mean, JK will stand up in front of people and look at them, and smile, and touch his heart, etc., and speak from the heart, and you've gotta believe him. I just don't see JE connecting in that way. He is up there "giving a speech", and that's about it.

I really don't mean to bash a good Dem. He's a smart and dedicated guy. I personally just don't feel the connection with him as I do with Kerry.

[saracat]

31. I think the fact that he got to where he is today

without any help from anyone is experience enough! He is also very involved in policy abroad. Many of our greatest leaders didn't have "experience". And what kind of "experience " is necessary anyway? This isn't agrumentative, just curious. What we need is a candidate who can "connect" with the people , the lawmakers, and world leaders as well as get elected. I think Edwards has a better chance of doing that then most!

[beachmom]

32. Paying your dues first

Maybe Kerry's loss in 1972, which led him to holding jobs as a prosecutor, private lawyer, lieutenant governor, and 3 terms as a senator, is what makes the difference between him and Edwards. As much as I love watching a John Edwards speech, I just don't think he has paid his dues enough to be president. I actually do think that you need government experience in order to hold the highest office in the land. In fact, we are currently seeing the results of having an occupant in the White House who simply was unqualified for the job. He surrounded himself with very experienced people, but that's just ridiculous that an amateur is called President while the experts (as misguided as Cheney, et al are, they have a lot of experience) are the advisors. I want someone as president who may not be THE expert on issues, but who has both a breadth and depth of knowledge in all aspects of foreign and domestic policy. No doubt that Edwards is highly intelligent and charismatic, he only has a breadth of knowledge. Heck, I think our next president SHOULD be a seasoned senator from either party. I'm tired of this "has to be a governor" business, because then you end up with an executive with little foreign policy knowledge or experience. Maybe that's why we've had so many problems.

I remember watching Edwards give a speech during the primary season and thinking I liked him better than Kerry. But that was only for superficial reasons. When I started learning more, my esteem for Kerry went up while it went a little down for Edwards because I'm looking for substance in a president not just someone who looks good giving a speech.

But here's the question: Should the job of president of the United States be more of a figurehead role (much like the Queen of England) for which the real power is held by his/her inner circle? If how we choose a president has become all about image, style, and presentation, then why not higher an actor, elect him/her president and surround him with the best and brightest of his/her party? You have to say, that's what's really happened in 2000 and 2004. A cheerleader, an aviator, a cowboy, a regular guy, a tough guy -- these are the roles * has played, quite brilliantly, actually. And the ideas came from somewhere else. I mean did someone see how * has been reading the same book since March -- the new Tom Wolfe book? He doesn't read newspapers, and reads maybe 3 books a year. He doesn't even enjoy films so much. Where is he getting his ideas? The bible and his advisors. So it really has to be his advisors who are actually doing his job. He does what he does best -- be Mr. Charming -- and they think through the policy, strategy, et al.

If that's how it's going, then maybe Edwards is right for running for president with such a thin resume. After all, he is quite brilliant, has worked hard his whole life, and can be quite charming. But gosh, I am old fashioned! I want a president who has it ALL! The looks, the brains, the charm, the character, the experience! If Edwards had become VP, then he would have rightly gained the experience he needed, but with 1 term as a senator he only has 3, possibly 4 of those characteristics I am looking for.

Sorry the post is so long!

[Mass]

34. While I agree with you that a president needs some experience

that I am not too confident Edwards has, the problem that you describing with Bush is one I doubt Edwards has: a lack of "intellectual curiosity".

Clinton has been able to bypass his lack of experience in international affairs with his intelligence and his curiosity. There were some bumps in the first years of his presidency, but at least, he was able to learn and to understand what other were explaining to him. I have no doubt that Edwards would do the same thing.

[whometense]

35. I agree that's certainly true,

but I'm pretty much in agreement with beachmom. Why have a bumpy first few years if you can choose someone who already has the experience?

I don't want to get into a big debate on Edwards. This is the John Kerry group, after all. It's hardly surprising if a lot of people here see Kerry as a much better choice.

[Mass]

36. I totally agree with you and beachmom on this point.

[beachmom]

38. Sorry, I was just musing a bit

I didn't want my post to be comparing * and Edwards one to one. Edwards is way smarter and cares so much more about the people. And I really liked him in 2004, so I think I'll leave it at that. I wouldn't mind seeing him run for another office, perhaps in North Carolina, because we need talented politicians like him representing our party at all levels of government. You're right, this is JK forum, and digressing too far is counterproductive. But unlike the Kerry bashers, I would never say anything mean spirited about JE, because if he were elected president I know he would be looking out for the common man from the first day on the job.

[rox63]

39. Thanks for clarifying

I'd hate to see this degenerate into an Edwards-bashing thread. Although we'd all love to see JK become president, Edwards would at least be a huge improvement over *. I think with a few more years of seasoning and political experience under his belt, he'd be a superb presidential candidate. On the other hand, Kerry is ready and capable of taking the helm right now.

[wisteria]

40. I was avoiding commenting about Edwards.

This article makes it hard for me not to though. I am trying to avoid blaming John Edwards for this. It is obvious though he does want to run again. To be honest, I though him acceptable as a VP candidate, and I wasn't to impressed with his debate with Chaney, although he did hold his own. He seemed to come off childish to me, but maybe that was because Chaney comes off as such an old caggy man. I agree with those who stress his lack of experience, but the one thing that stays with me, whenever I think about Edwards,was his stump speech. I saw him three times during the campaign and it was virtually the same speech each time. It was also very similar to the one he used when he was running in the primaries. He never swayed from the familiar themes or issues no matter what type of crowd he had. There wasn't that personal connection, or recognition of voter types. He seems to be a good man, he understands the issues, but does he really care or are his words just that- words.
PS I love his wife. She is a natural.No frills and she comes across as so understanding and caring with no effort involved.

[ginnyinWI]

41. I had almost the same reaction

See post 30 in this thread.

[BlueIris]

42. ITA with all your points.

I mean, I like him and all, but I'm sure I don't have to explain to anybody here whom I had the "magic" connection with.

[karynnj]

43. Although I agree that Edwards was inexperienced,

I don't know if the repeated speech was a sign of not caring. The people he was trying to reach did not attend multiple events - so if he had honed the points he wanted to make into a well received speech, it makes sense to say it in the way that he knew was tested and found to connect. It might also be that he didn't have a lot of campaign experience - in which case, he might improve.

In fact, Kerry repeated some of his points using nearly the same words time after time - but each speech was different. He seemed much more adept at focusing on the issues relevant to the audience or responding to items in the news. Kerry ability to respond to unfiltered questions was an impressive clue as to the depth and breath of his knowledge. Watching both, I found Kerry mesmerizing- especially when he was expressing outrage over Bush actions.

I think the difference between Kerry and Edwards might in fact be seen by their careers as trial lawyers. Both were described as exceptionally gifted advocates. Kerry spent 2 years as a trial lawyer, then rather than use his eloquence and brilliance to become very rich, he opted for public service because he wanted to make a difference. To be fair, his connections allowed him to enjoy most of the fruits of wealth without being personally wealthy. It is notable that even when talking about his days as a lawyer, Kerry preferred to talk about his years as a prosecutor.

Edwards amassed a fortune as a personal injuries lawyer, then ran for Senator in his late 40s. As a lawyer, Edwards did obtain restitution from corporations for damages done against relatively powerless people. His technique of channeling a baby who died in birth when the doctor opted against a C section was effective, but also a manipulative attempt to play on the emotions (rather than the intelligence) of the jurors. The NYT only detailed a small number of Edwards' cases, but what came through was that he was a very persuasive salesman - which is a good trait for a politician, but says nothing about being a statesman.

It may be that Edwards through his current work on poverty is trying to demonstrate his commitment to some of what he talked about in the campaign. He needs to show that there is some substance below the talk and having no position to go back to makes this harder. Edwards was not Senator long enough to have really developed much of a reputation. He actually has very little time, because I would assume that he would need to start the ground work on his campaign in late 2006 - only a year and a half from now.

Against Kerry, Edwards has only his relative youth, Elizabeth, and the fact that he is perceived as Mr. Sunshine. His 2004 stump speech is old and (at least to me) appears schmaltzy compared to Kerry's felt needs speech which more passionately talks about the same issues. After Edwards' debate with Cheney, I didn't hear any comments suggesting that his performance made them wish that he was heading the ticket.