What Edwards Has That Kerry Doesn't: Andrew Ferguson (Correct)
(Corrects date of primaries in first paragraph. Andrew
Ferguson is a columnist for Bloomberg News. The opinions expressed
are his own.)
By Andrew Ferguson
Feb. 24 (Bloomberg) -- With the March 2 presidential
primaries in 10 states looming over the political landscape like
the Big Kahuna, Democrats might appreciate a quick guide to the
differences between their two remaining serious candidates, John
Kerry and John Edwards.
Both are faithful Democrats, both wealthy, handsome and well-
tailored. As senators, both voted to authorize the Iraq war, favor
keeping the Bush tax cuts for the middle class, and advocate
ambitious but incremental reform of the nation's health-care
system.
But if you want to see where they differ, try this: get hold
of a transcript from the debate held earlier this month in
Milwaukee. There you will find the difference in a nutshell -- a
very roomy nutshell.
Midway through the debate, a reporter asked Kerry whether,
having voted for the Iraq war, he felt any responsibility for
``its costs and casualties.''
Pull up a chair.
``This is one of the reasons why I am so intent on beating
George Bush,'' Kerry replied, ``and why I believe I will beat
George Bush, because one of the lessons that I learned when I was
an instrument of American foreign policy, I was that cutting-edge
instrument. I carried that M-16....''
Rinse and Repeat
A minute later, Kerry was still talking: ``There was a right
way to do this and a wrong way to do it.'' Another minute passed
and he was still putting the finishing touches on his answer,
which, it turned out, wasn't really an answer.
``Let me repeat the question,'' the frustrated reporter said.
And Kerry was off again, for another 90 seconds. He mentioned
Bill Clinton, the War Powers Act, and former Republican foreign
policy bigwigs Jim Baker and Brent Scowcroft, yet never got around
to saying whether he felt any responsibility for the consequences
of his vote.
``There was a right way to do it,'' he said once more, ``and
a wrong way to do it.''
The reporter gave up and asked the same question of Edwards,
who shot a sly glance at Kerry.
``That's the longest answer I ever heard to a `yes' or `no'
question,'' Edwards said. ``The answer to your question is, `Of
course.' I did what I believed was right.''
Self-Referential
My point in reprinting these replies is not that Kerry talks
too much -- all politicians talk too much -- but that so much of
his talk is undisciplined, self-referential and pompously
unappealing. Here he stands in sharp contrast to Edwards, who is
by far the more disciplined political performer of the two --and,
though Democrats may be reluctant to admit it, the better
candidate, too.
In many respects it's not even a fair contest. Kerry has been
cocooned for nearly 20 years in the U.S. Senate, where the art of
moral persuasion has largely vanished. Despite its self-
advertisement as the ``world's greatest deliberative body,'' the
Senate is scene to more sloppy, self-indulgent oratory than a
televised Grammy awards show.
Trial Practice
Edwards, on the other hand, honed his skills during 25 years
as a trial lawyer -- pacing courtrooms, pruning arguments, trying
to keep juries awake. His stump speech, repeated as often as six
times a day for more than a year, is buffed till it glows. In five
minutes he can cover more issues, and push more hot buttons, than
Kerry can handle in half an hour.
Republicans like to complain that Democrats wage ``class
warfare.'' They mean the phrase metaphorically, but with Edwards
they get the real thing. ``I believe,'' he says in his stump
speech, ``that the son of a millworker can go toe-to-toe with the
son of a president.''
Edwards uses his working-class roots to draw a distinction
with Kerry on trade policy, the only substantive issue where a
distinction between the two can be made.
Kerry -- educated in a Swiss boarding school, son of a
foreign service officer, husband to an heiress -- voted for the
North American Free Trade Agreement in 1993 as a Massachusetts
senator. Edwards says he opposed it, though he wasn't in the
Senate when the treaty passed, because he has seen the ravages of
free trade in the abandoned textile mills of his state, North
Carolina.
Electability `Issue'
Yet the real distinction Edwards wants to draw involves
``electability,'' this year's instant political cliche and
supposedly Kerry's greatest strength as a candidate. Electability
is a strangely post-modern rationale for a campaign; it presumes
that voters will vote for a candidate because they think voters
will vote for him.
Among the party faithful, weighing similar alternatives, this
line of reasoning is vaguely plausible. But it vanishes when a
candidate moves from the insular world of primaries into a general
election, where fully a third of the electorate will have no party
affiliation. And it's precisely among these independent voters
that Edwards has shown his greatest strength in such states as
Wisconsin and South Carolina.
In November, voters will vote for the candidate who has
withstood six months of pitiless exposure, including a series of
debates with President George W. Bush, and survived with his
personal appeal intact. Democrats should ask: Is Edwards more
likely than Kerry to wear well? That's one more ``yes or no
question'' that John Kerry might have trouble answering.
--Editors: Ahearn, Gettinger, Bray, Sillitoe. |
