To: Andrew N. Cothran who wrote (590755 ) 7/14/2004 5:45:20 PM From: Andrew N. Cothran Respond to of 769670 The Washington Post: July 14, 2004:Edwards and Women: Ooooh. . . . isn't John Edwards dreamy? America's press corps certainly thinks so. News stories are awash with commentary from pundits and political strategists that suggest that People magazine's one-time "sexiest politician" will attract lots of women voters to John Kerry. "Edwards is a smart choice for Kerry, because he appeals to women," television commentator Bill O'Reilly declared on one of those roundtable gabfests on CNN last Sunday. One problem: It isn't true, at least not yet. In recent polling and in the primaries, Edwards much-reported sway over women was either non-existent or hugely overblown. For example, polls conducted before and after Kerry invited Edwards to run as his vice president suggest his addition to the ticket did nothing to make it more attractive to women voters. The latest Washington Post poll included the names of the respective presidential and vice presidential candidates. And there was a clear gender gap: 50 percent of all women who were registered to vote were supporting Kerry-Edwards, compared to 43 percent for President Bush and Vice President Cheney -- a seven-point difference. One problem: The same proportion of female registered voters -- 51 percent -- supported Kerry in a Post-ABC News poll conducted in mid-June, well before Edwards was invited to join the ticket. In that survey, 45 percent of all men were Kerry supporters, a slightly higher percentage than support him in the new Post survey. Hmmmm . . . wouldn't it be ironic if it turns out that Edwards doesn't turn women on -- he turns men off?