Why now for John Edwards? (Expected to make official leap into the 2004 presidential race)

News & Observer ^ | December 8, 2002 | JOHN WAGNER

[jern]

Why now for Edwards?
No more playing coy. Within weeks, John Edwards is expected to make an official leap into the 2004 presidential race, sharpening questions about his readiness and support in the South

By JOHN WAGNER, Washington Correspondent

WASHINGTON--U.S. Sen. John Edwards has been flirting with a presidential bid for well over a year. Now things are about to get serious. Within weeks, the North Carolina Democrat is expected to take the first formal step toward a 2004 White House run by creating a committee that will let him raise money and scour the country in search of support.

In some ways, the move would hardly be surprising. Ever since he burst onto the political scene in 1998, the former trial lawyer has been pegged as a rising star who could one day make a credible run for the nation's highest office.

	related
	Way out of touch

	what do you think?
	What is your advice to Sen. John Edwards as he contemplates a run for the presidency? Write: Final Word, The N&O, P.O. Box 191, Raleigh N.C. 27602; e-mail finalword@newsobserver.com or fax 829-4647. Letters must be signed and no more than 250 words.

	historic facts
	* Last time a Tar Heel made a serious bid for his party's presidential nomination: Terry Sanford in 1976. * Last time a sitting U.S. senator was elected president: John F. Kennedy in 1960. * Last time a freshman senator was elected president: Warren G. Harding in 1920. * Last time a Democrat from outside the South was elected president: John F. Kennedy in 1960. * Last time a Democratic presidential candidate carried North Carolina: Jimmy Carter in 1976. * Last time a Democratic senator won election in North Carolina during a presidential year: Sam Ervin in 1968.

But why so soon?

At a time when President Bush is riding high in the polls, does it make sense for a still largely unknown freshman senator to gamble on a long-shot bid for president?

"In politics, you really should grab opportunities when they arrive rather than try to plot things out," said Andrew Taylor, a political scientist at N.C. State University. "If you think the opportunity is there, you should seize it."

Edwards seems poised to take that advice.

Although he says he is still weighing his options, Edwards appears likely to join a sizable field of Democrats actively jockeying for the nomination. The rationale for Edwards' run rests largely on two premises: that the party's best shot in 2004 is a fresh-faced nominee and that a candidate from the South has the best chance to beat Bush.

Both notions are debatable -- and much is at risk for Edwards.

If he moves ahead and things go badly, he could always pull back and seek re-election to his Senate seat in 2004. But it's not clear how welcoming Tar Heel voters would be. On the other hand, sitting out the 2004 presidential race offers no guarantee of a better shot four years later. Another Democrat could beat Bush in 2004, effectively putting other Democrats on hold until 2012.

Edwards has been laying groundwork for 2004 almost since Bush's inauguration. His initial trip to Iowa, home of the first presidential caucuses, came little more than a month after Bush arrived in Washington.

Since then, Edwards has enjoyed a remarkable run of positive press, has impressed party elites and has proved to be a more formidable fund-raiser than most expected. He is among a half-dozen Democrats routinely cited by the national media as having a real shot at the nomination.

Still, analysts suggest an awful lot would have to break his way for someone in Edwards' position to win.

"There's no model for it happening," said Michael Munger, chairman of Duke University's political science department.

For more than a year, boosters have talked up Edwards' candidacy as a way for Democrats to make a clean break with the 2000 election debacle. Rather than re-argue whether Al Gore should have won Florida -- or his home state of Tennessee -- Democrats could focus on the future.

Edwards, so the boosters' argument goes, is an articulate messenger who can appeal to soccer moms and NASCAR fans alike and is still new enough to Washington to run credibly as an outsider. The argument got a boost in last month's mid-term election, in which Democrats lost seats in both the Senate and House.

The setbacks dampened enthusiasm for presidential bids by two of Washington's most entrenched Democrats, Senate Minority Leader Tom Daschle and former House Minority Leader Dick Gephardt. Whether doubts about Gore, Daschle and Gephardt prompt the party to embrace Edwards is another matter. But none of the Democrats who spent the past year jockeying for attention has emerged as an obvious choice -- and all face questions about their viability.

Sen. John Kerry of Massachusetts, for example, is a war veteran and seasoned lawmaker with ample foreign-policy experience. But Kerry, who announced a week ago that he is forming a presidential committee, must prove he's not just another Northeastern liberal.

Despite the advantages, being the fresh face presents tremendous challenges -- not the least of which is making sure voters know you exist.

That reality was underscored in a poll last month of 600 likely Democratic voters in New Hampshire, home of the first presidential primary.

Not one picked Edwards as the first-choice presidential candidate. What's more, despite Edwards' visiting the Granite State three times in the past year, only 20 percent said they know who he is. Still, it's worth noting that at the same stage in the 1992 presidential cycle, the same poll reported only 13 percent of likely Democratic voters were familiar with an Arkansas governor named Bill Clinton. And, for now, the most important people to court are key activists and fund-raisers -- not the general public.

Clock is ticking

So Edwards has time -- but not much. Voting in the Iowa caucuses and New Hampshire primary starts in little more than a year, in January 2004. Some other states, including South Carolina and Missouri, are moving their primaries to early February 2004, creating a front-loaded calendar likely to produce a Democratic nominee by the next spring.

If Edwards takes a serious stab at the nomination, one story line is certain to be: Is he ready?

Supporters point out that Edwards would have spent as many years in the Senate -- six -- as George W. Bush did in the Texas governor's mansion prior to his arrival in Washington. Bush, of course, had a familiarity with the job that came with having a father who served four years as president and eight as vice president.

For better or worse, most other likely Democratic contenders have spent decades in elected office and are far better-versed in the nuances of public policy.

In an effort to close the gravitas gap, Edwards delivered a series of speeches this fall on foreign policy, the economy and education. The addresses included plenty of criticism of Bush along with some bold proposals, such as offering a free year of college, creating a new domestic intelligence agency and trimming the federal government by 10 percent.

The speeches were generally well-received by their intended audiences -- including party elites and political reporters -- but they also underscored how much Edwards' views are still a work in progress.

Edwards' viability as a candidate has been bolstered by a media buzz over the past couple of years. Time magazine dubbed him "The Democrats' New Golden Boy," Vanity Fair called him "the perfect politician" and the December GQ has a seven-page spread on "the next Bubba."

All the hype has a downside, however. There is a growing chorus of Democratic activists and others who have seen Edwards in person for the first time and come away feeling he doesn't live up to the billing.

That sentiment was voiced after an Edwards appearance in Connecticut last month at a convention of trial lawyers -- a natural Edwards constituency.

Norm Pattis, a writer for the weekly Connecticut Law Tribune, put it this way: "Hundreds of trial lawyers from around the state were in New Haven ... looking for presidential timber, perhaps a mighty oak to stand tall for the jury system and the people's right to hold accountable corporations, doctors and the government. What was on display was an acorn."

Coming months will provide a crucial test of Edwards' ability to articulate ideas -- and of how they are greeted by more attuned party activists and a more skeptical media corps that is beginning to pounce on gaffes or signs of greenness.

One constant in Edwards' repertoire is his upbringing in the small mill town of Robbins -- and many in the party view it as one of his greatest strengths.

Since John F. Kennedy's assassination in 1963, the only Democrats elected president have shared a common trait: their Southern heritage. Lyndon Johnson hailed from Texas, Jimmy Carter grew up in a small peanut town in Georgia and Bill Clinton came from a place called Hope, Ark.

Some Democrats think the only way they can win back the White House in 2004 is with a candidate who connects in the South -- and who can carry a Southern state or two on Election Day. That's a tall order: In recent years, Democrats have found it increasingly difficult to compete in the region, where more conservative white voters have aligned with Republicans.

"You have to appeal to the electorate by virtue of common values and culture," said Doug Teper, a Democrat in the the Georgia legislature who is active in national politics. "Clinton succeeded through his appeal to Southern sensibilities."

Carrying the South

Of course, Gore proved that simply being from the South is not enough. In 2000, Bush swept every state in the region -- including Gore's home state of Tennessee.

Would Edwards fare any better in 2004?

Some, like Teper, think he has that potential. But many pundits in North Carolina have a hard time envisioning Edwards carrying his own state, let alone others in the region.

The last time North Carolina voted for a Democratic presidential candidate was 1976, when Carter ran from neighboring Georgia. Clinton came close in 1992, losing to the elder President Bush by less than a percentage point.

But in 1996, the margin widened to five points against Clinton when he ran for re-election against former U.S. Sen. Bob Dole of Kansas. And in 2000, George W. Bush beat Gore by 13 points in the Tar Heel state.

"I don't want to suggest that Bush is unbeatable here," said Ferrell Guillory, director of the Program on Southern Politics, Media and Public Life at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. "But it would be very tough to knock him out. ... Edwards will have to be something more than a favorite son. This is a state where one in five voters have moved in during the last decade. To them, he's not a favorite son."

Some of Edwards' allies argue, however, that his 1998 Senate race demonstrated an appeal that would carry over to a presidential contest, if Edwards were the nominee. His message of better schools, more affordable health care and tax cuts targeted at the middle class is geared to voters now drifting to the GOP.

"I think he would be able to carry North Carolina," said U.S. Rep. Mel Watt, a Charlotte Democrat. "He certainly would be expected to carry North Carolina."

At a minimum, Edwards would force Bush to devote time and resources to states, such as North Carolina and Georgia, that he took for granted in 2000. That in turn could leave Bush more vulnerable in key states such as Florida (technically part of the South but viewed as a separate world by political strategists).

If Democrats do decide to embrace a Southerner, Edwards may be the only real choice. Of those who spent the past year aggressively laying groundwork to run, he is the only one from the region. Until last month, some viewed Georgia Gov. Roy Barnes as a dark-horse contender. But voters turned him out of office on Election Day.

That was just one troubling sign in the South for Democrats, who also lost the governor's mansion in South Carolina as well as key U.S. Senate seats in North Carolina, South Carolina, Georgia, Tennessee and Texas. The results also underscore the gamble Edwards faces if he continues to aggressively pursue the presidential nomination.

Making the choice

His Senate seat is also up for re-election in 2004. Heartened by Elizabeth Dole's decisive victory last month,Republicans are likely to put up a strong challenger even if Edwards reins in his presidential ambitions and seeks re-election. Edwards won with 51 percent of the vote in 1998, and incumbents traditionally are most vulnerable in their first re-election campaign.

No one can predict exactly how Tar Heel voters will respond to Edwards' presidential aspirations. But most analysts agree that at a some point he damages his prospects for re-election.

In theory, Edwards could run in the early presidential nominating contests in 2004, gauge his fate and still meet the February 2004 filing deadline for Senate. But that path is politically perilous.

"The more time he appears to be focusing his attention outside the state, the more it hurts him," Duke's Munger said. "It's certainly not a lock that he would win re-election. But then again, he's a charismatic person. He's got charisma you can't buy, and he may be able to overcome it."

Or he may not -- in which case talk of an Edwards' presidency would probably be over.

"If he loses his Senate seat," Guillory said, "it makes it very difficult to return to presidential politics."

John Wagner can be reached at (202) 662-4380 or jwagner@mcclatchydc.com.

[jern]

Way out of touch
It's His Call

By MARC ROTTERMAN, Special to the News & Observer

Sen. John Kerry of Massachusetts announced last Sunday that he is forming an exploratory committee for president, and Sen. John Edwards is said to be thinking of doing the same.

	related
	Why now for Edwards?

Having served in the Senate for only four years, Edwards has become a captive of the trial lawyers and the left-wing special interests in Washington. He has lost touch with the average American. Clearly, he is not ready for "prime time."

Should he take the plunge, his record will be fair game, and he will be scrutinized as to whether he is up to the job of being president. To be sure, he is ambitious and knows how to get on TV and in the newspapers. He does make a nice appearance and knows his lines. But is there anything past the sound bites? Does he have the experience to do the job? And does his voting record accurately reflect his 1998 campaign promises?

Consider what Edwards said on CNN's "Inside Politics" on Nov. 2, 1998. In the interview, Edwards said he would vote frequently with Sen. Jesse Helms. Fast-forward to a Washington Times article on Oct. 15, 2002. Asked by columnist Robert P. Novak to recall any conservative position he's taken in the Senate, Edwards said, "I could give you an answer to that question if you give me a little time to think about it."

In fact, Edwards almost never voted with Helms, or for that matter, with any other conservatives. The American Conservative Union gives Edwards a "lifetime rating" of 12 percent and Helms, 99 percent. Clearly, Edwards' vote did cancel out Helms'. Edwards voted against John Ashcroft's nomination for attorney general. He voted against the capital gains tax cut, and on a key Helms amendment to an education bill that would allow federal funds to be withheld from public schools that bar the Boy Scouts from using their facilities, Edwards voted "no."

Neither has Edwards been reluctant to criticize President Bush. The Washington Post reported Oct. 6 that Edwards assailed Bush for using the war on terror to jeopardize Americans' civil liberties. In a speech in Iowa, Edwards said, "It is right to stand up to Saddam Hussein, but it is wrong in the name of the war on terrorism to let this administration take away our rights, take away our liberties, take away the things we believe in."

In the same speech, Edwards suggested that Bush is out of touch with ordinary Americans. "This president comes from a different place. ... He doesn't come from real America. ... He doesn't understand what real people's lives are like."

This from a man who has been fighting for the "little guy" in Hollywood. Numerous Hollywood big shots have donated to Edwards' campaign as well as to his political action committee. Last year, Californians were second only to North Carolinians in campaign donations to Edwards. Moreover, it has been reported that more than four of every five dollars raised for Edwards' hard-money PAC, New American Optimists, came from personal injury trial lawyers. In fact, since being elected in 1998, Edwards has raised nearly half of his money from trial lawyers or their law firms.

Have these contributions affected Edwards' voting record? Some in Washington would say so. Two years into Edwards' Senate term, he sponsored a bill to make it easier to sue HMOs. Terrance Scanlon, president of Capitol Research Center, cynically noted that Edwards "is now sponsoring a bill that would allow for huge lawsuits against health maintenance organizations, directly benefiting trial lawyers."

So what are the odds that John Edwards would get the 2004 Democratic nomination for president? Early polls in key states such as New Hampshire and Iowa show him getting between 1 percent and 3 percent of the vote among probable Democratic presidential contenders.

And how is he faring back home should he decide to run for Senate? A Mason-Dixon poll conducted Oct. 11 tested Edwards against U.S. Reps. Sue Myrick, Walter Jones and Richard Burr. In each case, Edwards got no more than 45 percent of the vote. Not a good sign for a sitting senator.

Should Edwards run for president or for re-election to the Senate?

That's his call. In either case, it appears he would have a tough race on his hands. Clearly, his voting record does not reflect the values and beliefs of middle America or the average North Carolinian.

(Marc Rotterman, a Republican strategist, is a senior fellow at the John Locke Foundation and treasurer of the American Conservative Union.)

[areafiftyone]

Apparently Edwards hasn't been watching his zilch poll numbers. Amazing how this dweeb thinks people will actually vote for him for president? He's not even popular in his own state!!

[uncbob]

I fear this is going to be a repeat of 92
Bush will defeat Saddam and terrorism will be under control
Economy can't turn around in time for 2004
Oh it may start to improve just like it did under Bush I ,but if it does it will be late 2004 and the media will keep it quiet. In addition the dems in the senate will do everything possible to stall any tax cuts etc designed to boost the economy and Bush will NOT attack them over it, but will continue to try and play nice

Edwards is a BIG nothing but so was Clinton

[jern]

Constitution Day; mykdsmom

[Sentis]

We have to be very very careful with Mr. Edwards he is as slick as old Willie. He won the last NC senate race becuase he ran on a family values, l;ook at me I'm a conservative democrat platform. Also he is a pretty boy and this nation loves a pretty face. NC itself also has a problem


"This is a state where one in five voters have moved in during the last decade. To them, he's not a favorite son."

These 1 out of 5 are liberal Northerners who have carpet bagged down to NC when their own Liberal states have gone belly up due to their socialistic leaning. They are now in the process of "Terraforming" NC into a liberal Clone of their original failed states.

[friendly]

Edwards and his vile lawyer industry is a collection of truly evil, corrupt, vile, rapacious vermin. The legal industry spits on the Constitution and ethics. They regard themselves as being above the law. Lawyers steal and ruin lives without the slightest compunction.

These observations are shared by most Americans who regularly rate lawyers as having a level of confidence and respect at the absolute bottom of all professions and occupations. Edwards is the last person we would ever want as President: another lawyer/sociopath like Clinton.

[chimera]

You're both spot-on in your analysis. This is like deja-vu all over again. Everyone thought Bush I was a lock after he kicked butt in the gulf. But with the economy in the tank, and the media showing images of Bush I out on the ocean in his big boat and repeating the "he cares more about foreign policy than the domestic agenda", and "he doesn't care about the little guy", it was pretty much downhill all the way. Couple that with a made-for-TV image of a populist southern politician with an ambitious and power-hungry wife, Bush I was pretty much toast.

GW has to learn from that, and so do the GOP and conservatives. They can't laugh off ANY Rat challenger, like so many tend to do on FR. John Edwards is as dangerous a Rat politician as Clinton. The press loves him. My fear is he'll ride the populist trial lawyer image ("I fight for the Little Guy") all the way to the White House. The one thing the 'Pubs and conservatives can do to assure their defeat in the '04 contest is take any Rat challenger lightly.

[Common Tator]

Economy can't turn around in time for 2004

We are about 11 months into recovery. Much as we were in 1982 and 1992. As in late 1982, and 1992 the productivity growth is in the 5 to 6 percent range and the Stock market is still pretty much in the dumpster. Unemployment is still rising and profits are low or nonexistant. In both 82 and 92 the hours worked per worker were increasing. But hiring and rehiring had not started. Money is easing and interest rates are set for capital expenditures. This is a very tipical 11 month point in well managed recovery from a recession.

As in 82 and 92 Capital spending is zilch and consumers are keeping the economy growing at 2 to 4 percent rates. But in 82 interest rates were still in the high digits, and inflation was 2 times todays rate. In interest rates are more like 92 than 82. Money was tight in 82 but the need for capital expenditures was less.

It is a fact that the economy was far worse in 1982 because of inflation and low money supply than it is in 2002. 2002 is much more like 1992.

It takes 16 months after a recession ends for unemployment to start to drop. It normally continues to rise a full year after a recession has ended. The end of a recession is defined as two quarters of consecutive growth. WE are in the 4the consecutive quarter of growth. That will occur on schedule next May. By next fall capital spending will be on the rise as profits move solidly in the black. Some areas like airlines and hotels will be hurting, but other areas will be booming over all 2004 will be boom with a capital B.

The dispute with O'Neil was not over the future of the economy, but in using the economic fear to get conservative legislation passed. The economy can be used next spring to enact tort reform, lower taxes and make tax cuts permanent. Bush plans to do what Reagan did with tax cuts. That is starve government for money.

But no one looking at the world in Dec. 2002 who looked at the world in Dec. 1882 and December 1992 could fail to see that all three are very similar. An observer might even figure out that we are on a pattern of 10 year business cycles.

[jwfiv]

Yes, many factors in today's equation are very similar to '92, but there are differences.

George W. is not his Dad, will not be complacent or overconfident on the economy, or any other issue.

Gulf War II may be a done deal by '04, and Saddam deposed, but the War on Terror will be ongoing, and we will have suffered even more and greater horror and loss of life by then.

Dubya will not be perceived by the voters as victor in a war past, but as a champion, currently engaged in battle with a vile enemy.

The Dims will be then what they are today...leftists, whiners, soft on security, and the relationship between xlinton's cowardice and the terrorsts' boldness will be more commonly acknowledged, thus tainting his party even more.

The Dims being who they are, Edwards has a good chance of winning the nomination to step into the arena with Dubya...he'll be the one pissing himself when the gate opens, and he'll join Mondale and Dukakis and McGovern in the halls of the defeated.

[johnny7]

... and he'll join Mondale and Dukakis and McGovern in the halls of the defeated.

Maybe... the jerks mouth is quicker than his brain. But he likes racing and has not bashed Bush.

Kerry, Gore and HRC have. What do they call it... “a dark horse”?

Kerry's medals tossing will be a big sore on his ass. His wife is a looney.

Edwards may pull it off... southern senator and better looking than Kerry.

Dems like that in a candidate. HA!

[Free the USA]

http://www.freerepublic.com/perl/bump-list

[uncbob]

Economy can't turn around in time for 2004

Well I just git back from jogging. Do a lot of thinking while jogging and maybe I am not really analyzing things correctly

Back in 92 we were coming out of a mild recession BUT was the economy really a big factor in th election
Clinton only got 43% of the vote. Same as Carter and Mondale in their landslide defeats.

Perot was the real factor and I don't remember him harping on the recession but his mantra was the DEFICIT.

These recessions aren't really that bad and may not be that great a factor especially of the democrats don't distance themselves from Clinton

[For the Unborn]

Now which Sunday show do you suppose that Edwards will monopolize for one hour?

[For the Unborn]

You are right. Also, this President Bush is seen as being much closer to the people than his father. Even my mother, who loved Bush 41, often noted how inept Bush 41 was at being down to earth and understanding the needs of regular people. President Bush 43 understands like Clinton did how to connect with the populace (no slight intended at either President Bush, believe me).

[Verginius Rufus]

Rotterman forgot to mention Edwards' treatment of Pickering in the Judiciary Committee hearings, when he demonstrated his true loathsomeness.

[Man of the Right]

This guy isn't going to make it.

Either he's a megalomaniac, or he plans to convert any contributions to his personal use -- or both.

I have as good a chance to be inaugurated in 2005 as he does -- none.

[Robert A Cook PE]

Why now?

Because HILLARY! needs a sacrificial lamb in 2004, so she WON'T face a democratic incumbent in 2008.

And because the TV media wants a young, pretty face ....

Kinda stupid reason to vote for a democrat for president, isn't it?

(But hey, it's the ONLY reason the national press copse IS promoting him.)

[Republic If You Can Keep It]

Edwards and his vile lawyer industry is a collection of truly evil, corrupt, vile, rapacious vermin...

And those are their GOOD points :-D

[friendly]

LOL:->