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

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.

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."

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.

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.

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."

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.

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.

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."

NC ping!

Please FRmail me if you want to be added to or removed from this North Carolina ping list.

Vanity Fair called him "the perfect politician" and the December GQ has a seven-page spread on "the next Bubba."

Bwahahahahahah!!!! They thought they were being complimentary but in reality they couldn't have been more on the money or more negative -- unless they proved him to be child molester. This is rich. The next BJ -- and I've been calling him BJ Jr. for three years now. Perfect description.

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.

These are also the folks that gave Elizabeth Dole 54% of the vote, the folks who, in South Carolina, pushed conservative Mark Sanford over the top against folksy Jimbo Hodges. And yes, I am one of them :) If they're fleeing the North, it's probably because they're fleeing the high taxes, gay marriage, etc., like the folks who leave California for Idaho.

(I hope I'm right too!)

if I were a "name" Demoncrat, I would wait until 2008 to roll the dice.

Thing is, there are several other strong D's gearing up for 2008 already: Hillary!, NJ Gov. McGreevey, Va. Gov. Warner, NM Gov Richardson, Ill. Gov. Blagojevich (gotta love these guys -- win one governor's race and you're presidential material), IN Sen. Evan Bayh. A lot stronger crop than what they have out there now. Actually could be a stronger crop than what the R's have, I think, although since Hillary! will be the nominee it won't matter too much!

I see your point Johnny but none of those guys really has the stature of some of the GOP field who really have solid presidential candidates for the next 20 years.

Well, maybe, I wonder sometimes though. People don't really want another Bush right away, otherwise Jeb would be great; Sen. George Allen is okay but a pro-life moderate (really); CO Gov. Bill Owens is da bomb; SC Gov Mark Sanford is really low key; Sen. Chuck Hagel (R, France) wants to run but good lord no; Condi isn't ready to be Prez and is possibly pro-abortion; Giuliani is pro-abortion AND pro-gay; Bill Frist would be great but has the "senator" curse; Tom Ridge is pro-abortion; John Ashcroft has been successfully demonized by the Left; Bob Ehrlich is pro-abortion.

He could be running for Vice President, though: lose the nomination, get on the VP ticket, then even when they lose it's not his fault and he has the stature of a VP nominee.

They are now in the process of "Terraforming" NC into a liberal Clone of their original failed states.

I fear you may be right. I live in the Old North State and we're the only other place (other than CA) that I know of that is talking about letting illegal immigrants have in-state tuition for colleges.

I think your an aberration not one of these 1 in 5 Liberal Yankees. I can't name a single person that has moved here from the dirty North that is conservative. Where I work I am surrounded by these misplaced Northerners. They are largely Liberals and have infested Raliegh and eastern NC like the plague they are. What elected Dole in NC was the solid Conservatives of Western North Carolina. It was not that horrid place Called Cary. Containment Area for Relocated Yankees indeed, that has sprung up on the edge of Raliegh like a boil on the butt of our State.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.