Julian Zelizer: Obama-Edwards ticket? Nah.
[Julian E. Zelizer is a professor of history and public affairs at Princeton University. He is the co-editor of Rightward Bound: Making America Conservative in the 1970s (Harvard University Press). He is currently writing a history of national security politics since World War II that will be published by Basic Books.]
Yesterday John Edwards announced his support for Barack Obama. The endorsement arrived at a good time for Obama since the inevitable nominee was badly defeated in West Virginia. The defeat did not alter the delegate count or his chances for victory. It did once again raise the underlying concerns that have followed him the past two months. The West Virginia results demonstrated that many working and middle class Democrats are not willing to commit to Obama. There are many reasons behind their resistance. These range from genuine enthusiasm about Hillary Clinton to ugly racial biases to concerns that Obama represents the Starbucks wing of the party.
There are some observers who think that Edwards offers a way out. With Edwards on the ticket, they say, John McCain would not be able to pick off the votes of "Reagan Democrats." His campaign focused on economic inequality. He comes from the kind of social background--which he never hesitates to remind voters of while on the campaign trail--that Obama needs to attract. Most important, he is southern.
Yet Edwards has shown several vulnerabilities as a running mate that Obama should consider before making his choice. The most obvious is that Edwards didn't do well for John Kerry in 2004. Kerry's loss was certainly not Edwards's fault. But Edwards certainly did not help. The worst moment came in his debate with Dick Cheney. The veteran Washington insider generally outflanked his more telegenic opponent. This time around, even when the economy got bad, his poverty-based campaign never got going.
The second vulnerability revolves around authenticity, a big issue in this campaign, as Clinton has discovered. Voters want someone who is straight with them. Despite his history, Edwards does not always come across as authentic. The media loves to point to his current wealthy lifestyle--from his $4 million + home to his $400 haircuts--which contradict his claims to be in touch with those suffering from economic insecurity. Even his record in the Senate was much more of a centrist Democrat, like Bill Clinton's, rather than Ted Kennedy. Indeed, his decision to offer the endorsement only after Obama's victory seemed inevitable offers just one more example for his critics.
While Mitt Romney's greatest asset was that he looked like a president, Edwards' greatest problem is that he looks like a senator. When the Democrats face a candidate who has a powerful life story as a prisoner of war, they need compelling narratives of their own--they need someone voters can believe in.
The authenticity issue is not just a problem for Edwards, but could be a problem for Obama. One of the big questions is what does Obama really stand for? There are questions about his beliefs and his alliances as seen with his "bitter" remark and his ties to Reverend Wright. To have someone on the ticket who could easily be painted as an "elite" liberal (and trial lawyer) would be a problem.
Finally, there is the issue of experience. Obama dodged this issue in the campaign, turning Clinton's experience against her. But the issue is still out there and it will be more salient in the fall when he faces a veteran senator. To choose another young senator with relatively modest political experience would not give the Democratic ticket what it needs.
Edwards has a lot of virtues, but serving as a running mate is not one of them. Democrats have seen that show before and they might want to think twice before asking for a rerun.
Read entire article at Huffington Post (Blog)
Yesterday John Edwards announced his support for Barack Obama. The endorsement arrived at a good time for Obama since the inevitable nominee was badly defeated in West Virginia. The defeat did not alter the delegate count or his chances for victory. It did once again raise the underlying concerns that have followed him the past two months. The West Virginia results demonstrated that many working and middle class Democrats are not willing to commit to Obama. There are many reasons behind their resistance. These range from genuine enthusiasm about Hillary Clinton to ugly racial biases to concerns that Obama represents the Starbucks wing of the party.
There are some observers who think that Edwards offers a way out. With Edwards on the ticket, they say, John McCain would not be able to pick off the votes of "Reagan Democrats." His campaign focused on economic inequality. He comes from the kind of social background--which he never hesitates to remind voters of while on the campaign trail--that Obama needs to attract. Most important, he is southern.
Yet Edwards has shown several vulnerabilities as a running mate that Obama should consider before making his choice. The most obvious is that Edwards didn't do well for John Kerry in 2004. Kerry's loss was certainly not Edwards's fault. But Edwards certainly did not help. The worst moment came in his debate with Dick Cheney. The veteran Washington insider generally outflanked his more telegenic opponent. This time around, even when the economy got bad, his poverty-based campaign never got going.
The second vulnerability revolves around authenticity, a big issue in this campaign, as Clinton has discovered. Voters want someone who is straight with them. Despite his history, Edwards does not always come across as authentic. The media loves to point to his current wealthy lifestyle--from his $4 million + home to his $400 haircuts--which contradict his claims to be in touch with those suffering from economic insecurity. Even his record in the Senate was much more of a centrist Democrat, like Bill Clinton's, rather than Ted Kennedy. Indeed, his decision to offer the endorsement only after Obama's victory seemed inevitable offers just one more example for his critics.
While Mitt Romney's greatest asset was that he looked like a president, Edwards' greatest problem is that he looks like a senator. When the Democrats face a candidate who has a powerful life story as a prisoner of war, they need compelling narratives of their own--they need someone voters can believe in.
The authenticity issue is not just a problem for Edwards, but could be a problem for Obama. One of the big questions is what does Obama really stand for? There are questions about his beliefs and his alliances as seen with his "bitter" remark and his ties to Reverend Wright. To have someone on the ticket who could easily be painted as an "elite" liberal (and trial lawyer) would be a problem.
Finally, there is the issue of experience. Obama dodged this issue in the campaign, turning Clinton's experience against her. But the issue is still out there and it will be more salient in the fall when he faces a veteran senator. To choose another young senator with relatively modest political experience would not give the Democratic ticket what it needs.
Edwards has a lot of virtues, but serving as a running mate is not one of them. Democrats have seen that show before and they might want to think twice before asking for a rerun.