Today's Musical Selection: "Good Day Sunshine" by the Beatles
Hey there, everyone! I'm feeling more upbeat about the Kerry-Edwards ticket today. I've observed a bit of it in action, and I like what I see. While I still don't think that Edwards will make the best vice president, I do think he's the best running mate Kerry could have chosen. For the campaign, I think Edwards is Kerry's best partner.
What led me to this conclusion? Two things I observed. First, there is genuine enthusiasm among Democrats for this ticket. This is important, and more important than some analysts will admit. Everyone talks about swing voters being the ones that matter, and there's some numerical truth to that. (For instance, look at Frinklin, who was perfectly prepared to abandon Bush if the Democrats came up with an alternative he liked.) No candidate can win by appealing exclusively to his party base.
But no candidate can win without the base, either. This was always the problem with Joe Lieberman's "Mr. Electability" argument. Sure, he might have done well against Bush in appealing to moderates. But the idea of voting for Lieberman centrism would have made a number of leftists physically ill. They would have defected to Nader, perhaps, or Dean if he'd run an independent campaign, or they'd have just stayed home in disgust. Mathematically, you need to protect your base.
Also, as a practical matter, a candidate needs to generate excitement in order to seem viable. And the people most likely to be excited about you, enough to go out and wave signs and stump door-to-door and proselytize their friends, are your partisans. Swing voters aren't going to show up and scream at candidate rallies. It's the loyal party members that generate buzz for a candidate. And if the loyal party members are going, "Oh no, we've got a couple turkeys on our hands," swing voters will pick up on that. In order for a candidate to have a chance to appeal to swing voters, he must first be sure he has his party behind him.
If Kerry had gone with, say, Dick Gephardt, it would be hard to imagine Democratic partisans getting excited. If they think Kerry's too stiff and wooden, they'd really hate Gephardt. And without partisan excitement, the ticket could look forward to being the best-qualified losing ticket in modern American history. (Unless you'd like to make a case for Humphrey-Muskie in '68.)
Second, look at Kerry when he's next to Edwards. He's smiling! He looks relaxed and happy! He appears to be having a good time! All this is a crucial change in demeanor, and it changes the whole campaign dynamic.
I got tired of listening to everyone whack Kerry for his weaknesses on the stump, so I started watching some of his campaign appearances, intending to write a column about Kerry's underappreciated speaking gifts.
That column was never written, because I couldn't think of anything to say. He's trying... his gestures have improved, and he seems to be making sure that the lighting doesn't make his face look so craggy. But the man is not a born stump speaker. He doesn't connect with large audiences. He certainly hasn't given a rip-roaring speech that I've observed. Now, I wouldn't call Kerry a worse stump speaker than Bush, master of mangled syntax and Clint Eastwood inflections, but the burden of proof is on the challenger. And Kerry's not a speaker who creates excitement.
Along comes Edwards, who was born to stump. His connections with the audience are magnetic, almost Clintonian. Not only does he bring a campaigning spirit that Kerry lacks, but he makes Kerry better just by hanging around. He makes Kerry seem sunnier, younger, more vigorous. Perhaps voters will warm more to Kerry if the Edwards charm continues to rub off on him. The cheerier personality also should make it easier for Kerry to sell an optimistic message (something else Edwards has experience with). And voters like optimism in a presidential campaign.
All this adds up to the same thing: By picking Edwards, Kerry improved his marketing campaign to the American people. He didn't really need a running mate to bolster his credentials (as Bush needed a guy like Dick Cheney). Rather, he needed someone who could help him connect with voters and the media, someone who's skilled at salesmanship, someone to be the sizzle to his steak. Edwards is that guy. Kerry makes a better case with Edwards by his side than he did flying solo, and that's what matters in the campaign.
The Yankees are 7 games up in the AL East race, and (would you believe it?) my dad's still not happy. I was kidding him about Saturday's 10-9 loss to the Mets, and you'd think the loss dropped the Yankees into fourth. Moan, moan, moan. So I twisted the knife a little further.
"So, how did it feel to be going into the bottom of the ninth in a tie game, and look to the mound to find... Tanyon Sturtze?"
"I don't think Joe Torre was interested in winning," Dad replied.
He then proceeded to bitch about Jose Contreras, his favorite target. "They sent him out there last time, his family was in attendance... everything was great. Maybe he's turned a corner. Then he goes out Saturday... and stinks it up again." He then proceeded to suggest that the Yankees should threaten to ship Contreras's family back to Cuba unless he improves. "Maybe there's an INS agent who's a big Yankees fan."
Some people might think these are harsh words, but believe me, this represents an improvement in Dad's opinion of Contreras. Earlier in the season, he actually said, "They ought to hack him up into little pieces and send him on the next boat back to Havana." This is the man who raised me, ladies and gentlemen.
Dad was mollified a bit by the fact that Joe Torre saw fit, as is his custom, to invite the entire Yankee squad to the All-Star Game (except Tanyon Sturtze). Meanwhile, I'm thrilled that the Brewers managed to get two (2) representatives, Ben Sheets and Danny Kolb, on the NL squad. We take our pleasures where we find them, I guess.
Enough for today. More meandering tomorrow!
Posted by Fred at July 7, 2004 05:23 PM