Centerfield

Coming from the right, I certainly have a much better opinion of Edwards than Kerry; in fact, I trust Edwards NOT to go wibbly about terrorism a lot more than John Kerry. (I do not like Edward's anti-NAFTA rhetoric though. I want my president to support free trade.)

Also, I now officially SICK TO DEATH of any and all news stories that relate to service in Vietnam, service in the National Guard and so forth.

There's real issues to talk about and I am extremely disappointed (although not at all shocked) that this issue's been put front and center by the national media.

Very interesting. I think it would be difficult for Edwards to create that kind of trust on terror-related issues on a widespread basis ... but he does seem to have some instincts that lead him toward the middle.

I was a bit startled at the recent debate where Kerry made those unwise remarks about the terror threat having been "overstated" and about it primarily being a law enforcement problem.

The interesting thing was that Edwards saw the problem with Kerry's remarks immediately. Didn't need to check with focus groups or gauge the reactions of others. He went at Kerry directly on the issue moments later. This despite his determination to remain positive during this campaign.

I sensed, at that moment, some fairly mainstream political instincts -- a perspective the average guy can relate to.

I suppose we should also factor in that Edwards supported the war, and hasn't engaged in the kind of double-speak Kerry has about his war vote.

I agree with Saletan, but then I've been saying it for months in deriding Kerry, and I don't think any of the regular posters here has said much to the good about Kerry.

And it just has to be painfully obvious that among the group of swing voters Saletan is talking about, there's pretty strong agreement about the necessity of strongly staying the course regarding Iraq. In this group, I see a substantial amount of displeasure over Bush's domestic policies, which suggests that this group would go for someone else if they liked him. But just about everywhere i look, this group seems entirely unwilling to vote for any candidate opposing Bush unless this candidate is a foreign policy hawk.

I think the electability question the Democrats are trying to answer IS which candidate will appeal more to centrist voters?

They are not idiots, they know that is what electability depends on. That is why Dean is judged not electable and Kerry is.

So are they making the right choice? Well, obviously you think they are wrong, but I disagree. The point is made above that being a Foreign Policy Hawk is a requirement. I think it is not a hawk Americans are looking for, but rather a person with credibility. Democrats see a lot more of that with Kerry than with Edwards (an experience issue, not a character issue between the two).

They also want someone who can say to Bush, "I have seen battle and I have been strong. I will do the same for our country in times of crisis." Kerry can say this, Edwards can't.

In the end most Democrats want to love Edwards, but they are nervous. They don't know him, he has not been around long, and they fear the potential mis-step. Kerry on the other hand is reliable. It is a bet that if this election will be lost by someone rather than won by someone. In a situation where Dems have a good chance to just sit back and watch Bush self-destruct a candidate who will not tie his own noose is a good thing.

The other thing I want to say about Kerry is that his war position was strong and steady. What he said on the campaign trail was what he said in the Senate when he cast his vote. He saw it as permission for the President to go to the UN and do this the right way. Bush ended up losing that when he made the decision to invade while inspectors were still on the ground. There was a lot of talk that inspectors were not the answer, but it looks like they were exactly the answer we needed. It was a surprise to everyone that they were allowed in, and Bush's war plans meant that he had to treat them as an inconvience rather than a solution. Kerry was under the mistaken illusion that taking Iraq to the brink of war would be enough...not that Bush and his adminstration would choose war when peace was still an alternative.

I am curious why centrists are drawn to Edwards when he clearly has a more protectionist stand on trade compared to Kerry?

A disclaimer: I was a Clark supporter. He was the first candidate I ever gave money to. Now if I had the chance to vote, it would be for Edwards (although you probably wouldn't have guessed it).

Rich,

I'm mostly drawn to Edwards because I find Kerry's war rhetoric and his faux populism not the least bit convincing.

I categorically reject any Presidential candidate who is liable to use France as a moral beacon for when, why, and how American power will be used around the world.

I would vote for Howard Dean before I vote for John Kerry. And as a right wing death beast, that's saying something.

Mark -

With all due respect, since you describe yourself as a "right wing death beast" I really don't care who you will vote for. That is not because I probably disagree with your views, but because I don't expect the Democratic nominee to get the vote of people like you anyway, so why bother?

Now, even though I suspect you are a Bush/Cheney operative cruising comments sections like this one to slander Kerry and dismiss comments abouts Bush I will still respond to your points.

1) Why are you more drawn to real populism than what you label "faux" populism. A real centrist, or even a right-winger would not be a big fan of populism. So the fact that Kerry is not pulling it off well should be more reassuring than Edwards' ability to really convince people that he does want to restrict trade.

2) France as a moral beacon? No. Show me one quote where Kerry said that. I am firmly convinced that any adult sitting in the Oval Office would do everything possible to defend America. Do you really think that if either Edwards or Kerry becomes President they will allow attacks on the US to happen. Bush is probably the first and last person to get a free pass from America on this one. Every future Presidency (including the remainder of Bush's Presidency) will be judged a failure if there is another 9/11.

I don't sense that Mark is being disingenuous about his views here. I suspect he's a conservative who still retains his ability to understand the appeal of some folks on the other side.

I also think it's going to be important for the Democratic nominee, whoever he is, to draw some Republican votes.

On the substantive question we're discussing here, I sense Edwards is more moderate, more mainstream, than Kerry.

I would point out, first, that during the Democratic debates, Edwards went to some lengths to discuss the real issue of our vulnerabilities to terrorism and concrete steps for dealing with them. While others were bashing Bush at every opportunity, Edwards would turn the discussion to something forward looking -- how do we really counter this threat?

I also sensed some basic moderate instincts in play when Edwards challenged Kerry at that recent debate on his statements about the terror threat being overblown and mostly a law enforcement matter. I'm impressed that he, alone among the candidates on that stage, picked up on the problem with Kerry's perspective and explained what's wrong with it.

I often remarked in the course of this primary campaign, as the candidates debated week after week, that listening to them you would think 9/11 only happened as a kind of backdrop for George Bush ruining our country.

Edwards and Clark talked about terrorism as a real threat and what we should do about it. The others talked about it as an issue being used by Bush to screw up the country.