Kerry/Edwards

The announcement was made this morning, I heard about it in my car on the way out of town, and have just spent the last two hours or so absorbing as much as I can about John Edwards and reaction to his selection. Instantly Conservatives seized on the lack of experience Edwards has and the quote from John Kerry about this not being the time for on the job training. I can only loosely defend that statement by saying Kerry was referring to the presidency, and not the VP slot. While Republican's will try and paint Edwards as not ready for prime time, I think few people will have the same fear they had when Dan Quayle sat perilously close to the Oval Office in 1988.

Democrats are hinting that Edwards puts the south in play, at least the two Carolinas. Of course most of the experts talk only on hunches and then rush to find statistics to back them up. They show Edwards support in North Carolina in the 40% range. That is a consequence of nationalizing his views for a presidential election.

Also cited often is that Edwards only won one primary. This, however, is a claim made by the same news media who had cited Kerry the winner of the nomination shortly after Iowa. If the media had instead taken a "Kerry needs to watch for Edwards" approach, then things now would be a little different. It would ultimately have helped the Kerry campaign by giving Edwards even more positive play in the media.

Perhaps Edwards makes the Carolina races tighter, and forces Bush to spend some money in these states. In theory, that is a victory for the Kerry/Edwards campaign. My hunch is you will still see them as red this fall on the election map.

George Bush's official election site had these words for Edwards on the front page:

When John Kerry's first choice for a running mate turned him down, he turned to the polls.

After stating that he needed a vice president who could step in as President, John Kerry chose the one man he called too inexperienced to be President just months ago.

First off the speculation that McCain was his first choice is just that: speculation. I can find a number of these quotes for you:

Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.), who has been asked for months whether he would join the Kerry ticket, said yesterday he has never been offered the job of Kerry's running mate and would not accept such a position.

And Kerry seemed to believe his research that, surprisingly enough, did not include poll numbers:

But his decision to run with Edwards is based on a more clinical assessment of what the North Carolina senator brings to his campaign. "He was omnivorous on this, getting research and background papers, sending us back for more when he wanted to know about their public records, statements and feelings," said Cahill. "He kept coming back with more and more questions." Yet Cahill insists that Kerry did not request one piece of information: poll numbers on a Kerry-Edwards ticket. "The one thing I can tell you with absolute straightforwardness is that Senator Kerry has never asked for a poll in his life, or at least the time I have been with him."

What changed Kerry's mind about Edwards inexperience? That's an unknown. And Kerry campaigners are no doubt trying to sound bite that one out as well. One should remember the level of experience that the current president brought to the table. Kerry should respond quickly to this and get back to delivering his message.

As far as Kerry's speeches against Edwards as they ran for the nominee, Jeffery Dubner at the American Prospect reminds us of another contentious battle that turned out a ticket choice: Reagan/Bush in 1980.

So what are the positives? Well, Edwards looks good. And he fights for the little guy, so much so that the Tom Donohue, head of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, made this vow:

If John Edwards is chosen as John Kerry's running mate, the chamber will abandon its traditional stance of neutrality in the presidential race and work feverishly to defeat the Democratic ticket. "We'd get the best people and the greatest assets we can rally" to the cause, he says.

Two things on this, one already started. First:

The Kerry campaign also could try to minimize damage by tying Mr. Donohue closely to the White House. In a news release last Thursday, the campaign attacked the chamber chief for a speech he gave in San Francisco defending outsourcing, and it called on the White House to disavow his comments. The release went on to cite various ties between Mr. Donohue and the Bush White House, including a meeting he had with Bush campaign manager Ken Mehlman in April, as well as various visits by President George W. Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney to the chamber over the past three years.

Second, this is an era when people hate big business just as much as they hate trial lawyers, justly or not. The Bush camp thinks his trial lawyer experience will draw people away from Kerry/Edwards. I think the big business angle will make the same draw from Bush/Cheney. This point, to me, is moot.

In fact, some in the Kerry camp seem to Edwards trial lawyer experience could be a plus, especially when it comes to the VP debates. Even John Kerry references it in his email to supporters this morning:

I can't tell you how proud I am to have John Edwards on my team, or how eager I am for the day this fall when he stands up for our vision and goes toe-to-toe with Dick Cheney.

Here's Tom Curry at MSNBC:

The Republicans have already opened fire on Edwards for making his millions as a trial lawyer, so the campaign will be a kind of national referendum on personal injury lawsuits and contingency fees as a form of economic justice and redistribution of wealth.

"I'm proud of what I did for 20 years," Edwards told a meeting of the Association of Trial Lawyers of America. "You should be proud of what you do, giving voice to people who have no voice."

Many Democrats see Cheney as the remote and sinister puppet-master who controls the strings of Bush administration foreign policy. They'll be rooting for Edwards to apply his cross-examination skills to force Cheney to defend his pre-war predictions about Iraq's weapons of mass destruction.

And Edwards has the advantage of intensive training in over a dozen televised debates with his Democratic rivals, while Cheney has been out of the fray since his laid-back debate with 2000 Democratic vice presidential candidate Sen. Joe Lieberman.

But what does it mean overall? Well, I'm just a humble blog writer. I do know what I've been telling friends leading up to this, and that is no VP candidate has ever helped win an election. We can point to Lloyd Bentsen and Dan Quayle and see that platitude in action. Mostly it will depend on the media's take. If they like Edwards, we will all grow to like him as well. If they deal with him harshly and use a lot of RNC talking points as CNN seems to, then the Kerry bounce will be minimal, and their next story will be about the lack of bounce they created.

They insist that all in all Edwards is the best choice and will bring out the independents and female voters. AS far as I am concerned, I feel a bit better about winning in Ohio now, and that should be enough to put Kerry in the White House come November.

Ultimately, campaigns are about momentum. You can ask Howard Dean about that one. Kerry should see polling numbers and support going his way starting tomorrow. It will be a matter of how well this ticket can keep that train rolling.