Dear Editors,
I appreciate your editorial on the Democratic Presidential primary. I think it is important to discuss the candidates and the issues as the decisions are made. However, I have to disagree in your choice of the best John. I think that John Edwards has what it takes to beat Bush, while Kerry is the stiff politician of presidential elections lost.
I agree that both Edwards and Kerry are very similar on the issues. They have very similar platforms and have voted the same (along party lines) for almost all of the major votes in the last 6 years. Differences that are coming up in the debates between them are mostly related to trade, as John Edwards is outspoken about keeping jobs at home. Edwards is also the only candidate to talk about issues of poverty and he has a program for students to get free tuition to state universities when they work part time jobs and have a certain GPA. The beauty of this is that Edwards has not been labeled by the media as liberal, even though he votes very similarly to Kerry (who is already seen as the old liberal insider Democrat from Massachusetts). In a national election, liberal does not equal electable.
My main problem with your argument for Kerry is what I believe to be bad assumptions. The editorial states, “support for Kerry generally comes from voters who hold little faith in Bush’s ability to improve our already dreary economy. Edwards appeals to those who have a more positive outlook on the economic situation.” You assume this makes Kerry more electable and use it to defend his chance of beating Bush. The problem is that this fact shows Edwards is more electable. To win the presidential race you need votes from the moderate undecided voters as well as the liberal, “I hate Bush” voters. There is no doubt in my mind that the winner of the Democratic primary will get the votes from those who think our economic situation is terrible. However, it is those voters who have faith in the economy that we need in order to beat Bush.
Similarly, in terms of geography, we know that the Democrats can carry the Northeast and the West. Where we need to win states is in the South and Midwest. If Kerry wins the states that Gore won, that isn’t enough, but just the addition of Edwards home state of South Carolina would be enough electoral votes to win the election.
Additionally, you mentioned the charisma of Edwards, and I think that it will gain more votes than you imagine. Think about the votes that were lost due to Gore’s personality. That made a huge difference in the race. Kerry, Michael Dukakis’s former Lieutenant Governor, may be too much of a reminder of the dull, stiff Gore (or even Dukakis himslef.) Clearly, I think that the strongest candidate to get Bush out of office is John Edwards and I encourage everyone to vote for Edwards.
Leave a Reply