I like John Edwards a lot. I think he has tremendous natural political skills, he delivers a great speech, and his domestic policy ideas are spot on. He’s run an excellent, positive, issue-driven campaign and he has a very bright future ahead of him, whether he wins the nomination this year or not.
But, like all national candidates, he has to identify his weaknesses and act to correct them.
The New York Times had an item today contrasting Kerry and Edwards. One section, in particular, was disconcerting.
Mr. Kerry seemed more in command of the foreign policy angle of the day, effortlessly discussing the history of President Jean-Bertrand Aristide of Haiti and the problems there. “Not to pander, but your editorial this morning hit it right on the head,” Mr. Kerry said. He went on to say that he would not support a military intervention by the United States right now, but added that such a move … might make sense later on.
By contrast, Mr. Edwards responded with uncertainty about the violence in Haiti and whether the United States should send forces there. “You know, I don’t have — I can’t set some arbitrary — I think it’s a judgment that you have to make on a case by case,” he said.
This just won’t do. I know Edwards is pretty busy running a presidential campaign right now, but developments in Haiti are of significant importance. While most of the media only wants to talk about the horserace angle, some are going to ask Edwards about substantive matters. Edwards not only should expect a question about sending U.S. troops to Haiti, he should have a well thought out position.
Part of the blame lies, I suppose, with Edwards’ staff. The candidate is under a constant time-crunch and he’ll need staffers to pick up the slack, keep up on international developments, and prepare talking points for the candidate so he’s prepared when the New York Times calls.
This is particularly problematic because it reinforces pre-existing concerns about Edwards’ experience. You don’t have to be James Carville to realize that Edwards is vulnerable on foreign affairs. As a result, he should be extra prepared to handle questions like whether or not to send troops to Haiti so as to allay fears that he’s unprepared on international issues.
As much as I like Edwards, I have to admit this is an ongoing problem that I would like to see him correct.
The LA Times recently asked Edwards, for example, for his thoughts about retaliatory tariffs from the EU. Edwards’s answer didn’t make any sense.
The EU, an economic and political association of 15 countries, has threatened to impose retaliatory tariffs on U.S. goods next month if Congress does not repeal a corporate tax credit that the World Trade Organization has decreed is an illegal subsidy to businesses.
“I’m not sure I even know what you’re talking about,” Edwards said when asked if he supports the corporate tax credits. “If I understand what you’re asking, and I’m not sure I do … I’m opposed to us using our tax system to give tax breaks to American companies who are shipping jobs overseas.”
But the issue does not involve outsourcing jobs — it revolves around the federal tax code that gives credits to corporations that export goods overseas.
My point isn’t to write Edwards off, my point is to offer constructive criticism. I like him and I want him to be a better candidate.
Edwards supporters may note, accurately, that most voters don’t really care about foreign affairs and that his inexperience in this area will have minimal effect. They may have a point, particularly when one looks back at the 2000 campaign.
Bush’s knowledge of foreign affairs made Edwards look like Sandy Burger. Bush referred to Europe as a “country,” he confused Slovakia and Slovenia, he called people from Greece “Greecians,” and he had no idea who the leaders of Pakistan and India are. Worse, in a debate televised around the world, Bush accused Russia’s former prime minister of embezzling IMF funds with no proof and for no apparent reason. (Bush was later threatened with a libel suit over the false accusation.)
And yet a whole lot of people thought Bush was more than capable to be the leader of the free world.
Still, this is a post-9/11 nation and the expectations are higher now. Edwards is a good candidate, but until he shows some depth on foreign policy, he won’t be a great one.