On John Edwards

John Burns, who lives in North Carolina and previously contributed in a substantial way to my work here, wrote in recently to ask if I'd consider throwing support to John Edwards.

I replied that I'm officially staying out of the primary battles -- though I admittedly leaned to Dean -- but asked him why I would want to commit to Edwards, whom he described as representing a "real change in Washington." I asked him: "From my vantage point, either Kerry or Edwards represents a fundamental change from the current regime. Moreover, Kerry strikes me as significantly more liberal than, say, Bill Clinton, so I'd expect even a change for the better in terms of policy were he elected in any event. Or are you talking about the balance of Establishment power in D.C.? I guess I need to know why Edwards would be significantly better than Kerry."

Here's John's answer:

Nice question on the "real change" issue. It is, of course, what any non-establishment candidate says he will do, but this time, I feel it is different. For one, Edwards hasn't been there long enough to owe anyone. He doesn't owe the power structure in Washington. If anyone, he owes Al Gore, for considering him for VP four years ago. Simply put -- he has essentially willed himself to get where he is today. Do not underestimate that will.

I do not think conservatives are the only ones a little frightened by his candidacy. He is simply not a machine politician. Because he owes so little to the machine, he will not be scared of taking it on. Case in point, during one speech, I heard him say that he will actively promote full public financing and mandated airtime for federal candidates. When someone asked him how he would get the people behind such a drastic change and get it through Congress when it never appears as a priority in polls, he said:

"It's because no one talks about it. You let the President of the United States hold a press conference in the Rose Garden every Monday, telling the American people 'Here is what your system of campaign financing cost you last week: it cost you prescription drugs, it cost you fair housing, it cost you this or it cost you that,' Every week. I think you'll see those poll numbers change."

Can you imagine?

Part of my enthusiasm rests in the fact that I knew John Edwards, not well, but I knew him, before he ever ran for office. Moreover, I do know people who know him very well, and who have known him for decades. Other than a very few people he has defeated in court, you will not hear a negative word spoken about him personally. Many Republicans here attack him quite viciously, but for the most part, those who know him think very highly of him. Most of his opponents think very highly of him as an honest and tough competitor.

His heart is in the right place. I honestly believe, although he would never say this, that his reason for running is to make his son Wade, who died in 1996 at 16, proud. What a nice change, after three terms of Presidents out to please their fathers. Psychologically, I think that's a huge difference.

I feel like I am spouting platitudes, but it becomes difficult to express in concrete terms something that I feel quite viscerally -- this is the man to lead this country at this time. He is open. He listens. He does not fight dirty (although he knows how to fight tough -- a distinction which is important). I really believe the tone will be changed in Washington should he and his family inhabit the White House. He is just different. Optimism will return under his leadership. Any White House with Jack and Mary Claire Edwards running around in it would have to be an optimistic, sunny place.

Furthermore, he will thrash George W. Bush thoroughly, and will have coattails in the South and West. We stand a chance of winning back the Congress with Edwards at the head of the ticket. He has a cross-party appeal unlike any I've seen in a long time. It's like Perotism with a brain. It's a common-sense, up by his bootstraps appeal that will draw moderate Republicans and unaffiliated voters in droves. People are tired of partisanship for its own sake and they want to be led away from the divide.

Watershed elections are about change, and Edwards presents an opportunity for change. I shudder to think what a loss would mean for the Democratic Party and for this country.

Kerry, while an admirable public servant and, I think, a very good man, is "of" Washington. The partisan divides will continue. Even if he were to beat George Bush, which I think he could do, I think he would leave Tom Delay and Orrin Hatch firmly in charge of the Congress. Things would not change, and this country would just descend further into division and disunion.

Edwards changes the ballgame.

A nice, passionate letter. Thanks, John.

Now, if the Kerry supporters out there want to have a hand at making their pitch, I'm willing to run that, too.