See Dick Run


Even before Super Tuesday delivered a fatal blow to Senator John
Edwards's presidential campaign, everybody from Tim Russert to Jesse
Jackson was buzzing about the possibility that Edwards might become
Senator John Kerry's running mate, giving the Democrats a "dream
ticket" for 2004. And, while a lot of this was the usual Washington
chatter, the idea of a Kerry- Edwards pairing has clearly taken
root beyond the Beltway. In the New Hampshire primary, scores of
voters who backed Kerry reportedly wrote in Edwards as a
vice-presidential choice. In a recent CNN/Time magazine poll, 71
percent of Democrats called the idea of a Kerry-Edwards ticket a
"good idea." Even Jay Leno has taken note, teasing Edwards during a
recent "Tonight Show" appearance about running for the vice
presidency.But reports suggest Kerry and his advisers are far from sold on
Edwards. That may be a good thing. As compelling as Edwards might
have been as the Democratic presidential nominee, his virtues as a
running mate are more questionable. In fact, if any of Kerry's
vanquished rivals belong on the ticket with him, it may be the one
who never made it out of Iowa: Representative Richard Gephardt.

The case for Edwards as veep typically begins with geography:
Because Edwards is from North Carolina, the theory goes, he would
put that state in play while making Kerry competitive in other
Southern states that would otherwise shun a Massachusetts liberal.
As South Carolina Representative Jim Clyburn said recently, "With a
Kerry-Edwards ticket, we can sweep this nation and bring the South
along with it." But it's hardly clear that Edwards is really that
popular in Dixie. A recent story by Knight-Ridder's Anna Griffin
suggested that many North Carolina Democrats resent Edwards's
decision to abandon his Senate seat after just one term. ("A lot of
folks feel like maybe he should have stayed in the Senate longer,"
one local Democrat told Griffin.) And, as Kerry himself was
recently overheard saying, most polls show Edwards losing North
Carolina to President Bush in a head-to-head matchup. If Edwards
can't reliably beat Bush at the top of the ticket, how could he tip
the state if he were merely the vice-presidential nominee?

Fortunately for Kerry, winning the general election doesn't require
winning North Carolina--or, for that matter, any Southern state.
Assuming Kerry can hold every state Al Gore won in 2000, he need
only take one or two more to win a majority in the electoral
college. And, while it'd certainly be nice to win once-competitive
Southern states like Arkansas, Louisiana, or Tennessee, Democratic
prospects are brighter in the industrial Midwest, Gephardt's home
base. Unlike Edwards, who has only been in politics for six years,
Gephardt's 30-year tenure as a St. Louis representative suggests he
enjoys real political strength in his home state, Missouri. (Both
the state's governor and the head of its Democratic Party are
former Gephardt advisers.) Even more important, because Gephardt
has been such an unfailingly loyal ally to the labor movement over
his career--among other things, he led the fights against NAFTA and
for a higher minimum wage during the 1990s--he could be helpful in
labor-friendly states like West Virginia and Ohio, considered by
some the most crucial swing state of 2004. (Bush narrowly won Ohio
in 2000, but the state has been hemorrhaging manufacturing jobs,
and its 20 electoral votes may be ripe for Democratic picking.)

Gephardt's somewhat more conservative positions on social issues
like abortion (Gephardt is largely pro-choice but voted for the
so-called partial- birth ban last year) may also play well in the
Midwest. "It's impossible to know for sure," says the Century
Foundation's Ruy Teixeira, who has literally written the book on
working-class Democrats, but "he seems like he projects an air of
cultural stolidity that would be reassuring to those voters."
(Gephardt's near-religious defense of Medicare and Social Security
could help in another key state: Florida.)

Having said all that, Edwards's potential strength is clearly as
much personal as geographical. Thanks in part to his compelling,
rags-to-riches biography, he connects with middle- and
working-class voters more easily than the patrician Kerry. Even as
Kerry was winning primary after primary, exit polls showed that
voters believed Edwards was the candidate who most cared about them
and best understood their concerns. But Gephardt, too, has a good
personal story. Like Edwards, he's the son of working-class parents;
like Edwards, he worked his way through college and law school.
And, when it comes to communicating, Gephardt knows how to speak
the language of blue-collar America. "It's not just biography,"
says Democratic pollster Stanley Greenberg, another expert on
working-class voters. "It's also body language, the words you use,
whether you're the real article. And Gephardt is the real article."

Edward's seemingly boundless energy has reminded many observers of
another successful Democratic pairing: Bill Clinton's 1992
selection of an equally youthful Al Gore (at that time, Gore had
yet to be caricatured as tired and wooden). But selecting Gore made
sense because Clinton was youthful and enthusiastic, too. Kerry
isn't, and putting Edwards on the ticket might just emphasize that
fact. By contrast, Gephardt's best political asset may be his image
as a stable, veteran leader--a quality Kerry shares. In other
words, while putting Edwards on the ticket could remind them of
what's wrong with Kerry, putting Gephardt on the ticket could
remind them of what's right with him. Moreover, Gephardt might do a
better job of reminding voters of what's wrong with Bush. While
there's no question that Edwards is an unusually gifted speaker,
during the primaries he seemed reluctant to attack in the way vice-
presidential candidates must. You can't say that about Gephardt, who
proved his mettle as a Democratic partisan during the fight against
Newt Gingrich's Contract With America.

Granted, just as Gephardt's presence would highlight certain Kerry
strengths, it might also reinforce certain weaknesses. On
bread-and-butter issues, for example, Gephardt has frequently been
an unreconstructed liberal. At the very least, Gephardt's calls for
repealing the entire Bush tax cut would make it easier for the GOP
to demagogue the issue, despite Kerry's ever-so-careful locutions
on the matter. And, with such a long legislative career, Gephardt
has changed his mind more than a few times, most conspicuously on
abortion. (Gephardt began his career as a pro-lifer.) It was a
Michael Dukakis ad about flip-flops that helped kill Gephardt's
promising presidential candidacy in 1988, and, in the years since,
articles about Gephardt reinventions have become a veritable rite
of passage among Washington journalists. (I wrote one myself three
years ago.) Picking up where he left off in 2000, when running
against Gore, Bush has already begun attacking Kerry as a serial
flip-flopper who will say anything to get elected. Gephardt's
presence on the ticket certainly won't diminish that appearance and
could very well enhance it.

But any potential running mate has political liabilities, and the
good thing about Gephardt's is that they're well-established.
Gephardt has been on the front lines of congressional battles for
the better part of three decades, and he has endured the scrutiny
of two presidential campaigns. If there were some devastating
political weapon against him out there--whether it be a personal
scandal or a particularly unappealing set of votes--Republicans
would have deployed it long ago. Edwards, on the other hand,
remains a largely untested commodity. He has had to suffer negative
political attacks just once, when he ran for the Senate in 1998.
Because he kept his campaign so positive this season and never
emerged as the front-runner, the media never scoured his past the
way it did Kerry's. Nor have the voters rendered anything close to
a definitive verdict on some of Edwards's more obvious liabilities,
like his lack of governing experience. Among other things, it's far
from clear that the youthful Edwards has the stature to share a
stage with Dick Cheney in a debate over foreign policy. Voters may
find Gephardt a bit weathered, but, for that same reason, he
probably meets the public's definition of a would-be commander-

But the best reason to consider Gephardt seriously may simply be
that he'd make a better vice president. A successful vice president
can help an administration in many ways: By offering political
advice, helping push legislation through Congress, acting as a
disciplined spokesman, and managing relations with party interest
groups (both to rally support and, when necessary, to provide cover
for the president when he needs to defy them). It's Cheney's skill
at these things that has made him such a force in the Bush White
House. And, in all these respects, Gephardt's experience as a House
leader and his long-standing relationships with Democratic interest
groups would make him a better choice than the relative neophyte
Edwards. Should Gephardt have to assume the presidency because
Kerry could no longer serve, the veteran representative would be a
safe, responsible choice to manage the country as it wages the war
on terrorism. Edwards might well be up for that job, too. But,
again, given his relative lack of experience in office, it's hard to
be sure.

None of this is to say Gephardt is clearly Kerry's best choice.
There are good arguments in favor of other prominent Democrats,
such as Evan Bayh, Bob Graham, and Bill Richardson, not to mention
such (relatively) less well-known officials as Virginia Governor
Mark Warner. But the fact that Kerry and Gephardt are
battle-tested--both politically and, in Kerry's case, literally--
would make them a formidable team. It's more difficult to say the
same about Kerry and Edwards.

AUTHOR'S UPDATE: An Edwards supporter just e-mailed to say I got it
wrong when I suggested North Carolina voters resented Edwards's
running for president after just one term in the Senate. It's a
fair complaint. In contrast to the anecdotal evidence I cited, a
Raleigh News and Observer survey of North Carolina voters in
January showed that 55 percent supported Edwards's presidential
run--up from 39 percent a year before. The supporter also points to
a recent survey showing Edwards beating Bush in a one-on-one
matchup. That's also true, but not convincing. As I wrote, previous
polls consistently showed Edwards losing head-to-head. That's a big
reason why I am skeptical that he can bring North Carolina, let
alone other Southern states, into the Democratic
column--particularly if he's merely Kerry's running mate.

For more stories, like the New Republic on Facebook:

Loading Related Articles...
Article Tools