Reply #23: Any of the Fab Four depicted in my sig is fine with me

[NV1962]

BTW, I put them in alphabetical order, not that of my personal preference.

John Edwards is a strong orator; he knows what "works" delivering a speech, and is an able inspirator. Politically, he's more or less on a line similar to that of John Kerry - they're not that much different, when you compare the "position on issues" (what in Europe would be called an electoral program.) He's smart, thinks on his feet, and has good looks (few would say he is really 51 years old.) As far as Senatorial experience is concerned, he's clearly the junior to Kerry; Edwards is currently serving his first term in the US Senate (Kerry got there in 1984) and before that, he was a sharp and succesful lawyer.

Edwards has a well-resonating message, and a good delivery; on the minus, he doesn't have as strong (lengthy) a political career / political record as the other three have.

Then again, I suspect that a certain over-representation of white, affluent and well-educated males among his supporters may correlate with his "mediagenic" appeal.

So, I think he's a pretty good candidate.

Having said all that, I'm afraid that electoral brain gymnastics aside and when applied to the whole electorate, things boil down to pure perception: name recognition (theinfamous top-of-mind rankings) and perceived "winner" looks; "issues" have little to do with it. In that regard, Edwards has at least a very steep climb ahead to overcome Kerry's current, massive lead.

This year, more than before, Democrats want to get rid of Bush (the "ABB" mantra) and that's why many people embrace the guy that they believe and hear is "the front-runner" to beat Bush: Kerry.

Marketing rulez baby!

Oh - and I'm originally from España. (Much to my chagrin I think the PP again will win the general elections there, next month... But who cares! It's only Southern Europe!)