"'If you had been elected vice president in 2004,'" asked The Daily Show's Jon Stewart, "'who would you have shot in the face?'" With that statement, Democratic presidential candidate John Edwards opened his speech, which was held in Alumni Hall at the Hopkins Center last week. While the tone certainly took a more serious turn after that, it fit in well the image that Edwards is trying to portray: With his somewhat casual wear, his referencing of popular television shows, watched mostly by college students, Edwards is building up his identity as a man of the people. Yet for all his charm, I felt that this presidential candidate was missing something.
Edwards focused mainly on rebuilding Americans' belief in government, a point he reiterated throughout his speech. There was even an allusion to the motto of his home state of North Carolina: To be, rather than seem. Indeed, one of Edwards' endearing qualities is that he is certainly one who appears trustworthy. He did make a concerted effort to answer each question to the best to his abilities. He seemed to want to avoid the mistake that plagued his 2004 Democratic running mate: not developing a clear stance that people could understand. He definitely came out and stated were he stood, whatever the issue might be. This made him sympathetic and even those who might not agree with his politics could appreciate his desire to clarify his stance.
It is not enough in my opinion to simply continue to demonstrate how inept the current administration is. Rather, it would have been more convincing for Edwards if he had mentioned how he would change the country. He did explain in some terms what he would do with the current quagmire in Iraq (steadily decrease troop levels and force the government in place to take responsibility of their country).
Yet not enough of his actual plans and how he was going to accomplish them rang through. The rhetoric, while impressive, cannot represent the main part of the argument. Actions must match these promises. The American people are deeply cynical about politics, which is reflected in underwhelming voter turnout (one of the lowest as far as western democracies are concerned).
One of the ways many voters recognize what the candidate stands for is to look at their voting record and review their past. In fact, Edwards was questioned for his approval of mountain-top removal coal mining by one of the members of the community ("Edwards sketches 2008 platform," Feb. 1). It was an unfortunate reminder of the realities of Washington politics. While Edwards has a staunch pro-environmentalist stance, his voting record does not match up to his rhetoric, since compromises and deals force even the biggest idealist to realize and accept the restrictions of the system. I believe Edwards is advocating not only for a change in policy, but for a change in the way government functions as well. Edwards' message was one of hope. While even he has not been immune to the power struggle in Congress, he firmly believes that we, as a nation, can overcome these problems and rebuild a government "for and by the people."
Unfortunately, I believe what the senator lacks is star power. I am not convinced he could make people get exited about "transformational" change in this country. He certainly possesses a definite likeability, a charm, yet he fails to exude the sort of passion or rousing displays as other potential candidates (Barrack Obama anyone?) or create a stir like Hillary Clinton. If Edwards truly wishes to become the next president he must do more to rouse those whose votes he seeks.
