Kerry’s Eye-Candy Selection

Style over substance

by Vincent Fiore
07/16/04

Senator John Kerry has finally ended much hyperventilated speculation on who his choice for Vice President will be to complete his quest for the White House against George W. Bush. To almost no one’s surprise, Kerry chose Senator John Edwards. Mr. Edwards gives John Kerry something he lacked in this campaign, namely a face. Well, more accurately stated, a pretty face.

Until now, Kerry has seemed about as cuddly as a cactus, as sexy as a shovel, and as inspiring as an ingrown hair. Now, with the comely Edwards on the ticket, the presumptive Democratic nominee recently quipped, “We've got better hair. I'll tell you, that goes a long way.''

But “better hair” does not mean much these days after 9/11. Nor will it offer any defense for America’s foreseeable war of the future, the war against terrorism. “Better hair” has no practical economic platform, except to accuse the other guy of Hoover-like depressions, even in the midst of the country’s largest economic expansion since 1984.

But, yes, I will concede: Senators Kerry and Edwards do sport first-rate coiffures. By pointing it out, one supposes it might eclipse a campaign of simple and waterish policy. At least, that is a hope the candidates may share, like their wonderful hair.

Indeed, that will go miles upon miles on the campaign trail, as the Kerry/Edwards ticket will impress upon lonely and bored women, single or otherwise, that not since the Baby Boomer ticket of Clinton/Gore in 1992 have the potential occupants of the White House looked so good. And as is the case in an open society, I’m sure a few men will feel all goosey about John Edwards as well. After all, Democrats have always been proud to boast that they are the preeminent “party of inclusiveness.”

Still, it was instructive to watch a media smitten. The word “charismatic” is applied to Mr. Edwards as pressure is applied a bleeding limb. That bleeding limb, incidentally, would be Mr. Kerry, and the “charismatic” Edwards will try to do what the “gravitas” of one Dick Cheney in 2000 did for Bush. He will try to supply the missing link to the Kerry presidency.

So what is the media saying about Edwards between breathlessness and giddiness?

"A reporter in North Carolina noted in a question to President Bush that Edwards was being described as ''charming, engaging, a nimble campaigner, a populist and even sexy.''' -Tom Raun, Associated Press

“He attracts epithets like ‘golden boy.’ People magazine calls him its ‘sexiest politician.’” -Editorial from the Guardian Unlimited, UK.

"I don't want to be sexist about this, but from a gender gap perspective, this is a young family, an attractive family. Edwards is an attractive candidate, and it kind of looks good. Remember the way we all responded, Americans I should say, responded when we were all covering Clinton and Gore, those two families, the boomer families out on the road on the bus trips. Well, there's that kind of look." - Andrea Mitchell, MSNBC’s “Hardball” with Chris Matthews

"Edwards is young and extremely attractive, which is used against him to say, is he serious if he's young and extremely attractive?" -Washington Post columnist E.J. Dionne, quoted by the BBC News.

"By classical standards, Edwards is more attractive than Clinton. The animal magnetism notwithstanding, Bubba was always a little too fleshy, and his nose a bit too bulbous, to be conventionally handsome. Edwards, by contrast, was named America's sexiest politician by People magazine in 2000." - CBS News

"There's a lot of Clinton in Edwards: charm, handsome youth, Southern electability. Physically, Edwards is more gifted. Clinton used his voice and face to convey a range of emotions. Edwards uses his whole body." - William Saletan, Slate

Whew. Was it good for you? Somebody get me a cigarette.

What has also become obvious is that it was not only John Edwards that Kerry wanted, but the entire Edwards family. Already, Elizabeth Edwards and her children, Emma Claire and Jack, are being marketed and pressed into service. Comparisons are beginning to take shape between Mrs. Edwards and former first ladies Nancy Reagan and Hillary Clinton. It sounds something like: “she has the protectiveness of Nancy Reagan, and the smarts of Hillary, a perfect combination.”

So really, what started out as John Kerry’s first “Presidential” decision, as Bill Clinton has said, may turn out to be his last. The Kerry/Edwards ticket has the distinction of being the most liberal duo in Democratic politics, ever. Edwards has little to point to in the way of accomplishment in the Senate, and his foreign policy experience in one of virtual non-existence. In a war footing as America is now in, do we have the luxury of a vice president that requires on-the-job training?

The “big bounce” that Democrats expected after Kerry named Edwards as his choice for VP never materialized. Dubbed the “dream ticket” by their adoring base and an even more love-struck media, the Democratic ticket has taken to campaign messages filled with the “two Americas” speech, hoping to create a panorama of despair throughout the country that clearly is not there.

If John Kerry and John Edwards can keep their hands off one another long enough, they may realize that “good hair” and empty, populists’ platitudes will not an election win. What worked in 1992, a decade of domestic and geopolitical idyllic sloth, will not work in the years ahead- years that will need to showcase leadership and decisiveness in a world of terror.

The choice for the electorate could not be any starker: Either they choose the Senate’s most consistent liberal and his eye candy vice-president nominee who thinks he’s the new “man from Hope,” or they reelect the Bush/Cheney team for four more years at a time when ten-inch hair parts and male-on-male groping matter little.