Reply #76: Possibly, but I don't think he'd be effective on terror

[liberalpragmatist]

An Edwards/Kerry or Edwards/Clark or Edwards/Levin ticket may have worked.

Edwards would have been in some ways a more appealing candidate. But I think he'd have a major problem coming off as credible on national security - he's a "pretty boy" and people think he's quite young. Plus while he has more experience in national security than Bush, few would make that connection.

But to answer your question, yes, Edwards *could* have won. Kerry could have won. Clark could have won. Dean POSSIBLY might have won. Same with Gephardt. And Lieberman could have won (although he'd hurt the party b/c he'd turn into an amorphous wholly centrist being).

Any of these candidates could have won given the right campaign. But given that Bush is a "wartime" President (it's very hard to beat wartime presidents unless a war has dragged on for a long time, in which case they usually just step down, RE: Truman and Johnson). Democrats especially have a deficiency on national security. So it would have always been an uphill battle and would have required a near-perfect campaign. As it is, Kerry ran a pretty good campaign. In the end though, his mistakes caught up with him. It's possible Edwards would have run a better campaign, but that's no guarantee. And I think it would have been harder for Edwards than for Kerry to overcome the national security gap (although the "values" gap may have closed).