Sizing Up the Democratic Contenders' Strengths

By Janet Hook

Feb. 26, 2004 12 AM PT

Times Staff Writer

WASHINGTON —

If first impressions are lasting ones, John Edwards’ persona in the Senate was sealed within weeks of his swearing-in.

The North Carolina Democrat, elected in 1998, was swept into a maelstrom -- the impeachment case against President Clinton -- that played to Edwards’ strengths as a wildly successful trial lawyer.

In a somber closed-door Senate session, the boyish-looking freshman lawmaker gave a speech, without notes, for Clinton’s acquittal that left seasoned senators impressed with his ability to connect with his audience and dissect a complex issue.

“You could hear a pin drop in the chamber,” recalled Sen. Patrick J. Leahy (D-Vt.). “He crystallized people’s thinking.”

It was emblematic of the way Edwards has made his mark in the Senate: more by talking than doing.

He has very little legislation to his name. His voting record is brief and fairly predictable. But he is a standout in his ability to question and persuade people -- a skill he honed in the courtroom and in Senate hearings and which is perhaps his major asset in his bid to overcome Sen. John F. Kerry (D-Mass.) in the Democratic presidential race.

Detractors see Edwards’ Senate record as thin, offering evidence that he is more showhorse than workhorse. From the day he arrived, some senators said, it was clear this ambitious young man would not warm his Senate seat for long.

“He was already moving on, it was apparent from the beginning,” said Sen. Gordon Smith (R-Ore.). “The Senate wasn’t enough for him.”

Unlike Kerry, Edwards does not make extensive claims about his work in the Senate as part of his campaign pitch. Typically, his campaign speeches focus more on his life story and career as a trial lawyer than on his legislative accomplishments.

Robert Gordon, Edwards’ policy director, said the candidate’s record dovetails with the campaign’s focus on standing up to special interests. He cites Edwards’ work on bills to lower the price of generic drugs, to enforce clean-air standards and to increase regulation of managed healthcare.

But Gordon acknowledged, “His ability to get laws passed has been limited by the fact that George Bush is president.”

Brief though it may be, Edwards’ tenure in the Senate provides a window into the policies and political skills he would bring to the Oval Office.

Although Edwards is sometimes cast as a moderate Democrat, he is no maverick in the model of Sen. John B. Breaux (D-La.) and other Senate centrists who often stray from the party line.

His voting record is not very different from Kerry’s on most issues. Both get consistently high ratings from liberal groups, such as the Americans for Democratic Action and the AFL-CIO.

However, they have diverged on some environmental issues, with Kerry more consistently defending the position of environmental activists.

Edwards agreed with the League of Conservation Voters on 68% of the votes the group considered key in 2002; Kerry voted with the league 92% of the time. The group has endorsed Kerry for president.

Issues the two candidates differed on included Edwards’ support in 2002 for an amendment to block future increases in fuel economy standards for pickups. Kerry, who has been a leader in efforts to impose stricter fuel economy standards on vehicles, opposed the provision.

An Edwards spokesman, Mike Briggs, told the Charlotte Observer at the time: “He supports making cars more efficient. But he also supports farmers and NASCAR drivers who rely on pickup trucks for their work.”

Edwards won plaudits from environmentalists last year when he led the fight against administration rules easing clean-air standards for factories, power plants and other polluting facilities. His amendment was defeated but by an unexpectedly narrow margin of 50 to 46.

The two candidates also have parted ways on certain trade bills, with Edwards taking a more cautious stance than Kerry on expanding international commerce. Edwards opposed, while Kerry supported, the final version of a 2002 bill giving the president more power to negotiate trade agreements.

Many of the issues Edwards has delved into in the Senate have had some connection to his legal background.

As a Judiciary Committee member, he has been a vocal critic of Bush’s judicial nominees. Leahy credits Edwards’ skillful questioning of Charles W. Pickering Sr. in 2002 for galvanizing Democratic opposition to the Mississippi judge. Pickering’s appointment to the federal bench was blocked for two years until Bush, using his power to name judges while Congress was in recess, appointed him in January to the U.S. 5th Circuit Court of Appeals in New Orleans.

Edwards’ highest-profile legislative work was on a measure to impose new patient-protection regulations on health maintenance organizations and other managed care plans. The measure, known as the “Patient’s Bill of Rights,” had well-known sponsors, including Sens. Edward M. Kennedy (D-Mass.) and John McCain (R-Ariz.). But Senate Democratic Leader Tom Daschle (D-S.D.) encouraged Edwards to take the lead on the legal issues involved in the bill.

The role fit Edwards like a glove -- he had learned much about the issue while representing clients in lawsuits against insurance companies.

During his campaign, he has occasionally mentioned the legislation as an example of his commitment to helping ordinary Americans -- but usually without acknowledging that the bill didn’t become law, dying after it passed the Senate.

The Democrats seized on the HMO bill as their key domestic issue in 2001, one of many strokes of good fortune that helped Edwards rise to prominence as a freshman senator.

“He’s been very lucky,” said Ferrell Guillory, director of a program on politics at the University of North Carolina. “As my high school football coach used to say, luck is when preparation meets opportunity.”

Edwards’ preparation ran smack into an opportunity with Clinton’s impeachment trial, which was the Senate’s first order of business after he was sworn in. Senate Democrats needed good lawyers to help navigate the politically and legally perilous proceedings.

Daschle tapped Edwards to be one of six senators to take depositions from key figures in the scandal, which involved allegations that Clinton committed perjury to hide an extramarital affair. Edwards impressed the others in the group with his questioning behind closed doors.

The full Senate saw Edwards’ gift of the gab on display when he gave his speech calling for Clinton’s acquittal. He began by discarding his prepared text, telling his colleagues he wanted “to speak to you from the heart.”

He methodically dissected each of the charges and weighed the evidence bit by bit, which Leahy said helped the spirits of Democrats who wanted to acquit Clinton.

Edwards ended with an emotional tribute to his “boundless faith” in Americans who have served on juries -- and to the Senate colleagues with whom he had served just one month.

Even Republicans such as Smith, the former head of a frozen food company, were impressed.

“We all saw a brilliant statement by Sen. Edwards,” Smith said on the floor the next day. “I think we saw firsthand why he has made so much money talking to jurors. We are seeing right now why I had to make my money selling frozen peas.”

(BEGIN TEXT OF INFOBOX)

How Kerry and Edwards compare

Ratings by interest groups based on votes in 2002 show that the two leading contenders for the Democratic presidential nomination had similar records in the Senate. The biggest disparity was on the environment: John F. Kerry sided more consistently with environmental activists than did John Edwards.

atings by interest groups

(on a scale of 100; a higher number represents more agreement on issues with interest group)

AFL-CIO

Kerry: 92

Edwards: 100

Americans for Democratic Action

Kerry: 85

Edwards: 70

American Conservative Union

Kerry: 20

Edwards: 30

League of Conservation Voters