Edwards is the first politician who, when he talks to a room full of middle-class people, doesn't necessarily seem to be promising something to them. Sure, he's a little vague about just where the line is between the "Two Americas" -- it's "the rich and powerful" and "everyone else." But when he gets specific, when he starts talking about the ten-year-old girl who goes to sleep hoping that it isn't as cold tomorrow as today because she doesn't have warm enough clothes -- it's got to be apparent to any audience that he's not talking about what he's going to do for them. He's making a moral claim about what our country owes to those who have the least, not promising something to everyone who "works hard and plays by the rules." And, shocking as it is, that's a big deal. And it matters that it comes from a candidate who is generally perceived as a moderate -- if only because he's a southerner -- rather than the leftmost candidate in the race. [...]

[...]

Dean's transformation of the Democratic party was largely procedural, though not unimportant. He helped the party see that enthusiasm could be as valuable as converting a swing voter at the 50th percentile. He showed that money could be raised from supporters of any age, income or background, that the only contributors were not those on the Democratic National Committees official list of proven contributors. And he showed how giving up control of a campaign, letting it be driven by its supporters, could generate tremendous enthusiasm. Edwards' campaign has been more conventional in procedure, and in the end, while doing "better than expected," he is still unlikely to be the Democratic nominee. But if Democrats hear his language, the willingness to make a moral claim about what our country should be like, not just what he will do for the middle of the middle [class], it will be a powerful voice.

I'd say it's still an open question how much of the tone of Edwards' campaign gets adopted for the general election -- perhaps it depends on whether Edwards is on the ticket or not -- but a campaign that provides both a strong practical rationale to vote against George W. Bush (based on his dismal record of massive disachievement, the mendacity of his administration and its general incompetence), and a strong moral reason to vote for the Democratic alternative could be very successful. It seems to me that what's driving Democrats right now is the former, hence the votes for Kerry on the dubious "electability" rationale (i.e. he can beat Bush). This is fine for the primaries when more of the voters will tend to be committed Democrats, but doesn't do anything to provide reasons for the voter in the general electorate to go for the Democrat. It's not going to be enough to knock down Bush, people have to be given a positive rationale as well.

(Paradoxically, Bush's "positive" rationale will be a highly negative FUDdy one: the world is a dangerous place, don't change horses in mid-stream. That's a strong argument to many people and one that has to be rebutted head-on. That might mean that Kerry, even Kerry the war hero, would prefer to have a vice president with good national security credentials, someone like Clark, rather than someone who "speaks to the people" like Edwards. After all, Edwards' neo-populist message can be taken up by the Kerry campaign without bringing on the salesman, whereas it's the specific person of Clark that would provide an advantage.

The best plan would be to integrate them both into the campaign, but that may be impossible unless Clark is willing to settle for something less than v.p.)

Postscript: On Daily Kos, Trapper John also considers, a lot more coherently than I did here, the need for Kerry and the Democrats to find an overarching theme for the campaign:

Instead of just shouting "AWOL! AWOL!," we need to begin tying the micro issue of Bush's military misadventures into a larger theme about privilege and, yes, [Edwards'] "Two Americas." We need to make the AWOL issue part of a seamless metanarrative about the fundamentally elitist vision of the GOP.

I think there's a danger here, however, of always returning to the negative, to the attack on Bush and the GOP. That's understandable, given their malfeasance and misdeeds, but it also holds the strong possibility that it will just turn people off entirely if something positive isn't provided at the same time.