Guest Commentary: The Edwards Surprise

WASHINGTON -- FDR's secretary of the Navy, Claude Swanson, gave us this political adage: "When the water reaches the upper level, follow the rats."

 This lugubrious saying is called to mind by the way the chair of Howard Dean's campaign stabbed his candidate in the back on the eve of his do-or-die Wisconsin primary.

 Steven Grossman, former chair of the Democratic National Committee, knew that his last-minute defection would dominate the final-day news and crush Dean's hopes of a stronger-than-expected showing.

 What drives an old pro to such political disloyalty? Was Grossman trying to win his way back into John Kerry's good graces by dumping Dean at the propitious moment?

 The other service Dean now performs for Kerry is to split the not-Kerry Democratic vote. This is not yet an anti-Kerry vote, because the Massachusetts senator has stolen Dean's antiwar resentment and adopted John Edwards' cheerful soak-the-rich pitch. But many Democrats could turn anti-Kerry if Edwards continues to play the feisty Avis to Kerry's establishment Hertz.

 There's a new phase a-coming. Kerry has had his comeback honeymoon. He has offered only a high-carb diet of populist platitudes in stump speeches. For a serious man running for a serious job, Kerry has not made a policy speech since December, when he was nobody.

 The Washington Post editorialist just noted "his fuzziness on issues ranging from Iraq to gay marriage... He voted for the North American Free Trade Agreement yet now talks in protectionist terms... He must explain how he would manage the real and dangerous challenges the U.S. now faces in Iraq--without the fuzzing."

 The Post's Fred Hiatt is not yet Meg Greenfield, but his influential wake-up call is sure to be echoed--especially in light of Wisconsin's results.

 Kerry's momentum is now checked. The surprise was Edwards' powerful showing, especially among independents, followed lamely by Dean. If Dean had taken the Grossman gas pipe and announced he would quit, I believe his anti-establishment vote would have split 2-1 for the Southerner Edwards, snatching victory from Kerry--and in Wisconsin, by yimminy, where voters can hardly understand a word he's saying.

 If Edwards is smart (and a trial lawyer who got $25 million for himself out of the medical profession must have an agile mind) he will carry an empty chair around New York, Ohio, Georgia and California demanding that Kerry debate him one on one about NAFTA, where he is a genuine Smoot-Hawley protectionist and Kerry merely a primary-conversion protectionist.

 Kerry would probably refuse to debate unless Dean was included, to steal the debate spotlight like Ross Perot. But if Dean wanted to get even, the embittered Vermonter would accept and then back out at the last minute to let the two front-runners have at it. Oh, boy.

 Did I just say "two front-runners"? How can that be--when Edwards starts from so far behind? And when Kerry is belatedly lionized by Clintonites who thought a Dean debacle would pave the way for Hillary in 2008? And when Kerry's Kennedy acolytes turn ashen-faced only at the rumor that an Al Gore endorsement is imminent?

 Here's how: Although Dean is not a kingmaker, he can be the front-runner-maker. By staying in through Super Tuesday, this anti-Warwick could ensure Kerry's nomination. By throwing his waning strength (and Web fund-raising) to Edwards, he could help transform a routine Boston coronation into a neck-and-neck race down the homestretch.

There's a consummation devoutly to be wished. It would mean the weekly Kerry victory parade would be over and the media pendulum could swing again--and that the pressure would be on Edwards to cut the class warfare lest he expose the deep economic split in the Democratic Party.

 William Safire's column is syndicated by the New York Times News Service.