E-Mail This Article to a Friend Candidates Edwards Gives a Mixed-Bag Performance at Harvard BY DAVID S. BERNSTEIN

Sometimes, Senator John Edwards makes you think he’s really got it. He’ll flash that perfect smile, talk about expanding opportunity to working-class people, and give you that hopeful, optimistic feeling that you just don’t get from the John Kerrys and Joe Liebermans of this presidential contest.

Other times, Edwards makes you wonder just how empty that suit is, and why exactly we should think that a guy who was perfectly happy as a big-bucks personal-injury trial lawyer six years ago should be taken seriously as a candidate for President.

Both the Jack Kennedy and the Dan Quayle sides of 50-year-old John Edwards were on display Monday night at Harvard, first at a Q-and-A appearance with the Harvard College Democrats at Kirkland House, and then at a taping of Hardball with Chris Matthews at the John F. Kennedy School of Government.

The Kirkland House appearance was the more impressive, probably thanks to the absence of Mr. Matthews (both for good and ill). Edwards spoke clearly on a variety of issues. Asked about trade, he espoused a more nuanced approach than either the pure free traders or the Dean-like dreamers of making the world meet our labor standards. On health care, he spoke firmly about making health coverage a birthright similar to public education. On foreign policy, he sounded like the anti-Bush many Democrats pine for: "It is important for the most powerful nation on earth to lead in a way that brings others to us. We have to send very clear signals to the world that we care about their peace, their security, their prosperity."

At the Hardball taping, Edwards occasionally got into such a groove, speaking for instance about balancing the need for domestic intelligence with protection of civil liberties. And he displayed a masterful ability to deflect critical audience questions by saying "that’s a great question" and actually sounding excited to be asked.

And certainly he didn’t make any choice of words as ill-advised as he did at the debate last week in Phoenix, when speaking to a disabled stroke victim he said that the cost of her medication was "just crippling, crippling for you, isn't it?"

But sprinkled throughout the two Harvard appearances there were troubling deer-in-the-headlight moments. Asked at Kirkland about alternative election methods, such as Cambridge’s preferential system, Edwards couldn’t make any sense of the question even after a lengthy explanation. Okay, one might expect a serious politician to at least have a passing awareness of the idea, but it’s not a sin. When Matthews challenged him to the Andy Hiller "name the leaders of four key countries" game, Edwards refused, laughing but looking terrified. Again, not a crime, but the guy is on the Senate Intelligence Committee; it’s not so crazy to hope he’s heard of the Prime Minister of Pakistan.

Then, oddly, he managed to sound both anti-intellectual and culturally out of touch during Matthews’ apolitical questions. Favorite movie? Not only couldn’t he think of a favorite (finally naming Shawshank Redemption after a painful struggle), he said he hadn’t seen a movie in three years. Favorite philosopher? None. Are you not philosophical?, Matthews asked. "I think I am, in the abstract, I just don’t have a favorite philosopher," Edwards responded.

Edwards’ hope in the nomination race is that a win in South Carolina will pit him against one or two survivors of the Iowa and New Hampshire contests. If that happens, he will spend a lot of time facing tough questions and one-on-one debates. That’s when a lack of depth can be exposed and pecked at mercilessly. Edwards needs to fill out that suit a little more by then.