News-Record.com

I didn't attend last night's debate among four Democrats running for U.S. Senate, but I was very surprised to read that Jim Neal said he's the only one who could beat Republican Elizabeth Dole.

Kay Hagan, in contrast, said she thought any Democrat would have a good chance of defeating the incumbent.

Maybe Hagan doesn't actually believe that. I don't. As we said in our endorsement of Hagan Sunday, she's the only Democrat who can give Dole a credible challenge, let alone unseat her.

But, for the sake of Democratic esprit de corps, it was wise for Hagan to say her party rivals might be able to knock off Dole, too. It makes the point that Dole's record is so poor that she's on shaky ground with voters no matter who her opponent turns out to be after May 6.

Neal, on the other hand, just conceded a Dole victory in November should he not earn his party's nomination.

The me-or-nobody attitude also strikes me as terribly egotistical. Maybe that's not surprising for a guy who's never run for public office and was unknown to almost everyone in North Carolina -- Democratic Gov. Mike Easley said he'd never heard of him -- and decided to launch his political career at just about the highest level.

In our editorial board interview with the Democratic candidates, Neal cited John Edwards as someone who had done exactly the same thing successfully.

Yeah, Edwards did that in 1998. Three big differences: Edwards was a well-known lawyer in North Carolina, while Neal lived and worked out of state for most of his life; Edwards had much more money to dump into his campaign; and Edwards was a once-in-a-lifetime political talent.

Even then, the comparison is a poor one because, once he was elected, Edwards demonstrated little interest in actually being a senator but an intense desire to become president.

Of course, voters didn't know that about Edwards back in '98. He'd never held public office, had no record to show how faithfully he would serve his constituents.

That's where Hagan has a decisive advantage over Neal and the other candidates. She's held office for going on 10 years now and has proven herself over and over. She's worked hard, delivered on promises and kept faith with her constituents.

"We have to offer a contrast," Neal said at the debate.

He's right. Hagan can offer a contrast between how she's performed in office against how Dole has performed.

Neal can't offer that. He's still an unknown.

Could he beat Dole? It's foolish to say that would be impossible, but it's a long shot. Democrats could give themselves much better odds by going with Hagan.