Hoping to offset what they acknowledge is the fresh-faced political appeal of Mr. Edwards, Republicans are trying to make the case that in a dangerous new world, filled with marauding terrorists and nations racing to go nuclear, he is not ready to step into the Oval Office should events require. They argue that he does not even have a full Senate term under his belt, that he is responsible for no significant legislation and that his service on the Senate Intelligence Committee, which Democrats say amounts to far more experience than many candidates have had, hardly amounts to adequate preparation.
On Wednesday, Democrats were ready for the critique that their candidate was a lightweight on national security, and they wasted no time opening a counteroffensive. They asserted that Mr. Edwards's five years in the Senate stacked up nicely with the amount of time Mr. Bush himself served as governor of Texas - his first public office - before moving to the Oval Office. Within hours of the announcement of Mr. Edwards's selection on Tuesday, the Kerry campaign was already offering old Democratic foreign policy hands to testify to the candidate's bona fides as a quick learner if not a longtime player.
In a "dangerous new world"? I guess that means in a post September 11th world, Edwards does not have the experience to be President.
Though, that makes me scratch my head. Because Republicans keep insisting that September 11th was Bill Clinton's fault. Which means the world was dangerous before September 11th and, yet, the Republicans nominated a guy for president who had absolutely no foreign policy experience, a guy who bankrupted like four businesses, paid for by his father and his father's friends, and was a total failure in the private sector, and had served only one term as the Governor of Texas--a state where the legislature only meets once every two years.
You know, meaning that Bush had about two months worth of government experience and no foreign policy experience when Republicans backed him in his losing presidential campaign in 2000.
I mean, George Bush is probably the least qualified president of the United States ever.
And Republicans backed him, not for Vice President, but for President in "dangerous new world".
For Bush and Republicans to attack Edwards for his lack of foreign policy experience is hilarious.
Christ, Bush is the most despised leader in the world. Europeans don't even like him. Canadians don't even like him. Situations have turned so sad that in the mid-east, bin Laden is more popular than Bush.
The English, our number one ally, don't like George Bush.
How can you possibly be any worse at foreign policy?
You can't! There's no nation left to destroy our relations with! Even if your entire foreign policy team consisted of no one but Triumph the Insult Dog, you still could not do any worse.
And, at least Edwards, before he was a politician, was successful at something. Wildly successful. At least Edwards has had a lifetime of competence. Edwards, unlike baby Bush, could stand on his own two feet and face adversity.
In times of adversity, Bush sits passively, reading "My Pet Goat", waiting for someone to tell him what to do.
The best Bush can say is that "Dick Cheney can be president"? Maybe, though I doubt it. But the jury's still out on George Bush. And if it goes to the jury, put your money on Edwards.
Nobody works a jury like Edwards.