Zzzzz ....I don't like to talk about campaign politics here, but I must express my displeasure with Kerry's choice of Edwards for a running mate. With all respect to Edwards' abilities, this pick is about style over substance, and it sends the message that Kerry will not challenge Republicans on foreign and defense policy as vigorously as he promised.
First, Kerry should have stayed clear of the other primary candidates. Associating with them doesn't give enough distance between the national campaign and that fratricidal infighting that occurred earlier this year. Kerry should have made a clean break from the past. The national campaign should look fresh; they should not look like a high school reunion.
Second, and most importantly, Kerry should have picked someone with a foreign policy vision. Edwards doesn't have one. Unless Kerry comes up with a comprehensive plan to fight al-Quaeda, the ticket won't have a vision. Immediately Edwards' six years on the intelligence committee was spun as experience. Just enough experience. JUST ENOUGH. This already sounds like a meek surrender in the elections most compelling issue. Rather than we have a better vision, we get we have some experience.
Since the moment is over, I won't talk about the governor whom I preferred (or why I was not supporting Wes as VP). I think that Kerry could have carried the party's domestic agenda on his own. I can say from first-hand experience that Kerry's relationships with firefighters and policemen is impressive--he gets them motivated for his cause. His running mate should have talked to issues that Cheney has been most involved: war (or energy). He or she needs to be able to debate foreign relations and security in specifics. Edwards had nothing to say about FP when I saw him speak in Keene; he avoided the subject like the plague. Perhaps Kerry will give Edwards a tutor.