QandO

July 08, 2004

Edward's glaring weakness
Posted by McQ

Now that the Democrat euphoria is beginning to subside slightly, Jeff Jacoby of the Boston Globe takes a critical look at Kerry's running mate. Interestingly he notes, the most valid criticism of Edwards wasn't made by Republicans, but instead by Kerry:

"In the Senate four years -- that is the full extent of public life. No international experience, no military experience."

"The American people want an experienced hand. . . . This is not the time for on-the-job training in the White House on national security issues."

"If his intent is to remove special interests from Washington, why has he . . . taken more than $11 million from lawyers and law firms?"

Yet on-the-job-training is precisely what Kerry now proposes as pertains to his running mate.

As the campaign heats up, as well as the economy, it is becoming more and more apparent that the top issue of this election will revolve around the war on terror and the war in Iraq.

Jacoby notes that while Edwards certainly brings some qualities to the Kerry campaign it sorely lacks, the most important one, the one which may decide the election is missing:

Much is being made of Edwards's un-Kerry-like strengths -- he is a gifted communicator, he is likable and upbeat, he speaks Southern, he appeals to women. But not even the blindest Democratic partisan is hailing Edwards for his strong national security profile for the obvious reason that he doesn't have one. His resume boasts no foreign policy credentials. His much-lauded "Two Americas" stump speech said nothing about the war on terrorism. For that matter, neither did Kerry's speech announcing Edwards as his choice for VP. It contained only a single throwaway reference to "bioterrorism" and didn't so much as mention the words "war" or "iraq."

If played properly by the Republicans, this could be an Achilles heel for the Kerry campaign. While Dick Cheney may not be the most personable VP we've ever had, there are few who'd argue he isn't an experienced and effective VP (in fact there are those who'd argue he may be the most involved VP ever).

When it comes down to picking the team which one wants to see pursuing the war on terror, the lack of experience of Edwards may hurt the Democrats in the voting booth.

TrackBack