Case Dismissed!

The definition of "lightweight," John Edwards, tried to play the smooth-talking lawyer last night, but Dick Cheney was the wiley judge who, upon cursory examination of the brief, dismissed the case with prejudice.

I know the veep debates are supposed to be irrelevant, and maybe they are, but if it's at all possible that any veep debate could be even remotely relevant, then this one certainly was. Even if this debate was irrelevant as to this race (which, as I'll explain below, is probably not true), it is surely relvant with regards to the dem primaries in 2008. Hillary was a big winner after last night, as Edwards was fileted, diced and fried by Cheney, and was shown to be not only inadequately qualified or credible to be the commander-in-chief, but was shown to be inadequate to even fill the role as veep. Hillary has more gravitas, knowledge and let's face it - balls - in her little pinkie than Edwards could ever hope to achieve. He was pathetic last night - absolutely pathetic when you consider that we are at war and are facing off with the enemy of this millennia.

This debate illustrated one of the fatal flaws of the democratic party today. They haven't adjusted their tactics over the last 40+ years. I watched part of the first JFK-Nixon debate the other day and what JFK was saying could've been said today - they're trying to take your social security, we need health care, better education, blah blah blah. The same holds true for their view of the women electorate. Kerry chose Edwards for the women vote, plain and simple. He is good-looking, young-looking, has a southern drawl and a trial lawyer's pursuasion. They STILL think that this is how to get the women's vote. When TV's were new and women were still mostly housewives, Kennedy blew people away with his warmth, good-looks and charm. That's why they picked Edwards. There cannot be any other explanation - he brings absolutely nothing - NOTHING - to the table. He can't even deliver his home state (which they already knew).

The dems don't understand that women are as involved in the issues as are men. Bush is splitting (or maybe even leading) the women vote because he is better at keeping them safe. Women are more risk averse than men are - that's why they normally vote based on domestic policy - education, healthcare, etc... Not because the candidate is hot. But now, when we're at war and we are fighting terrorism on a global scale, their risk aversion benefits the candidate that is better at keeping them safe.

I think that this debate will impact the election to some extent. Here's why: Kerry's biggest hurdle is getting voters to trust him on the war on terror and his role as commander-in-chief of the armed forces. Edwards doesn't help him here at all (clearly). But this debate was so lop-sided regarding Iraqi policy and the war on terror, that it reflects poorly on Kerry that he chose Edwards. Nobody votes for the veeps - we know that - but this debate wasn't about the veeps, it was about the judgment of the candidates.

Cheney articulated the Kerry record over and over again, thereby placing his record back into the picture as a campaign issue (where it should have been the whole time). He challenged the "global test" which baffled Edwards. (Quick test: what was Edwards explanation of the global test? I don't know either). He kept picking away at the $87 billion vote, the first gulf war vote, the votes against the major weapons systems...he even mentioned the Sandinistas, a sophisticated jab regarding Kerry's visit with Ortega (the picture of which I posted a while back).

This also will dominate at least one news cycle, next comes Bush's national security speech today, the debate on Friday (expect to see an invigorated Bush performance) and the Afghani elections on Saturday (this is all in the midst of the joint Iraqi/US victory in Samarra, and the successful offensive in Baghdad). All the while, Kerry and Edwards continue to paint a picture of gloom and doom (don't they know that Americans vote for optimists?). Speaking of this, Cheney had a good zinger when he quoted Edwards as being critical of the Afghani operation a couple of years ago, just like he's being critical today.

In sum, this debate sets up the remainder of the week - Bush speech, debate, Afghani election - to be a good one for team Bush, it placed Kerry's record back in the spotlight, and it illustrated that Kerry's first decision since being nominee - choosing Edwards - was a weak one, which showed a lack of regard for the importance of the war on terror.