But he does come across as bright, earnest, and pleasant.

Earnest and pleasant I totally agree. But bright? That's now a bit questionable. When a lawyer doesn't have a clear grasp on the DOMA and his excuse is he wasn't in Congress when it passed - that doesn't fly. I know plenty of people that aren't lawyers and never served in Congress and can explain the DOMA.

Rosemary--I actually missed that one; the first I heard of it was the Jeff Jacoby column I posted a couple minutes ago. My guess--not having heard it--was that he was ducking the question rather than actually didn't know.

I don't know; his answer seemed extremely flawed. He kept criticizing what it would do "if it passed" (paraphrase), causing Brit Hume, in a follow-up question, to seemingly slow down and carefully enunciate the "which passed in..." part, and yet, even after that, he talked about what he thought it would have done if it passed.

Does the senator not know that the DOMA is law? And that, as Hume pointed out, it does precisely the opposite of what he claims it would do "if it passed"?

I agree with Rosemary; Edwards was hopelessly uninformed on this and several other points during the debate.

Interesting; I'll take a look at the transcript. He might have confused it with the Defense of Marriage AMENDMENT, which is being bandied about?

Aside from the fact that his name is "Wesley." He can't help that.

The name "Wesley" fits him just right. Smarmy, priggish, condescending, insufferable.

Hmmm. Edwards is hopelessly uniformed and not experienced enough to be president. Now which sitting president does this remind one of? My impression of my state's senior senator is that he's plenty quick on the uptake, and he certainly recognizes that Saddam did, in fact, let the inspectors back in prior to invasion (for just one of many examples). It's good to see the fear of God in some people, though.

The debates only proved one thing. The Democratic party is decrepid and dead. In Arizona, after the primary, watch registered democrats change thier voter registration to Independent and Green if Dean does not win the primary.

BH,

Four years in the Senate is not much experience. Granted, six years as governor with no previous political career is less than I'd prefer, but governing a large state is much better preparation for heading the federal executive branch than being a legislative backbencher.

I think he's a bright guy who could learn on the job if he were elected. Given the current international environment, I'd prefer someone to be able to step right in, but that's unusual. Mainly, I think his policies, especially his foreign policy, are less desirable than a second Bush term.

And, honestly, I see nothing wrong with his uniform.

Why should Clark insist people call him "Wes" when they currently call him "General"?

But it's always "General Wesley..." That sort of cancels one another out.

Oops. You got me, JJ. I meant "uninformed," of course. I should have just pasted the two quotes that inspired my post. Blogging on the sly, with a nosy assistant, will do that. Too, the second sentence should probably read--instead of "sitting president"--"shit-eating president," for that famous smirk so on display the other night.

Snark aside, what is it precisely about Edwards foreign policy that makes you prefer Bush's? It seems to me that an Edwards 2000 victory would have resulted--and I'm assuming that no-one, even a Democrat less obsessed with missile defense and being the anti-Clinton, could have prevented 9/11--in an Afghanistan much more under control, an Iraq crawling with inspectors and being pressured to change, and an America with better port and nuclear security, and still respected worldwide, not resented. Imagine Osama caught or killed, Saddam well contained, and our military not dangerously over-extended. Seems a pretty damn desirable foreign policy outcome, if you ask me.

BH,

Sounds like we're operating in fantasyland here. Edwards voted for the Iraq War, although now he says he was opposed to it. But, assuming he would have kept us out of Iraq, it's unclear how we'd be better off. We've got Saddam under lock and key and have all the time to inspect that we want now.

Our military isn't overextended. We mopped up the Iraq operation in 21 days. Stability ops are indeed manpower intensive, but that's mainly an issue of force structure not end strength.

And, assuming Osama is even still alive, it's unclear what Edwards would have done that would have resulted in his capture that isn't being done now.