Kerry deserves praise for that. I didn't think he had it in him, but he did. As for Edwards, well, you're right about him, Charles.
Speaking of childish things, did you see Richard Cohen's column in the WaPo today? Opening 'graph:
If you set out to create the perfect Democratic presidential candidate, you would probably choose someone from the South or the border states, since John Kerry lost virtually the entire region on Tuesday, and someone who is comfortable talking the language of religion and values, since John Kerry was not, and someone whose wife is identified with conventional values, and, last, someone who took a very early position against the war in Iraq, which John Kerry did not. Such a person already exists and, as luck would have it, has a name: Al Gore.
See? I could haved fisked Cohen's column into next week (my chocolate lab could have done that, for crying out loud), but I know a pro when I read one. If you do the honors, I'll link over to you. You're so good at taking Richard to the mat I wouldn't even venture to try.
Don't know what else Johnny-boy will be doing. He knew he would not win in NC if he ran for re-election, and I can't see him getting a prominent national-exposure job. Maybe he can pull a Stephanapolous and sound presidential on a network news program. I don't think he can pull it off, though, unless they restrict him to a few talking points.
There's always trial lawyering ... good money, daytime hours, and he gets to make speeches.
Just when I thought I was out, they pull me back in...
In February 2002, Gore said, "As far as I'm concerned a final reckoning with that country (Iraq) should be on the table." Gore was very hawkish on Iraq, giving warnings about the threat of Saddam Hussien, until it became clear that Bush actually intended to do something about him. Only then did Gore go into his anti-war position.