I dont see it that way. I think he has the qualities that the country may be looking for after 8 years of dimwit Dubya. They'll want someone who is articulate, good in front of the camera, and someone who gives off a sense of compassion and hope.
Also, if you're hawkish on this war, you could have all the experience in the world and still be a sure loser.
Thats just my 2 cents.
I was very, very afraid of an Edwards nomination in 2004. I remember back in February, after John Kerry won all those primaries, that there were rumors about a mistress of some sort. I was scared to death that Kerry would drop out and Edwards would be the nominee.
Against a dummy like Dubya, Edwards is a winner.
But let's look at the Republican nominee in 2008. It'll either be McCain, Romney, or Giuliani. Say what you will about them, all three of them are very smart people, and against them Edwards' empty-headedness will be all the more apparent.
As for the war hawk thing, yes, the Iraq war is unpopular right now. If it becomes even more unpopular, and there is overwhelming support for immediate withdrawal, then you'll see Republicans changing with the winds. They're not going to run on an extremely unpopular war ... it would be political suicide.
The problem is that no one is saying what needs to be said. It's all dumb slogans . . . how many times have you heard a Democrat say "He misled us into war" or "Iraq is a quagmire" or "Iraq is in a civil war". Who cares? No one has any real ideas. It's all "stay the course" or "pull out now!". Very disappointing.
