Maybe counselling would help...

Watching the Republican attack on the Edwards' pick this week, it seems that the playing the experience card isn't going to be enough to diminish the appeal of the Senator from North Carolina. In fact, Bush's surly quip about Cheney being "able to be President" has only highlighted Bush's own inadequancies and the dominant role of the vice presidency in the current administration. Kerry was quick on the draw, noting that Cheney has been the President from day one, and that that's a big part of our problem. Philip James hits a similar note in The Guardian.

Kerry and Edwards have an unusual opportunity to turn the old political slogan "experience you can trust" on its head, which brings us back to the president's "Dick Cheney can be president" one-liner.

I wonder if Bush is beginning to regret his chosen form of words, given that the public has witnessed how Cheney can indeed be president - whenever the mood takes him, and especially when his overwhelmed boss is not up to the task.

In fact, John Edwards made a considerable fortune for himself and people he represented convincing folks that he could be trusted, and he uses similar skills to his great advantage on the stump. Moreover, in a year when the campaigns seem to be in an ongoing battle to claim the mantle of 'optimism,' Edwards is Mr. Optimistic. Good evidence can be found in his national radio address today, in which he set the contrast plainly.

Between now and November, the American people are going to reject the tired, old, hateful negative politics of the past and they’re going to embrace the politics of hope, the politics of what’s possible, because this is America, where everything is possible.

Bush seemed resolved to make the contrast even more plain with his own weekly radio address. At a time when the nation is divided over war and an economy that seems to yield greater benefits for a few while leaving many out, at a time when every American, regardless of partisanship, is looking for the comfort of sure leadership in a period of national tempest, the President of the United States, 'leader' of the free world, chose to focus on a narrow issue without a future, a piece of legislation certain to fail and designed merely to drive a wedge between one national minority, religious fundamentalists, and another, gay and lesbian Americans seeking to ratify their relationships in civil marriage.

"A great deal is at stake in this matter," he intoned.

"For ages, in every culture, human beings have understood that traditional marriage is critical to the well-being of families. ... And changing the definition of traditional marriage will undermine the family structure."

That, of course, would include the cultures, past and present, where the traditions of marriage include polygamy (Hello Mr. and Mrs. and Mrs. and Mrs. and Mrs. Saud), arranged childhood marriages, impoverishing dowery payments, etc., etc., etc.

There have been, and are, many cultures with many traditions, including more than a few within our national borders. Beyond the issue he addresses, Bush's speech is remarkable only in the willingness of his staff to let him go ahead and display such remarkable chauvanistic ignorance of human culture and history.

I'll stick with my traditions, thanks, let others have theirs, and keep the government's nose out of the voluntary arrangements of two adults. I'm satisfied that my marriage will survive the stress, and if Bush has doubts about his, well, even I can extend sympathy to a fellow in such dire marital distress.