John Edwards' speech was a lot like, well, John Edwards: long on style and short on substance. Edwards informed the viewing audience that he chooses "hope over despair, possibilities over problems, optimism over cynicism," that "there will always be heartache and struggle," and that his parents taught him to "never look down on anybody." I didn't think it was possible to speak for twenty minutes (without taking a breath) and say absolutely nothing. Now I know: it is.

Funny how these liberal Democrats are now trying to sound tough and hawkish. All of a sudden, Edwards is stump talking about doing what Bush has already done.

For once I agree with Mike: the Dems can't possibly think that they will win by being more socially moderate Republicans, can they? I won't vote for Nader again (since this time I'm voting in Michigan -- where it counts -- and not in DC), but the Dem strategy sucks eggs so far.

What they need to do strategy-wise if they're going to have any chance of winning is make the case more forcefully that Iraq was a mis-step in the war on terror (even though they'll see it through), and that Bush has been paying too little attention to al-Qaida and actual HOME-land security (ports, first responders, etc.). But this would require adopting a radical position with which they (and most Americans, frankly) are not comfortable, which is to say that the whole War on Terror (like the 80s' War on Drugs), as it has been waged by the Bushies thus far, is a sham. That their real aim is not fighting terrorists (though we may get a reduction in terror as a secondary result), but global, strategic advantage.

By the way, Flynn, why aren't you putting up your two cents on the hot new Beltway rumor? Citing "White House sources," Teresa Hampton has reported on the website Capitol Hill Blue that Bush is using drugs to control depression and erratic behavior.

http://www.capitolhillblue.com/artman/publish/article_4921.shtml

Drudge is downplaying it, and has now pulled the story, but I wonder...