I've noted in the past that Richard Cohen frequently departs from the liberal party line (unlike, for example, E.J. Dionne, who is no longer worth reading), and today he delivers another sparking commentary on the Edwards business. A number of people have observed that the same folks who decried McCain's selection of Palin as a running mate have been strangely silent about John Kerry picking Edwards in 2004. Cohen steps up:
I have been particularly harsh on McCain for his irresponsible choice of Sarah Palin as his running mate. I withdraw none of it; the better we got to know Palin, the more egregious a choice she became -- astonishingly unprepared and unsuited for the presidency. She proves, if anything, that McCain was, too.
But what, then, can we make of Kerry's choice of Edwards? It is not quite in the Palin category, since Edwards had been in the Senate for one term and had made a career for himself as a stunningly successful trial attorney. Still, not only did he lack legislative achievement, but, in retrospect, it's clear that little was known about him. He dazzled as a political matinee idol -- a profile, a speech, a mirage of a marriage.
But along the way Cohen raises doubts about Barry Obama, too:
I will also throw Barack Obama into the mix, not because I know something nefarious about him but because I realize more and more that I know so little about him.
When, for instance, the call goes out to let Obama be Obama, I'm not sure what that is. For the moment, it's a tendentious populism, but the sound of it is tinny and inauthentic, a campaign tactic, nothing more. When, however, we were asked to "let Reagan be Reagan," we could be certain it was a call for a hard-right turn.
It is not quite in the Palin category, since Edwards had been in the Senate for one term and had made a career for himself as a stunningly successful trial attorney.
So an undistinguished single term in the Senate and trial lawyer success based on faulty science and playing on juror emotions indicates proper criteria to be president. Governor of a state, employing executive skills and practical common sense does not.
I'm not saying Sarah Palin was the most qualified person. But it surely does not follow that Edwards was obviously more qualified.
Hey I didn't say Cohen was perfect. But he stands out in the relative silence on the left about what a total creep Edwards is.
Ain't it the truth! All of it, that Edwards is and was creep and to have the Left say, "We didn't know." is simply a matter of not wanting to see the obvious. I don't mean about his marrige, which was not obvoiuus, but about the way he made his money and the things he said.
Now to be hearing the same sort of thing about Obama from the Left is a bit much.
"Who is Obama?" From the NYT to Mother Jones:
Gee whiz. Is it the question of the week?
Steve ... I understand. I've long felt Cohen has a flicker of integrity deep beneath the liberal blankets.
I keyed off that one sentence because I was struck by the criteria of comparison Cohen chose to use.
It's the same story time and again -- liberals value achievements that have little bearing on the role of the president. Obama is merely the latest example of why intelligence and charm don't necessary make a good executive.
Rezko, Ayers, Wright, etcetcetc?