I've been mulling this Kerry-Edwards thing, and I'd like to make three points.

1. All harping on experience is trumped by two words: Dan Quayle. I know, the argument is that in these heigtened times we need someone with experience in case they become President. But if Dan Quayle could be a heartbeat away during the fall of the Soviet Union and the first Gulf War, anyone can.

2. Let's go easy on the insider rhetoric. Our governor, Mitt Romney, took this tack rather than the experience route, saying that Edwards is an insider's choice, even with his lone term in the Senate. Given that the sitting President is the third generation of America's reigning political dynasty (Neil Bush notwithstanding), Romney may want to tread lightly in pursuing this line of attack. My guess is he'll fall in line with the inexperience argument, so this may not be that big a deal.

3. The 'trial lawyer' thing may not work so well, either. OK, it will in some circles. Doctors, for example. But this may not be the best time for a couple of oilmen (especially Cheney, given the trouble Halliburton got into over in Iraq) to dig at someone else's career path. I suppose doctors can contribute more money to a candidate than the average person, but there are a lot more average people who get pissed off by gas prices over $2 a gallon. That does seem to be slackening, but if the prices crest again after Labor Day, look out.

I also question Kerry's assumption about his ticket having the best hair. They clearly win on quantity, but I don't know if the Kramer-inspired pompadour that Kerry sports is anything to write home about.