'Hardball' not so hard for John Edwards

"Damn near anyone" isn't running for President. I like to think anyone with government experience (Edwards was a senator) would have at least a passing knowledge of what goes on outside the US. Or is that too much to ask?

And what standard do we measure him by? The current president? Regardless, IMHO, a president must have a good grasp of economics, law, and other important applicable substantive fields. Rote memorization should not be a standard to measure by.

You (as a Presidential candidate) shouldn't need to memorize the political leanings of your next door neighbour, with whom you share the world's longest undefended border. That would fall under the heading of "substantive field", no?

"Damn near anyone" isn't running for President. I like to think anyone with government experience (Edwards was a senator) would have at least a passing knowledge of what goes on outside the US. Or is that too much to ask?

That's what staffers and briefings are for.

Pardon me while I go jump over the nearest cliff.

"Staffers and briefings" are for details. Not to tell the most powerful person in the world what POLITICAL PARTY his allies belong to - that is BASIC. Stuff like that should stick in his head without any effort; if it doesn't, is he the right person for the job?

That's true, knowing the PM's first name and political party would certainly help him in the many foreign policy struggles we have with Canada. Come on, Harper isn't even the Canadian Head of State. I absolutely guarantee you that Edwards knows that name.

I'm being facetious, but honestly when you're running for national office and you have two years until the actual election, and you're focusing on domestic concerns (at least for now), then I think this sort of thing is somewhat excusable. Especially given that Canada is not a major policy concern in the United States, as you can see by watching the news. I'm an exception, perhaps, because I live near true Upstate New York, where many are frequently crossing the border and such, but we just take Canada for granted and get annoyed when the government makes it tough for us to get back and forth.

Of course, Canada is a rather large country, but my guess is that half of the United States doesn't even know what "Quebecois" means, nor are they aware of the significant political debate that has embroiled Quebec for many years. Ask an American to name Canada's provinces--better yet, ask them to name a state right next to theirs. I've lost all faith in my country's education system.

In fact, ask them how the Canadian PM comes to power. That'll be a barrel of monkeys.

"That's the electoral college, right?"

Obviously, I should have read the whole transcripts--he's not pretending to be focused on domestic issues.

Especially given that Canada is not a major policy concern in the United States, as you can see by watching the news.

This is kind of a chicken-egg thing, or Catch-22 if you prefer. Canada isn't in the news much, probably because the public isn't interested. But there are some issues that some segments of the public might find compelling - for instance, the numerous verbal snubs of the US by Chretien and his crew in the early 2000s; the @!$%# that the exiting Paul Martin gave to the US for not signing on to the Kyoto Accord, when his own government, although signed on, did not even come close to meeting its committment; the softwood lumber thing which although not exactly sexy, does matter to the business community; gay marriage and socialized medicine; and really, if Quebec were to separate (not entirely out of the question) then that would kind of kick up a lot of dust.

Then there are our resources and our dubious(according to the US Ambassador to Canada) claim to Arctic waters which will be an issue given global warming and the opening up of more northern shipping routes, not to mention access to and ownership of resources.

We even have some neat-o sex scandals - see Stronach, MacKay and hockey player Tie Domi. Even Condi Rice has maybe a role in that one ;)

Seriously - I realize Canada isn't Afghanisan but at least a passing knowledge of that great white blob to the north, might one day prove useful?

:)

Please excuse the obvious frustration in my tone - it's not meant as a slam against anyone in particular, including John Edwards whom I do like. It's the attitude of the media, which probably both shapes and reflects the attitudes of the people that consume it. Mainly, in this case, Chris Matthews, who called our PM "obscure".
If it had been some hack on Fox News I probably would have just rolled my eyes, but Matthews usually seems quite reasonable, more or less.

By the way we don't get Fox News up here, at least not on my cable system. I'm not sure if that's a good or bad thing.

Oh we get Fox network and the good shows (cartoons!) are all shown on Canadian networks as well. It's the infamous cable news channel we don't get; strangely, we do get CNN and MSNBC, the BBC and various other world networks with various packages.
It might be a licensing thing but I guess there might not be much demand for it.

I agree with you there, as to how it came off, Russ R.

I think Chris was actually trying to prop her up as the force behind the man, by using the "busting his balls" comments.

I also think Edwards was a little aloof as he corrected questioners and was argumentative at times with Chris.

That irked me a bit, as i guess he is trying to come off as a little more serious the "second time around"?