Okay, let me see if I have this straight. A candidate for office states an opinion that the man heading the opposite ticket is a bad choice for the job. So, the opposition party gets upset calls it "un-American", and wants a retraction if not an apology.

What did they expect? Did they think the Vice President was going to endorse John Kerry for President? How is stating his opinion, thereby exercising his Constitutionally guaranteed right to Free Speach, "un-American"? It sounds very American to me.

Even better yet, they accuse the Vice President of being "divisive" by stating his opinion on why the ticket he is running on is a better choice for office!

The entire electoral process by its very nature is divisive. It can't be inclusive. The American people have to pick one or the other. They can't have both.

Edwards called this a "test for the President". Just how is it a test for the President? Are they implying that they want the President to endorse John Kerry for President now? That is what it would take, you know. If the President refutes what the Vice President said, he would, implicitly, be endorsing Kerry for the job.

Does anyone else see how ludicrous this is?

Even better yet, let's talk about divisive. Kerry's use of the President's middle initial in the last week. Saying that it stood for "wrong". If you look at the use of "Walker" within the Bush family, it becomes immediately apparent that Walker is some type of "family" name that carries some significance. By using the President's middle initial and, by implication, his middle name in such a way, Kerry took his campaign rhetoric into the same territory as a "yo mamma" joke. That wouldn't be divisive, would it?