Edwards speech tonight should quiet any unease about

[greenbriar]

his foreign policy...


although I don't know why there was unease in the first place shrimpy never had been out of the country before being selected

[JohnKleeb]

1. He did great on that I thought too

[CaTeacher]

2. yep--no unease--

except about the fact that both parties are promoting the same "tough guy" rhetoric.

[greenbriar]

5. I think the nation as a whole needs the

"tough Guy" image.


as much as I hate the term the world changed, after 9/11 we had to open our eyes and thanks to shrimpy, we are not well liked in the world

[Guaranteed]

We need the tough guy image,

but we need to be directing it at the people who attacked us on 9/11. Even some of us Democrats don't seem to be doing that, and it's a little disconcerting.

[greenbriar]

9. which is why

he mentioned al qaida

[Guaranteed]

11. But didn't he mention our invading Iraq and how it

strayed from that philosophy?

That's the point, here. We shouldn't be wasting resources and our troops lives on wars that don't need to be fought. So why didn't he say anything like that?

[TahitiNut]

8. Yup. That bothers me deeply.

Even more military spending? We already spend more than the rest of the world combined. We have the third largest standing army. More? I don't think so.

[TexasSissy]

3. Well, he didn't speak much about foreign policy. ??? So, I don't know.

I listened to the whole speech. He made a few comments about being strong against terrorists and such, and how strong Kerry is, but nothing to show that he has any knowledge of foreign policy. And he doesn't have much. He was on the Senate Intelligence Committee, but not for very long, and he missed a lot of the meetings because of campaigning.

His strength is on the domestic side.

Still, I would imagine that he's a quick study and will be very brushed up on it by debate time. But IMO, he can't compete, knowledge-wise, with Cheney in that arena.

But my position is: So Cheney's more knowledgeable in that area...where has that gotten us? And besides, Edwards is not going to be a shadow President like Cheney. Kerry is going to be President. Edwards will know enough to take over the reigns should something happen to Kerry.

[Guaranteed]

4. You know, I was just thinking about posting

a thread on the foreign policy section of his speech.

To tell you the truth, I wasn't very impressed by it.

At the very least I would have expected something along the lines of "we need a president who won't send our troops into harm's way unless it's absolutely necessary." I didn't even hear that from Edwards. I heard a lot of "support our troops, they're heroes" stuff, which is great, but I don't think it addresses the issues that our country has facing it right now.

I don't think that he was picked as the VP for the purpose of criticizing the war, though. I really wasn't very surprised. He's straight DLC, and I think that's exactly what we heard from him tonight.

Whatever. He's not going to be President, anyway.

[greenbriar]

6. He told us that Kerry would

never lie about war


it was there, just very subtle

[TexasSissy]

21. Ditto. But the pundits said he's probably leaving for. policy for Kerry.

[Gloria]

7. Actually, I don't think he should have spent so much time on it...

He made it sound like it would be a cakewalk...Nato troops, allies, etc. etc...when it is a fact that Nato doesn't have the troops, let alone the will to get involved in Iraq.

I think he opened himself up to attack on that one...

[Robbien]

10. No, it did not ease anything

We will have the same foreign policy, except we may have a few foreign friends and maybe there will be a fewer secrets and lies. But otherwise, business as usual.

[Guaranteed]

12. I'm hoping his speech wasn't truly representative

of what the Democrats are going to do if given the White House.

[Bush was AWOL]

15. What is your problem with what he said?

[Guaranteed]

17. He didn't even take one of those

quiet, backhanded swipes at the Bush administration's foreign policy (let alone a strong one).

[Bush was AWOL]

22. Probably because he voted along with it.

The only thing he can criticize is the way it has been handled...and that would be disastrous.

[Bush was AWOL]

13. Do those of you that don't like Edwards comments

realize that the only reason a Democrat doesn't get elected everytime is because they are percieved as being weak on National defense and anti-military? We can't give an inch on National Security in this election, and Edwards demenstrated we won't be...expect Kerry to follow suit tomorrow.

[Guaranteed]

16. Being strong on defense means invading the right

countries. You don't invade Mongolia when Zimbabwe attacks you and call it being "strong on defense."

We can call ourselves STRONGER on defense than the Repukes when we start pointing out the fact that the Bush administration has NOT destroyed Al Qaeda or even made them a priority, instead choosing to take a detour through Iraq.

[Bush was AWOL]

18. I agree

I'm not even sure you need to declare war on a country to root out Al-Queda. The Iraq war is probably the most disastrous and poorly managed foreign policy decision in US history.

[philosophy77]

25. No progress made in destroying Al Qaeda?

"We can call ourselves STRONGER on defense than the Repukes when we start pointing out the fact that the Bush administration has NOT destroyed Al Qaeda or even made them a priority, instead choosing to take a detour through Iraq"

Three fourths of Al Qaedas leadership has been killed or captured. They are still a priority and the soldiers in Afghanistan are making progress everyday along with the Pakistani Army over the border. You wouldn't know it, because the media doesn't cover it. No administration would be able to destroy Al Qaeda in two short years. They are not an army that's easy to fix and kill but a loose collection of compartmentalized cells driven by ideology and spread throughout many geographic locations in the world, including our own country. We need to get away from this "McDonalds" culture of thinking everything can be accomplished instantly. Things take time. Something as complicated as destroying an ideology is going to take years.

[Bush was AWOL]

26. Please back up this statement.

"Three fourths of Al Qaedas leadership has been killed or captured."

Plus, the opportunity to squash Al-Queda was blown at Tora Bora.

[philosophy77]

27. Tora Bora was their undoing

Al Qaeda was crushed at Tora Bora..that was it for them in Afghanistan. Those mountains were littered with dead. What you mean to say is how did OBL escape. Get a map, look at the terrain and figure the amount of troops we had on the ground. They were a lot of areas uncovered.

[Bush was AWOL]

30. Are you kidding ?

We didn't even send in American troops. The American troops were in the air. Hundreds may have died, but thousands escaped and Al-Qaeda is as strong in numbers now as ever before.

[kdmorris]

36. I think Cheney said it

And then every single talking head "journalist" repeated it over and over again. Not to mention Condi, Rumsfield and Admiral James Loy, deputy head of the Department of Homeland Security.

And since they said it so many times, it must be true, right? That seems to be the standard of "truth" in America these days.

[eridani]

31. And 100 new recruits have signed on for every one killed

The Islamic university in Egypt that is the closest thing Islam has to the Vatican issued a very strongly worded fatwa against the 9-11 terrorists. Since then they have issued a fatwa calling on all Muslims to resist the invasion of Iraq. Smooth move, exlax!

Iraq now has a fundie terrorist problem that never existed before, and fundies are now attacking within Saudi Arabia. The latter is a good sign that OBL's inner circle has effectively lost control--he was always a good upperclass boy who when bribed to lay off the Saudi leadership, stayed bribed.

The State Department was forced to revise their terrorism assessment to acknowledge a big upswing in terrorist attacks worldwide.

[Ms. Toad]

37. No, being strong on defense means

Figuring out how get along in the world, and helping others get along as well, without resorting to violence.

Security enforced by a sword only works as long as you (or your friends) have the sharpest sword. It is an ever escalating process that only leads to less security and more violence.

World peace, and the lasting security it will bring, will only arrive when the world's resources are shared more equally, all people in the world have food to eat, shelter from the elements, loving and supportive communities, and all of the other things that make each of us individually content with our lives and more prone to reach out to others with an open hand, rather than a fist.

[eridani]

20. "Strong on defense" is a stupid fluffy bunny blanket pose--

--a security blanket for dim, frightened children. It helped Cheney-all in preventing 9-11. The US military has been about nothing but offense since the end of the cold war, and it will totally gut our society if we don't put a stop to it.

It's about time that real adults faced the primary strategic reality of the 21st century, namely that in a highly interconnected world FSU is very cheap, and dominance is very expensive, and constructed a serious policy relating to actual defense of our population.

[BurtWorm]

23. The problem with this hypothesis is that it was proven wrong

in 2002. Max Cleland, for example, supported IWR and wound up out of a job. His vote had little effect on bolstering his image among Georgians. He might as well have voted against it for all the good his vote did him. Nor did Jean Carnahan's vote in favor of IWR do her any good.

Paul Wellstone, if I remember correctly, was the only Senator to vote against IWR whose vote was a real political risk. Kerry's vote for it might be seen as a political risk as well, considering that he was making a lot of noise about being against it before casting the vote, but it wasn't that much of an issue in his reelection campaign if I remember correctly. Wellstone was the only anti who had to face immediate music for his vote, but his position in Minnesota was always tentative, and he was always unusually courageous for a senator and lefty in that position.

It remains to be seen whether Kerry/Edwards' strategy to play up the "strength" side and down the "peace" side will have any effect. But if you go by history, those who perceive Dems as inherently weak won't suddenly change their minds because of anything K/E say or do.

[G_j]

28. has anyone ever proven this?

how often do people put defense at the top of their list anyway? Even now in times of 'terra' health care seems to be more pressing in people's lives. I'm just wondering how much myth is in the "weak on defense" bit as far as determining how people vote. Everyone knows we have a military that completely dwarfs all others and its pretty obvious Bush doesn't have a clue about how to use it to our "defense".

[Nevernose]

14. Brilliant speech, brilliant delivery

I was at work during the live cast, so I just saw them all a few minutes ago for the first time.

Did I mention that JE is a brilliant orator? VERY populist - my kind of guy!

[Tatiana]

19. I'm one of few that think this wasn't exactly a great speech.

Edwards' theme of "Two Americas" is such a powerful one, but he didn't use it as effectively as I've seen him. The tone was there, the inflection, but the speech itself wasn't that great.

[Sugarcoated]

24. Edwards did his job

He gave a pretty good speech, he showed his beautiful family, very "heartland". He talked up Kerry, touched on some policy. Very simplisitic. But that's all good, no one can say his speech out shined the candidate. The whole war in Iraq thing is very tricky, Kerry has to play this just right to beat Bush or team Bush can effectively use it against him. Everyone who knows John Kerry well and has seen him campaign says he comes through under pressure. There's men on base, Edwards got a hit, Kerry needs to hit them home. I think he's got some great stuff up his sleeve, he's very intelligent and canny competitor. Just watch.

[Swamp Rat]

29. I agree with you Sugarcoated

Welcome to DU

:toast:

[newyawker99]

33. Hi Sugarcoated!!

Welcome to DU!! :toast:

[jab105]

32. I was somewhat disappointed...

the foreign policy stuff was weak and poorly written, and that had to be the best part, cause Iraq is still a big deal...and not just to the "left" but also to middle america!!

Two Americas was good, they way he wove race into it seemed ackward...but I think that Iraq is more important to the country in general then Edwards sseems to give it credit for...

I have seen a lot of great speeches this week, but this wasnt near the best...

I just have this feeling that they are underestimating how important Iraq is...seems like they dont want to admit that they are "misled", and that is much much more dangerous...

Cate and Elizabeth looked great, when I saw Elizabeth Edwards, I was like, oh my gosh, she is so my mom!! She is the biggest plus to the democratic ticket, I love her...and the family is beautiful...

I think Kerry really needs to make sure to work on the foreign policy part of the speech that he gives tomorrow...it isn going to just be centered on domestic...

For the first time in months, I got a really sick feeling that Bush got one up on us tongiht:(

[Tweed]

34. I think it was impossible for Edwards to follow Sharpton, Obama and Clinto

He just lacks the oratory skills that those guys have.

[Sugarcoated]

35. Hey!

Nice to meet you swamp_rat and newyawker. I'm originally from upstate New York, now in Philly area. Proud to say, solid blue states much to the chagrin of the deerhunter population in the state.

Jab - it's not that important. Yeah, he wasn't as "on" as he could've been, but the VP's affect is minimal. He did well enough. He did his job, no mistakes. And any he made in content will not matter, all ears will be on Kerry's speech. Edwards will be boning up for that one debate with Cheney for weeks. He got through the pressure night, the debate should be less nervous for him, and for chrisakes, he was a star trial lawyer! And so much on Bush/Cheney to go after - where does he start, Lol?

Remember - Kerry's the one who should shine. I'd even go so far as to say Edwards intentionally tried not to out-shine Kerry.