DU'ers, How Do You Feel About John Edwards' High Praise for Iraqi War

[David Zephyr]

Well, it seems John Edwards just couldn't wait to get down to South Carolina to cheer on the American War in Iraq, something he chose not to do in Iowa or New Hampshire.

What's your opinion of Senator Edwards after tonight?

[POed_Ex_Repub]

1. Does anyone have a link to text on this?

I'd like to see it in context before I form an opinion. Thanx!

[genius]

66. Edwards voted against the $87 billion

Unlike Dean, he's opposed to the occupation.

[Hawkeye-X]

2. Edward's history

after tonight. He'll poll 4-5th right after Clark.

Dean-Kerry-Clark-Edwards-Lieberman-Sharpton-Kucinich....

....in that order of victory in SC, DE, ND, OK, NM, AZ and MO!

[Democrats unite]

5. ...

:eyes:

[THUNDER HANDS]

6. wow, you're predicting a 20-point surge for Dean

That's quite impressive. Any particular reason for your intuition?

[AP]

24. But if it doesn't happen, I bet we won't stop hearing that his

position is bad. No matter what the evidence is to the contrary...

[buddhamama]

3. i was waiting for it

the switch, but still, i am feeling somewhat disappointed.

at least with Lieberman you know it's coming and, well, it's almost laughable sometimes...

after everything that has become known to continue on the path of justification
:puke:

[ibegurpard]

4. I'd actually like to know what Kucinich thinks about it.

eom

[Don Claybrook]

7. I took exception to his statement

about the threat of terror not being exaggerated. It was a question that had been directed at Kerry, and Edwards went out of his way the next time he got the chance to speak to say that it was ludicrous to think the terror threat had been exaggerated.

John Edwards is no dummy, and he knows better. He knows, just as the rest of us do, that the Bush admin has exaggerated the hell out of terror threats, because it's all they have to run on. Mark me as not real impressed with that particular pandering remark.

[AP]

22. There WAS a threat of terror. Remember Christmas 2000.

You know why the Dems don't play up the terror risk? Clinton now says that they were constantly worried and constantly vigilant in his gov't. They told Bush that this was the number one issue. He told Bush that it was only a matter of time.

Why did he tell Bush but not us? Because it goes back to FDR. Fascists thrive in an atmosphere of fear and anxiety. If FDR or Clinton had told us of all the dangers we really faced, Democrats would lose elections all over. 63% of Americans believe that Republicans are better than democrats on this issue, and the reason Democrats get elected at all is because Democrats convince them OTHER things are more important.

Well, 9/11 and Iraq and Bush's fear mongering have put the Dem's weakest issue front and center. Edwards is telling the truth when he says terrorism is a real threat. Edwards is running on hope and optimism (as FDR did) because that's who Dems get elected.

[Don Claybrook]

31. Threats of terror are real, true enough.

They're also highly exaggerated by the Bush Administration. Edwards knows this, just like we all know it. It was an ill-considered comment, I think.

[AP]

34. Does Edwards use scare tactics, and fear and anger? No.

He's stating a fact about terorism so that when it's just him and Bush up there, Bush want have that weapon in his arsenal.

[Don Claybrook]

39. It may be good strategy, but he went out of his way

to say he didn't agree with Kerry's assertion. Kerry was right and Edwards was wrong.

Your candidate can say something wrong and still be a good candidate, you know. God knows my candidate has said enough ill-considered things and in fact, I disagree with some of his platform. But we can all be a little less polarized and live in the real world where not everyone has to be right all the time. On this particular and specific point, I firmly believe John Edwards was wrong and John Kerry was right. Doesn't make either of 'em bad people or bad candidates.

[AP]

41. Here's the quote, and it's exactly what a Dem needs to say:

If Dems say there is no real threat, we're stepping into a trap which Bush will spring on us.


Can I just go back a moment ago -- to a question you asked just a moment ago? You
asked, I believe, Senator Kerry earlier whether there's an exaggeration of the threat of
the war on terrorism.

It's just hard for me to see how you can say there's an exaggeration when thousands of
people lost their lives on September the 11th.

I think the problem here is the administration is not doing the things, number one, that
need to be done to keep this country safe, both here and abroad.

And number two, the president actually has to be able to do two things at once. This
president thinks his presidency is only about the war on terrorism, only about national
security. Those things are critical for a commander in chief. The president of the United
States has to actually be able to walk and chew chewing gum at the same time, has to be
able to do two things at the same time.

[Don Claybrook]

44. You've switched the topic midstream

What Democrats are saying that there's no real threat of terrorism? I know of none who make this assertion.

The question posed was, has the threat of terror been exaggerated? And I'll use my copy and paste to grab what you quoted above:

"It's just hard for me to see how you can say there's an exaggeration when thousands of people lost their lives on September the 11th."

[AP]

52. Citing the exact quote is switching topic?

Kerry said Bush is exaggerationg. Edwards says threat is real. But Bush is decreasing national security by fighting terror the way he does.

And I'll throw in that Bush isn't so much exaggerating as he is exploiting a fear of terrorism.

Haven't any of you listened to Bill Clinton talk recently? Haven't you read the Clinton Wars?

[Don Claybrook]

55. Edwards says Bush is not exaggerating.

You, in turn, imply that Democrats say there is no terror threat. Neither of these assertions is correct. This data isn't real disputable, unless of course, you feel your candidate can do or say nothing wrong. At that point, it becomes useless to discuss the issue. I'll yield the last word to you on this one, as we won't be changing each other's minds on this point.

[AP]

60. He says Bush is MAKING IT WORSE with bad policy. You dont'

think that's the case.

You don't think that its getting worse every day?

Bush is exploiting terror, but he's also creating a bigger risk, which is the point of the walking/chewing gum line.

[Myra]

8. I can't forgive Kerry and Edwards for their vote (don't care about Joe)

I can't forgive them for their lack of remorse.

[AP]

18. But you'll forgive Clark from personally profitting from

hysteria about terror when he stoked it up on CNN and then turned around and lobbied the fed gov't for a contractor who was trying to sell its security wares in a mood of anxiety.

[Democrats unite]

20. Good try on trying to deflect from Kerry...

But 500 + dead American soldiers that Kerry voted for will not go away.

[AP]

25. Kerry's winning on this issue. He probably wants the opposite

of deflection. Shout from the rooftops Kerry's position on this issue. Democrats like it.

[corporatewhore]

9. May i please offer a collective bleaghhhh

:puke::puke::puke::puke::puke::puke::puke::puke::puke::puke:
Hes still my first choice in the looks primary though

[spooky3]

10. how about quoting him directly rather than giving us your interpretation?

[DuctapeFatwa]

11. It was a shrewd move. The crusade is popular, and Edwards knows

who he has a chance with and who he doesn't in South Carolina. That's his home turf, the people know him.

Tailoring the message to the audience is a proven technique.

[MoonRiver]

26. From what I've seen on this board (haven't watched the debate)

I think Edwards just smooched *'s arse one too many times. SC isn't Neverland. Dems there know our soldiers are dying for nothing.

[Eloriel]

49. You're right. It is a proven technique.

And that technique is called pandering.

It's not usually consistent with "good leadership." It's more consistent with "demagoguery."

[arewethereyet]

12. you guys are apparantly not paying attention nor from the south

its the only message down here and its entirely consistant with the position he's always held.

[markus]

27. I am from the South

and I think their are only two viable Southern strategies:

1) Open class warfare or

2) Write off the South, isolate and marginalize it. I'm not counting Florida as the south, and to some extent not even counting Louisiana (at least not Acadian Louisiana).

[arewethereyet]

32. We all realize that Florida is not actually part of the south

not sure I agree with point one but if you want to win down here you certainly have to have something to offer blacks.

We actually have blacks down south for you northeasterners. And you will be pleased to learn what a terrific bunch of folks they are.

[Guaranteed]

13. Not pleased at all.

I'm sick of the DLC bastards. Totally without principle.

[AP]

17. Edwards isn't liked by DLC. (Anit-NAFTA.) But I think you know that.

[KittyWampus]

14. Edwards Thinks Foreign Policy Is Just A "Background" Thing

so he has an excuse.

[jenk]

28. I trust Edwards not to bomb the Russians

[KittyWampus]

53. I'm Pretty Sure We Could Say The Same Thing About Lieberman Too

one would think there'd be more to Foreign Policy than a reluctance to bomb Russians.

[AP]

15. Iraq War is a trap Bush set: it makes Republicans single

strongest perceived quality (strong on national security) THE central theme of the campaign year. He knows that, if Democrats didn't support it, they'll freak out the ONE-QUARTER of voters left of center on this issue who are MORE INCLINED TO TRUST REPUBLICANS on this issue. If Democrats did support it, then Bush will make sure it creates a schism on the left which will render the party hopelessly divided (which is what DU'ers are trying to do to Kery and Edwards).

And why do Republicans employ this strategy? So that Democrats who shouldn't be voting for Republicans if they're voting in their best interests will vote for them, which then allows Republicans to continue the program of wealth transfer.

And who did Bush chose to invade? A CIA-operative, and a dicator who ruled with an iron fist, and who shifted massive amounts of the wealth of his nation to his own pockets.

So what's a Democrat to say? They say what's obvious: SH was bad. Iraq will be better off without him. And what's the real prize democrats have their eye on? The wealth transfer. So what else do they say? Iraq must become a nation which makes Iraqis wealthy, and not SH, and not Bechtel and Halliburton.

In many ways, Bush has handed up the Democrats a great opportunity to remove a hobgobblin on the right. They took out SH. Lets put up a functioning, democratic, middle-class wealth producing country. It'll be one less tool Repubulicans can exploit to get elected.

Edwards has the right message on this. He's NOT sucking Bush's cock on this issue (listen to him) and he has his priorities exactly right (don't freak out national insecurity dems, and make it all about the flow of wealth.

Don't you people want to win in the fall??????

[Toucano]

19. Of course I want to win in the fall.

I don't think we can do that unless the voters see their decision as a distinct, clear choice.

I think the truth about the war is a better position to take.

But Edwards did handle the question well. I just disagree with his answer.

[AP]

29. But voters WANT a president who seems good on national security.

I don't think this is an issue where voters want someone distinctly different from Bush.

What they want is someone who contrasts well on Democrats STRONG suits (not weak suits). They want someone who cares about their jobs and teh economy and who won't flow wealth up the ladder.

[Democrats unite]

21. And with all the experience Kerry is supose to have...

He should have known better. But hos vote goes where the wind blows, typical Kerry.

[Skip Intro]

16. What, now, is the difference between Lieberman and Edwards?

Either way, after tonight, I hope I don't have to try to force myself to pull the lever for either of them.

[spooky3]

23. If this is a sincere question, take this quiz

http://www.SelectSmart.com/president/

Most people taking it will have a very different match for themselves with Lieberman vs. Edwards.

[AP]

30. Lieberman wants to take the fight to every neighbor of

Iraq in the ME, or something like that.

Edwards doesn't want to take the fight to anyone. He wants to help countries lift up their poor into a large, strong middle class.

[Cascadian]

33. A few days ago, I was starting to warm up to Edwards but....

after this debate, he lost me with that plus his view on Gay marriage.


John

[jenk]

35. have you forgotten

this debate took place in south carolina

this is the SOUTH!

where conservative to moderate Democrats are still around.


This won't hurt Edwards a bit, only help him

[AP]

37. Don't we WANT to win????

[AP]

36. You just named two issue which will draw millions and only

alienate people who are manipulated by the right wing to become Democratic self-loathers.

[dsc]

46. How dare you?

Edwards has been all over the map on this issue and that is his fault, not Andrew Sullivan's, not gays', not conservatives', not anyone else's. Yes, God for fucking bid, I consider my rights to matter. I think I should, just like you, get to marry who I want, when I want, and get the same benefits you take for granted. It isn't my fault that your candidate changes his story on this depending on the audience.

[AP]

54. I have read Lisa Duggan's book the Twilight of Equality.

In that book she states a criticism of the state of the debate on gay marriages that, if you read it, will open your eyes to what Edwards is trying to say and do -- which he has done consistenly since the beginning of this campaign. Incidentally, I realy believe this guy is motivate by deeply held convictions because his message has been incredibly consistent. I have heard Edwards say the same thing in the heart of the Castro that he has said in SC.

I totally appreciate that many people here don't get it. I don't mind because the confusion will probably result in him losing many fewer votes than the other candidates who haven't mastered the dicourse on this issue.

If anyone here actually cares to try to understand this debate, cruise the archives here where I've cited Duggan's book, or try picking up the book yourself.

[dsc]

67. He has addressed this issue three times

and in three different ways. To the HRC he says he is going to have a review of which rights to grant on the federal level and which ones not to grant. Then in a CNN interview he says he will grant all federal rights. Then he says something inbetween tonight. Again, that is not anyone's fault but his. He certainly isn't saying what you are. I haven't once heard him make an argument remotely like that you have made in regards to this issue.

[joshcryer]

56. Well said...

...thank you. I hate the 'justifications' that "to win" you have to have a candidate which changes their position every state.

[AP]

61. READ DUGGAN'S BOOK!!! You people are asking your

candidates to argue this in a way that's doomed to fail. And by not carring enought to figure out what it is that Edwards is saying is not helping you.

It is extreme selfishness NOT to pursue this issue in a way which can make a real difference in people's lives. People are MISERABLE over this issue. It's ruining lives. Yet you're so willing to fall into this trap Bush is setting. It's madness.

[manchu]

38. Pure politics

I think Edwards did what he had to do to win in the south. Yes we here at DU may not be in favor of the war and hate it but his constituents in the south may love it. He has to win South Carolina or hes through. He cant flim flam in front of his home base faithful. So I will continue to support Edwards.

[AP]

43. Edwards saw a chink in Kerry's armor. Kerry is perceived as

strong on nat'l security. However, there's are real drive to criticize Bush in this campaign. Kerry saw this question as an opportunity to criticize the adminstration. But if he does that, he opens himself up to other candidates who also want to look good on national security and make Kerry look weak turn his answer around on him.

Edwards didn't do it by lying. He said something Clinton says: there's a constant threat of terrorism, and we have to be constantly vigilant. Of course, Democrats don't run on this theme becaue it opens the door to Republican victory. That's why Edwards bifurcated this attack: (1) at Kerry for making light of a serious situation, and (2) at Bush for fighting terror in a way that makes the nation less secure.

And we should be honest with ourselves: America is constantly being threatened, and the FBI and the CIA and local police forces are constantly preventing attacks and investigating. We don't talk about it constantly because it would create a mood in which Democrats never would get elected. 9/11 happened because Bush stood down on defense. They stopped working to stop it

[dreissig]

40. It Didn't Cost Him My Vote

In for a penny, in for a pound. He wasn't going to get my vote anyhow, and he still won't. However, there are risks in writing off a bloc of the electorate. Democrats did that in 1968, and lost the election to the otherwise unappealing Richard Nixon.

People really don't want to vote for George Bush. Democrats are working hard not to offer them a choice. Go figure.

[robbedvoter]

42. Apalled but not betrayed. He was never on my side.

Ever since he voted for the bankruptcy law, all the way through authoring the Patriot act and coddling warhawk Shelton - he is been consistent.

[isbister]

45. Did he cheer

or did he answer the question as it was put to him?

I saw him take the same stance up north in New Hampshire.

He's always been for the war, closer to Lieberman's position, than to Kerry, Dean, and/or Clark's

[theboss]

47. Let's not be silly and naive

Remember the Clinton years? Clinton himself declared a war on terror well before Bush did. Clinton has said that we prevented cataclysmic attacks on New Years Eve in 2000. The threat of terror is very real and is hard to exaggerate. No one - Democrat or Republican - denies this.

The World Trade Center attack was not a one-time thing. In fact, attacks on the World Trade Center were not a one time thing. The damn thing nearly collapsed after the 1993 attack. Meanwhile, we had the Cole, the towers in Saudi Arabia, etc. Since 9/11, we had the Bali nightclub attack.

Let's not confuse terrorism and Iraq. There are a lot of nasty people trying to harm us all over the world. This threat cannot be exaggerated.

The problem is Bush has tied to this threat to Iraq, which is bullshit. Bush has lost focus on terrorism to settle an old grudge.

[DIBL]

48. The only thing Edwards has going for him

is his two Americas stump speech which he repeats verbatim at every opportunity. It's very impressive the first time you hear it and he actually sounds sincere, but the fifth of sixth time around you start to realize how hollow all this rhetoric rings. He is simply feeding off people's pain, poverty and misery. Beneath the youthful, energetic veneer lies a traditional establishment politician with no plan or willingness for enacting change to this country.

In light of this, Edwards' position regarding the war comes to me as no surprise. I expect him to a disappointment in other issues as well as we slowly but surely get down to substance. I just hope that not too many people are duped by his "uplifting message" and misleading first looks.

I've seen nothing but glowing praise for Edwards on these board, so I'm probably in the extreme minority to be genuinely leery of Edwards and his fake populist charade.

[AP]

59. When I see this silly meme repeated everywhere, I get a ton

of satisfaction.

You see, if you care enough about politics to post at DU or the Edwards blog, then you're not so naive that you thought that ALL the candidates speak spontaneously. If you are so naive that you believe that, you're probably not posting at DU, and you're probably only going to hear Edwards's stump speech once, and you're going to be blown away (partly because your expectations will be lowered by this silly meme).

Whichever campaign came up with this should hire smarter staff.

[GreenArrow]

62. I too am leery of him

You summed up some of my own concerns very nicely. I honestly believe that I would vote for Lieberman before Edwards--and I'm a Kucinich supporter.

I just don't trust the guy.

[AP]

63. This is the candidate running with more conviction than

any candidate except perhaps Kucinich. Do you wonder why they call each other friends? I don't.

[markus]

50. Edwards better get a lot of southern, gop cross over votes

because the left will desert him.

I will not accept that the war in Iraq was a good thing.

We were not asked to go to war to liberate the Iraqi people. We all know the story.

Anyone who stands up and makes excuses for Bush on this is running in the wrong party.

[WhoCountsTheVotes]

51. I can't care about the war - I want a job

I wish I could make the war my big priority - but right now, Edwards' populism and his message of "Two Americas" (toned down class war) is what I want.

[KittyWampus]

57. Edwards "Message" About Two Americas Is An Act Put On By A Showman

I listened to his non-answers to questions.

He is the type of knows a little about a lot.

His only real gift is being able to project the illusion of being more substantial than he really is.

At least Sharpton is more entertaining.

[jenk]

58. better than fumbling through notecards and making wild allegations

ahem....clark

[AP]

65. funny.

Yes, Edwards is so genuine, he's fake.

[TexasPatriot]

64. he really could have answered that better

what he said surely didnt help him with any of the anti-war types... and he really didnt get a chance to talk about much. hell, his longest answer was the one on the whole lawsuit thing - and i think that might have been the biggest snoozer of an answer of the night. I've seen Clark make that mistake in the past - get a general question about a specific topic he's versed in - and deliver a long drone series of details that raise more questions than answers. In Clark, that was one of those things that I'd groan about and say 'damn it.. he's got to learn this politician thing'

tonight clark was the politician, and Edwards was relatively innocuous. If it werent for Kerry getting booed and the driveby at the end with the affirmative action swipe, Id say Edward's IWR defense might have been the lowest point of the night for a candidate.

[AP]

68. Psst.You may think you're driving a wedge within the far left

with that line, but you're helping Edwards win more primary and GE votes with posts like that.

As for Clark, his problem is that he hasn't been much of politicians so far. I was very enthusiastic about his participation once he signed up (although I criticized the whole draft thing as insipid and counter-productive). I'm slowly realizing that the guy is too uncomfortable in front of a crowd. He's great on paper, terrible with people. He won't beat Bush if he's on the top of the ticket.

[David Zephyr]

69. Wow! You Think Clark's "Problem" Is That He's Not a "Politician"?

That's your ringing criticism of General Clark?

That's his greatest attribute in my eyes, AP.

Frankly, that's what sunk your candidate, Edwards, tonight. He came off as a sitcom politician who says one thing to a Northern audience and another to a Southern audience about the war.

As DSC points out, he says one thing to a gay audience and then tailors his comments about gays when away from that audience...saying completely different things.

In Iowa, he was the happy, smiley positive candidate who spoke no evil of his opponents...to their faces. Meanwhile, he later had to apologize after the election for his campaign distributing personal attacks in a booklet about his opponents clandestinely.

Look at the results of this poll here and ask yourself how John Edwards fell so quickly. I used to like the guy. Not anymore.

[TexasPatriot]

70. Edwards tonight

in no way made me feel he was prepared to be president. There were others that did - but Edwards wasnt one of em.

I dont think there's any point in driving a wedge with Edwards - because I dont think he can survive for strategic reasons (as I've said in other posts). Just as Clark needed a homerun tonight - and by most accounts hit one - so too did Edwards - and by most accounts did not.

[Moderator]

71. Locking.

1. If you start a thread in this forum, you must present your opinion in a manner that is not inflammatory, which respects differences in opinion, and which is likely to lead to respectful discussion rather than flaming. The moderators have the sole authority to decide whether a thread topic is inflammatory.

Thanks,
DU Moderator