The evolution of John Edwards on Iraq

[peoli]

Over the past five years, Mr. Edwards’s position on Iraq has undergone a substantial evolution. In 2002, as a senator, Mr. Edwards was among the Democrats who voted to authorize the use of force in Iraq. Mr. Edwards has said he was convinced by the intelligence that Saddam Hussein controlled stocks of unconventional weapons, but in the Senate speech explaining his vote he also endorsed the Bush administration’s argument that a new democratic Iraq “could serve as a model for the entire Arab world.”

In November 2005, Mr. Edwards wrote an op-ed article for The Washington Post entitled “The Right Way in Iraq,” in which he argued that his earlier vote to authorize the use of force in Iraq was a mistake, while making the point that it was still important to provide American troops with “a way to end their mission honorably.”

Toward this end, Mr. Edwards called at the time for establishing a more effective program to train Iraqi troops and channeling reconstruction work to Iraqis instead of American contractors. While he called for removing a significant number of American forces, he also emphasized that the withdrawals should be “a gradual process.”

“That will still leave us with enough military capability, combined with better-trained Iraqis, to fight terrorists and continue to help the Iraqis develop a stable country,” he wrote.

In the interview on Sunday, Mr. Edwards said that he decided on his current plan for a rapid and near-total withdrawal of American troops because of the failure of Iraqi leaders to achieve a political accommodation over the past four years. Eight to 10 brigades, which is likely to be the bulk of the American combat force by the time the next president takes office, would immediately be withdrawn.



http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/02/us/politics/02edwards.html?_r=1&hp&oref=slogin


If he is President we can look forward to watching him evolve right before our eyes. How fun would that be?

[DemKR]

1. attack dog obamaite alert.

[babylonsister]

2. If I have a choice and Obama doesn't do well, Edwards is my next

candidate on the 'top' tier. They all have faults.

[Skittles]

3. he will forever have blood on his hands

no matter how many positions he has on Iraq

[frazzled]

4. It's called campaigning

The country evolved on Iraq. Edwards followed.

It puzzles me why the NYT would begin its article with "over the past five years"--when they make it clear that it was only two years ago that he repudiated his vote. They may have a memory lapse, but I don't. He was absolutely adamant in his defense of his vote up through November 2004. And it took him a full year after that to openly repudiate it Why? He wanted to run again--with a difference.

Believe me, if there were support in this country for the war, Edwards would be vaunting his vision in co-sponsoring, with Lieberman, the Iraq War Resolution.

There is no evolution here. It's called campaigning.

[Pachamama]

5. I'd rather have a President who can evolve with an issue and have the capacity to admit to a mistake

Unlike our current sitting President and unlike a current candidate who refuses to admit their mistake on the Iraq War Resolution vote.... :eyes:

[FrenchieCat]

6. I'd rather a President who leads with good instinctual judgement

than one who's opinions change in the same direction and a bit after popular polls indicate evolution in the public.

See, it's all about the timing...and in Edwards' case, each "evolvement" he has made coincidently comes AFTER a similar evolvement results and is measured via popular polls. That's not good leadership, IMO.

If he was able to do "bully Pulpit" has he has stated is the method he will use to Persuade....it appears that his personal evolution would come BEFORE, NOT AFTER poll results.

He leads from the rear. That's not what we need. Too many mistakes can happen that way. :shrug:
--------------------

Here's another example of Edwards backward leadership in reference to his signature issue; poverty:

Edwards started out like this........

Edwards is the first politician who, when he talks to a room full of middle-class people, doesn't necessarily seem to be promising something to them. Sure, he's a little vague about just where the line is between the "Two Americas" -- it's "the rich and powerful" and "everyone else." But when he gets specific, when he starts talking about the ten-year-old girl who goes to sleep hoping that it isn't as cold tomorrow as today because she doesn't have warm enough clothes -- it's got to be apparent to any audience that he's not talking about what he's going to do for them. He's making a moral claim about what our country owes to those who have the least, not promising something to everyone who "works hard and plays by the rules."
http://markschmitt.typepad.com/decembrist/2004/02/how_john_edward.html

Then he got the message.....

The Problem With John Edwards' Poverty Message
As far as substance goes, I totally agree with and support Sen. Edwards speeches and policies with regard to poverty. The problem is, from a political standpoint I think it's a loser. Edwards has clearly made discussing poverty a centerpiece of his campaign, and it was what he was working on inbetween the last election and when he declared his candidacy. But as a motivator to capture someone's vote, it's a clunker.
<>
Most people who are poor statistically when asked will likely not say that they're poor. In fact, they're probably likely to say that they're "middle class". It's the same way as if you ask people that are by many standards wealthy, they're also likely to describe themselves as "middle class". I think it's kind of an American thing to want to be part of the middle class, because we have one in this country while other nations you're either really rich or really poor.
http://www.oliverwillis.com/archives/2007/07/20/the-problem-with-john-edwards/

So the question was asked.....

Can John Edwards Appeal to the Poor and the Middle Class?
<> That's not to say I liked everything I heard from Edwards. If I have a complaint about his substantive message these days, it's that it's become too focused on the people left behind--and not enough on those who might fall behind but haven't yet. Edwards is an incredibly compelling spokesperson for the downtrodden, and I'm grateful for that.

But I wonder if he dwells on them too much, losing the attention of the middle class.
I've seen Edwards in enough other contexts--debates, convention speeches, and such--to think he's perfectly capable of hitting both themes simultaneously, of appealing to both the poor and middle class at the same time. I just didn't see it Wednesday night.
http://www.daylife.com/article/01up9WJdPecsB

and the Winner is...(drumroll, please)....

Edwards' big finish: It's the middle class...
The theme for Edwards’ final swing through Iowa will be: “America Rising: Fighting for the Middle Class.” .....Consistently high focus groups dials indicated undecided voters responded with enthusiasm to Edwards’ answers. Frank Luntz found when Edwards talks about health care and the middle class, the scores “can’t get any higher.”
http://www.swamppolitics.com/news/politics/blog/2007/12/edwards_big_finish_its_the_mid.html

[peoli]

7. this should be on the front page of DU

[Clark2008]

8. Evolution = Flip Flop

in this case.

:)