Edwards was NOT Credible on Destroying Terrorists. Was he?

[WiseMen]

John Edwards was simply not credible talking about destroying
the terrorists.

The MSNBC focus group painfully confirmed my feeling as I watched
the speech. They were brutal.

Kerry campaign will have to be carefull about how it uses Edwards
and how he speaks to the national security issues. A more thoughtfull
set of analytic remarks may fit his stile and experience better.
Edwards does not look the destroyer.

[Endangered Specie]

1. Edwards is not the type of guy you can envision pressing the button.

[NEOBuckeye]

16. And Bush is?

[Endangered Specie]

24. Shoot hes the trigger happy war mongerer.

[renegade000]

33. oh man...scary thought...

n/t

[Cha]

2. Edwards had me convinced they will be Strong, for a Stronger

America, on terrorists. And that msrnc focus group is all a rw setup ..so I wouldn't worry about that too much.

[goclark]

3. I liked the way he said it!

These focus groups have a funny way of giving Bush the pass when he can't even say the words.

[DaveofCali]

10. you know, thats funny

That is so funny how they would go and nitpick a Democrat but wouldn't even start nitpicking with Bush, who should be 110% nitpickable (oh please, one could have easily tear apart Bush's whole State of the Union Speech so easily that no nitpicking is needed.)

[Frances]

4. I don't understand how anyone could feel safer

with Bush and Cheney in the White House.

They've given us 9/11 and Iraq. It's time for them to get pink slips.

[Leilani]

5. There were some of us who held this opinion

during the primaries & Veep selection process.

I, myself, felt that in a time of war, with national security such an important issue, Edwards would not be the optimal person.

However, the decisions were made, & Kerry/Edwards is the ticket. Edwards would be wise to stick to domestic issues....he is a natural on them. The foreign policy/terrorism stuff does not ring true.

The major obstacle will be the Veep debates.

[CaTeacher]

6. are you kidding?

I thought Edwards was fantastic (a little too much tough guy talk--but excellent). And he is going to destroy Cheney in the debate!

[Leilani]

7. Not kidding!

He is great on domestic issues...he should stick to them, IMO.

And I hope he destroys Cheney in the debate.

[spooky3]

21. The crowd there seemed to like his comments on terrorism.

[LimpingLib]

8. Actualy, the Neo Cons have a new excuse to jump the GOP ship.

Bill Crystal was thrilled by Edwards foreign policy strong talk. I tell you , assuming CIA fronts like Irving Crystal and William Buckley dont have to return all their money the CIA paid them and their orgainzations over the past half century then I can tell Crystal and others could seriousily consider moving back to the Democratic party if they win the election and the GOP implodes and emerges as a pre 50s libertarian type party.

Edwards other issues were just sad. He talks about helping poor people then only talks about INCOME tax credits (poor pay a ton of taxes but income taxes will only help middle and upper income Americans)and tiny ones at that. $1000 for health care , $1000 for the mortgage , and though $4000 credit (per years I assume) sounds good , how many poor people will be able to benefit from that unless FICA and state sales taxes can be counted?

I honestly turned to every channel and EVERYBODY even Fox was impressed with Edwards, I couldnt believe my ears. The partisan GOP commentators (aside from Neo Cons)were saying how his speach was good and would connect but was indicitive of the ticket being too "left wing" (???) as if Edwards rhetoric will overtrump his stale status quo policys in voters minds. I managed to sadly sit through the speach (literaly holding back a mental breakdown due to my massive dissapointment)though I turned channels to see how the other networks were doing. I by mistake turned to SCPAN-2 and saw Lloyd Bentson in 1988 giving his speach and honesty I really wished we had him this year instead , at least nobody would be pushing him in 2012.

After I suffered through the speach and listened to all the out of touch commentators for about 10 minutes I turned the TV off in disgust and took a walk.A trail of tears kind of. A boring speach , full of out of touch terrorism talk (terror isnt on my top 1000 of concerns , and even the country is reconizing it for the none issue it truly is), typical hollow rhetoric ( I cant stand politicicans slogans when they arent backed up with policys), and sadly if we loose the DLC will pick out Edwards slogans and use it to beat liberals and progressives over the head with like every election we loose.

The saddest thing is with rhetoric like this and counterproductive policys ( they do enough to cost alot and provide ammo for the GOP to accuse us of being left wing , despite the fact they do little to help the poor) it will go down in history as another opportunity Democrats took to miss an opportunity.

And Ill go out on a limb here , this speach doesnt amount to a hill of beans to average Americans unless they are war mongering fanatics (where as they WILL be pleased).Political pundits out of touch analysis aside, Im just hoping they (average Americans) see it for the hollow rhetoric it was and dont believe the GOP spin coming in the next 3 months that it was some left wing outline (and its either or, what I just discussed). Edwards policys arent even a modest first step to any help for the other America (aside from the wealthy and corrupt).

[regnaD kciN]

17. Unless you're talking about the comedian...

...it's Bill Kristol, not Crystal.

[RamboLiberal]

9. Bullshit - If we had Kerry and Edwards in the WH

Or even Edwards, my bet is Osama would be toast, and we would have a helluva lot more effective offense and defense against another 9-11.

Don't let those boyish looks fool you - this man has been tempered by tragedy.

I'll sleep a helluva lot better with Kerry/Edwards in charge!

[jean]

11. yes- it made me think of his triumphs in the courtroom - going up against

powerful adversaries - next thought was of him destroying Cheney, the penultimate poster geezer of corporate greed, in debates. The afterthought was, yes - he can probably destroy terrorists.

Anyone can shoot at the bad guys and probably kill lots of them. But I think Edwards and Kerry will approach the crisis from the other side as well - by stomping out the root causes enhancing terrorist recruitment worldwide. (poverty, lack of education, failed states and whatever else)

[TexasSissy]

12. No. That isn't his strong point. Yet.

But he's not running for President. He just has to know enough to finish the job, should something happen to Kerry.

[AngryLizard]

13. Terrorism wasn't even close to being most of that speech

He talked mostly about helping Americans in America. And terrorism is not a non-issue, not in the slightest. It's ridiculous to suggest that you can't cover both.

When he said "We will destroy you" I got the feeling that he actually had a plan. Unlike Bush, who went to Afghanistan after most of Al Qaeda had gotten out, and went after Iraq, who had nothing to do with 9/11, and who frequently raises the "terror alert" without doing anything to combat it (because you know if they were actually out there foiling plans, we'd hear about it). I have no doubt in my mind that Kerry/Edwards will come up with something to actually combat terrorism. It just disturbs me that that is the one part of the speech that you're holding onto.

[philosophy77]

15. foiled plans

You wouldn't hear about any foiled plans. Use your mind. Why would the Feds give away what has been foiled and who has been caught? This just gives the terrorists a heads up on what is working and what is not.

[TexasSissy]

26. Are you talking to me? What part of the speech am I

"holding onto"?

I didn't originate this thread and was responding that, no, he didn't hit a homerun with the terrorist part (which was a small part), nor did he need to. He's a V.P. He wasn't put on the ticket for his foreign policy experience. Kerry will address the foreign policy issues in more detail.

All Edwards, or any V.P., would need to do is show that he's competent enough to catch on in the areas in which he's least experienced, enough to carry forward the job, should something happen to the President.

I have no idea what your diatribe is about, as it relates to my post.

[goclark]

14. Don't forget that Bush is clueless

So really if Edwards even knew the names of the major countries in Europe, he would be way ahead of Bush.

[AP]

18. I'm not going to let MSNBC convince me what I can see for myself is wrong

[saracat]

19. I hate to say it,but MOST people, not the political junkies,

are too busy swooning about how gorgeous Edwards looked to give a damn about what he said. I have been fielding calls all night from women and gay men who are beside themselves. And everyone loves the family image. Kate looks like Jackie and the kids are reminicent of Camelot.And that focus group were "repug leaning" and would never vote for Edwards anyway!

[spooky3]

22. Any country that put * in the WH and threatens to do it again has a LOT

of people who are not paying much attention to what politicians are saying and doing. So it would not be surprising if some of them are more interested in how Edwards looks and how lovely his family is than anything else. As long as they vote for Kerry-Edwards, so be it...

[skygazer]

25. Oh, please

I get so sick of hearing about how women vote based on a candidates looks. Cracks me up. Not long ago, I was watching some news show and there was a clip of Hillary Clinton speaking quite intelligently about something (don't remember what now but it was very good) and my boyfriend's only remark was "She's hot. I'd do her." I know men who like to watch women's sports because they can "see the boobies bounce." Kindly watch your "most people" remarks.

[TexasSissy]

28. I care about what he says. And I would never vote on looks. But...

my loins respond. I can't help it.

[BonjourUSA]

20. Who is not credible on destroying terrorism now ?

It is not the job for a lonely man or a lonely country but a real ant job for secret services all over the world. This cooperation exists for a long time and it increased since 9/11 with the US services and it will go on Bush re-elected or not.

The Western services, mainly the European services, reproached the USA for making too much confidence with the high technology in the search for information. Now the US policy changed. But it is long, difficult and often dangerous to send again agents on the field or to recruit abroad. One chief of the French intelligence service said that the USA will need about ten years for

[digno dave]

23. true...he needs to leave that to Kerry

[WI_DEM]

27. you know every focus group in 2000 put together by MSNBC

and that repuke pollster they employ hated Gore--every debate they pounced on Gore. But who won the election? Gore. Bush had to steal it to win.

[Gloria]

29. It was a mistake to have him speak so long on Foreign Policy...sure,

they thought they could bolster him on this....but it failed.
When he blithely talked about Nato, getting allies, etc. it freaked me out. It is well known that Nato doesn't have the manpower or the will to go into Iraq. It was simplistic and not convincing at all. When he said we would "destroy terrorists"...well, it sounded as dumb as Bush saying "bring it on."

Then he brought up his being on the Senate Intelligence Committee....well, that sure didn't impress me, considering his stance.

Frankly, he reminded me of a game show host trying to jolly along the audience. The start of the speech was OK, but once he roamed into FP, I really got a sick feeling in my stomach.

He should have stuck to his comfort zone--domestic stuff--and praised Kerry like crazy.

Thank god he'll be off on his own. I won't have to see much of him. I became much more unhappy after I watched the Clinton and Gore speeches from 92. Both were much more hard hitting and meaty. When I heard Gore refer to enabling tyrants and undermining American citizens.......it was truly amazing how they not only went after Bush I, but also laid out vision and plans ....and amazingly, Clinton accomplished an awful lot of his "New Covenant." They clearly stated their stances...on choice, etc. No blurring of the lines.

What a leap of faith America took to elect these two young men. What is America being offered this week that will spur them to a leap of faith? Is there anything worth making that leap this election???

[leeman67]

30. That MSNBC focus group

was the biggest collection of idiots I've ever seen. First of all, it's Frank Luntz who's a GOP pollster picking the participants, and secondly he's in Cincinnati, OH - a true bastion of wing-nuttery. So I don't take anything those people say seriously. The one moron who he interviewed basically said Edwards was a liar when discussing race relations because he's "too young" to have experienced all that stuff he says he did back in North Carolina during his youth (Whites Only signs, etc.). Of course God forbid Luntz point out to the guy that Edwards is not some kid, despite his looks, and is in his early 50's and certainly is old enough to have experienced those times, particularly in the South.

[wishlist]

31. I disagree. Clinton doesn't look like a mean tough guy either

Edwards had to reassure voters they would be tough on terrorism and I think he succeeded. Cheney made the news this week calling Democrats weak on terror, so Edwards had to come out swinging.

That focus group had some very ignorant people who said they doubted that Edwards experienced segregation firsthand. They apparently don't know that when he grew up in the 50's and 60's the South was still segregated and going through difficult process of integration.

[SayitAintSo]

32. I thought Edwards was fine.

I thought he wasn't completely at his very best. But his worst, Edwards WORST, beats most everyone elses good to best. Let the pundits whine. Edwards did just fine. Did anyone think that maybe, just MAYBE it's to Kerry's AND Edward's advantage that Kerry OUTSHINE Edwards at this convention ? After all it IS Kerry's moment. Kerry's speech will bring it all together. Just watch.

[Andromeda]

34. Everything John Edwards said was planned to...

compliment Kerry's speech tonight. John Edwards was the appetizer and John Kerry was the main course. It's not too important what some obscure focus group says about Edwards. I saw it too and I was mildly amused that they would try to pass off these people as representative of most undecided voters in America.

People overwhelmingly approve of John Edwards even though he may not appear to be authentic to some people. It took a long time for Americans to take John Edwards seriously -- until he made such a strong showing in the primaries.

Only then did everybody sit up and take notice and look beyond his youthful looks and realize that he is really, really smart. John Edwards was the favorite to be Kerry's pick for V.P. and that doesn't seem to set too well with certain Wes Clark supporters even now.

There's a lot of sour grapes and I suspect some Clarkies are not too forgiving because Wes was not chosen to be Kerry's running mate.