Posted on 11/15/2005 9:37:54 AM PST by .cnI redruM
John Edwards is often compared to Bill Clinton. Supporters of both cite charisma, charm and an ability to connect with regular people. However, since losing the 2004 presidential election, Edwards has shown additional similarities and some differences with Clinton that both reflect poorly on his chances to remain in the political spotlight as a contender for the 2008 Democratic presidential nomination.
Over the weekend Edwards made a bid for liberal credibility and electoral viability by declaring he was wrong to support the removal of Saddam Hussein in 2002. In a Washington Post op-ed, Edwards wrote: "The intelligence was deeply flawed and, in some cases, manipulated to fit a political agenda. It was a mistake to vote for this war in 2002."
While claiming to accept responsibility for his vote, Edwards spends most of the op-ed blaming President Bush, the "imperial image" of America, and independent contractors for the protracted battle in Iraq. Not once does Edwards find space to blame the terrorists themselves. Those who aspire to murder Americans appear as victims stirred into action by the presence of Coalition forces. Edwards has a three-part proposal to ending the conflict. His first recommendation is an accelerated withdrawal of U.S. military forces and all independent contractors. After that, forgoing an established democracy and "getting other countries to meet their responsibilities to help" are the ingredients in his recipe for success.
Unfortunately, there is little evidence or logic to bolster his rationale. Edwards asserts we must simultaneously reduce our military presence in Iraq while building up Iraqi forces. How an already daunting challenge could be accomplished by reducing the necessary resources is a curious notion. Secondly, even critics of President Bush's Iraq policy acknowledge the overwhelming success of the nation's two recent elections. Why is Edwards so eager to give up ground on one of the war's widely acknowledged successes? Finally, it's strenuous to imagine a single soldier, commander, or politician who would not welcome viable assistance. Those who choose not to act do so for political considerations or are limited by economic and military restrictions. Having a Democrat in the White House would not change this.
It's not enough to simply state that Edwards lacks the proper remedy for success in Iraq. His current stance is a direct contradiction to his position in 2002 and 2003. Beyond voting to authorize the war, Edwards decried critics of the administration who said America rushed to war. On March 19, 2003 Edwards said: "Make no mistake. Saddam Hussein alone has chosen war over peace. He has defied international law rather than disarm his weapons of mass destruction. Our world will be safer when he is gone."
In other words, with or without weapons of mass destruction, Saddam Hussein refused to comply with international sanctions requiring him to disarm. If Edwards believed it was simply the weapons and not the man behind them who posed a threat to America, he failed to convey that belief.
Opponents of the war argue Edwards has reached his newfound beliefs through moral conviction and integrity. This might be easier to digest were it not evidenced through other actions his moral compass is most easily directed to opportunistic avenues. Since the 2004 election Edwards has aligned himself with the likes of Cindy Sheehan and the liberal activist Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now (ACORN).
As has been well-documented, Sheehan has called for the withdrawal of U.S. forces from all foreign countries, labeled Osama bin Laden an "alleged terrorist," advocated the destruction of Israel and even called Hillary Clinton a warmonger.
While Cindy Sheehan merely accuses others of being criminals, ACORN itself has engaged in alleged criminal activity. In 2004, ACORN was at the center of a Florida investigation into voter fraud for allegedly throwing out Republican voter registration cards while paying individuals to gather Democrat cards. ACORN has been accused of involvement with voter fraud in 10 other states, including the swing states of Ohio, Minnesota, New Mexico and Pennsylvania. There is no shortage of irony here coming from the vice presidential nominee of a party who has made a habit of accusing Republicans of stealing elections. According to the website activistcash.com, big money supporters of ACORN's efforts include MoveOn.org, the NEA and an assortment of labor unions.
Like Bill Clinton, Edwards possesses charm and charisma. However, Sunday's op-ed revealed Edwards also has the Clintonian tendency to blame others for his failures. In the first year since the 2004 campaign Edwards has shown that unlike Clinton he no longer has a use for or interest in the moderate voter. It has become increasingly clear Edwards believes his strongest path to the 2008 nomination is by lurching to the left of aspiring centrist Hillary Clinton.
After losing the last two presidential elections Democrats speak regularly of their intent to not repeat the mistakes of past campaigns. Of paramount concern is not again nominating an individual who lacks a core set of beliefs and a philosophy congruent with the values of most Americans. As Edwards abandons his former moderate image in favor of a liberal activist mold he is showing that on both counts he has failed to heed the lessons taught through his past defeats. Instead, he may simply be setting himself up for many more.
Who's going to want him in 2008? Not the RAT primary voters. Not Hitlery. He's got nothing anybody wants. Not even his fellow commiebastards.
Edwards doesn't have a prayer on getting the nomination. One term as a US Senator with the knowledge that he would have lost if he had run again, and chasing ambulances doesn't make for much of a resume. Bill Clinton at least had been governor and AG and had won reelection. Edwards will never be more than a footnote in history.
"John Edwards is often compared to Bill Clinton."
Reason enough to vote against him.
Edwards channels dead terrorists.
Now lets be honest.
Edwards probably doesn't even understand communism.
I am honest to god amazed that anyone anywhere thinks anything of him.
He was the dumbest candidate in 2004 during the rat primary (and thats saying alot all things considering).
He was also by far the laziest...unable to answer some basic questions.
He is also the ultimate snake in the grass....as John Kerry has learned.
This guys entire political career is built around getting elected once and Al Gore putting him on a short list for VP....and then dismissing him as to dumb and inexperienced and lazy.
How did that become a shining light for him?
The only reason they are compared, is they are both lawyers and both from the south.
They talk similiar but their is a huge differance between the 2.
Clinton was/is far more dangerious as a political opponent then Edwards is.
Edwards also has the work ethic (at least now) of a government employee on vacation who can't get fired.
I'm still appaled that during the rat primary last year, he didn't even bother on memorizing the typical rat talking points and just ad-libbed half the time.
Sidenote: Do you remember when Peter Jennings asked him about the DOMA?
Appropriately for someone who wants the U.S. foreign policy to be "cut and run," Edwards cut and run when it came to his re-election to the Senate. At least his fellow contender, and fellow one-term senator, in the 2004 primaries, Carol Mosley Braun, tried to get re-elected.
I don't watch TV (and have not watched network news for almost 8 years now) so no - I don't remember Jennings asking him about DOMA.
But I do agree with you that Clinton was/is more dangerous.
Silky pony ping!
But seriously, Edwards is very over.
At the time gay marriage was being talked about.
Jennings asked a simple softball question to Edwards.
Edwards game some nonsensical answer that wasn't a part of DOMA.
Finally, and Jennings made a weird and annoyed face at this point, Edwards admitted he hadn't actually ever read DOMA and wasn't realy sure what it said.
This would have been really embarrassing if it wasn't for the fact that this was the same night when Jennings asked Al Sharpton about the FED and monetary policy.
Sharpton gave this "deer in a headlights" look and started rambling about the IMF before being corrected and then just stuttered and said something about replacing Greenspan.
Sharpton not knowing what the FED does and getting it mixed up with the IMF saved Edwards bacon from being the embarrasement of the night.
Edwards hadn't even bothered to do any kind of looking into on the issues of gays at that point or didn't really bother reading up on any issues, he even screwed up the basic democratic talking points, interchanging a couple of them with the wrong topics at one point.
Did you see the video of the hidden camera catching him doing his hair?
I did.
I honestly thought it had to be fake, but nope, it was real.
Edwards really has no shame, he actually spends more time on his look then on his politics.
Also explains why all of his speeches sound the same (see his abortion, free trade, affirmative action and tax cut speeches, and note how few differances there are in rhetoric).
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.