Yesterday the Edwards campaign apparently sent out a memo to reporters with the following:
“We know that Senator Clinton will spend the week touting her national security credentials in a move that echoes George Bush’s 2004 campaign,” Mr. Prince wrote. “We believe Democrats will not be fooled by efforts to play on their fears.”
The Edwards campaign seems to be saying that to simply discuss national security is to buy into the Bush framing of the world. Because the rhetoric of Sen. Clinton in the campaign so far is the exact opposite of the Bush doctrine. I may have some differences with her past votes and whatnot (though we must remember that Sen. Edwards also voted to authorize the Iraq War) – but Edwards seems to believe that national security won’t be on the table in this election. If that’s what they think, they’re wrong. For our entire political system for the foreseeable future we will not be able to put foreign policy on the backburner like in the past. Today’s assasination underlines that notion. In the past a political killing in Pakistan would be bad in a global sense, but happening under the current global situation it has very real ripples right here to America. This reminds me of Sen. Edwards ill-fated attempt (as I said at the time) to redefine the meaning of terrorism, especially in the middle of a political campaign.
It sucks, but that’s talk of the past. We can’t go back to it, no matter how hard we try. The next president is going to be someone who understands that national security is at the front of the American people’s minds. If Sen. Edwards is not going to accept that, he won’t win.
Today, you may be right, OW. And today’s situation was terrible.
Where I wonder is if the recession that is looming ahead may also be in the forefront of voters minds as well.
I don’t follow the candidates that closely, but just a quick visit to Hillary’s website makes me think he’s not all wrong. “America faces a war abroad and a troubled economy at home” is her declared two issues for the end game. We can wait and see how she crafts her message. So far, I haven’t seen too much fear mongering.
Hillary’s solution to getting out of Iraq is, as near as I can figure it, to stay in Iraq.
While their policies are clearly not identical, there seems to be a lot of posturing, and ‘very serious people’ on her campaign, who approve of things like unilateral invasions and American Hegemony as a matter of policy (CFR pukes).
She, like her husband before her, is trying to be bellicose to show that she has some real balls.
Joe Lieberman Lite.
Don’t know if anyone else has said it, but I think the only change she can bring to the White House is menopause.
Your judgment appears to be off again Mr. Willis. You read Obama’s rise incorrectly (”taking the bait”), and today, of the “big three,” Edwards is the only one who ends up looking presidential. I think he may win, and you’ll be wrong again.
For Jesus’s sake Oliver… look into you heart man…
Move to the left of Hillary & Obama… Give Edwards a Chance.
Much as I’d totally dig for a woman or Af-Am to be our next prez, it’s Edwards who would really rock. Nuff said.
TDreamer
There is hardly any daylight, position-wise, between the three candidates. There are big rhetorical differences, but on policy? No. I don’t like all the pretending that Hillary Clinton is the second coming of GWB or that John Edwards is the reincarnation of FDR or LBJ policy-wise. It just isn’t true. (And for the record, I’m okay with that because they are 95% of where I am on the issues that matter).
My problem with Edwards is that he seems to want to take foreign policy off the table, when the American people are saying it is on the table and we’d like somebody sane on it please. I don’t think Edwards would be bad on the issue, I just think he discusses it in a way that will lead people away from voting for him.
Is what Sen. Clinton says about the war and the economy wrong? No. Is it almost the exact same thing John Edwards says – at its core? Yes. The surest way to paint somebody in a bad light, especially in a Democratic caucus or primary, is to compare them to George W. Bush. But I and most Americans would rather HRC than Bush any day, and her rhetoric sounds nothing like his. I just think the Edwards people are – again – politically tone deaf on this. I frankly think that his current team is far inferior to his 2004 team and he’d be a frontrunner nationally if not for a lot of the boneheaded things they’ve done.
This election will be about a lot of issues, but the idea that we’re going to have an election for the forseeable future that doesn’t ask for strong talk from a candidate on national security – especially… especially a democrat – is suicidal. That doesn’t mean that the person needs to be a neocon warmonger, but also realize that pushing the issue to the side or saying “strength through peace” like Rep. Kucinich is setting us all up for disaster.
For Jesus’s sake Oliver… look into you heart man…
I kind of resent remarks like that because they seem to say that I’m not a person of conviction. Go back and read the things I’ve written consistently. I am not a very left-leaning liberal. I’m a liberal, but I hold positions in the middle of the liberal caucus. I support capital punishment, I’m in favor of military engagement, heck I think school uniforms aren’t a bad idea. I’ve never shied away from those positions and am a proud Democrat. In this instance I’ve endorsed Sen. Obama and that’s because I agree with his positions and his rhetoric. I think the top three Dems are all fine candidates and never like the idea of litmus tests and the like. For the reasons I noted above and because he would take public financing, I have problems with Sen. Edwards, but that’s not because I didn’t look into my heart.
There are significant differences, and it’s more than just rhetoric.
First, I think that Edwards is flat out better on trade. He’s not anti free trade, but he believes that a bad deal is worse than no deal, while Clinton is on the opposite side.
Furthermore you have to look at the people surrounding themselves (and bBTW, I see Trippi as a minus).
Hillary and Obama have surrounded them with CFR foreign policy experts who were wrong on Iraq, and continue to be.
1. Hillary Clinton on NAFTA:
CLINTON: I think NAFTA was, in principle, a good idea to try to create a better trading market between Canada and the United States and Mexico. But I think the terms that it contained, and how it was negotiated under the Bush Administration and the failure to have any tough enforcement mechanism, like pollution on our border with Mexico, for example -
TIME: That was your husband’s Adminstration, wasn’t it? Because I recall a lot of debate about it not having labor standards and environmental standards.
CLINTON: But it was inherited. NAFTA was inherited by the Clinton Administration. I believe in the general principles it represented, but what we have learned is that we have to drive a tougher bargain. Our market is the market that everybody wants to be in. We should quit giving it away so willy-nilly. I believe we need tougher enforcement of the trade agreements we already have. You look at the trade enforcement record between the Clinton Administration and the Bush Administration, the Clinton Administration brought more trade enforcement actions in one year than the Bush Administration brought in six years.
For me, trade is who we are. We’re traders. We want to be involved in the global economy, but not be played for suckers.
As we look at trade today, I don’t think we can look at trade separate and apart from how we fix health care. I don’t think we can look at it separate and apart from how we incentivize and pay for education, so we keep trying to improve the skills of our workforce. And I think that the budget deficit has mortgaged our future and the holders of the mortgages are governments like the government of China, so then it makes it even more difficult for us to get tough when it comes to trade. So we’ve kind of walked into this vicious cycle and we need to break it.
2. Sen. Edwards foreign policy people aren’t exactly peaceniks.
How about a Barack Obama and the politics of Yesteryear post? His top strategist essentially blamed Hillary Clinton for Bhutto’s assassination.
Seriously, we’ve had a lot of sniping coming from various campaign officials on all sides. These guys get so blinded thinking up angles to benefit their candidates they tend to go overboard. Obama’s drug use, Hillary’s Iraq vote killed Bhutto … These guys need inject some perspective into their jobs. Not everything needs to be about your client.
I agree with midder. Step back, guys. It’s a tragedy, period.
Sorry, there’s just something about Edwards that I just don’t trust. And quite frankly, I’m so sick of rich white Southern gentlemen in the White House. If you count California as a southern state (and some do), we’ve had a rich white southern dude in office since Gerald Ford. Let somebody else have frikkin’ turn already.