John Edwards, Now Seasoned, Elbows His Way Into the Field

WP: Analysis
Edwards, Now Seasoned, Elbows His Way Into the Field
By Dan Balz
Washington Post Staff Writer
Saturday, December 30, 2006; Page A03


John Edwards, stumping in New Hampshire, could be seen as more liberal than Hillary Rodham Clinton and more proven than Barack Obama. (By Darren Mccollester -- Getty Images)

PORTSMOUTH, N.H., Dec. 29 -- With overflow crowds and his populist economic message and his Internet-friendly campaign organization, John Edwards signaled this week that, if he has anything to say about it, the race for the Democratic presidential nomination will be about more than just Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton of New York and Sen. Barack Obama of Illinois.

Edwards 2.0 is a revised version of his beta candidacy of 2004. He begins his second campaign for the White House with the kind of self-confidence that comes only from having tried and failed once before. "My biased self-perception is that both the campaign and what's happened since then has had a maturing effect on me," he said in an interview here Friday, adding: "I think that it's just a calmness that's different.

There are also critical adjustments in his candidacy that position him to compete against Clinton and Obama, the party's two unannounced glamour candidates of the moment. Edwards will be able to run to the left of Clinton in a party whose base has shifted leftward during the Bush presidency. And this time, questions about lack of experience will go first to Obama.

The most significant change for Edwards comes in what was his most serious weakness -- foreign policy and national security. When he ran in 2004, his lack of foreign policy experience was magnified by the post-Sept. 11 focus on global terrorism. Like many Democrats interested in national office, he supported the resolution authorizing President Bush to go to war in Iraq.

In 2004, he did not walk away from that vote. But earlier this year he did, and he has not looked back. He calls the vote a mistake and says all politicians must come to terms with their past positions on the war, regardless of their rhetoric today. That represents a subtle challenge to Clinton, who has been reluctant to call her vote for the war a mistake....

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/12/29/AR2006122901214.html?nav=most_emailed

Other than running a national campaign, what more experience does Edwards have? The Edwards campaign manager, David Axelrod, from '04 is now working for Obama. Obama was an accomplished state legislator before running for the current Senate seat. Since '04, where did Edwards improve his foreign policy and national security resume?

By that definition neither could hold a candle to Hillary.

:evilgrin:

(I am determined to have this discussion with a sense of
humor)

and, in any case, do you know what Axelrod did for Edwards? Was he the honcho?

I have no interest in trashing Obama, but let's be clear:

Technically, Edwards has 3 times the Senate experience that Obama has at this point. And a vast national campaign, which is, in fact, very significant experience on a lot of levels. And two more years as an important political figure traveling the country and the world.

Support for the Patriot Act and the Iraq War are not highlights of a senate career. Axelrod ran that national campaign.

he did not run the campaign. he was a media advisor. difference grande.

...."lack of experience". Remember, a complete moran-failure "won" the election in 2000. The putz had never been out of the country, failed in every business venture and held the record for executions as governor. Some experience. Edwards will win in a landslide, especially with Gen. Wes. Clark as VP.

I'm not saying Edwards, or any Democrat for that matter, could possibly be half as reckless and inept as Bush. BUT, now that BushCo has created such a disastrous mess, I think we need someone with the experience to hit the ground running on foreign policy.

Gen. Wesely clark meets that criterion, hands down. So I'll be happy with a Clark/Edwards ticket.

So what is the "significant change" in his "most serious weakness -- foreign policy and national security?" That he admits he made a mistake? I'm not seeing how that gives him foreign policy and national security experience.



That's an answer? That the "team" can have "experience" and still screw up? Is he saying experience has no bearing on judgment?

Bush didn't have any foreign policy/national security experience, and ultimately the president makes the decisions on matters of foreign policy, often after receiving conflicting advice. As Commander in Chief at such a difficult time, I think we need a president with a LOT of knowledge, insight, and detailed understanding of international relations, military strategy, diplomatic negotiation, etc. both historically and currently. We need a VERY sensitive hand on the wheel. The fact that BushCo screwed up isn't an answer to questions of experience, in my humble opinion.

neither Clark nor Kerry runs? In any case, I think the ability to listen shrewdly and syntheszie information is the quality that's vital. No one has the experience of making Presidential decisions before, well, before they're President.

We'll have to see who ends up running. I think Gore has creds, too.