The Wrong Stuff 
By Robert Skinner

On Friday, Feb 9, at Howard Dean's orchestrated DNC showcasing the nine Democratic hopefuls,  John Edwards took a page out of Dean's old presidential campaign book and stood high above the other eight Democrats by eliciting standing ovations from the liberal base with his brash, aggressive and harsh criticism of  the Iraq War and the President's handling of it.  The crowd went wild when Edwards called for an immediate withdrawal of some 50,000 troops from Iraq.  This reckless plan runs against one of the most important  recommendations of the nonpartisan Iraqi Study Group's as well as every Presidential candidate's position  (except Dennis Kucinich)  whether they be Democrat or Republican. It's apparent that John Edwards is showing no political courage as he flaunts his evolved political disgust for the Iraq War.

But keep in mind  that as a Vice Presidential candidate in October of 2004, when a majority of Americans supported the war, Edwards reaffirmed his vote for the binding resolution supporting  President Bush to execute a war against Saddam Hussein.  But today as he sets his eyes on the White House and with the a majority of the American people opposing the war, at least in how its being managed, John Edwards has set a large sail in the direction of the political winds, high winds, against the President and the Iraq War.  And does this former US Senator and current Southern lawyer  offer a plan of his own of  how to manage the greater chaos and greater death in the Middle East  if the US pulls out of Iraq?  Of course not.   He has absolutely no plan for peace in Iraq which he said in October of 2002 that, " This is not just a moral imperative. It's a security imperative  . . [and] We know that he [Saddam]  has chemical and biological weapons today, that he's used them in the past, and that he's doing everything he can to build more."

Sure, John Edwards sounded like he supported the war in 2002 and 2004 but then most of America supported it.  The question is was John Edwards passionate about his support or was it all courtroom drama because  in those days it was the "patriotic," winning  thing to do.  Today, John Edwards radiates with courtroom passion that he opposes the war and wants to 'bring our kids home' from that "meat grinder," from "Bush's War."  It's likely, very likely, John Edwards is passionately indifferent about America winning or losing the war and he's simply embracing a personal dream and a Howard Dean strategy of old in  trying to win the Democratic nomination on the political cheap. That is: to arouse Dean's "democratic wing of the Democratic party" so they will work like fevered Deaniacs  to put  big bucks in his campaign coffers allowing him to clinch the Democratic nomination for President.  Liberals in Iowa - brace yourselves because here comes your southern comfort - for now.

On Sunday, Feb 4, 2007 on Meet the Press, host Tim Russert aired some  video clips of John Edwards expressing support for the Iraq War.  Russert followed up the clips with some tough questions for this Democrat of very little, I believe and I think Russert too,  political courage. Go to http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/16903253/  to get the full transcript of that intense interview.

Russert plays the clip from October of 2002.

* * Edwards: "My position is very clear. The time has come for decisive action to eliminate the threat posed by Saddam Hussein's weapons of mass destruction. I'm a co-sponsor of the bipartisan resolution that is presently under consideration in the Senate. Saddam Hussein's regime is a grave threat to America and our allies. We know that he has chemical and biological weapons today, that he's used them in the past, and that he's doing everything he can to build more. Every day he gets closer to his long-term goal of nuclear capability."

After drilling Edwards on his seemingly genuine strong support for the war on Saddam, Russert makes this comment to set up the next clip:

"In that same speech I showed earlier, you seemed to embrace, however, a—the Bush vision of what could happen in Iraq. And let's just watch that and come back and talk about it." The second tape is run from October if 2002,

* *  Edwards: "Democracy will not spring up by itself overnight in a multiethnic, complicated society that's suffered under one repressive regime after another for generations. The Iraqi people deserve and need our help to rebuild their lives and to create a prosperous, thriving, open society. All Iraqis, including Sunnis, Shia and Kurds, deserve to be represented. This is not just a moral imperative. It's a security imperative. It is in America's national interest to help build an Iraq at peace with itself and its neighbors, because a democratic, tolerant and accountable Iraq will be a peaceful regional partner, and such an Iraq could serve as a model for the entire Arab world."

Not through with Edwards on his flip-flopping on the war resolution, Russert soon continues: "Let me bring you back to October 10th of 2004. You were running for vice president, a few weeks before the election... you were on this program . .  The war is now a year and a half old, and I asked you about your vote. Let's watch."

The clip is run.

  * *  Russert:  "If you knew today, and you do know, there is—there are no weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, would you still vote to go to war with Iraq?"

Edwards : "I would have voted for the resolution, knowing what I know today, because it was the right thing to do to give the president the authority to confront Saddam Hussein. I think Saddam Hussein was a very serious threat. I stand by that, and that's why we stand behind our vote on the resolution."

Tim Russert then makes this statement with a flare of surprise: "That’s a year and a half into the war!"

John Edwards is clearly uncomfortable and hesitates then tries to explain what is impossible to understand unless its in terms of flagrant political posturing. Note that Edwards attempts to partially  blame his wife's struggle with breast cancer for his John Kerry like statesmanship.  He looks at Russert with a little boy look of puzzlement and addresses Russert, and the millions who are watching, I believe, as if they are jurists.  He's losing the argument on logic and rational thinking so he's got to exploit the sympathy card he's so obviously done in so many courtroom dramas.

"Mm-hmm. Perfect—that’s a very fair question.  I can tell you what happened with me, personally. We got through—I was—at that point, I was in the middle of a very intense campaign, one that I thought was very important for America. When the campaign was over and the election was over, we had a lot going on in my own family. Elizabeth had been diagnosed with breast cancer, we were taking care of her . . '

John Edwards has not embraced the high drama of an out of control bullying lawyer or the drama king antics of a  screaming Howard Dean.   To the extreme contrary.  Edward's mainstream public approach is this laid back, smooth southern smile politics that may, or not, prove to be far more effective.  He used this so effectively when he went to New Orleans and rolled up his sleeves, like Dean did, and showed his public empathy - genuine or political - you judge.

As appealing as John Edwards thinks his political demeanor is,  I don't think the smooth smile politics is swooning the media still favoring Hillary Clinton.  This was ever so evident by Tim Russert's "hard ball" handling of Edwards on his extreme position of pulling out tens of thousands of troops, now,  and daring his rivals to do the same. Why? Because apparently its the patriotic thing to do to admit US failure in Iraq and save the lives of "those kids" in Iraq.

On this note Russert had this question for Edwards:  " Can you be the Democratic candidate for president without saying the war was wrong?

Edwards responds with,   "Yes, of course you can, if, if that's what you truly believe, and that's what your heart and conscience state. Russert counters with,  "You talked about silence is betrayal, and you're urging your other candidates to step forward and clearly enunciate their views on the war in Iraq.    The Clinton campaign responded this way: " 'In 2004, John Edwards used to constantly brag about running a positive campaign. Today, he has unfortunately chosen to open his campaign with political attacks on Democrats who are fighting the Bush administration's Iraq policy,' said Clinton adviser Howard Wolfson."

I'd say John Edwards does have "the right stuff" - the stuff that slick Southern lawyers spew in those steaming Southern courtrooms as the jury hangs on every sentiment of "sympathetic  justice" for, or against, Edward's legal adversaries.    Places where such silver tongued lawyers manage to win big law suits  with those clever "Boston Legal"  (the TV show) touchy-feely summatives.  These TV lawyers, and Edwards,  win those big cases so they can  live in  those 28,000 square foot white Southern mansions.  But to win where it counts so you can live in the White House ?   The wrong stuff.
 

Robert Skinner is a former Editor for TrueNorthRadio.com