If John Edwards is the nominee, how will he respond re natl security issue

[Eric J in MN]

The Republicans are going to tell Americans, Be Afraid!, only George W. can protect you from the terrorists.

If John Edwards is the candidate, a youthful-looking man with little foreign policy experience, how does he overcome the Republcian message of fear and convince Americans he can keep us safe?

[JI7]

1. he voted for iwr, patriot act

his strategy is to focus attention on winning issues for him and neutralize issues that benefit the gop.

[union_maid]

2. With Clark

I don't know if Clark would really do the VP thing. He's such a general. But if anyone but Clark wins the nomination that person should try to get him for Defense, State, or National Security Advisor and we could all feel a little safer.

[Maddy McCall]

12. Great post, union maid. I agree

Clark/edwards or Edwards/clark ticket will be unbeatable. Been sayin that for months!

:hi:

[angee_is_mad]

3. Have Clark or Kerry as VP?

[sleipnir]

4. He doesn't...he loses to Bush...plain and simple

Unless he gets Clark on board, otherwise, count Edwards in the "good try, but better luck next time" category.

[uconnyc]

5. JRE can actually cite (and pronounce) the names....

JRE can actually cite (and pronounce) the names of the leaders of the world we need to work with to fight terrorism.

* can't even remember the name Carnahan in the MO debate in 2000, right after the terrible tragedy.

[Syrinx]

6. how is Edwards less qualified than Bush on defense?

Because his daddy's people are helping him? That would be good for our side, I think. At least Edwards is his own man, and not just his daddy's little boy.

[SheilaT]

7. Once again, EVERY candidate has negatives and

weak areas that will be exploited fully in the general election. None of the candidates is pure and unsullied. Expect a vicious, dirty campaign on the part of the Republicans.


Maybe what we should be looking at for the nominee is a man who can stand up to the blasts that will come, who won't buckle and cave in but will fight back. Perhaps that's how we should be evaluating our candidates, not based on some mythical 'electability' or who has better hair or a prettier wife or is taller.

Looked at this way, even the man's record hardly matters, but rather how he will defend it.

I'd kind of like to think they all would hold up under the attacks that will come.

[countmyvote4real]

8. Edwards has been a senator on the intelligence committee

That's more info than * had as governor of TX. You might say that *'s dad slipped him some advice, but I would trust any advice Edward's dad gave him over the Bush dynasty.

Does it really take a fascist to make people feel secure? I don't think so.

So how does he convince the sheeple? He tells them he would not sacrifice the lives of our young people in the military for a frivolous and trumped up cause. He would not link Sadam and Al Quaida without just cause. If he doesn't run with Clark, he appoints him secretary of state or defense.

And finally, while it has nothing to do with the base argument, he doesn't shift focus on these priorities by proposing that we send a man to Mars.

[AP]

9. Edwards, discursively speaking, is powerful. I think Edwards will frame

the issues any way he pleases.

Notice that not one negative on him has stuck. He answers every question asked the way he wants to answer it.

He's a genius. He's like Sheriff Andy Taylor + Mario Cuomo x Bill Clinton.

I think people don't get what a genius he is because he's so unassuming.

The more I think about things he has said in debates, the more layers of meaning I'm discovering.

I'm not worried about any issue with Edwards at all.

[jsw_81]

10. Here's how:

"As the son of a mill worker, I want you to know that I'm ready to take on international terrorism. Remember, I was the first in my family to attend college, and..."

But seriously, Edwards won't have any way to respond, because frankly he's only a freshman senator with no real experience. And that's one of the main reason's why I'm leaning toward Kerry.

[AP]

11. Lincoln wasn't even in gov't when he was elected president.

He was a lawyer who barnstormed the country giving speeches about slavery.

He was a great wartime president.

[jsw_81]

14. But this in 2004, not 1860

And we are facing possible nuclear, chemical, and biological attacks by insane religious fanatics who are more than willing to commit suicide if they can take a few of us with them. Lincoln was only facing a violent rebellion, not utter annihilation.

And don't EVEN try to compare Edwards with Lincoln; there is no comparison whatsoever. It's like Quayle trying to compare himself with Kennedy.

[spooky3]

16. oh please, John Edwards has NOTHING in common with Dan Quayle

other than that some people think both are physically attractive. I think if you will try to go a little deeper than an Entertainment Tonight analysis, such as (a) reading Edwards' positions on the issues and (b) considering that real world experience is as relevant to this job as other experience, you might be a bit better informed.

* has the most relevant experience of all, 3 years as pResident. That beats Kerry. Does that make * more qualified?

As this example shows, the key is within the person and his qualities, given reasonable experience and exposure to the issues, and the experience of the experts who advise him.

[jsw_81]

17. I didn't say that Edwards was Quayle

I just said it was foolish to compare him with Abraham Lincoln.

[DjTj]

13. 'Pugs ask: "Senator Edwards, how can you be the Commander in Chief...

...with so little foreign policy experience?"

Edwards: "Wait a second, what did you call me?"

Moderator: "Um, Senator Edwards?"

Edwards: "Senator Edwards. That's right, I am a United States Senator. With all due respect, Mr. President, I have been in the federal government longer than you. I serve on the Senate Intelligence Committee and I know a thing or two about national security. After the war in Afghanistan, I traveled there and when I spoke with the leaders there, they told me, "We need your help to rebuild this country." We had a responsibility there that we still have not fulfilled. And I want to say another thing about that question. When you ask a question like that, it is a question of fear, and that's an important difference between my campaign and the President's campaign. His is a campaign of fear while mine is a campaign of hope. And that's the way I will conduct my foreign policy, because if the people in Afghanistan live in fear, their children will grow up to be terrorists, but if they grow up with hope, the United States will be a safer place not just for us, but for our children."

...John Edwards says that he dreams about debating the President. I dream about it to.

[OKHRANA]

15. If Clark is not on his ticket, he can...

say that he is considering making Clark the next Secretary of State.

[jpgpenn]

18. He doesn't

Edwards has hardly any experience at anything.

[DjTj]

24. "Some people think experience in the real world counts for something..."

"...do you?"

That's what Edwards says in his stump speech and I swear that line is worth a bunch of votes every time.

[Awsi Dooger]

19. When will DUers understand that conventional wisdom is crap?

Gore needs to go off and be his own man after the convention, distance himself from Clinton. Gore will dominate the debates, al la vs. Perot, and increase his lead because he is so superior on the issues and Bush is a lightweight. Democrats will retain and even increase their margin in the senate because it's a midterm election, the incumbent is plagued by a horrific economy, and Democrats will storm to the polls to avenge the theft of 2000.

Fast forward to 2004, when the critical issue is national security and we must have a seasoned war hero or similar to ease the concerns of middle America and absorb the inevitable Republican attack on that subject.

I handicap every day for a living, and have for 15+ years. This isn't sports, it's much easier. John Kerry and especially Wesley Clark are unremarkable messengers who will carry the faithful and little beyond. They would have been ideal in 2000, when the advantages were ours, but against a "good guy" incumbent it's political suicide to nominate either. But what happened to the vets? What happened to our strategy? I cringe at the certainty of these threads post-November 2, 2004.

With John Edwards, there is no national security issue. Likeability, charisma, looks, passion and talent in one package overpowers everything conventional.

[scheming daemons]

20. I agree 100%

Like most DUers, I will vote for whoever ends up opposing Bush.

But that's not the point. In order to win this election, we need someone who can inspire the rest of the country, not just us.

That's why John Kerry would be a VERY bad nominee, in my opinion. He is an unremarkable messenger, as the previous poster said. In a word.... BORING.

His speech in Iowa after winning was a sleep-inducer. Edwards' speech had people riveted.

If America ever gets the chance to see Edwards go head-to-head with Bush, they will be mesmerized. This guy's the real deal.

Experience? He's been in the federal government for 6 years. He has more experience that Bush had in 2000. Bush was a one-term governor who couldn't name the leader of Pakistan during 2000, and now he depends on that same leader to keep his nukes from falling into Al Qaida hands.

Edwards has plenty of experience.

I fear that John Kerry is the Democrats' Bob Dole. The one who gets the nomination because "its his turn" and not because he's the best candidate.

John Edwards is the only one of the bunch that would energize those who our outside our little "DU" circle. And we need those people, folks.

My wife is politically indifferent... she never watches debates and very rarely pays attention to politics. She's too busy being a "soccer mom". But she just happened to sit down with me the other night toward the end of the debate, just as John Edwards was chastizing Hume and Jennings for making the debate about the men on stage and not about the people. And she said to me, "there's a guy I could vote for. He doesn't seem stale like the others."

John Kerry is stale. I'll vote for Kerry if he wins the nomination, but people like my wife won't.

...and we need people like her to win this thing. Don't give the nomination to a guy just because he thinks its his turn and he "deserves" it. We made that mistake in 2000, the Repugs made that mistake in 1996.

[AP]

23. Furthermore, his strengths are his weeknesses.

People think it's great that every single-issue liberal interest group and Ted Kennedy love him. I love those single-issue liberal interest groups and Ted Kennedy, but if I were running for president, I think the last thing I'd want in the GE is for a lot of Americans to get to know about me as the person that every single-issue liberal interest group and Ted Kennedy love.

[AP]

22. Everyone should read this post.

And I've thought before, John Kerry would be president today if he ran against Gore in 2000. Why didn't he? He must know it too.

But he won't be president if he's the nominee. Play the narrative out in your mind. Don't just take the snapshot.

[AP]

21. In some ways, 1860 was worse.

At that time the nation was in jeopardy from within. There was a risk it was going to be torn apaprt. The Civil War was the bloodiest war we've ever had.

And we were led brilliantly by a lawyer whose greatest qualification for getting elected was that he could give brilliant speeches which got to the heart of what was wrong with America.

After Lincoln, the president how faced REAL threats to America's future (and who battled and defeated fascism from within) was FDR. He had been what? Secretary of the Navy once (or was that TR).

Neither AL or FDR had any military experience and no (in AL's case) or little (in FDR's case) with foreign policy. However, they were the presidents who kept America together in its darkest hour since the inception of the country.

[genius]

25. Edwards will be fine.

When I saw him a year ago, he was too security-conscious. Now he's improved.

[mmonk]

26. I don't see how he will address it effectively

by saying the policy was right, just not done right or well.

[DjTj]

27. I used to think it was impossible for politicians to talk about poverty...

...but there is John Edwards doing it every single day!

The way he takes tough issues and breaks them down into simple terms and turns them into something positive and uplifting is incredible.

Never underestimate John Edwards.

[mmonk]

29. I don't

just answering the question. He's an effective politician (and a good person), but cannot attack the intentions of bush's foreign policy well from his position since he thinks the invasion was necessary.

[DjTj]

30. The intention...

...is to protect Americans. That's what Bush will say, and trying to frame the debate as a war for oil or PNAC or whatever might make us on DU happy, but it's not going to convince the independents nor the Republicans who are dissatisfied with Bush's fiscal irresponsibility.

He thinks it was necessary to contain the Iraqi threat, which would have included trying to get inspectors back in and most importantly reaching out to our allies.

If we divide the votes up pro-Iraq war vs. anti-Iraq war, we will not win this election. We don't want to sit around and debate about whether or not going to Iraq was right, we would do much better talking about exactly what John talks about, the "Two images America has around the world." People want America to be a country that is looked up to and respected, not a country everybody hates.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

28. Judging by his IWR vote..he could just say he's not quite as bad as bush.

That seems to be the emerging pattern for Kerry and Edwards. It's not that the slaughter is bad, it's just run badly.