Anyone else beginning to feel anxious about '08?

[beachmom]

Take a look at TPM Election Central:

http://electioncentral.tpmcafe.com/flexinode/list/24

It's Obama, Edwards, Hillary, Obama again, some Republicans, a dash of Vilsack, and then Obama again. The first time you encounter Kerry it's to smack down Oliver North and the second time is the whole "lonely photo" drama. Nothing about '08 there.

And Edwards is giving a major anti-war speech tomorrow on MLK Day. We already know the framing he's going to use from the New Yorker article, although apparently he's going more after Hillary.

Then read that Boston Globe article again:

http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2007/01/09/decision_looms_for_kerry_on_08_run/?page=1

I think Kennedy has a point about the schedule being moved up. There are 3 top guns right now -- Edwards, Hillary, and Obama. One has already declared, and the second two will have declared by Bush's SOTU address, Obama probably this week. Edwards is way in front with narrative -- he's done the anti-poverty thing and now he's segwaying that a la MLK into the anti-war message (speaking where MLK spoke out against Vietnam).

I will support Kerry with whatever decision he makes, but it seems to me that a decision must come soon, and with lead time for a good narrative.

Although I liked Dr. Funkenstein's idea of "Energy Independence", this will be a hard sell because of people thinking Gore owns the issue of the environment, UNLESS Energy Independence is framed as a national security issue. Although we all know Kerry's impeccable environmental record, most people don't. Unless Al Gore is willing to stand by Kerry's side, he's going to be immediately attacked as a "copy cat" and unoriginal. Somebody else on the other thread mentioned this as a threat, and that is real. All of my speculation here is how the narrative is SO IMPORTANT and needs to come out before an announcement.

Hence, I'm feeling anxious . . . feel free to agree or talk me out of the anxiety.

[blm]

1. That is why I said that we need to spread the word about his environmental record on all the

blogs BEFORE his book comes out. Real environmental activists are aware of his record and we should also use Gore's own words at the Dem convention that acknowledged Kerry was the leader in the senate on the issue.

[karynnj]

10. I agree on this even if it is not the theme - though I agree it should be

the theme. It would be a great idea to remind people that it WAS a major theme in 2004. The tie in to National Defense has been made in several Senate or public speeches. The acid rain work back when he was LT governor is important. Carbon trading - a solution pushed to help global warming is similar to Sulphur trading, which was the concept Kerry sold to the NE governors. This is a real accomplishment.

I think the urgency we feel for him to announce comes more from the fact that we - by virtue of being on DU- are talking about this every day. The real interval is that it would likely be important to declare before the April 4th debate. I don't see a problem with waiting until Obama and Hillary have declared. I don't see that Dodd or Biden officially declaring did anything.

Because it has been questioned, Kerry announcing - either way will be news. He needs to find a way and a venue to seriously make his case. I hope he has an announcement from Faneuil Hall and ties it into him being exactly who he is.

Having read the NewYorker article where Edwards speaks of Iraq, I am less concerned long term about him. I really thought he came across as incredibly shallow. He really doesn't have the depth of knowledge on foreign policy or the depth of character needed. He may get a boost if the speech written for him is good, but this is an issue he will have to speak about and unless he is hiding layers of understanding, I don't see the kind of well developed foreign policy view that Kerry (or even Biden or Hillary has).

[whometense]

2. I have to preface this by declaring that

I have zero political knowhow.

But I can see an argument for him taking his time. It's Edwards, Obama, Clinton 24/7, and that means almost surely that the public will burn out on at least a few of them. To my mind, Edwards does not wear well - the more I see him, the less I like him. Obama, as has been well-discussed, is pretty green, and HRC is not high on likeability - or, as far as I can see, on leadership.

There's a lot of noise right now, and there is a L-O-N-G way to go. I obviously have no idea what he and his people are thinking, but this seems (gut-level) to me an absolutely awful time to declare.

By the way, sometimes I wonder if HRC is trying to wait him out to minimize his impact.

I know a lot of liberal dems are excited about Obama right now - I'm not sure a huge number of regular not-online voters are there - at least not yet.

[MBS]

8. yeah, timing is important

I'm sure there are internal as well as external timing factors to consider, too. The timing has to feel right to Kerry: he's the one who has to decide the time. I agree with you that this is probably a bad time. He has to be totally in charge of framing the message-- it's vital that the message not be defined by either the media or other candidates. He has to have all his ducks in a row, come out with all gunz blazing (how's that for a mixed metaphor?!!!!).

I agree with all of your comments on Edwards, Hillary, and Obama.

[MBS]

3. I'm anxious, too

As to the environment stuff, we all (and that includes especially his professional staff) just must get the message out there. Kerry has been extraordinarily generous in his praise of Al Gore's efforts on global warming. I would hope that Gore would repay Kerry the favor and also acknowledge his contributions. Surely a problem as serious and as large and as important as the environment can't be "owned" by just one person, especially when so many other people have labored so long and hard on the many issues pertaining to this. It sounds like the Kerrys' book is bound to make this point.I also think his book tour will help remind people of (or introduce them to )Kerry's history of environmental advocacy , and the book itself (not to mention the ads I've seen) will help lay out his long track record on this issue. Also, if anyone can speak (and HAS spoken) with authority on the links between national security and energy independence, it's Sen. Kerry. And I do hope, if (fingers crossed) that he runs, that Sen. Kerry will make this a MAJOR MAJOR part of his narrative. He's the only one of the possible or declared candidates with real credentials on this issue (assuming that Gore doesn't run), and I think that people -- both voters and the media -- are FINALLY ready to listen. He is the guy who can and should frame the debate.

In all honesty, I'm not too worried about Edwards or Vilsack. I do worry about there being so many candidates that all those early debates will be close to useless, offering the opportunity only for 20-second sound bite questions and answers. I do worry about my fellow Dems continuing their self-destructive, juvenile cannabilism of good candidates ( per your dailyKos diary). I do worry about the shallow, craven media. In the meantime, we've just got to keep speaking out.

[beachmom]

6. Virginia is all a buzz about Edwards, perhaps due to our proximity

to North Carolina. I am seeing the Warner supporters migrating to Edwards. So he's actually quite formidable, even though I also think he's not that interesting or particularly compelling.

[Mass]

9. I think that Edwards playing well in with Warner's supporters in VA may be linked to the idea that

he is from the South and they think only somebody from the South can win.

[Democrafty]

4. Not really.

Not that it won't be an uphill battle, but I think we just need to do what we can to be helpful, and realize a lot of stuff is out of our hands.

[ProSense]

5. I understand the anxiety; I feel it too.

Still, I am confident that Senator Kerry is still the right person for the job---in terms of experience, judgment and vision. You're right about the pace of things and I think we'll hear something soon (weeks a month) from the Senator.

As far as Dr. Funkenstein's idea, I think it's excellent---it's an issue that encompasses a lot. Sure Gore has become identified as a leading environmental advocate, but he knows and has acknowledged JK's experience on the issue. There may be those who are unfamiliar, but there are a lot of people who know about his involvement dating back to the more than three decades. There are volumes of his work on the environment, so I don't think it will be hard to illustrate his commitment to those who are unaware of what he's done. It's really impressive.

[Mass]

7. I agree.

It is more and more clear that many people would prefer to see Kerry out of the race and are doing whatever they can to give the impression he has already given up. This morning, Stephanopoulos was talking about the surge and what the Democratic potential candidates were saying: he quoted Biden and Clinton as silent, Obama as searching for a way to block funds, and Dodd and Edwards are supporting block funds. Kerry was not even quoted.

On MTP, Dodd was basically advocating everything Kerry has been advocating for the few years to get out of this mess, but the name of Kerry was not pronounced once (nor Biden or anybody else, to be fair).

On CBS, Obama was trying to explain his position. I like him a lot. I think he has a lot in common with Kerry and it is probably why I like the two of them. But, as much as he is great during speeches, he was not ready for this interview, unfortunately. If he wants to succeed, he had to work on this aspect (seeing Kerry after made it even clearer).

I hope he is going to announce earlier rather than later, and will do it with a main idea. Energy independance (both security and environment) can be his idea because it it an idea that he pushed in 2004. The idea that he stole Gore's idea will only be a problem is Gore runs, and I am more and more convinced he will. There are many reasons for that:

- Whether we like it or not, the race is on. With Biden and Dodd running, the experience factor is not going ONLY to Kerry.

- Some people currently out of office (particularly Edwards) have a real advantage in this race (the same Dean had in 2003) because they can do not have any contrainst and are not beholden to their caucus. See the surge. Reid does not want to bring the vote on blocking funds for an escalation now. The limits of caucus loyalty were clear this morning when Blitzer asked Kerry if he supported the Levin plan. You could see Kerry hesitate for a minute, then say it was not HIS plan, but he understood what they were trying to do.

So, it will be a difficult race, but, if he does not try to run, he will not succeed and, given the rest of the field, it really would be too bad.

There is a specific reason why I think he should announce soon. I still have a bad memory of the choice of Edwards as VP. I have no idea of how Kerry felt about that, but, whether he liked the idea or not, he waited so long that it appeared as if he was forced to do so. The same thing is true here. If he waits too long, his decision (whatever it is) will seemed to have been forced upon him by other people (Kennedy, or whoever will have the last piece in the paper).

[sandnsea]

11. He's the renaissance candidate

Although I've got no idea how to put that in terms today's culture would identify with. He could take any issue and make it his own; foreign policy, terrorism, environment, health care, poverty, crime, women's issues, education. He has solid proposals in all of these areas, many awards and legislation to back it up. Whatever he decides to do, there does need to be a narrative to go with it.

Still, if it's anything like 2003, it won't matter. The media will continue to treat him exactly the way they do now for the exact same reasons. They may even treat him worse. I still don't see any need to get in early. In fact, he might gamble on this field not generating much excitement at all; and get in late on the 'send a President' line again. It would help to answer some of the election questions if he were to take that path though.

Regardless, I expect to feel anxious because Democrats will have to sample every flavor and that's a long and trying process.

[wisteria]

12. I think he can pull it off. Those who blog aren't the only ones who vote.

Polls don't mean anything at this point and unfortunately, people buy into the hype. Frankly, I have my down days, but for some reason I feel more positive than in 04 about his chances. If you watched him today on Late Edition, he was just so excited and passionate. He controlled that whole conversation and he looked like a man with a lot of confidence.

Today, none of the others shines above Senator Kerry and I think once the whole process gets underway, people will by far see that his is the smartest and wisest choice.

[Noisy Democrat]

13. I'm nervous but it's more anticipation than actual fear

I'm fairly new to all this -- didn't even know who Kerry was til he locked up the nomination in '04, and have learned almost all I know about how '03 went by reading about it after the fact, because I wasn't paying attention at the time --, but I think that who's on top this month has little or nothing to do with who will emerge on top by the end. I still believe that Hillary, Obama and Edwards are mostly sizzle with very little steak, and that Kerry is the real deal. And I think that these "front runners" will find that hype can only get you so far. Of the 3, Edwards has done the most serious, hard work to position himself -- Hillary and Obama seem to think that they can just waltz in and claim the prize. But Edwards still has thin experiential credentials, and frankly, he bores a lot of people. As my father put it last year, "I hope I never have to listen to that Edwards again." Long story short, I think there's plenty of time for those 3 to expose their many, many weaknesses -- and I'm going to be an optimist here and say that I think that *also* means there's time for Kerry to show more of his strengths.

[Island Blue]

17. I agree ND.

For me it's more of the anticipation factor as well. (And like you, I didn't pay very much attention at all in '04 until after the primaries.) I know that '08 is not '04, but I don't remember a lot of talk about who the Democratic contenders were going to be this far out. (Maybe there was, but like I said, I wasn't paying attention.) I guess part of the reason there seemed to be less emphasis on '04 was because of the fact that there was an incumbent president* (who at that stage of the game still had fairly high approval ratings). Selfishly, I hope he says yea or nay to another run soon, but I don't think there is a huge hurry for him to do so in the next few weeks.

[Mass]

18. Two quick points

1/ The same debates were existing in January, Feb 2004. Dean, Kerry, and Ghepardt had already declared. Edwards was thinking about it. People were wondering if Clinton, Gore, and Lieberman were running and they were the favorites of the polls.

2/ It is important that Kerry cultivates the notion he will run (assuming he intends to run). One of the reasons people are not asking Hillary and Obama if they run is that they cultivate the notion they will run: they hire people, speak publicly, raise a lot of money, have people publicly support them. The fact that Kerry has stayed more or less silent these last two months about running has allowed people to say he will not run again (may be they are right, may be not). He has not made any public speeches since November, not sent any email for a while. Some people have felt entitled to assume he was out of the race. I am not sure he NEEDS to announce, but for pratical reasons such as keeping together some of his fundraisers, his high-stake supporters, ..., he needs to keep the idea he is running alive.

[Island Blue]

27. Regarding point one -

I guess ignorance (for me) was bliss. The NC primary wasn't until June (yes, June) so I had no real need to pay close attention to what was happening in the primaries. The decision was out of my control. As for now, I'm sure there are a lot of people out there (even some non-politically obsessed ones) who spend a lot of time thinking about these things, but I don't personally know any.

[cadmium]

29. There's talk about the dance that Obama and Hillary are

doing by not announcing. Each one knows that when the other announces it will be mega news until the next one announces a couple days later and knocks the other off the front page. I would like to see Kerry run for all the reasons we always mention that make him the best of the lot, but also because he raises everyone else's game. The whole field would be diminished without JK in there. I'd also be ok if he passed on it, but kept on doing what he is doing.

[wildflowergardener]

14. 08

I don't know if I am like most people, but for me - I didn't start paying attention to any of the candidates in the 04 elections until shortly before the debates, when we were going to have to start voting for them in the primaries.

That was when I decided to learn more about them so I could decide on who to vote for.

I would expect many more people are even less interested in looking into the candidates this far away from 2008.

I still want him to run and don't really know politically whether it makes any difference if he declares it early or late. It's not like he needs the name recognition or anything. That's the one thing he has ahead of many people - I'd never heard of John Kerry in 06.

I was going through some old things yesterday, and I happened upon a new John Kerry (only) bumper sticker in an envelope that I got before he'd declared a running mate and am thinking of peeling of the Kerry/Edwards one and putting that one on. Of course I would for sure if I knew he was running. So there's a good reason to do it, right : )

One question: If he runs in the primaries, does that mean he definitely can not run for Senator again? I think that would be a tough choice, if so, to give up a senate seat not knowing if you can win the primaries. I understand he can't run as the candidate and for senator - but wasn't sure if you could run in the primaries and then go on to run for the senate if that didn't work out.

Meg

[Noisy Democrat]

15. Ive wondered that too

As we all know, MA law forbids running for 2 seats at once -- but what I wonder is, what is the filing deadline for running for the Senate, and is it after a significant number of primaries have already been held?

[Mass]

16. The pb is that, if Kerry does not run for Senate, there will be an important primary.

People have been waiting for a senate seat to be free for more than 20 years now and they will start to run for this primary long before Iowa. So, there will be pressure on him to announce whether he will run for reelection or not long before the deadline.

[TayTay]

19. I think Edwards is trying to do two things at once

He is trying to be te 'nice guy populist' and also throw some sharp, but indirect criticism at others. He has to separate himself from the last run and from Kerry (regardless of whether or not Kerry runs again.) I am not sure that he can pull this off.

Edwards ran the last time on being the sunshiney guy who was above the fray. That actually worked for him in Iowa where he came in second. He was not the most substantive guy in the race on that occcasion, but he did employ that "Two Americas' speech to great affect.

That is now old news. So Edwards has some choices to make going forward. He has to put some 'meat on the bones' in terms of substance because his actual record in the Senate, the only public office he ever held btw, is very slight. He is known for two things from his Senate run, he co-sponsored and floor-managed the IWR bill and he wanted to run for President about 5 seconds after he arrived. This is hardly a great record to run for President on.

So, Edwards is trying to re-establish himself as a Southerner and re-connect with that great strain of Sountern populisn, something he is quite good at. But the substance part of his platform is still very, very weak. I also don't think he is going to be able to pull off the attacks on others. I just haven't seen any indication yet that he can do this. (I know he was a very good trial lawyer and specialized in portraying vested interests in an unflattering light. But he is facing opponents who know those tricks and can reflect them back on him.)

So far, his attacks on the Iraq war have been so-so. I saw some of the speech for tomorrow and he is, once again, making an empty plea to Congress to stop doing supporting the war. This, to me, looks cheap. Edwards risks nothing in this and he seems to want to shut off debate on Iraq (and not expose his past on his vote on IWR) by issuing blanket 'wiseman' statements will little to no impact. The other candidates he is addressing are already on record as having deep qualms about the war and it has already been publicly announced that the Democrats are going to start to have no-confidence and funding votes. (So, who is he talking to? Exactly who is supposed to listen to Edwards and his call to get 40,000 troops out immediately. It sounds gimmicky and fake to me.)

Edwards has problems. I think his 'nice guy' personna is going to go by the boards. I don't think his populism stance can withstand strong scrutiny. (He has no legislative record to back this up on. His 'poverty bills' in Congress went no where. The strongest one he had anything to do with was proposed by John Kerry, Edwards co-sponsored.) I think Edwards is looking more and more like an empty suit. (The meaner he gets and/or if his wife starts getting mean, that worse it is for him. That was his best characteristic.)

[beachmom]

20. I don't think it's a good thing to be known as a "nice guy", because

inevitably in politics you're going to get caught not being nice. George Allen was viewed as a nice guy in Virginia until the Macaca incident. And now we have Edwards figuring out that he has to attack in order to get ahead, something he was unable or unwilling to do against Dick Cheney. Talk about the worst of both worlds.

But here's the thing: what is it with all this blog buzz and Edwards? Here I was on my local blog, which I thought was not going to be a vehicle for '08 but stick to Virginia and Virginia pols, writing scathing posts about Iraq, and suddenly I find the owner puts up this post complete with the YouTube of Edwards. WTF? There's also huge Edwards support on Raising Kaine, so this is a bit of a local issue for me, the popularity the guy is enjoying here. I don't get it. He came up short in '04 experience wise and he's gained no experience since, yet people are all excited about him. Maybe it's a bit of manufactured buzz and it will fizzle out in time. Still, we would be unwise not to discount his internet strategy and affable stump speeches.

[TayTay]

22. I agree, do not underestimate him

Especially since he is very good at doing his own PR work. (Edwards is a wonderful press person for his own views. So is Sen. Obama.)

However, he has not yet been in a debate and is unchallenged as yet because it is not yet time for head-to-head matchups. That time will come.

[karynnj]

26. Could it be that the competition

is, by and large, Northeastern. (Hillary, Dodd, Kerry and Biden (though DE is not that northern - but he's ...Biden.) Could they just be picking someone from tha same culture?

What I wonder about in the population as a whole is:

if they liked him as the Southern (conservative for a Democrat) pro-war Democrat in 2004, will they like him as the progessive, anti-war Democrat in 2008. Remember he attacked Kerry right before the superSunday where Kerry won CA, NY, MA .... and Edwards won .. nothing, by saying that Kerry couldn't pay for his programs. Kerry responded by telling him not believe everything he read in the papers. Aside from the fact that throwing this charge at the man very very likely to be President (Super Tuesday pretty much made it impossible for him to lose - and he was way ahead in every state, what does this say now. Now, Edwards is running on a WAY WAY less fiscally conservative plan - it's just hard to figure costs as he is very vague.

Not to mention - can't people remember 4 years!

[Mass]

34. Edwards will have to put meat on his proposals. I doubt he can run for president with

a 5 lines program that will basically be the same program as anybody else:

The next president faces tremendous challenges. Among them:

* Restoring America's Moral Standing in the World
* Providing Universal Health Care for All Americans
* Transforming our Energy Economy and Solving Global Warming
* Rebuilding America's Middle Class and Eliminating Poverty
* Creating Tax Fairness by Rewarding Work, Not Just Wealth

At some point, he will have to say what he means by that, and this is when it will become difficult.

He is using the internet very well, particularly with online town meetings and other things like that, but an internet strategy is not enough to win.

[cadmium]

33. For those that listen to Air America radio

Edwards has been touted for several months. They like his message about economic equality--ie the speech that he keeps giving.

[Mass]

30. Edwards is trying to be a 2006 Bobby Kennedy of the South.

This is one of the reason he is trying to come out as anti-war. Some of his supporters have been suggesting that he is the only anti-war candidate except Kucinich, that he supports pulling the troops NOW, and other exagerations.

His speech today at Riverside (Silence is trahison) is supposed to be a strong antiwar speech (http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x3057045)

As usually, the speech is meatless, but his supporters and the media in transe will say he is a strong anti-war candidate.

The only thing that differs with Kennedy is that he is positioning as somebody from the South because the NorthEast is supposedly no more the place to be from for a democrat running for president (see Biden saying that Delaware was the closest from a South State and somehow supporting slavery as if it was a good thing).

[whometense]

37. I think you're certainly right about that,

but I think it's a game no one could pull off. It has a stench of phoniness, and leads me to wonder why running as John Edwards is not enough, since no one will have the chance to vote for Bobby Kennedy.

It seems very foolish to me for him to set up the comparison, when he comes out on the short end by a large measure.

[karynnj]

43. He also has to be careful , as Bobby has a pretty well known brother

who, if people start saying "Edwards is the new Bobby Kennedy" could become the "New Senator Benson". John Edwards is NOT Bobby Kennedy. Bobby Kennedy would not have channeled the words - from a few years before of a brain damaged baby at the time of birth.

[beachmom]

38. Holy toledo -- I think that speech is a MAJOR blunder!!

Anyone who voted for the IWR is simply not in the moral position to be so sanctimonious. Kerry is the model for the "IWR" crowd. Edwards is pretending 2002 didn't exist and for Hillary it's like pulling teeth trying to get her to admit her mistake. Kerry is the only one of those three who comes across as painfully sincere in the price this nation has paid, and the price HE has paid in having any part for the war (his IWR vote was not a vote for the war, but it was one step closer to the war, like it or not). Kerry would never, ever, ever give such an arrogant speech like that.

Okay, I'm no longer nervous about Edwards. He's just shot himself in the foot with this one.

[Mass]

39. They seem to become testy when people say they are lightwave

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2007/1/14/35843/5967

In this diary, "lightnessofbeing" said what many of us think about Edwards and his dailykos diaries. Elizabeth Edwards jumped in to defend Edwards and accuse the poster of not wanting to discuss the issues. This was really weird. (the diary is also on GDP).

[whometense]

40. Interesting dynamic they're setting up.

Seems like maybe he's going to continue to be Johnny Sunshine and she's going to be the fighter for her man's honor?

I agree that it's really weird - she's going to need to develop a much tougher skin to make it through a whole campaign. She's going to hear a lot worse things said about him than that.

[kerrygoddess]

45. LOL!

This could get interesting.

[beachmom]

46. Lightnessofbeing is a hater and a whiner -- that's what he's about

Why did EE respond to that comment? Completely bizarre! Remember how I looked at her book and found it catty? From a southern stand point I thought her book was one of a thousand silent daggers disguised with southern manners. This comment she has left, on a non-recommneded diary for crying out loud, shows complete and total classlessness. Ick. I just don't like her at all.

Howard Dean all over again, that's what the Edwards '08 campaign is. (I agree with Sandnsea downthread) He'll be on fire . . . until he crashes and burns.

[karynnj]

49. I went back and reread it and it is unbelievably defensive

She speaks mostly of the charge of not being responsive - which would seem the type of comment you address by responding to questions of substance.

Kerry actually got several patronizing comments when he blogged explaining the blog culture to him. But, he - likely with the help of an aide or too - had learned the culture well enough that his very first diary was well crafted enough that it would have been successfull even if it were not by John Kerry. He also did come back - as he said he would to comment.

EE's answer was also repetitive.

[karynnj]

42. Beachmom,

Is this going too far for most of the South - the people only he can win? Also, this does NOT work with "nice guy"

Also, Edwards is vulnerable because he distorted his own history. He was a co-sponsor and an avid supporter, second only to Leiberman in the entire pre-primaries. There is a Hardball interview, about 6 months into the invasion - where he says he never believed the WMD lie - but thought that the possibility that he could get them sufficed. Even in his apologies he hasn't explained what he is apologizing for. This leaves a void in knowing on what circumstances he would take a country to war.

Kerry is still accused of changing his position - though he never changed his position on going to war. He has changed his position on what to do because the situation changed. He HAS changed his position on his vote for exactly the reason you stated and it was painful to watch his first (Oct 2005) admission of that. Even in his 2002 IWR Senate floor speech he defines when a country should go to war - and he repeated those reasons before the war and said they weren't met. They were the same factors mentioned all through 2004. Not surprisingly, they surfaced again in the Pepperdine speech as Kerry's interpretation of a just war. I feel 100% comfortable that I know Kerry's criteria to justify war - and I know he knows the horror of war. (Speaking of poems - didn't he read anti-war poetry on the Senate floor in 1991?)

[beachmom]

47. This cannot sit well with Senator Webb or his supporters.

Senator Webb was opposed to the war before it started, and even lobbyed Warner and Allen not to vote for the IWR. He wrote an op-ed piece that completely predicted the disaster that Iraq is today. I can't see him taking kindly with this sanctimonious speech telling him how to proceed, especially since he also has a son in harm's way (so this directly affects him and his family).

The funding is actually not about opposition to the war. Funding has to do with the politics on how to confront Bush. And it is very dangerous business to cut off funding, even for the surge. Kennedy and Kerry are for it, Webb and others against. They are all united, however, in being opposed to the Bush strategy. It just gets tougher when it comes to how to oppose it without endangering the troops. We all know Bush is crazy, and who knows what he'll do. Webb isn't the type who's going to do what Harry Reid tells him to do, so this is honestly how he feels about the issue. He may change his mind down the line (and he hinted at that, when he said "not now" in supporting Kennedy's bill), but for someone who co-sponsored the IWR and was a cheerleader for the war for some time, Edwards is WAY out of line with this speech.

Edwards is also trying to mold himself into the far Left candidate. This is a mistake for two reasons -- 1) he may be going too far for the general, where people are less enamored with these positions and 2) his Senate record simply does not back up his campaign. It's a complete 180, in fact.

I'm not sure how this will affect Virginians who are Edwards supporters but if asked I will talk about how his speech is an insult to Senator Webb, who is VERY popular among Virginia Democrats.

[karynnj]

41. What a demagogue

Congress in reality can't stop the escalation. It's already happening. Bush has money intended to last until the end of the fiscal year - doesn't he. (Kerry's Ed Shultz answer is so honest and realistic in comparison.)

[sandnsea]

44. That speech is pathetic

Two sentences makes him the great anti-war candidate?? lol. I have always given Kucinich a hard time because his plans weren't completely based in reality, but at least he's always had plans. This is just a joke. There isn't any thoughtfulness behind it, no concern for the Iraqis after we leave. It isn't even a full withdrawal plan. He's obviously parroting the rhetoric he thinks everybody is buying into, sort of like Dean in 2003. He forgets that the rhetoric wore then, and it won't be any different now. This is really diappointing because I hate to think we really are down to Hillary and Dodd as candidates with gravitas, and of course JK whenever he makes up his mind.

[Inuca]

56. Gravitas?

I did not read the speech, and do not have the time to do it now (I should be working right now, instead on being here :-)), but IMHO Edwards never had gravitas, speech or no speech (what is so horrible about it, by the way?).

[sandnsea]

62. Here

"Escalation is not the answer, and our generals will be the first to tell you so. The answer is for the Iraqi people and others in the region to take responsibility for rebuilding their own country."

That's what he's got to say about a solution for Iraq. He's condensed the entire Iraq/ME problem into a sentence. :crazy:

"If we want them to take responsibility, we need to show them that we are serious about leaving – and the best way to do that is actually to start leaving and immediately withdraw 40-50,000 troops."

That's fine. Again, one sentence, not an in-depth withdrawal strategy.

Then he goes on and on about "silence is betrayal", as if anybody is being silent on the escalation.

Gravitas. He should have gotten some with the access running for Vice President gives one. But nope, still nothing after you scratch the surface.

[TayTay]

51. What Edwards said in Sept 2002

Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. President, as a member of the Senate Intelligence Committee, I firmly believe that the issue of Iraq is not about politics. It's about national security. We know that for at least 20 years, Saddam Hussein has aggressively and obsessively sought weapons of mass destruction through every means available. We know that he has chemical and biological weapons today. He has used them in the past, and he is doing everything he can to build more. Each day he inches closer to his longtime goal of nuclear capability--a capability that could be less than a year away.

I believe that Saddam Hussein's Iraqi regime represents a clear threat to the United States, to our allies, to our interests around the world, and to the values of freedom and democracy we hold dear.

Saddam has proven his willingness to act irrationally and brutally against his neighbors and against his own people. Iraqi's destructive capacity has the potential to throw the entire Middle East into chaos, and poses a mortal threat to our vital ally, Israel.

What's more, the terrorist threat against America is all too clear. Thousands of terrorist operatives around the world would pay anything to get their hands on Saddam's arsenal, and there is every possibility that he could turn his weapons over to these terrorists. No one can doubt that if the terrorists of September 11 had had weapons of mass destruction, they would have used them. On September 12, 2002, we can hardly ignore the terrorist threat, and the serious danger that Saddam would allow his arsenal to be used in aid of terror.

Iraq has continued to develop its arsenal in definance of the collective will of the international community, as expressed through the United Nations Security Council. It is violating the terms of the cease-fire that ended the Gulf War and ignoring as many as 16 U.N. Security Council resolutions--including 11 resolutions concerning Iraq's efforts to develop weapons of mass destruction.

These U.N. resolutions are not unilateral American demands. They involve obligations Iraq has undertaken to the international community. By ignoring them. Saddam Hussein is undermining the credibility of the United Nations, openly violating international law, and making a mockery of the very idea of international collective action which is so important to the United States and our allies.

The time has come for decisive action. With our allies, we must do whatever is necessary to guard against the threat posed by an Iraq armed with weapons of mass destruction, and under the thumb of Saddam Hussein . The United States must lead an international effort to remove the regime of Saddam Hussein and to assure that Iraq fulfills its obligations to the international community.

This is not an easy decision, and its carries many risks. It will also carry costs, certainly in resources, and possibly in lives. After careful consideration, I believe that the risk of inaction is far greater than the risk of action.

As we set out on this course, we must be as conscious of our special responsibility as we are confident in the rightness of our cause.

The United States has a special role of leadership in the international community. As America and its allies move down this path, we must do so in a way that preserves the legitimacy of our actions, enhances international consensus, and strengthens our global leadership.

First, this means making the strongest possible case to the American people about the danger Saddam poses. Months of mixed messages, high-level speculation and news-leaks about possible military plans have caused widespread concern among many Americans and around the world.

I am encouraged that the President has overruled some of his advisors and decided to ask for the support of Congress. From the support of Congress, this effort will derive even greater and more enduring strength.

Second, the Administration must do as much as possible to rally the support of the international community under the mandate of the United Nations Security Council. We should tap into the strengths of existing alliances like NATO to enforce such a mandate. And let me be clear: America's allies deserve more than just token consultation. The Bush administration must make a full-court press to rally global support, much like the impressive effort President Bush's father made to rally the first international coalition against Saddam in the fall of 1990. If they do, I believe they will succeed.

If, however, the United Nations Security Council is prevented from supporting this effort, then we must act with as many allies as possible to ensure that Iraq meets its obligations to existing Security Council resolutions. After all, that's what the U.S. and its NATO allies did during the 1999 war in Kosovo, when a U.N. Security Council resolution was impossible.

Third, we must be honest with the American people about the extraordinary commitment this task entails. It is likely to cost us much in the short-term, and it is certain to demand our attention and commitment for the long-haul. We have to show the world that we are prepared to do what it takes to help rebuild a post-Saddam Iraq and give the long-suffering Iraqi people the chance to live under freedom.

Working with our allies, we have to be prepared to deal with the consequences of success--helping to provide security inside Iraq after Saddam is gone, working with the various Iraqi opposition groups in shaping a new government, reassuring Iraq's neighbors about its future stability, and supporting the Iraqi people as they rebuild their lives. This is a massive undertaking, and we must pursue it with no illusions.

Ensuring that Iraq complies with its commitments to the international community is the mission of the moment. Rebuilding Iraq and helping it evolve into a democracy at peace with itself and its neighbors will be the mission of many years.

Unfortunately, the administration's record to date gives me cause for concern. They must not make the same mistakes in post-Saddam Iraq that they are making in post-Taliban Afghanistan, where they have been dangerously slow in making the real commitment necessary to help democracy take root and flourish.

Finally, the administration must show that its actions against Iraq are part of a broader strategy to strengthen American security around the world.

We must address the most insidious threat posed by weapons of mass destruction--the threat that comes from the ability of terrorists to obtain them. We must do much more to support the many disarmament programs already in place to dismantle weapons and prevent access to weapons-grade materials in Russia and the former Soviet states; we must fully fund Nunn-Lugar; and we should work hard to forge international coalition to prevent proliferation.

We must be fully and continuously engaged to help resolve the crisis between Israel and the Palestinians. Disengagement was a mistake. The United States cannot deliver peace to the parties, but no agreement is possible without our active involvement.

We also must have a national strategy for energy security, working to strengthen relationships with new suppliers and doing more to develop alternative sources of power.

And we must do far more to promote democracy throughout the Arab world. We should examine our overall engagement in the entire region, and employ the same kinds of tools that we used to win the battle of ideas fought during the Cold War, from vigorous public diplomacy to assistance for democratic reform at the grassroots.

The path of confronting Saddam is full of hazards. But the path of inaction is far more dangerous. This week, a week where we remember the sacrifice of thousands of innocent Americans made on 9/11, the choice could not be starker. Had we known that such attacks were imminent, we surely would have used every means at our disposal to prevent them and take out the plotters. We cannot wait for such a terrible event--or, if weapons of mass destruction are used, one far worse--to address the clear and present danger posed by Saddam Hussein's Iraq.

John Edwards (D-NC) Sept 12, 2002

[TayTay]

52. What John Kerry said in Sept 2002

We Still Have a Choice on Iraq
by Sen. John F. Kerry
Sept 6, 2002

It may well be that the United States will go to war with Iraq. But if so, it should be because we have to — not because we want to. For the American people to accept the legitimacy of this conflict and give their consent to it, the Bush administration must first present detailed evidence of the threat of Iraq's weapons of mass destruction and then prove that all other avenues of protecting our nation's security interests have been exhausted. Exhaustion of remedies is critical to winning the consent of a civilized people in the decision to go to war. And consent, as we have learned before, is essential to carrying out the mission. President Bush's overdue statement this week that he would consult Congress is a beginning, but the administration's strategy remains adrift.

Regime change in Iraq is a worthy goal. But regime change by itself is not a justification for going to war. Absent a Qaeda connection, overthrowing Saddam Hussein — the ultimate weapons-inspection enforcement mechanism — should be the last step, not the first. Those who think that the inspection process is merely a waste of time should be reminded that legitimacy in the conduct of war, among our people and our allies, is not a waste, but an essential foundation of success.

If we are to put American lives at risk in a foreign war, President Bush must be able to say to this nation that we had no choice, that this was the only way we could eliminate a threat we could not afford to tolerate.

In the end there may be no choice. But so far, rather than making the case for the legitimacy of an Iraq war, the administration has complicated its own case and compromised America's credibility by casting about in an unfocused, overly public internal debate in the search for a rationale for war. By beginning its public discourse with talk of invasion and regime change, the administration has diminished its most legitimate justification of war — that in the post-Sept. 11 world, the unrestrained threat of weapons of mass destruction in the hands of Saddam Hussein is unacceptable and that his refusal to allow in inspectors is in blatant violation of the United Nations 1991 cease-fire agreement that left him in power.

The administration's hasty war talk makes it much more difficult to manage our relations with other Arab governments, let alone the Arab street. It has made it possible for other Arab regimes to shift their focus to the implications of war for themselves rather than keep the focus where it belongs — on the danger posed by Saddam Hussein and his deadly arsenal. Indeed, the administration seems to have elevated Saddam Hussein in the eyes of his neighbors to a level he would never have achieved on his own.

There is, of course, no question about our capacity to win militarily, and perhaps to win easily. There is also no question that Saddam Hussein continues to pursue weapons of mass destruction, and his success can threaten both our interests in the region and our security at home. But knowing ahead of time that our military intervention will remove him from power, and that we will then inherit all or much of the burden for building a post-Saddam Hussein Iraq, is all the more reason to insist on a process that invites support from the region and from our allies. We will need that support for the far tougher mission of ensuring a future democratic government after the war.

The question is not whether we should care if Saddam Hussein remains openly scornful of international standards of behavior that he agreed to live up to. The question is how we secure our rights with respect to that agreement and the legitimacy it establishes for the actions we may have to take. We are at a strange moment in history when an American administration has to be persuaded of the virtue of utilizing the procedures of international law and community — institutions American presidents from across the ideological spectrum have insisted on as essential to global security.

For the sake of our country, the legitimacy of our cause and our ultimate success in Iraq, the administration must seek advice and approval from Congress, laying out the evidence and making the case. Then, in concert with our allies, it must seek full enforcement of the existing cease-fire agreement from the United Nations Security Council. We should at the same time offer a clear ultimatum to Iraq before the world: Accept rigorous inspections without negotiation or compromise. Some in the administration actually seem to fear that such an ultimatum might frighten Saddam Hussein into cooperating. If Saddam Hussein is unwilling to bend to the international community's already existing order, then he will have invited enforcement, even if that enforcement is mostly at the hands of the United States, a right we retain even if the Security Council fails to act. But until we have properly laid the groundwork and proved to our fellow citizens and our allies that we really have no other choice, we are not yet at the moment of unilateral decision-making in going to war against Iraq.

John F. Kerry, a Democrat, is a senator from Massachusetts.

[TayTay]

53. Big difference between the two

And you can see why Edwards is taking the path he is now. He specifically stated, in his opening sentence, that he is claiming in Sept 2002 that he has authority to push for war because, as a member of the Senate Intel Comm, he has special knowledge of the real circumstances behind the push for war.

Sen. Kerry's remarks are little different from what he has said all along (and what he said in 1991 before the first Gulf War.) There migt be casus belli, but we need to send in the inspectors to find out. The arguments are far apart here; Edwards argued for giving Bush the authority to strike militarily because the danger was too great and we might be hit by Saddam first. Kerry was saying we don't know what is going on and need more information and we should not rashly run off to war without more facts.

There was a big difference in what they were arguing in 2002. One was afraid that lack of info might endanger the US so we needed to hit them before they hit us. The other Senator strongly advocated caution and letting the process work it's way out.

Edwards has to discredit his own former self. He was for military action and sighted his experience as a member of the Senate Intelligence Comm as justification. He has to make people believe that everyone had the same intel and that saying you didn't is a weak thing to do. (He has no choice but to do this.) It is a very strange bet to place. He has to convince people that because he was more stidently pro-war in 2002, he is due more acceptance as an anti-war advocate now. I don't think he can pull it off.

[karynnj]

54. Especially because it includes an easily disproved lie

that all the Senators had the same info. That Intelligence Committee assignment is also his only claim to national security of Foreign policy experience. Hillary, Dodd, Kerry and Biden were not on that committee - if Edwards gains traction - one of them will throw that lie in his face.

When Kerry says "Tell the truth all the time", it means something.

A second lie is that between (here and the New Yorker interview) and the Hardball interview, he is lying in one of the two places. Here he says he believes there are WMD. On Hardball he said he didn't believe they had WMD.

He also calls for regime change.

[ProSense]

58. Thanks for posting these.

Big difference indeed. From Edwards:

The United States must lead an international effort to remove the regime of Saddam Hussein and to assure that Iraq fulfills its obligations to the international community.

[Inuca]

55. I am curious...

... how did those of you that were already avid JK supporters at the time react to his choice of Edwards?

[whometense]

57. Quietly.

I always figured there was party pressure of one kind or another, and he made the decision to keep the troops united. To me, Edwards never seemed like a great match for Kerry - I was pulling for him to choose Clark, even though Clark's political inexperience made him prone to misstatements.

[Inuca]

59. Thanks for the reply

That was my guess. I started to find out more about Kerry late in the campaign, and "fell in love" after the election, when I was trying to cope with the huge disappointment and fear of what may be next and started looking for similarly minded people online. But I had a bad gut feeling about Edwards when I heard the announcement. Sure, they looked great together (:-)), and I liked Edwards stump speech when I heard it the first and second time. By the third though... Somebody in this thread called him a demagogue, it's a very good description, and I viscerally dislike demagogues.

[Mass]

61. Same here.

I was hoping that Edwards would not be chosen, but the longest it lasted, the most obvious it was it would be Edwards (at the end, not choosing Edwards would have been having long stories about how Kerry was afraid that Edwards overshadowed him).

I used to like Edwards early on, during the first half of 03, but it is difficult to hear his stump speech several times and not notice the lack of substance, and it became even more obvious during the debates and some interviews.

[sandnsea]

60. Ecstatic!!!

HUGE Edwards fan. He didn't have to have any real meat, he just needed to be able to get out there and put the Kerry platform in the simplest terms possible. Elizabeth was a delight as well. This year, though, makes me wonder exactly what they did do during the campaign.

[wisteria]

63. I never liked Edward's. But it was superficial mostly. The Southern Boy strategy and I am just like

you speech, just turned me off. I suppose I don't by into that anymore after Clinton.

[TayTay]

64. I think he did it because the campaign thought they would win

with Edwards on the ticket. It's a variation of Northern/Southern strategy that should be buried forever. Plus, Edwards was a protege of Teddy Kennedy and Kerry owed Kennedy bigtime.

[Inuca]

66. A protege of Kennedy??

I had no idea. Why, do you know?

[TayTay]

67. Kennedy was his 'sponsor' in the Senate

and they were very close. There was talk in 2002 around the topic of getting John Kerry to announce his intentions early. This was because Teddy Kennedy had some reservations and was thought to be leaning on an endorsement of John Edwards. This was in public and in the newspapers. It got resolved, of course, but was the subject of much speculation on how strong Teddy K's committment to his colleague from Mass really was.

The more things change....

[rox63]

65. At the time, I liked the choice

I was familiar with Edwards, having a good friend who was an avid Edwards-supporter. I thought he'd be a good addition to the ticket. The one thing I was worried about was that the VP-nominiee usually plays the role of the ticket's attack-dog. And that role was not appropriate to Edwards' 'sunshine boy' persona. The campaign could definitely have benefitted from having a veep-nominee that could play that role.

[cadmium]

21. The New England Patriots just upset the favored

San Diego Chargers in the 4th quarter. Maybe it is a good omen for that sort of thing.

[_dynamicdems]

23. Yay! I hope it is too.

:)

[karynnj]

24. Didn't Kerry predict that on the Ed Shultz show

:)

[Island Blue]

28. Yet another think that Kerry has been right about.

:)

[cadmium]

32. Kerry and

Edwards side by side on the Ed Schultz show--It was no contest.

[whometense]

36. I agree - I thought it was noteworthy

that he had them on so near each other that comparisons were inevitable. And there was no comparison.

[whometense]

25. That was a great game!! n/t

[cadmium]

31. my wife hates football and pretended not

to be paying attention. But for some reason she would let me speak in the last two minutes.

[whometense]

35. hahaha - that's usually me too,

but my guys are out of town today, and I still found myself watching. ;-)

[MBS]

48. Otter's definition of leadership. .

In case you missed Otter's comment on johnkerry.com, I thought I'd repost it here (hope this is OK, Otter)
http://blog.johnkerry.com/2007/01/net_neutrality_in_2007.html

" As recent history has made only too clear, we-the-sheeple have developed a bad habit of choosing leaders for all the wrong reasons.
Not me, though. The way I see it is this: if I want a friend, I'll get a dog. If I want a great hairdo, I'll visit a beauty salon. If I want somebody to drink a beer with, I'll go bowling.
But if I want a president that I can respect and admire -- one that can truly lead us, and guide us through the shoals -- then I'll go with the one who knows how to think it through, every time. "

(For the record, I put in the HTML commands to encapsulate Otter's quote into a box, but it didn't seem to work. .the end command kept on getting omitted. . so I gave up and put in the quotes.)

I like to think that people will finally get it. Hopefully it's in time to help us get a real president for our ailing country. To my mind, we've never needed John Kerry more.
Mass (#18: Two Quick Points) highlighted a useful piece of history ; the "frontrunner" in Feb 2004 never even were candidates in the primaries last time around!

[wisteria]

50. I love that comment. It is so very true. n/t