My John Edwards Problem, And At Least Some of Ours

I actually have several distinct John Edwards problems, but only two of them are worth taking seriously, and this one the more serious of them. The estimable E.J. Dionne writes that "Edwards has decisively thrown in his lot with the party's antiwar wing." This is true on the question of the preferred legislative strategy during the 2007-8 period. On the broader question of national security policy, however, Edwards has, to a remarkable extent, stayed right in the same wing he was in back in the day even though his political persona has transformed from "fresh-faced moderate" to "awesome liberal."

It's important to recall where Edwards was back in 2003-2004, namely left of Joe Lieberman on Iraq but right of John Kerry or Hillary Clinton and running a campaign full of wonky centrist policy proposals including the creation of a domestic intelligence service. No non-Lieberman Democrat still supports the war these days, but Edwards has cast his regret of his support narrowly in terms of bad intelligence rather than broadly in terms of changing his doctrinal view about unilateral preventive war. What's more:

His chief foreign policy guru continues to be his longtime advisor Derek Chollet, at the Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS) in Washington. Edwards also said that his views have also been shaped more recently by a reading list that includes Hard Power: The New Politics of National Security by Kurt Campbell of CSIS and Michael O'Hanlon of Brookings, and and The Good Fight: Why Liberals---and Only Liberals---Can Win the War on Terror and Make America Great Again by Peter Beinart.

That article's from a while back and I'm open to the possibility that things have changed. I do know, however, that between then and now Edwards hired Michael Signer to be his national security policy guy for campaign purposes and that Signer falls in the same ideological neighborhood as the aforementioned crew. Except for Beinart, these names aren't well known in the progressive blogosphere, but the others aren't folks with netroots-friendly views, either. O'Hanlon, in particualr, is well to the right of the New Model Beinart and I wouldn't at all be enthusiastic about the prospect of an administration in which he was given a high-level position.

UPDATE: Why only some of ours? Well, to a lot of people I know, including some people I used to work for, the labor versus Wall Street divide within the party is much more significant than the hawks versus internationalists divide so they're not going to care about this unless the Obama/Edwards contrast on security becomes substantially bigger than the Obama/Edwards contrast on populism. My Obama problem, meanwhile, is boringly similar to questions other people have about his willingness and ability to win a series of knifefights as a presidential nominee (or, more significantly in this context, as a president) once he's risen too high for the Mr. Nice Guy approach to shield him from attacks.

Comments

No non-Lieberman Democrat still supports the war these days

The words "non-Lieberman" are superfluous in that sentence.

Posted by Josh | May 1, 2007 6:20 PM

It's really sad: Hillary's got neo-connish Mark Penn in the saddle; Obama's giving speeches that win big plaudits from Bob Kagan. Edwards is channeling Beinhart and O'Hanlon. Why are Democrats "happy" with their choices? Republicans are at least smart enough to know that Rudy, Mitt, and McCain are lame, if not for the right reasons.

Posted by ex-Republican | May 1, 2007 6:25 PM

Luckily for you edwards has no principles at all, and therfore there is every likelyhood his position has by this time changed on that issue. Though it is of course prone to change again should edwards decide it would benefit him politically by doing so.

Posted by pimp hand strikes! | May 1, 2007 6:25 PM

I really doubt Mike O'Hanlon is advising Edwards. Beinart used to talk to Clinton but I don't know if that still applies. The rap on Edwards is not that he is hawkish but that he takes the path of least resistance because his overwhelming concern is domestic policy not foreign policy. That is why he was pro-war, it was just the hip and'smart' thing to do at the time. Now that that has ended in disaster it's hard to see how he would ever do something similar himself. In fact, he may be cautious to a fault. As far as I'm concerned he's definitely the most "anti-war" candidate in the race. If that's your bag then you have no reason to be concerned.

Posted by Dan | May 1, 2007 6:29 PM

"Well, to a lot of people I know, including some people I used to work for, the labor versus Wall Street divide within the party is much more significant than the hawks versus internationalists divide so they're not going to care about this unless the Obama/Edwards contrast on security becomes substantially bigger than the Obama/Edwards contrast on populism. "

Amazingly, the Obama/Edwards contrast on security now depicts Edwards as the more progressive candidate.

Who woulda thunk it?

We're in RFK moves left to '68 land here.

David Axelrod is allergic to the left.

Posted by Petey | May 1, 2007 6:38 PM

You're making me very curious about what the other problems are!

Posted by Neil the Ethical Werewolf | May 1, 2007 6:43 PM

You don't get to be a black US Senator or Editor of the HLR without winning more than a few knifefights. If Obama was easy meat, we'd never had heard of him. He's not getting down-and-dirty now because he doesn't need to. The ball is increasingly in Hillary!'s court to try to shiv him or lose.

Posted by otto | May 1, 2007 6:43 PM

When we look back at this moment six months from now, I think we'll find that just as in 2003 the first debate and the California Democratic convention taken together was the moment when Dean took possession of the anti-war left, the same moment in 2007 was when Edwards took possession of the anti-war left.

And as I said, who woulda thunk it? It's political grand larceny.

Posted by Petey | May 1, 2007 6:58 PM

Ummm... I'm confused. We are to remember where John Edwards was in 2003... Wasn't he exactly where you were, i.e. pro-Iraq invasion?

Posted by Doubting Thomas | May 1, 2007 7:00 PM

Anyone who watched Edwards on Meet the Press a month ago can't possibly view him as genuine.

I can't believe he hadn't prepared a better crap response to his war vote.

Posted by goosen | May 1, 2007 7:08 PM

You don't get to be a black US Senator ... without winning more than a few knifefights.

What knifefights did he win? I don't know much about Obama's career, but it seems like he's had an exceptionally easy path to becoming a US Senator - he faced Alan Keyes (!) in the Senate race fercrissakes. That's after the millionare Republican dropped out after Seven of Nine accused him of sexual highjinks. And in the primary, his other millionaire opponent had accusations of domestic abuse.

Posted by Al | May 1, 2007 7:17 PM

Now that you're MSM does that mean you will still ignore my comments and in some places still refuse to even post them?

Matt if you ever get time, and yes I'm plugging my blog, check out my blog. http://thebarrexam.blogspot.com

More towards the subject of this post, and because I'm hoping you at least publish this comment, I used to be a big Edwards fan. I'm still a fan, but not so much as I once was. I think bigger names, like Obama and Clinton, put a damper on his campaign. Plus I don't think there's any hope for a VP spot this time either. He's now tainted as a loser if he's the veep.

Posted by Chris | May 1, 2007 7:22 PM

I'm not so sure that Edwards is casting his regret about the war vote as narrowly as you suggest. More recent statements of his show he blames himself for lacking the resolve to listen to his own instincts rather than his advisors. Here he is in last Thursday's debate:

Edwards: I was wrong to vote for this war. Unfortunately, I'll have to live with that forever. And the lesson I learned from it is to put more faith in my own judgment.

It doesn't seem he's blaming bad intel, as you say.

You also say: "On the broader question of national security policy, however, Edwards has, to a remarkable extent, stayed right in the same wing he was in back in the day...."

And the evidence for this is what? His reading list? A few of his advisors? I'm less than convinced. What about what he says?

To the question "Do you believe there is such a thing as a global war on terror?" Edwards chose not to raise his hand.

Talking about response to attacks on the U.S., here's Edwards:

...I believe -- and this goes to the question you asked earlier, just a few minutes ago -- global war on terror. I think there are dangerous people and dangerous leaders in the world that America must deal with and deal with strongly. But we have more tools available to us than bombs. And America needs to use the tools that are available to them, so that these people who are sitting on the fence, the terrorists are trying to recruit the next generation get pushed to our side, not to the other side. We've had no long-term strategy. We need one and I will provide one as president.

It would be great to have further elaboration on these points, and that'll probably come out during the campaign, but it seems like he's come a long way from 2003. Can you imagine anyone back then saying there is no global war on terror? Who else is saying that today?

Posted by JJF | May 1, 2007 7:26 PM

I've had the same reservations about Edwards that MY has, if not stronger. I find Hillary's whole "if I'd known then what I know now" BS simply insulting. I'm going to have a very difficult time pulling the lever for anybody who didn't have the judgement to see through the neocon nonsense back then.

That being said, I do believe the statements/actions highlighted by JJF above go a long way to show where JE was coming from. He was a greenhorn in the Senate, and listened to the wise old men of Washington instead of trusting his own judgement. Not going along with the GWOT crap speaks volumes.

JE, how about some clarification?

Posted by Brautigan | May 1, 2007 7:38 PM

By now the American conciousness is so badly out of kilter that there really can't be anything other than a degree of difference between Edwards and people like MattY.

I think a lot of Matt's readers would agree that the US should be a responsible world leader, should extend aid and help to less fortunate countries, etc etc.

I personally think that ship has sailed, without us. We need to learn from them, and they've given up on getting anything of value from us. From the viewpoint of the average American, the country is going to be faced with insoluble problems for some time to come, and great power, of course, is also constrained by the structure that elevates it.

Edwards will do what the generals and the CIA tell him too, and if he told you otherwise he wouldn't be elected.

Posted by serial catowner | May 1, 2007 7:49 PM

Edwards' firm stance on poverty and inequality is exactly why I support his presidency
campaign. He is someone who understands that plight of the world population and American citizens who live in poverty. The poverty in America alone is astounding, but when viewed in a global perspective, something really needs to be done. Our leaders need to support the UN Millennium Development Goals to end poverty, and I think that only Edwards will try to and I commend him for it.

Imagine how different this world would be without poverty. Would we be fighting a war on terror? Would there be so many instances of genocide? Would people all over the world continue to live on less than $1 a day? On the Borgen Project Website, it states that it costs $19 billion annually to relieve starvation and malnutrition, which is peanuts considering our $522 billion military budget this year. I really hope Edwards will make a difference because he seems the most sincere out of all of the candidates in both parties.

Posted by elc | May 1, 2007 7:52 PM

"Edwards will do what the generals and the CIA tell him too"

Happily, a President gets to appoint his choice of generals and CIA leaders.

If a President doesn't accept the GWoT worldview as the best response to the threat of Al-Qaida, he'll appoint generals and CIA leaders who tell him that.

Posted by Petey | May 1, 2007 7:54 PM

I guess one way I look at it is rate the candidates from 1 to 10 in how they fit my liberal ideal in experience, domestic and foriegn policy where Bush is a 1 and some ideal nonexistent liberal is a 10 (maybe Bernie Sanders or Russ Feingold!)

I'd put Hillary at a 6, Edwards at a 7, Obama at a 8 and Gore at a 9.

Even Hillary is a vast improvement over any of the Republicans, with Hagel probably the best at a 5, with the rest in 2 or 3 range, so I'll happily support any of them. Since it is still wide open I'm gonna hope for my top choices, doesn't mean I don't like Edwards, I just like Gore or Obama better.

Posted by Eric | May 1, 2007 8:08 PM

So Edwards and Clinton are unacceptable because of their Iraq war votes. That leaves me with a candidate who was still a state senator three years ago. Is it any comfort that the presidential candidates in France are equally ridiculous?

Posted by Gary Sugar | May 1, 2007 8:09 PM

What, no Washington Wizards commentary?

Posted by DJTennessee | May 1, 2007 8:15 PM

I'm impressed by any candidate that will admit to how his thinking is shaped, indeed that it is shaped. There seems to be a real fear on the campaign trail of saying that a topic requires thought, research or consideration. I want the person who leads the country to have a critical mind and be willing to change it when need be.

Posted by Thomas | May 1, 2007 8:17 PM

Well to take off on Eric's scale, on foriegn policy, the only issue that matters, I'd give Clinton a one, and Edwards and Obama a 2. Bush and McCain get a zero, and Guiliani a one. That is, they all suck, badly (how did we manage to get three of the most hawkish senators and ex-senators as our only choices?)

The nation's only hope is that the fact that the army is (thankfully) broken keeps this crowd from starting another war.

Posted by LarryM | May 1, 2007 9:08 PM

LarryM's foreign policy scale of conservatism/liberalism seems to me to be ... intriguing. What would rate a five in this supposedly ten-point scale, let alone an eight or a nine?
Similarly, I'd assume a 'zero' would go to a Strangelovean nuke 'em all approach, or maybe the slightly friendlier Bolton approach (those you can't invade quite yet you antagonize until you've scraped up some troops). I agree that the R's, especially McCain and Giuliani, should score extremely low, but are they really indistinguishable from that?

Posted by Warren Terra | May 1, 2007 9:48 PM

What Obama/Edwards divide on foreign policy?

I have not seen anything yet to indicate any difference bigger than Obama being Carteresque with a bigger emphasis on increasing the size of the military and Edwards being Carteresque with a bigger emphasis on throwing classrooms into the breach.

After his big Foreign Policy speech, I don't see how Obama escapes Chalmers Johnson's category of "humanitarian Imperialism". If there's a difference between the two, its the greater emphasis on the humanitarian side from Edwards, and the greater emphasis on the imperialism side from Obama.

From where I stand on foreign policy, the difference between the top six, never mind the top three, are modest differences in foreign policy, with Edwards framings offering the greatest opportunities to push the Overton Window in a positive direction. It still won't include my position, but it'll never get here unless it starts moving.

Beyond that, the most significant thing that can be done to provide breathing room for an "free standing Republic" anti-imperalist position in the US is Energy Independence, and that is an area where there is substantial daylight between Clinton/Obama and Edwards, with Edwards having the strongest dedication to an actual New Energy economy, including a willingness to raise revenue with "carbon permits" to support it.

Posted by BruceMcF | May 1, 2007 10:02 PM

Matt,

I think it is very foresightful of you to be taking this "what about the next potential military engagement" view of the Democratic candidates' positions towards the use of force. But I wonder ifit acurately relates to what would be the case in an actual Democratic preidency. Yes, during the campaign, the candidates need to address this issue of military force, but do you genuinely think that a Democratic president -- any one of them, even the Hil -- would see force as the type reasonable option that it has seemed for the past six years? This seems, to me, to be the type of question that seems very pertinent now, during a Bush presidency, but won't make as much sense is two years.

Posted by GHK | May 1, 2007 10:44 PM

I had my fill of Chollet and Signer when they were posting regularly over at Democracy Arsenal. While it is disappointing to learn that they are advising Edwards, it is not at all surprising. Like a number of other established foreign policy pundits, speechwriters and policy mavens who used to post regularly at spots in the liberal blogosphere, they have disappeared into the ether of late, which I have assumed meant that they were now advising someone, and had to avoid making public statements that could compromise their chosen candidate or hurt their chances of a position in the next administration.

So their guy happens to be Edwards. It doesn't matter - it could have been any one of the others. At this point there really are hardly any significant national security or foreign policy differences among Obama, Edwards, Clinton, Biden and Richardson. They all endorse the same basic approach to foreign policy. They all listen to the same Brookings, CFR, Wilson School and Brookings think-tankers, and buy the same rot from DC purveyors of mainstream liberal "policy products". They will all hire an administration from among the same usual suspects of Democratic government-in-exile characters. They will all defend the continued imperial sway of US commerce, finance and miltary force projection in roughly the same ways. They will all work to undermine governments that challenge the prerogatives of US primacy and US capital - although they will probably use more "soft power tools" than Republicans. Their talking points are just different drafts of the same script. Their views are all redolent of the same Washington think tank stink.

Most of the current candidate-driven "debates" are about holding up magifying glasses to detect the fine and subtle distinctions between one candidate's policy and another's. The partisans of these candidates work themselves up into lathers over meaningless scholastic squabbles about the subtlest degrees of difference in the precise formula used for Iraq War repudiation, or about which of several equally meaningless and impotent congressional strategies for punting they prefer. And the candidates are becoming expert at throwing tiny rhetorical bones here and there to the left and the center. None of these dispensed tidbits, of course, will have the slightest impact on what they do when they are in office.

Honestly, I don't know why we bother discussing these issues any more. US foreign policy has nothing to do with what anyone outside the DC College of Foreign Policy Cardinals thinks. Dem foreign policy will be different from, and somewhat better than, Bush foreign policy. But beyond that, among the leading Democrats it's all one big steaming pile of establishment liberal Soft Empire crap.

Posted by Dan Kervick | May 1, 2007 11:52 PM

If a President doesn't accept the GWoT worldview as the best response to the threat of Al-Qaida, he'll appoint generals and CIA leaders who tell him that.

I doubt there are any significant difference among the major candidates in how they will handle the issue of terrorism. Edwards just decided to go for some re-branding because he thinks there might be some votes in that direction.

Most of the so-called global war on terrorism is now cemented in place. It's institutionalized. Whoever is the next president will go right on with the covert dirty war, hunting down down terrorist suspects wherever they happen to be, and either killing them or otherwise taking them out of commission. Whether that president chooses to call that project a "war" or something else for public consumption makes little difference.

No president in 2009 is going to take the risk of backing off on some significant GWoT military or intelligence program, thus releasing a bunch of disgruntled anti-terrorism officials into the commentariat, and then likely being pilloried for whatever terrorist incident occurs on his or her watch.

Posted by Dan Kervick | May 2, 2007 12:11 AM

"I doubt there are any significant difference among the major candidates in how they will handle the issue of terrorism. Edwards just decided to go for some re-branding because he thinks there might be some votes in that direction."

Or maybe Clinton and Obama feel utterly comfortable following a Bush-lite foreign policy, while Edwards wants to lead the country in a new direction.

- Some candidates think that the Global War on Terror accurately describes the struggle the US faces. Some candidates don't.

- Some candidates think we need a bigger military. Some candidates don't.

Clinton and Obama fans think something like Edwards' candidness must be a "re-branding" because they can't imagine their own candidates speaking the truth about foreign policy without it being part of a poll-driven marketing campaign.

Posted by Petey | May 2, 2007 12:44 AM

Petey, I am neither a Clinton nor an Obama fan. After watching the recent debate, I was reminded of a line from the mod musical parody in the 60's spoof Bedazzled: these candidates "fill me with inertia."

Posted by Dan Kervick | May 2, 2007 1:08 AM

It sounds to me as if commenters here might want another candidate, one with foreign policy, diplomatic and military experience, the wisdom to recognize, address and manage economic, labor, environmental and education matters, broad knowledge, sound judgment, the strength of a lion and the heart of a lamb.

If I'm correct I suggest that Wes Clark would fill the bill, and I think he's open to the idea.

Posted by EllenG | May 2, 2007 2:28 AM

Edwards rejection of the Global War On Terror in last week's debate is strategically more significant than anything Obama said in his big foreign policy speech. This is true especially given the inherent destabilizing implication of the GWOT construct on both foreign policy and domestic civil liberties.

That sadi, while I am one who's in the Edwards camp precisiely because I think the labor vs wall street differences between Edwards and Obama are the most substanative between them, I would love to see Edwards do a 'big foreign policy speech,' in order to help put these lingering doubts to rest.

Posted by AJ | May 2, 2007 9:00 AM

Matt, maybe you can point to a knife fight that John Edwards has engaged in that gives you confidence in him? He had the potential to do that in, say, the debate with Cheney, and it didn't happen. And now he's arranged his second run so that he doesn't have to get into legislative knife fights but can instead lay down ultimatums from the sideline -- convenient, that, and for the Democrats, one seat farther from a veto-proof majority.

Posted by Curtis Stash | May 2, 2007 10:04 AM

John Edwards = The Smiler from Transmetropolitan

Posted by Beneath the Valley of the Ultra-Fishmongers | May 2, 2007 3:44 PM

I can't imagine Wes Clark being any better a candidate this time around then he was last time. Which is to say - awful. I had very high hopes for him when he entered but he withered on the vine.

While I don't disagree with some of the concerns voiced here, I can't help but feel that John Edwards, or possibly Bill Richardson, is the best choice in 2008. His stands on poverty, energy, education, and health care are thoughtful and intelligent. He was always more interested in domestic issues, and I feel that we need a president who will "mind the store" and emphasize domestic issues and solutions rather than starting more wars to keep us from talking about them.

Posted by Carl | May 2, 2007 4:36 PM

I too have questions about Edwards. I see his supporters often speak of his bold ideas and plans and I wonder about what Chris Dodd pointed out today. Namely that it is easy to sit on the sidelines making suggestions. What would he do if he were actually in the senate. I just don't by the complete transformation. Gore's transformation made sense. It was gradual and has specific initiatives that he has actually implemented. Edwards seems contrived to make him look good but none of his "plans" have been implemented to determine their viability. It would have been great if he'd stayed in the senate so we could see how realistic these plans are.

Posted by MelG | May 2, 2007 6:12 PM

Just a quick comments on these posts--its very refreshing to read an online discussion without a roid outburst that is totally irrelevant to the discussion and which only trashes someone. I sometimes wonder if the most abusive posts are made by guys with very small boy parts.

Posted by Jim | May 2, 2007 7:24 PM

I too have questions about Edwards. I see his supporters often speak of his bold ideas and plans and I wonder about what Chris Dodd pointed out today. Namely that it is easy to sit on the sidelines making suggestions. What would he do if he were actually in the senate.

This is an important point. Those in the Senate seem to have picked up a presumption that they are in the stadium, and the rest of the country is sitting on the sidelines ... I guess in rings of seats surrounding the beltway.

If being in the Senate restricts Chris Dodd in developing actual plans to address the major challenges facing the country, because developing acutal plans to address the major challenges facing the country is so very hard to do for a sitting Senator, then it would seem we have to choose between actual plans on the one hand and a sitting Senator on the other.

For health care in particular, I have already seen the strategy of calling for universal health care in general terms while running, and then trying to put together a detailed plan while in office, back in the early 1990's, and am not very impressed with how well that works. I prefer to try the other strategy this time around.

Posted by BruceMcF | May 2, 2007 9:32 PM

Carl, as to your comment that Wes Clark was an "awful" candidate last time, on what basis do you make that remark? Wes Clark started his campaign on 9-17-03 and raised $29 million in 5 months. After Iowa, in which he didn't compete, Gephardt was gone. After New Hampshire, where Edwards couldn't turn a 2nd place finish in Iowa into any better than 4th, finishing behind Clark, Dean was done, even though Dean continued on and on and on. So, the only 3 candidates who came out of New Hampshire were Kerry, Clark, and Edwards. The Tuesday after New Hampshire, there were 7 contests. Neither Clark nor Edwards ever had a campaign going in Delaware, and no one had set up a campaign in Missouri because that was Gephardt's home state. So, on that Tuesday, Edwards and Clark competed in 5 states, and Edwards bettered Clark in just one - his birth state of South Carolina. Clark bettered Edwards in the other 4 - Oklahoma, Arizona, New Mexico, and North Dakota. At that time, it was clear that Kerry was going to be the nominee, but Clark stayed in one week longer for Tennessee and Virginia, where Edwards bettered Clark. So, at this point, in the states where Edwards and Clark actually competed against each other, Clark bettered Edwards in 5 of them. Of course, Edwards just kept on running, because even though he also knew Kerry was going to be the nominee, Edwards at that point was running for VP. And, no, Edwards doesn't get more points because Kerry chose him as his running mate, a decision I think was a bad one - Kerry trying to convince the American people that they could trust him on national security and foreign policy and being a war time President was made harder, I believe, by his choice of a neophyte hawk as his running mate.

And as for Edwards being more interested in domestic issues and how he will emphasize domestic issues and not start any more wars, well, it doesn't really matter what a president may be more interested in, since events have a way of shaping what presidents actually have to emphasize whether it's what they want to emphasize or not. And like it or not, the next president is going to have to deal with U.S. troops still on the ground in Iraq and in Afghanistan, plus Iran, North Korea, Pakistan and India, Israel and the Palestians, and who know what else on the national security/foreign policy front. And when Edwards was asked recently what he would do in the first 100 days if he were elected president, he didn't say get right to work on aleviating poverty, or getting universal health care for all Americans, or any domestic issues at all - he said he'd spend the first 100 days traveling to foreign countries to repaid America's image abroad. So, I wouldn't get your hopes up too high for an Edwards administration. And I will just hope that an Edwards administration never becomes a reality.

Posted by Linda Tinjum | May 2, 2007 10:24 PM

Having studied ALL the candidates, I've concluded John Edwards is the BEST by far. Bush and Repubs haved moved our country so farrrr right and our country needs Edwards' progressive proposals - which is why the corporate media ignores him.

Posted by anne | May 9, 2007 1:58 PM

Having studied ALL the candidates, I've concluded John Edwards is the BEST by far. Bush and Repubs haved moved our country so farrrr right and our country needs Edwards' progressive proposals - which is why the corporate media discounts him.

Posted by anne | May 9, 2007 1:59 PM

I'm not sure what happened to my last post on this, but I guess I'll post again.

The Yglesias article (post) is really disingenious in a number of areas. Hanlon is not connected to the Edwards campaign in any way whatsoever. Never has been. And to then equate Spigner with Hanlon just simply doesnt wash. Maybe instead of digging up a questionable 2006 article with questionable implications and facts that, Yglesias should do his own research on who is actually advising Edwards, what they are saying, and how much that influences Edwards.

Posted by okamichan13 | May 12, 2007 4:00 PM

Also please note the link for the observer article needs to be updated:

http://www.observer.com/node/31041

the author specifically notes that Edwards ideas are the opposite of Hanlon's on Iraq (right after Yglesias's quote)

Posted by okamichan13 | May 12, 2007 4:10 PM