Edwards on Terror

For some reason, John Edwards delivered this brilliant speech on fighting terrorism on a Friday afternoon so my post about it is going up on a Saturday and I'd really rather discuss it on a day when people read the blog. But for now:

• His idea to build a new, global, multilateral organization focused on terrorism scratches the same itch that's led a lot of people to talk about a Concert of Democracies but it's a much better idea on the merits.
• This semi-buried line is perhaps the most important thing I've heard any candidate say about national security policy: "And I will lead an international effort to rid the world of nuclear weapons."
• He's also now differentiated himself from Clinton on Iraq: "As president, I will redeploy troops into Quick Reaction Forces outside of Iraq, to perform targeted missions against Al Qaeda cells and to prevent a genocide or regional spillover of a civil war."
• I do have one important complaint, to be addressed later.

Long story short, though, it's really good. Long story at greater length on Monday.

Comments

This semi-buried line is perhaps the most important thing I've heard any candidate say about national security policy: "And I will lead an international effort to rid the world of nuclear weapons."

Senator Edwards, turn in your briefing book. Your campaign is over.

Posted by Gabriel | September 8, 2007 8:31 AM

John Kerry was saying the same thing in 2004. Nobody cared.

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/10/10/magazine/10KERRY.html?ei=5090&en=8dcbffeaca117a9a&ex=1255147200&partner=rssuserland&pagewanted=all

Posted by lina | September 8, 2007 9:49 AM

Edwards gives an interesting, excellent speech that has, naturally, gotten minimal coverage so thanks for drawing attention to it.

And it's a good sign that the paid winger trolls are monitoring this site, and this topic.

Good news, and good news!

Posted by lambert strether | September 8, 2007 9:56 AM

Lina:

Maybe Kerry did have roughly the same thing -- and something would be wrong with repetition, repetition, repetition? -- but I did read Matt Bai's article on Kerry at the link, and if Bai hadn't been so busy constructing high-school clique-y narratives about Kerry's choice of bottled water, and putting words in Kerry's mouth, the message might have gotten through.

The playing field is a little better for us, now.

Posted by lambert strether | September 8, 2007 10:03 AM

Matt,

I made it through Edwards speech, it was tough going, but I made it once I got past the Bush hatred (BHS). You are going to take some time to respond further, so am I; except to make the comment that his ideas of 'build a new, global, multilateral organization' is the same as if I wanted to sell my house to someone and I told him I have to sell my house and I am going to sell it to you, now lets negotiate a price. More on this latter.

Posted by David | September 8, 2007 10:29 AM

Guess who said this during the 2004 campaign:

"And we have a duty to our country and to future generations of America to achieve a free Iraq, a free Afghanistan, and to rid the world of weapons of mass destruction."

Have you made your guess? Here is the answer, and the source.

So let's wait for Edwards to give a few more details.

Posted by Blar | September 8, 2007 11:04 AM

I'm really glad Sen. Edwards has gotten religion on the most effective ways to counter international terrorism. But the time to exercise good judgment on this issue was back in Oct. '03 when he chose instead to jump on the jingoistic bandwagon with the majority in Congress.

Back then, Sen. Edwards could have consulted his colleague (and chairman) on the Senate Intel. Committee, Sen. Graham, and shown some political courage by voting with Graham on the IWR.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/11/18/AR2005111802397.html

Now Sen. Edwards wants my vote in the Dem. primary. He will not get it.

Posted by lina | September 8, 2007 11:11 AM

An international anti-terrorism organization. Sounds like a smart one. What Republican is going to be against the international anti-terror organization? It's also good on the merits. Interesting.

Posted by brooksfoe | September 8, 2007 11:25 AM

I disagree that the only judgment call ever was whether or not to vote for the Iraq war. Yes, that was a stupid liberal hawk lapse by Edwards.

The world would be a much better place had the U.S. not invaded & occupied Iraq, yes.

But you know what else would be rotten?

If the U.S. had never invaded Iraq but maintained all the other awful, harmful, destructive sh*tty policies we've been pursuing for the past half century.

Good lord, I mean, this is the country which directly and actively facilitated the genocide of Guatemala with the excited personal approval of Ronald Reagan of those nice evangelical Guatemalan tyrants as well as the support of the liberal hawks who saw it as excessively bloody but necessary.

This is the country whose military forces directly kidnapped, removed from power, and exiled the elected president of Haiti in 2004 because of supposed threats from rebels in the Dominican Republic who appear to have been armed by our own country!

Edwards is actually attacking, ideologically, the foundation of the right wing / liberal hawk lock on U.S. foreign policy.

Al Gore acted like a cheap, Republican, lying hack when it was time for him to hawk NAFTA, yet I feel like his post VP activities have certainly shown his capacity for better judgment.

While I would prefer someone with Edwards' policies who had never made that huge lapse in judgment, I will recognize that it took a huge number of Democrats a long time to realize that the Republican Party was not just their honorable opposition but a gang of anti-Constitutional thugs and tyrants of the lowest order.

That was a giant lesson which still hasn't been learned by many Democrats; but I think Edwards has learned it.

Posted by El Cid | September 8, 2007 11:43 AM

What Republican is going to be against the international anti-terror organization?

A lot of conservatives aren't going to like it, at least coming from a 'pussy' like Edwards, because it smacks of the UN. It doesn't have that rugged manly go-it-alone musk that gives them their morning wood. It means we gotta talk to France. Etc.

Posted by york | September 8, 2007 11:45 AM

A lot of conservatives aren't going to like it, at least coming from a 'pussy' like Edwards, because it smacks of the UN. It doesn't have that rugged manly go-it-alone musk that gives them their morning wood. It means we gotta talk to France. Etc.

Posted by york

I completely agree, but I have a question:

Do you think the Bush Jr administration has burned out most of the popular appeal of 'stupid' as a positive policy aspect, and that this is mostly limited to Republican stalwarts now?

Or does being stupid still have its classic American appeal?

My own feeling is that Bush Jr. & crew have by example given Americans a bad taste for the good ol' 'I don't know nuthin' bout that for'n policy stuff' and 'I don't need no book larnin' approaches to policy.

But that's just my feeling, it seems like the populist moment of anti-thinkism has somewhat passed.

Posted by El Cid | September 8, 2007 11:52 AM

Conservatives may not "like" the international anti-terror organization. But any GOP pres candidate who comes out against it is going to have face TV ads saying "He opposes an international organization to fight terror!" And that, in today's political environment, is a very big loser. Only the hardcore 28% are going to be down with that, at most.

Posted by brooksfoe | September 8, 2007 12:02 PM

Do you think the Bush Jr administration has burned out most of the popular appeal of 'stupid' as a positive policy aspect, and that this is mostly limited to Republican stalwarts now?

Or does being stupid still have its classic American appeal?

It's a good question. I suspect that for a lot of people it's a timeless classic that will never go out of style. But yeah, maybe events have shrunk that pool down at least a little.

Posted by york | September 8, 2007 12:05 PM

You can create that current, and you can start today. This is America, after all. We are more than a place. We are an idea. An idea that has changed the world and will change it again and again. We are freedom, equality and respect. A beacon once lit that can never be put out.

We are America, and the future is ours if we have the courage to make it so.
I am an embarrassingly huge sucker for this kind of talk.

Posted by Trevor | September 8, 2007 12:15 PM

For the curious, videos of John Edwards' speech on "terrorism" (and I think it's more about really re-defining the purposes of U.S. foreign policy, wrapped up in its terrorism components) are here:

CNN Video, 7 minute excerpt

http://www.cnn.com/video/#/video/politics/2007/09/07/edwards.terrorism.speech.cnn

YouTube Video, full speech, 39 minutes (Edwards starts about 10 minutes in after introductions by the Pace University president and Kristin Breitweiser, one of the 'Jersey Girls')

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3rwa1PxBpzs

Posted by El Cid | September 8, 2007 12:21 PM

I think he will not be able to escape his vote. It runs counter to pretty much everything he is articulating in this speech. Also the speech does seem to echo most of Obama's ideas. I would have loved to hear an argument against why a "war" on terror is not the best approach to fighting terror. There is a compelling case to be made and since he has rejected the "war on terror" label he would be the best candidate in either field to make it. Someone has said he needs to take some risky positions to distinguish himself in the next few make or break months. There is some truth in that but the electability label bandied about by the unions might get in the way. If he were to explain why terrorists are not combatants but criminals that terrorism like child pornography murder infanticide rape is a crime against society not to be tolerated in any culture, and why a war is like playing tactical whack-a-mole and is too expensive and too ineffective to be a credible strategy in the next decade, he would be way ahead of the electorate (perhaps too far ahead?) I think he has really been coming on in the past few months, but I was disappointed by this speech. He ought to use his vote as an example of what is wrong about the war on terror.

Posted by JC | September 8, 2007 12:26 PM

I'm impressed with Edwards. I think he's learned a lot about leadership in the last 4 years. I'd much rather vote for a candidate who voted for the war but will now lead us out of it, than one who was against the war, but now waffles about getting us out of it and refuses to lead the anti-war movement. And I think Hillary is not a leader but a dictator.

Posted by Just Karl | September 8, 2007 1:30 PM

As a European I will politely tell Mr. Edwards to forget about his new, global anti-terrorism agency. Even if it was a good idea, (which it is not, mainly for reasons concerning data protection, civil rights, national sovereignty and generally the huge potential for abuse) the US is neither morally nor pragmatically justified to take the lead in such an endeavour: SWIFT breach, US banks using the "war on terror" to further their interests, extraordinary renditions, cooperation with states supporting terror like Syria, UKUSA spying all over the world, CIA black sites and kidnappings - now if he is going to put an end to all this and cleans up the domestic mess, he might have some standing in this matter, but that would mean a major reversal of US policy, which would take years to implement and won't happen under Edwards anyway.

Posted by novakant | September 8, 2007 1:38 PM

"What Republican is going to be against the international anti-terror organization?"

Rhetorically, they will agree. But Republicans (and more than a few Dems) are sort of rabidly committed to US unilateralism, so they will in practice oppose any efforts - domestically or internationally - to constrain the perceived right of the US to act is it so chooses.

Posted by scudbucket | September 8, 2007 1:44 PM

As a European I will politely tell Mr. Edwards to forget about his new, global anti-terrorism agency. Even if it was a good idea, (which it is not, mainly for reasons concerning data protection, civil rights, national sovereignty and generally the huge potential for abuse) the US is neither morally nor pragmatically justified to take the lead in such an endeavour...

That's actually a very good point, and it would be truly amazing if CITO really were established as sort of an outgrowth of, say, InterPol, or some such, but yes, if this is set up like a NATO which pretends to be a regional organization but is effectively under U.S. command -- and unless Edwards says differently I'd assume a similar model for this CITO -- then Europeans and others would rightly be nervous, skeptical, if not downright opposed.

On the other hand, the pre-9/11 US-UK-ANZUS collaboration in mutual spying called ECHELON didn't seem to be strongly opposed by Europeans at the time, at least, not in terms of any effective opposition. (ECHELON was basically an agreement among the participating nations to leapfrog each nation's privacy and constitutional safeguards by simply sharing the data gathered by electronic espionage from one nation to another -- i.e., the U.S. agencies may have been formally barred from certain electronic espionage on their own citizens, but if British facilities, say, happened to do so, you see, and if, you know, they happened to share that data, then all was 'well'.)

I would indeed be shocked if any major presidential candidate apart from Kucinich advocated for true multilateralism. I don't see that coming up any time soon; U.S. politicians are still going to look at the world as if it were the U.S.' to command, and unfortunately they have some empirical albeit not moral reasons to feel that way.

Posted by El Cid | September 8, 2007 1:48 PM

But that's just my feeling, it seems like the populist moment of anti-thinkism has somewhat passed.

It has never passed.

Kerry could have won the 2004 election with over 430 electoral votes and a ten-million vote margin in the popular vote, if he had only given this short speech:

"My fellow Americans, Sen. Edwards and I are about to drive this Ryder truck full of diesel oil, and ammonium nitrate, up to Tonawanda, NY, and reduce the local Islamic Center to a smoking hole in the ground. God Bless America, and the media is invited along to watch!"

He also could have gone on to propose universal health care, Bill-of-Rights protection for reproductive choice, and making La Bamba athe new national anthem in the same speech, and still won by Landon-Roosevelt sized margins.

Sen. Clinton could win by similar margins, by giving the same speech.

The closer a Democrat can get to that line, and not cross it, the better their chances of winning the White House.

That's the reality of the America we live in, and are trying to metastatisze around the world.

That's what you have to offer to win. There are worse things to lose than elections. Like humanity. And your soul.

God bless Edwards for trying not to play that game. He's doomed, and I'm caucusing for him.

Posted by Davis X. Machina | September 8, 2007 1:53 PM

Davis X. Machina: Maybe, but 2004 was also pre-Katrina, where for those Americans who still thought 'stupid' was a good policy option got to see that their own country would be hurt, including elderly corpses rotting in the street.

Personally I think Katrina may have had more to do with opening Americans' eyes to the danger of right wing Stupid than the first 2 years of the Iraq War. The ongoing disaster of the Iraq occupation, however, may have also contributed, because it way outlived its 'fad' stage.

So the question I have is whether the same redneck 'We gon' blow up the Mooozlims' appeal for stupidity in policymaking works today as it did in 2004.

This is an optimistic view, but partly I believe the American fascination with Reaganite counter-revolutionism for the past 30 years just got played out with the Bush Jr's, and is sliding into passe territory.

Posted by El Cid | September 8, 2007 2:04 PM

As a black Irishman, a Red Sox fan, and a diagnosed depressive, it's going to take an ballot-box revolution, another Series win, an ocean of Guinness and some good SSRI's to change my mind.

Personally I think hard economic times will amp up the popularity of lashing-out politics, in both FoPo and immigration, even absent any plausible cause-and-effect, and come the Revolution, or even a near-miss, every politician's job becomes to make sure that the bodies hanging from the lampposts belong to someone else, and the poorer, and farther away, the better.

At least we'll know whether the id or the superego is in the national driver's seat probably before we know who won the Superbowl.

Posted by Davis X. Machina | September 8, 2007 2:21 PM

Here's another gesture by a Democratic candidate -- though not one of the leading ones -- to push our nation's policies in a more progressive direction:

Chris Dodd says we need to engage & trade w/ Cuba, not continue the failed embargo policy. I only have a second to try and format it, so here goes. It's actually fairly interesting, as an advance for the Spanish-language debate, and the whole Florida exile politics aspect of Democratic policy.

The Boldness to Open New Doors in Our Relationship With Cuba

Chris Dodd believes that the time has come to open a new era in our relationship with Cuba and put an end to a failed policy that has neither served America’s interests nor brought democracy to Cuba. After fifty years of limiting Americans’ right to travel freely and visit their families, restricting the access of our farmers to Cuban markets, and damaging America’s standing in the world, Chris Dodd believes this is a moment for Presidential leadership and bold ideas. At this critical moment in Cuba’s changing political landscape, Chris Dodd refuses to let America wait on the sidelines while the future of one of our closest neighbors is determined by others. He understands the transformative power of engagement, as well as exposure to Americans and American values, is far greater than that of a failed policy of isolation.

The Dodd Record: Proven Leadership in Reaching out to Cuba

Chris Dodd has led the fight to reverse fifty years of failed policy toward Cuba. Fluent in Spanish, no Presidential candidate brings more credibility or proven leadership to promoting democracy throughout the western hemisphere through diplomacy, dialog and strength than Chris Dodd.

* Dodd Led the Fight Against the Expansion and Tightening of the Cuba Embargo. In 1992, Chris Dodd led the fight against the Cuba Democracy Act, which was the first major legislative initiative to codify in law sanctions against Cuba which were implemented by executive order under the Trading with the Enemy Act. This law includes controversial provisions that prohibit foreign vessels from entering US waters if they had been in Cuban ports within the previous 180 days; that prohibit foreign subsidiaries of U.S. corporations from doing business in Cuba, and that impose civil and criminal penalties on those that continued to do so. As a consequence of this policy, the Associated Press noted that “the United States stands virtually alone” among the international community regarding Cuba.

* Dodd Led the Opposition to the Helms-Burton Legislation to Codify the Cuba Embargo. In 1996, Chris Dodd led the fight in the Senate against Helms-Burton, a law that extended the U.S. embargo against Cuba, requiring additional U.S. sanctions on countries that assist Cuba, limiting presidential authority to lift or modify the embargo, and prohibiting the U.S from engaging at the earliest possible moment in any ongoing transition to democracy in Cuba.

* Dodd Spearheaded Efforts to Ease Restrictions on the Sale of Food and Medicine to Cuba. In 1999, Chris Dodd authored the Cuban Food and Medicine Security Act that sought to ease restrictions on the sale of food and medicines to Cuba. In addition, Dodd supported an effort to open U.S. agricultural exports to Cuba that did not harm U.S. security interests and that Cuba could otherwise obtain elsewhere.

The Dodd Agenda: A Bold Vision for Opening Doors and Bringing Democracy to Cuba

Chris Dodd believes that ending our failed Cuba policy makes sense and is the right thing to do – for America and the Cuban people. By taking bold steps to remove barriers to trade and telecommunications and to increase diplomatic efforts, Chris Dodd believes America can help usher in a peaceful transition to democracy in Cuba that benefits everyone.

As President, Chris Dodd will:

* End the Cuba Trade Embargo by Repealing the Helms-Burton Act. By seeking the repeal of the Helms-Burton Act, Chris Dodd will begin to unravel and remove the onerous restrictions that have prevented the United States from playing a meaningful economic and diplomatic role in the ongoing political transition in Cuba.

* Open New Markets for American Farmers by Amending the Trade Sanctions Reform Act. By amending the Trade Sanctions Reform Act, Chris Dodd will remove restrictions on Americans’ rights to travel to Cuba and American farmers’ ability to more easily access Cuban markets.

* Bring Families Closer Together by Lifting Travel Restrictions and Caps on Remittances. By eliminating the caps on remittances and lifting all travel restrictions to Cuba, Chris Dodd will ensure Cuban-Americans can visit and assist their families overseas. Chris Dodd will also ensure more families can afford to stay in touch by authorizing telecommunications companies to lower prices for Cuban-American telephone and Internet services.

* Open an American Embassy in Havana and Engage Cuba in Robust Diplomacy. As President, Chris Dodd will instruct the Secretary of State to authorize our diplomats to meet more regularly with their Cuban counterparts at all levels and open an embassy in Havana to better serve Americans and American interests in Cuba.

* Reinvigorate the US/Cuba Migration Agreement Bilateral Talks. Unlike the Bush Administration, Chris Dodd will resume using the Migration Agreement as a forum to discuss outstanding bilateral issues of interest to both Cuba and the United States.

* Shut Down TV Marti and Reform Radio Marti. Chris Dodd believes American taxpayers should not be asked to spend millions annually on a television station that virtually no one in Cuba can see. He would also reform Radio Marti to provide objective news and entertainment instead of programming that often runs counter to stated U.S. policy. Instead of a failed government subsidized propaganda campaign, Chris Dodd believes in the transformative power of engagement and would promote an agenda that encourages exposure to Americans and American values.

* Remove the Incentive for Dangerous Migration and Repeal the Cuban Adjustment Act. Chris Dodd believes this law has only encouraged Cuban migrants to risk their lives at sea and fall prey to international smuggling organizations by offering them the promise of gaining legal resident status here in the United States.

* Encourage American Business and Repeal the Cuba Democracy Act. By eliminating the law that prohibits US companies from doing business in Cuba, imposes penalties on foreign subsidiaries of American companies that do so, and prohibits foreign vessels who have visited Cuban ports from entering U.S. waters, Chris Dodd will permit US companies to do business in Cuba, and remove major irritants to our relations with other friendly governments who have continued to trade and have relations with Cuba.

* Negotiate Regularly Scheduled Flights to Cuba. Presently, there is no regular mail or regularly scheduled air service between Cuba and the United States. Chris Dodd will enhance communication between the United States and the Cuban people by working to establish mail and air service between the United States and Cuba.

He gave a speech about it, but I didn't see a transcript. Thanks to DaveNYC on DailyKos for bringing this up.

Yeah, maybe we base folks are just being duped for political purposes, but the more the rhetoric backs the right kinds of policies instead of making things worse, well, I guess that's a kind of good.

Posted by El Cid | September 8, 2007 2:27 PM

At least we'll know whether the id or the superego is in the national driver's seat probably before we know who won the Superbowl.

Posted by Davis X. Machina

Hmmm. The Id VS SuperEgo Bowl, 2008: The Rumble in the Dumble.

Posted by El Cid | September 8, 2007 2:31 PM

I think the "Bush hatred" meme is so excellent, and I'm always glad to see a right winger apologist use it; it's always nice to see a talking point presented smoothly by a real, er, pro.

Of course, when the Conservatives say "Bush hatred" what they mean is the Very Idea of holding Bush accountable for his bad acts by calling them out.

Keep working it, though!

Posted by lambert strether | September 8, 2007 2:46 PM

If he were to explain why terrorists are not combatants but criminals......

He could start in Boston giving a speech explaining why the Brits were right to treat the Irish behind the 1916 Easter Revolt as criminals.
Why Mandela, Jomo Kenyatta, Castro, Che`, Sadat, Begin, the Mongols, Caesar, were criminals.

Why Apaches and colonialists were criminals, why the Pequots and other Indian tribes that terrorized other Indian tribes with assymmetric war were criminals, not combatants.

Then, I guess, sit down with Muslim nations and explain why Jihad is criminal in many circumstances, the Qu'ran hadiths were wrong - that it is not a matter of Jihadis being punished for going on the wrong war and using tactics that put them outside Geneva and Hague - no, they are just civilian criminals..

I wish Edwards luck.
If he was serious, which he isn't.

Posted by Chris Ford | September 8, 2007 2:48 PM

If he were to explain why terrorists are not combatants but criminals......

He could start in Boston giving a speech explaining why the Brits were right to treat the Irish behind the 1916 Easter Revolt as criminals.
Why Mandela, Jomo Kenyatta, Castro, Che`, Sadat, Begin, the Mongols, Caesar, were criminals.

In fact, if he were a real man like our resident neo-Confederate piss-pantser, Edwards would go over to South Africa, throw Nelson Mandela back into Robben Island, and give South Africa back to its rightful rulers, the losers of the Boer War and the old-time fascist Nationalist Party nincompoops, and bring back Dick Cheney and Reagan's favorite system of rule, where good White People rule the Earth under martial law and keep the damn nigras in their apartheid townships while they slowly lose power from a guerrilla war rightly launched against them.

Please, please John Edwards, listen to Chris Ford, it would be so awesome. Also, if you could, please let's go back and re-invade Vietnam and stay there this time for good, and let's do it under the banner of Dixie, because it would really show those damn dirty gooks if we kicked their asses for the Confederacy!!

Yeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee-Hawwwwwwwwwwwwww!!!!

Posted by El Cid | September 8, 2007 3:07 PM

More Edwards material, please.

Posted by eriks | September 8, 2007 4:57 PM

An international anti-terrorism organization. Sounds like a smart one. What Republican is going to be against the international anti-terror organization? It's also good on the merits. Interesting.

If he promised to call it G.I. Joe, he'd lock up the hipster vote for sure.

Posted by Senescent | September 8, 2007 5:00 PM

Every time I start wavering for Obama, Edwards says something like "rid the world of nuclear weapons" -- and I'm forced to admit that, despite his total unelectability, despite being a southern white male, Edwards really does have the best policies of any candidate in this race.

Posted by Anthony Damiani | September 8, 2007 6:14 PM

"Ridding the world of nuclear weapons" sounds nice, but it is utopian.

1. Few trust - depending on whose "side" you are on, for China, Russia, Israel, Pakistan, India, or the US to completely disarm.

2. Our own unilateral foreswearing of the use of biological and chemical weapons by Nixon was based on the nuclear deterrent obviating the need for such weapons - as cheap, low tech, concealable (See the Soviet Vektor Program we never detected), and as easy to develop as chem-bio weapons were.
We do away with nukes, get ready for a bio and chem armes race.

3. Best short term answer is more detente and agreement with Russia, China, and the USA. The better the relations, the more unlikely each will see the prospects of attack and the more they will be willing to reduce arsenals. The best long-term answer is a nuclear-armed international "police" function that could supervise a nuke-free or greatly limited nuke strategic force in nations of only 100 warheads or so with strict limits on use. Violate rules on WMD use, use your limited nukes agressively and the "police" group would wipe you off the map.
Problem is no present nuclear nation trusts all the semi-civilized 3rd world nations and toilet bowls of 4th world countries to vote on and help run such an agency under the UN aegis..

Posted by Chris Ford | September 8, 2007 8:49 PM

Matt, we ALREADY went over this stupid Edwards notion in a previous thread. Why wait until Monday to demonstrate you didn't bother reading any of the posts here?

Here's TWO SHOW-STOPPERS right here, Matt:

1) So Edwards is going to say EXPLICITLY: "Israel must disarm itself of its nuclear arsenal."

Right - end of campaign right there, homes. And you know it.

2) Edwards is going to "clean up Al Qaeda" in Pakistan if Pakistan doesn't.

You and what army, Edwards? Cannot be done by Pakistan OR the US. Prevent Al Qaeda from doing anything significant OUTSIDE of Pakistan? Maybe - but not if we still have the morons in charge here that we do have. Do anything IN Pakistan? No frickin' way, dude.

"He's also now differentiated himself from Clinton on Iraq: 'As president, I will redeploy troops into Quick Reaction Forces outside of Iraq, to perform targeted missions against Al Qaeda cells and to prevent a genocide or regional spillover of a civil war.'"

Oh, really? "Prevent a genocide"? HOW? If you can't prevent it WHILE YOU ARE IN-COUNTRY, how the hell do you do it with a much smaller "Quick Reaction Force" from OUTSIDE the country?

Prevent "regional spillover"? HOW?

And what the hell will "regional spillover" ACTUALLY LOOK LIKE? Does he expect hordes of Al Qaeda insurgents to pour across the border into Saudi Arabia, so the Air Force can bomb them?

"Regional spillover", if any, will consists of the EXACT SAME infiltration of small groups of people into the societies of the surrounding countries - just as it involved the EXACT SAME infiltration INTO Iraq?

Did we stop that? So what makes you think we can stop it anywhere else with a "Quick Reaction Force"?

Read my lips, Matt. It's BULLSHIT, Matt.

Edwards is BABBLING about shit he does not have a frickin' CLUE about. He's not a military expert, a counterinsurgency expert, an anti-terrorism expert, or ANY kind of expert except a politician.

Just because some politician comes out and says, "Gee, we should get rid of nukes everywhere", and spouts some other inanities without any specifics as to HOW ANY of this would actually be DONE, Matt rolls over and puts his paws in the air.

Christ, you're EASY, Matt! Paris Hilton should get you as a boyfriend. (For the record, I'd do her - IF I could figure out a way to shut her mouth for the duration.)

Posted by Richard Steven Hack | September 8, 2007 10:03 PM

Yeah, easy to say now, but why wasn't he warning of the dangers of terrorism before 9/11?

Oh, wait, he was ... never mind, maybe it was Guliani I was thinking of.

Posted by BruceMcF | September 8, 2007 10:21 PM

Chris Ford:

Of course the desire to totally eliminate nuclear weapons stockpiles is utopian; however, steps in this direction can still be necessary and productive. We can, realistically, curtail our nuclear stockpile by more than an order of magnitude, coupled with commensurate reductions to the French, British and Russian Arsenals and a freeze to expansion of the Chinese, Indian and Pakistani nuclear capabilities. Even reduced as they are, US and Russian arsenals are still bloated by the need to survive a nuclear first-strike from the other side's bloated arsenal. The only reason for us to have 5,000+ nuclear missiles ready to launch at a moment's notice is the fear that we might get hit by Russia's 5,000+

We can also create some form of successor treaty to the NPT, which seems to be crumbling around our ears at the moment.

It's also not entirely without precedent for a state to walk back from a nuclear capability-- South Africa disarmed entirely. Ideally (if unrealistically), we would see something like this as one element of a comprehensive security treaty on the Indian subcontinent.

There are still over twenty thousand of these things floating about out there, counting those not presently attached to delivery systems. Eventually, an accident will happen, or a terrorist group will get ahold of them, or a nuclear state (Pakistan? North Korea?)is going to face a Samson scenario where deterrence no longer applies. One day, inevitably, somebody somewhere is going to use them, and millions of people are going to die.

This is all the more important because it represents one of the few remaining existential threats to millions of Americans, or, in some scenarios, the survival of the country as a whole. This is something that should be part of our national dialog, but something that has dropped off the radar screen since the end of the cold war.

Posted by Anthony Damiani | September 9, 2007 4:53 AM

Edwards is the most electable out of all the frontrunners. He's running a damn smart campaign, judging from this recent development, along with some union endorsements that Hillary desperately clamored for. He's running under the radar, which is advantageous at this point. If he keeps going strong, he's got a real shot.

Posted by Amare | September 9, 2007 8:24 AM

I keep thinking about that image of Edwards and Hillary huddled together at the debate scheming to squelch the voices of the other candidates. John Edwards has had a long association with the Clintons via the DLC and up until Obama entered the race he was running a standard democratic campaign. Heck, in the 2004 race he was being promoted as the new Bubba.

Fire-breathing populism will not work in the general election and maybe Edwards is planning to move back to center if he managed to get the nomination. But the playing-to-the-base words he is using now will be the winning republican talking points later. So I think he would have no chance to get the nomination unless the democratic establishment is deliberately planning to shoot itself in the foot again -- always a possibilty.

However, Edwards' words at this juncture do serve one important purpose quite well — delivering the nomination to Hillary by knocking out the real threat to the status quo, Barack Obama.

Here is the Edwards game plan to stifle Obama:

1) Courting the progressive vote by appearing farther left than Obama.
2) Syphoning off the white working class and rural vote by playing up his whiteness and electibility.
3) By exploiting the issue of race to good effect, he frightens African-American voters to make the “safe” choice with Hillary.

Edwards’ attacks from the left on Hillary are all things that actually serve to make her more appealing in the general. She gets to look tougher and more “sensible” in the end — which is the image she is most trying to cultivate, Every strategy Edwards is employing, ends up helping Hillary.

Either Edwards is deluded and thinks he has a chance, or he’s decided he has nothing to lose and simply doesn’t care what damage he inflicts on African-Americans as long as he gets to play — or maybe he and Hillary really are working in concert. In which case, what does that say about Hillary and what is the quid pro quo?

I think Edwards' populist posture is a clever act and I am truly horrified to keep reading the praises of Matt, Kos, Stoller and other left-wing pundits. You have consistently been giving him passes on the same policies -- such as his stance on Pakistan that you have pilloried Obama for. Maybe you fellows are just too young and inexperienced to spot a brazen opportunist when you see it. Or maybe -- just like Edwards, you simply don't care if African-Americans again continue to be disenfranchised and the status quo remains. As long as you get to keep your jobs railing against the establishment and sounding important to yourselves, things are just perfect.

Posted by donna | September 9, 2007 1:31 PM

Oh, forgot to include Edwards Game Plan #4:

Taking credit for popular policies that were introduced by Obama and ignored by the media while remaining silent as Obama takes the heat from both right and left for bold and/or controversial policy statements, and then in near identical language restating the exact same policies after Obama has successfully defended them.

This is the latest Matt dubbed "brilliant" remark:

http://tpmelectioncentral.com/2007/09/_edwards_echoes_obamas_gettough_rhetoric_on_pakistan.php

Posted by donna | September 9, 2007 1:59 PM

So, the reason Edwards is appealing to a lot of people is that they are racists who wish not to see Obama's true leadership on all progressive issues?

Yet, on the other hand, people foolishly suckered in by apparently progressive pronouncements by Edwards are fools because such perspectives cannot be held in the general election, so 'true' progressives or populists need to downplay such overly liberal or populist opinions or perspectives during the campaign but can be trusted to reveal it presumably once in office?

Barack Obama's an excellent candidate. I have supported both candidates, Obama and Edwards, financially and otherwise. I am not new or too young for this, and I'm not fooled by personalities, either, because I fought all the Democrats I knew on NAFTA on behalf of the poor white and African American workers of the South who were about to get screwed by that Clinton / Gore initiative as well as on behalf of the Mexican workers whom that agreement devastated. (To his credit Obama is one who says that NAFTA should be renegotiated, a position also shared by a majority of Mexican citizens.)

I wouldn't blame John Edwards for any of Hillary Clinton's popularity among the African-American community, rather I would blame Bill Clinton's enormous, profound popularity. I would say much the same about Hillary's support outside the African American community as well.

It is true that on most measures of voting records in the Senate Obama came out significantly more liberal than Edwards. (Per the National Journal Obama up to 2006 got about an 86% rating while Edwards averaged by 2004 a 76% liberal composite rating.)

Yet Kerry had one of the most liberal voting records ever, and as far as the general election it was certainly not the case that Kerry failed to win because he was too liberal or not compromising enough with Republican talking points.

And since it is a judgment call, there is a real argument to be made that Edwards' populism is not only somehow more new but simply manufactured for electoral purposes. Personally I feel like it's a genuine shift, but the mere fact that the case has to be made indicates that Edwards will find this to be a problem. (This is a problem shared in my view with so many people's favorite dream candidate, Al Gore, whose post-election positions have been much more impressive than his work as a VP and presidential candidate.)

Also personally I think that among the least convincing points made by both Obama and Edwards (arguably lifted from Obama) is the macho sounding nonsense about going into Pakistan if Musharraf fails to, blah blah blah. To me it sounds so hollow precisely because if you could do it easily (i.e., without prompting some civil war or Pakistani government collapse), it would be done, and if you couldn't, there's not much use talking about it in that fashion.

When I feel like being harsh about it, there's a lot of cynicism I can express toward every one of the Democratic candidates, Edwards and Obama included.

But as a citizen, I need people out there on the campaign trail standing up against bad ideas and for good ones, and I think that whether or not he ever gets elected, Edwards has done a service on that front.

Rather than suggesting that the populist rhetoric be tamped down, how about Obama taking back that territory from Edwards?

Posted by El Cid | September 9, 2007 3:14 PM

"But as a citizen, I need people out there on the campaign trail standing up against bad ideas and for good ones, and I think that whether or not he ever gets elected, Edwards has done a service on that front."

The problem is that Edwards' - AND Obama's AND Clinton's - ideas are bad ones that, if implemented, will get more Americans killed and more taxpayer dollars wasted on "fighting terrorism" while the REAL solutions to terrorism are ignored.

This is NOT a service to the country.

Posted by Richard Steven Hack | September 9, 2007 3:52 PM

Ah yes, leading a crusade to rid the world of nuclear weapons is a really keen idea.

Provided it incorporates a plan also to lobotomize all the world's physicists.

Posted by Awed | September 9, 2007 4:42 PM

Awed:

Nuclear weapons are actually reasonably hard to make, which is why we're still in one piece sixty years after they were first created. You can't undiscover the science to create them, but you don't have to: you need a state-scale infrastructure to create them. That hundreds or thousands of physicists know how to create them isn't the limiting factor, it's the technological, material and industrial infrastructure to actually do it.

We probably won't end the threat of nuclear weapons in our lifetimes. We can, however, reduce existing stockpiles, we can work on nonproliferation, and we can get countries that have them to abandon them-- as South Africa, Belarus, Kazakhstan and the Ukraine did.

Posted by Anthony Damiani | September 9, 2007 5:39 PM

Thanks El Cid. You made some really good points. I will respond as follows:

"So, the reason Edwards is appealing to a lot of people is that they are racists who wish not to see Obama's true leadership on all progressive issues?"

Of course, Edwards' supporters are not all racists -- but he and Elizabeth have certainly been playing the race card in an attempt to scare people from voting for a black man. If you want some examples, here is an interesting link:

http://thinkonthesethings.wordpress.com/2007/08/12/lets-play-democrat-or-republican-the-racial-politics-round/

"Yet, on the other hand, people foolishly suckered in by apparently progressive pronouncements by Edwards are fools because such perspectives cannot be held in the general election, so 'true' progressives or populists need to downplay such overly liberal or populist opinions or perspectives during the campaign but can be trusted to reveal it presumably once in office?"

If you really believe a true, uncompromising progressive could win saying what he really thinks then are you supporting Dennis Kucinich "financially and otherwise?" I agree with a lot of Kucinich's views and he is an honest man, but I am well aware that this country is not going to elect him president.

So do I think candidates should stop saying what they think in order to win? No -- then you get Hillary. Is Obama as left as Kucinich -- no, but he is a credible alternative and has been consistant in acting upon his progressive values throughout his public life. Unlike Edwards, he doesn't need to use flaming populist language or whip up rage or racial tensions to get things done. He is a much wiser than that. He realizes everyone has a stake in the well-being of every other person in this country and so he is running an inclusive campaign -- not trying to alienate one group from another as Edwards is. Does Edwards believe his current rhetoric? I don't know for sure -- but based on his history, I doubt he would have any problem shifting back to center as it would accomodate the general election.

"I wouldn't blame John Edwards for any of Hillary Clinton's popularity among the African-American community, rather I would blame Bill Clinton's enormous, profound popularity."

Yes, Hillary is capitalizing on Bill's popularity -- not just with African-Americans, but as the basis for her whole campaign. But I do think the African-American community would support Obama -- its an historic opportunity -- but the stakes are very high and they need to believe he has a chance. ANY traction Edwards makes in courting the white bigot vote brings up doubts -- and Edwards is not above making that case. He wouldn't gain the black vote though -- Hillary would. That was one of the main points of my post. I think these two are conniving to get rid of Obama.

"Yet Kerry had one of the most liberal voting records ever, and as far as the general election it was certainly not the case that Kerry failed to win because he was too liberal or not compromising enough with Republican talking points."

Kerry didn't win because he wasn't a very compelling candidate in a time the country was falling for Bush and Rove's fear tactics. Edwards was certainly not much help either -- way out of touch with peoples' concerns. Hell, this country was being duped into a war and Edwards was instrumental in making it happen.

"But as a citizen, I need people out there on the campaign trail standing up against bad ideas and for good ones, and I think that whether or not he ever gets elected, Edwards has done a service on that front."

I agree on this point, but for those good ideas to have legs they need to be put forth by someone who is believable. I am not sure Edwards is that guy -- at least not for me.

"Rather than suggesting that the populist rhetoric be tamped down, how about Obama taking back that territory from Edwards?"

Rhetoric is just rhetoric unless it can be turned into action. Obama can make his case to the dems and to the general electorate - and he doesn't need to provoke peoples' worst instincts to do it. But he needs the media to be fair and unfortunately, the media has been incredibly disrespectful, focusing on fluff and silly, manufactured conflicts and failing to give him credit for a lot of his good ideas and legislation. Instead we get blogs like this one that gush over Edwards because he has tapped into the rage people on the left feel. But it won't get us very far in the general election. In contrast, Obama asks people to think and empathize -- a much better approach for the general election.

"To me it sounds so hollow precisely because if you could do it easily (i.e., without prompting some civil war or Pakistani government collapse), it would be done, and if you couldn't, there's not much use talking about it in that fashion."

I agree with you on this point. But I object that Obama has been labelled a warmonger in this blog and others and that Edwards will probably be labelled brilliant for saying the same thing. I do hope I am wrong about that.

Posted by donna | September 9, 2007 6:01 PM