What A.J. Rosmiller said about the significance of John Edwards' pledge to back away from the training mission in Iraq and how troubling it is that the Clinton and Obama campaigns haven't really engaged this debate. I would only add that Edwards actually has talked about this on a few occasions previous to his interview with Michael Gordon, it's just that there hasn't really been much press interest in pursuing it further.
« David Simon and the Audacity of Despair | Main | Less Than Zero »
The Mission Matters
02 Jan 2008 05:33 pm
Comments (19)
There is a smart blogger who I think would disagree with you:
If--but only if--Iraq makes political progress and their security forces are not sectarian, we should continue to train and equip those forces.
And Yglesias' response:
In other words, in the real world, the training and equipping mission will not continue but if a miraculous pony happens to emerge then that's a different story. This is correct and General Petraeus' testimony and the renewed evidence on the centrality of political progress is as good a time as any for Democrats to follow the Center for American Progress' lead and reject unconditional training of Iraqi forces. This is different from my best understanding of what Hillary Clinton's proposing.
(And yes, I just cut-n-paste from the other blog's comments. Seemed important enough to bring up, here.)
Well, Edwards is, you know, running for President, so if he thought it was an important difference, he could have, you know, brought it up himself during one of his campaign appearances or at one of the debates.
Bob, he has.
Bob raises the obvious point: why is it that edwards is willing to say this to Michael Gordon, but not campaign on it? Does a focus group of Democrats really think that a fast withdrawl isn't a good idea? Is it impossible to deliver that message in a way that will hurt Clinton and Obama more than the attack will hurt edwards? Is it effective, but not as effective as the populist message?
Inquiring minds ...
It's a nice break from the retread populism, I'll grant Edwards that. But political opportunism even when it leads to correct outcomes is still political opportunism.
Yeah why isn't Edwards doing the responsible thing like supporting a anti-homosexual bigot or saying Social Security is in crisis and needs to be fixed or avoiding Senate votes. Thats real leadership!
I like Edwards and recently watched the speech he gave at Iowa's Jefferson Jackson dinner. It was superb.
Glenn Greenwald recently wrote about how the MSM has downplayed and refused to cover the messages of all of the top tier anti-establishment candidates who he claimed were Huckabee, Edwards and Paul.
Paul and Huckabee, notably, earned their own support through their debate performance and despite the MSM.
Edwards campaign continues despite the fact that his campaign has not gotten the coverage it deserved.
It will be interesting to watch the MSM report on his win while spinning the reasons for it.
Did my recent post warn Markos off the 'page-turner'? Edwards brings the resources he has to the fight. The new uniter spends more time trying to convince folks we're not in one.
So, Edwards runs around and declares himself a fighter, and the blogs jump in for him like lemmings, and the evidence for this is (1) Flock of Seagulls' own say so, (2) changing positions on Iraq when it no longer mattered what his position was, and (3) a "mandate" that would hurt the poorest of the poor. Edwards isn't a leader. His empty populist rhetoric and Monday Morning Quarterbacking on the war are reactive, not proactive. And if he's so much of a fighter, why not take on Cheney in the 2004 debate? What makes him sure he'd win against "the broken system in Washington" or other assorted boogeymen? Obama advocates more progressive positions without being insincere, but the soi-disant progressives dislike him because he doesn't sound like he's from the echo chamber. Pity.
David B.:
What progressive positions does Obama advance? Being anti-Iraq War? What else? What does he do better than Edwards? I can tell you one reason why Edwards gets more support than Obama. Edwards wants to throw the republicans an anchor, Obama wants to throw them a life vest.
"Yeah why isn't Edwards doing the responsible thing like supporting a anti-homosexual bigot"
No, Edwards just says he isn't comfortable with "those people.
" or saying Social Security is in crisis and needs to be fixed "
No he hasn't been saying it's in crisis, but yes, social security does need fixing. Why do you think Gore campaigned so hard for the "lock box" in 2000?
While you are wondering, you should focus on why he put those troops in there to begin with.
Mitt Edwards is the raging populist today but, what will he be tomorrow? He keeps changing his mind and personas. How can you be positive he is what he is playing to be. How can you be sure this persona is the real Edwards and not just the campaigning for president edwards.
I also am wondering, where was that populist fighter who will crush the corporations with his bare hands when he was debating Cheney?
Joe Klein's Conscience and the Cris Collinsworth impersonator forget that the problems are Iraq, Health Care, civil liberties, and the economy, not the Republicans. They're an obstacle to overcome, to be sure, but winning an election is not an end in and of itself, nor is there inherent virtue in spouting off the least coherent conspiracy theories. And throw in that Edwards has no idea how to promote job creation or beat Republicans. I'd love to play poker against people who assume that one's outward expression is the best indicator of one's hand. As would John McCain, I'm sure.
Guess which Time Magazine columnist is the biggest supporter of health insurance "mandates," btw? Any candidate who wants to punish poor people for not being able to afford health care cannot claim the left flank, however white-hot runs his drawl.
Obama and his supporters are such narcissists.
If you don't support some type of mandates you do not support universal healthcare. Guess what Obama's plan uses to ensure children are covered - yes the dreaded mandate.
We all appreciate the fact you are young, healthy and would rather spend your money on iTunes than insurance premiums but don't dress up your disdain for universal healthcare as a defense of the poor.
PS - your boy was against the war in 2002, then in 2004 he stated his position was the same as Bush's and then in 2006-07 he decide he would not support defunding or timetables for withdrawals since he wanted to be President.
You might want to do a little editing before calling a 46 year old man a boy. Unless . . .
There is no empirical evidence that younger, healthier people are less likely to buy health insurance if they can afford it. Fact is, younger people are more likely to be in accidents, so it's not even in their individual interests to skip on it.
The only candidate proposing universal health insurance is Kucinich. Obama's the one out there addressing cost control. For all the fighting against insurance companies Edwards tells us he does, they'd love a mandate since it would guarantee more customers. And Edwards' plan, especially, with its onus on employers, is doomed to fail a la HIllarycare, which would suit the insurers just fine. Not to mention hurting job creation, despite his promises to "fight" for jobs. (How exactly?)
It is amusing for an Edwards supporter to accuse anyone of narcissism. Not just for the obvious reasons, but because how vain is it for someone to claim a monopoly on policy outcomes or take cheap shots from the galleries on war votes when he gave up an easy shot at reelection to the senate to be on television more.
I really appreciate a rich white college student implying a bi-racial man such as myself is a racist. I guarantee you I look a lot more like Obama than you do. David B. you need to leave campus more if you think referring to someone as 'your boy' is equivalent to calling that person 'boy.' Maybe it is all the same to you white suburban kids but more likely you are so wrapped up in yourself you decided to feign outrage in attempt to prove your open minded liberal bona fides.
First you dress up your support for a flawed healthcare plan as concern for the poor and then you rush to the defense of Obama's record on Iraq by implying racism. I assume you will be wrapping yourself in the flag after this post.
Thanks for reinforcing my point that Obama supporters are narcissists. And yes John Edwards does have a nice head of hair.
I am no longer in college, Obama and I do look nothing alike (as he is considerably taller), and Obama is not the one who needs to defend his record on the war. I apologize for the implication, in your specific case, but if you're not aware that populism has historically had some anti-social progressive undercurrents, you need to leave campus less. Rather, by unfocusing his rage, Edwards lets people project onto him what they want. Witness, the netroots inferring his anger is their anger at the party bigwigs. And what, really, are Edwards's "electability" appeals about when he's running against Clinton and Obama?
As for health care, if Obama wanted to pander, he'd embrace a mandate, as Clinton did. Costs him nothing, and silences Krugman. People want health care they can afford, which means cost control. Whether or not it's universally mandated is purely academic, except to the extent it's not universal if the mandate doesn't work. Nobody's embracing a "flawed" plan for the sake of doing so, and the Republicans are going to fight cost control even harder than a mandate. Look at the prescription drug benefit -- corporations and republicans love government programs if they can play it right.
Comments closed January 16, 2008.
| 
Heads in the Sand
The problem I have with Edwards and Clinton is that they were led to support the war in the first place. A lot of people say that (1) Barack Obama was not in the Senate and therefore did not have to face this decision and (2) the Democratic party and country are largely against the war and therefore there is rampant support for a phased withdrawal to begin immediatly if a Democrat captures the White House.
This is true. And I would rather have a democrat in office than Bush any day of the week and twice on Sunday.
But the fact remains, Edwards and Clinton made a political choice at a foundational momment in our countrys history. And Barack Obama spoke out against it in his political carrer, with his ambition, in a climate where declaring that this was a "dumb war" could have well haunted him.
That being said: I feel Edwards over compensates now by swinging to far to the left on forigen policy and Hillary to far to the center while trying to perserve herself from attack because of her gender. While Obama is by far cautious given his lack of bona fides; he at least seems to have been on the right side of all of these debates. And thats why I prefer him and why I support him.
As to the crux of your post; I disagree w/your position. This is a fluid issue and were there is room for such debate it behoves the candidates to simply state clear goals (America leaving Iraq and redeploying to be more effective in Afghanistan) than pledges regarding training missions. Circumstances change, why be pidgeon-holed?
Posted by Rhoda | January 2, 2008 6:00 PM