All the Edward statements are now going to get an airing. He is in trouble with his Iraq war position.
Asked on MSNBC just a month before the war began whether he would "go ahead and fight this war" even "if the French, the Russians or the Chinese veto us," he replied: "I would go forward with the allies that we have with us, yes." And, he added, that also meant without United Nations backing.
Why? Because, as he'd said a year earlier, "the bottom line is it's very difficult to imagine a situation where the world is secure, the United States is secure, while Saddam Hussein is still in power. . . . He's a very serious threat to the security of the United States, to the security of the region and, in fact, to the security of the world."
But that was all based on false assumptions, right? No, said Edwards just a few months back. "Did I get misled? No, I didn't get misled."
A TICKET OF ALL ALSO-RANS
By ERIC FETTMANN
NY Post
HOW appropriate that John Kerry and John Edwards have wound up as the Democratic ticket for 2004. After all, the Washington press corps all but con ceded each men the presidential nomination early on in his campaign — and each then flopped right out of the starting gate.
When he first announced his intention to run in January 2003, Edwards was widely portrayed as the Democrats' new golden boy — the matinee-idol candidate who came closest to replicating Bill Clinton's campaign style. (Indeed, Edwards was reported to be the former president's first choice for the nomination.)
Unfortunately, no one seemed to be buying in. His Southern cornpone, heavy-on-style-but-short-on-substance approach left audiences unmoved, and he quickly faded to the back of the field.
Then John Kerry entered the race, and the revised conventional wisdom said he'd be impossible to beat for the top spot . . . until he, too, collapsed. Voters apparently were turned off by his trademark aloofness and his contortionist's flip-flop on the war in Iraq.
Not until the bottom fell out for Howard Dean, in fact, did Kerry begin to take off — and then only because he was seen as the most electable second choice, thanks to his Vietnam record.
Maybe Frank Sinatra was right: Love is lovelier the second time around.
After being spurned by first choice for a running mate (John McCain), Kerry himself apparently considered only his washed-out former rivals (plus Iowa Gov. Tom Vilsack). Which might prove to be a smart move: History suggests that surprise veep picks, for the most part, aren't all they're cracked up to be. Remember Jack Kemp and Lloyd Bentsen?
Edwards' role in the campaign, it would seem, is to provide the aloof John Kerry with a significant campaign asset he lacks: a personality. Edwards positively exudes down-home folksiness.
Of course, that style began working only when he emerged as the lone alternative to Kerry, about whom some were having second thoughts. Will it work in the general election? It won't be easy. Within minutes of his selection yesterday, the Republican National Committee's Web site had posted a lengthy file on John Edwards, citing his voting record and potentially damaging past interviews.
The compilation shows that Edwards will face some awkward questions about his stance on the Iraq War. Like Kerry, he voted to authorize the war, then voted against the $87 billion in emergency funding for the troops and reconstruction. But his contractions go even further than Kerry's.
Democrats may be charging that President Bush miscalculated by "going to war alone," as they disingenuously put it, but Edwards endorsed precisely that approach.
Asked on MSNBC just a month before the war began whether he would "go ahead and fight this war" even "if the French, the Russians or the Chinese veto us," he replied: "I would go forward with the allies that we have with us, yes." And, he added, that also meant without United Nations backing.
Why? Because, as he'd said a year earlier, "the bottom line is it's very difficult to imagine a situation where the world is secure, the United States is secure, while Saddam Hussein is still in power. . . . He's a very serious threat to the security of the United States, to the security of the region and, in fact, to the security of the world."
But that was all based on false assumptions, right? No, said Edwards just a few months back. "Did I get misled? No, I didn't get misled."
That's going to prove a lot more embarrassing for the Democratic ticket than any of the potshots that Kerry and Edwards took at each other during the primaries.
NEW YORK POST |
