| Submit your comments on this article |
| Home Front: Politix |
| Edwards vs. Clinton: Indecision 2008. |
| 2007-02-08 |
| by James Taranto, Wall Street Journal When NBC's Tim Russert asked John Edwards on Sunday if he, as president, would accept a nuclear-armed Iran, the silver-tongued lawyer got tongue-tied . . . . Why did Mr. Edwards's views morph so quickly from hawkish to weaselly? Probably because confrontation with Iran is very unpopular among the Democratic antiwar base. Last week Ezra Klein of The American Prospect, a left-liberal magazine, confronted Mr. Edwards about the Herzliya speech, and the candidate waffled. Although allowing that "it would be foolish for any American president to ever take any option off the table," he offered this criticism of President Bush: "When he uses this kind of language 'options are on the table,' he does it in a very threatening kind of way." Does Mr. Edwards mean to be docile? . . . Mr. Edwards is not the only Democratic presidential candidate without a comprehensible position on Iran. Last week Hillary Clinton spoke to the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, and Heather Robinson of PoliticalMavens.com reported that Mrs. Clinton said: "There are many, including our president, who reject any engagement with Iran and Syria. I believe that is a good-faith position to take, but I'm not sure it's the smart strategy that'll take us to the goal we share. What do I mean by engagement or some kind of process? I'm not sure anything positive would come out of it . . . but there are a number of factors that argue for doing what I'm suggesting." Whatever that may be. Mr. Edwards and Mrs. Clinton have something else in common: Both voted for the Iraq war in 2002, and both turned against it only after it became unpopular. On Iraq, they followed public opinion; on Iran, they are waiting to be led. Pandering to public sentiment may be fine for a senator, but the president needs to be able to make decisions in the national interest--which sometimes means shaping public opinion, sometimes defying it. Mr. Bush has done both, whether or not his decisions were wise ones. Perhaps voters next year, chastened by Mr. Bush's dangerous boldness, will opt for someone more risk-averse. But if a crisis arises and the president proves unable to lead, they may find themselves longing for Mr. Bush's steadfastness. An excess of caution is itself a form of recklessness. |
| Posted by:Mike |
| #2 HILLARY > reportedly wants her VEEP to have a military background. *OTT, the "RACE TO THE LEFT" and USA under OWG-SWO continues. FREEREPUBLIC/OTHER > NET petition going around to nominate AL GORE for 2008. |
| Posted by: JosephMendiola 2007-02-08 21:16 |
| #1 Pandering to public sentiment may be fine for a senator, but the president needs to be able to make decisions in the national interest--which sometimes means shaping public opinion, sometimes defying it. Mr. Bush has done both, whether or not his decisions were wise ones. I partly disagree. Mr. Bush is good at defying the MSM version of public opinion, but sucked at shaping ACTUAL public opinion. Granted, if he had actually done so, the MSM would have gone into spin mode to defuse his talk. However, he would STILL have communicated with his true base, while acting on the knowledge that convincing lefties and liberals would never have happened. There would have been the mushy middle, of course, but by being more forthright and vocal, He would have forced the MSM spin machine into overdrive: the shaking and dancing of the machine would have become visible. The democRATS never hesitate to talk to their base. About time Republicans decided to talk to THEIRS. The refusal to do so cost them the House and Senate. |
| Posted by: Ptah 2007-02-08 10:11 |