Serious question about Edwards

[Sparkly]

(Disclaimer: This is NOT an attempt at flamebait! I'm hoping for serious answers.)

If I'm not mistaken, John Edwards -- like John Kerry -- voted against the $83 billion supplemental that was to "support the troops." I recall that Edwards gave a good answer about that in one of the debates, saying that they took a stand on principle. Nevertheless, we know how those two votes were used against Kerry.

Given Edwards' support of the IWR, how might he prevent or respond to a similar attack ("He voted for the war and then refused to support the troops in combat!")? Could it play out differently than it did for Kerry? Could he (or should he) try to innoculate himself from this attack from the start, and if so, how?

[havocmom]

1. Moral of story: Look beyond the Senate (past/present) for a candidate

Anyone who has served in the Senate will spend most campaign time/resources trying to set record straight on voting history taken out of context and made into 30 second 'issue messages' by PACs. They never get a chance to get their real message and vision out there. Then they, and DEMS in general, get attacked for

A) Not having a plan

B) Not having a vision

C) Always seeming angry and defensive

Look to other sources than Capital Hill. What makes a good legislator is not the same as what makes a good chief executive.

Above is opinion based on LONG observation and with no malice toward any of the potential candidates.

Not many Senators or Congressmen go on to get elected President in recent times. Fact.

[1932]

2. Kerry's problem was the "I was for it before I was against it" quote and not the votes.

Voting for the IWR isn't the same thing as drooling for an invasion of Iraq, and voting against the $87 billion allocation isn't the same as being against supporting the troops. They're not the equivalent of the other, and they're not what the Republicans wanted them to mean either.

However, when Kerry said "I was for IT before I was against IT" he not only equated the two bills, he left the "IT" so vague that the Republicans could say that "it" meant support for the war.

I don't think Americans have a hard time understanding these issues provided the democratic nominee isn't prone to such incredible lapses in judgment while talking about these issues.

[Sparkly]

3. They were hitting him with it before that quote...

As I recall, that's why he said what he did (trying to say he'd voted for an earlier version of it). (And thanks for the correction -- yes, it was $87 billion, not $83.)

Remember Chimpy's oft-repeated line: "There's nothing complicated about supporting our troops in combat!" How would such a line not play again? If "IT" is now the war itself, as you say, then how could Edwards avoid the same smear (that he, too, voted "for it before he voted against it")?

Kerry's floor statements did make it clear, as you say, that in voting for the IWR he wasn't "drooling for an invasion of Iraq." I'll have to look up Edwards' statement at the time of his vote...

But again, given the same brush they used against Kerry, how should Edwards defend the IWR vote and the vote against the $87 billion?

[1932]

4. And it didn't hurt him UNTIL the quote. The quote, not the vote was the problem.

That's why this didn't hurt anyone but Kerry.

A lot of politicians do things that seem contridictory. If they explain themselves the way Kerry did, it hurts them. If they explain them sensibly, it sometimes helps thems.

[Sparkly]

6. I'm not so sure about that.

I think it was already being played, and that's why he needed to defend himself. (Even if he did give them a new soundbyte in doing so.)

[blm]

8. Kerry explained it perfectly - the editted version and the CORPORATE MEDIA lies

that would only use the editted version and maintain the LIE for Rove was the act of a complicit media.

You will have a complicit media against ANY Democrat who truly threatens the status quo.

You think GOP allies bought control of most newsmedia in the 80s and 90s so the public could get the truth and the facts they need before any election...or war?

[JohnWxy]

5. To tell you the truth, the way things are going, I don't think anybody is going to give it that much

attention.

The situation in Iraq is so bad and getting worse by the day, that by the time campaignig time comes (well - 2007) voters are just going to be looking for someone who will get us out of IRaq without too much loss of life and then be able to operate our government in a responsible, ethical manner.

REgarding the supplemental funding measure for the IRaq war:

http://www.commondreams.org/scriptfiles/views03/1019-01.htm

"One hundred and thirty-seven members of the Congress -- 125 in the House and 12 in the Senate -- resisted the Administration's demand for the $87 billion. While the vote against the appropriation was insufficient to stop the war, it served as a signal that opposition to the US occupation of Iraq is more politically potent than analysts with short memories of past fights over military funding fights would have Americans believe.

Among the dozen senators who opposed the $87 billion appropriation were the chamber's two senior members, Democrats Robert Byrd, of West Virginia, and Edward Kennedy, of Massachusetts, both of whom supported that 1965 Vietnam appropriation. Byrd, whose passionate opposition to the Iraq war made him something of a hero to young activists, left no doubt about his feelings during Friday's debate. Comparing the Administration's promotion of the war in Iraq with Nazi Reich Marshall Hermann Goring's propaganda before and during World War II, Byrd declared, "The emperor has no clothes. This entire adventure in Iraq has been based on propaganda and manipulation. Eight-seven billion dollars is too much to pay for the continuation of a war based on falsehoods."

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

based on what is now known about the selling of the phony intelligence (from Cheney's force of amateur intelligence people and zealots) this might be a positive for Edwards (or anyone else who voted against it). The MSM is somewhat less sycophantic about the war (at least they aren't a groveling cheering section for the adminstration) and this information is more widely known that it was in 2004.

But as I said above, I really don't think that is going to be so important. I think people are just going to want someone who will get us out, responsibly, but out of IRaq. And then be able to run the government responsibly and ethically.

[Sparkly]

7. I know that, you know that, but people still see it as "anti-troops."

You may be right that it wouldn't get the same play as it did in 2004. I wouldn't count on that, though.