Although it's nearly a year before the first presidential primaries, John Edwards may be the man to lead the Democrats in 2008.
Why? He's decisive, he's forthright, he rarely ducks or squirms when asked to clarify his stance on contentious issues, issues like Iraq (he admits his vote was a mistake), gays in the military (he'll do away with don't ask, don't tell), national healthcare (The Nation calls his plan, while not perfect, the most detailed of all the Democratic contenders), and global warming (like Al Gore, he'd require all new coal plants to capture their carbon emissions.)
Beyond that, he's electable. He's a Southerner. He's capable of raising the money it takes to get through the primaries. He's attractive and articulate. He'd run well against any of the potential Republican nominees, and he'd make mincemeat of them in the presidential debates.
So why do I say maybe? Simple. It comes down to the one contentious issue where Edwards has been less than forthright --American support for Israel and all that augurs for resolving the turmoil in the Middle East, and, more ominously, avoiding war with Iran.
In January, 2007, Edwards traveled to Israel and spoke to a gathering in Herzliya. In his speech, Edwards
- "hinted at possible military action" against Iran.
- criticized the Syrians for not negotiating seriously for the return of the Golan Heights.
- criticized the Palestinians for electing the Hamas government.
In a similar speech to the AIPAC Policy Conference in March of 2006, Edwards was quite explicit:
"Keeping nuclear weapons – keeping nuclear weapons out of Tehran’s hands is a strategic imperative for the security of the United States, for Israel and for the world, and we need to do what we can to help encourage democratic change in Iran. Iran is the greatest external threat facing Israel, but just as alarming – just as alarming is the threat on its doorstep. A Palestinian leadership led by Hamas."
Such sentiments place Edwards far to the right of the current Democratic Congressional leadership, and, as Michael Cunningham suggested in his Baltimore Chronicle op-ed piece, makes Edwards
"...the official candidate of the Israel Lobby for the Democratic presidential nomination."
The Washington Monthly's Kevin Drum suggests that Edwards, who significantly modulated his views in an interview with the American Prospect, is merely playing politics by
"...telling different audiences what they each want to hear. When he's talking to an Israeli conference, he emphasizes the supreme danger Iran presents and implies strongly that military action is a real possibility, while barely even mentioning the idea of engagement and economic aid. When he's talking to a liberal American magazine, he emphasizes engagement and economic aid and downplays the possibility of military action as vanishingly unlikely during an Edwards presidency."
Maybe so, but it's reminiscent of John McCain falling off the "straight talk express" in his dash rightward for the Republican nomination. If Edwards wants to retain his "forthrightness", he probably should refrain from talking out of both sides of his mouth on contentious issues like unconditional support for Israel and the possible use of military force against Iran.
That's why Edwards remains a "maybe" for me.
Comments