Edwards Hits A Home Run on MTP

[ruggerson]

Forthright, non evasive, concise, substantive, likeable and direct.

He did NOT "blame Clinton" for his vote on the IWR and was utterly clear that he feels his vote was wrong.

He answered "yes" or "no" directly to yes or no questions, unlike 99% of politicians and then followed with substance.

My personal favorite:

Do you think homosexuality ia a sin?

"No."

Would be nice to see other candidates follow suit.

[chimpymustgo]

1. He was fantastic. Honest, courageous, straightforward.

And Timmy was coming at him like a rabid beast. He was smooth, charming, sincere - humorous.

[Bluzmann57]

2. It seemed like Russert was trying to bait him as well

Maybe not, maybe it was just my perception. At any rate, Edwards did a bang up job. As you said, he was upfront and honest and able to admit making mistakes. We all make mistakes. Edwards just has enough cajones to own up to it.

[Dracos]

9. I picked up on that also

it happen several times Edwards was prepared for him did very well.

[sendero]

22. Of course he was..

... that is what he does. And guess what, I've seen him do it to Republicans too, just not as often.

[mnhtnbb]

3. Missed it. Would you put up a link when available?

[question everything]

16. So did I

but it seems that MSNBC will rebroadcast it later this evening - if you have cable

"Transcript to come" here

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/8987534/

[sandnsea]

4. Watching now

I think I missed the Clinton part, which doesn't bother me anyway because I think the Clintons were a big part of the IWR vote.

Otherwise, he's doing good and I like him this way much better than on the stump.

[chimpymustgo]

7. That "Clinton part" is just another LYING OP, as you will see watching the show.

Edwards says he talked with some people in the Clinton administration whose judgement he trusted, before his IWR vote. But once again, someone here twists Edwards words into a a flamebaiting lie. I don't know why the Mods allow this.

I'm glad you'll be seeing this for yourself. Edwards does a wonderful job.

[sandnsea]

10. Let me put it like this

If he isn't going to hold Bush accountable for his war lies, then at least telling the truth about the Clintons' participation is a step in the right direction. He doesn't need to be 'blaming' them to tell more of the truth about how that vote came about.

[Gloria]

24. And we remember how Clinton was enabling Bush on Iraq...so

that makes me think Edwards is telling the truth. We were all tearing our hair out about Clinton at the time.

[sandnsea]

26. Funny

I'm currently in another thread being ripped to shreds because nobody else remembers how frustrating both of the Clintons were at the time, and I'll never forget Bill and his dismissal of the yellowcake lies.

[Clark2008]

34. The mods allowed it because it wasn't a lie.

Edwards DID say he voted the way he did based on information he allegedly got from Clinton (and the Clinton Administration).

And, just so you know, the OP in question is a fan of the DLC, which is the same organization Edwards belonged to as a senator, and actually likes Edwards, but he certainly doesn't like - as many of us do - Edwards twisting himself into a pretzel to appease the audience he's addressing.

[venable]

47. Anyone who speaks English knows he didn't blame Clinton

Edwards is not the one looking like a pretzel right now - it's the Edwards bashers who hate that he has an enlightened view on so many subjects, esp. Iran... hence the need to pretzel-like accuse Edwards of 'blaming' Clinton.

[saltpoint]

5. He did just fine. Agree with your list of adjectives also. Well-chosen

and accurate description.

I'm also enjoying chimpymustgo's take on Russert -- that he came at Edwards "like a rabid beast." All fur and slobber. Exactly so.

Once in a great, great while a politician answers 'yes' to whether a much-needed proposal would require raising taxes. Robert F. Kennedy answered in the affirmative when it was necessary, even at considerable risk to his political career. "Who's going to pay for all these social programs, Senator?" a reporter once asked Kennedy.

'You are." RFK told him, much in the manner of Edwards' response to Russert this morning. We must invest in what elevates the quality of life, and certainly including basic necessities like health care and education, and a tax to provide revenue for implementation is a statement that we know this and will sacrifice to make it so.

We won't be hearing many Republicans speaking from that position. Probably none at all.

[Dracos]

6. Verry impressive

while I am stll undecided I have been leaning towards Edwards.

[rep the dems]

8. I did not see the interview with Edwards this morning, and I'm wondering

what else was said about the homosexuality issue. I thought that Edwards was opposed to same sex marriage and civil unions, did he get into that at all?

[ruggerson]

11. He said

that he struggles with the issue of same sex marriage, but he understands that the reason he struggles with it is because of his Southern Baptist upbringing. He is "not there YET" on the word "marriage." He twice said he realizes that as a public figure, he should not be imposing the religious beliefs he grew up with on the entire country as public policy.

He stated, unequivocally, that he was for civil unions and partnership benefits.

When asked if gays and lesbians should serve openly in the military, he responded "yes."

When aske if homosexuality was a sin, he responded, "no."

My personal take on this: I wish he had the courage to support full marriage rights, but then I wish Clinton, Obama, Gore and Kerry did also. None of them have the courage to stand up and actually say what I think they believe in their hearts, because they (mistakenly) think Americans aren't ready to hear it.

[soswolf]

13. I think he won over a lot of people with that answer

[rep the dems]

14. I feel exactly the same way.

That's one of the things I like about Feingold, Kucinich, and especially Lincoln Chafee. To be a Republican and say you support same sex marriage is pretty impressive.

Still, it sounds to me like Edwards did a very good job handling those questions. Despite what many of our candidates say about not calling it marriage, it's good to know that none of them are as bad as Bush and all his clones running for President.

[karynnj]

18. I wouldn't assume you know what is in their hearts

I didn't see this part of MTP, but the Edwards answer seems very sincere. He also gives the reason he has a hesitation - his religious background. Kerry in 2004 explained this to a greater extent and it was very clear that he was sincere, it was not political posturing. He had one of the best records on gay rights in the Senate and was one of the first Senators to speak of gay rights on the Senate floor. The problem for him is that Marriage is a sacrement as well as being a legal state. He supports civil unions with all the rights of marriage and did so before civil unions were consider the safe position.

For all these politions, I think it is presumptuous to say it is a lack of courage. Both Edwards and Kerry ( and likely the others - I simply don't know what they have said) are standing behind what they say they believe in. It is also a generational thing - the country has shifted enormously in the last 4 decades on homosexuality. People in their 50s or 60s,have seen it go from something only whispered about to announcements in the NYT.

[Breeze54]

28. Agreed!

"...they (mistakenly) think Americans aren't ready to hear it.

I think he did a great job!

[theoldman]

12. The thing that stuck with me the most on this interview were the

statements made by Edwards and Obama back in 2002. It appears that many people in Congress were misled. Obama had the good fortune in not having access to this bad intelligence. Obama's foresight was therefore very accurate. This would make an interesting debate for everyone.

[Larkspur]

21. I could buy the "bad" intelligence argument if it wasn't for the two thirds of Dems in the House who

voted AGAINST IWR.

The "bad" intelligence argument is still a coverup for putting their Prez ambitions over what is best for the nation.

[Apollo11]

45. It's the first time I heard that 2002 quote from Obama

It made me think that Obama would make a fine running mate for Al Gore! :)

Let's all find ways to show our support for Al Gore! :)

Read Rolling Stone magazine: WHY GORE SHOULD RUN -- AND HOW HE CAN WIN
http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/story/13248532/why_gore_should_run__and_how_he_can_win

Get ready for Al Gore's next book - The Assault on Reason - out in May!
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/09/16/AR2006091600877.html

Visit the following pro-Gore websites:
www.algore.com
www.algore.org
www.draftgore.com - Sign the petition! :)
www.draftgore2008.org
www.patriotsforgore.com

:kick:

[Felinity]

15. Please see my reply #26 on this thread

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=3093066&mesg_id=3094873

99% of our politicians are fiddling while the country morphs into a distorted figment of its former self.

Pay no attention to what's happening behind the curtain--pyrotechnics are only interesting after you push the button.

[retread]

17. I hope when he releases his health care plan tomorrow, it is not as muddled as

he made it sound today. At least it came across that way to me.

[EVDebs]

19. Edward's financing government plans are the only sane ones so far...

Balanced Priorities by E J Dionne
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/01/18/AR2007011801510.html

Cost of War
http://nationalpriorities.org/index.php?option=com_wrapper&Itemid=182

The war could end up costing between $1 Trillion to $2 Trillion... and you won't get SS or Medicare if the R's and endless war nutjobs keep this up.

[JohnLocke]

20. Edwards was great.

[Gloria]

23. I think he is really channeling Clark on the Middle East....which will

make Clarkies go nuts.

But, I listened carefully and he sounds more like Clark than anyone else does, in policy and in tone.

Another thing that should make Clarkies go nuts is the talk that Clark is open to being HIllary's VP. What about that?

[dogman]

25. This Clarkie is more amused than nuts.

As Clarkies and others concerned about war with Iran hammered Edwards' stance on Iran, we were first criticized then promised he did not mean what his statements indicated and that it would be clarified on MTP. Lo and behold it happened. You, and I'm sure others, recognized the language. Clark's well worn "carrots and sticks" was repeated in the Ezra Klein interview. The not so amusing thing was that by the time he spoke on MTP it had already reverted to "sticks and carrots". That has been the problem with Edwards' framing all along. He must learn the other Clark meme that war is the last, last, last resort. This is new for Edwards and hopefully after he has repeated it enough he will actually believe it. As far as Clark as Hillary's VP, I've only seen that message seeming to come from her camp. Is that to compromise Clark, or give Hillary gravitas and credibility?

[Gloria]

27. He also said made comments that sounded a whole lot like Clark's

regarding the possibility of having to live with an Iran with nuclear weapons. I don't want to misquote because it was a long answer, but the gist of it was definitely along those lines. Perhaps Edwards has been listening to what Clark has had to say more than he's given credit for and perhaps, more than many in Congress.

[Texas_Kat]

30. Too bad he doesn't really understand it

Personally, I'm saving my efforts for the originator of the idea. I can't wait!

Go Clark!

:bounce:

[chimpymustgo]

31. Edwards was great. The jealously and resentment is palable on the board.

Sorry he "disappointed" so many here. He was absolutely wonderful.

[Clark2008]

36. Pssst...

No one is jealous of Edwards.

He was wrong about Iraq, he didn't win a primary state not his own and he talks out of both sides of his mouth.

There is NOTHING to be jealous about.

[chimpymustgo]

38. Pssst...

You're just making stuff up. Get over it already.


:rofl:

[Alcibiades]

41. Edwards won SC

But he's really a Tarheel, no matter what his birth certificate says.

It's true that he didn't win any other states, but we should remember that he was runner up to Kerry. Also, I think a lot of people voted strategically--lots of folks on Super Tuesday voted for the candidate they thought could win, not the one they liked best. This probably hurt both Clark and Edwards.

It would seem there is a lot to be jealous of. The money. The boyish good looks. The swell house they're building over in Chapel Hill. The great relationship he still has with his first wife, etc. On the downside, that whole having your firstborn die at such a young age is a downer, so, yes, on balance, there's nothing to be jealous of.

[unc70]

43. Russert will gladly drag up Clark's 2003 comments for IWR

before he was against it, and then try to trip Clark up, too.

And before you start complaining about not having citations:

NY Review of Books
http://www.nybooks.com/articles/16795

NY Times (vi CommonDreams)
http://www.commondreams.org/headlines03/0919-01.htm


I like Clark (although he is not among my top 2 or 3), but I strongly dislike attempts by you and others to criticize Edwards and other candidates while attempting to rewrite history wrt Clark.

[Texas_Kat]

57. Naw, they went thru all that in 03-04

No credible journalist (even Timmy) believes that Clark supported the 2003 IWR.

Senators who voted "no" on it (Boxer, Wellstone, Kennedy among others) all cited his testimony in their floor speeches.

The White House put Edwards 'opinion' on it's website.

[venable]

50. pssst

say it all you want, but from many of the Edwards bashers, jealousy is the ONLY way to explain their failure to actually see what he is saying.


You may not be jealous - but the massive tome-posting, and slandering, and lying about from those that post so consistently against him, seems an awful lot like jeaousy to me. disguised as what they call honest debate.

[Gloria]

33. I'm sure he understands it. That sort of comment doesn't reflect well

on Clark, who actually has had positive, polite comments about Edwards.

[venable]

49. TexasKat - woud you like to explain how Edwards doesn't understand it.

and how you know it.

and how in the world can you say Clark originated it? this is absurd.

[Texas_Kat]

62. Even Craig Crawford caught the non-sequiturs

Wonder how Edwards AIPAC donors are gonna feel about this?

http://www.cqpolitics.com/2007/02/craig_crawfords_trail_mix_edwa.html

Craig Crawford's Trail Mix: Edwards Dodges Iranian Nukes
By Craig Crawford | 11:20 AM; Feb. 05, 2007 | Email This Article
The tough question that former North Carolina Sen. John Edwards directly answered — saying yes to higher taxes to pay for universal health insurance — got most of the attention after his full hour Sunday on NBC’s “Meet the Press.”

But the most puzzling moment for the 2008 Democratic presidential contender (and 2004 vice presidential nominee) was how he dodged this question from host Tim Russert: “Would President Edwards allow Iran to develop a nuclear weapon?”

It would seem a no-brainer for protecting his tough-on-defense credentials to not only say “No,” but “Hell, no” to that question. Instead, Edwards said, “There’s no answer to that question at this moment.”

Asked further if Iran might get nuclear weapons, Edwards said, “Yeah. I think — I think the — we don’t know, and you have to make a judgment as you go along.”

Forget raising taxes. Seeming to open the door to letting Iran go nuclear could really haunt Edwards in 2008.

Wes Clark on the same subject at a private fundraiser in NY (April 19, 2006):
http://securingamerica.com/ccn/node/5615

Iran and Nukes

Iran...He talked quite a bit about Iran.

He said we’ve got three choices...

1) We can negotiate with them
2) We can bomb them and try to take out their nuclear facilities
3) We can live with them having a nuclear weapon

He said right now, they are, at some level, negotiating, although the US refuses to negotiate directly. He doesn’t think that bombing them would solve anything and help the situation at all. He said he sees no end game if we choose to bomb....no way out once we start it.

Someone brought up the possibility of the US using nuclear weapons on Iran and both Wes and George seemed to think that was highly unlikely. George interjected to point out the absurdity of the US using nuclear weapons to take out the Iranian nuclear capabilities....He said we certainly couldn’t do that with much conviction.....And Wes said that if the US uses nuclear weapons, the world will never be the same and the US’ place in the world will never be the same. If was a very dire moment in the conversation....scary to think about.

Wes also said that if it was any other president in the White House, he would think that we wouldn’t attack Iran but, with Bush in there, you never know. He said that spokesmen have said that Bush will take care of the Iranian situation before he leaves office...You can just imagine how he will “take care” of it.

The whole Iranian thing just sounds really scary. Wes said (as I’ve heard him say before) that extremism begets extremism. Our tough talk and threats against Iran just strengthen their position in the Middle East and the Muslim world as a country that will stand up to the US. The tougher we talk, the stronger we make the extremists in Iran’s position.

[venable]

65. how about that shows his courage and his honest and his wisdom

and the fact that it is false machismo to say no, hell no.

how about he understands that the Mullahs have decreed nuclear weapons to be un-Islamic.

how about he understands who the real power is in Iran.

[Texas_Kat]

68. or that he talks out of both sides of his mouth

I'd just as soon he didn't quote Wes (even without attribution). He doesn't do it well.

[venable]

73. good lord he is not quoting Wes

he is stating the centuries old standard methodology of american foreign policy which was - shockingly - not invented by Wesley Clark.

this is beyond absurd.

[Texas_Kat]

74. And quite a departure from what Edwards said at AIPAC

or anywhere else for that matter.

[venable]

76. fine, if that's what you want to think in this witch hunt

let's review:

1) you hate what he said to Herzliya, demanding he come around

2) when he says something different, along the lines of what you approve, you are outraged that 'he's parroting' one single person

3) But then when it's made clear that he's not, in fact, parroting one person, but a long widely held tradition, you are outraged anew: 'Hey see what he said before..it's not the same as he says now"

this is absurd. defend your guy, whoever that is. this stalking of Edwards is unseemly.

[venable]

48. wow, you mean BOTH Clark and Edwards said 'carrots and sticks'?

They and 1 million other people.

[Texas_Kat]

60. Nope, Edwards attempt to parrot this.

Wes Clark on Fox New 2/5/06:

(snip).....that's the problem with the military option, Eric. It's that once we take action, Ahmedinejad probably becomes stronger domestically. There's no assurance that you can get regime change and the historical record of countries that have been bombed suggests that when you bomb a country, normally people rally around the leader. In this case, it would be most unfortunate, but it could happen.

And after we had set back their nuclear program by taking out a number of sites, there's no reason to think that AQ Khan in Pakistan and his cohort couldn't provide them the additional information, that some other nation might not have an incentive to smuggle in highly enriched uranium.

They could be back where we started much sooner than if they rebuilt the program entirely on their own. So that's the risk of the military option - leaving an embittered, angered Iran which is determined to seek revenge and get it.

The "carrots and sticks thing" really is funny. Kinda like the comments Edwards made in his "We're tough, too" speech at the 04 DNC convention. Just doesn't have the....uh... resonance....

[venable]

75. this is commonly held belief by many dems, most of europe, most of everyone

so how does it become parroting of any one person? really doesn't make sense. sorry.

[venable]

53. to find meaning in the inversion of 'carrots and sticks'

is 'amused'? Seems just a little bit something else, to me, with all due respect.

And what a surprise - Edwards does very well on MTP, and the thread honoring it becomes about someone else, someone who has not even declared. How ever did this happen? Nutty, huh.

[dogman]

72. Wrong, I wrote the inversion was not amusing.

It was typical Edwards, attempting to set the table, but not understanding the sticks are the last item to be presented. He can copy the language, but seems to fail to grasp the meaning. The thing is he is to intelligent to fail to understand, making it seem his mind is already on a different track. Imitation is flattery, but this is just too much like w, a preset agenda and mouthing of platitudes without conviction. I am responding to a post on this thread, I am not required to honor anyone. The nutty thing is celebrating an appearance where Edwards admits ignoring the NIE in his sponsorship of the IWR and then stating that he is also ignoring the new NIE in formulating his new proposal.

[Texas_Kat]

29. The "Clark as VP" meme came from Chris Lehane

Do I have to say anything else?

[Skwmom]

37. 04 all over again. They tried to tie Clark to the Clintons to

discourage support from the anti-Clinton crowd. However, the Clinton team of Carville and Begela talked up Edwards(unlike Clark who they either made disparaging remarks about or sat silent while others where disparaging him). Furthermore, I read CLinton pushed Edwards (who helped him out with the impeachment) for VP and was the first person to call Edwards once he was tapped for VP.

I still think the planned DLC ticket is most likely Clinton/Edwards.

[Clark2008]

35. Nuts???

:rofl:

Edwards couldn't channel Clark if he put shunts into his head.

I'm sorry, but Edwards was, is and always will be an FP lightweight. He re-frames himself more often than a second-hand painting.

Oh - and Clark has said he doesn't want to be anyone's Dick Cheney - meaning that he doesn't want to be the FP heavy on the wrong side of the ticket. The FP heavy needs to be at the top. Makes sense to me since the VP is in charge of the senate and not FP.

[chimpymustgo]

39. Then why did Clarkies fight, argue, Freep every poll for Clark to be VP???

Many around here acted as if their lives depended on it. And they've never gotten over Kerry picking Edwards over Clark (if he was even in the running outside their delusions).

This behavior is bizarre. I don't think the General would support it for one minute.

[Nedsdag]

40. I haven't decided on a candidate

I was impressed by Edwards today on MTP.

I wish Clark's supporters would be a little more reasonable in their criticism. It's getting close to cult status. I think even the General would be embarrassed by the adulation at DU.

[venable]

51. I think the General would ask them to cool it.

There are a few very reasonable Clark supporters. Tom Rinaldo especially impresses, but there are a handful that shame him, IMO.

I, personally, like Clark quite a lot. But, honestly, much less since I started coming to DU.

[Texas_Kat]

69. There are as many obnoxious Edwards supporters

so clean your own house first.

[Texas_Kat]

58. Because we learned something we didn't know at the time?

That Wes really, REALLY, REALLY, REALLY meant that he didn't want the VP slot. He'd said it over and over and over, but I guess we'd been used to other 'politicians' saying shit just for effect. One thing we've all learned is that Wes never plays those kinds of games.

[Catchawave]

59. Does Clark want to be V.P. ?

Didn't his son (?) drop in on DU to say that "...won't fill the holes in anyone's resume"?

Bizzarro is right !

[venable]

54. Edwards has no interest in 'channeling Clark'

this obsession with the good General does him more harm in these pages than his supporters can possibly imagine.

He is a good man (who was, BTW, for the war before he was against it), and I hope he does well, but why are we talking about him on an Edwards thread, yet again?

[Texas_Kat]

63. Then JE should find someone else to crib from

[venable]

64. did Clark invent carrots and stick and talking with enemies

or is it part of all human cultures since the dawn of man?

thought so.

jeez louise.

[JNelson6563]

55. I think you missed the points

By dismissing the statement that Edwards must be channeling Clark you have messed up. See, here is what was lost on you: First and foremost it's an opportunity to once again bring Clark's name into a discussion on Edwards. Secondly it was a way to give credit to Clark for something Edwards said that was agreeable.

Do try to keep up with the collective effort, won't you?

[Contrite]

32. How come Kucinich is never on Timmy's show? n/t

[FourScore]

42. I agree. He was outstanding. n/t

[LaPera]

44. I love Edwards...

my second choice....

[Lasher]

46. I saw that interview on Press the Meat

Russet kept going back over and over again to press Edwards ho his IWR vote. After about the 12th time Edwards should have said, "I've already told you several times that my vote was a mistake on my part but you keep asking about it. I think I've answered your question. Exactly what else is it that you expect me to say?" You sure won't ever seeing Tater Head grilling Lord Vader like that.

[venable]

52. interesting how Russert seemed determined to bring JE low

and how singularly unsuccessful he was.

Russert seemed deflated by Edwards concise answers.

[Lasher]

56. Russet was trying to do a hatchet job on Edwards, that's for sure.

The saddest thing is, it came as no surprise. I wonder if Russet has ever responded to news from the Libbey trial that Lord Vader considered Press the Meat a great place to go to spread his lies about WMD in Iraq because he could "control the agenda". Probably doesn't want to say anything, for fear it might displease Elmer Cheney.

[SaveElmer]

61. Uh...not how I read it...transcript...

He blamed on Bush intelligence lies, and the Clinton administration for errors in assessing the intelligence...

MR. RUSSERT: Why were you so wrong?

SEN. EDWARDS: For the same reason a lot of people were wrong. You know, we—the intelligence information that we got was wrong. I mean, tragically wrong. On top of that I’d—beyond that, I went back to former Clinton administration officials who gave me sort of independent information about what they believed about what was happening with Saddam’s weapon—weapons programs. They were also wrong. And, based on that, I made the wrong judgment. I, I, I want to go another step, though, because I think this is more than just weapons of mass destruction. I mean, I—at the—I remember vividly what I was thinking about at the time. It was, first, I was convinced he had weapons of mass destruction. That’s turned out to be completely wrong and false. I had internal conflict because I was worried about what George Bush would do. I didn’t have—I didn’t have confidence about him doing the work that needed to be done with the international community, the lead-up to a potential invasion in Iraq. I didn’t know, in fairness, that he would be as incompetent as he’s been in the administration of the war. But I had—there were at least two things going on. It wasn’t just the weapons of mass destruction I was wrong about. It’s become absolutely clear—and I’m very critical of myself for this—become absolutely clear, looking back, that I should not have given this president this authority.

[chimpymustgo]

66. Craven misinterpretation of what Edwards said.

He was magnificent on MTP. I know it's been tough for the supporters of other candidates to see that, and impossible for many to acknowledge it. And know in your hearts that your own candidate (with the possible exception of Obama) would surely fare less well.

[SaveElmer]

67. Exactly how was it misinterpreted...

You attack me for quoting him saying I am misinterpreting him...without explaining yourself...

[chimpymustgo]

70. He was not BLAMING Clinton, or the Clintons, or the Clinton administration.

He was responding to a series of questions from Russert about his IRW vote. Edwards was explaining why he decided to vote yes - after looking at the "intelligence" and after talking with people in the Clinton admistration whom he trusted.

To conflate that with blame is specious. An entire - foolish - thread was devoted to this, and it's just maddening.

[SaveElmer]

71. Parsing words...

He was responding to the question "Why were you so wrong?" The first thing he mentions are Bush lies and advice he received from Clinton administration officials he consulted...

Call it what you like, he is not taking "full responsibility" as he claims...he is using the same accurate reasoning as most other Democrats, while trying to come off as taking more responsibility...it's bunk...he is trying to have it both ways

Here is the transcript..

MR. RUSSERT: Why were you so wrong?

SEN. EDWARDS: For the same reason a lot of people were wrong. You know, we—the intelligence information that we got was wrong. I mean, tragically wrong. On top of that I’d—beyond that, I went back to former Clinton administration officials who gave me sort of independent information about what they believed about what was happening with Saddam’s weapon—weapons programs. They were also wrong. And, based on that, I made the wrong judgment. I, I, I want to go another step, though, because I think this is more than just weapons of mass destruction. I mean, I—at the—I remember vividly what I was thinking about at the time. It was, first, I was convinced he had weapons of mass destruction. That’s turned out to be completely wrong and false. I had internal conflict because I was worried about what George Bush would do. I didn’t have—I didn’t have confidence about him doing the work that needed to be done with the international community, the lead-up to a potential invasion in Iraq. I didn’t know, in fairness, that he would be as incompetent as he’s been in the administration of the war. But I had—there were at least two things going on. It wasn’t just the weapons of mass destruction I was wrong about. It’s become absolutely clear—and I’m very critical of myself for this—become absolutely clear, looking back, that I should not have given this president this authority.

[elizm]

77. Magnificent???

...the eye of the beholder maybe? I was leaning TOWARDS Edwards before I saw him on MTP. Drove 3 hours to hear him speak a few weeks ago. After his MTP showing I am now convinced he is NOT my candidate. So go figure...

[Strawman]

78. He didn't impress me

And I was ready to be impressed. He teases once in awhile by striking a progressive chord, and I like his economic populism, but when you try to pin him down, he equivocates.

If I'm going to vote for a politician, it might as well be Hillary Clinton. At least I have a sense that she knows how to do the job and I suspect her intentions are as good as Edwards'.

The only real alternative voice in the primaries is Kucinich. He'll get my vote because what he says is right and he has earned it.

And when he ultimately loses, I probably feel better with Hillary Clinton in there than John Edwards anyway. She is probably more skilled at getting things done. I suspect she would be better at twisting the arms that need to be twisted to end the war quickly, and just better at getting things accomplished in general than the rest of these candidates. She's more liberal that she's trying to project and once she gets in there, she'll have more of a mandate than Bill did in 1992, she'll have both houses, and she'll have learned from her mistakes. There's probably as much overlap between her views and my own as there is between Edwards' and my own, and she wins the tiebreaker in terms of efficacy.