Reply #7: I don't think so. [View All]

[Tim_in_HK]

Sept 11 and Iraq war changed the comparison to Clinton '92 and Bush '00. I'm still amazed that some people can't process that. Clinton's win in '92 was helped by the end of the Cold War and a move towards (even more) disinterest in international affairs. Bush's foreign policy position was also, basically, screw the rest of the world; we're gonna be 'humble' and ignore it, accept to push our own interests even more forcefully.

Neither of these perceptions are now the case. And these aren't credible positions for voters, regardless of how you think the US should act (either neo-con or not neo-con). Bush is gonna run this election on national security. While the Dems shouldn't allow Bush to lead the debate, it's (a) kind of going to go that way regardless b/c incumbents get a large say in setting the agenda and (b) if Dems want to shift the debate, at the least we need a candidate who can at least deflect that issue. Sorry, but Edwards ain't the candidate.

And if Edwards doesn't get the nomination in '04, what do you think he's gonna be doing for the next four years to keep his name in the public? I hear he's not exactly a shoe-in for reelection in North Carolina.