[Previous entry: "Climate Change Could Spread Plague: Scientists"] [Next entry: "Former Iraqi Detainees Allege Torture by U.S. Troops"]

11/15/2005:

"Edwards' Remarks May Nudge Others"

Former Sen. John Edwards' decision Sunday to so publicly repudiate his past vote authorizing the war in Iraq could help shape a Democratic race for president that's just beginning.

The reason?

If 2004 is any guide, liberals and interest groups opposed to the Iraq war will exert a powerful influence on the 2008 battle for the Democratic nomination -- especially in the crucial year or so leading up to the first caucuses and primaries.

In 2004, they catapulted Howard Dean, then an obscure ex-governor of Vermont, to the front of the Democratic pack -- at least for awhile -- because of his anti-war positions.

Dean's more famous rivals, including Edwards and Sen. John Kerry, D-Mass., spent months on the defensive because they were among 29 Senate Democrats who voted to authorize President Bush to invade Iraq.

During a 2003 appearance at the California Democratic convention, Edwards was booed when he mentioned his support for disarming Saddam Hussein. And after the U.S. bombing of Baghdad began, antiwar demonstrators picketed Edwards' Charlotte office and a campaign fundraiser in Raleigh.

To rescue their campaigns in the months leading up to the 2004 Iowa caucuses, Edwards and Kerry voted against Bush's request for $87 billion for military and reconstruction efforts in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Sunday, on NBC's "Meet the Press," Dean -- now national chairman of the Democratic Party -- called Edwards' column in the Washington Post saying his 2002 vote was a mistake "very courageous. It's always hard to admit you were wrong."

Over on ABC's "This Week," host George Stephanopoulos -- a one-time spokesman for President Bill Clinton -- said Edwards' remarks would put pressure on Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton, D-N.Y., who is seen as the Democrat to beat in 2008 for the presidential nomination.

Clinton has criticized Bush's handling of the war, but she hasn't wavered on her vote. Asked her position recently on National Public Radio, she said: "I can't talk about this on the fly; it's too important."

She may have to start talking soon.
commondreams.org

It's a lot easier to admit you were wrong after the fact. These people are irrelevant.