John Edwards: The 2008 Model

"I think Jesus would be appalled if I appeared on FOX."

The Washington Post has a lengthy article today about John Edwards.

According to The Post, he's new. He's different. He's edgier.

I don't think so. He's the same "say anything" empty suit that he was in 2004.

Edwards has calculated what it will take for him to get out of the shadow of Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama.

He knows they are trying to appeal to the radical Left base, but they also understand the importance of appearing somewhat moderate. They want to be all things to all people.

If that means that Hillary and Obama need to put on fake Southern accents, that's what they'll do. Whatever it takes. They're prepared to pander.

And so is Edwards. He's a panderer extraordinaire.

This time around, he's chosen to suck up to the far Left-wing. Edwards knows that the radical anti-war Lefties aren't happy with Clinton. While some are satisfied with Obama, others don't find him extreme enough to carry out their socialist agenda.

To fill that gap, enter the supposedly new and improved John Edwards. He's doing his best to be the far Left's 2008 version of George McGovern.

When he first ran for president, then-Sen. John Edwards (N.C.) was the fresh face in the Democratic Party, a perpetually buoyant campaigner who built his candidacy around his own biography and whose success in the primaries earned him a place on the 2004 Democratic ticket.

Fast-forward to today, and there is a new John Edwards on the campaign trail. His demeanor is more serious and his elbows far sharper than four years ago. Two years after leaving the Senate, he rarely mentions his time in Washington. Nor does he talk about his experience as Massachusetts Sen. John F. Kerry's vice presidential running mate.

His political positions also have more edge. An emphasis on biography has given way to a focus on issues, where there has been a demonstrable shift to the left -- on the Iraq war, health care and the federal budget deficit. The changes have given him entree to the liberal voters and constituencies who are influential in selecting Democratic presidential nominees.

...Edwards's moves have raised eyebrows inside the party among those who wonder whether the differences indicate a genuine evolution or pure political calculation.

"Some of what is being characterized in that way is the result of me being strong and clear about where I stand and not being soft and muddy," Edwards said during an interview Friday after a day of campaigning in western Iowa. "I think that we're in a place in American history where any serious presidential candidate and the president of the United States need to be clear what they want to do for the country."

But in the next breath he defended himself as someone whose compass has remained fixed. "I should make absolutely clear: Nothing has changed about John Edwards as a human being and my value system," he said. "It's exactly the same as it's always been, which is wanting to give people the chances that I've had."

I think there's some truth to Edwards' claim that nothing has fundamentally changed about him. He's relies on the same sleaze and slick delivery that he used in 2004.

He's not a leader with principles and a vision that he's trying to sell to the American people.

He's a slimy opportunist willing to make himself fit the libs' mold. He sees a group, in this case the Lefty extremists, in search of a candidate. He's decided to fill the void and be shaped by them.

Edwards is trying to sell himself to them. He's in the process of convincing them that he's their man.

No, nothing has changed about Edwards or his value system. He has no problem whoring for personal political gain.

...That ambition has pushed Edwards to the left, most significantly on Iraq. Edwards voted for the 2002 congressional resolution authorizing President Bush to go to war and defended that vote throughout the 2004 campaign. But he later renounced the vote and has repeatedly described it as a mistake. He favors the immediate withdrawal of 40,000 to 50,000 troops, would like to see all U.S. forces out over the next 12 to 18 months and says Congress should use its power over the national purse to force the drawdown.

On health care, he has proposed a plan for universal coverage that he says would cost $90 billion to $120 billion a year. He would pay for it by rolling back Bush's tax cuts on the wealthiest Americans. When he describes the details, he says matter-of-factly that it could lead to a government-run, single-payer health-care system, a position no other major candidate has come close to articulating.

As some Democrats, including Clinton, call for a return to fiscal discipline in light of current budget deficits, Edwards takes the opposite view. What threatens the country is too little investment in health care, alternative energy sources, education and job security, he says, and he would rather do something about those than try to reduce the deficit significantly.

I wouldn't be surprised to see Hugo Chavez out campaigning for Edwards.

To quote Chavez, "Country, socialism or death."

I think Edwards would be a bit squeamish about the death part, but I'm sure he's on board with the country and socialism part.

The most concrete sign that Edwards has made a deal with the devil is his pact with the Daily Kos nutjob Lefty blogger crowd. After Russ Feingold bowed out of the race, Edwards quickly stepped in to vie for position as the new darling of the Leftist loons.

...Edwards also has wooed the Net-roots activists on the left. He refused to fire two liberal bloggers on his campaign who had come under scrutiny for inflammatory remarks published on their personal blogs. Both later resigned.

Is that really the way to win the Democrat nomination, by hiring and supporting two vile and vulgar women?

The two bloggers, Amanda Marcotte and Melissa McEwan, make Ann Coulter and her comments appear refined.

Were all the Democrat candidates called on to apologize for the ugly bigotry spewed by Marcotte and McEwan?

No.

Even Edwards didn't truly apologize for having them on his campaign payroll. He wouldn't even fire them. He wouldn't take responsibility for axing the two bigots. Instead, they supposedly chose to resign, sparing Edwards from alienating the Leftist loons.

Edwards has drifted so far to the Left, that he stood by these anti-Catholic/anti-Christian horrors.

That's his strategy to gain support from Dems.

What does that say about the Democrat Party? It's pretty sick.

And then we have Edwards' attack on FOX News.

He's pushing all the right buttons, isn't he?

Last week, Edwards announced he would not participate in a Nevada Democratic debate, co-sponsored by Fox News, which Net-roots activists had been asking the candidates to boycott. His decision was made public in an e-mail from senior campaign adviser Jonathan Prince to the Daily Kos, one of the most prominent liberal blogs.

The debate, scheduled for August, was canceled Friday.

In the interview, Edwards said the activists' concerns had no influence on his decision. "I saw the list of debates that we had and the list of things we're doing specific in Nevada, and I said, 'Why are we doing Fox?' I said, 'No, tell them no.' " Asked whether he knew about the bloggers' concerns, Edwards said, "I didn't personally know, no."

He called on Saturday to say: "The correct answer to that is I was generically aware that the Net-roots hates Fox. I did not know about any specific activity about this."

What a liar!

Edwards had no personal knowledge of the wacko Lefty bloggers' concerns.

Yeah, right.

Why would he say something so stupid?

Of course, he had to backtrack on that statement. And he did it with a Bill Clintonesque "It depends on what the meaning of the word 'is' is" sort of retraction.

This FOX thing is playing right into the hands of the fringe Left.

Here is how the Edwards campaign is hoping to get contributions by bashing FOX.

It's a fund-raising scheme.

Same thing with the Ann Coulter "faggot" joke.

Edwards is exploiting the Left's hate for FOX and Coulter to rake in some money.

This editorial in The Las Vegas Review-Journal highlights the idiocy of Edwards' refusal to participate in a debate hosted by FOX News.

You'd think the deal called for having Sean Hannity and Ann Coulter mock the candidates between comments. No, even unfiltered, unedited, live debate between loyal Democrats couldn't be entrusted to Fox News.

The approach of outfits such as MoveOn.org is so juvenile it's laughable. Imagine if every political organization created litmus tests for news organizations before agreeing to appear on their programming. Republicans would have boycotted PBS, CBS, NBC, ABC, National Public Radio and The Associated Press decades ago.

This hyperventilation results from the fact that far-left Democrats have no comparable media outlet, nor any widespread national appeal, for their radical views in favor of heavy-handed regulation, wealth redistribution, diplomatic capitulation and economic protectionism. So they attack their rivals' messenger with a reckless barrage of rhetoric that cuts down their own allies with friendly fire.

By Friday, the Nevada Democratic Party caved in to the lunatic fringe and began seeking a more "appropriate" television partner.

Comedy Central, perhaps?

Talk about the chill wind of censorship!

This FOX uproar is a joke.

DEMS APPEAR ON FOX ALL THE TIME.

Why be afraid of a debate that would air on FOX?

It's completely disingenuous. It's an attempt to rally the base, to attack an enemy. They need somebody or some entity to hate. It's as simple as that.

I think the wacko Left is beside itself. The success of what it considers to be the positively demoniacal FOX News is so disturbing to the fringe that it's being swallowed up by its own insanity.

It supposedly fears the big, bad FOX even though the mugs of libs are all over FOX.

That makes no sense.

What blindness!

What whiny wimps!

And the spineless wimp leading the charge?

None other than the 2008 model of John "I'll be whatever you want me to be" Edwards.