Edwards: 1, Republicans: 0

What does a candidate who takes strong positions, tells folks he won't back down and whose campaign is fueled by a progressive populist agenda get?

Votes.

He also wins over Republicans after they watch *their own party's* debate:





Someone like Jim Geraghty at National Review may whine, saying "where do they find these people?" ( http://campaignspot.nationalreview.com/post/?q=YTM4Y2ZiY2MyMTZjMTI5OGM3NWE1OTRjNThhMjY0YzE= ) but it's clear that even older Republicans are ready for someone to stand up and finally lead this country.

I'm an Edwards supporter. I've written my fare share of diaries praising him when he's given great speeches or hit home runs at Democratic debates.

But I've never been given the opportunity to do some candidate cheerleading after a debate where the candidate didn't even show up.

This is sweet.

MLK, Global Warming And The Need For Systemic Change

Through our scientific and technological genius, we have made of this world a neighborhood and yet we have not had the ethical commitment to make of it a brotherhood. But somehow, and in some way, we have got to do this. We must all learn to live together as brothers or we will all perish together as fools. We are tied together in the single garment of destiny, caught in an inescapable network of mutuality. And whatever affects one directly affects all indirectly. For some strange reason I can never be what I ought to be until you are what you ought to be. And you can never be what you ought to be until I am what I ought to be. This is the way God’s universe is made; this is the way it is structured. --Martin Luther King, Jr. "Remaining Awake Through A Great Revolution"

Many researchers, led by scientists like NASA's James Hansen, now agree that an increase in global average temperature beyond 3.6 degrees Fahrenheit could constitute a "tipping point" leading to irreversible, extreme climate changes. If global carbon emissions continue to rise, principally from coal-fired power plants and cars, the Earth could easily reach that point by 2050.

In ominous tones, the report agrees: "Human activities could lead to abrupt or irreversible climate changes and impacts. The risks are related to the rate and magnitude of the climate change." -- "A Little Time Left On Global Warming", New Jersey Star Ledger, November 16th, 2007

Martin Luther King, Jr. is known for many things: his leadership of the civil rights movement, his outspokenness against the war in Vietnam and even his support of unions and advocacy of the poor. What he is less known for is the way that he looked at things, how he saw all life as interconnected.

And how he eschewed the "drug of gradualism" and incremental change.

Take for instance his response to a group of local clergy in Birmingham, Alabama, which was later published as the "Letter From A Birmingham Jail". The clergy had argued to King to push for small, incremental change. Why couldn't King just quietly negotiate? King outlined for them the attempts at negotiations:

Then came the opportunity last September to talk with some of the leaders of the economic community. In these negotiating sessions certain promises were made by the merchants—such as the promise to remove the humiliating racial signs from the stores. On the basis of these promises Rev. Shuttlesworth and the leaders of the Alabama Christian Movement for Human Rights agreed to call a moratorium on any type of demonstrations. As the weeks and months unfolded we realized that we were the victims of a broken promise. The signs remained. Like so many experiences of the past we were confronted with blasted hopes, and the dark shadow of a deep disappointment settled upon us.

Basically, King is telling them: we met, promises were made, and nothing happened. And instead of waiting, and talking, and meeting some more, we need to push for change now. This doesn't mean "don't negotiate". What it means is negotiate from a position of moral strength. As King continues:

Nonviolent direct action seeks to create such a crisis and establish such creative tension that a community that has constantly refused to negotiate is forced to confront the issue.

Nonviolent direct action doesn't always mean literally taking to the streets. The King Center's online guide to the Six Steps of Nonviolence lists several different ways to take direct action (link: http://www.thekingcenter.org/prog/non/6steps.html ). They can be as large and visible and strikes or walk outs, or as individual as letter writing campaigns...or as public as proposing legislation to remove a basic human right like access to health care from members of Congress until universal health care for all is achieved.

But I digress.

The politics in Birmingham that King mentions at the time are relevant. The City of Birmingham had just held elections, and the new administration was more tolerant, more forward-looking than the last. Why, oh why, Dr. King, couldn't you just restart the negotiations with this new administration?

Here is King's response (my emphasis added):

The only answer that I can give to this inquiry is that the new Birmingham administration must be prodded about as much as the outgoing one before it acts. We will be sadly mistaken if we feel that the election of Mr. Boutwell will bring the millennium to Birmingham. While Mr. Boutwell is much more articulate and gentle than Mr. Connor, they are both segregationists, dedicated to the task of maintaining the status quo. The hope I see in Mr. Boutwell is that he will be reasonable enough to see the futility of massive resistance to desegregation. But he will not see this without pressure from the devotees of civil rights. My friends, I must say to you that we have not made a single gain in civil rights without determined legal and nonviolent pressure. History is the long and tragic story of the fact that privileged groups seldom give up their privileges voluntarily. Individuals may see the moral light and voluntarily give up their unjust posture; but as Reinhold Niebuhr has reminded us, groups are more immoral than individuals.

So, negotiating small incremental change with individual people of good will does not result in the course correction needed to address an injustice. As King wisely noted, even though some key players may be on your side, groups are more immoral than individuals.

Fine. So, what do we do? Throw up our hands? Not at all...

You go back to the Six Steps of Nonviolence - I'll outline them for you here:

1. Information Gathering
2. Education
3. Personal Commitment
4. Negotiations
5. Direct Action
6. Reconciliation

And you ask yourself: did I gather all of the information I needed to understand both the dynamics of the problem, the root causes of the problem and is my proposal going to address these root causes, or will it just be a simple band-aid? Have I educated others regarding what the problem is, and what I intend to do to fix it? Have I broadcast my intentions loudly enough so folks know what I want to do and how I plan on doing it? Am I committed enough to my cause? Am I prepared for any slings and arrows coming my way? Have I tried to dialogue with my opponents, and confront them to discuss the problem and the solutions? Have I understood where they are coming from, and is it possible to find common ground? And finally...how effective was my direct action? Did it apply the pressure needed to get the parties back to negotiate?

If you go through these steps, King believed, you will find reconciliation. This is a true peace, where the ultimate outcome is removing the systemic problem that created the injustice.

This is systemic change.

You use systemic change when you have a systemic problem...and ain't no bigger systemic problem today on the planet than global warming. It touches every aspect of our lives, from the food we eat, to the clothes we wear, how we get to and from work, how our children are educated, what our foreign policy is, and even what each of our domestic household budgets look like.

You can't solve a systemic problem like this with incremental change. You can't just tweak the status quo a little here, and a little there, and expect to deal with the *root causes* of this issue. It's too massive to be dealt with incrementally.

That's why, in my humble opinion, Senator Clinton is *dead wrong* when she says "incremental change is the way to go" to handle this issue:

Incremental change is the only way to go unless there’s some major event like Pearl Harbor or 9/11: if Al Gore had been president, we would have had an energy and climate change program after 9/11. But ultimately, it’s imperative we get something passed and implement it, so that we can persuade Americans that it won’t be disruptive or lower their standard of living, but will actually create jobs and do good. We'll have to put together a smart coalition to withstand the attacks that will come. I'm aware of the difficulty, but I feel confident.

Link and a nod to thereisnospoon, as I have been unable to find a transcript of Senator Clinton's remarks independent of the one he provided from live blogs: http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2007/11/19/62124/121

King's admonition of the fierce urgency of now could not be any more relevant today then when he spoke these words almost forty years ago when he delivered his "Beyond Vietnam" sermon at the Riverside Church:

We are now faced with the fact that tomorrow is today. We are confronted with the fierce urgency of now. In this unfolding conundrum of life and history there is such a thing as being too late. Procrastination is still the thief of time. Life often leaves us standing bare, naked and dejected with a lost opportunity. The "tide in the affairs of men" does not remain at the flood; it ebbs. We may cry out deperately for time to pause in her passage, but time is deaf to every plea and rushes on. Over the bleached bones and jumbled residue of numerous civilizations are written the pathetic words: "Too late." There is an invisible book of life that faithfully records our vigilance or our neglect. "The moving finger writes, and having writ moves on..."

Why We Can Do Better Than Hillary

I've been cruising the blogs for some time now, and I've always been intrigued at the ardent Hillary Clinton supporters I've found on the web. I'm intrigued because, frankly, they're some of the angriest people out there.

My purely anecdotal experience in talking with some of these folks is their number one, big, huge, over-riding reason for supporting Hillary Clinton is not that she will push for the changes necessary to address things like Iraq, health care and global warming. It is not that she will address the gross economic inequities that have lead to working folks barely able to get by. It isn't that she'll even do anything about our outrageous gas prices or halt the spread of the Iraq war to neighboring states like Iran.

It's that...she'll rub the Rethuglican's noses in it. Yes, I am using the term "Rethuglican" because more often than not this is how these folks refer to our fellow human beings who register themselves with the GOP. While Hillary Clinton herself speaks of the wonders of compromise, and incremental change, and How Lobbyists Are People, Too, her most ardent supporters are pinning their hopes and dreams on the day that they can turn to their conservative coworkers at the water cooler and give them the glare that says "we beat you, stuff it!"

Forget issue oriented politics. Forget the fact that you might actually need the support of some of these folks in order to govern.

Forget the fact that it is our system that is the problem: the lobbyists who corrupt it; the corporate media who acquiesces to it and the politcians who have a vested interest in business as usual.

No, let's all turn our hatred and ire on our brothers and sisters who are struggling to make ends meet, who also have a vested interest in fixing global warming and who also want us to get out of Iraq like it was yesterday. Let's engage in the same politics of division that we've been doing for the past eight years, but this time let's put a Democrat in office. That'll show 'em.

And while we're so busy "showing 'em", the artic ice cap will continue to melt, soldiers and civilians will continue to die in Iraq and possibly Iran, millions of families will not be able to get the health care we need and our corrupted system will still let in lead-enhanced toddler toys and toxic apple juice in the name of unfettered, unregulated free trade.

Democrats: we are better than this. Yes, it is right to be outraged at the state of our nation right now. But let's direct the outrage at the folks who deserve it: the corporate lobbyists who have corrupted our democractic system and the politicians that have let them do it. Don't be horn-swaggled into thinking that one-upping Bob at the office will make your life any better. Bob ain't your problem.

The problem lies with politicians who excuse the corrupt system, who think that small, incremental change and protecting the status quo is the way to make our country better.

We are better than this. We can elect politicians that are better than this. We can elect folks like John Edwards, who understand that you can't accept big money and expect big change.

Let's take our country back. Now.

Diamonds and Pearls and Corporations O My!

What a difference some pre-planning makes. During the last debate the last five minutes were actually pretty darn interesting, filled with discussions on issues...or at least trying to sort out exactly where the front runner stood on the issues.

And tonight? What was The Final, Great Question of the Evening, the One On Everyone's Minds? Why, it was...

Does Hillary Clinton favor diamonds or pearls?

Oh, my!

I have a nasty internal cynic. It jumps out at me from time to time, regardless of how well I try to squelch its gleeful moroseness. Tonight it was in full force.

Before listening to the debates I heard an interesting rumor floating around the blogosphere that John Edwards was going to participate in the Writer's Guild of America strike tomorrow. Wow, I thought to myself, that's really walking your talk. How great to have a Presidential candidate walk off of a debate and onto a picket line.

And then...the debate started. Edwards shoved to the far corner of the floor. Hillary and Obama front and center. The thunderous applause for Senator Clinton as she walked in the room.

My internal cynic pounced:

"Look!" It cried, mouth agape. "He's supporting the writer's strike, and CNN is owned by Time Warner. The fix is in!"

"No." I reasoned with it, stroking its forehead. "That's just random. Bad luck of the draw. There's nothing untoward happening."

And then the debate went on. And on. And on. No real interaction between the candidates. Edwards using the brief time he was allotted to make stunningly transcendent statements about the need to make this debate about something greater than who got whom, and focus on the folks out there who need our help. To finally get some backbone and fight for what's right.

As the minutes dripped away my internal cynic groused around, kicking the cobwebs in my head as it complained about the lack of time given to Edwards, and Wolf Blitzer's failure to follow up to get clarity on anything from the Democratic frontrunner.

Finally, my internal cynic and I sat and listened with rapt attenion as Barack Obama was able to corner Hillary Clinton on an upstate-New York, Westchester County elitism that holds that someone making over $90,000 is "middle class", when that defines only 6% of the folks living in this country. Hillary started to try to say that this was really about her constituents and then -

We cut to commercial. A commercial about a hedge fund protecting the wealth of a fictional woman who owns multiple luxury properties in multiple countries.

"But wait just a little while longer." I insisted, as my internal cynic writhed in the painful irony of it all. "The really important part of the last debate was in the last few minutes. There's still time."

And then, in the last few minutes, a young girl in the audience asked...if Hillary Clinton Preferred Diamonds or Pearls.

Don't you hate it when your internal cynic is right?

A Short Rant About Health Care And The Media

Millions of people have no health care insurance in our country right now. Millions more have "junk insurance", that doesn't cover what they need to have covered when they get sick. Millions more are holding off on retiring because they can't afford the health care coverage on their own.

And then there's working folks like my husband and myself who are seeing our net pay decrease, even after cost of living raises, due to ever increasing health care costs.

That's the problem. Here's John Edwards's solution:



"...When I'm president I'm going to say to members of Congress and members of my administration, including my Cabinet: I'm glad that you have health care coverage and your family has health care coverage. But if you don't pass universal health care by July of 2009, in six months, I'm going to use my power as president to take your health care away from you. There's no excuse for politicians in Washington having health care when you don't have health care."

And here's Big Media's Retreat From Our Health Care Debate:

"...While a President Edwards could mount public pressure based on the 47 million Americans who lack health insurance, Congress is, to put it mildly, unlikely to relinquish its own coverage. In fact, some experts argue that such a law would violate the 27th Amendment's ban on "varying the compensation" of members of Congress without an intervening election. Schultz said Edwards would ask senior administration officials to voluntarily give up their health coverage if he fails to pass universal coverage..."

Link: http://blog.washingtonpost.com/the-trail /2007/11/13/edwards_impossible_promise.h tml

So, let me get this straight. There's an injustice of epic proportions happening in this country, because millions of our citizens can't get the health care they need.

And we can't fix that because...proposing legislation to Congress to remove their own health care coverage until the rest of us poor schlubs have it is unconstitutional?

Run that past me again?

Didn't we have a little thing in this country called a revolution? Wasn't a part of that whole thing addressing the denial of basic rights and freedoms for everyone, not just protecting them for the very few in charge of the government?

Isn't access to health care a basic right? Shouldn't that be protected by our Constitution?

When our Constitution was unjust in the past, or failed to address an injustice, we changed it. And if you're telling me that the Constitution currently promotes an injustice - by allowing some folks to have access to a basic right that is simultaneously denied to others - isn't it time to change the Constitution?

When our country was comprised of small printing presses, folks like Thomas Paine used them to promote the radical ideas of freedom and liberty, and the idea that you don't have to be a member of the ruling class to have access to basic rights.

Now our country's media is run by megalith corporations who distribute their news and opinion pieces via broadcast, cable, satellite and the internet, in addition to the good, old fashioned printing press. And instead of using this power to argue for basic rights and freedoms, they are now arguing exactly the opposite: that those in charge of our government should have access to a basic right that ordinary citizens do not have guaranteed access to...because they are in the government.

My how times have changed.

John Edwards: Toward A New, Democratic Politics

The in-tuned blogosphere already knows a lot about John Edwards: the endorsements he's received by state SEIU chapters including the important states of Iowa and New Hampshire; the endorsement by Friends of the Earth and the most recent endorsement by Iowans for Sensible Priorities. Folks are also aware of his calls for an end to the corrupt system in Washington, D.C., a system he defines as being "rigged" against all of us people who work for a living.

At first blush, this may seem like smart politics. Appealing to the base. Riding the wave of middle class anger. But there's something a lot more profound going on here, something that is an anti-Bush, Rove-free approach to democratic politics.

Come follow me and I'll tell you what I mean...

If you're going to try to fix a problem or address an injustice, there's a few ways to go about it. You could, for instance, focus on the immediate problem at hand and do a lessons-learned analysis (for instance, not putting a well-connected but incompetent fellow in charge of FEMA, and just hope that disaster doesn't strike). You could also do some investigations to try and examine the immediate causes of the injustice (for instance, holding hearings on how billions of dollars were just misplaced in Iraq, never to be heard from again). Or, you could try to look at the whole mess holistically, peel away the layers and get to the core issue. You could also look at where we are, where we need to be and set out a roadmap for how to get there.

That's what Edwards is doing, and that's what makes him a truly unique candidate...especially if you want *change*.

Peruse the Edwards website and you'll come across the issues page: http://johnedwards.com/issues/ . On that issues page you'll see the following three main areas, with links to specific policy proposals:

1. Standing up for Regular Families, including links to policy proposals for universal healthcare, poverty, policies to improve the quality of life in rural America, strengthen food safety and other policies and programs that reach out to and improve the quality of life for the individual.

2. Restoring America's Leadership Role In The World. Here you'll find Edwards's foreign policy and proposals that shape how our nation is viewed across the world, including the areas of Iraq, Iran, terrorism, civil liberties and global poverty (for my own analysis of Edwards's foreign policy, including his firm stance against preventive war, please see this diary: http://www.dailykos.com/story/2007/11/6/17523/4824 ).

3. Investing In Our Future And Our Communities, an area which addresses policies and proposals that impact health and well-being of the community at large, including the areas of global warming, education, open media, veterans and civil rights.

All three of these main areas affect each other, and all of the policies inside of these three areas also impact other policies. Everything is inter-related. All of the pieces and parts of the proposals need to work together in harmony in order to create the systemic change we need to reclaim our country.

Finally, none of this can happen, none of this systemic change can take place unless we remove the influence of lobbyist money in politics. Bill Bradley outlines in this in this June, 2007 talk on how the influence of lobbyists can corrupt these policies through an "unstated connection" between the contribution and the result of that contribution:



Sure, John Edwards is a great orator, and there's wonderful speakers across the field of Democratic presidential candidates. But to get systemic change you need more than just speeches: you need well thought-out policies and proposals so you can hit the ground running and start creating that change as soon as you're elected. You need a roadmap, and Edwards provides an impressive one that shows us the steps we can take to fix our problems, take care of our citizens and become a respected member of the community of nations once again.

What is John Edwards's Foreign Policy?

Here’s what they mean by preventive war—if we see a possible threat, we go to war; we don’t exhaust diplomatic, political, and economic options, we go straight to war. Under this Bush doctrine, military force is no longer the option of last resort.

snip

Now, I want to be very clear about something. I believe very strongly that any commander-in-chief must retain the right to respond with appropriate force when there’s real intelligence about an imminent threat to America.

But there is a difference between doing everything in our power to keep America safe and a reckless, belligerent policy that actually makes us less safe. The preventive war doctrine was a stunning departure from the policy that had kept America safe during both world wars and during the Cold War. It is wrong on the merits, wrong on the morals, and wrong for America.

From John Edwards's "Learning the Lesson of Iraq: A New Strategy for Iran". Link: http://blog.johnedwards.com/story/2007/11/5/122520/049

I've seen a number of diaries lately question what John Edwards's foreign policy vis a vis Iran would be. Would he invade Iran? What does "leaving all options on the table" really mean in our post 9/11, post-Bush the Younger world?

The purpose of this diary is to discuss Edwards's foreign policy, both in broadstroke and specifically with regard to Iraq, Iran and terrorism. The purpose of this diary is not to play "gotcha". No other candidates will be "called out". These are literally life and death issues as they deal with war and peace, and my hope is that we treat them with the proper amount of gravity and respect that they deserve.

Removing the Bush Doctrine of "Preventive War"

That being said, let's start with broadstrokes. Edwards is a multilateralist, which basically means he favors a "concert of nations" approach to international conflict resolution. Whether discussing Iran, Iraq or terrorism, or indeed other transnational issues like Global Warming or poverty, Edwards leads with statements like the one he wrote in his essay for Foreign Affairs:

Rather than alienating the rest of the world through assertions of infallibility and demands of obedience, as the current administration has done, U.S. foreign policy must be driven by a strategy of reengagement. We must reengage with our history of courage, liberty, and generosity. We must reengage with our tradition of moral leadership on issues ranging from the killings in Darfur to global poverty and climate change. We must reengage with our allies on critical security issues, including terrorism, the Middle East, and nuclear proliferation. With confidence and resolve, we must reengage with those who pose a security threat to us, from Iran to North Korea. And our government must reengage with the American people to restore our nation's reputation as a moral beacon to the world, tapping into our fundamental hope and optimism and calling on our citizens' commitment and courage to make this possible. We must lead the world by demonstrating the power of our ideals, not by stoking fear about those who do not share them.

Link: http://www.foreignaffairs.org/20070901faessay86502-p0/john-edwards/reengaging-with-the-world.html

This is in contrast to the Bush administration, which favors a unilateralist approach in any conflict they really want to take on (note that the glaring exception of this is North Korea, which the Bush administration in my opinion has just simply placed on the back burner, in favor of utilizing their time and resources in trying to clean up Iraq, escalate the conflict with Iran and deal with all of the known and unknown knowns and unknowns that arise along the way).

In September, 2002, President Bush put on paper his administration's policy of "preventive war". This doctrine holds that the United States can take action against threats "before they are fully formed", which flies in the face of years of international jurisprudence regarding the right of a State to defend itself from imminent attack. As the Brookings Institute explained:

The concept is not limited to the traditional definition of preemption—striking an enemy as it prepares an attack—but also includes prevention—striking an enemy even in the absence of specific evidence of a coming attack. The idea principally appears to be directed at terrorist groups as well as extremist or "rogue" nation states; the two are linked, according to the strategy, by a combination of "radicalism and technology.

As quoted in "Preventive War and International Law After Iraq", link: http://www.globelaw.com/Iraq/Preventive_war_after_iraq.htm

It is this doctrine of preventive war that Edwards railed against in his Foreign Affairs article when he called the "War on Terror" a "bumpersticker":

But I believe we must stay on the offensive against both terrorism and its causes. The "war on terror" approach has backfired, straining our military to the breaking point while allowing the threat of terrorism to grow. "War on terror" is a slogan designed for politics, not a strategy to make the United States safe. It is a bumper sticker, not a plan. Worst of all, the "war on terror" has failed. Instead of making the United States safer, it has spawned even more terrorism -- as we have seen so tragically in Iraq -- and left us with fewer allies.

He has also specifically stated that the doctrine of preventive war has no safe haven in an Edwards administration:

First and foremost, we need to ensure that the preventive war doctrine goes where it belongs—the trash-heap of history. As he has done with so much else, Vice President Al Gore got it right about the preventive war doctrine. In 2002—the same year that George Bush introduced his preventive war doctrine—Gore made a speech at the Commonwealth Club in California. He said, and I quote, “What this doctrine does is to destroy the goal of a world in which states consider themselves subject to law, particularly in the matter of standards for the use of violence against each other. That concept would be displaced by the notion that there is no law but the discretion of the President of the United States.”

These are especially chilling words to read five years later—after Iraq, Guantanamo Bay, and the president’s refusal to condemn torture, and they are particularly relevant to the situation with Iran.

link: http://blog.johnedwards.com/story/2007/11/5/122520/049

The only instance Edwards would use force in a pre-emptive strike is in the instance of imminent threat, and he would therefore return the United States to the norms of accepted international law with regard to the use of force.

Terrorism

So, how would an Edwards administration deal with an issue like international terrorism? By using a multilateral approach to deal not just with security and counter-terrorism, but also with systemic issues like poverty that help terrorism to take root. He plans to implement this multilateral approach through a newly formed organization, the Counterterrorism and Intelligence Treaty Organization (CITO):

Every nation has an interest in shutting down terrorism. CITO will create connections between a wide range of nations on terrorism and intelligence, including countries on all continents, including Asia, Africa, Latin America, and Europe. New connections between previously separate nations will be forged, creating new possibilities.

CITO will allow members to voluntarily share financial, police, customs and immigration intelligence. Together, nations will be able to track the way terrorists travel, communicate, recruit, train, and finance their operations. And they will be able to take action, through international teams of intelligence and national security professionals who will launch targeted missions to root out and shut down terrorist cells.

The new organization will also create a historic new coalition. Those nations who join will, by working together, show the world the power of cooperation. Those nations who join will also be required to commit to tough criteria about the steps they will take to root out extremists, particularly those who cross borders. Those nations who refuse to join will be called out before the world.

It's important to note that CITO is not a panacea, nor will it be perfect. But it would represent the first step in a new direction. As President John F. Kennedy observed when he signed the treaty that first limited the testing of nuclear weapons, we must begin with the common recognition of a common danger. President Kennedy said then, "A journey of a thousand miles must begin with a single step." Today, this new anti-terrorism organization would be such a first step.

link: http://www.johnedwards.com/news/speeches/a-new-strategy-against-terrorism/

Think of CITO as a NATO that is specifically tasked to fight global terrorism. Is it needed? Absolutely. Global terrorism is our generation's Cold War - it probably won't go away within our lifetimes and it is a big enough and - with enhanced global communication technology - a new enough threat to warrant an international organization of people who live, breath and eat how to combate it within the rule of international law (instead of leaving it up to the next belligerent superpower to sort out on their ownsome).

For the snapshot of Edwards's full plan to combat terrorism, visit his issues page here: http://www.johnedwards.com/issues/terrorism/

Iraq

In-tuned and hep bloggers are probably most familiar with this part of Edwards's foreign policy, so I'll be brief: immediate draw-down of 40,000-50,000 combat troops, a cessastion of combat missions and a standing force to protect the embassy and humanitarian endeavors in country.

For more of Edwards's Iraq policy, visit his issues page here: http://www.johnedwards.com/issues/iraq/

Iran

The main thing that sticks out for me in Edwards's approach to Iran is his insistence on including Russia and China in dealing with Iran as part of his consistent multilateralism:

We must work with China and Russia on the problem of Iran’s nuclear ambitions. Both nations have economic relationships with Iran on trade and energy. But both nations also have a strong interest in stability in the Middle East. And neither nation wants the nuclear club to expand. In the first year of my administration, I will convene a conference with my Secretary of State and representatives from the “E.U. 3”—Great Britain, France, and Germany—Russia, China—and Iran, to discuss a way out of the stalemate of the Bush administration.

link: http://blog.johnedwards.com/story/2007/11/5/122520/049

The problem with the current sanctions authorized under Kyl-Lieberman and implemented by the Bush administration is that they are practically unilateral in nature. Couple this with the Bush doctrine of preventive war, and you have a number of our European allies uncomfortable in backing them, Russia and China not supporting them at all and Iran defiantly saying they will have no effect on their nuclear program (check out news articles on this here: http://www.reuters.com/article/reutersEdge/idUSL3051339620071106 and here: http://www.gulf-times.com/site/topics/article.asp?cu_no=2&item_no=182484&version=1&template_id=37&parent_id=17 ).

Indeed, John Bolton, the Mighty Moustache, the Guy Who Roots for Diplomacy to fail, gleefully opined in today's New York Post:

I believe it was obvious from the outset that Iran wasn't going to renounce its quest for nuclear weapons voluntarily because it was part of a much larger strategy. The stakes were and are high: whether Iran and its radical Shiite version of Islam become dominant throughout the Muslim world, whether largely Persian Iran achieves effective hegemony in the Persian Gulf and the Middle East and whether a nuclear, terror-financing Iran emerges on the global stage as a real power.

snip

Regime change in Iran is the preferred option, and a feasible one given the regime's weakness. Rampant economic discontent caused by 28 years of economic mismanagement, the desires of younger Iranians to be freed from the mullahs' theology and dissatisfaction among Iran's ethnic minorities are all fertile breeding grounds for discontent. If we had supported and encouraged this dissent for the last four years, we might now be on the verge of regime change.

Absent regime change, the targeted use of force against Iran's program is the only option left. Risky and unattractive as it is, the choice may well be between the use of force and a nuclear Iran, which is really not a choice at all. Iran is already asserting itself in ways profoundly hostile to our interests and those of our close friends. Imagine adding Iranian nuclear weapons to that equation. That's why surrender is not an option.

link: http://www.nypost.com/seven/11062007/postopinion/opedcolumnists/dithering_diplomats_959824.htm?page=0

The issue with regard to Iran is this: do you really believe the Bush administration is willing and able to use sanctions in order to competently pursue diplomacy that results in peaceful conflict resolution? If not...don't give them the ability to escalate this conflict through practically unilateral sanctions, as it gives guys like Bolton just more air in their lungs to pronounce the Death of Diplomacy.

For more on Edwards's policy regarding Iran, visit this link: http://www.johnedwards.com/issues/iran/

Bottom line: a multilateral approach to conflict resolution, that removes the doctrine of preventive war and returns the United States to operating within the standards of international law is sorely needed right now, and this is the foreign policy Edwards is proposing. As Edwards stated in his recent speech on Iran:

In his first inaugural speech, in 1933, Franklin Delano Roosevelt rejected the failed Republican policy of military intervention in Latin America and Europe. Instead, he told the nation, we should “dedicate this Nation to the policy of the Good Neighbor . . . the neighbor who respects his obligations and respects the sanctity of his agreements in and with a world of neighbors.”

That’s the America we should be.