I’ve already posted quite a bit today about the John Edwards selection: my preview column this morning on Carolina Journal Online and a quick-response piece for National Review Online that will appear shortly. But one thought hasn’t smuggled its way into either piece. That is, by picking Edwards, John Kerry has signaled that contrary to popular belief the Democrats cannot really win by running against the war in Iraq.
Both Kerry and Edwards voted for the congressional authorization for war. Both have criticized Bush’s handling of the war primarily, not the case for it. Indeed, Kerry has been a bit hard to pin down on all this, staying away from Gore-style insanity while also seeming to fudge on his initial vote. But Edwards hasn’t really shifted from his initial position. In that he’s like Senate candidate Erskine Bowles, who still supports the war and endorses the pre-war notions about Saddam Hussein?s threat to our national security (which were, after all, largely the notions and the policy embraced by the Clinton administration he helped to run).