John Edwards is the only Democratic candidate who is gainfully engaged in a real debate with the Republican presidential candidates about a very crucial topic: what's the best and most productive way to frame and deal with threats to national security.
He's called the War on Terror a "bumper-sticker slogan," and accused the administration of hyping the threat for political reasons, of scaring the public about the stiffness of Democratic spines, and of blinkered thinking about the nature of the threat.
He is also under some pressure. If the war on terror is not a war, then what is it? Just because the administration bastardized the phrase, does it still have content?
Edwards still scares some Republicans for surprisingly conventional and superficial reasons: his southern accent, his mid-life rediscovery of his religion and his opposition to same-sex marriage. The Democratic establishment and the political press generally discounts these attributes. They don't really like or trust Edwards, so they tend to underplay the power of his salvos and thrusts.
But Rudy Giuliani, Mitt Romney and John McCain, and, Fred Thompson, too, are actively arguing with John Edwards. (They're criticizing Hillary Clinton on taxes and the economy -- she is relatively untouchable on national security subjects).
In New York today, Edwards outlined his national security policy. Edwards calls his outreach instrument the "Marshall Corps."
“For six years, George Bush has hijacked the language of terrorism and used it to force through an ideological agenda that undermines our values and does nothing to undercut terrorism. ... by the Bush Administration’s own admission, we are less safe today. Today, we know two unequivocal truths about the results of Bush’s approach – there are more terrorists and we have fewer allies.
First, I will strengthen our military to better address the threat posed by terrorist groups to the United States. I will strengthen our force structure, hold regular conferences with top military leadership so their advice isn’t filtered, and give back military professionals control over major operational decisions. Second, I recognize what our military commanders have made clear – military action is only one of the tools we have to stop terrorism; we have to supplant the lure of violent extremism with the hope of education, opportunity, and prosperity. I will launch a sweeping global effort to provide education, fight poverty, increase democracy and create a 10,000-member strong “Marshall Corps,” all to ensure that terrorism does not take root in weak and failing states.
I believe that every candidate for president, Republican and Democrat, understands that there are terrorists who mean us harm and must be stopped. To suggest otherwise is to do exactly what I have criticized the Administration for doing – reduce the fight against terrorists to a bumper sticker slogan and use it for political gain. Using fear as a wedge issue may help win elections, but it won’t protect Americans ... we must come together, and cast fear aside.”
Giuliani's communications director, Katie Levinson, sent a response: "John Edwards' track record of predicting election outcomes speaks for itself."
It's interesting that allmost every candidate, R or D, has called for a re-engagement with the Muslim world on a deep level. Committments vary: Mitt Romney wants to trumpet the blessings of democracy:
America must help lead a broad-based international coalition that promotes secular education, modern financial and economic policies, international trade, and human rights
Katie Levinson, Giuliani's communications director, sent a response: "John Edwards' track record of predicting election outcomes speaks for itself."
John McCain has called for a "League of Democracy" that could, for example, intervene in Darfur.
| 
Clearly, Edwards takes national security seriously and wants to frame the debate.
I wonder if Hillary will ever step-up and propose something of her own, whether on terrorism or, well, anything...
Posted by Joe Justice | June 7, 2007 7:12 PM