Should he oppose the spending cutoff in Iraq and look presidential, or should he cave in to the hard left and knock out Edwards?
Pelosi and Reid both have bodies that have already caved on them. The words “cavern” or “cadaverous” comes to mind. Who was that old senator from California who looked like a cadaver?
Obama is in a bit of a quandry
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cu4Wdz_3Ac8&mode=related&search=
Hillary will support the troops, turning to the center.
Obama will straddle, having it both ways.
Edwards will continue to play disadvantaged poor boy to curry the union money.
they are also moving toward a civil war within their own party. If Pelosi and Reid agree to give Bush a new bill providing funding for the war without a deadline for troop withdrawal, they will redeem their party’s image nationally and show their support for the troops, but they will alienate their left wing. A bitter and divisive battle will ensue — one that could cost the Democrats the White House in 2008.
What a wonderful thought!
So who's got the popcorn, nachos and cokes (or other beverage)?
OTOH, this sort of assumes that Stretch and Dingy Harry are *not* part of the left wing of the DemonRat party. I think they are, and always have been.
At some point this fellow and that knuckle headed babe senator should realize that not taking care of the Iraq problem now will leave an unsolvable problem for the next administration.
Senator John Edwards, when asked about “Axis of Evil” countries Iran, Iraq, and North Korea:
“I mean, we have three different countries that, while they all present serious problems for the United States — they’re dictatorships, they’re involved in the development and proliferation of weapons of mass destruction — you know, the most imminent, clear and present threat to our country is not the same from those three countries. I think Iraq is the most serious and imminent threat to our country.”
Senator John Edwards (Democrat, North Carolina)
During an interview on CNN’s “Late Edition”
February 24, 2002
John Edwards, while voting YES to the Resolution authorizing US military force against Iraq:
“Others argue that if even our allies support us, we should not support this resolution because confronting Iraq now would undermine the long-term fight against terrorist groups like Al Qaeda. Yet, I believe that this is not an either-or choice. Our national security requires us to do both, and we can.”
Senator John Edwards (Democrat, North Carolina)
US Senate floor statement: “Authorization of the Use of
United States Armed Forces Against Iraq”
October 10, 2002
“As a member of the Senate Intelligence Committee, I firmly believe that the issue of Iraq is not about politics. It’s about national security. We know that for at least 20 years, Saddam Hussein has obsessively sought weapons of mass destruction through every means available. We know that he has chemical and biological weapons today. He has used them in the past, and he is doing everything he can to build more. Each day he inches closer to his longtime goal of nuclear capability — a capability that could be less than a year away.
The path of confronting Saddam is full of hazards. But the path of inaction is far more dangerous. This week, a week where we remember the sacrifice of thousands of innocent Americans made on 9-11, the choice could not be starker. Had we known that such attacks were imminent, we surely would have used every means at our disposal to prevent them and take out the plotters. We cannot wait for such a terrible event — or, if weapons of mass destruction are used, one far worse — to address the clear and present danger posed by Saddam Hussein’s Iraq.”
Senator John Edwards (Democrat, North Carolina)
US Senate floor statement: “Iraqi Dictator Must Go”
September 12, 2002