John Edwards re-emerged for the first time today since his campaign ended. Edwards was a strong advocate for Kerry, so much so it appeared like an audition for VP. Edwards also had some interesting thoughts on the Clarke accusations.
Wolf, as he is prone to do, attempted to deflect the Clarke criticisms onto the Clinton administration:
BLITZER: All right, well, you're a member of the Intelligence Committee. You obviously watched all of these developments over the past few years.
Do you agree with Richard Clarke, the former counterterrorism adviser, that perhaps, if the Bush White House, the first eight months, nine months had been paying closer attention to al Qaeda, 9/11 could have been avoided?
EDWARDS: Here's what I believe.
I believe it was not a priority for them. They were focused on things like missile defense, issues unrelated to terrorism, unrelated to al Qaeda. I don't think it's possible for any of us to know whether 9/11 could have been prevented. I think actually Richard Clarke said exactly the same thing. But what we do know is, this was not the priority with the Bush administration that it had been with the Clinton administration and not the priority that it should have been.
BLITZER: But the Clinton administration had eight years to deal with al Qaeda, going back to the first World Trade Center bombing in 1993. They clearly tried certain things, but they never really could get the job done either.
EDWARDS: But they recognized how important it was, Wolf.
I'll never forget, as soon as the Clinton administration left office, I had a meeting with Sandy Berger, because I wanted some advice from him about what the most important issues were about keeping this country safe. And, as you know, he was national security adviser under President Clinton. And I'll never forget him saying to me, al Qaeda and terrorism are the most serious threat facing this country today, and we've got to get focused on it, focused like a laser.
Well, he recognized it. The Clinton administration recognized it. But, apparently, the Bush administration did not give it the priority it should have been given.
Edward's reference to Clinton's priorities, as opposed to Bush, give Clarke's view added weight.
When the subject turned to Kerry and Blitzer's characterization that Kerry had "foggy" positions, Edward's was great in defending Kerry:
BLITZER: Can't the administration look at his voting record going back almost 20 years in the United States Senate and say these are legitimate areas where they can criticize him?
EDWARDS: No, they can look at his voting record and raise issues about the voting record which is what they're trying to do with the millions of dollars of political ads they're trying to buy around the country. What they will find is here is a man who has a clear vision for where this country needs to go of the he has been as strong as you could find in a presidential candidate in making sure the American people are safe. Making sure we defend this country. Remember, he's somebody who himself has lived through war. He understands what it means to put young men and women's lives at risk. The very notion that somebody who's lived through what John Kerry has lived through would not do what's necessary to keep our military men and women safe and keep this country safe is utter nonsense. He's exactly the kind of man we need in the Oval Office.
BLITZER: Because when you say he has a clear vision, a lot of the criticism leveled against him by Bush administration officials and others is that he seems to take a long time making up his mind, and in the end tries to straddle various differences, different positions and come up with some sort of foggy answer.
EDWARDS: Let me say this in very simple language, Wolf.
I have campaigned with John Kerry. Remember, he was my opponent in the Democratic nomination process. I've been through many, many debates with him. I've seen him campaigning on the stump. This is a man of strength and character and courage and the American people would be lucky to have him in the White House.
BLITZER: Our most recent CNN/"USA Today"/Gallup, which just came out yesterday, showed that a majority of Americans believe he will raise taxes if he's elected president, which is something obviously that's politically concerning.
EDWARDS: If John Kerry is president of the United States, for 90-plus percent of Americans, their taxes will go down. He's for exactly what I'm for, which is reducing taxes on middle-class, working Americans. He's not for giving tax breaks to wealthy people, which is what this president is for. That's the dividing line, and the American people need to hear that.
The difference is, John Kerry will reduce taxes for working middle-class families, but he will not give big tax breaks to rich people.
Edward's defense of Kerry certainly came across as geniune, but his eagerness belied his desire for the VP spot. Apart from his weak foreign policy experience, Edwards would be a great VP. I hope that irregardless of the VP game, Kerry uses Edwards effectively because his eloquence and positive outlook are valuable assets.
