John Edwards Wins NPR Debate - Slams Rush to War with Iran

The Fix

WINNERS

John Edwards: In the debates to date, Edwards has wavered between two personas: effective critic and angry outsider. At times Edwards' strident critique against "the establishment" sizzles with populist brio. But, it can also occasionally come across as cranky and complaining -- not exactly the two leading traits that people want in a president. In today's debate, Edwards took on the effective critic persona. He sought to politely highlight what he called real divides between himself and Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (N.Y.) on Iran, and largely kept his focus on the mistakes made by the Bush Administration. Edwards was also able to hold his own when the debate turned to China -- demonstrating that he does indeed have some heft on foreign policy.

(Also Joe Biden and Chris Dodd)
...

Mark Halperin: John Edwards wins NPR Debate

Excerpts from Mark Halperin’s Debate Report Cards

John Edwards
"Unlike the other candidates, did not waste a single answer."
Grade: A-

The Fix

LOSERS

Hillary Clinton: Here's the problem for the junior Senator from New York: Despite the fact that polling in Iowa shows her in tight race with Edwards and Sen. Barack Obama (Ill.), her rivals for the nomination still treat her as though she is the frontrunner. On Iran, she took incoming from all sides -- Obama and Edwards accused her of attempting to distort their past statements, while Dodd and Biden castigated Clinton for her vote in favor of the now infamous Kyl-Lieberman amendment that designated the Iranian Revolutionary Guard a terrorist organization. Clinton was also hurt by the topics chosen by NPR; on Iran and immigration she has taken considerable flack for her positions; her strongest issue, health care, was left out of the mix.

(Also Mike Gravel)
...

This issue of Iran loomed large between Clinton and Edwards at this debate.  Clinton voted for the Kyl-Lieberman Amendment which Bush and Cheney used to name the Iranian Revolutionary Guard a terrorist organization and a proliferater of weapons of mass destruction.  Earlier today this issue was highlighted by Ezra Klein as illustrating a divide in foreign policy between Clinton and Edwards.

Ezra Klein - Clinton and Edwards on Iran

Unlike Edwards, Clinton did not see fit to directly respond to today's National Intelligence Estimate questioning the existence of the much-hyped Iranian nuclear program. Instead, her campaign sent out a release from their "national security director".

Whereas John Edwards himself spoke about the NIE differently:

"The new National Intelligence Estimate shows that George Bush and Dick Cheney's rush to war with Iran is, in fact, a rush to war. The new NIE finds that Iran halted its nuclear weapons program in 2003 and that Iran can be dissuaded from pursuing a nuclear weapon through diplomacy. This is exactly the reason that we must avoid radical steps like the Kyl-Lieberman bill declaring Iran's Revolutionary Guard a terrorist organization, which needlessly took us closer to war. And it’s why I have proposed that we pursue a comprehensive diplomatic approach instead."

Ezra Klein's conclusion

One of these statements communicates the primary conclusions of the NIE, which is that the Iranian nuclear program has been dormant since 2003. The other doesn't say anything of the kind, and instead emphasizes the "vigorous diplomacy needed to prevent Iran from developing nuclear weapons" and "Iran's nuclear ambitions." One, in other words, uses the report to ratchet down tensions on Iran, the other uses it as an excuse to look tough. This is, to say the very least, a disappointing performance from the Clinton campaign. This country does not need a Democratic candidate dedicated to hyping threats to in order to score political points or imply their ceaseless willingness to take the country to war.

Listen to the NPR Debate yourself here:
http://www.npr.org/...