Edwards basic frame is far more progressive and forward looking than Obama's or Clinton's. He doesn't believe in a "war on terror" and he doesn't want to add 92,000 new troops.Welsh goes on to point out that Rasmussen daily tracking polls show that Clinton is losing support nationally, and her numbers are going to Edwards, not Obama.
The US spends over 50% of the world's military budget and is losing two wars to rabble, yet Obama and Clinton think it should raise more troops? Does "good money after bad" mean nothing to these folks?
The US can't afford current policies. It's in serious imperial overstretch, massively in debt, losing its industrial base, maintaining an army whose effectiveness is extremely questionable and losing its technological lead in multiple fields. And the "war on terror" has led to a massive increase in terrorism--it is a complete and utter failure on every metric.
And John Edwards is the only one of the three proposing anything really different. The only one really proposing "change"... saying the war on terror is counterproductive was the equivalent of saying "the emperor has no clothes".
And only Edwards had the guts, honestly and wisdom to say it. Likewise he is the only one of the three candidates not pandering to fear and the military lobby by promising new troops, logically asking why the US would need them if it's leaving Iraq?
It looks like Obama will win New Hampshire today, but Edwards should finish second or a close third. If national trends continue, he should continue to gain support at Clinton's expense. I suppose this makes an Obama/Edwards tickets more than just a pipe dream?