During his first two years as a senator in voting for Iraq War funding bills that did not contain a timeline for withdrawing troops.

I know Edwards has said he will not leave any troops in Iraq to run combat missions.  But what are "training missions"?  Don't most of the candidates still favor a role training Iraqi troops?

Leaving aside the questions of their motives for hitching their wagons to Obama in the first place (careerism is always motive)

I don't know if you're referring to the bloggers or to the advisors, but in either case, you are not "leaving it aside" - that's a rhetorical device so that you can insuate something while pretending not to.  You really should erase that line - it sullies an otherwise fine post.

But, to more substantive stuff: Edwards inclination to focus on poverty - not only in America, but overseas - is a really a fundamental part of his foreign policy and national defense policy.  It is very much in keeping with traditional Democratic principles about the root causes of dictatorships and violence, so that when Edwards talks about his plan to invest billions in primary education overseas as a way to help arrest severe poverty, and when he links this to our own national security, I'm reminded of the foreign policy speeches of presidents like Franklin Roosevelt and John Kennedy.

Edwards gave a speech to the Council on Foreign Affairs back in May and published a paper in Foreign Affairs last month (each of the major candidates has used these venues to outline their foreign policy approach in long form). His approach is not as parochial as Klein describes, and it has shifted from a sort of global "two Americas" theme early in the campaign to Iraq and terror.

The curious thing is that in both of these papers Edwards is focused on the use of the U.S. military and he shows a very American-centric view of foreign policy (Obama is similar). He spends little time discussing diplomacy and international institutions. Clinton, who is generally considered the most hawkish Democrat, writes about the U.S. as one nation among many, and gives more emphasis to our soft power than our military might. Bush's domestic approach to foreign policy is a source of many of our troubles overseas, I find the liberal internationalist alternative foreign policy that Clinton outlines more compelling than the American-centric muscular diplomacy of Edwards or Obama.

Edwards isn't leading.  He isn't in a position of leadership.  He is a lawyer running for President.

In my opinion he is pandering now to a very thin slice of the Democratic electorate.  I think this will hurt him not help him.  I think most Democrats want peace with strength.  I think that is probably why Clinton is leading now.

America needs to go back the foreign policy that served us from Truman through Clinton.  Hillary is promoting that, Barack is to a certain extent as well.  It is a foreign policy that is tough, vigerous, and has a threat of violence to it, but is clear in its willingness to engage in diplomacy and peace.

Edwards sounds as if he has taken a sharp left and is getting lost in the weeds on foreign policy.  This no nukes thing is borderline bizarre.  I think many Americans will see now more like a Kucinich than a Clinton, Biden, Richardson, or Obama.

At this point, I think it's disingenuous of Ezra Klein to say he doesn't know who he'll vote for. Can Ezra Klein really be that uninformed? I don't think he should be doing pundit posturing on the talk show circuit if he doesn't know where candidates stand on the issues by now. Not that being uninformed about candidates ever kept anyone off of Tucker Carlson's show, or Chris Matthews' show, come to think of it.

I've already decided: Edwards gets my vote in the primary. Whoever wins the Democratic Party nomination will get my vote in the general. Democrats will choose their nominee, and when they do, I hope all Democrats will unite behind their nominee whoever he or she may be. I'm sick of reading the "never voting for Clinton' missives from so-called 'progressives' who have forgotten the 'inconvenient truth' of Al Gore's loss in 2000 thanks partly to Ralph Nader. Don't let it happen again, Democrats. It's Democrats v. Republicans at that point, and we need to win the White House too.

Just sayin'

You say:

Edwards has rejected the Global War On Terror frame, Obama has accepted it.

The last debate showed clearly how wrong that statement is.  John gets a lot of praise for coming out and saying GWOT is a bumper sticker - of course it is, it is a slogan, just like the War on Drugs and the War on Poverty.  I'm not saying it is a bad thing to highlight the sloganeering aspect of the phrase, but then you need to go much deeper.  There is a struggle against terror as a political tactic which cuts across many nations of the World.  We can't deny that.  The whole point, at least to me, is to recognize not so much the bumper sticker but the point of the bumper sticker - which is to hold us in constant fear.  What we need to be careful is not so much the use of the phrase as it is continuing the unfounded fear.  A clear example of this was Russert's question about pledging to deny Iran a nuclear bomb.  It wasn't Edwards who turned this question around and threw it back at Russert, it was Obama.  He rightfully refused to play this game and immediately talked about fear.

That is fully understanding that what is important about the GWOT frame is not the frame itself but the picture it holds.  I'm not going to comment about Edwards, but it is completely false to claim that Obama is somehow lacking in this area.  From his stance to talk to any World leader without pre-conditions, to his recognition that what we need in Pakistan is not just an Ally but a Democratic Ally, to his admonition to Russert to lower the fear rhetoric on Iran, he fully accepts and understands that beyond the bumper sticker lies Roosevelt's words - "the only thing we have to fear is fear itself".