DEBATES: THE EDWARDS TELL AND YOU HEARD IT HERE FIRST

There is something very strange about John Edwards. As a class-action and tort litigator there were few better. He took on some of the most retrograde Right-Wing corporations in court and beat them out of lots of money on a regular basis. In the South. His own upbringing makes the "retooled" Edwards image as a fiery populist, willing to admit he was wrong on Iraq, a natural fit. Elizabeth Edwards has given him all the free-media help he could want. He presents very well on camera. It's obvious that he's bright and there's a tremendous amount of room to Kucinich's right and everyone else's left. He's probaby got the most workable health plan in today's political climate. He's been through a campaign before. All the way. He's leading in Iowa. Why does Clinton win every debate on preparation and poise and Kucinich win on ideas and style EVERY TIME. Why was he so disingenous at the YearlyKos debate on the issue of lobbyist money? Why does he apologize to Obama in every debate for his war vote instead of asking Obama to PROVE he opposed the war in 2003 while in the Illinois State Legislature? Why doesn't he ask Obama if that's true, why then didn't Obama LEAD on the issue, especially as Obama's position on Iraq now is the most hawkish of the bunch? If Edwards feels the need to apologize for anything, isn't Kucinich the guy he owes the apology to?

As Martin Balsam's character in Psycho said "if it don't gel, it ain't aspic and this isn't jelling." What's going on? Kelso thinks the tell came during the Soldier Field debate. The issue was gay marriage. Clinton (it's silly to talk about gay marriage because the country isn't there yet; my focus is on ending "don't-ask-don't-tell," and securing domestic partnership rights) was perfect. Kucinich (for gay marriage all the way) was perfect. Edwards looked as though Floyd Mayweather, Jr., had hit him in the face. He looked daxed. He gave an incomprehensible answer somehow dragging religion into it and when he realized he'd gone too far, he hid weakly behind his wife's support of the issue. A charitable person would say that after he'd gotten taken to the woodshed by the MSM after calling Cheney a hypocrite on this issue, he's been chastened.

But let's not be charitable. As a top-class attorney, Edwards has to see that Clinton and Kucinich's answers play very well and he has to know that Obama's a straight-up homophobe. Edwards must decide which side he's on and stick with it. Dittoing Clinton's not a bad idea. He's not going to out-religion Obama on words, but he'll out-religion him on image. He can't possibly take the Kucinich point of view even if he believes it because Edwards is still in with a big chance. He has to see the right move is some insignificant variant on Clinton and move on with it. He cannot be in the middle with Clinton, on the left with Kucinich and on the religious right with Obama at the same time.

Gay issues, though, are relatively small potatoes in the grand scheme. So, what's the problem? Kelso posits that the problem is Edwards' new suit of clothes fit him poorly, his upbringing, his brilliance as an attorney for the individual or class-of-individuals against the institution notwithstanding. He is by nature a "blue-dog" or "boll weevil" or whatever you want to call him. He was strongest as a politician ganging up with Gephardt and Kerry on Dean. Kelso does not believe in the Damascene Conversion theory on Edwards. Kelso believes that Edwards is a DLC man at heart and as such is neither fish nor fowl. Despite the rhetoric, he's blowing with the political winds worse than Gore or Kerry did. For all her DLC/AIPAC corporatism, at least Clinton has the courage to admit to taking lobbyist money. She's running a careful center-right campaign and using her formidable poise and ability to take a punch to her benefit. Edwards is probably a better person than Clinton is, but hardly a better politician and would hardly make a better leader.

We told you after the St. Anselm's College Republican Debate in New Hampshire that the press read it wrong. McCain's insanity did not give Straight Talk the win. We said the winner was Mike Huckabee and we've been proven right as he has turned out to be the viable dark-horse here, as McCain like old soldiers fades away. Huckabee gave an answer about his Fundamentalist Christianity in that debate even an Atheist could love. Since, he has staked out territory left of every other Republican on the war, labor, and criminal justice and has been reaping rewards. Mike Huckabee is not a proto-typical Southern neanderthal. He's bright and very capable and would only be a small underdog to Clinton in general election.

Don't any of you forget that Kelso is writing this as a Kucinich supporter who would vote for Clinton or Edwards for President.

Kelso's Nuts love you