We all know that Edwards doesn't stand a snowball's chance in hell of winning the Democratic nomination. Mainly because he's a kook, and not a smart one either. However, he has latched onto the most important issue among 2008 voters ... immigration.
Most Americans support a hard-line stance on illegals, and Edwards has (up to this point) been the exact opposite of what the American people want on this issue.
We must remember that there is an election to win, and Edwards being himself hasn't been getting it done. So ... it's time for the tried-and-true Democrat strategy to gain ground in an election ... change yourself.
At the debate and on ABC's This Week this past Sunday, Edwards drew a distinction between himself and Sen. Hillary Clinton, D-NY, saying he disagreed with New York Gov. Eliot Spitzer's proposal to grant drivers licenses to undocumented immigrants. Clinton backs the proposal as a way of solving crimes and promoting road safety.
Moreover, Edwards said that while states should have say over the issue until comprehensive reform can be passed, once reform is enacted, licenses should only be granted to those immigrants who are on the path to citizenship.
Now his base (Huffington Post, Daily Kos types) are not too happy with his complete reversal of his stance on illegals.
Edwards' stance contrasts sharply from what he advocated as the Democratic vice presidential candidate in 2004, when he was unequivocal in his support for issuing driver's licenses to the undocumented.
So how does a candidate who has embraced progressive stances on many critical issues from 2004 to 2008 shift conservative on immigration? The answer, some analysts say, lies in the political dynamics of Iowa, the first caucus state.
First off, I'd like to point out that Edwards' new stance on licenses is not a conservative position as is being stated in the quoted post. True it is more conservative than the typical liberal stance, but not quite conservative.
As for this being a tactic to win the all important Iowa ... it's more likely than not, very true.
I've been reading what some liberal bloggers have been saying about Edwards' turnaround, and they seem to miss the point. They are critical of Edwards because this new stance is "conservative", but that is not the issue. The crux is that Edwards, like Clinton, has decided that it is more important to lie to potential voters in order to win. I credit Obama for not having done this.
We now have two of the three Democrat front-runners who have openly shown you their willingness to tell you what you want to hear rather than what they believe. That should be far more upsetting to liberals than Edwards taking a "conservative" stance on an issue.