Edwards sees apologies as effective strategy but experts say tactic risky

Former Sen. John Edwards (D-N.C.) has apologized or expressed regret for several of his most important decisions in Congress, adopting a strategy that voters may find refreshing but could backfire by raising questions about his judgment, say political experts.

Edwards generated momentum among anti-war Democrats early in the campaign by apologizing for his 2002 vote authorizing the war in Iraq. His public apology put pressure on rival Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-N.Y.) to do the same, which she refused.

{mosads}Edwards has also apologized for a litany of other decisions and statements, which, though not widely known, could make him a target of criticism, say political experts.

Edwards called his vote for the No Child Left Behind Act the “worst mistake of his Senate career” during a January 2004 Democratic debate. In this year’s campaign, Edwards says that the education law had good parts and bad parts but that President Bush has implemented it poorly.

He also told union leaders that he regretted his vote to normalize trade relations with China and considered it one of his biggest mistakes as a senator. He also told union officials that he regretted his support for giving the president “fast-track” authority to negotiate trade deals.

Edwards regrets his vote for bankruptcy reform as well. He said he was wrong to endorse a bill that made it more difficult for Americans to escape debt. After leaving the Senate, Edwards launched a high-profile crusade against poverty.

Edwards’s frequent apologies contrast with his rivals, Clinton and Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.), who have avoided casting blame on themselves for past votes or campaign missteps.     

For example, last month Obama implied that his tardiness to an Iowa campaign event was due to pilot fatigue. Earlier this year, he distanced himself from a campaign document that mocked Clinton’s connection to an Indian-American donor.

Clinton earlier this fall told an editorial board in New Hampshire that a controversial plan to give driver’s licenses to illegal immigrants made sense but later denied having done so when confronted about it at a Democratic debate.  

“The American people are tired of politicians who make excuses and use Washington-speak to explain away mistakes,” said Eric Shultz, Edwards’s campaign spokesman. “John Edwards wants to boldly change the way Washington works, and that includes having an honest president who is strong enough to admit a mistake and say three little words: ‘I was wrong.’ ”

But the strategy is not without risks.

 “In Italian the word is apologia, it represents the art of apology; Edwards seems to be adhering to the Italian approach to politics,” said Chris Lehane, a political and strategic communications consultant who worked on former Vice President Al Gore’s 2000 campaign.

Lehane, a Clinton supporter who is not working for any Democratic presidential campaign, said that apologizing can be an effective political tactic if used sparingly, but he added that saying “I’m sorry” too many times can lead to trouble.

He said that Edwards’s apologies help portray him as an atypical politician, but that he risks overdoing it.

“You begin to run into serious problems if there’s an entire litany of apologies,” he said. “When you string them all together it raises questions about judgment or raises questions about sincerity.”

Stuart Roy, a communications expert at Prism Public Affairs who used to work for former House Majority Leader Tom DeLay (R-Texas), a lawmaker often in the political crosshairs, said that apologizing can make a candidate appear inconsistent.

“It can work on one or two major issues,” said Roy. “At some point, and the threshold is fairly low, the apology is just another word for flip-flop.”

Edwards’s apology for authorizing the invasion of Iraq, which is most well-known among voters, won him plaudits from liberals.

“The only one that people remember and care about is the war and I think he scored by apologizing for the war and Hillary made a mistake by not apologizing,” said Bill Press, a former Democratic strategist and radio talk show host. Press also writes for The Hill’s Pundits Blog.

But Press said that Edwards may have carried the tactic too far by apologizing for a laundry list of other positions.

“When I hear so many apologies from John Edwards I can’t help but ask if there was anything he did he was proud of and he does not regret,” said Press.

Politicians have taken on criticism for taking the opposite approach: refusing to apologize for any poor decisions.

One Republican strategist said that President Bush’s advisers adopted a stance early during his administration of never admitting error or apologizing. Among White House staff, Karl Rove repeated the mantra “The president is always right,” said the GOP strategist.

Commentators ridiculed Bush at the end of his first term when he said he could not think of an instance when he made a mistake as president. Eventually, Bush’s unwillingness to admit to error became one of the biggest criticisms of his presidency. Democrats raised that criticism again this week when Bush declined to acknowledge that his stance against Iran was too hawkish in light of a new National Intelligence Estimate reporting that Iran halted its nuclear weapons program in 2003.

Speaking of Edwards, Press said, “He certainly has raised apology to the level of a fine art. He has perfected it unlike anyone else in politics. Voters appreciate someone who is willing to admit a mistake.

“It would be refreshing if Bush would say, ‘Gee, I was wrong on Iran.’ ”

Perhaps realizing the danger of appearing too unapologetic, Clinton has said she has learned from her failed effort to enact healthcare reform in the early 1990s. Her handling of the issue alienated many Democrats in Congress, and political analysts have credited the demise of her effort as contributing to the Democrats’ loss of the House and Senate in 1994.