Edwards challenges Obama, Clinton to vote for Reid-Feingold. A month ago Edwards had no comment.

[flpoljunkie]

Edwards seems more and more a candidate of bald-faced political expedience. He was my #2 anti-Hillary candidate, but now I am having second thoughts.

May 15, 2007

The cloture vote

Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama are facing their most direct test yet on Iraq war policy in tomorrow's Senate vote on two amendments aimed at stopping the war. But the votes themselves may not provide the clarity that their opponents are seeking from them.

The two candidates haven't yet said what they're doing on tomorrow's war-funding vote, which Chris Dodd and John Edwards are casting as a central statement on the war.

Dodd's new television ad focuses on the measure, while Edwards issued a stern demand that they support Reid-Feingold and gotten smacked by the American Legion for his trouble. (It was only a month ago that he was refusing to comment on Reid-Feingold, but that's another story.)

Senate staffers say, however, that tomorrow's votes won't be on the amendments themselves. They'll be cloture votes requiring majorities of 60 senators on whether the Senate can, then, vote on Reid-Feingold and on a less dramatic anti-war measure, Reid-Levin, that's also being debated, as well as on two GOP-backed measures. (These are, technically on amendments to the Water Resources Development Act.). So Clinton and Obama won't be voting for or against defunding the war; they'll be voting for or against voting on defunding the war.

The notion of a cloture vote leaves open the possibility of voting for cloture while reserving the right to vote against the amendment itself. (John Kerry's experience with being unable to explain voting for a measure, and then against it, might militate against that move.)

A vote for cloture will be widely taken, however, as a vote for the bill. Clinton, in particular, probably doesn't want to open another round of legislative parsing on her war votes. So Reid's move will force Clinton and Obama either to move further into the anti-war camp behind a bill they've long avoided supporting, or take a line directly opposed to the ascendant anti-war movement.

(With reporting from the John Bresnahan, who deserves credit for any clarity above and no blame if it's confusing.)

posted by Ben Smith 01:08 PM

http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/0507/The_cloture_vote.html

[Kagemusha]

1. I read on TPM just now: Obama to support Feingold bill

Mentioning since it seems relevant. I'll stay away from the expediency thing - apparently that's a no-go topic re: Edwards.

[benny05]

2. Somehow I don't find this post credible

Anyone and everyone should know that Ben Smith is a RWN hack and the Politico is a part of the RWN. If the poster is that concerned because of this post, I would say it appears to be a CT post and was never in favor of Edwards. This is a hit piece.

[flpoljunkie]

4. Ben Smith also spoke with Edwards about Reid-Feingold on April 12th. His response is below.

If it looks like a duck, and quacks like a duck... I stand by my original post, as well. Parentheses below mine.

April 12, 2007

Edwards and Reid-Feingold

I got a chance to ask Edwards about this after a New York dinner last night, and his answer boiled down to this: He's not in the Senate, isn't running for Senate, and isn't getting dragged into taking positions on specific pieces of legislation. Which makes sense. (political sense, I would assume.)

He did reiterate something he's said before, a defense of the Reid-Feingold position: That if Bush vetoes a series of Democratic funding authorizations for their attached strings, "The President of the United States has decided not to fund" the troops.

Anyway, I'll dismount now from this particular hobbyhorse.

posted by Ben Smith 09:33 AM

http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/0407/Edwards_and_ReidFeingold.html

[benny05]

5. He said he would go further than this

Ben Smith is a troll.

[flpoljunkie]

6. Your opinion on whether sending Bush a bill he would veto "goes further" than Reid/Feingold.

[benny05]

7. Doesn't matter if Bush Vetoes

We have to keep putting the pressure on Congress and have Bush acknowledge they are an equal branch of our government.

[flpoljunkie]

8. Bush will keep our troops in Iraq until there are enough votes to override his veto.

Tragically, this is the case we are in with this administration.

[Tellurian]

12. The thing is - it will never happen..

And he knows it! We'll never have the votes for an over ride!

[venable]

19. Ben Smith says things that aren't true, he just makes it up

He puts words that were never said in quotation marks, as if they were verbatim. I know this for a fact.

[dk2]

3. Well I will say this

IT is no time for Clinton nor Obama to get weak kneed. I will stay with support for Edwards!

At least he knows how to put the issues on the table.

[Colobo]

9. Good post!

[Tellurian]

10. The Democratic Party united through Clinton & Obama to bring Bush to his knees..

and thats a good thing! :hi:

[AtomicKitten]

11. Edwards is playing hardball.

He's not in Congress anymore and this isn't the first time he's lobbed a challenge at those who are. If the challenge goes toward ending the war, let's gin up some ideas.

Truthfully I have no problem with this. It's politics and this is an election.

Well played, Mr. Edwards.

[Tellurian]

14. Edwards was severely criticized by the American Legion

for trying to politicize Memorial Day, for wanting a demonstration (placards) stating Edwards is supporting the Troops NOT the War!

For now, Edwards is on the outside!

[AtomicKitten]

16. Edwards' candidacy will either live or die

... by these series of smooth moves. It's a crapshoot and only time will tell how it plays out.

[Tellurian]

18. Right now, he's hit a bump in the road.. and looking for damage control..

the American Legion flap is in the link.

[Clark2008]

24. Problem is that a lot of partisans are tired of "smooth moves."

I know I am, which is why I don't really have a candidate, yet (of the one's running. I'd support Gore or Clark, whole-heartedly, though).

[illinoisprogressive]

13. It is so easy to make bold statements from afar instead of up close.

The one thing that annoys me about Edwards is that while in the Senate he was not exactly standing up for anything. Running for Prez in his new image of populist, he feels he can makes bald statements and demands to the senate dems and it is more posturing than anything else.
He never seems to confront anyone face to face but, from afar.
It's so easy from afar. I so agree with what Reid said on this matter. It is so annoying.

[AtomicKitten]

15. oh, he's politicking, baby

No doubt about that. But I have every confidence Obama and Hillary are not only up for the challenge but have and are moving further into the lead.

[venable]

20. Is there anything that Edwards can say that is not called bald-faced politicking?

Is there anything at all? Really? Serious question.

The man puts forth the most comprehensive and progressive and substantive positions on a wide range of issues, and yet it remains the consensus that it is all a lie.

What, really, can he say or do?

And don't be so certain that the distrust of him here extends to the actual voting public, who see him, who meet him, and who believe in him.

Don't be so confident that he is through. You might be sorely disappointed.

[AtomicKitten]

21. nothing wrong with politicking -- it's election time

Don't be so confident that he is through.

In all I've posted on this thread, there was ZERO indication of that sentiment coming from me, however, there seems to be a whole lotta making mountains out of nothing going on at DU today.

You might be sorely disappointed.

Are you guessing there? Because you would be wrong. It may be convenient to choose up sides carelessly the way you do, but some people have more nuanced POVs than others and your entire response was off base and down the block or two.

The grudge I hold which will be manifested in the primary consists entirely of Iraq and it holds true for Edwards, Hillary, Biden, et al.

I have never given any inclination ever on DU that I will do anything other than gladly support the Democratic nominee in the general election whoever that may be.

[venable]

22. You didn't answer the question, and I don't know why you hide your choice

It certainly is not a big deal, but I think it's sort of obvious that you'd like to see Hillary and Obama pull ahead of Edwards, so why are you suggesting that your position is far more subtle and nuanced that that. There's nothing wrong with choosing sides, but why pretend you haven't got at least a less favorite who you'd like to see fade?:


"Oh, he's Politicking, baby. No doubt about that. But I have every confidence Obama and Hillary are not only up for the challenge but have and are moving further into the lead."


So, tell me, what's "careless" about reading this the way I did?

If that post doesn't suggest 'sides' fully chosen - at least HRC and Obama over Edwards- then I don't understand the English language the way I thought I did.

And if the war is the issue for you, how does HRC get the nod in your favored tier, while Edwards (who is far more aggressively antiwar now than HRC) does not?

That's 'nuance' to you, and it's inconsistent to me.

I never said you would not support the nominee.

My question was: What can Edwards say that will not be considered politicking? This isn't an hysterical defense of Edwards, it's a legit question, which you didn't answer.

[AtomicKitten]

25. answers

What can Edwards say that will not be considered politicking? This isn't an hysterical defense of Edwards, it's a legit question, which you didn't answer.

* You asked many questions. The answer to that particular one is that everything the candidates do and say between now and the election will be construed as politicking because everything they do and say will be measured and mulled over beforehand. It's the nature of the beast and by no means exclusive to one candidate or another. When I use that phrase it is an observation, although many use that to bludgeon the candidates, all of the candidates.

It certainly is not a big deal, but I think it's sort of obvious that you'd like to see Hillary and Obama pull ahead of Edwards, so why are you suggesting that your position is far more subtle and nuanced that that.

* Because they are according to just about all the data. That's just the way it is. Again, an observation.

And if the war is the issue for you, how does HRC get the nod in your favored tier, while Edwards (who is far more aggressively antiwar now than HRC) does not?

* Answer: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=3261770&mesg_id=3261770

It's really a moot issue since I don't plan to vote for either in the primary, however, Edwards' involvement in the rush to war is by far more egregious than HRC's because he not only co-sponsored the IWR but in spite of being on the Intelligence Committee and knowing what Dick Durbin did (who voted no), he rallied in support of the war so convincingly he was quoted on the State Department website. You can't put the genie back in the bottle and none of the backtracking/apologies/explanations will revive all who have died. In other words I am not impressed by their excuses in the least, none of them. Ironically I find your view on that inconsistent; mine makes perfect sense to me. Funny how that works, eh?

In the end, may the best man/woman win and then I'm anxious to get on with the contest to take back the White House.

[draft_mario_cuomo]

28. One can show leadership in the Senate as well as outside the Senate

The question is whether people choose to exercise leadership. The excuse that they can't show leadership because if they did they won't be able to sit at the cool kid's table in the Senate cafeteria is weak. Are they leaders or followers?

[dogman]

17. Surprise, Surprise.

A few weeks back he was challenging Congress to keep sending the same bill back to w. When Reid rebuffed the criticism, Edwards supporters attacked Reid in this forum. I repeatedly asked then why Edwards did not support Reid-Feingold. I guess someone in his campaign realized that attacking a Democratic Congress was not a wise course. Great to see wind has changed his course. Do his supporters now support Reid a little more?

[w4rma]

23. This is the bill that is out there. Edwards wants to go further, this bill doesn't go far enough. nt

[draft_mario_cuomo]

26. The OP conveniently ignores why Edwards did not support Reid-Feingold

He supported the goals of the bill but did not believe it went far enough. Since the only bill right now before Congress is Reid-Feingold, it is perfectly logical for him to urge HRC and Obama to support a generally good bill before Congress than to demand that they not support it in the hope that someone will present a tougher bill.

[NewYorkerfromMass]

27. Chris Dodd, original sponsor of Reid-Feingold, should be the anti-Hillary

Edwards, Clinton, Obama... they're all just followers. Chris is the "real deal" when it comes to meat and potato Democrats.
And Chris has more experience in office than all 3 of them combined.