Edwards on the Hillary vs. Obama dispute - "attacking each other instead of attacking problems"

[jefferson_dem]

:popcorn:

Edwards takes his shots

Posted: Friday, July 27, 2007 11:01 AM by Domenico Montanaro
Categories: Democrats, 2008

From NBC’s Andrea Mitchell
John Edwards took a shot at Clinton and Obama's dispute -- telling the National Urban League convention in St Louis:

"If you’re looking, if you're looking for what’s wrong in Washington, why the system is broken, why the system doesn’t work, one perfect example is what's been happening over the last four days. We’ve had two good people, Democratic candidates for president, who’ve spent their time attacking each other, instead of attacking the problems that this country’s faced.

“I got your attention with that one, didn't I?”

He delivered a populist-themed speech, opening his remarks by saying that America is broken -- and he still believes we have two Americas. "I'm here to tell you the system is rigged,” Edwards said. “It is rigged; it is broken, and not working for most people in this country."

http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2007/07/27/294297.aspx

[jsamuel]

1. The argument should be over foreign policy, not over Obama and Clinton.

[AndreaCG]

2. But Edwards is right

He's been very smart to keep out of the fray until that single comment.

[Tellurian]

26. Hillary is still getting her work done...Not so for Obama..

He was a no -show for a National Security Bill vote today.

Too busy conniving with Axelrod putting the screws to Hillary, when he's getting paid to represent his constituency!

[ellacott]

3. Thank you John Edwards

This is such a riduculous, staged fight.

[rinsd]

4. Appearing above it all and reaffirming his status as the issues candidate is a smart move.

[draft_mario_cuomo]

20. Exactly, and notice how Edwards is subtly taking the mantle of a "new kind of politics" here?

;)

[benny05]

5. Thanks, hadn't seen this --K and R! n/t

[emulatorloo]

6. This is a tempest in a teapot, and a game of "Quien es mas Macho, Sra Clinton or Sr. Obama?"

Fueled by the idiotic media who likes to see a fight. I wish Sr Obama and Sra Clinton would JUST STOP IT.

[Colobo]

18. El Sr. Obama es lo que nuestro país necesita.

[Tellurian]

25. A far cry from this guy!

Wow... the sneer of a spoiled child not getting his way!

[Ethelk2044]

31. Just like the Women on CNN just said

only 1 out of 3 would want her in office. The other two said they do not want her as President. Wow

[goodhue]

7. Edwards is right

[goodhue]

43. .

[emulatorloo]

8. firedoglake: Dear Senators Clinton and Obama: Try Talking To Each Other

http://www.firedoglake.com/2007/07/27/dear-senators-clinton-and-obama-try-talking-to-each-other/

<snip>

Senator Obama indicated that America should not refuse to talk to our adversaries, drawing a contrast between what virtually all Democrats believe and the obstinacy and failures of the Bush Adminstration. Point for Obama.

Senator Clinton stated that she would not promise to meet with all of the listed foreign leaders in the first year. She didn’t refuse to meet ever, but she clarified that such meetings should occur only after careful preparation and that a President should not enter such talks under conditions that might be exploited. Point for Clinton.

Two good answers, not mutually exclusive, and together even better. If the candidates had just left it there, the American people could have walked away from the exchange reassured that the Democratic Party had candidates who understood the value of talking and the value of preparation, both positions consistent with each other and both implicit criticisms of the Bush Administration’s history of diplomatic failures. But neither candidate could leave it alone.

Instead, we’ve been treated to a growing display of ambition and campaign stupidity, in which the campaigns have manufactured a dispute that never had to be.Last night, both campaigns sent their spokesmen onto CNN and Hardball, and both managed to make their respective candidates seem petty and silly — Clinton for her insincere charge of inexperience, Obama for the silliness of his comparing Clinton with Bush on this point, then Clinton for the arrogance and condescension of Wolfson’s response and finally Obama for the incoherence of his advisor’s reply. Nice going guys. And the point of this was demonstrate how wise the two of you are in talking to adversaries?

The country desperately needs grown up leadership, people who can rise above the massive incompetence and duplicity of the current Administration, who can talk straight to the American people and draw a strong contrast between the irresponsibility of the Bush/Cheney regime and the responsible leadership Democrats are prepared to offer. Having the Democratic front runners and those around them look like jerks is not the way to win the voters, help the Party and earn the Presidency. And don’t start with the “he said, she said” stuff. The lot of you need to get serious.

<snip>

[Virginia Dare]

9. I wondered when he was going to speak up..

he can't let Hillary and Obama get all the attention. The press is loving this little non story right now. Edwards needs to keep his head in the game.

[ProgressiveAmPatriot]

10. Pride in a sound bite

I got your attention with that one, didn't I?

I find this highly amusing. Don't get me wrong, all of the candidates have their sound bites about Washington bickering, but none of them quite so blatantly declare, "You liked that sound bite, didn't you?"

[SaveElmer]

11. If Edwards and Kerry had done a little attacking in 2004...

He might still be VP...

[jefferson_dem]

12. No joke.

I still get angry when i think about that campaign and how our guys just rolled over. What were they thinking? And, man, have we all paid the price. Ughhh... :banghead:

[dk2]

16. THey didn't just roll over!

That election was stollen by BUSH and Cheney - and many in the Dem party that wouldnt support Kerry because of the swift boat mess, and also the courts in Ohio did help.

[jefferson_dem]

17. Regardless of the shenanigans in Ohio, it shouldn't have been that close.

Kerry himself regrets not fighting back more aggressively.

[zazzle]

13. Edwards ditched Kerry's DC consultants - WooHoo!

[SaveElmer]

15. Yeah and picked up Joe Trippi...nt

[beastieboy]

14. That's right, John just has his wife do the attacking for him. LOL

[pioneer111]

19. And Elizabeth does it so "nicely"

but to the point - Coulter didn't know what to do. Love Elizabeth. :loveya:

The Big Dog has lost his bite because Hillary keeps him on the leash.

And Obama has Axelrod. Oh well.

[beastieboy]

23. Bill is the secret weapon. She hasn't needed him yet.

[draft_mario_cuomo]

21. All week Edwards has been talking about real solutions to real problems

Dodd also unveiled his universal health care proposal this week. Biden passed his college affordability plan in the senate. Kucinich released 6 youtube videos on policy. Contrast what these candidates have been doing this week with what HRC and BO have been doing...

[Tellurian]

27. Hillary was busy voting for a National Security Bill in the Senate..

Obama was a NO show!

http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=110&session=1&vote=00284

[Major Hogwash]

22. He's just pissed because nobody is talking about his lack of foreign policy experience.

Maybe he could tell us what it is like in Iraq these days?
Maybe he could get off of his ass and go over there?
Nah, that might cut into his campaign time!

Honest to Pete, I would vote for Elizabeth before I would vote for John.
She's the smarter of the two.

And she would be the only woman I would support for this election because it is obvious that Hillary is going to run to the center - away from liberals - on the issue of the Iraq War.

If Bloomberg gets into this race next year and John is the Democratic candidate, he'll eat John Edwards alive.

To prevent Bloomberg from jumping into the race, we need someone who is to the left of John and someone far more liberal than Hillary.

[AndreaCG]

24. Bloomberg would only be a national force because he can spend

100 million plus on his campaign without blinking an eye.

Major Hogwash is an interesting name for you to choose...

[Major Hogwash]

29. And your point would be?

Because the fact of the matter is that Bloomberg is out there, with his billions of dollars, not just millions, and he is out there on the horizon, and he is watching and he is waiting.

Just so you'll know, Bloomberg already told Brian Williams of NBC News over a month ago that he was willing to spend as much as half a billion dollars of his own money to win the race, if he jumped in to the race at all.
That's 500 MILLION DOLLARS!

[killbotfactory]

28. This is a real issue

Does Clinton think it is okay to deny diplomacy to nations we have strong disagreements with? Does she think we should make every enemy nation show weakness and submit to the US before diplomacy can move forward, like Bush? Does she think pursuing diplomacy and meeting with "bad guys" will tarnish the image of the presidency, like she has claimed? Is it wrong to characterize these positions as Bush-Cheney-lite?

Obama sure as hell doesn't, and I agree with him.

Before this latest volley of attacks, I would have thought Clinton and Obama were nearly identical on this issue. I guess not.

[usregimechange]

30. k n r

[Generator]

32. Hello!!!!!!

Being Bush Lite IS the problem with Hillary. I agree with Obama on that as far as foreign affairs and Hillary. She wouldn't be much better than Bush-though of course on domestic matters, rights for women and much more she would be a thousand million times better.

This is the MOST I've ever liked Obama. I actually will consider voting for him now on that alone. He's too conservative in his style for me-not his beliefs. But he gets what Hillary is about and isn't afraid to name it. Also he gets that the enemies of the US are not enemies unless we allow them to remain so. It takes HARD WERK.

We are our own worst enemy, we have all this power and could do so much more with it.

And Obama challenging Hillary is hardly what's wrong with the country. Edwars lost me on this rhetoric. He can do better. Like ignore it-or admit that Hillary IS Bush lite on military issues.

[gulliver]

33. That's original.

Hackneyed, yet also dopey and counterproductive.

"...if you're looking for what's wrong with Washington..." blah, blah, blah. What? Hillary and Obama fighting are what is wrong with Washington? And why bash Washington when he wants to be the big cheese there? That's Republican stuff. This tripe could have been churned out by a monkey.

Edwards, for crying out loud, run these dumb lines past Elizabeth before you say them. She's got a good ear and a flair for seeing the jugular. You don't. You just don't. Learn from her.

[draft_mario_cuomo]

34. He took a page straight out of the Obama playbook. Now it is wrong?

One of Obama's central themes is ending exactly what Edwards is talking about. It is "hackneyed, dopey, and counterproductive" when Edwards does it but great when Obama does it? :shrug: Edwards cleverly took a piece of the mantle of a "new kind of politics" today while implicitly reminding voters that what Obama is doing is partly like what he rails against it. In short, Edwards played this politically well...

[gulliver]

37. Yes, I think it is.

Obama wants to "turn the page", and he expresses it well -- notwithstanding his current serial klutziness in the tiff with Clinton.

Attacking Washington is not a "new kind of politics" nor is it clever. I was an Edwards supporter in the last election before Clark stepped into the race. But Edwards has got to step out of this Frank Capra movie he thinks he is in. I agree with you that Edwards stole a page from Obama, but he didn't deliver the message right, and it wasn't Edwards' personality.

At least that is my opinion. I think Elizabeth Edwards shows an ability to improvise and engage in real time. Edwards seems to think "Two Americas" is Dickens.

Edwards is a hell of a nice guy. He is probably very smart too. But he just cannot attack. Ask Cheney.

[draft_mario_cuomo]

38. Compare these quotes (from post 35)

They seem fundamentally the same to me.

Barack Obama, Jan. 17 2007:

==“Our leaders in Washington seem incapable of working together in a practical, common-sense way,” Obama said in a video posted on his Web site. “Politics has become so bitter and partisan, so gummed up by money and influence, that we can't tackle the big problems that demand solutions. And that's what we have to change first.”==

http://www.signonsandiego.com/uniontrib/20070117/news_1n17obama.html

John Edwards:

=="If you’re looking, if you're looking for what’s wrong in Washington, why the system is broken, why the system doesn’t work, one perfect example is what's been happening over the last four days. We’ve had two good people, Democratic candidates for president, who’ve spent their time attacking each other, instead of attacking the problems that this country’s faced.==

[gulliver]

41. They are the same basically.

There is a strain of voter that responds to this "Can't we just get along" type stuff. They consider themselves practical and commonsense. It's all so easy.

Obama attacking Washington is no better than Edwards doing it. I think this theme is a kind of Dilbert demagoguery where heartland people flatter themselves with the idea that getting along in the complex world of today's politics is simple. I see this line of politicking as counterproductive pandering in the long run -- Bush-enabling. The people who respond to these plastic worms are the main reason politics in Washington is so difficult and irrational. When Hillary voted for the IWR, for example, these chuckle-at-their-betters, commonsense, salt-of-the-earth types were lining up at Bush's shearing station right beside her.

Politics and Washington are easy targets, like the DMV and the Post Office. It kind of disgusts me to see supposedly new style politicians going to that well. The best politics is like the best songs, inspired and capable of endless improvisation. Bill Clinton has that. Hillary (surprisingly to me) has some of that. Obama has some of that. (Loved his "Mitt Romney money" line and the fact that he smokes.) Edwards needs to watch some Eastwood movies.

[draft_mario_cuomo]

35. Edwards comments have a familiar ring to them...

Barack Obama, Jan. 17 2007:

==“Our leaders in Washington seem incapable of working together in a practical, common-sense way,” Obama said in a video posted on his Web site. “Politics has become so bitter and partisan, so gummed up by money and influence, that we can't tackle the big problems that demand solutions. And that's what we have to change first.”==

http://www.signonsandiego.com/uniontrib/20070117/news_1n17obama.html

John Edwards:

=="If you’re looking, if you're looking for what’s wrong in Washington, why the system is broken, why the system doesn’t work, one perfect example is what's been happening over the last four days. We’ve had two good people, Democratic candidates for president, who’ve spent their time attacking each other, instead of attacking the problems that this country’s faced.==

[jenmito]

36. Edwards wants to be a part of this attention the two are getting...

Did he forget he was busy talking about Ann Coulter's remarks a couple weeks ago? He's just trying to get his face in there.

[draft_mario_cuomo]

39. What he did with that situation is consistent with what he said and BO's talk of a "new politics"

If you are to build a "new kind of politics" you cannot have room for hate-mongering and need to stand against it.

[jenmito]

40. But Coulter wasn't talking about the issues.

Edwards shouldn't have stooped to her level. His wife took care of the situation.

[draft_mario_cuomo]

42. That was his point

Coulter and co. need to stop poisoning our politics and focus on issues. We are not going to have a "new kind of politics" as long as people like Coulter are running rampant.