Clinton booed at Edwards rally

[usregimechange]

DES MOINES, Iowa (CNN) — At a rally Saturday night touting the fact that he's been to every Iowa county, Democratic presidential candidate John Edwards once again criticized Democratic opponent Sen. Hillary Clinton, D-New York, on Iran. At issue: Clinton's vote in support of a recent Senate amendment. And this time Edwards' criticism stirred some clear anti-Clinton sentiment.

The amendment–sponsored by Sens. Joe Lieberman, I-Connecticut, and Jon Kyl, R-Arizona–calls for labeling the Iranian Revolutionary Guard a terrorist organization.

The former North Carolina senator first commended senators Joe Biden, D-Delaware, and Chris Dodd, D-Connecticut, for voting against it, but he then added, "Sen. Clinton voted 'yes.'"

That statement was followed by an immediate round of booing.

"She's entitled to her opinion," Edwards said over the noise. "But I share your opinion."

Edwards claims the amendment would "pave the way for Bush to continue to march forward on Iran."

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/

[wyldwolf]

1. ha ha. So at a rally with Edwards supporters, the person leading him is booed. OK.

[usregimechange]

3. for assisting the war GOP machine

[wyldwolf]

10. I recall Edwards having something to do with that... what was it...?

[Catchawave]

19. He learned from that mistake.

Did Hill ?

[wyldwolf]

25. no, he left the Senate in a Republican's hands and didn't have to vote on anything again.

Edwards has no constituency to answer to now.

[gmudem]

54. Who does Hillary represent?

So when Hillary voted for the Kyl-Lieberman amendment she was representing the people of New York? I'm a New Yorker and she certainly was not representing me or any other sane people I know with that vote. The people she was representing there are right-wingers she is trying to appeal too. Kinda sounds like the strategy that failed Kerry in 04' and so many other people.

Hillary doesn't represent anything other than what her finger in the wind tells her to. She rivals Romney in her blatant lack of genuineness (word?) and will say and do anything that she thinks will get her elected, like supporting Cheney's wet dream.

[wyldwolf]

55. ahem...

So when Hillary voted for the Kyl-Lieberman amendment she was representing the people of New York?

When she voted for the non-binding whatchamacallit, yeah.

The people she was representing there are right-wingers she is trying to appeal too. Kinda sounds like the strategy that failed Kerry in 04' and so many other people.

No, she represented the people of the US - that vast number that just doesn't mesh with the extreme leftwing. Kinda sounds like the strategy that won with Clinton in '92 and so many other people.

:shrug:

[desi]

33. Are you waiting on a reply

about who may have co-sponsored something about Iraq?

[lojasmo]

35. He had nothing to do with the recent horrible Iran vote. EOM.

[wyldwolf]

46. he's had nothing to do with any votes since he left his seat to a Republican

[lojasmo]

64. So no vote is worse than voting (a second time) like a jackass? EOM

[wyldwolf]

66. being self righeous and handing your seat to a Republican is

[lojasmo]

81. Erm...no. Enabling a war with Iran (after enabling a war with Iraq) is worse. EOM

[NobleCynic]

67. Leading him? Huh? n/t

[wyldwolf]

70. yeah, leading him.

[NobleCynic]

73. Ah. Sorry, you meant leading in the polls. My mistake.

I thought you meant something completely different. Mea culpa.

[IndianaJones]

2. oh my god. no! nt.

[Windy]

45. My god... if you think the Iran vote was no problem

then you are no better than the lemmings who support bush without thinking about the consequences. Blind loyalty serves noone except the master...

[IndianaJones]

49. lol. nt.

[Larynx Oblation]

4. Republicrats Should Be Booed!

She is one of the best Republicrats that GW Bu$h*t could ever count on.

[usregimechange]

5. that is what I was thinking

[Peregrine Took]

7. DLC'r =rethuglicrat. Case closed. n/t

[IndianaJones]

17. lol. nt.

[wyldwolf]

12. So why wasn't Edwards booed? Oh yeah, he "apologized" for his entire Senate career.

[wundermaus]

6. Hello - Clinton is a DINO

Bush=Clinton=Bush=Clinton

any questions?

[Larynx Oblation]

9. Bush=Clinton=Bush=Clinton=

a Corporate Sandwich. Made with HilBilly Bread and Total Bu$h*t!

[wyldwolf]

13. yes, I have questions

What is it about Clinton that makes her a DINO? Who has deemed one position on any given issue "DINO?"

[wundermaus]

32. Just google - It took me a couple of minutes -

Hillary Clinton receives the largest number of military donations…from the Defense industry.

http://politicalinquirer.com/2007/10/19/hillary-clinton-receives-the-largest-number-of-military-donationsfrom-the-defense-industry/

Molly Ivins on how lame Hillary Clinton is

http://letters.salon.com/mwt/broadsheet/2006/01/23/molly_ivins/view/index.html

Hillary Clinton: Right-Wing Darling?

http://www.commondreams.org/archive/2007/07/28/2829/

[wyldwolf]

34. So, you fall back on leftwing sources to define "Democrat?"

:rofl:

[provis99]

51. you're laughing at leftwingers defining Democrats?

I guess you're a DLCer who thinks right-wingers should define Democrats, is that it? Democrats shouldn't be leftwing?

[wyldwolf]

56. yep

Because DEMOCRATS should define Democrats. Not people who advise other to vote for Nader, for example.

[NobleCynic]

68. ::Blinks::

Beautiful.

You have summed up everything wrong with the Democratic leadership so simply. To answer your question,

Yes.

I would also expect right wing sources to have a say in defining Republican. Seeing how it is a two party system and all, it would only seem... oh what's the word ... rational maybe? Proper? Correct?

[wyldwolf]

71. ::Blinks::

Awesome.

You have summed up why the "progressive"* movements since the 1930s have attempted to hijack the Democratic party.

Left wing does not equate to "Democrat."

[NobleCynic]

75. Civils Rights Act of 1964, Clean Air Act, New Deal, FOIA, ESA, etc.

Yeah, I think I'm okay with a little bit of hijacking by the left. Or should we have let the Dixiecrats define the party because they happened to be Democrats too?

[wyldwolf]

79. Democrats

the "progressive"* movement was too busy trying to figure out how to take over the Democratic party or run their own candidates against us to worry about policy.

[Froward69]

52. Her position on Iran.

Even if she is only trying to look tough, it's the wrong message. or is she looking for a fight with Iran? either way it shows her true colors. Unless of course she is trying to get her future "World envoy" Shot. That I wouldent doubt.

[wyldwolf]

57. what about it?

Is there something I don't know about that makes that a "Republican" position? If there is something written on that, some kinda Democratic bylaw, let me know.

[Froward69]

62. I just see the republicans blasting her for her open marriage

the "Morals thing". of course Hillary will counter that they are still married. Still, naming her as the nominee is playing into the repubes game plan.

[Tellurian]

80. Republicans can stand on their record of producing the most pedophiles

ever elected to Congress... they've over played their Clinton morality cards past the point of questionable hypocrisy.
Their perverted finger pointing will point right back at their hypocritical family values.

[Cleita]

8. What's so unusual about supporters of one candidate booing

another? If the shoe were on the other foot and Clinton criticized Edwards for not being in favor of a yes vote, wouldn't Hillary supporters boo Edwards? It's election politics.

[Cameron27]

11. Classy

[wyldwolf]

16. The Purity Brigade is known for their classiness

[jefferson_dem]

21. Even worse.

From their candidate, they only expect purity of word rather than purity of deed.

[wyldwolf]

23. it's actually more like "progressive"* dogma...

... that everyone must adhere to lest ye be judged a heretic.

[HERVEPA]

14. Dear Geniuses

(Not talking about original poster)

Clinton does not appoint Scalito. Clinton does not appoint Roberts.
I am so friggin sick of this Clinton = Bush crap. Grow a brain!
Clinton is nowhere near what I'd prefer, but to equate her with Bush is incredibly sloppy thinking.

[Mz Pip]

20. SO true

Clinton is so not like Bush. Not even close. She's not an intellectually lazy frat boy. While she may not be my first choice, equating her with Bush is just laughable.

Mz Pip
:dem:

[Catchawave]

22. Clinton enables Bush with that vote,

nobody said anything about equating her with him.

[venable]

24. granted, most likely, but...

but for me, the problem is I don't know WHAT she would do. I don't believe I have any information, in spite of the Clinton's many years in public, to make an educated guess about whether she would do one thing or another or another.

Did you think Bill would end 'welfare' as we know it? Did you think that Bill would abandon UHC and sign NAFTA instead? Did you think that HRC would ever say 'lobbyists are people, too, and they need to be heard'? Did you think that Bill would admire Rove, to his face, for the work he did in 04?

This couple is power-hungry, and they will make any deal, any time, to consolidate that power.

I believe both of them believe in the public good, and are smart and think about the public good (or they did at one time), but their own good trumps the public good every single time.

So, the 'geniuses' are not so far off, IMO. Of course she's not bush, but who is she? One thing she might be is: Bush. You simply cannot say that she wouldn't be.

(Personally, I don't believe he would nominate a Scalito, but I just don't know who she would nominate, so I can't say it wouldn't happen. Make sense?)

[saracat]

28. Excellent post. Aptly describes the Hillary "problem".Thank you.

[dogman]

38. How many things will Edwards be apologizing for later?

I know he's made poor choices in the past, he's admitted that. How can he be trusted to make the right choice later? What happens when he sees public opinion change and he wants to be re-elected?
Power hungry? He's been running for President since he was elected to the Senate.
Edwards has been touted on this White House web site for his support of w, none of the other candidates has.
I trust him least of all the candidates.

[creeksneakers2]

40. I wasn't surprised by Bill

being against welfare as we knew it because Bill campaigned on that promise as far back as 1991. Bill always was a free trader. The Clintons didn't abandon UHC, they lost. The Clintons never said they wouldn't meet with lobbyists.

There is no reason to believe the Clintons are more power hungry than anybody else who is running for president. There are certainly deals the Clintons would not make. I don't know of any instances where the Clintons benefited privately but the public lost.

Hillary lists her positions on her website, and communicates them through her campaign. What she's says she'll do she'll do.

[amandabeech]

42. I didn't expect much from Bill & Hill to begin with.

I did op research for another Dem in '92, and it was pretty clear that Bill liked business and was more conservative than people thought in general.

He also put the finger in the wind.

Thanks for your excellent summary, though.

I am very concerned about Clinton's foreign policy. I don't trust her to make good decisions on the Middle East, in particular.

I do trust Edwards, because I think that he realizes the implications of his mistake. Biden seems emphatic on keeping us out of Iran and getting us out of Iraq. I could go for Kucinich, too.

[patrice]

That IS the difference with Edwards. He DOES seem to understand

and have empathy for how people feel about his mistake. HC seems to be discounting what it means to us, as though there's something we don't understand or are not sophisticated enough to respond to functionally. Our feelings about the IWR vote are being treated as though they were those of a petulent child, to be humoured, while the real deal goes down in the back room and until the child becomes distracted with some other drama.

Not gonna' happen.

[patrice]

43. Yes. Makes sense indeed.

At a time when we can absolutely LEAST afford it, we are commanded to trust, for the sake of some as yet to be determined "good".

Sorry, who, amongst those arrayed against Change, would enter into ANY deal without somekind of guarantee of the responsibilities, at least in principle, of both parties?

But, we're just supposed to roll the dice and bet the lives of our children and all future generations.

NO THANKS!

[Tom Rinaldo]

60. No it doesn't "make sense". You took a honest debating point...

...and distorted it into an exagerated parody, and that is what I dislike about so much of the primary season "discussions" on DU. So when you make this comment...

" Personally, I don't believe he would nominate a Scalito, but I just don't know who she would nominate, so I can't say it wouldn't happen. Make sense?)".

...I have to say; No, it doesn't. Hillary Clinton has an over 7 year voting record in the Senate on Judicial nominations. Not only did she vote against Scalito but she voted against Roberts also, who the mainstream media and many Democratic Senators were so charmed by. If you take a statement to the point of total abstraction, well sure no can be certain about anything.

The same line of reasoning could be used with John Edwards because his Senate voting record differs so much from the positions on issues he takes now while campaigning. One could say that; "anything a politician says while they are trying to curry favor to run for an office is highly suspect and falls in the cynical category called 'campaign promises'. What about his actual record?"

I dont think that statement would be fair to Edwards and I don't think your statement was fair to Clinton. We do know some things about both of these people, and we know that they are both solid Democrats. Clinton had a more liberal voting record in the Senate while they both were in it than did Edwards in fact. It truly bothers me to read assertions like this one, which comes off to me like trying to haveyour cake and eat it too:

"Of course she's not bush, but who is she? One thing she might be is: Bush. You simply cannot say that she wouldn't be."

Look, I am not even a fan of Hillary Clinton. I actively worked for her opponent Jonathan Tasini, during the 2006 NY Senate Democratic Primary for Christs sake. But Yes, I simply can say that Hillary Clinton won't be Bush. You are walking yourself out onto a 2000 election Ralph Nader rhetorical limb with your above comment, and it harms our Party to do so and it contributes to harming our chances to win in 2008 if Clinton is our nominee to have activists peddling that type garbage against her now.

So sure, I anticipate you may reply now saying of course you accept Hillary Clinton as a Democrat and of course you expect that she would be better than Bush BUT blah blah. And your "But" comments most likely will go back to attacking her as someone who has no convictions about any thing and whose only real convictions you can locate make it seem possible she could be like Bush.

It's primary season on DU again folks.

[venable]

65. I exaggerated it into a cautionary model

not a parody.

there is a big difference.

And this has nothing to do with some vision of madness that you dismiss as "primary season on DU again, folks'.

It is, rather, as sober a way I can find of describing what I don't like about HRC, and that is - once again - that I do not believe that she will hold to convictions, so there is no base position, no ground upon which I can stand to imagine, accurately, what she might do. It is a mistrust of her, plain and simple. Maybe it's not fair to her, but I'm not alone, by a long shot, in this mistrust. And the reason for the mistrust is the multiple times that the Clintons, as a 'team', have compromised their beliefs, and the belief that many put in them. I believe it comes down to the gubernatorial interregnum, during which, I think, he and she decided that compromise was the way to win. At that point, I believe they still had the public good in mind. It's my feeling that now they, like a Shakespearian tragic figure, have been consumed by the method (compromise) and have lost sight of the purpose.

One more thing - I think it's very rude, and not productive, to characterize someone's serious statements as 'blah, blah, blah'.

I used to enjoy posting with you, and even learned quite a lot. Oh, well.

[Tom Rinaldo]

72. A small point of clarification

When I use Blah, blah, blah, it is not meant to sound demeaning. I am comfortable using that same expression about myself, in a similar context, when I am projecting in a short hand sort of way what I might hypothetically say along a similar line of thought to the first few sentances I bother to spell out. Sorry you took offense from that, and I don't blame you for getting my intent wrong, not everyone has the same quirks in their sense of humor.

[venable]

76. understood.

sorry for being thin-skinned about it.
you know I've always had admiration for your ideas and your manner. I will keep that same admiration.

[Tom Rinaldo]

77. No problem. We are both in this for the long haul and basically do fine together

We can both argue passionately at times and bring a lot of pointed perspectives to our chosen point of views, but the channel is always open between us. We know we are fighting hard together for the same larger team even if sometimes we end up competing on different practice squads :)

[venable]

78. Well said.

We are, in truth, standing shoulder to shoulder against the corruptions of the Republicans. The time is coming soon when we will be doing so behind one nominated candidate, and I'm sure our efforts will be fully in synch. And we will win, and begin the long road back for this country.

[Ninga]

61. Very few disagree with you. This is a primary candidate fight going on, not the general election

So passions fly and supporters...support.

I will not be voting for her in the primary, but will in the GE if she is the candidate. (This statement is being repeated every day or so, about supporting her in the GE....)

[illinoisprogressive]

15. Very cool. Hope he can make it a countrywide booing fest. yeah!

[wyldwolf]

26. maybe he can hire you to dress as a witch?

[unc70]

47. And for you, no costume required.

(Could not resist swinging at the slow-pitch setup.)

[wyldwolf]

58. which, of course, has no relevance to my post

[Vickers]

18. Shocking!

:crazy:

[Buzz Clik]

27. "... the amendment would 'pave the way for Bush to continue to march forward on Iran.'"

If Bush does move on Iran, Hillary will suffer mightily. Edwards's claim will have lots of traction.

[Pirate Smile]

29. What if it happens after Hillary is the Democratic nominee?

[Buzz Clik]

31. There won't be anyone on the other side making the claim the her vote was important.

However, it will send ripples through the base.

Let's hope it doesn't happen, regardless.

[IndianaGreen]

41. What if Hillary supports the bombing of Iran by agreeing with Bush

that it was done to protect US troops in Iraq and all that yada-yada that Bush and Cheney have been saying?

It will doom her campaign!

[amandabeech]

44. That's what I'm afraid of.

These primaries are just too early. Anything can happen between Feb. 5 and early November, and with the chimp and darth in charge, it may.

If bush bombs Iran, and Hillary doesn't vote against it and scream and yell, lots of Dems will desert her. If she doesn't, lots of folks will think that she's put her finger in the wind. She may offer no contrast to the pubbies for those who think that bombing Iran is an awful idea!

I wouldn't put it past shrub to go ahead and bomb Iran in part to throw the Dem candidate off course. The pubs don't care. Their candidates have been screaming for Iranian blood for awhile now.

[enough already]

69. What if it happens after she wins the general?

[Inspired]

30. Those silly Iowans.

How dare they boo the anointed one. Well it was her vote for the Kyl/Lieberman amendment they were actually booing.

I was there by the way.

It was a magnificent event.

[cuke]

36. I take great pleasure in viewing the pettiness

Edwards supporters have so little reason for hope and are so dispirited that Edwards supporters booing HRC is news to them

[Adelante]

37. A matter for excitement instead of embarrassment for poor manners

Oh, well, what can you do but cringe?

[MonkeyFunk]

39. Cool

Clinton is running against the Republicans. Edwards is running against Clinton.

Guess which position is the better one to be in?

[MichDem10]

48. I prefer Edwards running against BOTH!!

[DemFemme]

50. How dare Iowans express disapproval at Billary's warmongering neocon K-L vote!!

WTH do they think they are, anyway? :eyes:

[Dewlso]

53. For good cause.

I am glad they booed her. She helped lay the ground work for bush to start another war in the middle east. That is one thing I will say for bush, he has a one track mind. Hillary should have put some thought into it before voting. She is looking more and more like a republican as the days go by. She needs to stand her ground and not try to look middle of the road. If she is a Democrat then make sure people can tell by listening to her speak. After she announced her health care plan, it was obvious she is trying to play middle of the road. (the plan favored/helped the insurance companies more than the people by requiring all Americans to get insurance)
"I'm a war president. I make decisions with war on my mind." - bush

[QC]

59. How dare they?!?! In my day people knew how to behave at coronations!

What do they think this is, a campaign or something?

[phen43]

63. isn't that just too bad for Hillary

;(

[AtomicKitten]

74. Hammer her, Johnny, for that nasty vote.