John Edwards getting as bad as Clinton

[gaiilonfong]

His campaign surrogate is on talking about Obama's 130 present votes and LYING about them, knowing darn well that the Illinois senate does things differently.
Edwards voted for
IRAQ WAR
NAFTA
But he is SORRY for them...yeah right with a 5 million dollar house he wasn't affected by his votes he is sorry for now....He becomes more of a lying weasel everyday.

[Renew Deal]

1. Edwards will probably apologize for it by tomorrow.

He's full of regrets.

[Clintonista2]

24. lol. I would have to agree.

[MyNameGoesHere]

2. Ok i see you are a little

deranged with anger. Why would you fight back with 2 positive things that show Edwards as fallible as the next candidate and then mention his house? What does that orange have to do with the other apples?

[Mags]

3. If Obama can't defend himself now, just

think how weak he will be against any Republican.

[wisteria]

59. Obama has been defending himself. This appears to be a game to try

and get him off message.

It looks like Edwards is teaming with Clinton. Why isn't Edward's going after her? She is the natural choice. Especially since Edward is suppose to be the anti-corporate and trustworthy candidate.

[in_cog_ni_to]

4. Waaaaaaaaaaaaah Waaaaaaaaaa Waaaaaaaah!

Whine much?:eyes:

This is politics. Like it or leave it. Sheesh.

[Cant trust em]

16. Like it or leave it?

Seems like the quote should be "Put up with it since we have no other choice because our intelligence is constantly being insulted, or leave it."

[in_cog_ni_to]

19. NO. It's...If you can't handle politics, don't participate. The OP does nothing but post

bashing threads against Hillary and Edwards. It's freakin' ridiculous. Day after day after day...the same old shit. If the OP likes Obama so much, perhaps he/she should be out working for the campaign instead of whining about the big bad Clintons and Edwards on a discussion board?

[Cant trust em]

20. So you're fine with politics as usual then?

The pettiness and rancor don't bother you? I'm not trying to catch you in an inconsistency, but it sounds like you're fine with things degrading to the point of bickering and staying off of message.

In this spirit of friendly discourse, I'll give you the full opportunity to tell me how you'd like these campaigns to behave before I jump to a conclusion (which is typically what happens on DU).

[in_cog_ni_to]

23. No and that wasn't the point I was making. The OP

has posted thread after thread after thread bashing Clinton and Edwards. Every freakin' day. It's all he/she does. He/she must spend hours a day looking for articles that fit his/her perceptions of Hillary or Edwards all in his/her quest to attack Obama's opponents. It's pathetic. It has nothing to do with how Obama or Hillary or Edwards behave in the campaign.

Just FYI, all presidential candidates pick out the worst about their opponent and expose it. It's the way the game is played. If Obama doesn't want people to continue talking about his Illinois voting record, he needs to address it better than he did last night. Maybe he should publish the Illinois Legislature Rule that explains the "Present" vote? It's not Hillary's or Edwards' job to do that for him and the OP needs to stop whining about it. I notice the OP hasn't posted about how bad Obama was for exposing Hillary's stint on Walmart's BOD. Funny that.

[Cant trust em]

26. Exposing weaknesses is one thing

taking something something out of context and playing on the ignorance of voters is another. Here's a specific example on what I'm talking about. When GWB calls John Kerry a flip flopper on his votes even though he knows what a yes vote in committee and a no vote when it reaches the floor means. That is in my opinion, a political low blow.

I'm not pointing fingers about any particular candidate has said, but we can do without that type of thing.

[in_cog_ni_to]

30. If Obama doesn't want an opponent to play on the ignorance of voters, he could fix it within minutes

All he has to do is publish the Rule from the Illinois Legislature Rule book and explain what it means. Maybe Edwards and Clinton don't understand it either? Edwards is from NC and Clinton is from NY. Illinois Legislature has this "voting present" quirk in the rules that other states don't have, so I wouldn't expect them to know Illinois State Legislature rules. It's Obama's job to clear up any confusion there is. Edwards and Hillary are his opponents. I don't think it's their job to do that...do you?

[Cant trust em]

33. I would hope that before nailing someone on something

that the candidates would actually understand the rule. It's ridiculous to think that candidates should be able to come up with some talking point that they don't even understand and then expect for the person who is being attacked to explain it to them.

[in_cog_ni_to]

36. WHY? It's not their job to do Obama's work for him. n/t

[Cant trust em]

40. So you do feel that it's appropriate to spread lies

and then it's the other candidates job to say why they aren't lies. It's ridiculous to spread obvious misinformation just to score political points and muddy the waters. Let's save us all a lot of time and work with what you already know to be true. There are lots of things to pick apart on candidates positions without having to come up with bullshit.

[in_cog_ni_to]

41. No. How does anyone know it's a lie? Obama hasn't fully explained it.

If he doesn't want people to think ill of him, HE needs to explain it. My guess is....there's some truth to what Hillary said because Obama hasn't taken the time to clear it up with facts. Why hasn't he? It would be very easy to get his little Illinois Legislature Rule book and publish the relevant rule. It's very easy to clear this up, if it is untrue, that is.

[Cant trust em]

42. As you and I both know

a sound bite is much more convenient than an explanation. Hillary knows this and would rather have voters be confused by something innocuous than to actually take the high road and not use it.

It's not actually very easy to clear up since most people won't read the rule on his website or even see the debate. I take you back four years to GWB calling Kerry a flip-flopper. Even though Kerry explained the rules the perception still stuck.

Seems like at the end of the day, you are interested in playing on the ignorance of voters.

[in_cog_ni_to]

44. No I am not interested in playing on the ignorance of the voters,

but I also don't think it's Hillary's and Edwards' job to do Barack's work for him. As I said before, it would be very simple to clear this up, if it's an issue. All Barack has to do is get air time on CNN or MSNBC and explain it. Besides that, I haven't heard much about this on the MSM today. It doesn't seems to be a very important issue to them (if they thought it would hurt Barack, they'd play it over and over and over. He IS a Democrat, you know)...like it is for the OP.

[Cant trust em]

46. Let's take this out of a Hillary/Obama/Edwards debate

I don't think that candidate A should have to clear up an issue that has been purposely muddied by candidate B.

Here's an article from newsweek that I read on Obama on this issue.

The trouble is that in politics, "the facts" alone don't always make things clearer. Take Obama's abortion votes. It is true he voted present several times between 1997 and 2001. But it was part of a strategy designed by Planned Parenthood. Republicans in the Illinois Senate had repeatedly tried to pass bills restricting abortion. This put Democrats in a difficult position. They wanted to vote against the bills, but worried they would be smeared by Republican opponents for opposing legislation with names like "The Born Alive Infant Protection Act." So Obama and a group of Democrats and moderate Republicans cut a deal with Planned Parenthood. The politicians would vote present as a bloc. The bills wouldn't get enough votes, and the pols would have political cover. Everybody would win.

http://www.newsweek.com/id/91755/output/print

[in_cog_ni_to]

48. Me thinks you just proved Hillary's point.

"The bills wouldn't get enough votes, and the pols would have political cover. Everybody would win."

That's what Hillary said last night. THAT was her point. He was using the quirky Illinois Legislative Rule to have political cover for votes he didn't want to have to vote on. That was a HUGE point John Edwards made also. While I agree with him on this Pro-Choice move and this "Present" vote, why did he use it on other bills? We don't know because he hasn't explained why.

[Cant trust em]

49. That's politics though

I understand the "gotcha" game that politicans play. The point that I'm trying to make is that we got the pro choice move that we wanted. NARAL gives Obama a 100% rating. That's what's important here.

[in_cog_ni_to]

50. Right. That's what's important on this bill...the Pro-Choice Bill, but we know nothing about the

other 99 he voted Present on. Hillary mentioned 2 other bills....keeping sex stores away from schools(?) and I can't remember the other, but the point IS...he voted present on those and needs to explain why. It really is a legitimate question. Obama throws Hillary's and Edwards' IWR votes in their faces all the time. Hillary has said that if she knew then what she knows now, she wouldn't have voted for it and Edwards has said his vote was a mistake and he was WRONG. What's the difference here? He throws that at them, and they throw his Illinois voting record at him. They have explained their votes and admitted they were wrong (Edwards did), but Obama hasn't done the same. Why is what Hillary did any different than what Obama did?

[Cant trust em]

51. The difference is...

that thanks to votes from HRC and John Edwards, George Bush has plunged us into an unwinable war that has been the defining moment of the last 10 years. This is a HUGE thing, it's not just another of 99% of votes that someone makes while in Congress. The IWR is a vote that has had huge, massive, globaly important ramifications.

To me, the IWR isn't an issue anymore. I've made up my mind on that so let's get back on the subject that we've been talking about.

It's totally fair to talk about someone's voting record, but I repeat, let's focus on the end goal here. Advancing our agenda. I honestly don't care if someone votes present, or then votes yes only to vote no. I want what is good for the issues that I care about. Did we get the pro-choice bill that we wanted? Yes. That is the result I want.

[in_cog_ni_to]

60. Well, Obama did vote to fund the Iraq War, so I think that is a moot point.

If we don't compare the results of the votes and just look at the issue at hand, the vote, and throwing it in each other's face, there is no difference. How do you know you like what Obama voted Present on or not? Have you looked at all the bills?

The OP started this thread because Edwards was picking on his/her candidate, Obama. The OP started this thread to bash Edwards for doing that. Doesn't the OP want to advance our agenda too? or are supporters of Edwards and Hillary the only people held to that standard?

The ONLY thing I have ever said against Obama is that I feel he's waaaaay too moderate, "play nice with repukes" and his comments about the repukes having all the ideas and Reagan changing our country....WERE STUPID and they were. Reagan is THE DEVIL and repukes just SUCK. Their ideas SUCKED too. I defend him when someone says something stupid about him and I defend Hillary and Bill when people post stupid crap about them. I also defend Edwards when people, like the OP, post bashing threads DAILY just to post bashing threads. It's petty and childish. In fact, the OP has already posted ANOTHER Hillary bashing thread today. Now, who's suppose to be advancing our agenda? Just Hillary and Edwards supporters? Or would that also apply to childish Obama supporters?

[Cant trust em]

61. I never defended the OP

I jumped in on the idea of mischaractarizing people's positions for political gain. I'm just looking for honesty in debates, eliminating bullshit, and getting to the bottom line. I think that we can agree on that.

Back to the difference between the IWR and voting to continue funding. I don't think that they are the same thing. Getting us in in the first place and giving soldiers the tools they need to do the job while they are there are different. I don't agree with continuing funding for the war, I want it to stop. Obama's high ground here isn't much, but it's something.

[BlackVelvet04]

52. Like the Obama campaign took

Bill's comments out of context? Or Hillary's comments out of context.

[Cant trust em]

54. Just like that.

Or Clinton taking Obama's comments out of context. But like I said, I'm not pointing the finger at any particular candidate. They all do it, and anytime it happens I have to roll my eyes at it.

Come on people. Give us some credit! We're smarter than that.

[BlackVelvet04]

55. Like it's something new to politics

and politicians?

My advise to a lot of people on this board is "put on your big girl panties and get over it."

[Cant trust em]

57. I never understand that mindset

Since the bar has been set so low, let's keep trying to squeeze under it. I'm more interested in an issue debate than this little tit for tat BS. The problem is for most people this is how they make their decisions because thinking like adults is too complicated.

[Jamastiene]

29. Well said.

I've noticed that too.

[CatWoman]

34. the bot just posted another one

:eyes:

[in_cog_ni_to]

37. LOL..."the bot"

OMG...how perfect.:rofl:

[Jamastiene]

43. Really a bot.

Series!!1!11

[midnight]

5. Do you have the name of the individual who is

Edwards surrogate? What if you can describe in a nut shell is being said about 130 present votes?

[bpeale]

25. and he was the sponsor of some of those bills!!!

and he didn't vote YES or NO. he has a lot of explaining to do about that.

that and the slumlord Rezko.

[Rydz777]

6. Okay, I'll stipulate hair/house/hedge fund, but Edwards is right

on the issues at stake in this campaign.

[Tarc]

7. When two contrasting candidates agree on something

as Edwards and Clinton did last night, it is a good sign that they may be right.

[karynnj]

15. Or they are both against the third candidate

This is not Family Feud where the number of people agreeing determines right and wrong.

Obama gave an excellent answer explaining the function of the present vote in Illinois. It sounded reasonable and in fact useful. He said it was when a Senator is not against the bill in principle, but has problems they want fixed. They then are not forced into yes, but votes - as in the US Senate.

Imagine how it would have affected the IWR vote. While most Republicans were 100% behind it, as were some Democrats, Leiberman, Miller, and Edwards for starters. Many in their speeches spoke of wanting better language. The present vote would have let people like Biden and Kerry and others who really wanted Biden/Lugar could chose this vote.

Now, I am not from Illinois. The question is whether that is how it is used. I suspect that the Chicago papers will weigh in if this is not true.

[PsN2Wind]

8. It really shows the power of Edwards

that he was able to vote for NAFTA so many years before he was in the Senate.

[stillcool]

9. No way could he

stoop to the level of the Clintons. He's got way too much class, and integrity.

[Mass]

10. No, he just demonstrated his inability to see that things are inherently complex.

Same thing for the max rates in the Bankruptcy Bill. It was an amendment who was poorly written, even if the goal was laudable. You could either vote for it as a message (knowing it would not pass), or vote against it because the bill was poorly written and not discussed to see its possible side effects. You could justly choose one or the other, and anyway, the amendment would have disappeared in final passage. So, what is the point to bring it in the debate, except if you take the issue at the first level and show you still do not understand how the system works.

This is one of the reasons he is not my favorite, even if yesterday's debate has made him my n 2 (who needs to replace lies by lies).

But Edwards has trouble articulating a vision where all is not black and white, and, while it may make terrific stump speech, it is not a way to govern.

But no need to bring the haircut in there.

[Cant trust em]

17. Excellent response

The Two Americas talk is great on the campaign trail, but I think that drawing that line in the sand if he were to become president would be tricky. Unless he had an iron clad majority in congress, I think that he would have a tough time getting things done. The way we have it right now is 50 Dems, 49 GOP, 1 Lieberman. Hardly what I would call the coalition that Edwards needs to be as effective as he is promising.

[EFerrari]

31. Or, he just demonstrated his ability to simplify his understanding

into a politically digestible statement.

Everyone has the challenge to articulate complexity because our political culture is complexity adverse. That's why we have a word for it -- sloganeering.

[AndyA]

11. And yet you can excuse Obama's $3 million house, and his continued

support of the war with every vote except for one? I call that a hypocrite.

And what about Barack's cozy little real estate deal? Just how did he manage to buy his house for $300,000 under market value in a seller's market?

You should check out your own candidate's kitchen first before you start accusing another.

[Cant trust em]

18. Except for the most important one.

[lyonn]

12. Check out Obama's Senate vote record. Lots of NV or was absent. nt

[Fresh_Start]

14. yep, Obama continued his voting pattern in the US Senate

Why does Obama have more Present votes in Illinios Senate than any other Senator that served with him at the time.
If it was a coordinated strategy why was only Obama doing it on some votes?

[LSK]

13. yeah, I wish Edwards didnt go there

[B Calm]

21. Has Edwards ever praised Reagan.. I don't think so.....

[Garbo 2004]

22. NAFTA passed Senate 1993. Edwards elected to Senate 1998. If you want to adhere to facts.

Edwards not only didn't but couldn't vote for NAFTA since he wasn't in the Senate at the time.

I thought Obama could have done a better job last night in explaining how the "present" vote is used in Illinois. Not that it would necessarily stop it being used as a campaign talking point. Voting records on their face sometimes don't tell the whole story on what's going on with the actual legislation in question. But that's the kind of detail that rarely makes into campaign sound bites and talking points.

One notable comment Obama made IMO was when he said, in reference to lobbyists and money but applies to the realities of politicians as part of the system and in campaigns, is "none of our hands are clean." All of the candidates are politicians, not saints.

[ronnykmarshall]

27. White guy or gay latino?

[William769]

28. Transgendered or African American?

Still waiting for the real gaiilonfong to please stand up!

[CreekDog]

32. Criticizing Obama for something he did actually do is perfectly fair

He did actually vote present 100+ times.

I think Obama's answer in response last night was terrible and I was waiting for some explanation of it. In fact, I had to google to figure out why he did that and what the justification was. Why couldn't Obama have answered the question clearly --he certainly knew it was going to come up.

I think this is a fair criticism, though not earthshattering for me, but I was troubled that he didn't seem very able to deflect it, or was ill-prepared to.

As for the OP, please spare us your indignation about "smears" when you immediately call the person you accuse a "lying weasel" (in reference to John Edwards). You blew your credibility right there.

[LostinVA]

35. You're slamming Mr. Edwards now, I see -- leave the man alone

And go back to your woodpile and play.

[William769]

39. Well he can't decide what race he belongs to, Just like he can't decide who to slam.

[EstimatedProphet]

38. Are you still here?

[Sugar Smack]

45. Bueller? Bueller?

[mitchtv]

47. I vote gaiilonfong off the island

doesn't play well with others. Give up on trying to get the big dog ?

[BlackVelvet04]

53. I guess negative attention is better than none......

cause gaiilonfong sure seems to crave attention.

The Tribe has spoken.

[Bluebear]

56. "His campaign surrogate is on" --- who is the surrogate? What are they "on"?

How is one supposed to verify any of this?

[wisteria]

58. What ? Is he play tag with Clinton now? n/t

[redqueen]

62. Sorry you feel that way... I'm with MLK III... I think he's the best man for the job.

:hi: