Edwards weasel way into Obama-Clinton Flap

[Perky]

Edwards Chides Clinton and Obama

By DAVID A. LIEB
Associated Press Writer


ST. LOUIS (AP) -- Democratic presidential hopeful John Edwards on Friday chided rivals Hillary Rodham Clinton and Barack Obama for feuding over whether or not to meet with leaders of rogue nations, saying the spat was distracting Democrats from tackling real problems.

Neither Clinton nor Obama mentioned the flap as the leading Democratic contenders spoke one after another to roughly 1,400 people at the National Urban League's conference. Instead, they focused on domestic issues, chiefly early childhood education

"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 just over the course of the last four days," said Edwards, who spoke before Clinton and Obama.

"We've had two good people - Democratic candidates for president - who spent their time attacking each other instead of attacking the problems that this country is facing," Edwards said to a mixture of groans and applause.

"I got your attention with that one," he added.


Yeah right....Translation: that's not important....I want press time too

[Zensea]

1. Did Edwards speak first?

If so, that would explain Clinton and Obama not mentioning the flap wouldn't it?
(snark removed, well some of it anyway)
A judicious use of a comma might come in handy there between translation & that's.
:evilgrin:

[aquart]

2. "Two good people." Exactly.

And it is a soundbite distraction. The press doesn't want to report on issues, just whatever comes closest to a Lohan/Hilton-like scoop.

[Blackhatjack]

3. Edwards answered the question best during the debate...and he is right here.

HRC and BO do themselves no favors by continuing to attack each other over a non-issue.

I want all three to address the issues that matter.

[High Plains]

4. Does the OP not like Edwards? Why the "weasel" language?

Should Edwards not address the issue?

[Zensea]

5. Does the OP not like Edwards?

Hmmmmmmm..... you think?

[Perky]

6. No problem with Edwards

I happen to think that the Obama- Clinton flap is full of substance and healthy.


But Edwards seems to even admit that he was seeking to grab attention.


It is no big deal just amusing. But I think he ought to engage on it rather than use it to move the conversation back to a focus on well...him.

again no biggie, I want vigourous debate on all issues.

[aquart]

7. "Weasel" is not amusing. "Weasel" is a slur.

You don't get "vigorous debate" with name-calling which is exactly what this is.

[Perky]

9. He even practically admits it was weasely

look at the quote.

[Blackhatjack]

11. Sorry... I don't see 'weasely'(sic) in that quote....

[Zensea]

13. That's because you're not "translating" it properly

:evilgrin:

(just kidding)

[Perky]

14. here ya go.

He says
"We've had two good people - Democratic candidates for president - who spent their time attacking each other instead of attacking the problems that this country is facing,"

He gets a mixture of groans and applause.

He adds "I got your attention with that one,"

[Blackhatjack]

22. Well this '[back and forth between HRC and BO' did not happen in private...

Having an opinion on what is being said between HRC and BO is certainly to be expected.

My gosh, the rest of the punditosphere has an opinion and has weighed in.

I just think your use of the word 'weasely' carries a negative connotation, and was not warranted given the comments that Edwards made. However, that is just my opinion.

[bobbolink]

30. Not just your opinion. It's a personal attack on Edwards.

What one would expect from the RW.

Some think we must eat our own.

So much for peace.

[Horse with no Name]

35. Democrats calling each other names is full of substance and healthy

While another candidate saying they shouldn't is whoring for attention?
I'll have some of what YOU are drinking!

[Perky]

37. Which candidates are calling eachother names?

[Horse with no Name]

38. Save your "stupid" questions for someone who actually

does not know your agenda...ummkay?

[Perky]

42. I am at a loss here

:shrug: honestly :shrug:

[Perky]

43. My only use of the word "stupid" was in response to someone saying

that the Clinton-Obama argument was "stupid". and I responded "Why is is stupid"


so again :shrug:

[Horse with no Name]

44. You are acting like you don't know what "names" they are calling

Thus acting "stupid"...when you know damn good and well that they are engaged in toddler antics right now.
In the end, Obama will most likely suffer because the Clinton's are good at this type of trench warfare and I hate to see that happen.
You, however, are a Clintonite and obviously know this outcome as well.

[Perky]

45. Wow are you wrong

I am fully supporting Barack Obama

I have severl posts over the last several days blasting Hillary.

[Horse with no Name]

47. Then I apologize for that assumption

Can you not see what this is doing to Obama? This is going to hurt him.
Obama isn't MY candidate--but he is one I can fully support without trepidation.
Hillary...well, I'd have to hold my nose.

[Perky]

51. I disgaree

Hillary jabbed during the dabet and rathyer than trying to spin it....he counterpunched effecively twice, SHows he is not going to take it and amped up the issue for calling he hout on the IWR and calling her policies "Bush lite" It is great and substantive

[Bongo Prophet]

8. I think Edwards is right, here.

The difference between BO and HRC is a minor one, blown out of proportion by them, but more so the punditry. They love the internecine spat "Fight! Fight!" -- much more than substantive issues, discussion of how many ways we have gone wrong or how we can get on a positive track.

And JE did it while calling both candidates "Good people".

I think that is both pointed AND classy.
Weasel it is NOT.

[Perky]

10. I thionk the flap is substantive

albeit its a proxy for other issues.


I wish Edwards would engage on it rather than doing what he did.....

[Blackhatjack]

12. Actually Edwards answered the question at the debate ... but HRC v. BO is not helpful

I find little substance in calling each other 'naive and irresponsible.' Just how does that elevate the level of political dialogue.

[Bongo Prophet]

49. No kidding. GOP will use that and similar battles as material

Ah, but that is a given I guess.

[Bongo Prophet]

20. Fair enough, Perky

I too would like more discussion and debate in more detail regarding diplomacy/bargaining strategies.
I disagree that it was "Weasel" like in any way, however.

Would you expand on the "proxy for other issues" angle?
I would like to know your thoughts on that. :hi:

[Perky]

36. weasely might have been too strong...."backhanded?"

I have no bone to pick with Edwards per se... I think he was basically trying to move on to get the media attention of the other two. Fair enough... but I think the right appraoch might have been to jump into the debate rather than try and change to change the subject. funny thing it I think he wounds up extending the news cycle rather than ending it. It is just tactics..ultimately no biggie. This thread has been extended by Edwards supporters no small amount due to my choice of "weasel"


I actually think the discussion is a proxy for an important debate on whether Clinton should be allowed to hearken back and claim "Clinton I" legacies as her own and bring those forward or whether we need to move beyond 20 years of Bush Clinton Bush with new blood who does not have a dog in class warfare fight of the last twenty-seven years.

It's a proxy for greater issues of how best to deal with the future given the present.

[Bongo Prophet]

48. Yes, he was trying to get attention from the "Hill-Obama are fighting!" media fixation

Like you say, fair enough.

I am not sure if they would cover another approach or not. It seems in this looooong pre-primary "narrative creation phase" in the media coverage, that is the major challenge for Edwards. Just to get coverage.

I think all of the so called top tier candidates would carrot-stick in a pretty similar fashion, vis a vis diplomatic meetings. How high the meetings go, incentives, back door negotiations are pretty standard protocol for ages. Hence the "naive" statement by HRC. But I think Obama was just hitting it in a general way, and HRC saw the opportunity to score that point. It seemed a minor non-issue and not a real policy difference at all.

More detailed dscussions will need to be had on policy, and these "debates" are not satisfactory to me at all.
Neither is the lame pundit horse race and gossipfest. But that is no surprise, is it?

Thanks for the clarifications, Perky!

[Bongo Prophet]

50. But," weasely" was inflammatory, and you keep repeating that. But nothing against Edwards, huh?

[Perky]

52. Honestly nothing against him at all

I think if he wanted to change the subject it was a bad tactic....because it kept the focuse right there.

[Bongo Prophet]

53. Okay, and I agree with that part.

The story should be what he said right after that.
It's a media problem more than anything, IMO.

[Bluebear]

15. I take it you include Elizabeth in that headline of yours?

Else it would have been "Edwards Weasels his way...."

See what happens when you editorialize?

[xultar]

16. Edwards is playin the adult in the matter. I agree with him.

[Perky]

40. I don't see anyone behaving like Children

Does strong disagreement mean the same thing as a temper tantrum?

[xultar]

61. When Obama called Clinton bush-lite....that was childish.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

17. Campaigning politicians are ever so entertaining.

The circus is in town and the clowns are in the center ring.

[supernova]

18. I agree with Edwards

it's not a weasel response at all.

Hillary v Barack is a stupid argument to have at this stage of the election. We should still be putting on a united front for the Repub boot lickers.

[Perky]

41. Why is this a stupid argument at this stage?

What is the value in unity when we are talking about the future of the country post-Bush. I want thess gouys to engage and defend their ideas about the futuire...The sooner the better....this is what this debate is about. It is substanbtive and both are attacking Bush in the process. :shrug:

I think there is marginal value in attacking Bush in a unified way. It only hamstrings our many viable candidates in differntiating themselves substantively.

[jsamuel]

19. Calling people names is exactly what Edwards is speaking out against.

Yet you take the opportunity to call more names.

John Edwards is right.

Both Clinton and Obama are exaggerating each other's position on this issue. Obama calls Clinton's position "Bush-Cheney lite" making it look like she doesn't want to start diplomatic ties at all. Clinton calls Obama's position "naive" making it look like he is open to anything.

These mischaracterizations of each other's policies does the debate on foreign policy injustice. I am glad John Edwards pointed out that the debate should be on policy, not on personality.


PS - A link would be nice.

[madmom]

21. what he said !!!!!!

edited to correct gender (sorry):blush:

[matcom]

25. The debate ISN'T on POLICY?

her policy - not talk to foreign leaders unless something is in it for "US"

his policy - engage even our "enemies" to try and come to solutions

Seems to me regardless of where you fall on the issue, this IS a debate about policy!

[Perky]

26. It is completely about policy and approach and if Edwards would

rather be dismissive of the substance of the debate by claiming he want to talk about other things...that is his choice....but it leaves me underwhelmed.

[matcom]

28. agreed

Edwards just lost me as well

[jsamuel]

60. Like I said, those are mischaracterizations of what they said.

That is the whole point.

[matcom]

23. I'll repeat my post from LBN

Seems to me their 'feud' is a critical policy difference

and VITALLY important to a future foreign policy mentality that could affect how we and the world deal with each other.

but that is just me :eyes:

Hey John, THIS is what DEBATE looks like! NOT face-time and soundbites

[ProgressiveAmPatriot]

24. 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?"

[ProudToBeBlueInRhody]

27. God forbid.......

How dare Edwards try to interrupt the Obama/Hillary show.

[bobbolink]

29. Too bad the rules against personal attack don't cover candidates.

Good way to build "peace" on DU, there, "Perky"

:sarcasm:

[Perky]

31. Are you kidding me?Have you been through a primary season on DU?

My comment were not personal it was a weasely attempt by edwards to move the media away from an overfocus on Obama and Clinton. He has the right to do that, but insted of jumping into the fray on what is an imporant substantive issues....He calls the deabte silly and want to bring the fouce to other issues. He is trying to change the subject rather than engaing on it.


I think that is weasely and not very smart because it only serves to do what he purportedly want to avoid...lengthening a new cycle he wasnt to end.

[bobbolink]

54. Well, then go for the worst. Whatever floats your boat.

But, then understand why it's so hard to reach international peace, when you can't make peace with those on your own side.

[Perky]

56. I backed off the word I used much earlier in the thread

I am right on the substance of what I said I believe..But I ad mitted that the word I chose was to perjorative.

[mondo joe]

34. Or those calling our elected representatives "cowards".

:eyes:

[Virginia Dare]

32. Why shouldn't he?...n/t

[Perky]

59. Oh I wish he would enge in the debate because it it important one to have

Unfortunatatley he decided to callthe whol thing silly and distracting.

[tkmorris]

33. You are a part of the problem

Politics has become not a comparison of ideas, but a contest of smearing and attacks. This is not helpful to our nation, and you are contributing to it. Please stop.

[Perky]

39. Oh please....the complaint raised about Edwards here is that

instead of engaging in just such a substantive debate he criticized the debaters for engaging in substantive issues.

Like Clinton's unapolgetic support for the IWR.

Like whether we should directly engage those we disagree with and whether we should demand they change before we engage.

Edwards want to change the subject because he is not in the thick of it.

[bobbolink]

55. You've now had several people object to your attitude. Maybe it would be a good

idea to listen, rather than become so defensive?

We *are* trying for a bit of peace, you know.

Or, you can keep trying to make it everyone else's problem.

After all, we are now used to people in politics who blunder and refuse to apologize.

[Perky]

57. I am not being defensive

I am trying to bring things back to the substance.I have apologized for thw word Weasel already,


I do think Edward was wrong substantively and tactically to bring the issuee up. I wish he would engage on the substance.


I wish you would engage on the substance and if you won't do that...then my suggestion is that you fine anothe r post or start you own pro-Edwards post. :shrug:

[bobbolink]

58. .

:rofl:

[Cha]

46. It's just politics but of the three

..I think Obama comes out the best on this wee brouhaha.

Anyone can say what they want and they will..but there's a difference between attacking someone's position and scoldings. Not too many people like a scolder.