Edwards Nails Hillary (Triangulation) and Obama (Compromise)

[jsamuel]

As seen on MyDD.com -> http://www.mydd.com/story/2007/7/24/182124/179

John Edwards took a sharp look at the field and verbalized what many are seeing in the top three candidates. Clinton's methods have been summed up by triangulation while Obama's methods have been summed up by compromise. Bloggers, progressives, liberals, and Democrats have been crying out against these methods for change decrying their resulting in failure or even making things even worse.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7T0BztvhVpU

From WaPo: Edwards Works Hard to Stand Out

Former Sen. John Edwards (D-N.C.) is coming out fighting tonight with an aggressive attempt to differentiate himself from the rest of the field.

"Do you believe compromise (aka Obama) and triangulation (aka Clinton) will bring about big change?" asked Edwards. "If you want real change you need someone who has taken on these people and beat them over and over and over."..."We can't trade their insiders for our insiders."

Edwards went on Al Sharpton's radio program and echoed these comments:

http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2007/07/24/287416.aspx

From NBC's Lauren Appelbaum

John Edwards called into Al Sharpton's radio show this afternoon to speak about last night's debate and his war on poverty, but he took advantage of the opportunity to offer up an apparent dig to Clinton and his other opponents. Edwards called for "big change, bold change" for the country to change a system that is "rigged for big insurance companies, drug companies, and oil companies."

"What possible reason do they have to give up their power? They're not going to give it away. We have to take it away from them," Edwards asserted. "We cannot get bold change by compromising (aka Obama) with the people who have the power now. Compromise (aka Obama) is not going to get us there, triangulation (aka Clinton) is not going to get us there, being careful is not going to get us there. We need somebody who's used to fighting these people and beating them and I've been doing it my whole life."

On poverty, Edwards acknowledged it will take some work to make average Americans relate to the issue, but he also said they just need a leader to make it a big issue for them. "I think a lot times, it's sorta out of sight, out of mind and they're not thinking about it," Edwards said. "We make them think about it, put a bright light on the poverty that still exists in this country, which, as you know, we just did for a few days traveling across America. I think it helps."

...

Todd Beeton said that Edwards was after Obama. But I disagree, I think Edwards is going after both Clinton and Obama. He is going after the whole field, showing how he, and the way he operates to bring change, is different. It is the way to bring big, bold, real change.

[The Count]

1. YOU MEAN, THE GUY WHO VOTED AGAINST EVERYTHING HE ADVOCATES NOW?

That guy accused everyone else? Just checking....

[Ethelk2044]

3. Yes, he means that guy

[be inspired]

6. What a big fat honkin' lie.

Edwards has been very consistent. He has gotten more bold over the years, but he has been standing up for the little guy all his life, including when he was in the Senate.

[Dawgs]

24. Didn't he push for the Iraq war?

Was that a fighting for the little guy? Was that a good decision?

[The Count]

36. For the little guy - as long as he's nott in the race against him, huh?

And in 2001 he voted for W's bankruptcy act because? Words are cheap.
(and I didn't even touch IWR yet)

[Catchawave]

30. Euuuwww, it's the count....two, three....

:eyes: Always hijacking, never adding anything of substance to any DU thread....try again :hi:

[benny05]

2. yeppers, Edwards has decided to speak for all of us

And not for the corporate interests either.

[waiting for hope]

12. I'll second that -

Go, Johnny, GO!

[polichick]

4. I can appreciate his compromise/triangulation remark...

But it really is hard to measure his sincerity when you look at his own explanations for the war vote ~ which smack of compromise and triangulation too.

[pioneer111]

5. Edwards is speaking out and telling the truth to power

Past approaches to working with Republicans and co-operating with corporatists is what got us the results we have today.

Of the frontrunners Edwards is the only one that has won against all odds - he beat an incumbent Republican in a Red state to win his seat in the senate.

As a young lawyer he took on the corporations on behalf of the little guy.

Edwards WILL get universal health care for everyone. And he will lead on policies to expand the middle class.

[polichick]

7. I like all that about him...

But why didn't he speak truth to power about Bush's faux war ~ instead he cheered power on. I don't get it.

[bettync]

16. Don't forget Bush's faux facts...

It is easy to forget the mood of the country, and the overwhelming pack of lies and misinformation assembled by Pres. Bush at the time of this war vote. Bush even fooled Colin Powell. Who could have imagined that so much of the "intelligence" was lies. I admire Edwards for taking complete responsibility for his vote and apologizing for it. Many people also forget that the vote was to give the President the authority to have war as an option, and many Senators were shocked when he did not exercise other options first.

Edwards is an honorable man, who speaks the truth everywhere he goes. And he admits when he is wrong, as all human beings are going to be sometimes.

[The Count]

37. But when he was the power, he kept lying. So, maybe he needs to stay outside

the government - to keep honest.

[usregimechange]

8. Kick

[TeamJordan23]

9. yeah, Edwards was clever to get those in their, especially the triangulation comment. nm

[DURHAM D]

10. Yeah that triangulation comment is really brilliant -

at least 95% of the listening audience will say

What?

pause
pause
pause

What is he talking about?

[jsamuel]

11. He got a big applause for his statement at the debate.

[DURHAM D]

15. I missed that part of the debate.

But that is a self-selected group of political junkies and not representative of the voting population.

[Scriptor Ignotus]

13. The Bush Administration doesn't compromise either

how has that worked out for our nation's benefit? how has that worked for the GOP?

you and I may despise certain Republicans, but as a whole, we NEED to work with them for the benefit of all Americans. I don't think Hillary or Edwards can do this, which is why I support Obama. I'm done with the rank partisanship, regardless of who is in power of the White House.

triangulation can be politically beneficial, but I don't really like that policy either. you need to have a code, you need to have a stance. i'm alright with it on a case by case basis.

[draft_mario_cuomo]

19. The last thing we need is making concessions to right-wingers because of an obsession with "unity"

==you and I may despise certain Republicans, but as a whole, we NEED to work with them for the benefit of all Americans. I don't think Hillary or Edwards can do this, which is why I support Obama. I'm done with the rank partisanship, regardless of who is in power of the White House.==

Let's stop sugarcoating this. Obama needs to be up front with voters about the price of "unity." The only way to achieve consensus is to make concessions to the right-wing. Why doesn't Obama tell us what exactly he is willing to give to the right-wing for the sake of consensus?

==triangulation can be politically beneficial, but I don't really like that policy either. you need to have a code, you need to have a stance. i'm alright with it on a case by case basis.==

"Unity" is a clever way to repackage triangulation. When he triangulates he will claim he had to do it to achieve consensus...

[dk2]

14. Edwards hammering the issues!

Makes the other have to address them - He is leading the most important ones to me.

Edwards is the right choice!

[Gloria]

17. I saw Sicko then saw the debate....It was a boost to see a lot of Moore's

message about "the system" resonating when Edward came out swinging!!!!

Excellent.

[rinsd]

18. What a great endorsement of Hillary! Thanks John!

"If you want real change you need someone who has taken on these people and beat them over and over and over"

That's my girl!

[pioneer111]

21. What did Hillary beat the Repubs over?

She voted for the AUMF. She backed away from universal health care after being attacked. She cozies up to Murdoch.
She was on the board for Walmart. She likes corporatists.
She votes for the War supplementals. She has never won anything against the Repubs. She has survived their attacks.
But who needs to have her survive some more attacks while we all watch and wince.

I'd rather have someone who wins against Repubs and the corporations. Go Edwards.

[rinsd]

22. When has John Edwards ever beaten the GOP? They took him out with a haircut.

"She backed away from universal health care after being attacked."

Edwards barely mentioned universal care until this election.

"She cozies up to Murdoch."

Wow a whole fundraiser during her Senate campaign.

"She was on the board for Walmart."

Before Walmart grew more and more anti-worker.

"She likes corporatists."

No more or less than John Edwards. Ya know John Edwards the Senator when his actions had an impact vs John Edwards the candidate who says he will end all bad things.

"She votes for the War supplementals."

With the exception of the no vote on the famous $87B appropriations bill, Edwards voting record was to the RIGHT of Hillary on the Iraq War.

"She has never won anything against the Repubs. She has survived their attack"

She survived and emerged more popular then she had ever been. She then went and thumped a rising star in the NY GOP and more recently told the Pentagon to kiss her ass.

Edwards hides behind his wife.

[pioneer111]

23. Edwards won against a Repub incumbent in a red state

That was quite the upset and a spectacular win.

He has been beating the corporations (support Republicans) his whole career.

He defended Clinton in the senate and got Republicans to vote against impeachment.

Edwards has had his wife at his side for 30 years.

Hillary and Bill started like that. Actually that wasn't the case, there was Gennifer, Monica and a few others.

Bill Clinton then hid from his wife, it might have been better for Hillary to be behind Bill watching what he did.

Hillary spends 30 million to beat a non entity in New York of all places.

Edwards campaign got Obama and Hillary to vote against the war supplemental this last time.

Hillary still wants to stay in Iraq.

The Repubs are so excited about the possibility of having a Clinton to run against.

[rinsd]

25. Facts are your friends.

"That was quite the upset and a spectacular win."

It was an upset since the 1 term incumbent was favored but spectacular?

"He defended Clinton in the senate and got Republicans to vote against impeachment."

How did he do that since he was elected in 1998 and didn't take office until Jan 1999? Perhaps you meant while campaigning which bring me to my next point.

Many impeachment supporters lost their jobs that election, including the 1 st term incumbent Edwards defeated.

Here's an Edwards inspirational video to get you thru these tough primary months.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2AE847UXu3Q

[AtomicKitten]

20. Edwards already stands apart from the rest of the field

in his gung-ho support of Bush's War.

I give his sincere apology a 7, with 2 points taken off for a bad hair day and 1 for delivery.

http://www.antiwar.com/orig/zunes.php?articleid=3074

[Hippo_Tron]

50. I'll give the apology a 10 out of 10

But apologies don't bring people back to life because Edwards and others didn't ask the tough questions.

[zulchzulu]

26. Edwards might want to get his nails done

That's about all I have to say about someone who was on the Senate Intelligence Committee in 2002 and KNEW the Bush intelligence game was GARBAGE but still had enough time away from the hairdresser to get together with fucking Joe Lieberman to co-sponsor the Iraq War Resolution AND have his speeches posted on the White House web site as proof the Democrats wanted to go to war in Iraq. So we went to war with his lovely little speeches as backup. And then he wants a free pass to say he made a mistake. Yeah, you bet it was a mistake. A big fucking mistake.

Edwards is old news. His campaign is wilting like a bad hair day. His theme song should be the Eagles' "Desperado", played by Kenny G. Nice hair, that Kenny...

His little whispers to Mrs. Clinton about "smaller debates" without including Obama (who walked right up to him at the time of the conversation) was yet another example of a phoney opportunist. His recent ploy in Iowa where he inferred that he was the only "viable" candidate because he was a white boy was over the top and he pulled some poll out of his ass that the Edwards campaign has yet to explain.

[jsamuel]

27. hair

http://youtube.com/watch?v=Y1qG6m9SnWI

[draft_mario_cuomo]

29. It is hilarious how some think the IWR card will hand Obama the nomination on a silver platter

All we hear from the Obama camp is what he said half a decade ago. This week marked the first time we heard of any actual policy difference between the HRC and BO from them. We rarely hear of what Obama actually did from 2003-2006.

The IWR was a bigger deal last time and the magic of the IWR card evaporated as IWR voters finished 1-2-4 in Iowa, combining for over 80% of the vote while Dean, the candidate then banking on the IWR, came home a distant 3rd with 18%.

[draft_mario_cuomo]

28. Edwards' campaign is much closer to Obama's than BO's is to HRC's

If, as several Obama supporters have been saying in recent weeks Edwards is now irrelevant and hopeless that must mean by extension that Obama is irrelevant to HRC and has no hope of catching her...Let's stop the campaign and coronate HRC! :crazy:

Ah, the audacity of an 11 point lead in the national polls, an 11 point deficit in Iowa (an unimportant primary state next to Illinois), 14 point lead in NH, 4 point lead in NV, 9 point advantage in SC, 4 point advantage in FL, 7 point gap in CA, and a 4 point lead in NY. How does Obama fare versus HRC? -13 in the national polls, -7 in Iowa, -11 in NH, -20 in Nevada, -15 in SC, -24 in FL, -21 in CA, -31 in NY. The average gap between Obama and Edwards is 4.4% in these early states, plus the two big Super Tuesday prizes. The average difference between Obama and HRC? 18.4%. If Obama is "serious competition" for HRC surely Edwards is "serious competition" for Obama...

Obama supporters love to point out that the front-runner lost in 2004 as they dismiss HRC's commanding early lead. That is true. What many Obama supporters--especially those who are dreaming that this is now a two-way race--ignore is that the second place candidate (Clark) also lost...

[Catchawave]

31. zulch and 2002, eegads!

nothing new here...move along :D

[The Count]

41. Yeah, that little old war - who cares about it anymore?

Why bother to look who started it? let's just look forward...ain't that what W sez?

[The Count]

40. Zing! Facial too! But who cares of the IWR - it's not like that war still matters - oops!

Talk is cheap, voting record tells the story.

[pioneer111]

43. Obama must have loved the war

once he saw it in action since he kept funding it in 2005, 200, 2007. Edwards voted against the appropriations in 2003. Been active against the war since. Obama's talk kind of cheap, oh dear, actually very expensive. That darn voting record. Ooops

[draft_mario_cuomo]

44. Obama has voted with HRC 99% of the time on Iraq

The fact that all we hear about him on Iraq is a speech he made in 2002 (apparently partly to win over David Axlerod, his message wizard, and a key Chicago political patron) is very telling as to what he has "done" on Iraq since he acquired national power. The only true, consistent anti-war candidate is Kucinich.

[CTLawGuy]

49. well he's sorry if he doesn't want our troops to die while Bush refuses to

pull them out. Defunding is not a magic bullet that will end this war when the commander in chief will do anything and everything to keep it going.

[CTLawGuy]

48. not only that

but then he has the audacity to scold other candidates for not cleaning up his war fast enough.

He may have apologized, but that doesn't give them the moral right to smugly lecture to people about stopping a war that he had a BIG hand in starting.

[IndianaGreen]

32. We need change in '08! Bush-Clinton-Bush-Clinton is status quo!

Real leaders don't triangulate!

[maximusveritas]

33. More empty rhetoric

He says he's been doing it all his life, but where is the evidence? Where are the results?
Did he fight them when he voted for the Patriot Act? Did he fight them when he voted for IWR?
Edwards is just pandering to the uninformed who like fighting rhetoric more than actual results and records.
I'm not impressed by it.

[Ethelk2044]

34. All Good Points. The Anwer is NO He did not Fight.

[draft_mario_cuomo]

47. What has Obama (D-Unity with Republicans) fought about in his 2 years in the senate?

The man marketed as a courageous leader on Iraq could not even bring himself to make a speech on the senate floor about Iraq during his first 11 months in Washington...

[draft_mario_cuomo]

46. Nice spin. Only one senator voted against the Patriot Act

Are you saying Ted Kennedy is a coward and sellout because he voted for it? Did Obama go on record on the Patriot Act in 2001, btw? Thanks in advance. I am interested in what Obama had to say on the topic when it unanimously passed through Congress a few weeks after 9/11.

==Edwards is just pandering to the uninformed who like fighting rhetoric more than actual results and records.==

This is ironic, given your candidate does not speak of any actual results or of his record in the senate...

Some of us prefer fighting rhetoric to rhetoric about working with the Republicans, making concessions to them because of an obsession with consensus. ;)

[JDPriestly]

35. Woops! I just posted the same words.

I really think these are the most important words I have heard this year.

I know from personal experience what Edwards is talking about when he says he has fought the big corporations. I have been on both sides in various lawsuits. I respect Edward's work. He has paid his dues. He has not spent his whole life in politics. He has not taken from political donors all his life. He could lead our country in a new direction. I really think at this point that he would do the best job for America.

I respect Kucinich's ideas and his courage, but I don't think he has that mysterious something called charisma. I think Edwards does have that, and that is why I back him at this point.

Obama and Clinton are too close to corporate America for my taste. We need change.

I will vote for the Democrat who wins the nomination, so I'm not making a dig at any candidate.

[hollywoodlib]

38. Dennis Kucinich nails them all

The only candidate worth voting for. In the Primaries at least

Kucinich/Gravel in '08

[The Count]

42. Integrity is not something relevant by the cheerleaders in this thread.

It's all rhetoric, I'm afraid.

[Forkboy]

39. He has to attack them and provide some contrast between them and him.

It's the whole point of a primary,and he's still in it.

[BenDavid]

45. Such a waste of time for Edwards to

be critical of Bill Clinton. He can be critical of Bill all he wants but he runs the risk of folks thinking back to those 8 years of Bill and thinking to themselves, DAMN! if that is what Clinton did for me by having more money and for me to afford things for my family and this was called triangulation, then it is alright by me and if Hillary is elected and she uses it and it works then it tis alright by me."

I do thank you
Ben David