Elizabeth Edwards Defends Stance

[babylonsister]

http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2007/12/31/540166.aspx

Elizabeth Edwards Defends Stance

From NBC's Lauren Appelbaum
Elizabeth Edwards defended her husband on the accusation that one of his biggest fundraisers is an oil lobbyist. "Campaigns go to journalists and try to feed them stories to try to get them to have us talk about things other than the issues," she said on MSNBC this morning. "What they brought up is someone who is a state lobbyist in a state in which we do not live, does not lobby the federal government, has never tried to lobby John, but likes John's policies and has tried to raise money for him."

"That's not what John's talking about," she continued. "What John's talking about is not taking money from the same people who then turn around and try to lobby you to get a result. So John has never taken money from a federal lobbyist or from a special interest PAC who might try to convince him to vote a particular way."

Mrs. Edwards did not stop there, taking advantage of the opportunity to attack Clinton. "Coming from the Clinton campaign, who has taken more money from the health care industry, more money from defense contractors, than any other candidate in the race -- that's a little bit disingenuous," Edwards said. "You hear the same thing from other campaigns, where they are trying to get you off message. John is and always has been a fighter against the kinds of influence you see in Washington. And his statement that he will not have a lobbyist in his White House is a real statement that his division between the kind of influence for corporations and his obligation to represent and fight for the people of this country ... is total. That's the reason he made the statement. It is not rhetoric. It is real, and it is also symbolic, of his complete dedication to this ideal."

[MethuenProgressive]

1. Yeah but... we said no Washington Lobbyists, and he's a State Lobbyist.

"What they brought up is someone who is a state lobbyist,"
Is she a trial lawyer too?
:rofl:

[sandnsea]

8. Well she is a lawyer

I forget what her practice was.

[Triana]

2. GO Elizabeth GO!

MAN she's a tough cookie and smart as a whip. LOVE her.

The previous poster conveniently OMMITTED the remainder of Elizabeth's statement:

..."does not lobby the federal government, has never tried to lobby John, but likes John's policies and has tried to raise money for him."

"That's not what John's talking about," she continued. "What John's talking about is not taking money from the same people who then turn around and try to lobby you to get a result. So John has never taken money from a federal lobbyist or from a special interest PAC who might try to convince him to vote a particular way."

STILL - whether you LIKE it or NOT - JRE cannot be BOUGHT and THAT is the point.

[K Gardner]

3. K&R

[jillan]

4. When I read the title of the OP - I was thinking she was going to talk about

a wide stance...

I got worried :)

[Missy M]

5. Right...

he's against federal lobbyists but state lobbyists are OK. This particular lobbyist is raising money for John because he likes him, nothing else. Sure!!!!

[Cameron27]

6. Elizabeth should have stopped there,

unless she's got proof that any of Clinton's votes were swayed by special interest money, "her lobbyists" are no more significant to this election than John's.

[bvar22]

7. I disagree. Elizabeth has a vaild point.

*Taking $MIllions from the For Profit Health Insurance Indiustry and then supporting legislation that funnels $Millions ($Billions?) back into their pockets DOES have the Appearance of Impropriety

*Taking $Millions from AIPAC and then supporting the right wing Likud government in Israel without question or qualification has the Appearance of Impropriety.

*Taking $Millions from the Armaments Industry, and supporting the extension of the Occupation of Iraq indefinately, Expansion of the Military, and an INCREASE in the Defense Budget over the wishes of the MAJORITY of the Democratic Party has the Appearance of Impropriety.

*Taking $Millions from the Media and remaining silent or supportive of Media Consolidation has the Appearance of Impropriety.

*Taking %Millions from Big Corporate Interests and supporting "Free Trade" has the Appearance of Impropriety.


I could go on, but you get the message.









The Democratic Party is a BIG TENT, but there is NO ROOM for those
who advance the agenda of THE RICH (Corporate Owners) at the EXPENSE of LABOR and the POOR.

[sandnsea]

9. OMG, do you really believe lobbyists don't matter????

Oh come on, tell me you haven't been duped by that nonsense.