John Edwards in NH forcefully calls out Hillary Clinton on Iran vote and article in New York Times

I attended the Hudson 'Town Hall' style forum as a blogger for BelowBoston.com . The highlight of the event came  during his opening remarks when Edwards addressed the recent vote in the Senate concerning Iran and today's article in the New York Times in which Hilllary Clinton advisers said that vote was meant as going from "primary mode to General Election mode".

Details below the fold.

It was during Edwards opening remarks prior to opening the forum for questions that his "stump speech" underwent a few changes: he offered sharp distinctions between himself and Hillary Clinton but none so sharp as her recent vote concerning Iran. I  transcribed the following blockquotes from my digital voice recorder and some statements at the end are unintelligeble due to loud applause. The paragraphs below are also posted at BelowBoston.com:
This weekend in NH John Edwards got the endorsement of Friends of the Earth Action and at events all this weekend he was introduced to interested voters by the President of that organization.

John Edwards does not hesitate to point out clear differences and distinctions between he and Hillary Clinton as he appeals for the votes of New Hampshire residents. He does not shie away from using her name as he outlines for voters where these differences exist.

The first distinction between he and HC was within 2 minutes of his opening remarks  and concerned how change that is needed will be effected - by "being willing to take on entrenched interests." i.e. lobbyists. He told the 400 people who took the time to gather at the Hudson Memorial School that he himself has never taken money from a Washington lobbyist  and that "to his credit Senator Obama has not in his run for President" but that "Senator Clinton does". That she has taken "millions" from lobbyists. He stated that there will be no change to the system if you "embrace" the lobbyist system. His now standard line about how we shouldn't replace corporate Republicans with corporate Democrats drew sustained applause.

That was just the first shot across the bow of the Hillary Clinton Campaign -- there were more -- and they were more than rhetorical: he directly challenged her judgement and worked the audience on their noted fervor for their First in the Nation Primary by mentioning a quote in an article in today's New York Times which got heavy applause.

The second distinction between Edwards and Hillary Clinton as pointed out by candidate John Edwards  came as he was discussing energy policy. Saying he was not in favor of building new nuclear power plants and that "Senator Clinton and Senator Obama have a different position than that.. and you are entitled to know that.""Second, I am not in favor of building more coal fired plants".
When he was leading into his  stump speech line( which is effective and gets applause from audiences) about "being 'Patriotic' about something other than War" he led into it  differently than I had heard him before:

I think we need a President who, instead of rolling through NH, I promise you this, promise you that, I promise you this.... Uh I hope you you have a sense of me ... I've spent enough time in NH, I know that you do.."

and then the line about being patriotic and he spoke about sacrificing at home and at work by conserving energy.

The third direct distinction between he and Senator Clinton came in his remarks about lessons learned about the Iraq War. He spent a considerable amount of time detailing the recent Senate Iran vote. He commended Senator Biden and Dodd by name for their votes against naming the Iranian Revolutionary Guard a terrorist organization. He said:

"Senator Obama was not present so he did not vote. Senator Clinton voted yes. She is entitled to her vote but I cannot tell you how strongly I disagree with that.
  What makes me worried, is what if George Bush invades Iran 6 months from now so we are going to hear again? 'If only I knew then what I knew now?'

 You know, How long does it take to learn a lesson from the past? We cannot give this President an inch, not an inch.

You know there was story  in today's New York Times where some of Hillary Clinton's advisers said that she was moving from Primary mode, on this vote, to General Election mode.

Now, did I miss something? you can tell me. ( Laughter) Did we already have the NH primary? I mean did we already decide who the winner of the NH Primary is?(Murmurs of No, No, and laughter and scattered applause)I think we're actually going to have an election. [Heavy applause drowns out the rest of his sentence] Instead of moving from Primary mode to General Election mode why don't we have 'Tell the truth mode'[Heavy applause and laughter and a couple of woo' hoos' are picked up by the recorder.]We need to be able to trust both the Presidential candidate and the President of the United States.

So, I think there is a lot at stake in this election. I'm going to open the floor to questions Thank you all for coming".

He got questions about Medicare and Social Security which gave him the opportunity to again discuss lobbyists,  as well as "telling the truth to the American people" about options for shoring up Social Security saying this subject - Social Security- is an area where it is often hard to get direct answers.He offered a direct answer: he came out in favor of raising the cap for those who make over 200,000 dollars a year. He talked about America's role in the world, education, college costs(he called for a National Teachers School similar to West Point, which judging by watching audience reactions to that the idea it was clearly intriguing to people). It was a typical NH voter forum and Edwards excels sat these forums which gives him an opportunity to expand on his goals and policy points.  

His conclusion as he appealed to voters for their vote was compelling because he asked them to base their vote on trust.On whether we as voters can trust the candidate who wants our vote. To look for honesty, integrity, and whether the candidate was being sincere - he asked them to apply that test to him. He told those present that as NH voters, they were "guardians of what kind of President we have" that they get to see more than 30 second sound bites on tv.

Yes they do. And they realize they haven't voted yet. This election is not over. Not to those in that room.

Tags: Hillary Clinton, Iran, John Edwards (all tags)

Comments

92 Comments

Re:

Sad, all we see anymore from the candidates themselves and their fans are anti-Hillary diaries.   "Calling out Hillary Clinton" does not substitute for making a strong case FOR you as a candidate, Mr. Edwards.  In fact, it turns many voters off.  Just tell us what YOU have that makes you better.  All I see is "Edwards bashes Clinton,"  "Edwards calls out Clinton."   Do you guys really think he has made his case to the American people?   If not, this calling-out is counter productive.

by georgep 2007-10-14 05:10PM | 0 recs
Re:

It's about what he's calling her out for. He's said he would have voted against the Iran amendment, for example.

by Progressive America 2007-10-14 05:21PM | 0 recs
Re:

who gives a damn what he'll vote for? He needs to retire to his big mansion to take care of his sick wife.

by areyouready 2007-10-14 05:26PM | 0 recs
Re:

Rush Limbaugh, is that you?

by NCDemAmy 2007-10-14 07:11PM | 0 recs
Re:

Krusty the Clown.

by Shaun Appleby 2007-10-14 08:49PM | 0 recs
I wonder

how many times areyouready is going to to be allowed to belch the words "sick wife" before he/she will be deservedly booted from this site.

Members of this community should exercise some minimum level of decency/maturity.  Sneering at the ill health of a family member of a politician is vile and immature.  That this politician happens to be a Democratic presidential candidate and this site happens to be a Democratic-friendly blog - makes these belching noises all the more obnoxious.  

The only person who has the "right" to post on this site is the owner.  The rest of us have the privilege to post here, granted to us by the owner.

We are guests here. It's not our house. We have no right to trash the place.

by Rob in Vermont 2007-10-14 09:40PM | 0 recs
... if he had been in the Senate

Edwards would not have voted against K-L -- he just says that when he talks to the anti-war left.  When he panders to the Israeli lobby, he's over-the-top militant about Iran:

"Iran must know that the world won't back down ... Let me reiterate - ALL options must remain on the table ... The war in Lebanon had Iranian fingerprints all over it ... Hezbollah is an instrument of the Iranian government ... Iranian rockets allowed Hezbollah to attack and wage war against Israel."

Lieberman?  Netanyahu?  No that's John Edwards before the Israeli Security Conference at Herzliya.

"Hey, John, what's all this stuff about Kyl-Lieberman?"  "Oh, don't worry, I'm just jerking around those suckers on the anti-war left.  I'm with Israel all the way."

by Canaan 2007-10-15 08:03PM | 0 recs
Re: ... if he had been in the Senate

Pardon me, but we are the anti-war RIGHT!

by Hillary Lieberman 2007-10-16 05:59AM | 0 recs
It certainly does not substitute for ....

... making the case, and so its a good thing that Senator Edwards has devoted the time to making that case, so now he can tackle Senator Clinton on her effort to pretend there are no substantial differences between the candidates on policy, so the only real difference is that she lived in the White House for eight years and they did not.

by BruceMcF 2007-10-14 06:22PM | 0 recs
Re: It certainly does not substitute for ....

How do you quantify that he has made a sufficient case to the Democratic voter?  Seems way off to make such a statement, given how far behind Edwards is everywhere, and even in Iowa he has fallen behind.  A sufficient case speaks of a strong, competetive built base, which does not appear to exist for Edwards.

by georgep 2007-10-14 06:59PM | 0 recs
George, HRC started off ahead on name recognition

just like George W did.  She is now getting the folks who want to get on the band wagon but from now on, substance and positions are going to matter.  It appears from some of the polling that she has at least a 25% negative rating within the party.  This means that if she wins the nomination, she is going to have to get more Republican votes than a Democratic candidate normally gets.  I believe that is why she has courted Murdoch and corporate donors and is why Obama and Edwards have criticized her.  Whether her being all things to all people pays off or not, we'll have to see.

by lobo charlie 2007-10-14 09:02PM | 0 recs
Re:

That was not what I asked in my post.  Edwards quite obviously has not made a case FOR himself with Democrats.  He is very far behind Clinton, and has fallen behind even further, is now the farthest behind in any polling we have seen from any state, ALL states, that he has ever been.  How then does he intend to win over those of us who currently intend to vote for Hillary Clinton or Obama?  By trashing Clinton?  For most of us that makes it LESS likely that Edwards will get the nod.  

by georgep 2007-10-15 04:24AM | 0 recs
If you spin any ...

... criticism of Clinton as "trashing" Clinton, and demanding that John Edwards refrain from pointing out the differences that Senator Clinton is working hard to obscure ... this is not surprising.

However, if you seriously believe that the test of whether a candidate has laid out a progressive policy platform is by reading the October polls the year before, then it follows that Dean made his case for nomination in 2004, and Kerry failed to do so.

by BruceMcF 2007-10-15 02:25PM | 0 recs
Re:

Be careful how you phrase things. Edwards has indeed made a case for himself with Democrats. Just because they are not as many Democrats as Clinton presently does NOT mean that they aren't Democrats. Please take your candidate worship down a few notches and begin to respect those of us in the Democratic party that do not support your candidate. Your synopsis is arrogant and disrespectful to say the least.

by Hillary Lieberman 2007-10-16 06:03AM | 0 recs
shrill

shrill. He's still running? What a waste of time.

Why does democratic party always have these limp-wristed 'male' politicians? Even his wife appears stronger than this 'man'.

by areyouready 2007-10-14 05:15PM | 0 recs
You are homophobic and

sexist.  

by TomP 2007-10-14 07:14PM | 0 recs
Re: shrill

Why does the Democratic party have these weak and fearful supporters of Clinton who cannot defend her on the merits.

They want the competition to go away, but have no idea how to deal with the challenges that are now coming on.

The competition is just getting really interesting.

by pioneer111 2007-10-14 07:18PM | 0 recs
STOP IT with the gay bashing, areyouready

Take your HATE language to a rightwing site.

Disgusting.

by NCDemAmy 2007-10-14 07:18PM | 0 recs
Re: STOP IT with the gay bashing, areyouready

Areyouready makes the absolute worse comments and day by day the same. Sometimes I can't believe the rediculous languaged used. Most Democratic sites don't even treat Republican candidates this way!

by Progressive America 2007-10-14 08:15PM | 0 recs
Re: shrill

Really lame comments.

by Progressive America 2007-10-14 08:11PM | 0 recs
Re: John Edwards in NH forcefully calls out HRC

- Clear differences in approach to energy - Edwards against building more nuclear power plants/ HRC not ruled it out.  That's why Edwards got the endorsement from Friends of the Earth and as close to an endorsement as possible from the LCV.

- Clear differences on accepting money from DC lobbyists - Hillary does / Edwards doesn't.  This frees up Edwards to make real reform.

That's not shilling.

The truth hurts.  And this primary is far from over.  

by passionateprogressive 2007-10-14 05:23PM | 0 recs
Re: John Edwards in NH forcefully calls out HRC

The truth hurts in that it shows that the vast majority of Edwards' posters' diaries are "calling out Hillary Clinton" diaries.  There is no substance.  What, we are to argue the IRAN vote again?   Ample evidence to show how one-sided and ultimately empty that recent diary of yours was.  Edwards supporters don't even talk about Edwards anymore, for the most part.  It is all about bashing Hillary Clinton, as if that wins Edwards the nomination.

BTW, the primaries were to 95% over for Edwards the moment he decided to go nuclear on Clinton.  

by georgep 2007-10-14 06:03PM | 0 recs
Re: John Edwards in NH forcefully calls out HRC

In case you've forgotten, this site is called "Direct Democracy".  Claiming that the primaries "were 95% over" before a single vote has been cast is pretty much in direct conflict with a site organized to focus on people having more say in our government and electoral process.

Your statement also does a great job of showing why people are so against Hillary and her supporters - total arrogance.  

How could anyone even begin to claim the primaries are 95% over in mid-October?  Either you were born yesterday or you are so arrogant to believe that Hillary is so inevitable that practically nothing could stop her (I'm assuming that's why you left 5% to chance?).

This arrogance is what makes people committed to true change double our efforts to support our candidates and in the process defeat her.

She may win or may not win the nomination, but it will be a battle, as in a direct democracy, it should be.  

by passionateprogressive 2007-10-14 06:54PM | 0 recs
Re: John Edwards in NH forcefully calls out HRC

Au contraire.  Your diary is total arrogance. I have looked at your diary history, and frankly, YOU are one to speak of "substance."   I almost fell off my chair when I saw what YOU are trying to sell here.  

It is my opinion that Edwards has a very small, outside chance to win the nomination.  Tough nails if you don't like that opinion.  I certainly don't have to justify it in any way, as it is an opinion.  Obama right now has a much better chance at making this a race.  When Edwards decided to go for public financing and the shackles that come with it, he pretty much took most of his chance away.  You can't compete in NH, behind by 30% or more, with $850,000.   I know you are a big fan, and all, but if you don't see that 850k is not going to do the trick to erase huge deficits, I can't help you.  In fact, THAT is indeed the height of arrogance to attempt such a claim.   It would be extremely hard to compete with 850k when the others have $10 Million to spend on one state if polls were competetive (say, within a few points of each other,) but 30%+ behind?   Let's be real for a change here.  I know the "truth hurts" (another arrogant statement you coined in this diary, but I thought I borrow it) but you are best served with it for once, instead of pretending that every move, every utterance, is automatically "just great."   It obviously has not worked out that way so far, and someone who is a bit more realistic from that side should REALLY someday soon start a diary dissecting what exactly went wrong, where they erred, instead of blaming everything on the media.

by georgep 2007-10-14 07:08PM | 0 recs
Re: John Edwards in NH forcefully calls out HRC

and, repeat, I NEVER claimed the primaries are 95% over, just another misreading and misrepresentation from you (I am finding a lot of those, like your totally false attribution to a comment dbhelix supposedly made, which he did not.)   I believe unlike Edwards Obama still has a decent chance to win this thing.  It is not a great chance, but it is within reach, and he could parlay an Iowa win into a good showing in NH, then SC.  A lot of things have to go right for him, to be honest, but it is possible.  But Edwards?   Iowa?  Even if he wins, then what?  Iowa bounces are not huge, certainly not enough to erase 30%+ deficits in basically every state one may want to look at.   He has a slim chance, but both candidates ahead of him have to falter badly, and there is no indication that that is likely to occur.  

by georgep 2007-10-14 07:14PM | 0 recs
Re: John Edwards in NH forcefully calls out HRC

Claiming the primaries are 95% over for Edwards is still denying that the voters actually have a say.  They haven't voted, george.  If you believe in Democracy, let the voters speak with their vote.

Edwards is calling her out on "issues", the ones I specified in my post.  You know it.

The primary, for Edwards, is not 95% over as you claim.  Let the voters speak.

Again, deal with it.  

by passionateprogressive 2007-10-15 04:05AM | 0 recs
Re: John Edwards in NH forcefully calls out HRC

It is a personal opinion, but I base it on a realistic assessment of the race.  I like Edwards, actually more so than Obama at this point.  I believe he is genuine with his call to end poverty, and while the biggest problem he is facing with Democrats is that his amazing, uncanny conversion from moderate/centrist to far-left progressive within just a few short years is simply not being bought by most of us (seen as political expediency by many, core political philosophies are generally ingrained in the person, not changeable on the fly like this)  I allow for part of the massive overhaul of this candidate to be due to having to deal with personal tragedy.   Still, you have to be realistic, even if that is hard to do.  Edwards' chance is that of a clear outsider.   The Intrade betting site, which boasts a very strong predictive track record, gives Edwards a 3.6% betting chance to win the nomination as of today.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/ 2008/president/us/democratic_presidentia l_nomination-191.html

You probably don't like to see opinions like this expressed, but posts like yours attempt to "level the playing field," when the reality is absolutely different.  It will require a herculean task of proportions we have never before witnessed in nomination history for Edwards to pull this off.  If you don't believe that the task before Edwards is quite formidable, you are not honest with yourself.

by georgep 2007-10-15 04:28AM | 0 recs
Re: John Edwards in NH forcefully calls out HRC

You're right, george.  I do believe that Edwards has a lot of work ahead of him.  He has less of nearly everything - money, name (no Bill to go with him), organization in the 2nd wave of states, media attention, etc.  I think it will be difficult.

Yet I also believe that most people are just starting to really pay attention.  Many of us on this site are "junkies" and we pay attention for much more time and in much more detail than most people.

I don't recall the diarist, but I recall reading on here a couple of weeks ago that about 50% of Dems said they were not settled on a candidate for the primaries.  This tells me that the outcome has not yet been decided, if this poll was accurate.  Even the people I know who are educated and informed haven't settled.  They think I'm crazy, not for supporting Edwards, but for already knowing!  Don't you find that from your friends and family too?

I must say - I respect your front page posts, even though I disagree with them usually. :)  Some of your comments in the diaries, however, drive me batty, as mine clearly do to you as well.  I'm sure if we met, we'd get along just fine.  In the meantime, I promise to be more careful about my posts and if I'm quoting to do so accurately (my shortened quote of you above was unintentional).

And of course, we can still argue about why we believe our candidates may be best based on their experience, issues, electability, blah, blah, blah.

At least we agree the White House need to become blue!

by passionateprogressive 2007-10-15 05:40PM | 0 recs
Re: John Edwards in NH forcefully calls out HRC

There is no sense arguing with a Clinton partisan. Their eyes are surrounded by blinders and their ability to think independently has been replaced by the All Things Hillary meme. They won't admit to any mistakes just like their leader. And they will try to make you think that black is white should the effort paint their candidate in a more favorable light.

by Hillary Lieberman 2007-10-15 05:02AM | 0 recs
Re: John Edwards in NH forcefully calls out HRC

BTW, the primaries were to 95% over for Edwards the moment he decided to go nuclear on Clinton.
by georgep on Sun Oct 14, 2007 at 10:03:51 PM EST

and, repeat, I NEVER claimed the primaries are 95% over
 

by Hillary Lieberman 2007-10-16 06:07AM | 0 recs
Re: John Edwards in NH forcefully calls out HRC

forgot this little part for the second quote:

by georgep on Sun Oct 14, 2007 at 11:14:29 PM EST

Yes, a whole lot of credibility......

by Hillary Lieberman 2007-10-16 06:10AM | 0 recs
Re: John Edwards in NH forcefully calls out HRC

You captured the undeniable arrogance of the Clinton followers club. They believe fully that anything said by anyone that isn't 100% behind Clinton isn't worthy of discussion. In fact they consider the discussion of such matters heresy. Witness the way you and your positions have been attacked by this Clinton Clan. THEY are a dangerous influence on our Democratic party. In fact they seem to be the opposite of anything democratic.

by Hillary Lieberman 2007-10-15 04:57AM | 0 recs
Re: John Edwards in NH forcefully calls out HRC

Your entire entry here, from when you showed up here about 10 days ago, until today, your user-id, tagline, etc. is a discredit to your chosen candidate Edwards.  

This is obviously lost on you, but notice that I expressed a personal opinion that Edwards chances are quite dim, and that opinion borders on heresy with the likes of you.  I doubt Edwards would appreciate having you speak for him in the manner you typically do.  It is indeed you and your ilk who are a dangerous influence on our Democratic party.  What will you do when Clinton wins the nomination?  Declare all Democrats for "moronic" losers who "deserve what they'll get"?  Tell everybody not to show up to vote in the General, or vote third party?    Damaging our party that way because the candidate you personally don't back wins the nomination is the ultimate in sour grapism, and it runs counter to any Democratic principles.

by georgep 2007-10-15 05:27AM | 0 recs
Re: John Edwards in NH forcefully calls out HRC

What I do after the primaries is my own business. I don't appreciate that you chose to imply that I would work against our nominee. But so typical a response from a Clinton follower. You apparently have no respect for anyone that disagrees with you or your gal and attempt to label the rest of us as the enemy. A vibrant progressive Democratic party allows dissent, in fact it encourages it. How dare you question my loyalty to the Democratic party. But as I stated earlier, this is the type of response so typical of a Clinton follower. Attack someone's character. Make shit up and hope it sticks. Yeah, that'll make your girl pleased.

by Hillary Lieberman 2007-10-15 06:21AM | 0 recs
Re: John Edwards in NH forcefully calls out HRC

All you have added to this site since you showed up here 10 days ago has been vitriol.  That won't cut it.  It is indeed YOU who wants to stifle dissent, which is undemocratic.   I don't agree with your opinions, and I voice my dissent. The same is true for other posters.  Instead of letting it be as another opinion that might not match yours, you go ballistic, become virulent and vitriolic.    No room for dissent, all YOU want is an echo-chamber that screams "Drop Hillary" from the rooftops.   Sorry, but that is not happening.  The chamber is now open to all, even those who dissent with you.   Learn to live with it.

by georgep 2007-10-15 06:48AM | 0 recs
Re: John Edwards in NH forcefully calls out HRC

Dude, you haven't seen me ballistic so chill out on the exaggerations. I have not been vitriolic since I came here. Yes, I oppose Hillary Clinton for the nomination but I do so out of a sincere desire to save our Democratic party from being overrun by these centrists that will neglect to move the party toward anything progressive. And as long as your gal Hillary supports traitors like Lieberman you might just expect that some of us will object very loudly, and do so at every turn.

by Hillary Lieberman 2007-10-15 12:42PM | 0 recs
Re: John Edwards in NH forcefully calls out HRC

Of course the primaries are not over.  That's why we gave her so much money in the last quarter.

by Canaan 2007-10-15 08:28PM | 0 recs
Re: John Edwards in NH forcefully calls out HRC

Yes, we are going to argue the Iran vote again.  Bush wanted, and Hillary gave.  No lesson learned from the Iraq AUMF, no responsibility taken, no change from the status quo indicated.

She even gets her support from gay bashers (see areyouready), JUST LIKE BUSH!

by CLLGADEM 2007-10-15 02:29AM | 0 recs
Re: John Edwards in NH forcefully calls out HRC

Read Durbin's comments on this Iran "sense of the Senate."   Perhaps then you understand what it was about in the first place.

As for gay bashers:  Clinton has BY FAR the most support of any candidate from within the gay community.  Please don't cheapen discourse here with this "JUST LIKE BUSH" crap.  It belongs on sites other than this (i.e. Democratic Underground.)

by georgep 2007-10-15 04:31AM | 0 recs
Re: John Edwards in NH forcefully calls out HRC

Telling other people what to write or not write is rude at the very least.  This is the United States, not Myanmar, and I respectfully suggest you stop acting like the thought police.  Indeed, if the autocratic nature of your posts and the savage personal attacks featured in areyouready's posts are typical of the campaign you support, then my choice and the choice of my pro-Edwards compatriots is all the more ratified.  

As for the gay community, I trust that areyouready, in the interests of fairness and full disclosure, will make his comments known to them.  If what you say is true, then the GLBT community at least deserves to know the kind of camapign they're supporting, don't they?

I read Durbin's comments.  He was just as wrong to vote for the resolution as Clinton, no more or less, and for the same reasons I have outlined in quite a few other threads.  Dick Durbin is not some divine authority hovering in ethereal splendor over the political landscape; just because he "believes" this is not a step toward war with Iran does not automatically make it the truth.

It may interest you to know that I do not agree with Senator Edwards 100% of the time, either.  Despite some suggestions to the contrary, not all Edwards diaries are attacks on Hillary Clinton, but discussions of his extensive policy  proposals.  I am on record as supporting a greater emphasis on balancing the budget than JRE would place, and his plan to curb earmarks and special interest spending (pork) has some problems.  Fellow Edwards supporters do not attack me for these statements.  We discuss the matters politely, and best of all, the name of your candidate does not even come up.

by CLLGADEM 2007-10-16 01:41AM | 0 recs
Re: John Edwards

America has heard what John Edwards has to offer and they have said loud and clear, "No, thanks!!"

by reasonwarrior 2007-10-14 06:09PM | 0 recs
What is the irony emoticon again?
In the context of this diary:
Now, did I miss something? you can tell me. (Laughter) Did we already have the NH primary? I mean did we already decide who the winner of the NH Primary is? (Murmurs of No, No, and laughter and scattered applause) I think we're actually going to have an election.

...
America has heard what John Edwards has to offer and they have said loud and clear, "No, thanks!!"
sounds like some people think that winning the Q3 "money primary" was all that was required to lock down the nomination.
by BruceMcF 2007-10-14 06:27PM | 0 recs
Re: John Edwards in NH forcefully calls out HRC

The Clinton folks are using their tried and true strategy of attacking anyone that questions the authority of their gal. They minimize the importance of anything said, attack the character of the person saying it and then attempt to characterize the questioner as desperate or inconsequential. They are wholly predictable. Bush and his crowd use the exact same methods.

Regardless of these bullshit attacks from Camp Clinton, Edwards will continue to speak out about the hypocrisy and danger of the Clinton candidacy.

by Hillary Lieberman 2007-10-15 04:52AM | 0 recs
Re: John Edwards in NH forcefully calls out HRC

She's my gal, that's for sure.

by Canaan 2007-10-15 08:30PM | 0 recs
Re: John Edwards in NH

Attacks on another democrat who is the frontrunner will not save his failing campaign.  That is no excuse to misrepresent her position.  Voters see through this kind of desperate attack and his support will fall off even more than it already has in the last few months since he started going negative.

by reasonwarrior 2007-10-14 06:06PM | 0 recs
Hogwash

It that is true than why are you so worried?

Edwards message will get out, louder and louder!

by dk2 2007-10-14 08:11PM | 0 recs
Re: Hogwash

And what message is that?  The one where he accuses Obama of stealing his ideas?  or the one he accuses Hillary of doing the same?

by FilbertSF 2007-10-14 08:23PM | 0 recs
Re: Hogwash

Worried??  About Edwards? Ha ha Ha Ha Ha ha Ha Ha Ha Ha ha Ha ha Ha Ha ha Ha Ha ha Ha......... that's a good one!!

by reasonwarrior 2007-10-15 06:46AM | 0 recs
Re: John Edwards in NH forcefully calls out Hillar

Edwards is a wimp, he is losing everywhere, and is attacking Hillary.

Where was this passion in 2003? That could have made him the nominee, instead of begging John for the No. 2 spot.

by American1989 2007-10-14 06:19PM | 0 recs
That passion was there ... combined ...

... with better organization it could well have won Iowa ... but that was then, this is now. If Senator Clinton thinks its strategic to pretend she has the nomination sewn up, that strategy has both upsides and downsides to it. Her supporters whining because one of her rivals is working at exploiting one of the downsides is a bit silly.

by BruceMcF 2007-10-14 06:35PM | 0 recs
Re: That passion was there ... combined ...

I find it self-defeating and desperate.  The reason why Edwards made somewhat of an emergence in 2004 was because he was completely positive, people thought "sunny" when they thought of him.  He benefitted from Gephardt's and Dean's nasty fight.   I appreciated that about Edwards, although I did not support him, as he was way too moderate/centrist for my taste.   This track damages him to no end, and I am frankly surprised all his supporters are gung-ho about it.  Really no apprehension that the strategy, which is the counteropposite to the track Edwards pursued in 2004 might hurt him in both Iowa and New Hampshire, two states that traditionally punish 'negative' candidates?

by georgep 2007-10-14 06:56PM | 0 recs
Re: That passion was there ... combined ...

GeorgeP, do you think it's time for Hillary to strike back?  As the campaign season is winding down, Hillary is literally being assaulted left and right.    

Edwards is a very weak opponent.  He lacks honesty.  He is no more the "common man" than George Bush is a cowboy.

by FilbertSF 2007-10-14 08:14PM | 0 recs
Re: That passion was there ... combined ...

No, she should absolutely not strike back.   The puffball memos they are sending out are more than sufficient.  I can't believe Edwards posters here (as well as Obama posters vis-a-vis his new track) can't see reality.  It comes across as desperate, and it is so transparent in intent, that it overshoots its target by miles.  Nothing will move, except further away from them and towards Clinton.   In this case it would not be smart to get in the mud with them and get dirty.  

by georgep 2007-10-14 08:21PM | 0 recs
Re: That passion was there ... combined ...

Right.  She's not going to strike back against Democrats.  Maybe a little lovetap, that's all.  She wants 60 Dem Senators, she's not going to damage the Dem brand.  You know, "The Dems Voted For The War", "The Dems Flip Flop", all those Republican talking points.

People really should try to keep cloture in mind -- that's if they are capable of thinking rationally --  because that's the game now for the Republicans.

The funny thing about the negativity from Edwards is it's so narrowcast.  If you're not a left wing blogger, his attacks are boring and unintelligible.

by Canaan 2007-10-15 08:42PM | 0 recs
Re: John Edwards in NH forcefully calls out Hillar

But he has a 'manly' wife. LOL.

by areyouready 2007-10-14 07:06PM | 0 recs
You are a sexist pig!

No way you are a real Hillary supporter.  

You are a sexist troll.

by TomP 2007-10-14 07:13PM | 0 recs
What a despicable SEXIST comment

Sexist comments such as that should not be allowed on a progressive site, they make for a hostile environment.

by NCDemAmy 2007-10-14 07:16PM | 0 recs
Re: John Edwards in NH forcefully calls out Hillar

areyouready, let's REALLY stop this track.  It is uncool and hinders the tough case that is right before us to be made against Edwards.

by georgep 2007-10-14 07:18PM | 0 recs
Re: John Edwards in NH forcefully calls out Hillar

areyouready doesn't believe that there  is a case to be made against Edwards so he distracts with this nonsense.  

by pioneer111 2007-10-14 07:27PM | 0 recs
Re: John Edwards in NH forcefully calls out Hillar

Au contraire.  areyouready is just reacting to the garbage Edwards has been spewing.  He may be doing it in a very untactful way, but I think Edwards supporters are equally disgusting in their anti-Hillary bashing.

Hillary has been pushing forward, even complimenting her Democratic rivals on the campaign trail.

What does Obama and Edwards do to return the favor?  They misrepresent and distort her position, even going as low as quoting Anne Kornblutt's interview in WaPo, despite the fact that her answers were taken out of context.

I don't expect much from Edwards in terms of honesty, but his supporters?  They are no better than him.

I quote TomP, "Lie with pigs and you get muddy"  

by FilbertSF 2007-10-14 08:13PM | 0 recs
Re: John Edwards in NH forcefully calls out Hillar

"Equally disgusting" my great big keister.  You're not scoring any points against Edwards folks by defending areyouready's otherwise universally condemned behavior -- you're only destroying your own credibility.

by Junior Bug 2007-10-15 07:00AM | 0 recs
Your friend is

homophobic and sexist.

Lie with pigs and you get muddy.  

by TomP 2007-10-14 07:49PM | 0 recs
Re: Your friend is

That is as offensive a post as you have made.   Sad to see previously decent posters go this route.  And, to think, this came in response to an admonishing post that actually asked the poster to stop.   I guess we are now entering some sort of "war zone" with some Edwards' posters here where nothing stops the carnage, posts aren't even looked at anymore.  Way out of bounds, and very sad to see such behavior.  Luckily, there are still some decent Edwards supporters here.  

by georgep 2007-10-14 08:15PM | 0 recs
Re: John Edwards in NH forcefully calls out Hillar

Thanks for the comments georgep. Personally I don't think areyouready even supports Hillary, but has come here only on the premise to attack Edwards and Obama and make Hillary look bad. The poster sure doesn't sound like a Democrat and certainly not a Progressive one at that.

by Progressive America 2007-10-14 08:41PM | 0 recs
Re: John Edwards in NH forcefully calls out Hillar

Absolutely sick. Yeah real funny, haha everyone is laughing u think? NOT. I agree with the others. Areyouready is probably a Republican who is trying to make people hate Hillary. Democrats on these sites don't even criticize Republicans like this, so this continuing behavior is just unacceptable. I don't know if anyone ever checked out the old yahoo boards, but the comments remind me of some of the crazy things that were always said there. Way over the top, disgusting.

by Progressive America 2007-10-14 08:21PM | 0 recs
Re: John Edwards in NH forcefully calls out Hillar

Well, congratulations, I have been following your career with much interest and that comment was a personal best for you.  Imagine that, seven zero-ratings for as many words.  Very impressive.  Now piss off.

by Shaun Appleby 2007-10-14 08:56PM | 0 recs
Re: John Edwards in NH forcefully calls out Hillar

Well, congratulations, I have been following your career with much interest and that comment was a personal best for you.  Imagine that, seven zero-ratings for as many words.  Very impressive.  Now piss off.

by Shaun Appleby 2007-10-14 08:58PM | 0 recs
Re: John Edwards in NH

Excellent event report, merbex!  Thanks for sharing it.

by TomP 2007-10-14 06:55PM | 0 recs
Thanks, interestingly

this was the first time all summer and into the Fall that I had been accompanied to any candidate's event by my 17 year old( 18 year old in 2008) and she twice grabbed my notebook to jot down  lines spoken by Edwards that she thought were effective.

I am usually accompanied by the blog's technical director who handles the video camera but he took the day off and our camera work was handled by a first time mother of a 3month old - again her first foray up to NH all of this campaign season. She and I are Democratic political activists on the South Shore of MA. Both my daughter and the "new mother" remarked upon Edwards sincerity and passion as he spoke and felt that when the questions came from the audience his "enthusiasm" was best displayed  over America' standing in the world  and how to improve it and  in education plans.

I spoke to the assistant NH press Sectretary who agreed with me that he too had heard rumors that Nh was thinking of moving it's Primary to Dec. 11 which seemed to - I don't know if shock is the right word but maybe "bemuse" both he and I( I got the distinct impression that  a shift to Dec would throw all the campaigns a "curve" they are not really expecting ) and we discussed future NH appearances. I couldn't get any information about ad buy cycles but I tried!

It's always fun to see candidates with people who haven't done the NH political season before and I was so proud that my daughter listened closely enough to want to write down what she thought was important.

by merbex 2007-10-15 02:46AM | 0 recs
Forcefully and John Edwards don't go together

That is his problem.  Edwards is soft and people see him as so.  That is why he has sent his wife out time after time to do his dirty business.

by dpANDREWS 2007-10-14 07:08PM | 0 recs
Dp, you are

disgusting with your comments.  Just a disgusting comemnt by you.  Sexist also.

by TomP 2007-10-14 07:11PM | 0 recs
Re: Edwards surprises people

much like he surprised corporate lawyers in court.

Edwards is tough and forceful and is willing to be in the fire with people.

He answers unscripted questions and he tells the unvarnished truth.

Sounds forceful and presidential to me.  

by pioneer111 2007-10-14 07:30PM | 0 recs
Re: Forcefully and John Edwards don't go together

TomP is right. It's a disgusting comment. Let's STOP with the "sending the wife out" stuff. Really, do we need to be saying this here? That's the kind of language you find on the non-regulated Republican sites. All of the candidates are great and one of them will be our nominee. When we make attacks on family members it's really over the line.

by Progressive America 2007-10-14 08:25PM | 0 recs
Re: Forcefully and John Edwards don't go together

With all due respect, that is exactly what is happening.  Let's me honest here.

Your outrage that someone is pointing out the obvious is disingenuous when you know full well what the Edwards have been doing.

Elizabeth Edwards can attack Hillary or anyone else  with impunity.  Her illness garners her much sympathy, and anyone who returns the volley will surely be brow-beaten.

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0807/5424.html
"Elizabeth Edwards has emerged as the attacker-in-chief for her husband's presidential campaign, and it is a job to which she is well-suited.

And those who are attacked by Elizabeth Edwards don't really want to attack her back. What would be the point?

She gets great press, she is bravely battling cancer while keeping up an exhausting campaign schedule and, besides, she is not running for anything.

Which allows her to lash out without getting lashed back. And she has used that power effectively." -- Roger Simon

by FilbertSF 2007-10-14 08:40PM | 0 recs
Re: Forcefully and John Edwards don't go together

If Hillary can use Bill as a surrogate then Elizabeth Edwards should be able to say what she wants.

by Will Graham 2007-10-15 03:32AM | 0 recs
Re: Forcefully and John Edwards don't go together

It's called, as Will said, a "surrogate."  Welcome to politics.  Rule #1 in politics is that we don't attack people for being physically or mentally ill.  

by Junior Bug 2007-10-15 07:17AM | 0 recs
If it's OK

in general for family members of politicians to express partisan/political viewpoints during campaign season, it must also be OK for family members who happen to have cancer.

Surely you wouldn't argue that people with illnesses must keep themselves muzzled, just because some people may view them sympathetically, or because some people may characterize them that way.

by Rob in Vermont 2007-10-15 07:24AM | 0 recs
Re: Forcefully and John Edwards don't go together

As others have said, Elizabeth is a good surrogate for John.  The attacks on her are not substantial because there she tells the truth, so people use side issues.

I think we need to examine more thoroughly the role that Bill Clinton plays and would play in the Whitehouse.  

Bill is often brought out as the former president, but what is not discussed are his current connections for fundraising for his foundation and how those connections would impact on Hillary as president.

I am quite prepared to look at the two spouses and their relative merits and demerits.  I think Bill is a much greater problem than first meets the eye.  We can discuss their relative health, their associates and their impact on their spouse's policy directions.  It would make for an interesting comparison.

by pioneer111 2007-10-15 02:24PM | 0 recs
Thanks for an excellent post n/t

by NCDemAmy 2007-10-14 07:13PM | 0 recs
Re: John Edwards in NH forcefully

Thank you for the account! I enjoyed reading your diary!

by Progressive America 2007-10-14 08:28PM | 0 recs
funny

I find it's funny that Edwards and his supporters are so afraid of people calling him a whimp, limp-wristed politican. I guess there's lots of truth to that.Interesting.

He needs to hide behind EE's skirt.

by areyouready 2007-10-14 08:31PM | 0 recs
Re: funny

areyouready,

I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt and explain that while in the UK, for example, using 'limp-wristed' is not inappropriate, you will not see this in the US as it is a homophobic slur.

Please stop using 'limp-wristed' to describe Edwards. It's not just Edwards' supporters who are unhappy about this.

by dblhelix 2007-10-14 09:29PM | 0 recs
Re: funny

if Hillary "Denton" had married some guy named Richard "Denton" ...

then Richard Denton would have been elected President.

By the way, as Chairman of the Legal Services Corporation, Hillary hired the Rose Law Firm to get a restraining order against President Reagan when Reagan tried to eliminate Legal Services entirely.

That's Legal Services, as in legal services for
'regular people'.

by Canaan 2007-10-15 08:21PM | 0 recs
Truth is truth

And it should be told.  about Hillary or any other candidate.

As to John Edwards programs for America, try these:

- One America, end Poverty

- All combat troops out of Iraq

_ Election Reform, Campaign Finance Reform, Lobbyist Reform  - One Democracy Initiative

- A new Energy Fund

- Veteran Benefits

- Strengthening unions

- college for all who want to go

- Rural America Initiatives and so much more.

Are you listening?

You might visit www.JohnEdwards.com

KaritaAllegheny

by KaritaAllegheny 2007-10-15 01:30AM | 0 recs
Look, The Hillary Promoters

... are giving people "0"s for mild gripping about their favorite, their message. If they are so confident that they are ahead, what's the point? Are they afraid that someone will vote for Mitt Romney? I doubt it.

But the Hillary promoter can come into this entry, and scream bloody murder about Edwards without getting "0"ed? Who is on the defensive here?

by blues 2007-10-15 07:48PM | 0 recs
Re: Look, The Hillary Promoters

Some of the same people that complain about misuse of the rating system abuse it here on a regular basis. They will do anything to stifle the apparent dissent from the policies and positions of their candidate. Anything.

by Hillary Lieberman 2007-10-16 06:17AM | 0 recs
A Lot Of Hillary Supporters

.... have been zeroed, too. But this is not the way to win any favor. This is looking a bit to contentious.

by blues 2007-10-15 08:31PM | 0 recs
John Edwards Attacks

I am so f^&*ing tried of John Edwards and his attacks on Hillary. He has the right to point out differences, but these unprovoked attacks are becoming ridiculous. He such a weak and pathetic f&$^ing candidate. I am praying that Hillary pulls off an upset in Iowa, and this ambulance chaser can go back to his multii-million mansion with EE and those kids.

by lonnette33 2007-10-16 05:11AM | 0 recs
Re: John Edwards Attacks

Nasty comment.

by Hillary Lieberman 2007-10-16 06:18AM | 0 recs
Re: John Edwards Attacks

Really HL ?  I seen much worse from you.

by lonnette33 2007-10-16 12:55PM | 0 recs
Re: John Edwards Attacks

I meant to say, "I have seen worse from you".

by lonnette33 2007-10-16 12:56PM | 0 recs
Re: John Edwards Attacks

You're the one using veiled profanity.  Glass houses......they're something else.

by CLLGADEM 2007-10-17 01:16AM | 0 recs

Diaries

Advertise Blogads


----------- myDD - skin -----------