Joe Biden: I don't think John Edwards knows what the heck he's talking about.

I'm not sure what the context was for Biden's comment, but on the whole, I wouldn't take his judgement on much of anything.

Insulting Edwards, Obama or Clinton is just about the only way he can get press nowadays.  And we know how much Joe likes getting press.

To me, all of the arguments from people supporting Barack about how John's vote for the war was made out of political considerations, and that, therefore, he is a man of little character, fall apart when defunding comes up.  Barack thinks he is taking the politically popular position.  Why in the hell else would someone who wants to end a war continue to fund it?

Great, another generally substance-less diary by an Edwards supporter attacking Obama.

This is going to be a long primary season...

Wow, I didn't Realize Vox was ACTUALLY BARACK OBAMA himself, or had done some sort of Vulcan Mind Meld with him to have the audacity of actually telling us that Obama's crystal clear quote ACTUALLY means something completely different that what is said.  
 

Check out Crooks and Liars. Fox took Obama's quote and completely chopped it up for their agenda. We
need a better netroots network, guys.

So do you guys plan on arguing like this for the next 10 months?! I mean what is the point of very strong Edwards supporters arguing with very strong Obama supporters on a liberal blog that is only read by people who are strongly in favor of one candidate or another. Who are you trying to convince? I'm a strong Edwards supporter with Obama being my second choice if something happens to Edwards. That's not going to change. I would assume most of you are the same way. So what is the purpose other than really enjoying talking shit to other people or about fellow Democrats. It seems pointless to me.

yitbos raises and excellent point regarding Bush's use of 'signing statements' to flout the law, and the likelihood that he would use another to continue his current policy of endless war in Iraq.  However, that does not change our need to frame this issue properly.  

The Democratic Congress is funding the troops.  The funds are being cut off by Bush's veto!

With all respect to Senator Obama, he really needs to get with that program, as do the other candidates.  In the unlikely event that a veto-proof majority for a date-certain withdrawal emerges in Congress (at least I see it as unlikely), and Bush employs a signing statement, THEN we can modify the narrative.

He needs to say clearly that Bush, not Congress, would be the one not giving body armor, etc because Bush would ignore the will of Congress.

I am glad I have seen only smears about Obama given reccomendations here.  

One thing I do hope is Obama supporters don't engage in the same smearing of edwards.  

Not that substantative criticisms shouldn't be leveled, but obviously this is not one of those.  

If you have to parse someone's words to make a criticism you are focusing way too much on utterly trivial things.

Just like armchair generals on the right, the left who wants the funds cut now as the only way to be against the war and to hell with whether the troops suffer or the parents worry, are no different.
And the candidate who wants to do this responsible and make sure the troops don't suffer, does not make them no less anti war.
Because a candidate puts the concerns of the parents before those with no relatives in Iraq, first does not make him less anti war.  Being responsible is not anti war.  geez.
This is a situation where all options are terrible and the candidates are the ones who are trying to figure the best of bad choices.  It is so easy to criticize from your computer.

I have decided that for every smear article on Barack Obama on mydd, I will donate money to his campaign.  It could be anything from 5 - 25.
And concidering the amount of smear artlicles on here about Obama, I suspect my budget is going to take a major hit.  But, it is the principle.  It has gotten out of hand and the spinning of everything the man says and does is like Fox.

Where does Obama say Democrats hate the troops?

The accusations from some Edwards supports (many of whom I have a great deal of respect for) are getting rediculous!

Not ONCE does he even say the word Democrat. And the troops do need the funds, which the Republican congress failed to provide, for proper equipment and training. Seems straightforward.

Do I wish, as an Obama supporter that he would take tougher stand? Of course. I wish they all would. I wish Edwards hadn't voted to start the damn thing. I wish Kucinich was a better messenger. But quoting Obama as saying Democrats hate the troops is downright slanderous.

no diary this time, but it turns out...

Obama did do the Fox interview after all, as confirmed by the Obama campaign:

http://electioncentral.tpmcafe.com/blog/ electioncentral/2007/apr/13/yes_obama_di d_an_interview_with_fox_0

So think of that what you will. A pretty big deal was made of his freezeout by the netroots in general and his supporters and this seems to be a change in direction.

I know that my header is off topic, but I just thought Id throw that in there.  I think because Edwards and Obama's positions on so many things are so close and are fighting over the same supporters, the postings get a little heated.  So Im just gonna say it again.  I am a huge Edwards person and will be until he wins the election, but I like and admire Obama too.

Edwards and Obama supporters, there are assuredly differences between the two candidates.  And yes, they use different framing language when describing their positions.  This diary raises the issue of Obama's "framing" of the defunding issue. Considering how we progressives have come to believe that framing is VERY important to winning, I think that framing is a legitimate thing for all of us to discuss.  What do we think of Obama's framing?  Clinton's framing?  Edwards framing?

True, there does seem to be a habit of choosing controversial headlines for diaries that are sometimes more incendiary than entirely accurate, and perhaps this diary follows this peculiar, but I guess, somehwat understandable tradition.  A fair criticism.  But the framing issue itself deserves disscussion.

Bottom line:  I think we can discuss these differences and remain civil...and friends.   :)  

they have to prove that defunding won't actually limit resources for the troops.

one thing framing expert bloggers rarely discuss is the reality of the policy.  i know we're all in awe of rove's talents, it appears repugs can frame anything to distort the truth, but i don't think that's good for dems.

so before we can talk about framing, we have to consider the real consequences of these policies.

the truth ALWAYS catches up with the frame, so even if we won the frame war now on this issue, we'll pay the price later on.

this is what's happening to repugs right now.  they framed away the truth, but now it's caught up with them and they face the next 20 years as minority status.

so.  lets discuss the truthful consequences of the policies first.  then think about framing.

lastly.  sorry.  but maybe kucinich'd like to consider the fact that his stupid pontificating on the topic also applies to feingold insofar as feingold voted for the 87 billion.  i guess that's what feingold was doing when he did that, AUTHORIZING the war.

Obama (moveon.org): "That funding authority's still the most powerful check we have. If congress is willing to use it.

We haven't even got agreement for a withdrawal plan "to get them home" with or without funding.

We don't need to pressure Bush as Hills worthless petition is trying to do, but to petition and push the senators on both sides to push them for a withdrawal plan, and achievable benchmarks.

Yaaay for slamming Democratic candidates.  The last thing we'd want is one of these guys actually getting into the White House in 2008.