Obama campaign resorting to "Politics as Usual" on Edwards - Where's the Hope?

First, I want to say, I have resisted calling out Obama's campaign for the most part, however, when I have stood up for Obama in several diaries against the Clinton smear machine, I took comfort that both campaigns had a common adversary - Clinton. Furthermore, most people here agree that Clinton has resorted to these attacks as a sign of desperation and illustrates the sinking of her campaign.
Now, Obama, less than a week later, is engaging in the exact same type of politics against Edwards. And these attacks are so baseless. It would have been different if Obama's campaign manager - who was Edwards' campaign manager in 2004, was not contradicting himself on Edward's record. It reeks of political desperation and to be fair to Obama, he should not be blamed for Axelrod's idiocy. (Stop listening to him Obama- he is making you look bad)
more below...

Obama's campaign manager and Obama himself are calling out Edwards on not really being a fighter and not accomplishing anything?
Edwards' response?
http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2 007/12/18/523106.aspx

Obama vs. Edwards: Obama's (made a) direct...hit on Edwards on his lack of taking on special interests when he served in the Senate. On TODAY, Edwards responded by citing his work to pass the Patients' Bill or Rights. "I like Barack. Just on this case, he's dead wrong." It seems like someone's moving in the polls, huh?  

Obama should have known that this attack is an empty one. I am quite surprised he did not "vet" Axelrod's own past statements:
http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/ 2007/12/say-what.html
SAY WHAT?

Obama senior adviser David Axelrod this week on how John Edwards is new to the issue of lobbying reform, as opposed to Obama who worked on the Senate ethics reform bill.

   Axelrod: "I can't think of one thing like that, that Senator Edwards did in the Senate."   
Then-Edwards senior adviser David Axelrod on CNN, March 2004:
   "Washington is run by the special interests today ... John Edwards ran headlong into it when he led the fight for the patients bill of rights against the insurance industry in the Senate. He has never taken a dime from lobbyists or PACs. He said, let's ban lobbyist money, so you can't give people a bill to pass in the day and a check at night. And that's how we're going to start changing the culture in Washington. But you have to be able to do that. That's a fundamental difference between these candidates. Senator (John) Kerry accepts that lobbyist money. And we're trying to change that."

hatttip Ellinorianne
Here is some more for David to remember, now please tell Senator Obama.

Clinton Defense Leader in Impeachment Trial
Kennedy-Edwards-McCain Patients' Bill of Rights
Kennedy-Edwards Minimum Wage Raise Laws
Vote Against Bush's First Taxgiveaway
Vote Against Bush's Second Taxgiveaway
Vote Against $87 Billion "I support Bush's War Bill"
Wrote Bill that allowed individuals to buy prescription drugs from Canada
Wrote and Sponsored Bill that would make sexual orientation a legally protected category in job discrimination
Wrote Sunset Provision into Patriot Act
Floor leader for Feingold-McCain Campaign Finance Reform.
Voted against the Chilean trade agreement, against the Caribbean trade agreement, against the Singapore trade agreement, against final passage of fast track for this president.
Actually defeated a Republican incumbent in a Red State who had the Helms Machine with him.
hattip philgoblue

Maybe this is happening because from the outset of this campaign, Obama's campaign manager has been seeking to offer "hope" as he did in 2004 with Edwards' campaign, but now is finding out that people really want a fighter, unlike the seemingly ineffectual congress and Senate (minus Dodd).
It was back in 2004 when Edwards decided that people needed more than just "Hope" they need a fighter... Obama went with Hope and Axelrod.
http://www.rollingstone.com/nationalaffa irs/index.php/2007/10/30/edwards-and-oba mas-cynical-hope/

The "politics of hope" didn't take four years to migrate from Edwards' mouth to Obama's -- it took six months:
"Our campaign is not based on the politics of cynicism; it's based on the politics of hope" - John Edwards in a stump speech, 1/28/04

"Do we participate in the politics of cynicism or do we participate in the politics of hope?" - Barack Obama in his signature Democratic convention address, 7/27/04
I never though the politics of hope would make me so cynical....
Calls seeking comment from the Obama camp on this uncanny echo were not immediately returned.
-- Tim Dickinson

How did Axelrod's ideas go over in the Edwards camp?
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/020 7/2667.html

Axelrod made some early ads for Edwards, on variants of his themes of hope and optimism. Some people familiar with the campaign, who spoke on the condition of anonymity, said that as the campaign moved toward talking about "two Americas" and a crusade against poverty, Edwards and his wife, Elizabeth, felt that Axelrod's ads were standard-issue and too divorced from the candidate.

That reads to me, Axelrod was talking the hope theme up,while Edwards was wanting to take on poverty itself- something that many "smart people" have said is not a vote getting topic. Who cares if it gets votes? It needs to be addressed!

Listen to what Axelrod recently also said about this "fight" Edwards wants to have on Universal Healthcare:
http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2 007/12/17/521394.aspx

Speaking to reporters yesterday, Obama's chief strategist, David Axelrod, put the difference on their approaches more bluntly. "But if you put forward a plan that that overlooks insurance companies, it's really hard to understand how you are going to execute it without talking to them. And that's really what Sen. Edwards is saying. We're going to have private insurance companies in my plan but we're not going to talk to them because they are evil and they're bad."

Um, Mr. Axelrod, YES PEOPLE DO THINK THESE CORPORATIONS ARE EVIL AND BAD. thanks for helping us come up with the message of Hope in 2004. People need hope. But there comes a time when you must FIGHT.
You don't need to see Sicko to know that these companies are not in the business of providing health care.
Edwards does not have to talk to these companies. He is simply going to offer medicare for everyone who wants it as a single payer competitor. He won't have to tell them or ask them anything. The market will decide their fate. Will the insurance companies continue to rob citizens when the medicare plan will be much cheaper and just as efficient?I don't think so. He won't have to negotiate with the insurance companies, they will just have to change, because their unfair monopoly will be gone.
Do I want some mealy mouthed approach that asks the insurance companies to help craft a healthcare policy? NO THANKS, that is how we got a situation where medicare can't negotiate their drug prices. I would rather have a fighter, who will kick these corporate practices to the curb.
And the people want this as well and that is why they are flocking to Edwards now...

http://desmoinesregister.com/apps/pbcs.d ll/article?AID=/20071218/NEWS/712180384

John Edwards... told a Des Moines crowd Monday that he came home crying and bloody after another kid beat him up. His father sat him down and gave him a lasting piece of advice. "He said, 'Listen, son, don't ever start a fight. I don't want to hear about you starting fights. But you never, ever, ever walk away from a fight. And I want you to go out there tomorrow, and I want you to find that kid who kicked your butt, and I want you to kick his butt. I want you to fight with everything you've got,'" he said.

And Edwards has taken that fighting spirit to the corporations in the courtroom and won on behalf of the little guy - us. He did so also in his red state Senate win, and stood up for Bill Clinton and defended him in his impeachment trial when it was more fashionable to act as Lieberman did. And he has stood with the fighters, the Lamonts of the party.

Senator Obama, why listen to Axelrod? It is clear that people want someone to fight these corporations, not each other. I defended you against the Clinton slime machine, now stop listening to Axelrod. His surrogate attacks and your decision to attack are showing no hope, only desperation and a campaign of the politics of "business as usual".

Edwards/Obama 2008

Tags: 2008 presidential, Barack Obama, Elections, Hillary Clinton, John Edwards, Primaries (all tags)

Comments

13 Comments

Re: Obama campaign resorting to

When did they do that? Link?

by DPW 2007-12-18 09:47AM | 0 recs
Re: Obama campaign resorting to

Well, with all due respect to the diarist, that one throwaway line based upon hearsay about what Obama supporters are saying in Iowa isn't enough to make me think the campaign is responsible for such a message. If it is true at all, it is most likely just some overzealous supporters. See Javier's recent diary for how my fellow Obama supporters can be reprehensible at times.

I volunteer in SC and I've never heard an Obama supporter say that Elizabeth is dying. If any individuals are saying it, however, they need to have their asses kicked.

by DPW 2007-12-18 09:59AM | 0 recs
Re: Obama campaign resorting to

It's coming from staff. I've talked to more than one person in Iowa who has heard it directly from Obama staff. And it's not hearsay.

by clarkent 2007-12-18 10:09AM | 0 recs
Re: Obama campaign resorting to

Proof? No, I didn't think so.

by MollieBradford 2007-12-18 10:39AM | 0 recs
Re: Obama campaign resorting to

For the record, I don't know if it's coming from the Obama campaign as a whole, or if it's just one idiot office in SE Iowa. If anyone else hears this crap in other parts of Iowa, that would confirm that it's the campaign itself that's pushing it.

by clarkent 2007-12-18 09:59AM | 0 recs
re

I can't believe that without a real link with a real quote. otherwise it is heresay.

by wade norris 2007-12-18 10:16AM | 0 recs
Re: re

I'm the guy who heard this from several Iowans. It's true.

by clarkent 2007-12-18 10:26AM | 0 recs
Re: re

i don't doubt you Clarkent, but for me to republish it somewhere, i need a verifiable quote.
Are you able to get one from a voter in Iowa?
You know a name, date, location?

if you do, then I will put it up myself.

by wade norris 2007-12-18 10:35AM | 0 recs
Re: re

I suppose I could go back to Iowa, find the people I talked to, and ask them to go on the record.

by clarkent 2007-12-18 11:23AM | 0 recs
Re Politics as Usual

All of the pro-Edwards stuff focuses so much on his campaign rhetoric. Does anyone really think that stuff is important? It's just marketing -- hope and optimism vs. a fighter for you.

I think they'd both make excellent Presidents, but not because of their rhetoric, because of who they are and whatever coalition they are able to put together in support of what they're tying to accomplish.

by dmc2 2007-12-18 10:28AM | 0 recs
they are all trying to win the primary
why is that a surprise?  The Clinton "slime machine" is no worse than the Edward's slime machine or the Obama slime machine.
The big difference is that the media ignores the attacks on Clinton and pretends that she is the only   one "attacking" any one else.
If this is all too shocking to anyone here, may I please suggest you all take up Bridge?
by MollieBradford 2007-12-18 10:36AM | 0 recs
Re: they are all trying to win the primary

They ignore attacks on Clinton because she is unlikable. That's the burden she carries for lacking charisma or spark.

by wahoopaul 2007-12-18 11:39AM | 0 recs
My mom

My mom works for an insurance company. Is she evil or bad?

by wahoopaul 2007-12-18 11:38AM | 0 recs

Diaries

Advertise Blogads