Edwards Questions Clinton's Truthiness ::: "how about we do tell the truth mode all the time?"

[jefferson_dem]

Edwards Questions Clinton's Truthiness
Posted: Sunday, October 14, 2007 1:57 PM by Chuck Todd
From NBC/NJ's Tricia Miller

John Edwards has made his criticism of Hillary Clinton's vote to classify the Iranian Revolutionary Guard as a terrorist organization part of his stump speech, but today he added to it.

Saturday, Clinton repeated her response to Edwards' criticism, saying that she saw her vote as a way to apply diplomatic pressure to Iran. In today's New York Times, however, "backers" were cited as saying it was a sign that Clinton was shifting from primary to general election mode, bulking up her national security credentials in anticipation of facing a Republican with a tough national security reputation iin the general election.

"Instead of primary mode and general election mode," Edwards said, "how about we do tell the truth mode all the time?"

He was speaking at a house party in Dover where he also received an endorsement from Friends of the Earth.

http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2007/10/14/410505.aspx

[NoodleyAppendage]

1. Yet. We're supposed to believe that Hillary is the "front runner?"

I will not be spoon fed a DINO. Count me out of the 2008 vote if a forced choice is made between two Repukes at heart.

J

[regnaD kciN]

3. The number of previously die-hard Democrats...

...of whichever persuasion (moderate, progressive, radical) who say they won't vote for Hillary in November '08 if she is our nominee should give the Democratic leadership pause.

But, as usual, they'll just blow it off, figuring "where else are you gonna go?"

Then, if the Republicans eke out a narrow win because of it, watch those Democrats get demonized by the party... :eyes:

[Yael]

8. One would hope. No other candidate seems to elicit this reaction out of people

[Kahuna]

14. I hear a lot of women in NJ say they won't vote for her. So I don't

get where this big support from women is coming from either.

[NoodleyAppendage]

22. I'm prepared to be demonized. At least my conscience will be clear...

Until the rank-and-file say "enough!" there will be this continuous movement towards one-party rule (DINO Dems and Repukes).

J

[ShortnFiery]

7. Hey! The polls don't lie ... unless they're Exit Polls favoring Democratic Candidates.

:eyes:

[Yael]

2. Nice!

Ya know -- when you leapfrog over those pesky primaries and start playing as if your nomination is inevitable, you have a really good chance of being surprised at the outcome.

I may be in a late state, but I am going to work my tail off to see this man show the party that he is the candidate for us and that he respects the primary process.

[journalist3072]

4. Just one major problem there, my friend. Sen. Clinton hasn't started "playing" like her nomination

is inevitable. Give me a break. She consistently shows up at the debates (hasn't missed one yet), is constantly engaging the voters, and putting her policy proposals out there.

Are those the signs of someone who believes their nomination is inevitable? Me thinks not.

[gateley]

9. There was a debate in Iowa where only Biden and Dodd participated. So it

may be more accurate to say she consistently shows up at the nationally televised major debates that receive wide press coverage.

[cuke]

11. Does that mean Kucinich thinks he's inevitable

He didn't show up either. Maybe he thinks his lead is large enough for him to rest on his laurels.

What do you think?

[gateley]

13. Hi again. The OP wasn't talking about Kucinich - it was talking about Hillary

and I responded only about Hillary. It's that easy.

[cuke]

15. I'm sorry

I was being facetious at your expense. My perverted dry humor.

In general, I find some of tea leaf reading a bit amusing. In particular, the whole inevitable meme is pretty funny.

People are pumped up about their candidates. They only think they are backing a winner, and they say so. BFD. Only on DU is it a big deal.

[gateley]

17. Back to your Kucinich question, he was invited to attend, accepted, then

cancelled pretty much at the last minute. I don't think he gave a reason.

I really think it would have served all the candidates well to show up, even though it was pretty dinky. If I were a fill-in-the-blank supporter and was going to attend this forum, and my candidate chose not to participate, I'd take it a bit personally - as an affront.

In Clinton's, Obama's and Edwards's defense, they did take the time and show enough respect to decline.

[cuke]

21. I've heard he has a history of that

not showing up.

As far as attendance at debates goes, I guess I'm just a cynical bastard. I hear what you're saying, and I can''t say any of it's wrong, but there's a lot other ways to look at it. FOr one thing, with so many candidates, they all cut into each others time. None of the candidates end up with enough time to answer questions in detail with followups. But if they don't all show up, the audience is deprived of info and besides, don't we want to open up the process to allow long-shot candidates to get a shot?

For me, the debates aren't about figuring out the differences in policy amongst the various candidates. I already know that on policy, there really isn't all that much difference. For me, the debates, and the entire primary campaign, are about evaluating their political skills. I assume that the way they campaign will reveal information about how they will govern.

When the next democratic president takes office on 1/20/2009, I want someone who will kick republican ass and take names.

[JNelson6563]

25. Yes it does, that arrogant bastard.

:sarcasm:

[fenriswolf]

12. her candidacy will only be won

by face time. as long as her face is on the tv, the magazines, the newspaper that is how she will win. So she will contineu to be their for the face time so that she will be assured the win. If she doesnt show they she will be critisized and her votes will go down.

[gateley]

5. I'm inclined to believe she's shifted to the GE mode. She's run a brilliant

campaign and they're probably correct in assuming that vote will serve her well in the GE.

[journalist3072]

6. Me thinks John Edwards is getting a little desparate, especially since he can't point to a single

lie Sen. Clinton has made in this campaign.

[saracat]

20. I wouldn't think that is so.And it doesn't take much research on the part of any journalist to see

where Clinton edges into "truthiness".But I guess it is a whole lot easier to stand back and applaud what appears to some to be the "winning team", just like FOX news media and the others. And above all, don't ask questions!

[emilyg]

23. He is.

[dogman]

10. Does he mean today's truth or yesterday's truth?

Would he know the truth?

[ecstatic]

16. I'll support Edwards if he wins the nom, but I don't take his comments seriously at all

He's not even serving in the Senate right now! His legacy? The sponsorship of the first IWR. So forgive me if I don't take his whining from the sidelines seriously. He should have been there, right now, serving alongside the rest of them.

[Cameron27]

18. Well, I still take his previous truth seriously,

the truth he had as a senator and VP candidate.

[hedgehog]

19. But to do so, wouldn't she have to know what the truth is? How can anyone

speak the truth when apparently facts are determined by the latest poll?

[MethuenProgressive]

24. Edwards, desperate after slide into 4th place behind a guy not even running....

Maybe he shouldn't have quit the Senate, if he's getting so hysterical over votes being taken there?

In the statement she released after the vote, Mrs. Clinton spoke of the need for “robust diplomacy” with Iran, and warned President Bush that he shouldn’t think that “the 2001 resolution authorizing force after the terrorist attacks of 9/11 in any way, authorizes force against Iran. If the administration believes that any use of force against Iran is necessary, the President must come to Congress to seek that authority.”

Mrs. Clinton concluded: “Nothing in this resolution changes that.”

[Evergreen Emerald]

26. I have to laugh at the attacks Edwards mounts against Clinton

They are juvenile. "She is in the general election mode," He got his healthcare plan to the public first. Not substantive, and it makes him look weak. He needs to continue his course--the only mis-steps I see in his campaign occur when he attempts these weak off-target attacks.


And actually, she likely is attempting to reach independants and republicans who are not as liberal as the democratic voters.

[liskddksil]

27. Personally

I am getting quite sick of politicians deciding that as soon as they win the nomination, they feel they have to do a 180 and reverse all their most progressive principles during the general election season. I think Edwards is spot on in challenging all candidates to be consistently bold and not to abondon their principles for political strategy.