Statement from Sen. Chris Dodd on John Edwards

[wyldwolf]

"I am surprised at just how angry John has become. This is not the same John Edwards I once knew. Of course, we should all come together to support the nominee. I wonder which of the Republicans John prefers to Hillary?"

[saracat]

1. What a uncalled for statement from Sen.Dodd.Edwards did NOT say

he wouldn't support the nominee. He simply wouldn't deal with that question, which should never have been asked.I asm disppointed in Sen.Dodd.

[Cameron27]

2. It was a legit question,

and all Edwards had to say was that he didn't expect to lose, but would support the Democratic nominee in any case.

[wtmusic]

11. Agree. Once again, vanity takes hold of Edwards' better judgement. nt

[saracat]

13. "Support" isn't what he was asked about.Endorsement is another thing, as is voting "for" the

Democratic nominee. I will try to vote for Hillary if she is the nominee but I will never "endorse" her or "support" her in any way no matter what the circumstances because it would affront my morality and insult what I believe are Democratic principles. The question was not even worded correctly, and was being used as a trap. Edwards was right not to answer it.As it stands , all anyone is griping about is a non answer.

[Cameron27]

16. It's vile, pompously vile, for a supposed Democratic leader

to even hint that he wouldn't endorse the party's nominee by not answering a simple question. There was no trap and he should have answered the question.

[Name removed]

28. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[saracat]

55. Personal attacks are not allowed on DU. Neither is calling out.

[gateley]

84. What does "calling out" mean? Thanks. nt

:hi:

[John Q. Citizen]

30. He should have had someone set up to ask a softball question instead.

[Tellurian]

34. Apparently it's a question he prefers to leave unanswered..

The Dem Party should kick him to the curb!

[Basileus Basileon]

36. This is becoming a problem as the campaign's turned negative.

In the rush to spread as much mud as possible, by the tenth reply partisans have, in their rush to turn the conversation towards their preferred punching bag's faults, made it completely impossible to tell what the OP was about.

It doesn't matter what the OP is. The conversation inevitably devolves into "Hillary is a snake," "Edwards is a phony", and "Obama is a hypocrite."

[Tellurian]

40. What is amazing is..

there hasn't been any post deletions just yet!

For all intents and purposes everyone is on the same page with Dodd's statement castigating Edwards.

[saracat]

57. Obviously you have not read the entire thread! Many posts do not agree with Dodd!

[Tellurian]

87. Apparently, the only ones complaining about Dodd are Edwards supporters..

who prefer Edwards calculating destructive to thre party tendencies over Dodd's cool headed approach.

[saracat]

53. Baloney.He hinted nothing, and he has no obligation to "endorse" anyone.

Al Gore isn't 'endorsing" anyone in the Primary.Does that make him less of a Democrat? Lots of people don't "endorse' anone in the general.There is no obligation to. Silence is contrued as consent.

[Cameron27]

59. No one was asking him to endorse anyone in the primary

but I don't know of any Democratic leader who hasn't endorsed the nominee in the general. He's not obligated to do anything, but he could show a little class by making a simple statement of support or endorsement for any potential nominee.

[saracat]

66. I noted the difference betweem Primary and General.I said he had no obligation to

"endorse" anyone and has no obligation to disvciss this at this point.We do not have a nominee.He may not want to "endorse".That is personal.I am sure there were some candidates who did not officially "endorse" the Democratic Nominee under certain conditions.I do not know for sure and neither do you.

[Cameron27]

74. saracat

when Edwards refuses to answer this simple question he broadcasts that his own ego is more important than having a Democrat as president. There's no excuse for this nonsense.

[saracat]

92. As a Hillary supporter you really ought not to go there.I refuse to get into this

competitve egos debate.Let he who is without sin throw the first stone on this.

[Cameron27]

101. You assume incorrectly.

Although I defend Clinton from unfair characterizations & smears all the time, she's second on my list of favs. I'm actually not supporting anyone right now. Edwards has been the first and the most aggressive one throwing stones in this primary, and you're right, he should take care of his own glass house.

[saracat]

106. I did not refer to Edwards.And if she is second you classify as a supporter.

[Name removed]

61. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[saracat]

65. I did not lie! I said he doesn't have an obligation to answere about "endorsements.He wasn't asked

about "support".An endorsement is a different thing.

[Mass]

64. Read Obama's answer. It was perfect. Not sure why Edwards was not able to answer the same way.

It seems a pretty obvious answer to a pretty standard question, I think. It is the absence of answer to a softball question that provokes the reaction.

...
So how is John Edwards feeling about Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton of New York these days? So bad, apparently, that in an interview last week he twice refused to say whether he would endorse her should she win the Democratic presidential nomination.

It is a standard political question, which often comes with a standard answer. And it is highly unusual for a candidate to decline to answer whether he would ultimately support the party’s nominee.

When asked the same question last week, Senator Barack Obama of Illinois did not hesitate.

“I am a Democrat, and I would support the Democratic nominee,” he said. With a smile, he added, “I intend it to be me.”

...

[Supersedeas]

79. I disagree -- it was a set up and he was right to recognize it as such

[rinsd]

82. So he recognized the trap and still fell into it headfirst?

[question everything]

108. That's an excellent response (nt)

[Clintonista2]

4. Why wouldn't he deal with the question?

A week ago I could NEVER imagine a Democratic candidate refusing to answer whether or not they would support the nominee. NEVER.

[flyarm]

24. hmmm remember Lieberman??????????? didn't think so...eom

[Catchawave]

25. It's a gotcha question.....and a dumb one at that.

He didn't dignify the question with a response. Hillary won't answer hypotheticals.....unless they make her look good :p

[rinsd]

31. It was a softball question.

Biden and Obama hit it out of the park.

Edwards wiffed.

[Catchawave]

70. Obama snarked his response....how is that different

from "wiffing" :eyes:

[rinsd]

83. Because Obama was witty while answering the question.

In fact that is the answer most reporters expect.

Instead, Edwards handed the press a mini issue to play with.

[Basileus Basileon]

37. It was just about the fattest softball you could possibly throw.

There is only one response: "I will gladly support any of our candidates for President."

[Catchawave]

68. But that wasn't the question, was it ?

You would have still called him on avoiding the question. It was specific to Hillary, and I hope he's not ready to answer that specifically at this time. Her campaign is in freefall with many of her questions (not to mention locked up papers)NOT ANSWERED !

[Basileus Basileon]

71. That is the appropriate response to that question,

and it is the response any candidate would give. The only other possible response is, "Yes, I would support her candidacy for President. We agree on many issues--but there are some very, very sharp differences between us, and that's what I'm here to talk about."

Edwards' failure to answer is certainly exceptional. Few candidates would come so close to suggesting there's a possibility that they might not endorse their party's candidate.

[rinsd]

75. So why were Biden and Obama able to answer it deftly?

[rinsd]

6. What no anecdote about how this action by Dodd turned one of your friends against him?

:eyes:

[Clintonista2]

10. LOL.

[frazzled]

15. "Standard political question" -- "highly unusual for a candidate to decline to answer"

That's the squib in today's New York Times (print version, p. A 24; web http://www.nytimes.com/pages/politics/index.html?adxnnl=1&adxnnlx=1194974322-bIpYCTapAeow+12WaUw2Ug )

how is John Edwards feeling about Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton of New York these days? So bad, apparently, that in an interview last week he twice refused to say whether he would endorse her should she win the Democratic presidential nomination.

It is a standard political question, which often comes with a standard answer. And it is highly unusual for a candidate to decline to answer whether he would ultimately support the party’s nominee.

When asked the same question last week, Senator Barack Obama of Illinois did not hesitate.

“I am a Democrat, and I would support the Democratic nominee,” he said. With a smile, he added, “I intend it to be me.”

Neither did Senator Joseph R. Biden Jr. of Delaware, who declared: “Of course. What’s the choice, Rudy Giuliani?”

Edwards's "attack dog" tone is a risky business, I think: he may succeed in tearing down Clinton, but he will tear himself down at the same time (benefitting whom--Obama?). While scoring some points with a small portion of the angry base, it seems this kind of negative carping is not what on-the-ground, average voters are in the mood for. Nor the holier-than-thou posturing. He's got plenty of mea culpa.

[William769]

19. One thing I like about you saracat

Is your transparency. You never let me down.

[saracat]

93. And you never disappoint me either William.Your transparency is obvious to all.

[William769]

100. I'm not the passive aggressive one.

I tell it like it is. I mean what I say with out mincing words. You should try it sometime.

[Basileus Basileon]

21. "Should never have been asked?"

Oh, cry me a river. It was a legitimate question.

[Freddie Stubbs]

41. Why should the question never have been asked?

:shrug:

[surfermaw]

97. Chris Dodd, is too busy with his teenie booper wife

to say any thing constructive, he is also too busy trying to be Hill,VP.

[rinsd]

3. I think Dodd is enjoying the elder statesman role in this election.

He hasn't gotten off as many quips as Biden but he has gotten off his share.

[Catchawave]

5. Sounds like Dodd's running for V.P. now

Obviously not President Edwards's :D

[Cameron27]

8. Sounds like Dodd is just fed up with John Edwards.

[Catchawave]

22. LOL.....I like Dodd, but

running as a wingman for Hillary is very unbecoming to him.

[Cameron27]

23. Wingman?

Dodd was all over Clinton during the last debate and in the discussions afterwords, which was a very un-'wingmanly' way to behave.

[rinsd]

26. Huh? Last week, Dodd was hitting Clinton with her polling results for honesty.

[Basileus Basileon]

29. Dodd's bashed Hillary a number of times. I swear, a goldfish

has a better memory than half of DU does.

[rinsd]

9. Not really. He is exploiting an opening by Edwards.

When another candidate hands you something like ambivalence on supporting the nominee, you had better use it.

[Basileus Basileon]

20. He knows he won't be Hill's VP. Two northeast liberal Senators on one ticket? nt

[JohnnyLib2]

7. A gentlemanly barb.

Kind of rare these days. :thumbsup:

[Rabo Karabekian]

12. Dodd, Give It Up

And angry for those of us outside of the beltway, means having an inkling of what's going on. Who was it that said, "If you're not angry then you're not paying attention."

[Cameron27]

18. Please, Edwards has been angry

ever since Obama entered the race and stole his thunder.

[Rabo Karabekian]

39. Not Like Good Old Howard Dean

I haven't observed that, in fact I'd like it if these guys/girl would get angry. Of course, they really are representatives in the sense they're not the middle class or the working class, they're the rich. You know ostensibly they support the non-elite (for lack of a better term) people.

[Cameron27]

43. I'd like to see anger directed at the opposition party

which is what Biden and Clinton have been doing all along. Harsh criticism is part of the game, but all this faux anger against the Democrats is a divisive tactic that only helps soften any blows we'll need to throw at the GOP in the general.

[Rabo Karabekian]

50. Double Agents

If Biden and Clinton interested me at all I could comment. But they are Republicrats they don't stand for the traditional ideas of the party. As the label Republicrat implies they are hybrids, they can't be counted on to stand up for the middle class and the poor.

[saracat]

51. Amen.

[Cameron27]

60. BS

[Basileus Basileon]

72. Oh, Christ. This reminds me of the 2000 election,

with the Naderite losers complaining that Bush and Gore are the twin heads of the Republicratic party.

How'd that work out again?

[Rabo Karabekian]

76. No Home Cookin' for Gore

Gore lost his home state of Tennessee, and lost the presidency. Also he should have fought the partisan supreme court decision extra-judicially (by marching in the streets). Talk about losers, Joe Biden hasn't done half as much for this country as Ralph Nader, who's responsible for so much that helps consumers. How are those credit card companies in Delaware? Healthy after the bankrupcy bill Biden voted for?

[Basileus Basileon]

77. And if just 1% of Nader voters in FL had voted for Gore instead,

the Iraq War, extraordinary rendition, torture, and government global-warming denial never would have happened. And we all warned you repeatedly that Bush was too dangerous to be elected President.

All that blood is on the hands of the Naderites just as much as it is on the Bushies.

[Rabo Karabekian]

89. Gore Gives Me No Confidence He'd Do Anything

Well I don't know about that, we can be sure Gore wouldn't have been bad as Bush, but the new liberal remake of Gore doesn't impress me. He was always moderate when in office.

Anyway, I don't advocate voting for Nader in a swing state so, if I had been in Florida in 2000, I would have held me nose and voted Gore.

[Basileus Basileon]

90. I don't think he's a remake. I think he's now what he was then: a moderate liberal.

He's more of a firebrand now, but I don't believe any of his positions have fundamentally changed. Perhaps he is in favor of doing more about global warming, but I would ascribe that more to a change in what we know about climate change than a political shift. On one hand, he didn't deserve to be castigated as a corporate pawn in 2000. On the other hand, had he entered the race in 2008, his supporters would have been very disappointed indeed to discover that he is not a tall, handsome Dennis Kucinich.

I can't help but wonder: if Clinton wins the nomination, quits the Senate, runs, has it plainly stolen from her, and spends the next eight years out of power vocally attacking the Giuliani administration...in 2016, how big will the Draft Hillary movement be?

[Rabo Karabekian]

91. More Gore

I can't help but wonder: if Clinton wins the nomination, quits the Senate, runs, has it plainly stolen from her, and spends the next eight years out of power vocally attacking the Giuliani administration...in 2016, how big will the Draft Hillary movement be?

I think we agree here. I wouldn't be drafting her, and I hope Gore stays on his duff.

On Gore we don't agree, I think if not a corporate pawn he was very close to one. It's hard to say how much effect a VP has on an administration, but the Clinton administration disappointed me severely, it really soured me on electoral politics for a few years...

[Andromeda]

107. Horse hockey.

.

[Basileus Basileon]

73. How'd that work out for his campaign again? nt

[laureloak]

14. Well, that takes Dodd off my list. What a stupid comment. n/t

[DeepModem Mom]

17. K&R

[flyarm]

27. deflection..don't be looking now at now 3 times hillary planted questions in her audience ..

that we know of.

yes./.time to deflect ....no use looking at hillary's gannon moment..

fly

[DemocratSinceBirth]

32. I Wouldn't Be Surprised If He Ran Third Party

DSB

[Alexander]

33. Good. He's right.

In 2004 all of our candidates pledged to support the Democratic nominee, even if it wasn't them.

This is a huge mistake by the Edwards campaign.

[Skip Intro]

35. ouch n/t

[zulchzulu]

38. Dodd sees an opportunity to try to take some Edwards votes away

It's a chess game. Dodd needs to make a move. Otherwise, he's sunk.

I think he overstepped. He needs to focus less on Edwards and get in that van and ride around Iowa.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

44. I Wonder What Dodd's End Game Is

He's a bright man and must know he has no realistic chance of winning; even Biden's and Richardson's prospects are brighter than his...

The Democratic party is not going to turn to a traditional New England liberal after the disastrous consequences of the past several elections...

[zulchzulu]

49. My guess...

Get a gig as Secretary of Labor in the next administration... he's been a Senator in Connecticut since 1981. I'm sure he's getting antsy.

I'd bet he coasts through New Hampshire and cashes in his chips the day after.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

58. As You

As you probably know his dad was one of the prosecutors at the Nurmemberg Trial... With his legal background I suspect A G would be a nice gig...

[leftynyc]

78. I'm kinda hoping Patrick Fitzgerald would

get that gig in any Dem administration.

[countingbluecars]

42. When did Dodd say this?

Do you have a link?

[Catchawave]

46. Discussion at Daily Kos has some links.....

Looks like it's only posted on his web site so far.....

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2007/11/13/124020/35

[countingbluecars]

47. Thanks. eom

[SaveElmer]

45. Thank you Senator Dodd....nt

[Catchawave]

54. Has Hillary been asked if she'd support Edwards if he were

the nominee? If so, I'd like to see that response :D

[desi]

48. Oh No!!!!

Please tell me that John is not going to pull a Zell and give the keynote address at the repuke convention/hate-fest if Hillary wins the nom...

K&R

[BigDDem]

52. Edwards is angry and desperate

He's never going to be president, find something else to focus on.

[Broke Dad]

63. And frankly neither will Hillary . . .

This thread was started by a Hillary supporter to direct the heat away from her gaffes of the last two weeks: crappy brittle debate performance, stiffing Maid-Rite waitress, intimidating NPR when they reported on it, planting questions at Grinnell College after refusing to answer questions in Iowa.

I never thought the US would have another civil war, but Hillary is already inspiring one, and that's just in the Democratic Party! If she should win the nomination, the general election will be . . . Hobbsian.

Let Senator Dodd assume the Senator Gravel role of comedic relief.

[Mass]

56. Dodd is off-base. Edwards is not angry. Simply, his answer here was idiotic.

This is a totally standard question that has been asked again and again, including in the NH debate in 2003/2004.

At this point, every single Democrat answered "YES, I will vote for the nominee, and I intend this nominee to be me".

Why is it even difficult.

For the rest, I could not care less if Edwards is angry or not. Sometimes, being angry is good. Except if what Dodd implies is that Edwards is angry not to be the front-runner. In which case, he should say so.

[avrdream]

104. We can't even get every member of DU to say they'll support the eventual nominee.

But, then again, we aren't running for such an important position.

Glad we get to speak our minds here.

[DURHAM D]

62. It is time for the Edwards campaign to bring Elizabeth back.

They pulled her back about five weeks ago because the co-presidential run had become too obvious - and people were beginning to refer to the campaign as the Elizabeth Edwards Campaign for President.

Also, the fact that she was slugging away and he was bunting made him look like a wuss.

Now, they need to let her out - John has become hard to like and everyone loves Elizabeth.

Note: Does anyone know why she was not at the JJ dinner?

[asdjrocky]

67. Running for VP Dodd?

Another senator from the privileged class.

[liskddksil]

69. Hey Mr. Dodd

After 8 years of this President destroying our country. I'm sure as hell angry, and I want a candidate that shares my view!

[K8-EEE]

80. Angry = Thinking in BushCo Murka

I'm soooooo sick of the "why are you so angry?" question re: politics.

Why are people NOT angry, is a better question!

[K8-EEE]

81. Angry K8-EEE is voting for Angry Edwards in the primary.

WTF, I don't want to "work with" the powers that be, personally. Hell yeah I'm angry!

[Forkboy]

85. Good, the people who aren't angry at this point are idiots.

[goodgd_yall]

86. From a losing candidate who's banking on Hillary winning

And wants a place in her cabinet.:spray:

[Tellurian]

88. yes,m..I think Hillary has a place all picked out for Edwards...

:applause:

[slick8790]

94. Dodd once again grasping at straws.

Distortion of what Edwards said isn't flattering to you, chris. No wonder you're at 1%, and i've yet to meet one dodd supporter.

[JackORoses]

95. obviously, Dodd is little more than a Hillarite vote siphon at this point

Get out of the race if you aren't in it to win it.
Hillary has enough tools already.

[ellisonz]

96. Link?

[wyldwolf]

102. read the thread?

[ozone_man]

98. Great! Maybe he can be the Dean of 2008.

I was waiting for an angry populist. :bounce:

[MalloyLiberal]

99. Which means I will never support you, you Hillary plant

Sen. Dodd is probably in the race to take votes from Edwards.

[mtnsnake]

103. lmao this is the most ink Chris Dodd has ever gotten on DU. nt

[Mythsaje]

105. His response should have been:

"I'd be glad to endorse her candidacy, despite the fact that I believe she stands for everything I oppose."

Or maybe just not reply.

Take your pick.