Edwards plays up differences with Clinton

[JohnLocke]

Edwards plays up differences with Clinton
By Brian Early--Reuters
Saturday, February 24, 2007
----
NASHUA, New Hampshire (Reuters) - Presidential candidate John Edwards courted Democratic activists in New Hampshire on Saturday, playing up differences over the Iraq war with rival Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton in the key primary state.
Drawing a contrast with Clinton, who faced criticism in New Hampshire this month for not repudiating her 2002 Senate vote authorizing the Iraq war, Edwards emphasized that he had repeatedly apologized for voting to authorize the war.
"I voted for this war. I should have not voted for this war. I was wrong to vote for it," the former North Carolina senator said in Nashua, the second-largest city in the state that helps to kick off the 2008 White House race.
"I have to take responsibility for that, and I do. Nobody else has that responsibility," he told a crowd of about 125 people in the home of a New Hampshire state senator.
He said Edwards was courting Democratic anti-war activists who may oppose Clinton for not apologizing for her 2002 vote.
Despite pressure from anti-war Democrats, Clinton has refused to apologize for her Senate vote authorizing the use of force in Iraq or call it a mistake. The mistakes, she says, were committed by President George W. Bush.
(...)
Cina Barker, 69, of Nashua, said Edwards looked impressively straightforward. "He was really forthright. He speaks with integrity," she said.
----
Read the rest here.

[JDPriestly]

1. Obama and Hillary are making lots of noise.

Once Obama and Hillary have knocked each other down a few times and blackened each other's eyes, maybe we will start thinking about the rest of the field of excellent candidates that we could be choosing from including Edwards. Somehow Edwards isn't getting the attention he should be receiving. If the MSM is focusing on Hillary and Obama and ignoring Edwards, it makes me wonder what it is about Edwards that they are so scared of -- could it be something that would be very good for the country? Hmmm.

It's good to hear from Edwards.

[Colobo]

2. Obama and Edwards

are the best two candidates out there.

[PresidentObama]

5. Of those already announced, I would agree n/t

[AJH032]

3. In reality, very little difference between the two

Both speak out against the war and in favor of troop withdrawal.

The only difference is an apology of a senate vote from 5 years ago. Nothing really different today.

[AtomicKitten]

4. well one difference bothers me greatly

While both Clinton and Edwards voted 'yes' on the IWR, Edwards co-sponsored it.

Gobama.

[Clarkie1]

6. True, but senator Clinton refuses to take responsibility for her actions. nt

[AtomicKitten]

7. That's where we part company on our evaluation of the IWR.

I am not impressed by the performances - excuses, apologies, explanations, etc. - of those that voted 'yes' on the IWR. It doesn't mitigate their complicity in this mess.

In my mind, what you are doing is rating their after-the-fact responses like an Olympic event. If I try to see things from your perspective, I actually come out less repulsed by Hillary's response because I find the apologies the epitome of phoniness. Just as they voted 'yes' in part to preserve their political asses, they are falling over themselves apologizing for the same reason. Ugh.

No, sir, I think they all suck for voting 'yes' and intend to manifest my displeasure in my primary vote. In my opinion, all 28 Senators made the mistake of their lifetimes and all of them should suffer the consequences of their bad judgment. You can keep their tap-dancing mea culpas because it's all bullshit in my eyes.

[Adelante]

9. Yeah to all that

Except to add that none of them should be looking to be rewarded with the American presidency for that bad, no, tragically bad judgment. That's only a small step past where you take it, AK, but it's my conclusion of your points. They have some fucking nerve running for president (and commander in chief!), especially with the disaster they enabled still upon us as we move merrily on our way to a third war. Exactly how sorry any of them are, to this degree or that, matters exactly nothing to me.

[AtomicKitten]

17. I couldn't agree more.

I think it is a travesty any of them think 'my bad' absolves them and clears the path to run for president. I have been clear on that in my mind from day one. I will support the Democratic nominee whoever that is, but it is my most fervent prayer (and I ain't religious!) that Al Gore steps in the ring or Wes Clark or Barack Obama get the nod, all fine men, all of which I would be proud to work my ass off for. They all had it right from the get-go.

[Clarkie1]

15. We agree.

Neither one of them is qualified to be POTUS. Edwards has accepted responsibility in words; if he accepted responsibility in his actions he would do as Kerry has done and not offer himself up as a candidate.

"I think they all suck for voting 'yes' and intend to manifest my displeasure in my primary vote. In my opinion, all 28 Senators made the mistake of their lifetimes and all of them should suffer the consequences of their bad judgment. You can keep their tap-dancing mea culpas because it's all bullshit in my eyes."

Completely agree!

[geek tragedy]

14. Edwards pretends to take responsibility for his actions like

Rafael Palmeiro pretended to take responsibility.

"I take responsibility, but I was relying on other people's statements and it's Bush's fault anyways."

I'll believe he takes responsibility when he admits that he showed poor judgment.

[AshevilleGuy]

8. Of the announced Dem candidates, I think Edwards would be our best

chance of winning back the occupied White House. I don't care about these relatively trivial differences in policy or history among our Dems; compared to yet another repuke president (even a legitimately elected one) ANY Dem is going to be better - none of our candidates will nominate an Alito or Roberts, and they are NOT going to let the war go on and on, and we would be happy most of the time with any of them. The only person who agrees with me 100% of the time is me. But I couldn't win, so I would not vote for myself.

I do like Edwards very much; he is about my age and a fellow NC guy. I do not know him but I would love to have some beers with him and just talk. BUT the moment Al Gore announces, I will immediately switch to him, because he would be MORE likely to win. That is my method.

[citizen snips]

10. Welcome to DU

I don't think Al Gore is going to run because I have not seen him make any big political moves.

[Clark2008]

12. Nope.

Don't see him winning over any new Southern and mid-Western white male votes.

[geek tragedy]

11. What does it mean for him to say "I take responsibility?"

Does that mean he agrees that it's fair to hold that vote against him?

[Clark2008]

13. So - did he play up the fact that, unlike Clinton, he SPONSORED

the IWR?

Did he play up the fact that, unlike Clinton, he changes his mind whenever it's politically expedient?

Did he play up the fact that, unlike Clinton, a goodly portion of his constituents didn't like him and called him Senator Gone?

:eyes:

[PresidentObama]

16. Tell me...

Besides this, what has Edwards changed his mind on because it was politically expedient?