An Email From Joe Trippi, Senior Advisor, John Edwards For President

[babsbunny]

STRATEGY MEMORANDUM

To: Interested Parties
From: Joe Trippi
Re: Karl Rove's Worst Nightmare

You may have seen Karl Rove's recent attacks on Hillary Clinton in the news.

This is a page straight out of his tired old playbook—Rove is attacking Hillary Clinton because he doesn't want John Edwards to win the Democratic nomination.

Rove knows that Democrats will rally around whomever he attacks—so he attacks the candidate he thinks Republicans can most easily defeat.

It may seem backwards, but Rove and his cronies did the same thing last time around. In 2004, they were scared of John Edwards, so they attacked John Kerry.

Don't take it from me—take it from Rove's own lieutenant on the Bush-Cheney 2004 reelection campaign, Matthew Dowd:

"Whomever we attacked was going to be emboldened in Democratic primary voters' minds. So we started attacking John Kerry a lot in the end of January because we were very worried about John Edwards."
Rove and the Republicans want our opponents to win—because they know John will be the strongest candidate in the general election.

We may not be the richest campaign—but John is the strongest candidate. This time around, the candidate with the boldest ideas for changing America—the candidate who can take on the special interests in Washington, D.C. and win—is also the most electable. We know it—and the Republicans know it, too. But they won't be able to stop us if we have the support of people like you.

Can you make a contribution today—and send Karl Rove the message that his efforts to influence the Democratic primary won't work this time?

www.johnedwards.com/roves-nightmare

It is no secret that John is the only Democratic candidate who can beat any of the Republican candidates hands down. Just look at the polls conducted by Rasmussen Reports—a major national polling firm—over the past few months. They show that John is the Democratic candidate who consistently beats all of the Republicans candidates in head-to-head match-ups in battleground states—and by the widest margins.

Rove and the Republicans are seeing the same numbers we are—and drawing the same conclusions. So Rove is using his sneaky, underhanded tactics to try and trick Democrats into rallying around a candidate who won't be as strong as John in the general election.

But with your support, we can make sure that Rove's plan doesn't work this time. We are building a strong grassroots organization in the key early states and across the country. John has the best and boldest ideas for bringing big change to America, he can take on the special interests and win, and of all the Democratic candidates he will be the strongest in the general election—in other words, John Edwards is Karl Rove's worst nightmare.

All we need is your support to drive right past Karl Rove's see-through tactics—and keep our campaign on the road to victory.

www.johnedwards.com/roves-nightmare

Thank you for all you do to support this campaign.

Sincerely,

-Joe Trippi
Senior Advisor, John Edwards for President
August 22, 2007

[Colobo]

1. Edwarites are pushing the "Republicans fear John" meme so hard

that it's starting to get old.

[Cameron27]

2. That's the truth.

It's laughable. Edwards already had his campaign derailed for months because of a damned haircut, wait till the big guns come out.

[draft_mario_cuomo]

12. That is false meme. He wasn't hurt in the polls by the haircut

Obama, though, apparently was hurt by the Rezko stories...

[Cameron27]

43. I'm not talking about his place in the polls which

isn't something I'd brag about if I were an Edwards supporter. I'm speaking about the time used to try to put this bs haircut story away, time that could have been used to push his platform. This was a self-inflicted wound the GOP didn't even have to go looking for.

[draft_mario_cuomo]

49. Fair point

However, there is enough for the GOP to use against all of the major candidates. It is a false meme that Edwards is especially vulnerable. Which is worse? Getting a haircut or talking about an "empathy deficit" and compassion for others before the cameras when you gave 0.4% of your income--less than 1/5 the national average--to charity until 2005? The corporate media has kept its hand off its darling Obama and not really went after HRC in the same way they have with respect to Edwards this year. They will go after whoever wins the nomination.

I am not bragging about his poll numbers (which are similar to Clark's for most of his run until Iowa ;) ). I am simply pointing out the corporate media's haircut meme did not hurt him as much as alleged by some.

[Hieronymus]

102. The media would have a fit if they knew what Hillary spends on hair.

[Cameron27]

103. They know what she spends, but she's not running as

a born-again populist; I think that's the difference.

[skids]

82. The "media big guns will destroy Edwards" meme?

...likewise old. And capitulation to the "overwhelming" power of the lamestream just never got my concern up in the first place.

[Cameron27]

86. Not the media, the gop

[skids]

88. So wait, now we let the GOP decide who we should vote for? n/t

[Cameron27]

91. I never said that.

I was replying to the suggestion that the republicans fear John Edwards, and IMO they don't. His campaign was sidetracked for months because of a bs haircut...I don't see fear, but I do hear laughter.

[skids]

94. So all the noise machine has to do...

...to convince you that a Democratic candidate has a horrible campaign and can never win is to create a drudge/limbaugh stink about something entirely trivial and make it stick in the media which they own.

And if that candidate can't somehow miraculously get it out of the media, which is owned by the people pushing it, they obviously are "sidetracked" and struggling.

Well, the noise machine can do that to any of the campaigns at will. They just happened to pick Edwards this time. No candidate can "dodge" the noise. The only way to fight it is to get people to tune it out and listen to you instead. Running from it is no use.

[Cameron27]

99. They happened to pick Edwards because he handed the haircut

story to them. If he stays in the race, they'll dig deeper into off-shore tax shelters that he screamed about in 04, and then chose to work for a hedge fund that specialized in them a few years later, ditto for sub-prime predatory lenders, ditto for his voting record, his negligence regarding the NIE documents that he failed to read, or mention in his IWR apology that he's so fond of mentioning. His voting record will be pulled apart and everything that he's voted for, but is now against will be used.

His words don't match his record or his actions, and although all the candidates will be targeted, Edwards throws meat in the water & then wonders why the sharks attack.

[skids]

100. I don't think he's naive as to be "left wondering."

Same sort of list can be built for any of the candidates. I see no distinction in their vulnerability.

[jgraz]

83. Edwards is right about one thing

They may not fear him as much as he says, but they damn sure LOVE Hillary. They can't wait to take her on in the general.

[Demit]

3. that's a sad commentary on how we go about electing presidents these days.

Give money to prove somebody wrong. To make sure the opposition's psyche-out fails. What a lame rationale for drumming up contributions on Joe Trippi's part. Guess he figures that that online money will just pour in for any old reason, that he just has to insert the tap.

[Colobo]

4. I just think the meme is... lame.

[draft_mario_cuomo]

15. It sure beats saying you are the most electable because of your skin color nt

[Cameron27]

45. Who besides Elizabeth Edwards raised the issue of skin color?

When did Obama say this?

[draft_mario_cuomo]

48. Just a few days ago nt

[venable]

55. BO said it today - he'd up A-A Voter Turnout by 30%

and do you think he expects this because he wants to tool up for our future military adventures?

[rinsd]

5. Where's the bat, Joe?

Talk about fighting the last war.

:eyes:

[BeyondGeography]

24. What does Joe care?

He's getting paid, has a nice farm in Maryland and he has John and Elizabeth believing his bullshit.

Life is good.

[connecticut yankee]

6. That sounds a little farfetched to me

I thought Joe Trippi was capable of better than that.

[NYCGirl]

9. Then you overestimate Trippi.

:evilgrin:

[venable]

57. it is not far-fetched at all - they admit their own playbook.

and I've been saying for years that I'd heard from very reliable sources (rep. pollster and a friend of Jeb's) that Rove admitted to fearing Edwards the most. Maybe Rove was wrong, but that's the guy he was afraid of.

[The Count]

97. So did Dean, then woke up and fired him. Wasn't pretty. Then Trippi praised Raygun

on CNN - sunny optimism and all the BS (he lumped him with Clinton). Very credible guy, Trippi.

[Connie_Corleone]

7. Kind of stretching for a contribution email.

I guess whatever can bring in the bucks for Edwards will work.

[FrenchieCat]

8. If I recall correctly, Republicans were encouraged to donate money

to Edwards' campaign in 2003-04.....as was discovered by reading posts at Freeperville aka Polipundit!

Why were the Republicans scared of Iraq War supporting conservative/moderate John Edwards as a candidate in 2003-04 again as opposed to why they are scared of him now? Inquiring minds want to know!

Interview with John Edwards in late 2003:

http://msnbc.msn.com/id/3131295

Let me ask but the war, because I know these are all students and a lot of guys the age of these students are fighting over there and cleaning up over there, and they're doing the occupation.

Were we right to go to this war alone, basically without the Europeans behind us? Was that something we had to do?

EDWARDS: I think that we were right to go. I think we were right to go to the United Nations. I think we couldn't let those who could veto in the Security Council hold us hostage.

And I think Saddam Hussein, being gone is good. Good for the American people, good for the security of that region of the world, and good for the Iraqi people.

MATTHEWS: If you think the decision, which was made by the president, when basically he saw the French weren't with us and the Germans and the Russians weren't with us, was he right to say, "We're going anyway"?

EDWARDS: I stand behind my support of that, yes.

MATTHEWS: You believe in that?

EDWARDS: Yes.

MATTHEWS: Let me ask you about-Since you did support the resolution and you did support that ultimate solution to go into combat and to take over that government and occupy that country. Do you think that you, as a United States Senator, got the straight story from the Bush administration on this war? On the need for the war? Did you get the straight story?

EDWARDS: Well, the first thing I should say is I take responsibility for my vote. Period. And I did what I did based upon a belief, Chris, that Saddam Hussein's potential for getting nuclear capability was what created the threat. That was always the focus of my concern. Still is the focus of my concern.

So did I get misled? No. I didn't get misled.
<>
MATTHEWS: If you knew last October when you had to cast an aye or nay vote for this war, that we would be unable to find weapons of mass destruction after all these months there, would you still have supported the war?

EDWARDS: It wouldn't change my views. I said before, I think that the threat here was a unique threat. It was Saddam Hussein, the potential for Saddam getting nuclear weapons, given his history and the fact that he started the war before.

MATTHEWS: Do you feel now that you have evidence in your hands that he was on the verge of getting nuclear weapons?

EDWARDS: No, I wouldn't go that far.

MATTHES: What would you say?

EDWARDS: What I would say is there's a decade long pattern of an effort to get nuclear capability, from the former Soviet Union, trying to get access to scientists...

MATTHEWS: What about Africa?

EDWARDS: ... trying to get-No. I don't think so. At least not from the evidence.

MATTHEWS: Were you misled by the president in the State of the Union address on the argument that Saddam Hussein was trying get uranium from Niger?

EDWARDS: I guess the answer to that is no.

I did not put a lot of stock in that.

MATTHEWS: But you didn't believe-But you weren't misled?

EDWARDS: No, I was not misled because I didn't put a lot of stock in to it begin with.

As I said before, I think what happened here is, for over a decade, there is strong, powerful evidence, which I still believe is true, that Saddam Hussein had been trying to get nuclear capability. Either from North Korea, from the former Soviet Union, getting access to scientists, trying to get access to raw fissile material. I don't-that I don't have any question about.

MATTHEWS: The United States has had a long history of nonintervention, of basically taking the "don't tread on me and if you don't we'll leave you alone." We broke with that tradition for Iraq. What is your standard for breaking with tradition of nonintervention?

EDWARDS: When somebody like Saddam Hussein presents a direct threat to the security of the American people and, in this case, the security of a region of the world that I think is critical.

MATTHEWS: A direct threat to us. What was it? Just to get that down. What is it? Knowing everything you know now, what was the direct threat this guy posed to us here in America?

EDWARDS: You didn't get let me finish. There were two pieces to that. I said both a direct threat to us and a direct threat to a region of the world that is incredibly dangerous.

And I think that with Saddam Hussein, they've got nuclear capability, it would have changed the dynamic in that part of the world entirely. And as a result, would have created a threat to the American people. So that's what I think the threat was.

MATTHEWS: Do you think he ever posed a direct threat...

EDWARDS: Can I say something? You sort of-implicit in that question was that the assumption that I believe that the Bush policy on preemptive strike is correct. I don't.

I don't think we need a new doctrine. I think that we can always act to protect the safety and security of the American people. And I have said repeatedly that Bush-President Bush's approach to foreign policy in general is extraordinarily bad. Dangerous for the American people. He doesn't work with others. He doesn't build coalitions. We were promised...

MATTHEWS: Wait, wait.

EDWARDS: Let me finish. We were promised a coalition on the ground right now. And we were promised a plan for what would occur at this point in this campaign in Iraq. Well, neither of those things have occurred. And as a result, we're seeing what's happening to our young men and women.

MATTHEWS: OK. I just want to get one thing straight so that we know how you would have been different in president if you had been in office the last four years as president. Would you have gone to Afghanistan?

EDWARDS: I would.

MATTHEWS: Would you have gone to Iraq?

EDWARDS: I would have gone to Iraq. I don't think I would have approached it the way this president did. I don't think-See I think what happened, if you remember back historically, remember I had an up or down vote. I stand behind it. Don't misunderstand me.

MATTHEWS: Right.

[Cameron27]

10. "Don't misunderstand me. "

Right. That exchange and more will be used against him if he makes it to the general.

[FrenchieCat]

11. In reference to Edwards talking about an "Up or Down" vote......

Excerpt: MATTHEWS: Would you have gone to Iraq?

EDWARDS: I would have gone to Iraq. I don't think I would have approached it the way this president did. I don't think-See I think what happened, if you remember back historically, remember I had an up or down vote. I stand behind it. Don't misunderstand me.

------------------

That answer from Edwards was slippery and rather disingenuous at best, as there were amendments to vote on....like Levin and Binden/Lugar.....and Edwards voted NAY on those...although most who voted NAY on the Blank Check Lieberman Bill that Edwards co-sponsored, voted YES on those amendments to limit Bush's power to take us to war. So in essence, it wasn't simply the UP/DOWN vote that Edwards is implying.

Read Republican Lincoln Chafee (who voted NAY on the Lieberman Bill and yet voted YES on the Levin Amendment among others)OP-ed to understand why there are concrete reasons why some of us do not trust John Edwards simply based on his words.

Excerpt:
AS the presidential primary campaigns begin in earnest, the Iraq war is overshadowing all other issues, as it did during the midterm elections. Presidential candidates who were in the Senate in October 2002 are particularly under the microscope, as they are being called upon to justify their votes for going to war.

As someone who was in the Senate at the time, I have been struck by the contours of the debate. The situation facing the candidates who cast war votes has, to my surprise, often been presented as a binary one — they could either vote for the war, or not. There was no middle ground.

On the contrary. There was indeed a third way, which Senator James Jeffords, independent of Vermont, hailed at the time as “one of the most important votes we will cast in this process.” And it was opposed by every single senator at the time who now seeks higher office.

A mere 10 hours before the roll was called on the administration-backed Iraq war resolution, the Senate had an opportunity to prevent the current catastrophe in Iraq and to salvage the United States’ international standing.
MORE....
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/01/opinion/01chafee.html?ex=1187928000&en=caf8f79f2ad9b38d&ei=5070

[draft_mario_cuomo]

14. And it will have little effect since 40% of the country once supported the war and now opposes it

Bashing that 40% as "naive and irresponsible" is hardly a winning electoral position...

[FrenchieCat]

18. Did 40% of Americans sit on the Intelligence Committee while not reading the Classified NIE?

We elect leaders, not people that would do what we would do when we are not paying attention to something that is truly not in the realm of our paid profession.

If you think that somehow voters are looking for a President that is as uninformed as we are, even when he/she has more information than we do....please know that we've already got that going on, and none of us are too happy about it.

[draft_mario_cuomo]

13. We know the answer now. They feared his charisma, southern roots, and populist message

==In the run-up to the 2004 Democratic National Convention, when it was not yet clear who Bush's opponent would be that November, Rove and his aides had begun to fear that their most dangerous foe would be then-Sen. John Edwards of North Carolina.

With his Southern base, charismatic style and populist message, Edwards, they believed, could be a real threat to Bush's reelection.==

=="So we started attacking John Kerry a lot in the end of January because we were very worried about John Edwards," Dowd said. "And we knew that if we focused on John Kerry, Democratic primary voters would sort of coalesce" around Kerry.==

==Nicolle Wallace, the 2004 Bush campaign communications director, recalled at the Harvard conference that the campaign "refused" to even respond to Edwards' attacks on Bush, not wanting to make him seem like a threat.==

http://www.latimes.com/news/printedition/asection/la-na-rove19aug19,1,4872976.story?page=1&coll=la-news-a_section&ctrack=1&cset=true

So much for your cherished myth that Edwards is unelectable?

Thanks for informing us that JE supported the war. I was not aware of that. In fact, I bet no one at DU knew of that. P.S. how is the IWR card working for Obama's poll numbers? I am sure he will be back into the 30's, or at least the high 20's, like he was before he had to resort to the only card he has left to play (since he isn't running on any actual issues).

[FrenchieCat]

16. So because Peter Walsten of the LA times comes up with a theory

that Kerry was attacked by the GOP because Edwards was the threat back in 2004...this written without offering any evidence whatsoever, it becomes a FACT?

Why don't you provide some evidence that Edwards was such a big threat to Republicans! Something tangible, you know! And in fact, answer why if this threat of Edwards to Republican was so obvious, the Kerry-Edwards camp chose not to use Edwards in a manner which would have utilized him to bring out the "fear" of those Republicans. Why would the Kerry camp make Edwards nearly invisible if Edwards was such an effective powerhouse threat in order to win the elections?

Here's another "Theory" of how well John Edwards was being viewed and at least, it was written at the time, not last week.

Edwards is not a particularly sharp candidate. He is a slick speaker but lacks the crackle and candor of Dean's plain talk. Indeed, Edwards gives the same speech, platitude for platitude, every time. He doesn't talk about foreign policy, and he rarely answers questions from the audience. At his maiden New York primary speech, at Columbia University last week, Edwards was confronted by AIDS protesters who wanted him to address their issue and by local reporters curious as to why he hadn't mentioned Iraq. His bland responses—that AIDS was a test of "moral responsibility" and that Iraq was "a very important issue"—disappointed both groups. "He didn't speak with any detail at all," said Kim Sue, one of the protesters. "I think I'll have to vote for Kerry."

There are quasi-plausible reasons for Edwards' odd unwillingness to confront Kerry. He has defined himself as Mr. Sunshine, and since his future in politics is probably brighter than his present, he doesn't want to sully the white suit. He may also be pulling his punches because he wants to be Vice President. That would be foolish: his prospects aren't as obvious as most citizen pundits think. Kerry will surely want a running mate eager to eviscerate the opposition, particularly in the debate against Vice President Cheney (or, failing that, a Vice President who will bring his home state along—and Dick Gephardt has a better chance of doing both than Edwards). Edwards' fluffy passivity is not a very good audition if the job description is attack dog.
http://www.time.com/time/election2004/columnist/klein/article/0,18471,593500,00.html

-------------------------

[draft_mario_cuomo]

17. No, it is something Bush 04' campaign officials have admitted

The truth hurts when it kills a cherished myth...

====In the run-up to the 2004 Democratic National Convention, when it was not yet clear who Bush's opponent would be that November, Rove and his aides had begun to fear that their most dangerous foe would be then-Sen. John Edwards of North Carolina.

With his Southern base, charismatic style and populist message, Edwards, they believed, could be a real threat to Bush's reelection.==

=="So we started attacking John Kerry a lot in the end of January because we were very worried about John Edwards," Dowd said. "And we knew that if we focused on John Kerry, Democratic primary voters would sort of coalesce" around Kerry.==

==Nicolle Wallace, the 2004 Bush campaign communications director, recalled at the Harvard conference that the campaign "refused" to even respond to Edwards' attacks on Bush, not wanting to make him seem like a threat.==

http://www.latimes.com/news/printedition/asection/la-na... ==

Hmm...who to believe? Those who actually worked in the Bush-Cheney 04' campaign and were there when they discussed strategy or a poster bitter over what someone said about a former subordinate nearly four years ago?

[FrenchieCat]

19. so they didn't answer Edwards so he wouldn't be a threat,

according to Republican sources "recently" admitting.

Maybe it is the GOP sources NOW, in 2008, who are playing mind games with us Democrats in saying why what happened back in 2004. Maybe this is simply to further throw us off the scent, muddle the water, and totally confuse us for the 2008 elections! Considering that we are supposed to be so naive and gullible and so easily manipulated by the super smart GOP opposition, this must be fun for them....to have so totally fooled us then, something that for whatever reason.....as the presidential primaries heat up for 2008....they are so easily able to "admit". Had you thought of that? :shrug:

[draft_mario_cuomo]

20. Matthew Dowd, Bush's chief pollster in 04', and Nicole Wallace

There are two right there.

[draft_mario_cuomo]

22. Yes, according to a high-ranking source who worked on the campaign

She said this on the record. That is far more believable than a DUer who was not there when they planned strategy.

[FrenchieCat]

21. If the LA time story........

is correct, than I guess that Edwards is no longer a threat.....cause they are attacking Edwards these days.

Guess the real threat is the one that they are not attacking. Guess that would be Hillary, which I guess is what the article is concluding. :shrug:

[draft_mario_cuomo]

23. Try this

http://www.latimes.com/news/printedition/asection/la-na-rove19aug19,1,4872976.story?page=1&coll=la-news-a_section&ctrack=2&cset=true

[FrenchieCat]

25. Found it on my own, but thanks. n/t

[draft_mario_cuomo]

37. Nice spin. Bush is not running for re-election in 2008. His campaign is over

You can't conflate John Gibson attacking Edwards in 2007 with the Bush-Cheney campaign's strategy. At least you are no longer claiming Edwards is unelectable.

[laureloak]

27. Just another insult from a Clarkie.

The Democratic party has suffered enough at the hands of the Repubs. We don't need to throw our own kind to the sharks.

Every thread I read attacking Edwards is loaded, I mean loaded with Wes Clark supporters. When are you guys gonna quit embarrassing Clark by attacking fellow Democrats?

[FrenchieCat]

28. When are you gonna stop stereotyping DU members

by bunching them as a group and start addressing the issues raised versus making personal attacks?

[babsbunny]

32. AMEN!

:bounce:

[FrenchieCat]

33. And this is the extent of your participation in your very own OP....?

To jump up and down because an entire group of specific Du members get called names and attacked by a poster who would prefer doing that than to actually address the content of my post that I, as an individual posted in this here, your thread? Geeze, how refreshing! :sarcasm:

[draft_mario_cuomo]

34. It is. And because of what? Because the guy who fired Clark was asked about Clark by a student...

...after giving a speech at a college. Did Gen. Shelton rub his hands with glee and pull out the talking points the Edwards campaign had given him to use when the magic moment came? No. Shelton paused, took a drink of water and then said he wished it were vodka. He then made the now infamous statement. Is the statement shocking? Clark was removed from NATO early. We can play with semantics as to whether he was fired. The bottom line is something happened that caused Clark's military career to end prematurely. Was this a fluke? Did Shelton wake up one morning and decide to do this? Does Shelton have a history of randomly firing people? Moreover, apparently Shelton was not the only general to hold such an opinion. Franks made a similar comment publicly as did other officers as unnamed sources in articles about Clark in 2003. Could it be that Clark simply was not popular among his peers? Nah, it can't be. Edwards built a time machine in 2003 and got Shelton to fire Clark before Clark was even a Democrat, let alone a perspective presidential candidate. Does all this mean Clark is somehow evil? No. My suspicion is Clark was too headstrong and he clashed with others in the military and that led to his demise. How many generals have run for president in recent times? It takes a ton of confidence and ambition to run for president. Perhaps that confidence and ambition that led Clark to 4 stars and later to become the Democratic front-runner in 2003 also led to the early end of his military career? The whole Edwards thing among Clarkies is based on a perverse assumption that Edwards somehow had something to do with Shelton offering an opinion of the guy he fired.

The other thing I noticed is the Clarkie criticisms of Edwards are never about substance. You don't see them criticize Edwards' health plan, anti-poverty plan, his position on the climate crisis, etc. It is always "Edwards is a phony opportunist." That has always amused me since it comes from supporters of a guy who was not even a registered Democrat until he began to run for president. When Edwards was fighting the * agenda in the senate in 2001 Clark was speaking at a Republican fundraiser. Yet three votes Edwards cast out of hundreds are used to constantly paint him as a phony opportunist while Clark morphing from an independent to a progressive Democrat in two years is accepted as perfectly legitimate by the very same people.

I like Clark but Edwards supporters cannot unilaterally disarm against the profoundly hypocritical attacks against Edwards that come from a fleet of Clarkies. Do all Clarkies do this? No. However, as you noted, go into any anti-Edwards thread and it is populated by Clarkies. Criticism is fine--it is actually healthy for our democratic process. However, for folks who support someone who was not a Democrat in 2001 to call Edwards a phony opportunist because of three votes out of hundreds is the height of hypocrisy and they need to be called on it.

[FrenchieCat]

38. Think I'll try your tactic from this point on......

Edwards supporters cry a lot when facts about their hero are dragged into the frey.

Stop crying and whining. It only makes Edwards look weak and ineffectual.

There. So are you all happy now, Edwards supporters? Those of you who like to attack Clark supporters and Clark if they find one who chooses to post something about your really, really cute presidential candidate. You have reduced me to using your same tactics. You win!

Who's next? BO and BO supporters? :shrug:

[draft_mario_cuomo]

40. There is nothing wrong with criticizing candidates

However, when it is done in a hypocritical manner those doing it need to be called on it. Most Edwards supporters here are Quakers. Edwards is routinely attacked by Obama supporters, Clarkies (re: Obama supporters now). Yet Team Edwards keeps its gloves off of Obama and Clark while focusing on Clinton. It isn't HRC supporters who routinely go after Edwards.

==omething about your really, really cute presidential candidate==

Are you channeling Obama?

==Edwards supporters cry a lot when facts about their hero are dragged into the frey.==

I, and others, repeatedly respond to the points you make. What happens is you disappear after enough facts are put on the table (for instance, in this thread you gave up after it was proven that high-ranking Bush 04' officials stated that they feared Edwards was the most electable, destroying your cherished myth about Edwards' unelectability). That is a far cry from simply name-calling and avoiding the actual issues raised.

It would be nice if Clarkies actually objected to substantive issues instead of posting drive-by "Edwards is a phony opportunist" posts. Of course, doing so invites a response and you have to be prepared to defend your argument then.

[FrenchieCat]

42. Should I respond, master of Edwardness?

I mean........it appears that I am now being criticized for not opting to have the last word......

Bottomline is that you are one of the prime attacker of Obama in this Forum....in the short while that you have been here. You speak of the hypocracy of others while leaving out your own.

I know what to do about this, and so I shall.

[draft_mario_cuomo]

46. Which is why I said: There is nothing wrong with criticizing candidates

We need to vet our candidates. If we did that in 2004 perhaps * would have lost. Kerry won Iowa and that was it. He was never really vetted since he was off the radar screen in 2003.

Where am I being hypocritical? I am not applying one standard to Clark and another to Edwards. I think they shifted for the same basic reason: they were not well-informed about the issues. Edwards did not even vote regularly until he entered politics and Clark's political grasp was on display when he first entered the race. Good guy, but he did not know the basics of the issues during his first few weeks in the race. Remember his first debate?

You always conveniently opt to disappear when you no longer have a leg to stand on. Gen. Shelton is the core thing for you regarding Edwards. Why are you ignoring the simple facts regarding Shelton's statement outlined in this thread? The facts show that Edwards had nothing to do with it.

==I know what to do about this, and so I shall.==

I am sure some Obama fans have been trying that for weeks. It hasn't worked. :)

[FrenchieCat]

52. You say "General Shelton is the core thing with you"......NOT I.....

which is one of your traits; to tell others why they are saying what they are saying.

Has it ever dawned on you that I just don't trust John Edwars (I illustrated one example in this thread in where I quote Edwards talking about an up or down vote, and show why that wasn't really the case)? This opinion did not come from Shelton (although it didn't help)....but based on Edwards own words, his votes and his actions. It would be simpler for you if it was an issue about Edwards vs. Clark vs. Shelton, but it ain't!

See Substance of some of why I don't care for John Edwards as our next president and inform yourself. Didn't list the Hedgefund Fortress and Nola Foreclosures with the 1/2 million Edwards profited while learning about porverty nor about the three Poverty Centers named almost the same thing for different purposes, one skimming legality.


http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2007/07/13/270267.aspx

http://blogs.usatoday.com/onpolitics/2007/05/edwards_grilled.html

http://thehill.com/byron-york/roberts-opposition-as-a-bloc-would-hurt-dems-credibility-2005-09-15.html

http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2007_02/010678.php

http://www.laweekly.com/news/news/a-populist-make-over/2034/

http://www.zazona.com/ShameH1B/Library/Politicians/Edwards.htm

http://www.dailyhowler.com/dh072904.shtml
-----------------------------------------------------
Several weeks after testifying to two subcommittees of the Senate Banking Committee, Fed Governor
Laurence Meyer received a letter from eight senators admonishing the Fed for its stance on merchant banking and demanding a more lenient approach.

But only the Merchant Banking Eight have so wholeheartedly aligned themselves with the grievances of Chase, Wells Fargo and the largest financial conglomerates.

Dear Governor Meyer,

On behalf of the Securities and Financial Institutions Subcommittees of the
Senate Committee on Banking Housing and Urban Affairs, thank you for appearing
as a witness on June 13 to discuss the Board’s Interim and Proposed regulations
concerning merchant banking activities.

Your testimony was helpful in clarifying your intent to consider carefully the views of members of Congress, the financial services industry and other interested parties concerning your proposed regulations. Your assurances that the Board’s goal is to encourage Financial Holding companies (FHCs), bank holding companies and banks to engage in innovative and progressive private equity investment activities while preserving the safety and soundness of the financial services system is welcome...."


MERCHANT BANKING EIGHT
Jack Reed (D-RI)
Charles Schumer (D-NY)
Mike Crapo (R-ID)
Robert Bennett (R-UT)
Rod Grams (R-MN)
Jim Bunning (R-KY)
Chuck Hagel (R-NE)
John Edwards (D-NC)
http://www.fmcenter.org/atf/cf/%7BDFBB2772-F5C5-4DFE-B310-D82A61944339%7D/sept00.pdf

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=132&topic_id=3057475

There's more issues, but this should do for now.

[draft_mario_cuomo]

66. 90% of Clarkies here say the same thing about JE. Is that a mere coincidence?

You don't see anywhere near the same rate from supporters of other politicians.

It is ironic you are invoking support from the banking industry. Do you know who the favorite of the banking industry is in 2007? Hint: the current candidate you support.

[FrenchieCat]

68. Your stats are not something I rely on......

because in real life, I have heard mention of Shelton from you more than from all Clark supporters put together....as you scream "Shelton"s name out often.


I don't support any candidate at the moment. Another bad piece of info from you.

[draft_mario_cuomo]

70. So what is the source of this?

Are you seriously trying to claim the Clarkie level of hostility toward Edwards is anywhere near the average for the typical Democrat? Why Edwards of all the candidates who ran in 04'? Shelton seems to be the main thing. Edwards then becoming VP candidate is another apparent sore spot.

==I don't support any candidate at the moment. Another bad piece of info from you.=='

You sure sound like it. ;)

[JNelson6563]

73. It's an old grudge left over from 04

and since some have no interest in politics besides Clark, and Clark's not running, all some seem to be able to do is throw stones from the sidelines. Not unlikely that you're seeing some of the same drivel that was posted in the 04 primaries simply cut and pasted in current threads. Sure reads the same.

Frankly I can't imagine putting such effort into tearing down any of our candidates but I guess that's just me.

Julie

[draft_mario_cuomo]

74. And the grudge is chiefly based on Shelton, right?

As if Edwards had anything to do with Shelton's statement at a college when asked about a guy he fired. :eyes:

[Cameron27]

76. Not from me,

I don't have any grudge about Edwards from 04. I simply didn't like or trust him then, and continue to feel the same way now. This has nothing to do with Wes Clark, and everything to do with John Edwards.

[draft_mario_cuomo]

80. In your case

However, overall, I don't think you would dispute that, on the netroots at least, the level of hostility toward Edwards is far greater among Clarkies than among supporters of every other candidate. This can't be a fluke. There must be something that caused it.

[FrenchieCat]

81. how would JNelson6563 know this about individual posters? She's one of those that

chimes in every now and then based on her dislike of Clark and the Clarkies DU invasion back in September of 2003....as Clark posed a direct thread to Dr. Dean at the time. So she is "hardly" a non-biased or non-participating observer. :eyes:

Hey! Y'all should join force for the big Clarkie pile on!

[JNelson6563]

92. Only Bob knows friend

Can you imagine hanging out at DU for an addition 3 years for the purpose of promoting one individual and then reliving the same primary shit literally years later?

So very, very sad.

Julie

[FrenchieCat]

98. So why do you do it?

[karynnj]

84. Kerry was never vetted? Are you crazy?

Kerry was most certainly vetted - in Iowa, where he met people face to face and won more of them than Edwards. Then Kerry was vetted in NH - where not much vetting was needed - many people knew him for more than 20 years. Then there were 7 contests in one day - and Kerry won 5. These were all southern or southwestern or rural states - this was when Kerry could have been stopped. It was actually a high hurdle for Kerry - most of those theoretically should have been Edwards' states.

The other point is that Kerry had a 22 year history in public office and he was a well known person for another 10. In those 32 years in the public eye - he was pretty much scandal free. The Boston Globe should get credit for at least 22 years of intensely vetting him - and they were tough - who else gets lectured for not telling the paper a week or two earlier when announing they have cancer, that was detected a month and a half earlier and his plans for surgery and the prognosis. Kerry was well vetted.

So, what did they find during the whole 2004 campaign - he windsurfs was public knowledge - and the SBVT stuff was all fake. Anyone awake and over about 12 knew he protested in the 1970s - many younger knew it too - it was in my kids' history books.

[Cameron27]

44. When it's altogether appropriate for anyone, anywhere to

attack Clinton? Where are your posts protesting attacks on her? Or Obama?

Every single time Edwards' past or present positions & voting record are discussed or disputed, someone whines that it's an attack...and the Clarkies are behind it. Nothing like this comes from the Obama or Clinton camps, who both get torn apart here hourly. Even the "fuck Hillary, and fuck her supporters" thread didn't have this stunning martyr-complex attached to it. No, this BS victim-hood seems to hover, like their halos, only around Saint John's DU supporters.

[draft_mario_cuomo]

47. Nothing like this comes from the Obama camp?

That is false (most of them rarely even bother to dispute the inconvenient facts presented), although I will grant you the HRC camp is a bit different, although they are used to it since she gets attacked 24/7 here.

What is odd is the attacks are never about substance. They always revolve around this: "Edwards is a phony opportunist."

[Cameron27]

51. I disagree. The substance of any dispute with Edwards is

always filled with facts, and links to good sources containing those facts. If I say Edwards is a phony opportunist, I'll give the reasons why I think that. There are a couple of Obama supporters who do him no favors, I'll grant you that, and I don't bother posting in their threads anymore, even if I generally agree with them. But a lot of Edwards' supporters don't seem to be able to take the slightest criticism without throwing the Clarkie BS into the mix.

[draft_mario_cuomo]

53. Links of what? One can easily--more easily than with JE--do the same regarding Clark

They all revolve around what I mentioned. How often has a Clarkie here criticizing his health plan (the only universal plan among the major candidates), his anti-poverty plan, his position on the climate crisis, etc.? What they do is cherry pick a couple of votes out of hundreds and use it to paint him as a hypocrite. Why Clarkies matter is the line of attack they use, which is very odd to say the least, given Clark's record.

I could use links, facts, and sources to paint Clark as a phony opportunist too. Here is an example. Ironically, some of the things said about Clark are the very things Clarkies say about Edwards now (well, except for the Republican thing. No one has accused Edwards of being a past or current closet Republican)... Clark's defenses also can be applied to one John Edwards...

John Kerry on Clark praising the Bush team at a Republican fund-raiser in 2001: "At that moment, the general was prepared to say they are the right people. At that moment, those of us who were fighting for Democratic principles, and have been for 35 years or more, were fighting against what they were doing to this country. And we had no lack of clarity about what compassionate conservative meant to this nation.""

#1, one can use this as a fact, source, link to confirm that Clark did indeed do what Kerry alleged. That could easily be used to paint him as a phony opportunist. #2, as Kerry noted, the man you guys now call a phony opportunist was fighting the Bush agenda in the senate at the time.

Clark's response: "Things have changed radically since 2001," he said. "I could still have hope in early 2001 that this administration would learn its lessons, as most administrations do."

"Things have changed radically." That can easily be applied to Edwards.

Edwards response to Clark's defense: "I have stood up to this president over and over and over, including back in 2001 when some on this stage had hope for President Bush," Edwards said. "I did not have hope for President Bush."

Ironic, isn't it? The "phony opportunist" was fighting Bush at the same time the great progressive hero was praising Bush at a Republican fund-raiser where he was the keynote speaker!?

Lieberman on Clark: Sen. Joseph Lieberman of Connecticut, the most unwavering supporter of the Iraq war among candidates in the Democratic field, said he was "very disappointed" by Clark's "various positions" on the war.

"A few days before the vote in Congress, he said he would have recommended it and would have supported the resolution. After the war, he wrote a piece in the Times of London praising President Bush and Tony Blair for their resolve. When he became a candidate, he said he probably would have voted for the resolution. There was an uproar. Then he said, 'I never would have voted for the resolution.'"

When Holy Joe is questioning your Democratic credentials, as he did in 2003 (although not in that quote), that says something. Holy Joe also was painted Clark as flip-flopping on the war.

All of the above was from one debate.

Jeane Shaheen: --former New Hampshire Gov. Jeanne Shaheen, the national chairwoman of Massachusetts Sen. John Kerry's presidential campaign, renewed criticism of Clark's praise for the Bush administration two years ago.

Shaheen and two other state Democratic officials noted that Clark was a keynote speaker at a Republican fund-raiser in May 2001, and that he praised President Bush, Vice President Dick Cheney and other members of the administration. They also played a video of Clark's speech.

Clark and Kerry are competing for second place, behind Howard Dean, in the New Hampshire presidential primary on January 27.

Shaheen said "the issue here is this candidate is not a Democrat," and doesn't support Democratic values.

"I welcome Wesley Clark to our party," she said. "But I just don't think someone who raised money for Republicans, praised George W. Bush after he had begun his systematic reversal of Bill Clinton's policies" should be the Democratic nominee, she said.==

Dean on Clark: =="He is a good guy, but I truly believe he is a Republican," Dean said of the retired Army general and former NATO supreme commander who declared himself a Democrat shortly before entering the presidential race last year.

If Clark were to win the Democratic presidential nomination, Dean said, the general election would be "the Republican primary." ==

==Dean said he was bothered by Clark's appearance at a May 2001 GOP fund-raiser in his home state of Arkansas where he said "great things about Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld and George Bush."

At a Democratic candidate forum in October, Clark said he considered himself "nonpartisan" at the time and wanted the Bush national security team "to be successful." ==

So he was a nonpartisan in 2001 and a progressive Democrat two years later. Sincere sea change or "phony opportunist"? Using the standard Clarkies apply to Edwards slight leftward shift (Edwards, for instance, was a Democrat the whole time) you know what the answer is...

What is the point of all this? Anyone can cherry pick things from a politician's record and paint him as a phony opportunist. Doing so does not change the fact that such attacks are not about the substance of a candidate's platform. What is the most amusing thing is, given the facts I just brought up, that Clarkies of all people seem hellbent on painting Edwards as a "phony opportunist." As I said earlier, if Obama fans were doing the same it would be an entirely different matter.

Can any Clarkie explain to me how Edwards is a fraud because he shifted slightly to the left but there is nothing odd about Clark going from a nonpartisan to becoming a progressive Democrat in a span of two years?

http://www.cnn.com/2003/ALLPOLITICS/10/10/elec04.prez.democrats.debate/index.html
http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/01/14/elec04.prez.main/index.html
http://edition.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/01/13/elec04.prez.clark.iraq.ap/

[FrenchieCat]

54. You understand the difference, don't you?

Clark isn't running.

You also understand that Clark never proclaimed himself to be the populist candidate....

Edwards obviously had "HOPES" for Bush...since he "trusted" him and co-sponsored a bill to give him carte blanche authorization on war.

Please know that your cherry picking of quotes from Clark's opponents and their surrogate during the 2004 primary season is a ridiculous rendition.

You also understand that none of this has anything to do with serious matters such as judgment on war and peace, death and life, money spent on invasions that could have been used for better poverty and universal health care, etc.....

[draft_mario_cuomo]

56. That is a red herring. You can't paint JE as a fraud when you excuse Clark's record

You can't paint Edwards as a fraud when you buy Clark's story, which requires jumping through a million more hoops.

As Edwards said, and Kerry noted, he and others fought the Bush agenda when Clark was keynoting a Republican fund-raiser in Arkansas. That is a fact. How did Clark go from that to a progressive Democrat in a span of two years? It is absurd to compare such a wholesale conversion to changing your position on the bankruptcy bill.

The quotes confirm my point, one can very easily paint Clark as a fraud. No one disputes these basic facts: 1) Clark keynoted a Republican fund-raiser in Arkansas in 2001 2) He praised Bush and co. there 3) He was an independent at the time 4) He became a progressive Democrat to the left of Dean and probably Kerry just two years later. Then there are the waffles on the sacred IWR.

Being a Republican or a Democrat is the ultimate judgment issue for it subsumes numerous issues such as broad but fundamental things such as the role of government, what kind of society we should have, as well as specific policy issues such as social security, education, health care, the environment. You can't get it wrong on supporting a party that supports what the GOP stands for and then crow about your great judgment, especially when you switched parties just when one party came knocking on your door with an offer of the presidency. Was that a sincere shift or phony opportunism? In 2 years?

Tell me, what changed to morph Clark for an independent to a progressive Democrat in just 2 years and why do you believe that wholesale change just in time to run in the Democratic primary for president was sincere? I don't expect an answer because that would obliterate the special logic you have reserved for Edwards changing his view on a couple of votes out of hundreds that he made when a political newcomer...

[FrenchieCat]

60. Don't excuse Clark......

and I'll think that Edwards is a fraud.

Now we can all be happy with our own opinions on things.

How's that?

[draft_mario_cuomo]

62. I am curious though how Clarkies buy Clark's wholesale change in 2 years

Yet think Edwards is the biggest phony in politics because he, like all politicians, switched his views on a couple of issues. It is not like Edwards switched parties...

[Cameron27]

59. Wait, you're actually using the words of Clark's rivals

during the 04 campaign against him? Dean called Kerry a republican too for godssakes. Shall I post all the smears they each tossed at each other? From your CNN link:

Clark conceded that he had praised Bush and Blair "for sticking with the offensive in Iraq once it had begun."

"But I also noted in every op-ed

and every comment I ever made that there was not enough forces there, there was not a plan for dealing with it afterwords. And I've said all along, it was not an imminent threat."

Clark also stated that he would have voted for the Levin Resolution if he had to vote, NOT for Lieberman's. You're actually trying to make a case by comparing what a few people running against him in 04 said were Clark's thoughts of bush in 2001, to what Edwards voted for in 2002, and remained firmly behind until 2005? You're comparing an actual voting record to the thoughts of people who had something to gain by knocking out an opponent in the 04 race.

[draft_mario_cuomo]

61. Yes, the point was that one can easily paint Clark as a phony opportunist based on his record

==Clark also stated that he would have voted for the Levin Resolution if he had to vote, NOT for Lieberman's==

That goes to what Holy Joe said. Clark also said he would "probably" have voted for the IWR.

No one disputes that Clark was not a Democrat in 2001 and that he did keynote a GOP fund-raiser at which he praised Bush, Rumsfeld and co. as well as Reagan.

Compare Clark's record to Edwards' slight shift. Which is more likely to be a product of phony opportunism:

Person A: Was an independent, spoke at a GOP fund-raiser at which he praised Republicans presidents and Bush's team and 2 years later reincarnates as a progressive Democrat conveniently in time to run in the Democratic primary for president.

Person B: Was a Democrat and changed his position on a few issues (something all politicians do) while remaining the same on core values.

If you buy Clark's story why not Edwards?

[Cameron27]

65. Slight shift?

Edwards went from a gung ho hawk, co-sponsor of the worst resolution out there, to warning Kerry NOT to admit their IWR votes were in error in 2004, to a sudden anti-war critic a year later.

Clark testified in Congress about the folly of invading Iraq, (Kennedy used his words to caution others not to vote for the war,} and as far as the Levin amendment, it would have forced a trip back to the UN before the president could begin to act on Iraq.

Wes Clark is not running in this race, as a 'populist' who chose to work, invest in and take donations from a hedge fund to learn more about poverty. When will we find out if Edwards' use of the poverty center amounts to a pac and deserves to be taxed?

Wes Clark isn't running, and bringing him up because some people who supported him in 04 are criticizing Edwards now is ridiculous and insulting. Should we be banned from all the Edwards threads or what?

[draft_mario_cuomo]

69. Yes, a shift from a "centrist" Democrat to a more left-wing Democrat

That was one issue on which he did have a huge change. However, overall he remained very similar on the multiple issues facing the nation since he was always a Democrat. Compare that to someone who was not a Democrat in 2001 reincarnating as a progressive Democrat on issue after issue all in a span of 2 years and just in time to run in the Democratic primary for president.

Of course not. I am just curious why Clarkies have chosen this weird line of attack given their guy's record. Criticizing Edwards on Iraq is far different from calling a guy who was a Democrat in 1998, a Democrat in 2001, a Democrat in 2004, and a Democrat today a phony opportunist when you would love to have Clark, whose story has a million more holes than Edwards, in the White House.

Simple question, what makes you believe Clark's shift from an independent to a Democrat in two years and just in time to run for prez as Democrat was sincere? I don't expect an answer for the same reasons Frenchie dodged this basic question. The same things could be said about Edwards, although there is less of a need to patch up holes in JE's case than there is in WC's case.

[Cameron27]

72. Clark was an active four star general

who couldn't broadcast any personal political position until he retired. It doesn't bother me that he was an Independent since he always had populist views and he hasn't changed them at all, which can't be said about Edwards.

[draft_mario_cuomo]

75. He was an independent in 2001, not a Democrat. He admitted this

He was out of the military by then. In less than 2 years he became a progressive Democrat.

==since he always had populist views==

Helping raise money for the Republican party=having populist views? That is odd for a populist, isn't it? If he was the left-wing populist he allegedly was he would have been a Democrat in 2001. What happened? Clark made a wholesale shift in his views. Was he sincere? I think so. Was Edwards sincere when the Democrat changed his mind on a couple of issues? Yes.

Edwards has always had populist views--which is partly why Rove and co. feared him the most in 2004. All Edwards has done is what every politician has done: change positions on a few issues. That does not compare to changing parties.

[FrenchieCat]

78. Your reasoning leaves a lot to be desired........

Clark didn't have a party. He was a non-partisan military personnel. He worked under various administration. He was an independent because one could not register for parties when voting back in those days in Arkansas. When it was time for him to choose a party (and laws in Arkansas only changed relatively recently) he chose the Democratic party. There was no "Switch" of parties per se, although he did have the honesty to admit having voted for some Republicans.

On the other hand, Edwards can't remember who he voted for during his very first presidential election ever while Vietnam was raging and he was a student who might have to go. But I'm sure there is a good reason for this.

[draft_mario_cuomo]

89. Clark was no longer in the military in 2001. Nice try, though, plus nice display of your arrogance

:)

Edwards did not even vote half the time before he entered politics.

[Cameron27]

79. Here are Clark's own words:

"I was never partisan in the military. I served under Democratic presidents, I served under Republican presidents. But as I looked at this country and looked which way we were headed, I knew that I needed to speak out. And when I needed to speak out, there was only party to come to.

I am pro-choice, I am pro-affirmative action, I'm pro-environment, pro-health. I believe the United States should engage with allies. We should be a good player in the international community. And we should use force only as a last resort. That's why I'm proud to be a Democrat."

Clark gave one speech on May 11, 2001 for the Pulaski County Republican Party in Arkansas which was a nonpartisan discussion of foreign policy...and a few weeks later attended the annual dinner of the Arkansas Democratic party in Little Rock. Now, I'm tired of debunking these old smears dug out by you mario, start defending Edwards on his own merits not on the back of someone who's not even in the race.

[draft_mario_cuomo]

90. Sure, I accept them. Edwards also has words to explain his shift to the left as a Democrat

I don't buy the GOP fund-raiser excuse, though. No real Democrat would headline a Republican fund-raiser. Having a former SACEUR speak at an Arkansas fund-raiser surely netted some extra cash for the Republican coffers, something the Rhodes Scholar was surely aware of. I think Clark simply was not very political until he left the military and did not form real political views until he began thinking about running for president.

[The Count]

96. They were also encouraged to vote for him in North Carolina primaries

In fact, they modified the law for this purpose, eliminating party identification requirements, so they can give Edwards a state. CNN exit poll results showed that most of his voters wanted Bush re-elected.

[wisteria]

26. senator Kerry was already our nominee when the repubs started attacking him.

Edward's didn't make it out of the primaries and Dean was considered the front runner up until Kerry took it all.

This story is rubbish and a rewrite of history.

It is also an insult to Democrats to suggest we can be manipulated by the Rove machine.

I give this e-mail, Joe Trippi Edwards and this article, :puke: :puke: :puke:

[beachmom]

29. This is just wrong -- using right wing trick talking points to prop up your candidate.

Those who kill by the sword can die by it, too. A sad day for the Edwards campaign.

[FrenchieCat]

30. I just don't understand the logic, period. According to Trippi, The GOP were plotting

by manipulating us Dems back in 2004 and fooled us real good .....but now, all of the sudden, Dems are supposed to trust and believe what the GOP sources are currently saying about what they did in 2004 and why they did it......Oh....and coincidently, just as the 2008 primaries are getting really going!

And so, we should believe the GOP of today talking about the GOP of yesterday and by the way.....send John Edwards some money Pronto!

By hey, according to the script, don't mind me and anything I have to say about anything ....cause I'm just another embarassing Clarkie on the attack! :shrug:

[draft_mario_cuomo]

36. You didn't read the article. Dowd revealed this in 2004 after the election

Was that part of a magical new plan to manipulate Democrats three years later?

==ems are supposed to trust and believe what the GOP sources are currently saying about what they did in 2004 and why they did it......Oh....and coincidently, just as the 2008 primaries are getting really going!==

That is false. Dowd revealed this in December of 2004.

==we should believe the GOP of today talking about the GOP of yesterday and by the way==

No, we should believe what they said right after the election when they had no clue what the political dynamics of the Democratic primary battle would be 3 years later. There was a leak during the 04' primaries that said basically the same thing. Dowd then confirmed it December of 2004, and he has been backed up by Bush 04's communications director as well as unnamed sources.

[FrenchieCat]

39. So at some point we need to believe this lying scumbag called Dowd......

and his GOP cohorts and at other points we shouldn't believe anything they say. Got it! :thumbsup:

[draft_mario_cuomo]

41. There is a thing called context

Context, like when someone speaks about a guy he fired off-the-cuff after a random student asks him about it. In your world that was all part of a diabolical plot :crazy: , which is what the eternal hatred of Edwards is premised on.

In what contexts should we not believe Dowd? I don't expect an answer...

It is ironic. You once claimed the Bush campaign feared Clark (a key rationale of the Clark candidacy) the most while Edwards was unelectable. Now we know they feared Edwards the most and suddenly what they thought no longer matters.

[draft_mario_cuomo]

50. Like I said, I didn't expect a response... nt

[venable]

58. and I heard of Rove's fears in 03/04

from two well-placed Republicans.

Rove said, point blank, the only primary candidate he couldn't beat would be Edwards.

[FrenchieCat]

63. Well gee, if YOU heard this from 2 'well placed GOP" sources

who heard it from Rove....then it must be true! :sarcasm:

I didn't "hear" about who was a threat....but read about it in many places.

But I guess that the liberal media below just wanted to trick us, and it must be why Edwards got positive press from 2 weeks prior to Iowa till he was picked as VP.....and Clark was smeared and ignored for most of his run.

K
------------------

http://www.baywindows.com/news/2004/01/15/Opinion/Guest.Opinionthis.Loser.Has.Had.Enough-581377.shtml
The candidate who has the best chance of beating George Bush and of mitigating a potential electoral disaster is General Wesley Clark. A Rhodes scholar, first in his class at West Point, an economist and successful military administrator - not one American or NATO soldier was killed during the Kosovo campaign - Clark appeals to the broadest base of support drawing votes from Independents and Republicans and from men equally well as from women, from Southerners as well as Northerners and Westerners. In every head-to-head poll, Clark fares best against Bush. In the most recent CNN poll, Bush beats Dean by 20 points! The same poll shows only a six point spread between Bush and Clark.

Clark neutralizes critical issues where Democrats have often been vulnerable - but not culpable - such as defense and national security. Since Vietnam the Democratic party has often been deeply ambivalent about the military. We must restore credibility on this issue to be competitive. The Republicans have been very successful impugning the patriotism of Democratic candidates. Think McGovern, Dukakis and the bearded Bill Clinton. But even the machiavellian Mr. Rove will have a very hard time turning a four-times wounded winner of the Silver Star into a weenie. As one who has seen real combat, unlike George Bush, General Clark believes that force should only be used as a last resort. A real-life hero and intellect, Wesley Clark is Karl Rove's worst nightmare.
http://www.easttennessean.com/news/2004/02/09/News/Clark.Touts.Nato.Experience.Status.As.washington.Outsider-600837.shtml

http://www.democraticunderground.com/articles/03/12/10_clark.html
Why Wesley Clark?
December 10, 2003
By Mickey Isikoff

http://www.dailygusto.com/news/july/wesley-clark-072803.html
Wesley Clark is
Karl Rove's
worst nightmare

http://www.comedyzine.com/tirade341.html
George W. Bush's worst nightmare is General Wesley Clark as the Democratic presidential nominee. He knows it, the Republican Party knows it, the Democratic Party knows it and Bob Dole knows it.

http://talkleft.com/new_archives/003782.html
Hope is a powerful force.
Clark is Karl Rove's worst nightmare.

http://www.tompaine.com/feature2.cfm/ID/8904
But most Democrats will, no doubt, quickly realize that he has one thing going for him that none of the other candidates have -- he's George Bush's worst nightmare.

LYONS: Going all the way back to the summer of 2002, I got a sense of how strong his feelings about Iraq were. Long before it was clear that the administration was really going to sell a war on Iraq, when it was just a kind of a Republican talking point, early in the summer of 2002, Wesley Clark was very strongly opposed to it. He thought it was definitely the wrong move. He conveyed that we'd be opening a Pandora's box that we might never get closed again. And he expressed that feeling to me, in a sort of quasi-public way. It was a Fourth of July party and a lot of journalists were there, and there were people listening to a small group of us talk. There wasn't an audience, there were just several people around. There was no criticism I could make that he didn't sort of see me and raise me in poker terms. Probably because he knew a lot more about it than I did. And his experience is vast, and his concerns were deep.

He was right, too. How long ago was it that you were hearing all this sweeping rhetoric from the Project for a New American Century; that we were going to essentially conquer the south of Asia, contain China, and dominate the Middle East? And the United States was going to stand astride the world like a colossus. And all of a sudden, we invade a crummy, tin-pot, little third-rate dictatorship like Iraq, and we've already got more than we can handle. It's clear we're not going to dominate the world. And the question is, how in the world do we get out of there with our skins intact? And how do we then find a foreign policy that makes more sense?

BUZZFLASH: You're probably one of the most well-informed journalists on how attack politics play themselves out with a culpable media, based on your extensive research and writing on the Clintons. How do you think the right wing is going to go after Clark? What can he expect? What advice would you give Clark and the people who are working for him?

LYONS: Well, the outlines of it are already evident. They're saying he's too tightly wrapped, which is kind of akin to what they tried to do with John McCain. They're saying he's a zealot and tends to become unhinged. They're suggesting he's crazed with ambition.

I wrote in a column a couple of weeks ago that one of their lines of attack would be to portray him as sort of General Jack D. Ripper, who was the megalomaniacal general in Dr. Strangelove who was so concerned with his precious bodily fluids. And that's what I think they will try to do. They might go all the way to the edge of suggesting some kind of mental illness. I don't think he's very vulnerable to that sort of smear.

BUZZFLASH: If Wesley Clark gets the nomination, it upsets the Republican Southern strategy. Give our readers a little bit of context and history to what the Southern strategy is, and how Clark affects the geo-political landscape and culture war.

But I think that as a person and as a symbol, Clark has the potential to take all that away from the right-wing. I might add that I also think that there are an awful lot of genuine conservatives, in the classical sense, who are uneasy about where Bush is going. The conquer-the-world schemes, the giant sinkhole of the federal budget. Some of the best writing about Iraq has come from conservative or libertarian columnists like Steve Chapman of the Chicago Tribune or James Pinkerton of Newsday. Now this is sad, but those conservatives aren't going to listen to Carol Mosley Braun make the same criticism as that coming from Wesley Clark, who is a Southerner and a decorated military man. I think it's sad but true. Again, I think it's a battle of symbols.

I think that in practical terms Clark puts several Southern states back in play. Right now, Bush would be very hard-put to win any of the states that Gore won in the last election. So if you can take away from Bush, or at least strongly compete in Arkansas, West Virginia, Kentucky, possibly Georgia, Florida, with all of its military people, you all of a sudden take from Bush this air of invincibility and fundamentally change the electoral map. When you look at it like that you have to ask, how in the world is Bush going to win this election? Where are his electoral votes going to come from?

I think that Wesley Clark offers a tremendous opportunity for people to think clearly about foreign policy and re-think how important all kinds of symbolic and "lifestyle issues" are to them -- whether it doesn't make more sense to put some of those things in your back pocket for a time and work on them later after you've dealt with the big threat, which is a guy who is bankrupting the nation and getting us involved in foreign entanglements -- to use Gen. George Washington's words -- of a kind we're not likely to get out of very easily.

Let's just look at the situation like this: How much of a partisan do you have to be to look at George W. Bush and Wesley Clark standing side by side and say to yourself, "I'd pick George W. Bush to lead this country." How partisan do you have to be to decide that Bush is more qualified in a national emergency -- a guy who can scarcely speak in complete sentences -- to handle a crisis over a decorated war hero, a Rhodes Scholar, a retired four star general, and the former Supreme Commander of NATO?
http://www.buzzflash.com/interviews/03/10/int03221.html

[draft_mario_cuomo]

64. Two top Bush 04' officials are on the record saying that yet you continue to ignore that fact

You seem impervious to any facts that do not mesh with your fantasies.

==and Clark was smeared and ignored for most of his run. ==

Yeah, he only got a frontpage USA Today article when he entered the race. He magically went from not running to 1st place in the polls overnight without no press help. :sarcasm: The reality is he entered the race with great fanfare, hype, and media coverage and simply blew it 1) Because he was a political rookie. The first day of his campaign he said he would have voted for the IWR, undercutting a key rationale for his candidacy, then he reversed himself the next day. 2) He was hammered by his rivals as being a phony opportunist since he was not even a Democrat until 2003 and keynoted a Republican fund-raiser in 2001 where he praised Bush, Rumsfeld and co. as well as Reagan 3) He skipped Iowa.

[FrenchieCat]

67. So why don't you post what progressives were saying about who was who's

worst nightmare.

I'd rather hear something from them, then from some GOP operatives.

In terms of Clark and the primary 04 race, he didn't win, and I can live with that. However, you are attempting to rewrite Edwards reputation by making him someone feared by the right, and I don't buy it.

Sorry.

I'm logging off now.

Think I've spend more than enough time with you today.

[draft_mario_cuomo]

71. Simple: They weren't at the Bush-Cheney 2004 meetings

What is so hard to grasp about that? Dowd and Wallace were there. They heard what was said as to who they and others, like Rove, in the campaign feared the most. You, presumably, were not there. Neither were the people you linked to. After the election was over and Dowd spoke at an election post-mortem he revealed this.

==Think I've spend more than enough time with you today.==

Thank you your majesty. :eyes: When you return I don't expect you to defend the absurd notion of a random individual expressing his opinion as to who Bush, Rove, and co. feared the most carries as much weight as the people who were actually at the Bush-Cheney campaign meetings and helped shape the Bush-Cheney 04' strategy.

[karynnj]

85. Think hard - in November 2004

If this were believed - though why anyone beleives serial liars is beyond me - who is this favorable to and who could it hurt? They didn't know the dynamics - but there were already signals Kerry was considering another run. It had to be known Hillary Clinton would run and many people spoke of how Edwards would run. Why if they feared Edwards, would they promote him?

Also, Kerry nearly got the Presidency in a very stacked election. He had been very impressive in the debares and the SBVT were discredited. If he promised never to windsurf again, I'm not sure what they would have to use - may his habit of being right so often - that has to make others unhappy.

[draft_mario_cuomo]

35. The right-wing plotted this trick in 2004 when Dowd revealed this?

That is quite a stretch.

[Milo_Bloom]

31. By This logic the GOP is MOST afraid of Kucinich or Gravel

They NEVER talk about them at all.

What I find the funniest about this is the twisted logic... when the GOP machine attacks Edwards (Coulter and other right wing wackos) it is because they are SO AFRAID OF HIM that they need to attack him... when they don't attack him because he is, at best, an afterthough in the candidates, it is because they are SO AFRAID OF HIM that they don't want to call attention to him.

So which is it Edwards' Sheeple? You got suckered in by a candidate who changed his position on nearly every issue just to get your vote, why not get suckered in by the changing story of whether getting attacked is good or bad?

[venable]

77. read the letter. it is plain as day. Dowd explains the stategery.

fox attacks edwards (and the others, as well, though less Obama attacks than I would have expected. I'm sure they'll come)

rove attacks HRC. he KNOWS dems rally around those he attacks, so he does. HOW do we know this is what he does - because his own people say this is what he does.

why is a clear, documented statement that Rove feared Edwards (and still does) straight from Dowd's mouth, taken as some sort of Rod Serling moment for Trippi. Trippi is putting two points together that belong together, and are situated right friggin next to each other.



(but it elevates Edwards as the one they fear, so it must be fantasy....)

[Milo_Bloom]

104. LOL...

Yeah Rove is terrified of Edwards, the person who has flip-flopped the most of any candidate in, well, probably history.

It is amazing how easily people are fooled by him. Thank god he doesn't stand a chance in the general election.

[venable]

109. snarky pointless response, thanks...

you fail to acknowledge what is right in front of your face - they ADMIT it...and yet you think it's cool to just giggle.

I'm going over to the adult table. Ciao.

[Inuca]

87. Just wondering...

Assuming that Edwards agrees with what Trippi says in this message, a safe assumption, and that therefore he agrees that Kerry was indeed an easy to defeat candidate in 04, why on earth did he accept to join the guaranteed-to-lose ticket??? Makes no sense, and it is a self-serving and classless rewriting of history.

[The Count]

93. Nicely put.

[wisteria]

95. OH, good point! n/t

[Adelante]

108. Heh heh

Logic just doesn't apply.

[The Count]

101. Again, let's see who the Bushies voted for in 2004 primaries

GOP turnout heavy in Wis. Democratic vote

Edwards gets strong support among late deciders
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4297574/
The Associated Press
Updated: 10:26 p.m. ET Feb. 17, 2004

An unusually heavy Republican turnout and a late surge in support from
independents helped Sen. John Edwards battle Sen. John Kerry to a close
finish in Wisconsin's Democratic primary, an Associated Press exit poll
found.

advertisementIn an open primary on a day with general elections for
races including one for mayor in Milwaukee and a casino gambling
referendum in Madison, one in 10 voters in the primary described
themselves as Republicans — and Edwards won as many Republican votes as
did Kerry and former Vermont Gov. Howard Dean combined. The Republican
turnout was the biggest of any Democratic primary so far this year.
and numbers:

http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2004/primaries/pages/epolls/WI/index.html


Voters who are satisfied with the Bush Administration:
52% Edwards, 23% Kerry

Voters who are enthusiastic about * Administration:
33% Edwards, 10% Kerry

Conservatives voted Edwards, pro-Iraq voted Edwards

Those who are looking to beat Bush:
28% Edwards, 59% Kerry.

Wingnut radio was asking voters to do the same in Georgia.
and see the results here:
http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2004/primaries/pages/epolls/GA/index.html

Opinion of Bush Administration - Edwards is the one with 69 enthusiastic

Opinion of Bush Administration
Angry (32%) 2% 35% 55% 2% 6%
Dissatisfied (43%) 1% 36% 56% 0% 5%
Satisfied (13%) 2% 64% 22% 1% 5%
Enthusiastic (8%) 4% 69% 8% 2% 11%

Too bad, North Carolina is no longer posted...I suggest you tell trippi to get back to : "give money, because Coulter says bad things about him (why wasn't she let in the strategery, BTW?)

[calteacherguy]

105. Thanks Trippi, for reminding me what an inept campaign manager you are. nt

[venable]

110. thanks for reminding me, Calteacherguy, how much you dislike Edwards

and take every chance to embody that dislike.

[tom_paine]

106. Wow. What a coincidence. That was the EXACT SAME RATIONALE for the 2004

October Surprise (really almost a November Surprise, so blatant a manipulation was it).

Almost as if the SAME PEOPLE were nehind the Bush-Bin Laden Campaign Video (in which, by the same rationale, Bin Laden "endorses": the Democrats he actually wishes to lose in the end)

And the "American al-Qaeda" video, which served to panic millions of soccer moms (I saw, it was tangible and a powerful maniuplation, Hitlerian, by the Bushies) and no doubt gave them the wider margin of error, as well it is likely their Vote Stealing Operation was much larger, too, to avoid any threat of a 2000 exposing them again - not that it mattered.

Yes, the EXACT SAME RATIONALE uttered by Rove was used by "Bin Laden".

What a coinkydink!

[Adelante]

107. What a bunch of horse shit

By the end of January 2004 Kerry had won Iowa and New Hampshire. He didn't have to run against his Democratic opponents within a few weeks he was that much ahead. Democrats were rallying around John Kerry. THAT's why they attacked him. He was running against George W. Bush. THAT's why they attacked him.

If I really believed Joe Trippi was falling for Rove's mind games, I might worry about him, but he knows how this all works. He's desperately spinning for his candidate and that's his job. That DUers can't see through this bullshit 2004 revisionism is what's disappointing to me.

That the Edwards campaign will try to make money off Rovian attacks on a Democratic candidate is no surprise, however. It's actually pretty funny. Ann Coulter called me a faggot: Give me money! Rove sez Clinton has high negatives: Give me money!

Oy.