John Edwards on Situation Room (12/06/07)

[MalloyLiberal]

Run time: 05:36 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gsm1Svk6cLc   Posted on YouTube: December 07, 2007 By YouTube Member: Views on YouTube: 0   Posted on DU: December 07, 2007 By DU Member: MalloyLiberal Views on DU: 1088

 

[waiting for hope]

1. Video no longer available?

[MalloyLiberal]

3. Still there..it's on NCDem's youtube page. Just taking a long time

[ultraist]

6. YouTube is slow tonight

If it takes too long to load here, one can go directly to the YouTube page and watch it: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gsm1Svk6cLc

Thanks for posting this! Great interview, although I believe Wolf Blitzer slightly misquoted Elizabeth. She said something about how it will be difficult for any candidate not to win Iowa. I don't think she said exactly what Wolf claims, but whatever. Edwards was amused. lol! He just adores Elizabeth, which I find very endearing.

Edwards is such a good family man.

[benny05]

2. They are seeing him as he is

Passionate, strong, but someone with positive character.

[waiting for hope]

5. Did you catch Blitzer trying to bait him?

JRE is a class act!

[balantz]

4. John's great!!

He'll make a great President!

[creeksneakers2]

7. That's the second time Edwards tried to pull this stunt.

He says he's done with the negative attacks but then uses the negative attacks again. Then Edwards made some phony claims about positive being just the way teddy bear Edwards is. Last week he was all about fighting.

Edwards has a reputation as a mudslinger and its hurting him. What's more, Edwards' strategy of attacking Clinton hurt Clinton, but it helped Obama and didn't help Edwards at all. That leaves Edwards stuck without a positive or negative strategy to deal with Obama. Edwards can never live down the reputation he has for mudslinging. So now Edwards is trying to fool people into thinking he's something he's not, a positive candidate.

Without the Hillary bashing, the media have no reason to be interested in Edwards at all. They used him up.

Edwards' attacks on Hillary for Kyl-Lieberman turned out to be bogus. There's no chance in the world now that Bush would use Kyl-Lieberman as an excuse to attack Iraq. There never was a chance in the first place.

[MalloyLiberal]

8. Suck it

[JDPriestly]

9. Disagreeing with another candidate on the issues is not a negative attack.

Edwards is doing all he can to be positive and avoid the negative attacks. Wolf Blitzer tried to lure him into being negative, and Edwards refused to go that route. What in the world are you talking about?

[creeksneakers2]

10. Bringing up Kyl-Lieberman

Mixing it with Bush and Cheney's march to war and putting Hillary's name on it. Blitzer just asked him about the effect of the NIE on the Democratic race. Edwards says he's trying to be positive but Edwards brought up Kyl-Lieberman in on his own.

I agree Kyl-Lieberman is an issue and not a personal attack but Edwards distorts what Kyl-Lieberman did or could have done. There was nothing in it that permitted an attack on Iran. Bush never used it that way. With the NIE, its certain Bush won't ever use Kyl-Lieberman to attack Iran. Edwards was wrong about that, but he still says it.

Then Edwards ran the stuff about standing up to Bush and Cheney. Hillary does that too. She's made if very clear to them they are not permitted to attack Iran.

Edwards can only bash Hillary on the theory that since Bush and Cheney push propaganda against Iran that no Democrat is allowed to say that Iran does anything wrong under that theory that would be helping Bush. That's kind of like before the war when Bush said nobody could question the evil of Iraq because that would encourage Iraq. Its best to go after what the truth is, regardless of what some tyrant might try to make of it.

[GMFORD]

11. Wrong!

Blitzer pressed him and he said 'I disagree with her vote' period. That is not an attack, it's an opinion. You would have him say he agrees with her vote if he doesn't? Or would you just find some other point to attack him for?

[creeksneakers2]

12. Edwards brought it up.

And Edwards twisted the whole farce into standing up to Bush and Cheney, as if Hillary doesn't stand up to Bush and Cheney.

I'll stop attacking Edwards when he stops spreading garbage like that Kyl-Lieberman had anything to do with invading Iran.

[JDPriestly]

13. You are drawing all kinds of conclusions with no evidence to

back them up. You have an irrational need to defend Hillary. She should not have voted for Kyle-Lieberman. The whole bill was a waste of time. Congress did not need to weigh in on that at all. It was saber-rattling, and Congress should be focusing on getting out of Iraq, not saber-rattling against yet another country. If she had to vote, she should have voted no.

[Evergreen Emerald]

14. Fact check: "saber rattling" He is forgetting to talk about HIS OWN WORDS

Fact Check: Sen. Edwards on Iran’s Nuclear Threat

In January 2007, Sen. Edwards emphasized the nuclear threat by Iran speaking to a conference in Israel:
Speaking by satellite to a conference in Israel, Edwards said stopping Iran from developing nuclear weapons 'is the greatest challenge of our generation.' 'All options are on the table to ensure that Iran will never get a nuclear weapon,' Edwards told the seventh annual Herzliya Conference on Monday, according to The Jerusalem Post.