President (To Win Colorado) See Full Big Line

(D) Joe Biden*

(R) Donald Trump

80%

20%

CO-01 (Denver) See Full Big Line

(D) Diana DeGette*

(R) V. Archuleta

98%

2%

CO-02 (Boulder-ish) See Full Big Line

(D) Joe Neguse*

(R) Marshall Dawson

95%

5%

CO-03 (West & Southern CO) See Full Big Line

(D) Adam Frisch

(R) Jeff Hurd

50%

50%

CO-04 (Northeast-ish Colorado) See Full Big Line

(R) Lauren Boebert

(D) Trisha Calvarese

90%

10%

CO-05 (Colorado Springs) See Full Big Line

(R) Jeff Crank

(D) River Gassen

80%

20%

CO-06 (Aurora) See Full Big Line

(D) Jason Crow*

(R) John Fabbricatore

90%

10%

CO-07 (Jefferson County) See Full Big Line

(D) B. Pettersen

(R) Sergei Matveyuk

90%

10%

CO-08 (Northern Colo.) See Full Big Line

(D) Yadira Caraveo

(R) Gabe Evans

70%

30%

State Senate Majority See Full Big Line

DEMOCRATS

REPUBLICANS

80%

20%

State House Majority See Full Big Line

DEMOCRATS

REPUBLICANS

95%

5%

Generic selectors
Exact matches only
Search in title
Search in content
Post Type Selectors
October 29, 2007 03:23 AM UTC

On Edwards, Why Kos is wrong and why Clinton won't win

  • 20 Comments
  • by: wade norris

Recently,on October 14th, I had the opportunity to meet and interview John Edwards and get to see him speak to a small audience in North Carolina. Some of the notable points of the evening were the following.
First, the Lieberman Kyl bill had just been voted on by the Senate, and Edwards was already going on the offensive on Clinton’s vote in support of that bill.
At that point, there had been no threats or sanctions by Bush or Cheney, yet Edwards was already ahead of the curve on the danger of supporting this bill. Now Iowa voters are catching on, and are even booing Clinton at Iowa rallies for this vote.

At issue: Clinton’s vote in support of a recent Senate amendment. And this time Edwards’ criticism stirred some clear anti-Clinton sentiment.
The amendment-sponsored by Sens. Joe Lieberman, I-Connecticut, and Jon Kyl, R-Arizona-calls for labeling the Iranian Revolutionary Guard a terrorist organization. The former North Carolina senator first commended senators Joe Biden, D-Delaware, and Chris Dodd, D-Connecticut, for voting against it, but he then added, “Sen. Clinton voted ‘yes.'”
That statement was followed by an immediate round of booing.
Edwards claims the amendment would “pave the way for Bush to continue to march forward on Iran.”
“I didn’t understand it,” Edwards said. “And then I saw a story in the New York Times [that] quoted some of her supporters explaining why she did it, and the explanation was-I want to get this right-that she was moving from primary mode to general election mode.”
A New York Times article from October 14 claimed Clinton’s backers have said privately that she is now switching to general election mode, which would imply she’s running as the presumptive nominee.

That prompted one supporter to shout, “Like hell!”

It seems like people in Iowa, like the people I saw this weekend at the War protest, are not comfortable with someone who is going to vote for more war. And whether it was Senator Clinton’s intention to embolden Bush to push for more aggressive actions towards Iran or not, DOES NOT MATTER. What matters is that she is voting with the neo cons for pro war bills when she should be joining Dodd on the FISA fillibuster, or HOW ABOUT INTRODUCING BILLS TO END THE WAR? It doesn’t matter if they will get the 60 votes or not, it will at least get the focus off of Bills to censure Pete Stark and Move On and away from Bills like Lieberman Kyl.
At a political meeting, this week I had a former Republican who still in touch with his old friends tell me that one of his associates had been approached about BEING SELECTED FOR THE NEW DRAFT BOARD.

At the war protests, I actually had Ron Paul activists tell me that Ron Paul is the true anti-war candidate, because Clinton is supporting Bush.
That is right, Clinton’s vote is being interpreted as the Democratic agenda, because she is the ‘frontrunner.’ I say no thank you to that.

As for why Kos is wrong, when Edwards took public financing, Kos said it was ‘dangerous’ to support Edwards, because he wouldn’t have the money that other candidates (like Clinton) would have.
All along, I have maintained, as others have from our collective experience with the Kerry-Edwards campaign, you can have all the money in the world, but if you don’t have ideas and leadership, you won’t win.

QuestionFor the bloggers out there, some people have said taking public finance is a bad thing, what do you have to say about public finance?

A – It is very hard to say you are for public finance and then reject it. It is a matter of principle. I have plenty of money to run my campaign. I think we need to have an election not an auction.
Who raises the most money does not make the best president.

part 1


I think what makes a good president is having the ideas and the capacity to lead.

That is what made the most sense to me. What matters more – Hillary Clinton’s money or her decision to support Lieberman Kyl and emboldened the neocons?
I don’t care if every poll in the nation says Hillary is going to be the president, votes like that and her dismissive attitude to us, the actual democratic voters… is what should matter to us more.

Rolph was surrounded by reporters and said he felt the need to stand his ground when Clinton challenged him: “She tried to … accuse me of using someone else’s words and being stupid. And that offended me. I felt the need to defend myself in view of that kind of comment.”

(It is interesting to note, that John did not know I was interviewing him at first, and if you watch, as he approaches me, he is just a genuinely concerned person and that does not change even after he knows he is on camera.)

More from Edwards on the folly of aligning with the Neo-cons:

I believe this war in Iraq needs to be brought to an end, that means an end to combat missions in Iraq. Senator Clinton believes we should continue combat missions in Iraq.
Her explanation for this is that there terrorists are operating in Iraq. That sounds strangely familiar to me. We have a president who says the same thing.

This is an argument between more war and less war. I want the argument  (in the debates against the republican in the general) to war versus no war.

On Lieberman Kyl:

You can guess who wants the Iranian Guard designated a terrorist organization? George Bush.
Biden and Dodd, to their credit, voted no. I was strongly opposed to it.
How long does it take us to learn our lesson about George Bush?
You give this guy an inch, he will take a mile.
Senator Clinton voted Yes,
What I am worried about – so in 6 months when George Bush invades Iran, are going to hear (her say)
“if I only knew then what I know now.”


On changing the world for the better and to build goodwill:

Instead of 500 billion in Iraq, we could give primary education to 100 million children in the world who don’t have any education at all, in Africa, Latin America, the Muslim world, all for 3 billion a year.
If we just promoted sanitation and clean drinking water, things we all take for granted – I have seen firsthand from the work I have done in Africa, how much difference that would make in stopping the spread of disease.
Today, there is an entire generation all around the world sitting on the fence. On one side, there is Bin Laden, Al Qaida, Islamic Jihad, Hezbollah, and on the other side is America. Which way do they go?
That depends on us.

On Bush and Cheney:

I listen to George Bush – about as little as I can get away with, but here is what I hear…
Stay home, watch television, go shopping.
me and Dick Cheney, we’ll take care of ya’
I don’t want that crowd taking care of me!
I don’t trust em’, that is not America!
We are not a country that cowers in the corner waiting for someone to watch over us. We are strong, we are courageous, we are out there pushing the envelope.
And by the way, when I’m the president of the United States of America, DISSENT WILL ONCE AGAIN BE PATRIOTIC!

Now that sounds like leadership to me. Someone who tells it like it is, whether he is talking to you as an individual, a small crowd, or in front of a national audience.
Not someone showing you one side in person, but really thinking of triangulating to appeal to some neo-con ideology.
We can not afford to pass up this chance to make our candidate answer to we the people.
I for one, have not worked this hard in spite of this administration, just to have a DINO take me and our votes for granted.
That is why I am voting for someone who listens to US! John Edwards for President.

Comments

20 thoughts on “On Edwards, Why Kos is wrong and why Clinton won’t win

          1. You made up a statement about the story being debunked, which is false.You don’t get to just fling some BS out there and then tell me to move along when I ask you about it.

            I will tell you that I’d rather have K-Fed as President before  Edwards.  His faux-populism is terribly insulting, he has no grasp of foreign policy, and his latest “New New Deal” idea would destroy this country’s economy.

            People like John Edwards are the reason your healthcare is so ridiculously high. 

            1. http://www.nytimes.c

              Eric Schultz, an Edwards spokesman, would say only: “This is silly; we love all reporters. The problem is the feeling isn’t always mutual.”

              your quote
              “his latest “New New Deal” idea would destroy this country’s economy.”

              Oh right, with mortgage foreclosures just as bad as they were during the great depression, I suppose you think the country is doing just fine.

              And by the way, K-fed beats all R candidates.
              I put my candidate on the line, but you won’t.
              Brave.

                1. But Rotten Rudy? He was responsible for many of the needless firefighter deaths at 9-11 because he did not update the radios as recommended after the 1993 WTC bombing.
                  http://www.huffingto
                  New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani now faces a looming government investigation into his handling of the radios used by firefighters on 9/11.

                  The investigation, which will examine how the FDNY ended up using faulty equipment during the terrorist attacks and why Giuliani gave a no-bid contract to Motorola for that equipment, has been endorsed by New York City Councilman Eric Gioia, chair of the city’s oversight and investigations committee.

                  “I will do everything in my power to get answers, to get the truth,” said Gioia, a Democrat. “These families deserve answers and really the entire city and our country deserve answers.”

                  Calls for an investigation were first proposed by filmmaker Robert Greenwald who has documented Giuliani’s handling of 9/11 in a series of shorts for Brave New Films. In The Real Rudy: Radios, Greenwald documents how radios used by the FDNY on 9/11 were the same ones that malfunctioned during the 1993 attack on the Twin Towers. When – eight years later – Giuliani finally purchased new communications equipment for $14 million from Motorola, it was never field-tested. A week later, the equipment was recalled after a firefighter’s mayday went un-heard. Giuliani reissued the old batch of radios. And on 9/11 when a police helicopter warned that the North Tower could collapse, more than 120 firefighters remained inside.

                  “To know that we had failing radios in 1993 and did virtually nothing until September 11 is shocking to say the least,” said Gioia. “To watch this documentary and see the important questions that were asked and seemingly unanswered and ignored for so many years, it’s disturbing.”

                  More than 20,000 people signed a petition demanding an investigation into Giuliani’s handling of the FDNY radios. In an interview posted on YouTube, Gioia confirmed that he will take the steps to initiate public hearings, including sending out letters to fellow council members and requesting pertinent documents. Greenwald praised the initial steps forward.

                  His law firm is representing the Trans Texas Corridor, which is poised to become the NAFTA superhighway.
                  http://www.worldnetd
                  Questions are being raised over Republican presidential candidate Rudy Giuliani’s policy on terrorism, after a report revealed he has strong ties to two foreign investment consortia working to own or lease U.S. toll roads, including the Trans-Texas Corridor 35, which is identified as part of the I-35 “NAFTA Superhighway.”

                  Although he opposed NAFTA in 1993, Giuliani recently declined to call for building a fence on the United States border with Mexico, and he has supported a guest-worker program.

                  Columnist Michelle Malkin also has documented that while mayor of New York City, Giuliani kept the municipality a sanctuary city for illegal aliens, adhering to a policy first established by Mayor Ed Koch in 1989.

                  Now comes a new report about Giuliani’s involvement with public-private-partnership projects that include NAFTA Superhighway funding and his open borders record on immigration questions, all of which could undermine his otherwise tough policy on terrorism that has resulted from the 9/11 role Giuliani played in managing New York City’s response to the attacks on the World Trade Center.

                  And for conservatives, he is on record supporting federal money for abortions.

                  Not to mention he married his 2 gay roommates. Now, I have no problem with him doing this, but I do have a problem with him trying to act like he is not lying about these things now.

                  1. Sorry, but that’s Monday morning quarterbacking of the worst kind.  I think the only reason you care is not because you feel for the people killed in the attack, but because it’s an opportunity to try to make an R look bad.  Ick.

                    Denver still has big radio deadspots because neighbors won’t allow new towers or upgrades to old ones. Who are you going to blame for that one if (God forbid) something horrible happens here?

                    Rudy is a leader, and a smart man who can communicate well.  And he’s not John Edwards or Hillary Clinton. 

              1. From your own article:

                Ms. Babb’s professor, C. A. Tuggle, said in an interview that after the report first appeared on YouTube on Tuesday night he received calls of complaint from a deputy in Mr. Edwards’s national press office, and, then, his communications director.

                Mr. Tuggle said the aides told him they felt “blind-sided by the way the reporter presented the piece in the pitch,” adding unapologetically, “The focus of stories change all of the time.”

                “We told them we were not interested in taking it down or holding it from broadcast on our show on Monday,” Mr. Tuggle said, adding that the campaign responded by telling him that, “campus media would have real trouble getting any sort of access to the Edwards campaign, and so might other parts of the university.”

      1. Guarantee that Edwards would win the nomination, I’ll give him money. 

        He’d get destroyed ala Mondale in a general, so I’d love to see him beat Hillary, but you can’t really be serious if you think he’s got a chance to beat her…

        1. because people like Hillary Clinton are voting for the lieberman Kyl bill, which has given Bush the keys to start the engine to another War – Iran.
          I can guarantee a lot of people are dropping out of the Hillary camp after her awful double talking during the debate tuesday.
          The republicans are going to have a real opponent, no matter how much they try to prop up Hillary. And poll after poll shows Edwards is the strongest candidate versus ALL republican contenders, and beats Giuliani in the south!

          Vs Romney
          Recap: Clinton leads by 8.33%, Obama leads by 7.33%, Edwards leads by 13.66%

          Edwards leads Thompson by an average of 10.75%

          Recap: Clinton leads by 6.50%, Obama leads by 7.00%, Edwards leads by 10.75%

          Edwards leads Giuliani by an average of 3.50%

          Recap: Clinton trails by .16%, Obama leads by 2.83%, Edwards leads by 3.50%

          Edwards leads McCain by an average of 3.66%

          Recap: Clinton leads by 1.00%, Obama leads by 1.00%, Edwards leads by 3.66%

          Clinton leads the Republicans by an average of 3.99%
          Obama leads the Republicans by an average of 4.54%
          Edwards leads the Republicans by an average of 7.89%

          From Time on Hillary
          Hillary Clinton
          Grade: C-

          Fell off the tough-shrill balance beam onto the “shrill” side – with a THUD. More defensive than usual, and at times too political and too hot tempered. Borderline disastrous moment at the end when she gave an equivocal answer about drivers licenses for illegal immigrants in New York; it opened the door for her opponents to pounce by turning it into a character issue – and pounce they did. The failure of her performance was cumulative, however, so only those watching the whole debate would see how weak her evening was. If she loses the nomination, tonight will go down in history as the first step to her defeat – no fatal “Dean Scream” catastrophe, but far from her finest moment, to say the least.
          -by Mark Halperin

          And Edwards?
          Grade A
          Impressively he remained above the Clinton-Obama fray (no “look at me” antics) but swept in to best them while the media waited for the pair to duke it out. Calm and cool, he went after Clinton on (let’s face it) character, and only occasionally seemed to be trying too hard. Hit both his Democratic and Republican targets with acute precision and impact. Appeared tough enough to perform well in a general election, with the kind of articulate passion he formerly demonstrated in the courtroom. Came across as presidential, optimistic and patriotic – essential for a winner.

          -by Mark Halperin

          http://www.time.com/

          1. ..but Edwards would be lucky to win more than three or four states in a general.  The only reason he ran in 2004 was because he was going to lose his Senate seat.

            1. From Fox news no less…
              “In the senate race, the Republicans gained the seat formerly held by John Edwards (search). If Edwards had run for reelection against Republican Richard Burr (search), it appears Edwards would have held on to his seat by a 53 percent – 47 percent margin. Seven percent of those voters that would have voted for Edwards voted for Burr.”

              http://www.foxnews.c

              1. Exit polls from a real election asking about a hypothetical one?

                You know, between lying your ass off about Edwards campaign threatening loss of access to a student paper and pulling stuff like this out of your rear end, you’re maybe not Edwards’ best representative.

                On the other hand, maybe you are…

  1. It reminds everyone of her squishy bush light policies.  She is mouthing the same bullshit on Iran that got us into Iraq. 

    I support Obama, but I like Edwards alot.  I don’t think Hillary is annoited and I don’t think Edwards is done. The money is an issue because of the compressed schedule, but I wouldn’t count him out. 

Leave a Comment

Recent Comments


Posts about

Donald Trump
SEE MORE

Posts about

Rep. Lauren Boebert
SEE MORE

Posts about

Rep. Yadira Caraveo
SEE MORE

Posts about

Colorado House
SEE MORE

Posts about

Colorado Senate
SEE MORE

42 readers online now

Newsletter

Subscribe to our monthly newsletter to stay in the loop with regular updates!