MyDD :: Dear John ( Open Letter To Senator John Edwards )

Dear John ( Open Letter To Senator John Edwards )

by ObamaEdwards2008, Mon Jun 18, 2007 at 05:02:44 PM EST

Cross Posted From DNCPB

John Edwards,

I would like to share a link with you that quotes some statements you made in Iowa. I would like for you to first, verify, whether or not you made these comments as I know how easily the MSM can misquote a Democratic Candidate. Next, if you did make these comments, I am asking you to clarify what you meant by them and either confirm or deny that you meant them exactly as they were perceived by the commenter's who responded to the story. I look forward to some type of statement. I do not believe that you will remain silent in responding because , as you have stated before, "silence is betrayal". So, please take a look at the link. I will refrain from adding my two cents untill after YOU, not Tracy, not Mudcat, not your supporters, but YOU clarify these comments.

Thank you,

D.Roberts

http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2 007/06/18/228682.aspx?CommentPosted=true #commentmessage

Poll

Votes: 18
Results : Vote Link : Polls

Tags: Edwards, Obama, Clinton, Racism, Sexism (all tags)

Permalink :: 35 Comments :: Post a Comment

Yes (1.50 / 2)

He should clarify this immediately.

"I don't oppose all wars...what I do oppose, is a dumb war" ~ Barack Obama

by BlueDiamond on Mon Jun 18, 2007 at 05:05:50 PM EST

Indeed :ObamaEdwards08 (D-Punjab) (none / 0)

Edwards is a racist mysogynistic cracker. Just say it instead oof being a coward.

by Rt hon McAdder esq KBE on Tue Jun 19, 2007 at 02:58:08 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Dear John ( Open Letter To Senator John Edward (3.00 / 2)

No. I don't think that his comments were sexist or racist. I think different parts of his comments were quite possibly targeted at different individuals. I think his comment about down ticket races was targeted at Clinton. She is a divisive candidate and would have to be used very sparingly and strategically if trying to help swing candidates.

I think he also probably believes that Obama would not be a strong candidate in the general election. He probably is not basing that on the fact that Obama is black. I guess maybe I approach this from a different position, I generally try to assume the best of our candidates.

by Obama08 on Mon Jun 18, 2007 at 05:23:05 PM EST

Pretty Obvious (none / 0)

the netroots has been making the argument for a long time that Hillary is a drain on the ticket.

HIllary was not allowed to campaign for Webb in public in Virginia.

This comment ATTRIBUTED to Edwards clearly applies to Clinton.

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2007/6 /18/133711/536

McCain - a serial Opportunist, from marriage to policy positions

by TarHeel on Mon Jun 18, 2007 at 05:23:11 PM EST

What's the beef? (3.00 / 1)

Your link doesn't seem to lead to a letter. It does bring up a short article on Edwards saying that part what you should consider in chosing a nominee is who is most likely to win the general and who can do the most for down-ticket candidates in tough states and districts and who might be asked to not campaign with them as it would hurt their chances in their state or district. Is that what you're upset about? There's nothing wrong with that. Many candidates last year told Hillary not to come anywhere near their campaigns. Webb wouldn't let her campaign with him though she badly wanted to. I'm sure there's many other candidates that wouldn't want to have to deal with Hillary at the top of the ticket or campaigning in their state or district with them. Edwards has the widest appeal.

by Quinton on Mon Jun 18, 2007 at 05:26:09 PM EST

Re: What's the beef? (none / 0)

SCROLL UP!

"I don't believe in this can't do, won't do, won't even try style of politics. Yes We Can!" ~ Barack Obama

by ObamaEdwards2008 on Mon Jun 18, 2007 at 05:32:25 PM EST
[ Parent ]

He is talking about Hillary Clinton... (3.00 / 1)

and he should be "big enough" to state the name. Especially when talking about going to swing districts, states, because Obama was the senator most requested. Clinton was declined by everyone running in a tough swing district, state. You did not see her with Clair McCaskill in Missouri, did you? A reason, Missouri is a swing state. But Obama was there campaigning, several times.

This goes back to DKos and Markos wrote:

And finally, while Hillary should have as good a chance as any Democrat to win the White House, she'll kill us downticket in House and Senate races in the South, some parts of the Midwest, and the Mountain West. None of the other guys would necessarily help us in those races, but they wouldn't hurt either the way Hillary would. We're talking negative coattails here.

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2007/6/18/ 133711/536

So, if she wins the presidency, does she have coattails? I don't think so, not in those swing districts. Can we hold on? Or will be end up loosing the congress or SENATE? sigh...

"I want my voice to be read"

by icebergslim on Mon Jun 18, 2007 at 05:33:51 PM EST

Edwards Campaigned for McCaskill too (3.00 / 1)

both Obama and Edwards campaigned pretty much everywhere in 2006 for candidates.

Also, the way the media plays things is they get to go ask Obama and Hillary for comments on Edwards' comments in which case they will turn this around and say something negative about Edwards, in which case he will ask the the media the question you pose.

In 2006 in tought elections in 50/50 races who was asked to campaign at rallies? Who was quietly brought in to raise money.

McCain - a serial Opportunist, from marriage to policy positions

by TarHeel on Mon Jun 18, 2007 at 05:43:06 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: He is talking about Hillary Clinton... (none / 0)

Of course she will have coattails. Plenty. She will bring more women to the voting booth than any candidate in history, which is in many states the ballgame right there. With her husband campaigning for her in the states he had won she will probably win Ohio, Missouri, Florida, etc. Don't worry so much. No sleepless nights. The GE is not even close to being around the corner. Clinton is clearly the best liked candidate for DEMOCRATS. Worry about what Republicans do LATER, when the time comes to worry about it. And, worry about why your candidate can't seem to get Democrats excited enough about his candidacy in large enough numbers.

by georgep on Mon Jun 18, 2007 at 07:05:58 PM EST
[ Parent ]

since you love polls (none / 0)

43% of women independents say they will NEVER VOTE FOR HILLARY..

McCain - a serial Opportunist, from marriage to policy positions

by TarHeel on Mon Jun 18, 2007 at 07:28:28 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: He is talking about Hillary Clinton... (none / 0)

There you go getting nasty again, tisk, tisk. For someone asking questions about coattails, and valid ones, there are no answers. If she is the nominee, I hope she does bring them out, because she will need it. You have to be more than a woman to win. And what about the swing states, districts? Ones, that did not want her to campaign for them. I don't care about Republicans, they can kiss the CRACK, for real. But I do care about democrats, and we are still a party of mixed nuts.

"I want my voice to be read"

by icebergslim on Mon Jun 18, 2007 at 08:04:07 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: He is talking about Hillary Clinton... (none / 0)

I really would appreciate it if you would get off this track in the future. I don't see you telling other posters "There you go with nasty stuff again," so unless you do across the board with all posters, let it go.

From what I can see at this point, there will be a record women vote. Clinton will also bring in more hispanics than we are typically getting because of the leadership role she has taken in the Immigration battle. Also, blacks are going to be out in force, as no doubt Obama will have endorsed Clinton and asked all his supporters to vote for her, plus the Clinton's appeal in the AA group is very strong as it is.

If she is the nominee we will all TOGETHER win this race and make history in the process. All of us. Obama will endorse her and work for her. So will Edwards. This high-profile Democratic nomination campaign, which is in the media all the time, paves the way for an excellent general election season for us.

by georgep on Tue Jun 19, 2007 at 09:47:04 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Edwards ) (none / 0)

Maybe if Senator Obama (not David Axelrod, not David Gibbs, but Barack Obama) comes on here to explain his campaign's mini-macaca moment, then I would agree that John should himself come explain things to you.

But seeing as Obama is unlikely to take personal responsibility for anything his campaign does, prefering instead to throw his staff under the bus every time, I voted no.

The sharpest criticism often goes hand in hand with the deepest idealism and love of country. ~RFK

by Vox Populi on Mon Jun 18, 2007 at 06:05:09 PM EST

Re: Edwards ) (none / 0)

Obama has disowned his mini-maccaca moment. It is in the NY Times today.

Just on this subject, do you think it is appropriate for Obama to refrain from opposition research even though it puts him at a disadvantage in the campaign? I tend to agree it is, given the politics he is championing. But tell me, do you expect Hillary, among others, to do likewise? If he does refrain, irrespective of the disadvantages of this approach, does this make Obama a more or less attractive Democratic presidential nominee to you?

by Shaun Appleby on Mon Jun 18, 2007 at 07:28:21 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Edwards ) (none / 0)

All of this will come to light in the fall, when the polls tighten up. And they will in the early states.

"I want my voice to be read"

by icebergslim on Mon Jun 18, 2007 at 08:04:53 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Edwards ) (3.00 / 1)

Listen, I don't want him to refrain from Opposition research. That's silly. Unilateral disarmament.

But think of the things that have happened with his campaign.

1) Gibbs attacks Clinton using the Lincoln Bedroom frame. Obama says that's not his kind of politics. Gibbs keeps his job.

2) Obama fundraisers contact the spouses and networks of federal lobbyists to raise money as a way to skirt around the "no federal lobbyist" pledge he made. Obama says that's not his kind of politics. The fundraisers kept their job and kept raising money from the lobbyist networks.

3) The campaign releases a memo about Hillary Clinton (D-Punjab) that was critical of her ties to Indian-Americans. Obama says it was a big mistake, that's not his kind of politics. Staffers who released the document keep their jobs.

I want Barack Obama to start taking responsibility for his campaign's actions. He doesn't do that. It's always a wayward staffer but there are never consequences. You don't see the other campaigns blaming their staffers nearly as much as you do with Obama.

The sharpest criticism often goes hand in hand with the deepest idealism and love of country. ~RFK

by Vox Populi on Mon Jun 18, 2007 at 08:37:05 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Edwards ) (none / 0)

So from what you are saying you would prefer that Senator Obama conduct a more conventional campaign? One of the gotcha's of opposition research is the subterfuge associated with attribution. We expect this kind of thing from Hillary.

Frankly I would prefer to see Obama go to the wire with his stated approach, the least you could do, in the interest of a less covert campaign, is support this approach if you admire it in any way.

But you indicated that you feel this would be unilateral disarmament, a startling admission on the state of our political process.

I can see where Senator Obama is on the horns of a dilemna with this approach, and may even have difficulty in finding staffers willing or able to play by his new rules, or be constantly resisting what seems like sound political advice from his paid consultants.

Personally I admire his courage in making the attempt and if you judge him, as you have, by the incidents you mentioned perhaps you are failing to support a candidate with enormous potential through a difficult process that aligns many forces against him. I have never been comfortable agitating for the status quo, how 'bout you?

by Shaun Appleby on Mon Jun 18, 2007 at 08:51:15 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Edwards ) (none / 0)

I'm not saying he should be more conventional. If anything he's being too conventional. Opposition research should be released by the campaign, not without attribution. Doing it in public is a way to be unconventional.

I feel oppo research is important. I don't think it brings politics to the gutter. I think the way it's conducted can.

The sharpest criticism often goes hand in hand with the deepest idealism and love of country. ~RFK

by Vox Populi on Mon Jun 18, 2007 at 10:19:35 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Edwards ) (none / 0)

Frankly, Vox, it seems to me that the 'not for attribution' release is part of the whole opposition research tactic. It's kinda' like a nudge and "Hey, didja' see this...?" to the MSM with a chance to spin it a bit. Once the fact is picked up by the MSM the origin is, theoretically, irrelevant.

If Obama had turned to Hillary in the debate and made some remark about outsourcing he would have to back it up with his position, which I would like to hear myself. It seems to me that opposition research focusses on weakness in or negatives about ones opponent which may also reflect poorly on the accuser and can't be made publicly.

On that basis I think Senator Obama should just leave it alone altogether. I take it from your response, incidentally, that you agree that this kind of thing is pretty standard in contemporary US politics.

by Shaun Appleby on Mon Jun 18, 2007 at 10:29:55 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Edwards ) (none / 0)

It is standard/conventional to do Oppo research. Which is why I find it hard to choke on that Obama is a "new" kind of candidate.

The sharpest criticism often goes hand in hand with the deepest idealism and love of country. ~RFK

by Vox Populi on Mon Jun 18, 2007 at 10:41:15 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Edwards ) (none / 0)

Well, at least he seems willing to be held to that standard so far. That's good enough for me.

by Shaun Appleby on Mon Jun 18, 2007 at 10:46:22 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Exactly. (none / 0)

I think Taylor Marsh got it right. It's time for Obama to stop detaching from the very people he hired to run his campaign.

They are one and the same. Nothing should be released by Obama's campaign without his approval and knowledge.

Or, someone should be in charge to make sure this sort of thing doesn't happen.

by samueldem on Mon Jun 18, 2007 at 09:54:24 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Exactly. (none / 0)

On that basis it would seem he screwed-up. I reckon' he should admit it, apologise, do better next time and move on, how 'bout you?

by Shaun Appleby on Mon Jun 18, 2007 at 10:05:35 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Exactly. (none / 0)

He actually did.

Obama said, "I take responsibility for it, as does our campaign. and we quickly apologized and are communicating that in various circles around the country."

http://www.desmoinesregister.com/apps/pb cs.dll/article?AID=20070618/NEWS/706180 28-1/caucus

by Obama08 on Tue Jun 19, 2007 at 12:19:32 AM EST
[ Parent ]

The Memo and Priming the Media Pump With Dirt (none / 0)

Obama is saying the right things today about his campaign's unnecessarily "caustic" memo.

Of course, it would also be nice to hear from Obama, Clinton and Edwards about what they SPECIFICALLY plan to do about curbing outsourcing! I have heard plenty of platitudes: help and safety net, etc. How about zero tax benefits for outsourcing...or perish the thought...tax penalties for outsourcing? No, better to stick with platitudes and band aids...

As far as Clinton, Obama (and Edwards?) secretly spoon-feeding the media dirt on the others, I would really love to know more details about this practice. Ostensibly, this priming of the media pump with "dirt" is simply politics as traditionally practiced.

I do wonder, however, if the larger public were scrupulously informed that certain dirty nuggets were first brought to the attention of the media by an opposing campaign, would the public feel differently about the dirty nugget?

So...if, for example, the original source, the original impetus, for the story of John Edwards $400 haircut, was an opposing campaign's "not for attribution" memo, and the voting public were made aware of this fact, would the complexion of that nugget change? In principle, perhaps not: a fact is a fact, right?

But, in reality, probably yes; it would change things. For some voters, the sting of the nugget might be ameliorated somewhat, and if it were Democrat on Democrat, they might even punish the feeding campaign. And if the answer is yes, even slightly yes, then the voters are actually being misled by the media.

by Demo37 on Mon Jun 18, 2007 at 09:02:14 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Levels of Discourse in the MSM (none / 0)

I agree. When Obama criticizes the cynicism of politics he is taking on the MSM to a degree. This whole 'not for attribution' thing is a crock and it is not just in the campaigns, every second news story is an unnamed source who is not authorised to speak about what is said.

Stand and deliver; if the journalists got up from their desks for a few minutes and did more journalism they wouldn't have to sit on the wrong end of a pretty big and uninspiring pipeline of spin. There is no rule saying they can't expose their sources if that is the story.

And that would be news!

by Shaun Appleby on Mon Jun 18, 2007 at 09:58:42 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: The Memo and Priming the Media Pump With Dirt (3.00 / 1)

As for outsourcing, NAFTA, the global economy and so forth that seems to be the elephant in the room of Democratic party policy. So many uncomfortable moments!

Can't say I have any coherent views on this, either, beyond I don't feel it is appropriate to have trans-national corporations setting policy while profit still takes no account of the fortunes of any workforce, anywhere. It seems to me that US workers have a right to expect something better than a stagnating or declining net worth and a wage squeeze from cheap labour both domestically and abroad. Sure we need to retrain, but when IT jobs go to other economies you have got to wonder who is influencing policy and why.

I'm kinda' lefty so I see a role for regulation but admit that tariffs are basically a failed strategy. Who knows? None of our candidates apparently. Would be very interested to discuss this further.

by Shaun Appleby on Mon Jun 18, 2007 at 10:15:34 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Edwards ) (none / 0)

disowned, and lumped it on an intern.

by Rt hon McAdder esq KBE on Tue Jun 19, 2007 at 02:59:39 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Emphasis Added (none / 0)

The Illinois senator said he was responsible for the mistake and the campaign had taken appropriate action "to prevent errors like this from happening in the future."

By MIKE GLOVER Associated Press Writer Jun 18, 11:17 PM EDT

by Shaun Appleby on Tue Jun 19, 2007 at 03:20:26 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Emphasis Added (none / 0)

Was that what the reporter said? Or what Obama said...

by Rt hon McAdder esq KBE on Tue Jun 19, 2007 at 04:06:39 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Emphasis Added (none / 0)

As Manuél to Fawlty, "¿Que?"

by Shaun Appleby on Tue Jun 19, 2007 at 04:55:57 AM EST
[ Parent ]

New low points on attack diaries (3.00 / 1)

its really a shame. MyDD diaries are starting to echo some of the worst diaries on Dailykos with these really bad slanderous Obama and Edwards diaries.

As a community we should reject this and focus on issues and bring some civility back here. I encourage Edwards and Obama supporters to stand up against this sort of thing.

This person, regardless of who he supports, represents the worst type of supporter that would rather tear down others than build anything up.

by okamichan13 on Mon Jun 18, 2007 at 10:03:08 PM EST

Re: Dear John ards ) (none / 0)

and lumped it on an intern.

by Rt hon McAdder esq KBE on Tue Jun 19, 2007 at 03:00:05 AM EST

Wow (none / 0)

I thought he was acting desperate when he attacked Obama and Hillary in the debate but this is a new low. He was worthless as the Vice-Presidential candidate in the last election not even being about to bring in his home state and also by letting Cheney get the better of him in their debate yet he thinks he is the one most likely to win the general election. As they say, pride comes before the fall.

What is funny is that he actually thinks he is in the running with Obama and Hillary when many people have already written him off and some have even stopped including him in polls. Talk about delusional!

by reasonwarrior on Tue Jun 19, 2007 at 03:08:52 AM EST

Re: Wow (none / 0)

He was making an appropriate comment in the debate. The party could have pressured Bush to end the war.

Now we get Patraeus in septembet saying...

"Give me another six months"

And they will give it to him.

Hillary and Obama ought to be ashamed for the Senate--Obama went on after the innacurate 41/2 year zinger to praise Biden for voting for FUNDS.

Hillary pretended there was no split in the party--It was rediculaous to state that the differences between Biden and herself were minimal.

I do not want my Childrn fed into the meat grinder Hillary or Obama may feed them into in Iran, Sudan etc

by Rt hon McAdder esq KBE on Tue Jun 19, 2007 at 04:11:45 AM EST
[ Parent ]

You are not logged in.

In order to post a comment, you must be logged in. If you have a member account, please log in to comment.

If not, you can make an account right here. It's quick and free.