Maybe Nevada was a turning point in the Democratic presidential race, because Monday's CNN debate started tough and got unusually ugly in a hurry.
Barack Obama continued to challenge both Clintons for pushing a series of assertions that were "not factually accurate," teeing off controversial comments that the former President made about the Nevada Caucus. Accused of inaccuracy, Sen. Clinton hit back with inaccuracy, claiming that Obama said he "really liked" President Reagan's ideas. In fact, Obama actually said Reagan helped establish the GOP as "the party of ideas," which Obama was quick to stress in a rebuttal. Then he applied the
Stoller Maxim -- use your rivals' lies to reveal their character -- to argue that Clinton's conduct raises questions about whether she can earn the public trust and be an effective advocate for change. "Truthfulness during campaigns matters," he thundered for emphasis.
Clinton was more Rovian in her attacks, as she tried to pin Obama with her own foibles. Assailing his "present" votes in the Illinois Senate, Clinton chided Obama: "It is very difficult having a straight up debate with you because you never take responsibility!" The accusation drew boos from the crowd. (The Times reported that Clinton's line caused "huge boos from the audience for the first time.") Yet while Clinton and Obama exchanged their personal barbs, John Edwards broke through with the best arguments of the night.
Edwards tweaked both his opponents for making the debate about political squabbling instead of public policy. Returning to his populist economic platform -- especially salient as Americans ponder a recession -- he reminded voters that he was the only candidate to outline a comprehensive plan to end poverty, and the first to introduce a national economic stimulus proposal. His plan came out weeks before Clinton and Obama. The program drove the "party's policy agenda," as Paul Krugman explained, by advocating "aid to unemployed workers, aid to cash-strapped state and local governments," and alternative energy, (most of which Clinton later adopted in her plan). And while the debate moderators kept pushing trite racial questions, even asking Obama if Bill Clinton was the "first black president," Edwards outlined a vision of racial and economic equality, where "every American is of equal value."
This post first appeared at The Nation.
Follow Ari Melber on Twitter: www.twitter.com/AriMelber
Edwards won election to the U.S. Senate in 1998 as a Democrat against incumbent Republican Senator Lauch Faircloth. Despite originally being the underdog, Edwards beat Faircloth by 51.2% to 47.0% — a margin of some 83,000 votes.
A Democratic unseating an incumbent Republican Senator in a red state, the first Democratic Senator in NC since Sam Ervin in the 1970s.
Now compare with Obama and Clinton, both won their seats in blue states against token opposition. So who is the proven winner against Republicans on their home turf?
John Edwards, now more than ever.
cognito ergo populistae
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2008/1/22/42658/0495/422/440958
And I have to tell you----I personally thought that the question about Clinton being the first black president was really unprofessional.
Will they ask any Republican that? I would like to see them ask Romney or Thompson that question.
The Honorable John E. Edwards
410 Market Street
Suite 400
Chapel Hill, NC 27516
Dear Senator Edwards:
It was good meeting with you yesterday and discussing my father’s legacy. On the day when the nation will honor my father, I wanted to follow up with a personal note.
There has been, and will continue to be, a lot of back and forth in the political arena over my father’s legacy. It is a commentary on the breadth and depth of his impact that so many people want to claim his legacy. I am concerned that we do not blur the lines and obscure the truth about what he stood for: speaking up for justice for those who have no voice.
I appreciate that on the major issues of health care, the environment, and the economy, you have framed the issues for what they are - a struggle for justice. And, you have almost single-handedly made poverty an issue in this election.
You know as well as anyone that the 37 million people living in poverty have no voice in our system. They don’t have lobbyists in Washington and they don’t get to go to lunch with members of Congress. Speaking up for them is not politically convenient. But, it is the right thing to do.......continued
From our conversation yesterday, I know this is personal for you. I know you know what it means to come from nothing. I know you know what it means to get the opportunities you need to build a better life. And, I know you know that injustice is alive and well in America, because millions of people will never get the same opportunities you had.
I believe that now, more than ever, we need a leader who wakes up every morning with the knowledge of that injustice in the forefront of their minds, and who knows that when we commit ourselves to a cause as a nation, we can make major strides in our own lifetimes. My father was not driven by an illusory vision of a perfect society. He was driven by the certain knowledge that when people of good faith and strong principles commit to making things better, we can change hearts, we can change minds, and we can change lives.
So, I urge you: keep going. Ignore the pundits, who think this is a horserace, not a fight for justice. My dad was a fighter. As a friend and a believer in my father’s words that injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere, I say to you: keep going. Keep fighting. My father would be proud.
Sincerely,
Martin L. King, III
********************
READ Edwards Positions for YOURSELF!
http://www.johnedwards.com/issues/global-poverty/
http://www.johnedwards.com/issues/govt-reform/
EDWARDS/Obama '08
http://journals.democraticunderground.com/Catchawave/345
I thought all the candidates had their shining moments. I take issue with the many headlines I've seen this morning about how bitter and contentious the debate was. Yes, there were hot moments, as well there should be. But there were also fun moments that belied the predictions of a bitter party split.
The candidates seem mature enough to have their disagreements while still dearly embracing their (considerable) common ground. It's up to the electorate to do the same.
Let me join the chorus. Edwards won with logic, poise, and focus. He remains the most electable, and most consistently progressive, candidate.
Hillary seemed desperate, hit low, and looked mean. She will lose - either now or in the general election. Obama let Hillary throw him off his game, asked a few questions, and stared a bit too hard at his rivals. His body language - and avoidance of voting in Illinois - seem to confirm the impression that we know far too little about this ambitious, junior Senator.
Besides, he just seems more a tad too calculating and open to corporate solutions.
Bottomline: Edwards - despite his low poll numbers within the Democratic Party - remains the best, strongest candidate.
If you want a Democrat to vote for in November, you had better vote for John Edwards in the Primaries. The MSM is trying to bury him and the Repugnicans fear him. Why do you think they try every thing possible to ignore him?