Elizabeth Edwards lays into Clinton and Obama in the most recent issue of The Progressive:
Edwards: There's no way to do this that doesn't sound negative about the other candidates... The problem for me with the other candidates is I don't know what it is that drives them. What is it they really believe in that makes them get up in the morning and want to do this? I should think the President has to be somebody who has that kind of vision outside themselves.
On the war vote and funding:
...the other candidates? Obama gives a speech that's likely to be extraordinarily popular in his home district, and then comes to the Senate and votes for funding. John, the first time funding came up, he was already suspicious. What he said was we've got two issues, one is the information and the other is not trusting your President. And he gave plenty of speeches at the time saying, "I'm not voting for the $87 billion because he has no plan." You've got to do that for the men and women who are there: You've got to have a plan. And he didn't vote for the $87 billion, and never voted for any dedicated funding.
So you are going to get people behaving in a holier-than-thou way. But John stood up when he was in the Senate for exactly the thing he's asking these people to stand up for now.
Now Hillary, I don't know what Hillary's objection is. She, even in the New Hampshire debate, said, "I made a mistake." People are looking for a mea culpa from her. And when she buries a line like that--I give her credit for saying that--but when she buries that line. . . . We're electing the leader of the free world, and just like the votes on this last funding bill, we're looking for a leader. They are very important leaders in the Senate. And we got thirteen votes on this last bill? Could they have influenced a few more votes? Probably not enough, but they should have been out there trying. They should have been making speeches about why it was they were doing this, and standing up and trying to rally. And they didn't. They weren't leaders. The point isn't, "I got here first or I got here last." The point is, in this moment, are you a leader?
On the rhetoric of hope:
Sometimes it seems we have these beliefs but it turns out it's like a Hollywood set: It's all facade and there's no guts behind it. You listen to the language of what people say, particularly Obama, who seems to be using a lot of John's 2004 language, which is maybe not surprising since one of his speechwriters was one of our speechwriters, his media guy was our media guy. These people know John's mantra as well as anybody could know it. They've moved from "hope is on the way" to "the audacity of hope." I'm constantly hearing things in a familiar tone.
Edwards has been escalating her tough talk toward the other candidates, but this is at another level. I don't see anything in here that's unfair or out of context, though I'm not sure it does much for Edwards campaign-- it seems more intended to undermine the other candidates credibility. It's sure to spur on a lot of comments that will attack her for saying it in an interview... but not here, haha
The other news on Edwards is that he's pulled nearly all his staff out of Nevada. They say its to focus on Iowa/NH/SC more, but it's also going to save them money. The only way Edwards would win NV is if he's got Iowa already won, so it sorta reminds me of Kerry pulling out of everywhere in order to focus on Iowa in 2003, but Edwards is up against much better organizations than Kerry was in 2003-4. Has Nevada become less relevant? There's 5 months to go before we know.
Yesterday, Elizabeth Edwards posted a diary on DailyKos, in which she posted over 30 comments.