Edwards to respond to Bush tonight

This is an interesting campaign move. Bush is going to talk about his handing off the Iraq war to the next president tonight, and John Edwards has bought two minutes of airtime to follow Bush:

Edwards has bought two minutes of air time on MSNBC, scheduled to air after Bush's 15-minute televised speech from the White House at 9 p.m. EDT...

"Unfortunately, the president is pressing on with the only strategy he's ever had -- more time, more troops, and more war," Edwards says in the ad, according to excerpts provided by his campaign.

The ad was taped at Edwards' home in Chapel Hill, N.C., in the style of an Oval Office address, with him sitting at a desk and speaking straight to the camera, with American flag in the background.

..."Tell Congress you know the truth," Edwards says. "They have the power to end this war and you expect them to use it. When the president asks for more money and more time, Congress needs to tell him he only gets one choice -- a firm timeline for withdrawal."

...In the ad, Edwards says Bush's refusal to end the war is another in a series of wrong moves, including the increase of troops in January and his veto in May of a plan to end the war.

"Now, after General Petraeus reports the surge has produced no progress toward a political solution, what does the president want? More time for the surge to work, when all of us know it won't," Edwards says.

The Republicans are in total denial about 2006, and if Democrats continue to make getting out of Iraq the issue of the '08 election, we will sweep out alot more Republicans in Congress.



Display:


Seems like a very solid move (2.00 / 2)

to not only get his position out and get publicity for his campaign, but also to put the pressure on Bush (and Congress not to buy what Bush is selling).

Bush and the Republicans are going to be pushing hard "the surge is working" meme so however that can be countered effectively, I'm all for it.


by okamichan13 on Thu Sep 13, 2007 at 07:13:04 AM EST

Re: Edwards to respond to Bush tonight (2.00 / 2)

Can anyone think of a reason that this isn't a brilliant move?


by david mizner on Thu Sep 13, 2007 at 07:25:53 AM EST

Re: Edwards to respond to Bush tonight (2.00 / 2)

No.  And bold too.


by Shaun Appleby on Thu Sep 13, 2007 at 09:26:11 AM EST
[ Parent ]

The only negative I can think of (2.00 / 1)

is who listens to Bush anymore?

Ipso facto

Most will miss JE as well

(As for me, I ususally read what Bush says cause I can't stand listening to him; tonight I'll mute Bush, read his remarks later and listen to Edwards)


by merbex on Thu Sep 13, 2007 at 10:01:44 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: The only negative I can think of (2.00 / 1)

To answer my own question, a possible downside is that it could aggravate Dems in Congress, many of whom already dislike JRE. Still, a chance well worth taking.


by david mizner on Thu Sep 13, 2007 at 10:10:03 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: The only negative I can think of (none / 0)

They are aggravated because they don't want to step out of their comfort zone.  
Edwards is threatening to them because he wants to change the game in DC.
I am an Edwards Democrat. Visit EENR blog for Progressives
by pioneer111 on Thu Sep 13, 2007 at 04:21:34 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Depends on what Edwards says. (none / 0)


by oculus on Thu Sep 13, 2007 at 02:02:30 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Edwards to respond to Bush tonight (none / 0)

I can think of a reason why this could backfire.  By leaking the text of Edward's speech, he's letting Bush cushion its blow with a last minute edit of his own speech.  For example, "Don't listen to the speech after mine that hurts the troops"

Still, smart move by Edwards!!


by mbcarl on Thu Sep 13, 2007 at 02:25:24 PM EST
[ Parent ]

FUCKIN. BRILLIANT. MOVE. (2.00 / 2)

And I support HRC.  But THIS is fantastic!

BALLS.  We need more of 'em!


McCain is defining Obama, and Obama is neither defining himself, nor McCain. This is awful.
by jgarcia on Thu Sep 13, 2007 at 07:49:01 AM EST

don't see a downside (2.00 / 2)

except for all the whacks the right wingers will take at him, although it's clear Fox goes after him more than anyone else anyhow..


Call it "Medicare Option" not public option
by TarHeel on Thu Sep 13, 2007 at 07:54:04 AM EST

Re: Edwards to respond to Bush tonight (2.00 / 0)

BREAKING NEWS: Hillary supporters on MyDD are planning to call the speech "lackluster".


by Will Graham on Thu Sep 13, 2007 at 08:09:00 AM EST

Re: Edwards to respond to Bush tonight (2.00 / 2)

I am a Hillary supporter. Does my response below imply his response will be lackluster? Really, you act as if people that support Hillary don't have the brains to realize when something is good even though it is provided by another candidate. I will judge Edwards by what he says when he says it. The fact that his response has been prerecorded does lower the bar a little because he will not be actually responding to what Bush says. But it is still a smart move by his campaign.


by DoIT on Thu Sep 13, 2007 at 08:14:26 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Edwards to respond to Bush tonight (none / 0)

I serioiusly doubt he was talking about you.


John McCain: Bush right to veto kids health insurance expansion
by Calvin Jones and the 13th Apostle on Thu Sep 13, 2007 at 09:18:44 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Edwards to respond to Bush tonight (2.00 / 1)

Clearly you aren't the majority.


by bruh21 on Thu Sep 13, 2007 at 09:38:21 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Edwards to respond to Bush tonight (2.00 / 1)

This is a very smart move by Edwards. It may provide the boost he has been trying to get. I'm sure that is what his campaign intends. I just hope that people realize he is paying to respond to Bush and that he isn't offering the official Democratic response.


by DoIT on Thu Sep 13, 2007 at 08:09:47 AM EST

we'll all be able to compare it to (2.00 / 2)

the Democratic response - but this time they won't be able to trot out someone "tough" like Webb or Tester or even likeable like McCaskill cause they'll all support more funding...


Call it "Medicare Option" not public option
by TarHeel on Thu Sep 13, 2007 at 08:16:35 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Edwards to respond to Bush tonight (2.00 / 2)

Once again, Edwards busts out of the box, establishes new standards, and demonstrates the kind of leadership and dynamism that his presidency will provide.

Go Johnny Go,


by jfoster on Thu Sep 13, 2007 at 08:21:52 AM EST

Re: Edwards to respond to Bush tonight (none / 0)

WOW.  That is a very smart move for him to make.  I wasn't planning on watching Bush but I will change the channel to see what Edwards has to say.


by KimPossible on Thu Sep 13, 2007 at 08:27:50 AM EST

Re: Edwards to respond to Bush tonight (2.00 / 1)

I doubt it's as much about responding to Bush as creating buzz.  Few people will see the ad on MSNBC, but it will be played over and over on every channel tomorrow and will probably be a topic on the Sunday news shows.

I don't know if it's a map-changer, but it will put Edwards in the spotlight for the first time in a while.


The sharpest criticism often goes hand in hand with the deepest idealism and love of country. ~RFK
by Vox Populi on Thu Sep 13, 2007 at 08:32:24 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Edwards to respond to Bush tonight (2.00 / 1)

The beauty part comes in because although MSNBC has the lowest viewership, which one is more likely to be heavily skewed with viewers who will vote in a Democratic primary?


"Hey, check it out. You just had yourself a glue OD. So you're learning another lesson. Don't do too much glue, or your night sucks."
by vcalzone on Thu Sep 13, 2007 at 10:07:53 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Jerome (2.00 / 2)

if Democrats continue to make getting out of Iraq the issue of the '08 election, we will sweep out alot more Republicans in Congress.
I'd like to think, because I agree wholeheartedly with the substance, that Edwards actually believes what he says in this message, and isn't only trying to use it for electoral advantage.


by andgarden on Thu Sep 13, 2007 at 08:32:03 AM EST

Re: Edwards to respond to Bush tonight (2.00 / 1)

It can be extremely effective depending on how the media portrays it. What shouldn't be missed here is that aspect of it. The media.


by bruh21 on Thu Sep 13, 2007 at 08:51:44 AM EST

yeah (2.00 / 1)

depends on the media once again


Call it "Medicare Option" not public option
by TarHeel on Thu Sep 13, 2007 at 09:16:53 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Edwards to respond to Bush tonight (2.00 / 3)

I have to admit this is a very shrewd move in terms of campaign tactics. He's surrounded by better campaign team(than Obama's).


Hillary: We will finally have a president who doesn't mind pulling over and asking for directions. Am I right, ladies?
by areyouready on Thu Sep 13, 2007 at 09:03:41 AM EST

Re: Edwards to respond to Bush tonight (1.50 / 2)

It does make him look like a presumptive nominee to those who are following less closely.  However, as I have said before, Bush may be in a fantasy land, but Edwards did help to build the theme park.  Check this out:    http://www.antiwar.com/orig/zunes.php?ar ticleid=3074  I do not trust his conversion.  That is my main problem with him.


by Todd Bennett on Thu Sep 13, 2007 at 09:35:40 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Edwards to respond to Bush tonight (2.00 / 1)

Every diary you come into your spam it with that video.


by bruh21 on Thu Sep 13, 2007 at 09:37:30 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Edwards to respond to Bush tonight (none / 0)

What's your point?  The truth can be inconvenient?  He helped to start this war.  I can forgive him for that.  But I can't trust him.  Democrats need to know this man is one of the biggest reasons for the nearly 4000 U.S. military fatalities we have suffered.   If you are antiwar, I am telling you Hillary, in spite of the fact she voted for the authorization, made clear she did it for leverage early on on this thing.  Competence will get us out of Iraq safely, not grandstanding.


by Todd Bennett on Thu Sep 13, 2007 at 09:42:10 AM EST
[ Parent ]

no one but kucinich (2.00 / 1)

is pure.

obama voted to fund the war 4 times.

Edwards voted against  the only supplemental he saw.

Obama spoke out when he wasn't in the senate but voted the same as hillary, Edwards is speaking out while not in the senate vociferously.


Call it "Medicare Option" not public option
by TarHeel on Thu Sep 13, 2007 at 09:55:06 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: no one but kucinich (none / 0)

True.  Yet you have to admit John has more blood on his hands than the others.  On many occasions he was a cheerleader for it.  And as for as purity on this war, look no further than Al Gore.  For whatever reason he is not running.  Oh but how much more united would we be were he to change and decide to run.


by Todd Bennett on Thu Sep 13, 2007 at 09:58:52 AM EST
[ Parent ]

HIllary invoked a connection (none / 0)

between Saddam and Al qaeda on the senate floor no one else did that


Call it "Medicare Option" not public option
by TarHeel on Thu Sep 13, 2007 at 10:21:54 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: no one but kucinich (2.00 / 1)

As Tarheel points out the only candidate who can claim competely cleanhands is Kucininch so unless you are supporting him- what's your point of reposting this same video. Truth is tellng the full truth by the way- not just the part that you think proves your point. ie, whats happened subsequent, where are they now, etc. if you can't include all of that in your so called concerned over the war, then i don't believe this is concern over the war or the issues.


by bruh21 on Thu Sep 13, 2007 at 10:36:54 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: no one but kucinich (none / 0)

So what is the truth, Oh Mighty One?  What is the fucking truth?  That Edwards did not mean to get 400 soldiers killed, that he is really sorry?  Fuck that.  He promoted this war.  He packaged it.  He sold it.  And now he wants to do what?  Apologize?  Can all those people be brought back to life?   No!  So what in his past exactly would lead me to believe he has the sense to not use condoms as ballons at a birthday party, much less the competence it will take to get us out of Iraq in decent shape?


by Todd Bennett on Thu Sep 13, 2007 at 10:43:55 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: no one but kucinich (none / 0)

You show indignation because I call you on your deletion of all facts during and subsequent to what you are talking about, and you act as if I am the one out there on a limb reacting with grossly abusive behavior? Yeah, right. I am not interested in debating you or any other person who can't include both facts for and against their position. In other words, it's the balance of all facts, not the cherrypicking, stupid!


by bruh21 on Thu Sep 13, 2007 at 10:56:42 AM EST
[ Parent ]

But recently someone here pointed out (2.00 / 1)

Kucinich told his Iowa caucus voters to vote for Edwards in the second round in 2004.  Not so pure, given Edwards' background re Iraq.  


by oculus on Thu Sep 13, 2007 at 02:07:20 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Edwards to respond to Bush tonight (none / 0)

On any other site but this one that would be considered trollish behavior. You aren't interested in debate. Just indignation. We get it. But it has nothing to do with the diary's point- which is what to do now.


by bruh21 on Thu Sep 13, 2007 at 10:34:45 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Edwards to respond to Bush tonight (none / 0)

Why would anybody provide credibility for Hillary who not only authorized this war, but failed to read the NIE. this is the report that made the decision by senator Graham to vote against the AUF.

HILLARY STILL FEELS THAT HER VOTE WAS RIGHT AND HAS NO REMORSE OR IS UN-WILLING TO ADMIT SHE MADE A MISTAKE

This is so Bush like.


by BDM on Thu Sep 13, 2007 at 10:54:49 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Edwards to respond to Bush tonight (none / 0)

Maybe she "failed" to read the NIE because her Husband was fucking President and was privy to things that went far beyond the NIE intelligence.  Folks, here is how it works:  if it happens to be something you, the everyday voter, knows to exist, it is not the real heavy stuff.  Any real security document is not something you would even know the name of, much less the content of.


by Todd Bennett on Thu Sep 13, 2007 at 10:58:53 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Edwards to respond to Bush tonight (none / 0)

Your post makes no sense. Clinton was not President at the time


by bruh21 on Thu Sep 13, 2007 at 11:03:59 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Edwards to respond to Bush tonight (none / 0)

Every former President is privy to the same national security briefing as the current President.  At will.


by Todd Bennett on Thu Sep 13, 2007 at 11:06:09 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Edwards to respond to Bush tonight (none / 0)

President Clinton still gets the same information Bush does.  Daily if he desires.


by Todd Bennett on Thu Sep 13, 2007 at 11:07:16 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Edwards to respond to Bush tonight (none / 0)

And you think he's just passing this along to his wife?


by bruh21 on Thu Sep 13, 2007 at 11:13:31 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Edwards to respond to Bush tonight (none / 0)

Sorry, but I don't buy that argument at all.  If Bill Clinton had some sort of secret incontrovertible evidence that proved the case for the Iraq War, that means George Bush had it too.  And if Bush had it, he would have been more than happy to share it with the public to build up support for his war of choice.  Bush made available to the public every bit of pro-Iraq War intelligence that was presented to him.  


by Will Graham on Thu Sep 13, 2007 at 11:23:27 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Edwards to respond to Bush tonight (none / 0)

I'm not talking about trust. We all know this... I'm talking about pure campaign tactics.


Hillary: We will finally have a president who doesn't mind pulling over and asking for directions. Am I right, ladies?
by areyouready on Thu Sep 13, 2007 at 09:41:08 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Edwards to respond to Bush tonight (2.00 / 2)

ITs important to consider the decision to purchase national time in context of camapaign strategy. 1. This shows that Edwards is not focused solely on Iowa, since he's actually not gone on the air yet in Iowa while almost all the other candidates have. 2. Its an original tactic that the other campaigns cannot replicate.


by desmoulins on Thu Sep 13, 2007 at 10:59:55 AM EST

Re: Edwards to respond to Bush tonight (2.00 / 1)

smart move by Edwards - I dont know what the reaction will be in the public


vote blue in 2008
by sepulvedaj3 on Thu Sep 13, 2007 at 11:09:06 AM EST

Re: Edwards to respond to Bush tonight (2.00 / 1)

John Edwards has been mobilizing publicc opposition to the war all year, starting with the surge.  While the two frontrunners are afraid to lead, John Edwards just gets out and does it.


by TomP on Thu Sep 13, 2007 at 11:09:20 AM EST

Re: Edwards to respond to Bush tonight (none / 0)

He had just better hope that MS(RNC) doesn't allow Bush's team to see what the video says before they air it tonight, because if they do, they are going to dissect it in Bush's statement and make John Edwards look like a fool.

I hope he has some agreement that the contents of this video CANNOT BE SHARED with anyone.  

I know there are many people at MSNBC who have been kissing Bush's behind for 6 years.  If they see the video, who's to say that they won't leak it to the Rovians?

Well, John Edwards had better have an agreement that says that they cannot, or else he will be made to look like an absolute fool.

With all of these "quotes" from the video, I think it's pretty safe to believe that the Bush team will make John Edwards look like a fool.

She should have done it LIVE.


by OE on Thu Sep 13, 2007 at 11:59:16 AM EST

Re: Edwards to respond to Bush tonight (none / 0)

HE should have done it live.


by OE on Thu Sep 13, 2007 at 01:57:55 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Edwards to respond to Bush tonight (none / 0)

I think it IS going to be a live address.  I think the leaked words are just the prepared text.  A way of getting double the message out for the same cost.


The sharpest criticism often goes hand in hand with the deepest idealism and love of country. ~RFK
by Vox Populi on Thu Sep 13, 2007 at 12:45:06 PM EST

Re: Edwards to respond to Bush tonight (none / 0)

Well, the AP was saying that it was a "video," I thought.

If it's a video, then what's to stop Bush's team from watching the video, and then taking it apart point-for-point in Bush's statement?


by OE on Thu Sep 13, 2007 at 01:58:52 PM 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.