Edwards Nails Hillary (Triangulation) and Obama (Compromise)

John Edwards took a sharp look at the field and verbalized what many are seeing in the top three candidates.  Clinton's methods have been summed up by triangulation while Obama's methods have been summed up by compromise.  Bloggers, progressives, liberals, and Democrats have been crying out against these methods for change decrying their resulting in failure or even making things even worse.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7T0BztvhV pU

From WaPo: Edwards Works Hard to Stand Out

    Former Sen. John Edwards (D-N.C.) is coming out fighting tonight with an aggressive attempt to differentiate himself from the rest of the field.

   "Do you believe compromise (aka Obama) and triangulation (aka Clinton) will bring about big change?" asked Edwards. "If you want real change you need someone who has taken on these people and beat them over and over and over."..."We can't trade their insiders for our insiders."

Edwards went on Al Sharpton's radio program and echoed these comments:

http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2 007/07/24/287416.aspx

From NBC's Lauren Appelbaum

John Edwards called into Al Sharpton's radio show this afternoon to speak about last night's debate and his war on poverty, but he took advantage of the opportunity to offer up an apparent dig to Clinton and his other opponents. Edwards called for "big change, bold change" for the country to change a system that is "rigged for big insurance companies, drug companies, and oil companies."

"What possible reason do they have to give up their power? They're not going to give it away. We have to take it away from them," Edwards asserted. "We cannot get bold change by compromising (aka Obama) with the people who have the power now. Compromise (aka Obama) is not going to get us there, triangulation (aka Clinton) is not going to get us there, being careful is not going to get us there. We need somebody who's used to fighting these people and beating them and I've been doing it my whole life."

On poverty, Edwards acknowledged it will take some work to make average Americans relate to the issue, but he also said they just need a leader to make it a big issue for them. "I think a lot times, it's sorta out of sight, out of mind and they're not thinking about it," Edwards said. "We make them think about it, put a bright light on the poverty that still exists in this country, which, as you know, we just did for a few days traveling across America. I think it helps."


Todd Beeton said that Edwards was after Obama.  But I disagree, I think Edwards is going after both Clinton and Obama.  He is going after the whole field, showing how he, and the way he operates to bring change, is different.  It is the way to bring big, bold, real change.

Tags: Al Sharpton, compromise, Hillary Clinton, John Edwads, obama, Trianglation (all tags)



Good diary.

I think Edwards is the best candidate for all working Americans.  He will bring real change.

It would be quite interesting if Al Sharpton endorsed him.  I don't think Sharpton has endorsed anyone yet.

by TomP 2007-07-24 02:25PM | 0 recs
Re: Good diary.

Yup, and this rhetoric is tied to policy. He's already staked out a positions on health care and climate change that Hillary and Obama  didn't dare match. Now, in his speech on the economy on Thursday in Iowa, look for positions on on taxes that they can only admire from JRE's right. It's getting to the point where progressives are going to have come up with some pretty fancy rationalization to support Obama or Clinton.

by david mizner 2007-07-24 05:20PM | 0 recs
I've done a 180 on Edwards

in the last 4 years.

I really like Obama.

I would be ecstatic with Gore. But unless Gore gets in,

my vote goes to Edwards!

by Zach in Phoenix 2007-07-24 07:31PM | 0 recs
I like Edwards. He's my second choice right now.

by bookgrl 2007-07-24 02:29PM | 0 recs
Re: I like Edwards. He's my second choice right n

Before the debate I would have completely agreed with you, but his response to Rev. Longcrier's question about using religion to deny gay people full and equal rights truly disappointed me.

by domma 2007-07-24 02:52PM | 0 recs
Re: I like Edwards. He's my second choice right n

Thats not what he said.

by bruh21 2007-07-24 02:58PM | 0 recs
Re: I like Edwards. He's my second choice right n

Huh? I did not write Edwards said anything. I wrote that his response disappointed me.

I did, though, use the reverend's language:

So why is it still acceptable to use religion to deny gay American[s] their full and equal rights?

by domma 2007-07-24 03:15PM | 0 recs
Re: I like Edwards. He's my second choice right n

More specifically- he said that his faith said one thing,b ut that in office he would labor for civil rights. Even more specifically than this he is like every major candidate in favor of civil unions so I m not exactly sure what changed with your vote in terms of what he said versus substantively what this means.

by bruh21 2007-07-24 02:59PM | 0 recs
Re: I like Edwards. He's my second choice right n

Even the minister said Edwards did not satisfactorily answer the question. On multiple occasions, Edwards has used his faith to say he opposes "gay marriage," that he is from the rural South and that he's Southern Baptist: at Dartmouth and on Meet the Press.

by domma 2007-07-24 03:21PM | 0 recs
Re: I like Edwards. He's my second choice right n

The minister was interviewed immediately after the debate and said that he thought Edwards' answer was sound, that no president should use his or her religion to deny rights to a group of people.

by clarkent 2007-07-24 03:28PM | 0 recs
Re: I like Edwards. He's my second choice right n

I've missed much of the press after the debate as I have been traveling back from Charleston. I am glad to know Edwards' second attempt satisfied the reverend.

If Edwards indeed changes his rhetoric as to why he does not support full and equal rights from that of religious reasons, excellent; I look forward to that.

by domma 2007-07-24 03:37PM | 0 recs
Re: I like Edwards. He's my second choice right n

I still do not quite understand how his actual policy views differ substantively to you from the other candidates since he holds the exact same views. What you seem to be saying is that you not only want him to endorse the same public policies as others but also must have personal religious views that are the same. In fact, my problem with our view of the marriage issue is that it is interewoven by some into their faith. He unweaves it. By saying what he may believe in terms of faith (or more correctly what problems his faith suggests) will not affect his duty of protecting civil rights. It was a better answer by the way than Obama gave who couldn't explain why Loving v Virginia should lead to  a different result for interracial couples than he would suggest for gay couples.

by bruh21 2007-07-24 03:54PM | 0 recs
Re: I like Edwards. He's my second choice right n

His policies do not differ, but the way he gets to his policy seems to be based (at least in his previous discussions-see Dartmouth and MTP above) on his religious and cultural beliefs.

Why does he bring up his faith and cultural background when he discusses this issue? If it is not his religiosity and Southern background that prevent him from going all the way to marriage, what is it?

by domma 2007-07-24 04:30PM | 0 recs
Which candidate are your for?

Seems to me alot of candidates bring up their fatih, although Edwards doesn't seem to fall back on that alot?  He mostly talks about being a Democrat and a progressive.

by bookgrl 2007-07-24 07:36PM | 0 recs
Re: I like Edwards. He's my second choice right n

he didn't change his rhectoric. thats what his rhectoric was all along. I think you just misunderstood it. This isn't meant to insult you, but a few gay web sites discussed what he meant immediately after so your  interpretation is surprising

by bruh21 2007-07-24 03:55PM | 0 recs
Re: I like Edwards. He's my second choice right n

one other by the way- he has clearly been making progress in his views as has much of the public. look at the stats from just 10 years ago to now.

by bruh21 2007-07-24 04:02PM | 0 recs
I don't think he did that at all.

He was being honest.  That he is personally struggling with this.  I found it refreshing, though I wish all the candidate would stop using the term "gay marriage", it's marriage equality.  

by bookgrl 2007-07-24 03:01PM | 0 recs
Re: I don't think he did that at all.

I disagree, you really think he has a problem with using the term "marriage" for gay couples? Many civil union proposals give the exact same benefits- I think its sheer politics, he knows how rove used it to bolster turnout and doesnt want that problem. Always reminding us that his wife supports it is a cheap compromise.  

by leewesley 2007-07-24 03:27PM | 0 recs
Re: I don't think he did that at all.

With all due respect, I do not want a president who struggles with equal rights the because of his religiosity.

I'm not so naive to believe America is ready for a president who supports full and equal rights (in fact, a small group of people applauded when Edwards said he does not support "gay marriage"). I understand that candidates must navigate their way through that issue, but please do not use religion to do so. As the reverend stated "Most Americans agree it was wrong and unconstitutional to use religion to justify slavery, segregation, and denying women the right to vote."

Completely agree on "gay marriage," it's pure red meat for social conservatives.

by domma 2007-07-24 03:31PM | 0 recs
Re: I don't think he did that at all.

Look, I'm totally with you, but which candidate aside from Hillary doesn't do that?  I'm just uncertain he should be singled out here.

by bookgrl 2007-07-24 03:53PM | 0 recs
Re: I don't think he did that at all.

all three candidates say exactly the same thing on this issue. human rights issued a report card asking each to fill out and they said almost exaclty the same things.

by bruh21 2007-07-24 03:58PM | 0 recs
Re: I don't think he did that at all.

he's not struggling with the civil rights. he's struggling with his faith. i think i see your problem now- you don't separate the public from the private. i dont care what a christian conservative, to use an analogy believes personally, i just care what they will do in public policy. If you can show me how he substantively different than other candidates then please do. Otherwise I must conclude that you have an unrealistic expectation of public officials.

by bruh21 2007-07-24 03:57PM | 0 recs
Re: I don't think he did that at all.

Good way of putting it; "he's struggling with his faith."  And, he makes the point that he would never make policy decisions based on his personal religious faith.

by bookgrl 2007-07-24 04:15PM | 0 recs
Re: I don't think he did that at all.

In a free society, you have to respect people's religoous difference even when you disagree with them. That he is trying to overcome his upbringing rather than remain stagnant, and that he is able to get over his upbringing for the purpose of public policy is something to be respected, not put down. The postere gets it wrong. She thinks change happens where we aer all in agree. It happens as a slow process where people evolve. He has david mizner , one of the leaders of the movment for gay, on his team as I understand it, his wife and he has spoken out for our rights- I am not going to throw him over the boat just because he says he still has to grow on this so long as public policy wise there isn't anyone better. Right now there isn't so I don'tunderstand domma's point other than he's not perfect. to that I respond welcome to real life where no one is.

by bruh21 2007-07-24 04:21PM | 0 recs
Re: I don't think he did that at all.

I fear we are at an impasse, so let us amicably agree to disagree.

Apologies for moving discussion away from the diary's main point regarding Edwards and bringing about big change. Even as a Clinton supporter, I must admit I liked Edwards' comments about triangulation and compromise, despite the not-so-veiled jabs at Clinton and Obama.

by domma 2007-07-24 04:40PM | 0 recs
Re: I don't think he did that at all.

I honestly still don't get the impass since his policy views are exactly the same as Obama and Clintons. THey jabs were at strategic approaches that the party has used in the last 15 years. Clinton and Obama happen to rep them, but I don't think of them as being about the two candidates in terms of putting them down. He just sees a different approach as necessary.

by bruh21 2007-07-24 04:43PM | 0 recs
Re: I like Edwards. He's my second choice right n

It disappointed me too.

I acknowledge that substantively there are hardly any differences, in terms of policy.  How one chooses to talk about an issue also has impact, but let's set that aside.  The fact he says he is conflicted does not really bother me, in and of itself.  I get the journey part of it all.

What bothers me is that he won't tell me directly what he is conflicted about, what exactly is his personal conscience on this issue?  Tell me clearly if you want me to empathize with you about feeling basic human rights for others are somehow wrong morally.  I'll give you a chance and listen, but don't just tell me "I have deep moral views" and leave it at that.

I do not care what his wife thinks.  Nobody gets "points" for their spouses.

by Trond Jacobsen 2007-07-24 04:45PM | 0 recs
Re: I like Edwards. He's my second choice right n

I agree to a degree with what you have said. But, I think he didn't necessarily want to discuss it at all. That this was brought up I think somewhat surprised him in the manner it was brought up. That's my take. I could be wrong. There is a debate that LOGO/HRC is sponsoring in early Aug where all of them will have do discuss these issues so we will find out more then.

by bruh21 2007-07-24 04:55PM | 0 recs
Re: I like Edwards. He's my second choice right n

Edwards was honest about his question. he supports gays in many ways, and I'm going to tell you with Elizabeth by his side much influence will be had...

by yann123 2007-07-24 07:23PM | 0 recs
Edwards asks...

in his video "What Really Matters?"  He was NOT just talking to the media, but ALL of us.

by citizen53 2007-07-24 02:31PM | 0 recs
Re: Edwards Nails Hillary (Triangulation)

He needs to be clearer if he wants to nail Hillary.  I don't think common people even know what "triangulation" is.

by reasonwarrior 2007-07-24 02:43PM | 0 recs
Interesting point.

I think the candidates are fighting for high information voters right now.  

by TomP 2007-07-24 02:58PM | 0 recs
Re: Edwards Nails Hillary (Triangulation)

Does matter as long as the word represents something negative. It will leave that impression with voters especially since that word is so often used when speaking of Hillary's positions.

by cosbo 2007-07-24 05:06PM | 0 recs
Re: Edwards Nails Hillary (Triangulation)

The poople do know what fighting "Big Oil" and "Big Insurance" and "Big Business" means.  He's hitting all th right populist notes, and I believe he'll do what hesays he'll do if we elect him president.

by Lassallean 2007-07-26 06:39AM | 0 recs
Issues that are so important to most.

I think Edwards  has it right and more, and more will see and hear it.

The Back To One America Tour was powerful in Memphis:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I5MMECuuy hY&feature=PlayList&p=EB991AACEE E7A01C&index=5

by dk2 2007-07-24 02:58PM | 0 recs
Thanks, dk2

That's great.

by TomP 2007-07-24 02:59PM | 0 recs
Re: Edwards Nails Hillary (Triangulation) and Obam

unfortunately - a lot of people who watch the debates dont even know what "triangulation" means

by sepulvedaj3 2007-07-24 08:41PM | 0 recs
This just smacks of lawyer talk

and tells me that Edwards will continue to pander to the part of the grassroots where critical thinking doesn't apply.

Compromise is necessary in politics to get anything done at all and does not equal selling out your values. Edwards knows this, and his record shows that he knows how to compromise. So why is he pretending otherwise?

by Populism2008 2007-07-24 11:10PM | 0 recs
Re: This just smacks of lawyer talk

riiight. you know- what your post smacks of is bs. try harder to be a little more unbiased

by bruh21 2007-07-25 04:09AM | 0 recs
Re: This just smacks of lawyer talk

2001-2007 hasn't turned you off on the whole "compromise with Republicans" thing, then? Because that's how we got here.

by Junior Bug 2007-07-25 04:10AM | 0 recs
Re: This just smacks of lawyer talk

they ignore history. it's like we begin the conversation tableau rasa each time

by bruh21 2007-07-25 06:20AM | 0 recs
Re: This just smacks of lawyer talk

You take compromise, others can take Triangulation.

I'll take leadership.  Standing firm on principles and values and bringing the debate home to the solutions that will matter.

And a lot of it is rhetoric.

Clinton and Obama say "I've worked with both Republicans and Democrats to get things done."  Ok.

But why not say (what Feingold and Wellstone would say) - "Ive provided bold leadership on substantial issues that has resulted in Republican members of Congress seeing the light and coming to the rational conclusion for the betterment of our country and its people."

See how it works?  You how an air of bi-partisanship, suggest little in gridlock or bickering - all while enforcing the Democratic brand and championing our policies and values.

Edwards does that.  If Clinton or Obama win this thing - they better do it too, or else I'll pull my hair out and itll make re-electing my Congressman a hell of a lot harder.

by BWasikIUgrad 2007-07-25 06:56AM | 0 recs
There Are Reality Issues

In the end, everybody compromises. It's just not intelligent to go in with the attitude that you are eager to compromise, since if you do, you will get much less.

Gay and lesbian people are much better off with marriage than with civil unions because the benefits granted under civil unions, which are always claimed to be "just the same" as those granted under marriage are not really "just the same" at all. The civil union benefits could be abolished at any time. Of course, the gay and lesbian marriage issue has been an impossible one for Democrats all along, since there are many people simply will not vote for anyone who supports it. Edwards is not a fool who forgets that he is in politics.

by blues 2007-07-25 08:15AM | 0 recs
If a tree falls in the forest and nobody is there

If a tree falls in the forest and nobody is there to hear it, does it make a sound?

Or if Edwards takes shots at the two front runners and nobody is paying attention to him anymore, does it help him?

I dunno.  

I think the Edwards campaign got itself in trouble and is now trying to dig out.  His poverty tour and his performance at the recent debate are a good start.  But it is not yet known whether it is too late to turn it around.  The problem is that Hillary is moving up towards the 40% range and solidifying her support.  

Edwards may be stuck fighting for second place.

by dpANDREWS 2007-07-26 07:46AM | 0 recs


Advertise Blogads