Edwards List Reasons to Vote for Him Over Obama

During a speech in Iowa today, a voter asked John Edwards why Iowans should vote for Edwards over Obama. Edwards gave two reasons, one he called substantive and one political.

As president, Edwards said, he would be more successful in fighting the powerful corporations and interests that he says control America’s health-care system and other important areas.

Obama, he said, would take a more conciliatory approach. “He talks about bringing drug companies, insurance companies, oil companies, etc., to the table and working with them and negotiating and compromising,” Edwards said. “I just think that’ll never work. If that would work, it would have worked years ago. If that worked, we’d have universal health care. We don’t.”

....we need somebody who’s ready for this battle.”

On the political side, Edwards said he's more electable. [More....]

he is more likely to win the general election because he can appeal to voters in states that have gone Republican in the past.

“This is not an academic exercise. We have to win,” Edwards said. He cited a recent CNN poll showing he is the only Democrat who tops every leading Republican in hypothetical, head-to-head matchups. “If you want to win, you’re looking at the guy who can go everywhere in America with a real message of fighting for change … and can compete in every single place in this country.”

Obama's advisor replies:

...."Barack Obama has done more to take on the special interests and win than anyone else in this race, and he's the one candidate who's spent his life solving problems by bringing Democrats and Republicans together.....

I don't know about you but that doesn't give me a warm and fuzzy feeling about Obama. I want someone who can fight Republicans, not just compromise with them.

< Hillary 's Expectations In Iowa | The Democratic Candidates Discuss Their Crime Agendas >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    Obama ... (5.00 / 1) (#6)
    by chemoelectric on Sat Dec 15, 2007 at 03:29:15 AM EST
    Obama is a clever kid who thinks he can go right to the top with cleverness and slick talk. Thus he doesn't even warm his seat in Congress before running for President. I'm about the same age as Obama but if I won a seat in the Senate I think I would at least take the minimum time to learn how that works, as John Edwards did, and probably I would take longer. But not Obama; letting wisdom develop isn't his way, because in his opinion he is so darn smart that he doesn't need to mellow like the rest of us.

    John Edwards (none / 0) (#7)
    by Jgarza on Sat Dec 15, 2007 at 11:21:20 AM EST
    Is a one term senator, who ran for president because he wouldn't have been reelected to his senate seat.  Unless you think running for president qualifies as presidential experience, i don't see how you can claim that Edwards has more experience then Obama.

    He was a VP candidate where he showed us he knows how to loose an election, I don't see how John Edwards gets to claim experience.


    Six years in the senate vs. three (none / 0) (#9)
    by Jeralyn on Sat Dec 15, 2007 at 12:07:52 PM EST
    Obama started in the Senate in 2005.

    Edwards served six years in the U.S. Senate. He's also spent the time since 2004 expanding his foreign policy experience, which he began to build on as senator


    I love the (none / 0) (#10)
    by Jgarza on Sat Dec 15, 2007 at 01:36:09 PM EST
    ever changing definition of what can be counted as experience.  I know you don't like Obama so whatever you definition is, it will be sure to exclude Obama experience.

    Edwards has taken a number of overseas trips.

    Lets for the sake of argument though say that Edwards gets to claim more.  What does it matter on the biggest foreign policy decision of the decade he still got it wrong.  It is great that he apologized and said it was a mistake, but he has never said why he made the mistake and how that has changed since.

    Ditto on free trade, and the many other positions he has changed since 2004.  I wish he would tell me why he has come to believe you have to have this combative relationship with "the system."  My guess is that he did it because that was the only place there was space in the primary(on the left).  which is actually fine by me(i know he won't and dont expect him to say that) i just need the why part of the narrative.

    Was it Katrina, did Katrina teach him that?  I need a why, it doesn't have to be perfect explanation, but i think for him to be successful as a candidate he needs to have a full narrative to explain his political transformation.


    Seriously? (none / 0) (#11)
    by mindfulmission on Mon Dec 17, 2007 at 08:47:09 AM EST
    I know you can't stand the thought of Obama winning, but it quite humorous how you will find anything possibly to attack Obama.

    Are you really trying to say that John Edwards has more experience than Obama?

    The anti-Obama bias is getting old...


    Bush worked with Democrats in Texas ... (none / 0) (#1)
    by koshembos on Fri Dec 14, 2007 at 08:30:49 PM EST
    Once again, Obama uses the old Bush approach: "I can work with the other side." Bush said so about the Democrats in Texas. Obama says "Barack Obama has done more to take on the special interests and win than anyone else in this race, and he's the one candidate who's spent his life solving problems by bringing Democrats and Republicans together.....

    Progressives for Bush! Is this how low we have deteriorated in our political discourse?

    Well (none / 0) (#3)
    by Jgarza on Fri Dec 14, 2007 at 08:46:10 PM EST
    Bush said he was great at working with both Democrats and Republicans, but the reality is he has bullied the Democrats around.  So if Barack really is a democratic GW I don't see how that will be bad for us.  If he says he will work with Republicans and bullies them around instead, how is that bad for Democrats? explain that?

    The idea (none / 0) (#2)
    by Jgarza on Fri Dec 14, 2007 at 08:42:57 PM EST
    that he could compete in more states might have been more convincing had he been able to win his senate seat, and not been to afraid to run in it.  Or had he picked up any state with Kerry, or were there something in his policy that made him more viable in the other states.  He has 1 poll that shows him doing better, and plenty that show just the opposite.  Maybe besides that you could make the argument that he is the only white male, but i just don't by that.  On top of that he has never had any front runner scrutiny because he has never, not in 2004 and not this time, been a front runner.  

    Ohh (none / 0) (#4)
    by Jgarza on Fri Dec 14, 2007 at 09:47:36 PM EST
    how is he the strongest GE with his matching funds thing?

    edwards is right - there is NO (none / 0) (#5)
    by seabos84 on Fri Dec 14, 2007 at 10:56:12 PM EST
    going to the table with these crooks, until you have them in a corner

    then they'll be screaming to go to the table to give up a LITTLE of what they've stolen over the decades.

    2 sets of people have profited from this bi-partisan-sh$$ in the last 3 decades

    the crooks on the other side,

    and the sell outs on 'our' side who live quite well selling us out (blue dogs, dinos, harry, nancy, terry mcaulliffe, hill and bill, ...)


    Clinton and Edwards haven't fought them a bit (none / 0) (#8)
    by Geekesque on Sat Dec 15, 2007 at 12:05:37 PM EST
    while in office.

    They talk about fighting for progressive values, but then they vote for an illegal war.