Edwards, Richardson outshine Democratic front-runners

[wyldwolf]

The good news for the nation's Democrats is that neither of the supposed front-runners for the party's 2008 presidential nomination, Hillary Rodham Clinton and Barack Obama, stole the show when all 10 of the likely contenders spoke last weekend to the Democratic National Committee.

Both Clinton and Obama got good receptions from the crowd at the Washington Hilton, having filled many of the spectator seats with their young supporters. But they didn't blow away the field, which will help keep things loose for a while, allowing more grass-roots activists time to weigh the strengths and weaknesses of all the entrants.

The stars of the weekend, judging from reactions in the ballroom and the lobby, were not Obama and Clinton, but former Sen. John Edwards of North Carolina and Gov. Bill Richardson of New Mexico.

Both of them played to the anti-war sentiments of this liberal-leaning audience by demanding that those now in Congress do more than pass resolutions decrying President Bush's decision to send more troops to Iraq. Edwards wants to pull out 40,000 soldiers now; Richardson said, Iraq "is not worthy of one more lost American life."

Unlike Edwards, Richardson dwells on his varied experience as a member of Congress, ambassador to the United Nations, energy secretary, diplomatic trouble-shooter and now a re-elected governor. Others may talk about extending health care, improving schools, creating jobs; he says he has already done it. Vilsack made a similar claim about his eight years as governor of Iowa, but Richardson could give him lessons in speech-making.

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/opinion/2003558170_broder06.html

[Adelante]

1. Fucking outrageous

One of the losers in the weekend oratorical marathon was retired Gen. Wesley Clark, who repeatedly invoked the West Point motto of "Duty, Honor, Country," forgetting that few in this particular audience have much experience with, or sympathy for, the military

Outrageous!

[wyldwolf]

2. well, I certainly believe YOU Wesdem... but do you remember late 2003?

When Clark first started being mentioned as a candidate? The vitriol directed at him by the anti-war left was, well, sickening. So much so that Michael Moore, of all people, ridiculed the left for their disdain for Clark.

I'm not convinced those people (many of who left DU and formed their own message forums) are over their distrust for Clark and/or all things military. Until very very recently, one of these other forums had an ongoing thread on Wes Clark in their Neocon section.

[Adelante]

4. How could I forget?

However, the DNC audience was respectful of the troops. Broder should be shot for this.

"Until very very recently, one of these other forums had an ongoing thread on Wes Clark in their Neocon section."

:rofl:

[Skwmom]

7. So the anti-war left embraces a man who:

co-sponsored the IWR.

was such a cheerleader for the war that his rhetoric was cited on the Bush website.

only said he was wrong AFTER support for the war dropped to an all-time low

said he accepted morally responsibility for his vote (now reward with me with the presidency and make me the new commander-in-chief)

recently stated: "As to the American people, this is a difficult question. The vast majority of people are concerned about what is going on in Iraq. This will make the American people reticent toward going for Iran. But I think the American people are smart if they are told the truth, and if they trust their president. So Americans can be educated to come along with what needs to be done with Iran." (So John, what do you want to educate the American public about – certainly not diplomacy or economic sanctions because since when has the American public been reticent about such actions. Hmm… what does that leave on the table).

On edit: If this is the case, I'm speechless.

[venable]

10. you might not be speechless if you listened to other things he has said

before and since these comments which you post.

If you are interested in the truth, quit posting this (how many times now?) quote, and read the transcript from MTP.

There is a reason he is considered anti-war. You're not getting it has nothing to do with his real beliefs and positions and statements.

[Skwmom]

26. The truth is Edwards says one thing in front of one crowd and

the opposite in front of another.

The truth is Edwards recently stated: "As to the American people, this is a difficult question. The vast majority of people are concerned about what is going on in Iraq. This will make the American people reticent toward going for Iran. But I think the American people are smart if they are told the truth, and if they trust their president. So Americans can be educated to come along with what needs to be done with Iran." (So John, what do you want to educate the American public about – certainly not diplomacy or economic sanctions because since when has the American public been reticent about such actions. Hmm… what does that leave on the table).

I listened to the MTP interview and "got it" - Edwards speaks out of both sides of his mouth.

[venable]

11. I agree, WesDem

that is crazy - for a couple of reasons. 1) I would guess that mainstream Dems have nothing against the military. and 2) the Generals, Clark in particular, have been the only administration voices telling the truth about the war.

I'm not a Clark supporter (though I would happily support him if he got the nom), but I find this outrageous, and likely untrue...I just will not believe that Democrats have anything against the military.

I grew up as a military dependent, lived my whole childhood on military bases, and I am to the left of the left. It is a myth that only right wingers support the military. The military is one of the most small d democratic institutions in the country.

[Adelante]

14. Not to mention all the vets elected in 2006

As Democrats!

The media makes me :crazy:

[venable]

15. Broder's not even trying to be honest any more

he's just mailing it in.

To suggest that Democrats have something against the military, and anti-war delegates were indifferent to Clark, is just making things up.

The delegates know who is anti-war. They know Clark is.

Broder is making stuff up, and it gets printed, and then becomes part of the record. It's not fair: to Clark, to the public, or to History, which will then misunderstand what was really going on. (How much history that we take as true is as inaccurate as this piece?)

There should be competency and honesty ratings for the media.

If Broder were a concert pianist, and he performed a concert as well as he wrote that piece, he'd be booed off the stage.


To hell with Broder.

[skipos]

3. Richardson is the most viable dark horse candidate IMO

He has experience galore, and has shown that he loves diplomacy. A good antidote for all the damage Bush has done.

Plus, Kerry's 252 electoral votes plus 5 for New Mexico means only 13 to go.

[Strawman]

8. Aren't there are more early Western primaries than in the past also?

I just don't know if he will generate enough excitement/buzz early enough to win the nomination outright.

But I still see Richardson as a no-brainer for the VP slot on the ticket. He can help deliver a state/region that is up for grabs, and most importantly, he is more than qualified to assume the presidency if necessary. He's really the perfect VP. He has more of a "record" than most governors and that can be used against him, particularly as Secretary of Energy, but I don't think any of the criticism will stick. It's way too complex of a story that can't be told in soundbytes like a scandal about a blowjob.

[skipos]

12. B Clinton was at the bottom of the polls at this time in 1991

Richardson is a good speaker, and has that "likeable" thing. Also, non-vp frontrunners (Dean in 2004, Hart in 1988, i'm not sure who the frontrunner in 1992 was but it wasn't Clinton) tend to NOT get the nomination.

I like Obama and Edwards(H Clinton not so much) but I can still admit that on paper Richardson looks more impressive than all the frontrunners. I think that will count for something.

[Strawman]

13. I'd be curious to know how strong his ground operation is in Iowa and NH

HRC is going to be strong in both and it seems like Edwards has been campaigning in Iowa since he hit puberty.

[bigtree]

27. Nevada

[SaveElmer]

5. Richardson was good...Edwards not so much so...

He seemed a bit over the top...and I am starting to find his continuous "apology" for the IWR vote both annoying and disingenuous.

Richardson was forceful, funny, and laid out his qualifications very well...I thought he did well...

Clark was ok...but pretty pedestrian...

[venable]

9. Edwards won't stop apologizing for the vote

any more than his opponents will remind him of it.

He properly considers it a tragic mistake. That is why he has become the outspoken anti-war voice that he has become, in spite of the endessly recycled Herzliya comments, which he clarified beautifully since.

[SaveElmer]

16. Frankly..

He is trying to have it both ways...

He says he takes "full responsibility" for his vote...

Then when asked why he made it blames Bush and Clinton administration officials he consulted...

This last point is accurate, he was lied to as was all of Congress and the American people...

But this caveat would not be needed if he was taking "full" responsibility...

[venable]

18. I disagree

he is explaining how he WENT ABOUT getting it wrong.

It would be foolish to say that he consulted nobody, listened to nobody, and just wanted to vote for the IWR.

He said he talked to some people, he took their counsel, and made the vote.

He could have talked to, or listened to, people like Scott Ritter. He didn't. He was wrong.

I see your point, but I think that it is as much as he can say. HRC, for instance, will not say she made a mistake. She will only say she was lied to. I guess I'm saying that's the difference between finally taking responsibility and not.

[SaveElmer]

23. She didn't "make a mistake"

And neither did Edwards as far as I am concerned...if they took their job seriously, looked at the evidence and made the decision they did, which reading their statements I believe they did (John Kerry's was particularly good) I don't think an apology is required...Bush is at fault...

By apologizing for doing their job it makes it sound as though they did not take their original vote seriously...

[venable]

24. I know what you mean, but it would go a long way

to making her stance more adamant if she said something like she was wrong to trust bush. I know she regrets it. I know she took it seriously.

I support Edwards, and he made the same vote, so I'm not casting stones here.

I like what Edwards said the other day, which is that his biggest mistake was trusting that bush would follow the process outlined in the IWR, even if it was non-binding.

You're right, and I've been saying this here for a couple of years - it is bush's war. it is not a democratic war.

[SaveElmer]

25. I appreciate your point of view...

And your willingness to look at this in context. My criticism of Edwards is not such that I don't have respect for him, or wouldn't vote for him. I am an admirerer of Edwards. But it really has the feel of blaming the victim. In October 2002 there was no particular reason to distrust the CIA or George Tenet. Bush had only been in office a year and a half. George Bush lied to get us into this war...I just think this effort at getting IWR Yes votes to apologize takes unnecessary focus off the one who is truly at fault...

Edwards, Kerry and many others made very good reasoned explanations for their votes at the time...I don't think they have anything to be ashamed of.

[Tellurian]

6. My belief is Edwards

will be used as the 'triangulation' entity by the media against all the other candidates.
The comparison between candidates will be in threes, if not directly, indirectly, within conclusions.

It will be interesting to watch, seeing if this hypothesis is played out in real time..

[zulchzulu]

17. I watched almost all the speeches...

...and this article sounds like a press release from the Edwards campaign...

I thought Obama was the strongest and most interesting. But that's just lil' ol' me...

[underpants]

19. How is Edwards not a "front runner"?

Oh I see they are trying to put him away early before anyone gets to hear what he has to say.

[NV1962]

20. It's not about who this Broder idiot thinks is a "frontrunner"

The problem with this pathetic hitpiece of that weasel is that he's suggesting that Democrats are anti-military.

You'd better not swallow his swill.

Plus, there's another topic on that same column, here:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x3098278

[underpants]

22. I saw that earlier

The whole thing is complete BS

[Skwmom]

28. Edwards gets so much gushing pr from Tweety and gang I don't think

you need to worry about them ignoring him.

[FrenchieCat]

21. Yep.....ok, so.....

Broder is reinforcing the meme that Democrats don't respect Country, Duty and Honor.

I guess that gauging speeches based on "imported trucked in" support is his way of making deep political analysis.