Edwards refuses to fake it on whether he supports Reid's bill cutting - Edwards tells truth instead!

[ddeclue]

The other post here claiming that Edwards "equivocates" is highly misleading.

Edwards was very forthcoming in the CNN interview and told Wolf the truth that he didn't know the details of the Reid bill and wasn't going to try to fake it for the interview.

Instead of faking it as so many politicians will no doubt do, Edwards chose to say very clearly and honestly that he we need to get the troops out of Iraq as soon as possible.

If only the other candidates would be so clear about what THEY believe...

Doug D.
Orlando, FL

[nevergiveup]

1. I doubt seriously

that as a candidate for POTUS he doesn't know the "details" of this well publicized bill but it is a hot potato and if he wants to "equivocate" or stall for a little while that is certainly OK with me. Eventually he will have to take a position and it will likely be an intelligent one.

[ddeclue]

4. I do not doubt that he did NOT know the details at the time he was asked.

indeed he was very wise to answer the question as he did given the Congress' penchant for writing a bill, voting on it and then later altering it in committee so stop trying to put words into his mouth or thoughts into his head which aren't his thank you very much.

If he had said "I'm for it" then he could have been trapped in the John Kerry trap of having say "I was for it before I was against it" that got Kerry into so much trouble with the Republicans in 2004.

Instead he chose to articulate his OWN position clearly and forthrightly rather than tie himself to a bill over which he has no control.

Edwards is a candidate who knows how to not screw up for a change!

Vote Edwards in 2008.

Doug D.
Orlando, FL

[caledesi]

44. Edwards/Obama would be a sweet ticket. nt

[renie408]

38. Really? I bet there are SENATORS that don't know everything that is in that Bill.

I agree with Doug. With the way Bills are altered after the fact, until you see the final version it would be ill advised to come out strongly for or against.

[mitchtv]

2. Richardson has said so

like Edwards

[flpoljunkie]

3. Edwards spokeswoman says his quarrel is that "Reid-Feingold doesn't go far enough?" Huh?

Ben Smith at Politico asked the Edwards campaign to elaborate on Edwards' view of Reid-Feingold. Smith reports:

"EDWARDS: Spokeswoman Kate Bedingfield emails, "I wouldn't say he supports Reid-Feingold. He supports defunding as a policy and applauds Reid and Feingold for putting it on the table, but the plan he supports is his own -- which would force a drawdown of 40-50,000 immediately and have all combat troops out in 12-18 months." UPDATE: That is to say, says Bedingfield, his only quarrel with the bill is it doesn't go far enough, but he has no problem with the methods."

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2007/4/5/85053/75091

(I do think all hell would break loose if we immediately drew down 40-50,000 troops in Iraq. I agree with Feingold that redeployment needs to be done in a safe, orderly way.)

[ddeclue]

5. Edwards wants the troops OUT...he could not have been more clear in the interview.

Doug D.
Orlando, FL

[Mass]

7. Interestingly, Feingold says that Edwards's plan does not go far enough

as it does not include a deadline and it does not plan to forbid use of the funds for troops in Iraq after a certain date (this was at the beginning of the year).

[ddeclue]

9. That's not really accurate however...

Edwards wants 40,000 to 50,000 out immediately and everyone within 12-18 months as I have read.

Doug D.

[Mass]

13. The simple fact that he says that it is in 12 to 18 months shows he does not ask for a

firm deadline (neither did the Senate bill that was voted recently, it was also a goal and neither do most Democrats). This plan is basically the same as Obama's, except Obama is proposing a much more concrete and detailled bill that you can read on his senate website.

A goal is unfortunately not enough (and reading Obama's bill shows why. It definitively let too much latitude to *. It is like saying: we hope * will do what we want.

Feingold's bill is stronger as it says: all troops out before March 08 (12 months) and then we block the funds so that they cannot stay there. Edwards is perfectly entitled to not support it, but he should not say that his is stronger because it is not the case.

(Here is Edwards's plan):

http://johnedwards.com/news/press-releases/20070214-iraq-plan/

[ddeclue]

27. WRONG...18 months is a deadline...it is simply false to state otherwise.

If you say the maximum is 18 months that means after 18 months, the troops are gone...ergo it IS a real deadline. How "strong" it is depends on what your preferences are:

a) You want it to actually PASS. Make the withdrawal date too soon, lose too many votes and it doesn't pass. Bills that don't pass are by definition not "strong".
b) You want to withdraw a real portion of the troops immediately. Edwards does - 40,000 to 50,000 right away.

Neither Feingold's plan, nor Obama's plan will matter unless they are passed anyways.

None of these plans really matter until and unless one gets passed and not vetoed so it is just so much argument about counting angels on the head of a pin.

Thanks for the link to Edwards plan, however I've already read it (seeing as how Edwards sent it to me since I'm on his email list) and saw Edwards interview live on TV with Wolf Blitzer when it happened.

Doug D.
Orlando, FL

[AshevilleGuy]

6. NBC just reported that the Senate Dems are going to cave on the funding bill.

So all this is MOOT. Damn cowards!!!!!!!!!!!

[ddeclue]

8. If so it makes Edwards look that much better for being so forceful and

not tying himself to a sinking ship.

Doug D.

[AshevilleGuy]

10. Yeah, he said to send the bill back to GWB, over and over...

But they are not going to do that. They are supposedly "afraid" of the public blaming them for cutting off the funds to the troops. This was on NBC about 6:35; I was away from the TV but could hear most of it. The voice sounded like Shumer, who said that after bush vetoes the current bill tey will "send him one he will sign, one way or another".

And I persuaded myself they wouldn't CAVE this time!! What was I thinking?

[Mass]

19. You mean like when Edwards voted for the IWR. He was a coward?

Just asking because your post is way over the top. Some of these senators have fought for getting the troops out of Iraq for a very long time and do not deserve your attacks.

Edwards does not have to vote and Feingold's bill is very superior to anything Edwards has presented.

[ddeclue]

29. No its not...

Stop being a jerk here. Feingold isn't even runnning for President is he? Why are you comparing Edwards unfavorably to FEINGOLD rather than comparing him favorably to Obama or Hillary anyways?

Doug D.

[Mass]

31. Because your post is stating that Edwards is saying that his ...

proposal is better than Feingold's (Reid's proposal was actually drafted by Feingold), and then the other poster calls all Democratic senators coward. I actually appreciated your answer to his post.

Actually, I do not see a lot of difference between Obama's proposal and Edwards's proposal, except for the fact that Obama's proposal is a lot more detailled in what happens during the next year concerning troop withdrawal, diplomacy, and aide to the Iraqi state. As I said earlier, he also does not include a firm deadline, but a goal.

I am not even sure that Hillary has a plan concerning Iraq, and if she has, I doubt I agree with it.

[mmonk]

39. Whereby many here keep hitting Edwards over the head

with the IWR, he keeps saying he was wrong, the war was wrong and he was sorry. How come he is treated more harsh than some when he has been the clearest? Just curious.

[Rusty MacHenry]

11. Link?

Until I see a link from the GOP corporate media i'm just not going to believe it.

There not DAMN COWARDS!!!!!!!!i'm tired of this mantra!!!!!!!

[AshevilleGuy]

12. WTF?????????

It was on NBC News about 6:35pm. I do not need to justify what I say with a fucking link!

[Name removed]

14. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Ghost in the Machine]

40. "I do not need to justify what I say with a fucking link!"

ummm... around here you do... if you want to have any credibility...

[renie408]

42. Oh, come on

He doesn't need a link to say, "I just saw on NBC that Dems are going to cave on XXX Bill." Now, if he said, "Senate Dems are going to cave on the XXX Bill." THEN people could scream for a link or some kind of proof. Or if he vaguely cited some statistic to support his argument or some study or other. Those kinds of things need to be backed up.

[Mass]

15. No. Levin said he will not vote for Reid's bill, which does not mean that

Reid will not present the bill and also does not give you the right to call all Democratic Senators cowards.

This is insulting and does not help your candidate who does not have to vote on this bill (and is the co-sponsor of the bill that sent us in this mess anyway, if you insist in casting blame).

[AshevilleGuy]

17. If Levin does not vote for the bill it won't pass.

What is the difference? They are backing off.

[Rusty MacHenry]

18. No Levin is backing off

Reid and Co. aren't. big difference

[AshevilleGuy]

21. Levin is Chair of the Armed Services Committee

You think anything like this will pass without him?

[Mass]

20. No, Levin is backing off, which is no surprise and does not give you the right to attack every

single Democratic Senator. Feingold has fought against this bill, the Patriot Act, for a lot longer than Edwards has.

[AshevilleGuy]

22. Who said every SINGLE Senator?

Don't put words in my mouth. How can you defend the ones who will back off?

[Mass]

24. You said so or at least implied so.

[Rusty MacHenry]

28. Yes you implied it

But you say Democrats are cowards your saying are 51 on them from Akaka to Feingold to Reid to Wyden are all spinless cowards. If your pissed at a Dem Senator single him or her out but don't lump in the ones who have been critical of the war.

[AshevilleGuy]

30. If key Dem leaders back off and let bush have a bill he wants,

next week, will you say they are NOT cowards? I said NOTHING about all 50 (we do not have 51) Dem Senators, but the ones that are going to back off are not doing what the voters want! We will see how many there will be, there is no way around that.

[ddeclue]

32. It only takes ONE Democrat to back off for the bill to fail, simple Senate math.

If we have 51 or 50+LIEberman however you choose to look at it, if we lose even one vote then the matter is at best 50-50 and Dick Cheney gets to come in and vote against it.

Senate math.

Doug D.
Orlando, FL

[AshevilleGuy]

33. Exactly. Thank you.

Actually, Levin could keep any such bill bottled up in committee so they won't even have to vote on Reid's bill.

[ddeclue]

25. Calm down everybody and let's just wait to see what the Senate does..

That's kind of Edwards point here anyways that he isn't tying his own position on Iraq to something beyond his control in the Senate with reconcilliation committees, etc. that have to decide the final language and get it through both houses.

Finally let's avoid the f-word please, it was gratuitous and counterproductive.


Doug D.

[Flabbergasted]

16. I've liked Edwards since the debates. His response, when he pointed out Cheney's

lesbian daughter, was absolutely classic and brilliant. He dominated Cheney, and in my opinion, appeared far more authentic than Kerry.

[Mass]

23. Actually, I found his answer lousy and an insult to any person that

was gay or lesbian.

He congratulated Cheney for supporting his daughter as if it was something that was admirable and that needed a lot of effort. I really yelled when I heard that.

I am sorry, but I thought he was very weak, and lost the debate, which does not matter as a VP debate does not matter anyway.

[Flabbergasted]

26. For a Republican it took ALOT of effort. Cheney had to admit publicly

that he was tolerant of gays and lesbians something they never want to publically admit. It was a winner for Gays and Lesbians.

[venable]

34. you're flipping who was doing the insulting

Cheney is in a party that is brutal on gay and lesbian issues.

Cheney supports his lesbian daughter. This is commendable within the political and cultural realities of cheney-world.

the insults to gays and lesbians was the reaction of the right wingers (led by the heinous Lynn cheney) who were furious that Edwards would insult the Cheneys and their daughter.

their outrage at her openly gay daughter being mentioned betrays the truth of her anti-gay sentiments.

It was the Cheneys who were insulting. Not Edwards.

[Mass]

36. I was not talking about the Cheneys, but of my reaction hearing Edwards's comment this day.

And sorry, whether you approve or not, this was my reaction. I do not need you to tell me what I thought.

As for the Cheneys, of course their reaction is insulting to gay people, which makes Edwards congratulating them because they have not kicked their lesbian daughter out insulting, IMHO. Personally, I would have kicked his *ss because they were not willing to have on at the Convention with them.

[venable]

37. who told you what you were thinking?

not me.

who said I don't approve, and what's that even mean?

I disagree with your assessment of whether Edwards was insulting to gay people.

I'll say it again: Edwards was NOT commending Cheney for his loving his daughter in spite of the fact that she was gay. He was commending him for bucking the gay-hating party of which Cheney is a member. there is a big difference here.

we agree that the Cheney clan's reaction to the 'mention' was feigned or real outrage. that outrage is what is insulting.


just to be clear, I am not telling you what to think. I am disagreeing with you. I'm not disapproving of you, I'm disagreeing.

[GreenArrow]

41. I've disliked Edwards since he was touted

as a possible running mate for Gore. I for one, felt that Cheney kicked Edwards' ass during the debate. Cheney lied with impunity, and Edwards did little or nothing to call him on it. Cheney came across as having more gravity, while Edwards looked more than a little wet behind the ears. His comment about Cheney's daughter, was okay in that it served to point out Cheney's (and the GOP's hypocrisy on the issue); unfortuantely, Kerry felt the need to improvise on that riff, when it should have just been left as it was. He did marginally better than Lieberman, but his performance was nothing to write home about.

I disagree about authenticity; perhaps the one boon Edwards provided for the Kerry campaign was to make Kerry appear more authentic, accomplished, knowledgable and capable, most immediately in comparison to Edwards, and more broadly in comparison to Bush, whom Kerry thrashed in each of their debate meetings. Edwards then and now, comes across to me as one of the most inauthentic, disengenous, manipulative, and oily politicians I have ever seen. He pretends, like Bush, not be a politician, but he is consumate. He's a chameleon.

His IWR vote, sponsorship, and generally hawkish support of the unecessary, immoral preventive invasion of Iraq make him an absolute non-starter for me. I'd vote for Hillary before this guy. While she is no less fake, she makes less pretence about it.

[renie408]

43. Isn't interesting what appeals to people?

I like Edwards and find him more genuine than Hillary. I would say nearly the EXACT same things about Hillary that you say about Edwards. Not saying I am right and you are wrong, just that it is interesting how two people can look at two OTHER people and have very different impressions. I think in many cases it is a visceral reaction. I have had to make myself look HARD at all the candidates so that I get past liking or disliking them.

[Name removed]

35. Deleted sub-thread

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[GreenTea]

45. I really do like Edwards....