JOHN EDWARDS--How might he have voted on the MoveOn Resolution if he was still in the Senate?

[FrenchieCat]

Elizabeth Edwards Criticizes MoveOn Over Petraeus Ad
September 14, 2007 03:03 PM

...Elizabeth Edwards makes hers the first campaign to directly criticize MoveOn.org's "General Betray Us" ad, breaking with the Democrats' strategy of, basically, ignoring it.

"Someone who's spent their life in the military doesn't deserve 'General Betray Us,'" said Edwards, wife of Democratic presidential candidate John Edwards.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2007/09/14/elizabeth-edwards-critici_n_64472.html

[Beaverhausen]

1. jesus christ- you have a wild hair up your ass about him, don't you?

How many times now how you posted this partial comment by Elizabeth? Thanks for doing the MSM's hatchet job for them.

You aren't doing your candidate any favors.

[FrenchieCat]

2. This is my third time.

But my ass is fine, if I should say so myself.

I provide a link for those who want to read the story.

and it's a direct quote from the Huffington Post....who, last I checked was acceptable reading here at DU.

and

I don't have a candidate....which makes this a lot of fun! :rofl:

[Beaverhausen]

4. Uh, you have a Kuchinich quote in your sig line.

but I'm sure you have no candidate yet. :eyes:

[FrenchieCat]

6. Actually, I don't......and If

I was for Kucinich, I certainly wouldn't deny it.

I just happen to be a free agent at the moment....

[PurityOfEssence]

37. That's just counting thread starters; what about in other threads?

Frankly, I agree with her, and I cringed when I saw the ad; it's fun to say things like that here, but to accuse an active-duty officer of something akin to treason does us no good at all. Everything in the ad could have been effectively said without a cutesy and EXTREMELY inflammatory bit of ridicule.

What Edwards' vote in such a situation would be is mere speculation, and it's nothing but a device to express one's preconceptions. Whether this piques you with pristine, unbiased curiosity for what others thought or you were just using it as another pretense to hammer and slag Moriarty and give the other Edwards' foes and assorted Clark dead-enders a forum for spite is left to the reader to determine, but in light of past activities, innocent information gathering doesn't quite seem to be the motivation.

This is a very odd concept of fun: hectoring a candidate endlessly on any topic or event to no end.

A more interesting question to pose would be to ask how many baldly anti-Edwards threads you've started over the past couple of years. Some days, you start more than just one thread specifically dedicated to this peculiar little hobby. Regardless, the idea that rolling joy is to be had by slagging one particular candidate repeatedly is just plain sad and quite foreign to me, and I'm hardly some shrinking violet.

As a very good friend likes to say: "A critic is a eunuch in a whorehouse".

Enough different posters comment on this odd proclivity, so it's not just a product of my addled mind; perhaps such ample spare time could be more constructively spent finding a new candidate now that your champion has bowed out and cast his lot with the current heir-presumptive.

[still_one]

3. Excellent question. However, critisizing the ad is not the same thing as voting for the resolution

That would be a good question to ask each of the Democratic Candidates


The ones that were in the Senate and could vote, voted against it

[SaveElmer]

5. He would vote for it...and then apologize 5 years later...nt

[FrenchieCat]

7. !

:rofl:

[Adelante]

43. Oooh, snap nt

[Inspired]

8. This thread is bullshit. n/t

[FrenchieCat]

9. Why........?

I thought the vote was bullshit myself.

But that quote from EE does make my poll relevant, far as I'm concerned. It's not like nothing was said at all....you know.

[Inspired]

11. You are asking a hypothetical question

based on your obvious bias against Edwards.

[FrenchieCat]

I feel like I provided very good options.......and it sounds like you are opting

for option number 4 -
Leave John Edwards out of this; we cannot speculate a hypothetical no matter what his wife said


Biased would mean that all of the selections would make Edwards look like an ass. Sorry, but I'm better than that.

[PurityOfEssence]

38. No, the threshold of bias would probably be lower than that, but you can't even limbo that

First off, the bias is inherent in the asking of the question by stating that she is the first Democrat to assail an institution that most of us like, if not truly revere, and by calling it "her" campaign, you equate her with him.

Secondly, with the premise being extremely biased, who says that the threshold of "bias" would be if all five options were obviously slanted against him? Two or three should pretty much constitute bias; four would really sew it up. Having all five would be a case of EXTREME BIAS.

Thirdly, the contention, even given an extremely self-generous burden of proof, fails laughably: all five options reek with derision and blithe, snide dismissal.

Let's look at them one by one.

1) This is sneering that he'd hide behind a lofty ideal like free speech, instead of addressing the accuracy of the text head-on and thus trying to duck the real issue.

2) This is painting him as an appeaser--verging on lapdog status--to the reactionaries. The tone of this statement suggests insincerity.

3) This shows him as a naked, calculating opportunist, only concerned with how it would benefit or hurt him personally. This is designed to show him as cold, selfish, Machiavellian and morally ugly.

4) This just reeks of satirical insinuation. Having already characterized her as a surrogate for him on occasions before and equating the two by calling it "her" campaign in the text of this thread is mealy-mouthed, passive-aggressive sneering. Yep, she's just some female Shelton, another example of his lily-livered use of allies to do his dirty work.

5) Need I comment? Hell, this wishy-washy opportunism, although the most literally scathing, is actually about the nicest of the bunch.

Doesn't look like you're "better than that" at all. I could be wrong, though; perhaps the backed-up bile has reached such saturation that nothing short of outright attacks register as bias anymore.

Once again, butter WOULD melt in your mouth.

[Cameron27]

10. Why?

There's speculation almost every day about how Obama would have voted if he was in the senate during the IWR debates.

[Inspired]

12. So that justifies it?

Is everyone just a little bored tonight or something?

[FrenchieCat]

14. Just didn't want to leave Edwards out in the "cold" considering

what his surrogate attack campaigner wife said about Move On; that it had gone too far.

[Cameron27]

16. What's unfair about the question?

Elizabeth clearly came out against the move on ad, whereas Obama said at the time of the vote that he was against it.

[Ninja Jordan]

13. Your threads add absolutely nothing to the politcal debate.

I would lock tripe like this if I were a mod.

[FrenchieCat]

15. Why?

No free speech for me? Just some for Move On? :shrug:

[Ninja Jordan]

17. No speech if it's intended to do nothing more than inflame and start arguments.

DU has the power to moderate their own forums.

[FrenchieCat]

18. Things were going along splendidly till you an another Edwards supporter

felt that I am the enemy for asking a question based on a topic that has posted a whole lot of threads today. Something that the Edwards campaign via EE made a coment about. I believe Edwards not to be as fragile as you think.....and I believe my poll to be just as fair as any other.

Are we simply not allowed to speculate (even via a poll) as to what John Edwards might have done?

Seems like Edwards supporters are mighty content to have Edward commenting constantly on the going ons of his opponents who have to vote on issues while Edwards criticizes them from the sidelines.....maybe you should advise him not to have so much to say from the bleachers all of the time....

[Ninja Jordan]

19. What I see from you are posts that take swipes at John Edwards and his terminally ill wife.

In fact, I've never seen a supposed Democrat so passionately attack Elizabeth Edwards. Who the hell dislikes Elizabeth Edwards? Jesus Christ. You responded to my thread on Obama, for example, and somehow crafted an asnwer that managed to disparage John Edwards! I mean, what the hell. That takes talent. I don't have a preference of candidate either, but your posts make me like Edwards even more.

[FrenchieCat]

20. So you are telling me that I'm not a Democrat because I should

worship at EE's feet, if I was? :wow:

Now that's creepy!

as far as liking Edwards, please help yourself. I'm not your concience or anything. :shrug:

[Ninja Jordan]

21. You're the only Democrat I've seen to attack her so viciously.

Congratulations on that. It's a really classy distinction.

[Cameron27]

25. Get over yourself,

Elizabeth is doing some pretty vicious attacking herself. She entered the ring so she has to expect to take some hits, and her health has nothing to do with it.

[Ninja Jordan]

26. Right, I'm the one starting threads centered around my personal hatred for a particular candidate

:eyes:

[BootinUp]

29. How do you define

personal hatred?

Bizarre is the only word for such a claim.

[Cameron27]

30. No you're the one who writes things like this:

"What I see from you are posts that take swipes at John Edwards and his terminally ill wife. In fact, I've never seen a supposed Democrat so passionately attack Elizabeth Edwards. Who the hell dislikes Elizabeth Edwards?"

Elizabeth has been the surrogate candidate doing more attacking than any candidate in the race. Frenchie has every right to criticize her or John or anyone else without being called on it by you. Who the hell dislikes Elizabeth Edwards? Probably anybody she's publicly attacked to name a few. Sanctimoniously invoking her terminal illness is pathetic.

[FrenchieCat]

31. Ooh....I found a thread about EE and MoveOn when she first made her comment....

it was started by an Edwards supporter. I make a comment in that thread.....check it out, and then call me out on it....please....and make sure to write down everyone else's name who doesn't agree with her then comment, K? :shrug:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=132&topic_id=3520635

[FrenchieCat]

27. Please show proof.......

Cause I don't think you will find any post of mine in where I attack her, viciously or otherwise.

Currently I believe that you are guilty of slander towards me. I don't support John Edwards, and I certaintly (especially since I took off my gag and before) am not flattering towards him... But in reference to his wife, I don't recall ever being vicious towards her. So please enlighten me on these posts of mine. I'd like to see them. It would also restore your own credibility. Normally, attacking a Democrat for not being a Democrat is against the rules here at DU. and that is what you have done.

So I'll be waiting for the proof that I have been vicious towards EE. Thanks! :hi:

[BeyondGeography]

22. Edwards 2004 campaign: Yes; 2008: No

[FrenchieCat]

28. ooh......

[BootinUp]

23. Which way is the wind blowing...

sorry, I have seen johnyboy in action too many times.

[PurityOfEssence]

35. Breaks your heart, doesn't it?

It's hard to say tough things about him, isn't it?

How noble.

[BootinUp]

36. Nope, not really.

Ain't free speech wonderful POE?

[PurityOfEssence]

39. Yep.

It's the gift that goes on giving.

[BootinUp]

24. Excellent post, thanks Frenchie!

To all those who disparage Frenchie, please realize this is a free speech zone for Democrats and she certainly qualifies.

[FrenchieCat]

32. Edwards folks avoiding this thread.......

when they should be voting instead?

Thus far...Blowing in the wind ahead by a sizeable margin.

Well maybe they want to vote, but can't decide how to vote. :shrug:

[PurityOfEssence]

40. No, it's just that any of the five choices make him look like an asshole, and there's no "other"

By the way, why "should" they be voting? Did I miss the palace coup that suddenly makes us all somehow required to participate in gleeful, mocking drivel?

Hey, I'm a votin' fool, but there's no option there that doesn't suck; no wonder the voting's going your way. Ooops, that's right: there is no "your way"; you're unbiased.

How DOES one vote on a "does he sodomize under-aged dogs too, or does he only do it with consenting adult ones?" poll?

Never could figure that one out.

Yes, the Edwards supporters are once again running from your cunning; faced with the indisputable calumny of our candidate, we cower like that yellow-bellied shyster who's duped us to no end.

Please find it in your gracious heart to pity us wretches; I know you can...

[AtomicKitten]

33. It depends what day of the week it is.

[geek tragedy]

34. Edwards said the exact right thing about this vote.

It's a waste of time.

Good for Edwards.

[2rth2pwr]

41. I'm waiting for Elizabeth to speak up about it. nt

[illinoisprogressive]

42. depends. the Edwards of 2003 or the Edwards of today?