AP: Kerry calls out Edwards on his trade positions and humble roots

[flpoljunkie]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A51785-2004Feb18.html

By NEDRA PICKLER
The Associated Press
Wednesday, February 18, 2004; 2:50 PM


DAYTON, Ohio - Democratic front-runner John Kerry had kind words Wednesday for longtime nemesis Howard Dean as he exited the race for the nomination but signaled a new phase of engagement with John Edwards.

While speaking with reporters Wednesday, Kerry dismissed key points of Edwards' campaign and questioned whether a candidate's background should be an issue. Edwards often tells voters that he understands the pain of job loss because of his working-class Southern background, which contrasts with Kerry's upbringing in boarding school and Boston society. But Kerry said a person's roots should not be part of the debate. "If where you come from was a qualification for being president, we'd have never had Franklin Roosevelt or John Kennedy," he said.

Edwards criticized Kerry for supporting the North American Free Trade Agreement while campaigning in Wisconsin, a state that has lost thousands of manufacturing jobs and where resentment of free trade runs high.

But Kerry said he and Edwards have exactly the same policy on trade. He said they both voted for normalized trade relations with China and both want to see labor and environmental standards addressed in trade pacts.

Although Edwards said he would have voted against NAFTA, Kerry said: "He wasn't in the Senate back then. I don't know where he registered his vote, but it wasn't in the Senate."

[NewYorkerfromMass]

1. Bring it on!

I have no doubt Kerry will dispatch Edwards in short time.

[AP]

19. DU'ers should probably be supersititious at this point. Everyone who has

been THIS confident has seen their candidate fall by the way side.

[CWebster]

2. "..,whether a candidate's background should be an issue"

You mean like Viet Nam?

[NewYorkerfromMass]

3. No, "where you come from"

is what Kerry said.

[mouse7]

10. The WHOLE bio is reasonable to consider

People should look at the entire bio of candidates. Edwards humble beginnings. Kerry's war record. Bush's AWOL record.

[HereSince1628]

13. Maybe Kerry should sell the quality of his boarding school

together with his Yale degree, he could argue superb educational preparation. I say that because Kerry's attempt to take people's background out of the game isn't going to play. The base is unhappy with W's life based on special considerations--THAT IS AN ISSUE IN THIS ELECTION.

Kerry _could_ argue he is something of a victim of his family's position. None of us get to chose the circumstances of birth

He _DID_ do things with his life that were done by more or less ordinary people...like skipper a swift boat, he did stand up against the war (although throwing ribbins and keeping medals is sort of having your cake and eating it, too. Apparantly I can't kick that Dean support,yet). And he did do things in his political life to help ordinary people.

Democrats aren't against wealthy people. Democrats are against special priviledge based on birth. Democrats recognize that elevators are sometimes available to the "elite." A bitter awareness true, but all Democrats ask for is a system with an up-stairwell. Democrats as a rule are not afraid to work to get ahead.

Despite his heritage and despite the efforts of his parents, I really don't think Kerry has lived the specially blessed life of W.

[dansolo]

14. I was thinking the same exact thing (n/t)

[atre]

4. Those aren't very effective attacks

1) This is politics we're talking about... Of course a person's background is a consideration. How did Andruw Jackson sell himself to the American public? Or Lincoln (they ran the same type of campaign as Edwards did- portraying him as a man of the people)? And make no mistake about it: Kennedy never would have been elected if the public was oblivious to his personal background. Just because he cut against the grain the other way does not mean there was no cutting going on.

Whether you like it or not, Kerry, it is an issue. The people want to know your story and they want to know his.

2) So Kerry would have us believe that anyone who does not occupy a seat in a legislature either a) has no opinions about issues confronting the legislature or b) their opinion is invalid? I'm not buying it.

I take it you Kerry people are content with these weak attacks? I would hope he'd have better spin-meisters than this if he is the ultimate nominee.

[woofless]

5. Why do you want "attacks"?

Are not reasoned declarations of differences between candidates enough? Edwards seems to think so. We do not need attacks, thank you. We'll save that for Shrubco.

[atre]

8. How would you characterize what Kerry said?

Certainly he's not pushing a positive message there.

[The Magistrate]

12. These Are Hardly Attacks, Sir

They barely rise to the level of spirited debate....

"LET'S GO GET THOSE BUSH BASTARDS!"

[Bryan]

11. Of course they aren't

Edwards and Kerry are, IIRC, friends on a personal level, and I'm sure both they and their campiagns put some stock in some combination of the two, since each has something the other needs (Edwards has perceived Southern appeal, Kerry has perceived strength on national security, etc.). I'd bet cash money that they are both trying to keep their relationship civil In Case Of, while simultaneously pushing forward (both men still want to be President).

Therefore, I'm sure both camps are trying to avoid being the first to draw blood. If Kerry does start to mount strong attacks against Edwards (on, say, his lack of political experience), I'd say that something went haywire.

[seaglass]

17. It's the same as Dean statements on the IWR.

He wasn't there to vote and I did not believe him when he said he would have voted against it because of statements he made both before and after the vote.

Maybe Kerry is counting on people to recognize that even though Edwards says he wouldn't have voted for NAFTA, he's voted for the same trade agreements as Kerry since he's been in the Senate.

It might not be the strongest argument but it does leave room for doubt.

Edwards will probably need to show some evidence that he has made public statements against NAFTA pre-candidacy.

The argument about Edwards background I'll agree with you is weak.

[Meldread]

6. I hope Edwards fires back.

Kerry just pulled off the gloves. I hope Edwards fires back and decides to take the bull by the horns so to speak. Edwards has a wonderful way of attacking -- attacking without seeming like an attack.

[SangamonTaylor]

7. Yeah, his ability to 'attack' is uncanny.

From the WashingtonPost LiveDiscussion with Mrs. Edwards on 02/10/04:

Downtown Washington, D.C.: I understand and admire Sen. Edwards' relentless positive outlook on the stump, but doesn't this amount to unilateral disarmament against a Republican opponent who has not and likely will not play fair in the fall? Today's revelations in the Plame affair are a case in point, but anyone who criticizes the administration's willingness to sacrifice an intelligence asset in furtherance of a political goal is deemed an "attack dog". When will John turn on the juice?

Elizabeth Edwards: If you had every seen John fight, on the Senate floor, in his Senate race, or in the courtrooms of North Carolina for twenty years, you would be certain that he can be an effective fighter without being nasty, without shaking his finger in the President's face, or even raising his voice. John's questioning of Judge Pickering is a great example. John was prepared and informed about Pickering's record and unrelenting, at the same time that he was civil. And he was effective at exposing Judge Pickering, in forcing Judge Pickering to expose his own shortcomings.

John will expose President Bush, too, for his failure to address the real needs and pain in the country, for his failure to keep his campaign promises, and for his failure to trust us all with the truth on so many fronts. Frankly, that's a fight we need -- civil, thorough, and unrelenting -- if we are going to win in November.

[Meldread]

16. Exactly.

His attacks are amazing. I mean he's just so graceful with words -- it's almost like a verbal ballet. That's the only way I can describe it.

I think that in combination with his natural charisma is what is going to cause him to beat Kerry. Kerry is the front runner now and he's going to be the media's bitch now while Edwards pretty much gets a free ride. (Like Kerry has so far.) If Kerry stumbles even once it's over for him. Poll Numbers showing Edwards beating Bush is likely to attract a few Kerry fans that were only voting for him because he could beat Bush.

Kerry's support is falling out from under him. The hot air and steam is being let out. It's amazing to watch one man surge in a matter of days and close a 30 point gap.

[littlejoe]

9. Right On!

[rucky]

15. Oh goody! Let's talk about NAFTA some more, Sen. Kerry

it's the best thing he can do... for John Edwards & Dennis

[colonel odis]

18. if i were kerry ....

i'm not sure i'd want to pick a fight with a south carolina boy who grew up in mill towns and had been told all his life he couldn't do this and couldn't do that.

john kerry has served his country honorably and has much to be proud of.

but trust me, his northeastern prep school ass doesn't want to get into it with a southerner from a small town. he'll get whupped up one side and down the other.

[AP]

20. I agree. It's one thing to say what you got is good. It's another to say

what someone else has isn't good. Kerry needs to explain why his background matters rather than why Edwards's doesn't.

And to reduce Edwards's position on trade to vote he didn't make and the China trade vote is lame. Edwards ran in 1998 ON being anti-NAFTA, and that China vote wasn't the ONLY trade bill they voted on.

[mmonk]

21. how's the snow?

[revcarol]

22. I wouldn't be so quick to boast, Kerry!!

Have you checked out the WalMart shelves lately?

"MADE IN CHINA" is on most items. And both YOU and EDWARDS voted for "normalized relations with China," which means:YOU GAVE THE GO-AHEAD TO SHIP OUR MANUFACTURING JOBS TO CHINA.

Open mouth, insert foot. and you inserted Edwards' foot too. Glad you made your position clear.

[DrFunkenstein]

23. The AP Completely Changes Kerry's Sentiment

But Kerry said a person's roots should not be part of the debate. "If where you come from was a qualification for being president, we'd have never had Franklin Roosevelt or John Kennedy," he said.

Kerry is not saying that your background should be ignored - in fact he often cites his Dad's sense of duty and his mom's love of nature in defining him early on - but that humble roots should not be some sort of prerequisite.

As for NAFTA, Edwards support of normalizing trade relations with China is very much in keeping within its framework. As for Kerry's take on NAFTA, read here:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=108&topic_id=34553

Here's another good intimation of Kerry's thinking on free trade (great article, actually):

(Neo-isolationists) argue against a free trade agreement with China, fight against the terms of U.S. membership in the World Trade Organization (WTO), and use clearly unaccountable global bureaucrats at the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund as an excuse to oppose even the most reasonable initiatives.

http://www.twq.com/01spring/kerry.pdf

[KittyWampus]

24. Edwards Is From A Comfortable Middle Class Background

his "working class act" is just that... AN ACT.

[AP]

26. Link? Cite? Anything?

[AP]

27. Does Kerry have a brother who's a union electrician?

[SangamonTaylor]

28. is him being the first in his family to go to college an ACT?

Or him working his way through college an act?

How about moving from one mill town to another as a child an act?

You should cut him some slack. He's the definition of the American dream.

[AP]

30. But but but...Prince Charles was the first royal to go to college. Maybe

they're really, like American royalty.

[DrFunkenstein]

31. Kerry Was Bounced Around Europe With His Military Dad

Who was not wealthy. He got hooked up on his education from a rich aunt on the Forbes side, but his actual parents were hardly loaded.

Personally, I have yet to see Kerry disparage Edwards's roots.

[Toucano]

25. I think this part is good.

Although Edwards said he would have voted against NAFTA, Kerry said: "He wasn't in the Senate back then. I don't know where he registered his vote, but it wasn't in the Senate."

I am reminded of the debate where John Edwards excused his lack knowledge about DOMA because he wasn't in the Senate when it was passed.

That's not a criticism, just an observation.

For the record, I am basically neutral regarding Edwards or Kerry and will proudly support either when nominated.

[Meshuga]

29. Well said by Kerry!

Kerry said: "He wasn't in the Senate back then. I don't know where he registered his vote, but it wasn't in the Senate."