Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Edwards' interview on ABC This Week

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) Donate to DU
 
adnelson60087 Donating Member (661 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-04-07 11:14 AM
Original message
Edwards' interview on ABC This Week
He did a fabulous job addressing the points that many have raised about electibility, and the nature of change. Has Hillary addressed Poverty like he has? Or Barack? If Edwards can win Iowa, I think he can go far in the rest of the primary season. I agree with Edwards' assessment that money won't matter in the general election, since the GOP is fighting an uphill battle and changing their negatives will not be likely.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
Evergreen Emerald Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-04-07 11:16 AM
Response to Original message
1. It has not been on in WA yet.
The local ABC affiliate keeps changing the time-slot for This Week. Anything interesting? Did Stephanloguoiuiouiuogus hold his feet to the fire regarding the difference between he and the rest of the pack on Iraq?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
goodgd_yall Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-04-07 01:20 PM
Response to Reply #1
7. In case Staph doesn't answer the question about Iraq and you really want to know
Here is an excerpt from the interview with Edwards on Meet the Press a few weeks ago:

A week ago Wednesday in the New Hampshire debate, Democrats woke up the next morning, I think somewhat surprised that the three top candidates, Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama and John Edwards, all said that they could not pledge that all American troops would be out of Iraq by the end of their first term in 2013. Another one of your opponents, Governor Bill Richardson of New Mexico, issued this statement about you. He says, “Edwards says” “he would get all of the combat troops out of Iraq, but he would leave behind thousands of non-combat troops in the middle of a civil war.” This “is not ending the war... Leaving behind thousands of non-combat troops contradicts Army doctrine and common sense. It is simply irresponsible. ... History teaches us that putting undermanned forces in the middle of sectarian conflict, whether in Somalia, Lebanon or anywhere” “is a recipe for disaster. John Edwards would change the mission. I,” Richardson, “will end the war.”

Is he correct?

SEN. EDWARDS: No, of course he’s not correct. They will—unless we’re going to close the embassy in Baghdad and have the only American embassy in the world that we provide no protection for, there’d have to be some troops in Baghdad for purposes of protecting the embassy. Now, what I’ve also said that is also ignored in that statement is that we do need to maintain quick reaction forces just outside of Iraq.

Now, there are some real differences between myself and Senator Clinton on this issue. I am not for maintaining troops—combat troops—inside Iraq, for a lot of reasons. I think number one, they’ll have a target on their forehead while they’re there. Number two, it continues the perception that America is occupying Iraq. What I would do instead is outside of Iraq, probably in Kuwait, maintain a quick reaction force. And that quick reaction force would be focused on the possibility of al-Qaeda operations, not terrorism at large. The problem with what I hear with Senator Clinton saying, and I’ve heard others say is when you talk about maintaining troops, combat troops inside Iraq, based there, and they’re focused on anti-terrorism activity within Iraq, that’s very similar to what President Bush says. It’s very hard to understand what—where that ends, where the limits are.

I do think we need to end this war in Iraq. I’m for getting our combat troops out of Iraq. I’m going to be responsible and protect the embassy like we do everywhere else in the world, but we will maintain a quick reaction force just outside of Iraq in Kuwait, so that if there are al-Qaeda—let me be very specific, not general terrorist activity. I mean, terrorist activity can include any sort of action against civilians and against the state. I’m talking specifically about public enemy number one, al-Qaeda, that’s responsible for a small percentage of the insurgent activity in Iraq.

MR. RUSSERT: But as I hear you, you would have significant combat troops outside of Iraq but on the border prepared to go into Iraq for combat duty?

SEN. EDWARDS: But I want to be really clear about something, Tim. I’m saying something very different than what Senator Clinton’s saying. Senator Clinton has said she will maintain troops inside Iraq, and that they will engage in combat operation, combat missions, I think is her term, inside Iraq. I will not do that. To me, that is a continuation of the war, and this war needs to be brought to an end. I do think that America, like we would anywhere else in the world, is focused on al-Qaeda, focused on public enemy number one, and we have to be ready to respond if they’re planning attacks inside Iraq, attacks against us or our embassy inside Iraq, or attacks outside of Iraq. We have to be prepared to respond to that, and that’s why I’d keep a quick reaction force in Kuwait. But I would not, as Senator Clinton would, keep combat troops inside Iraq and continue combat missions in Iraq.





Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Evergreen Emerald Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-04-07 01:26 PM
Response to Reply #7
8. thanks...it sounds as if there is no difference
except where the troops will be housed...at the border or on the other side of the border.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
babylonsister Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-04-07 11:19 AM
Response to Original message
2. Listening now; he's doing a good job. nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
creeksneakers2 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-04-07 11:38 AM
Response to Original message
3. Edwards repeated slogans with no substance at all
His alien driver's license response was most telling.

Stephanopoulos asked Edwards about driver's licenses for illegal aliens and Edwards tried to duck out by saying he'd let the states decide. Stephanopoulos didn't look satisfied with Edwards' answer and pressed for more. Edwards went on to say that he sees the driver's license issue as part of a larger national problem with immigration and the answer is comprehensive immigration reform. Stephanopoulos pointed out that's exactly what Hillary said, and Edwards tried to worm some more. Then Stephanopoulos asked Edwards point blank if he supports Governor Spitzer's program to give licenses to illegal aliens and Edwards gave a flat out one word no. That's exactly the opposite of what Edwards said a minute before about letting the states decide.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Armstead Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-04-07 11:43 AM
Response to Reply #3
4. You misinterpreted that
Edited on Sun Nov-04-07 12:00 PM by Armstead
Edwards was giving his full answer, when interrupted by George.

He said at this point the states should decide, but he believes that is one of the issues that need to be tied to immigratin reform. He then elaborated by saying that if someone is working towards legal citizenship, they should be able to receive a license as part of that process.

When Russert asked him the point blank question, Edwards did not equivocate in saying he did not agree with Spitzer. However, he did not contradict his earlier statement that it should be up to the states.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
venable Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-04-07 01:11 PM
Response to Reply #3
6. this is not a contradiction
States should decide. And then he discusses one state's plans.

ie
Spitzer (speaking on his plans for a state) says give them.
He disagrees with that Spitzers plan for that state.

Where is the contradiction?

He can have an opinion about what states should do, and still leave it to the states.


Compare that to HRC's meditation on how many angels can dance on the head of a driver's license.



Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
creeksneakers2 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-04-07 03:10 PM
Response to Reply #6
10. Edwards didn't say he was giving his own opinion but letting
the states decide. Edwards said he was for putting licenses into a comprehensive immigration reform that would dictate to the states how to handle it.

Hillary's answer compares very well to Edwards'. Edwards did a Internet ad smear job on Hillary's answer. The smear job said - IT WAS A YES OR NO QUESTION. Edwards went a long long way from a yes or no answer himself.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
venable Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-04-07 06:36 PM
Response to Reply #10
11. no
His answer is very clear, it seems to me: in the eventual comprehensive immigration policy he is saying states should decide.

so, if he were a governor, he would oppose it for his state. if he were president, he would leave it for states to decide, as part of the comprehensive immigration policy.

that's a long was from : it's a great idea that i support but i don't support it, which is essentially what HRC said.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
creeksneakers2 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-04-07 09:29 PM
Response to Reply #11
14. That doesn't make sense
If the states decide there will be all different policies. How can that be comprehensive? Edwards also said it should be part of immigration policy, which is under the control of the federal government.

Hillary didn't favor the idea but was not going to oppose the New York plan because she could understand Spitzer's predicament. Hillary thought a federal comprehensive immigration approach was a better solution, same as Edwards. Only Hillary didn't make some sleazy ad about what Edwards said. Yet. I hope she does.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Evergreen Emerald Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-04-07 01:27 PM
Response to Reply #3
9. he said the same thing Clinton did --and in previous interviews
he said he was both for and against them...nice catch
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
venable Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-04-07 06:37 PM
Response to Reply #9
12. no, he didn't. read it again. nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Evergreen Emerald Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-04-07 07:15 PM
Response to Reply #12
13. please...there is no difference
he is attempting to make semantics seem like differences. On which side of the border will they be stationed? Please. There is no difference.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Catchawave Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Nov-04-07 11:50 AM
Response to Original message
5. Good interview, GeorgeS is such a little weasel interviewer,
interrupts JE constantly, JE finally finished a thought!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Czolgosz Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-05-07 09:07 AM
Response to Original message
15. great appearance
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Mon Apr 29th 2024, 08:36 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC