The Difference Between Obama and Edwards IS Edwards Seeks A Specific Result and Will Stand Resolute

[DaLittle Kitty]

in working to firmly negotiate that which is required to achieve the sought after result.

In contrast Obama favors agreement and conciliation in deference to avoiding confrontation, debate or rancor that may be required as part of a process to win hard won but necessary concessions from his opponent.

That is if you want a Neville Chamberlain caucus or vote for Obama.

If you want a President that will stand strong and who will be fearless in combating the Corporatist establishment forces arrayed against the middle class and those even less fortunate... Then there is but one choice... John Edwards :)




What is Edwards so mad about? (He is not)

By: Roger Simon
Dec 31, 2007 06:51 PM EST
John Edwards
Is he angry or just passionate? The candidate who went from a mill to millions speaks out on his campaign tone of choice.
Photo: AP
SAVE
Digg
Shown on del.icio.us del.icio.us
See Whos Talking About This on Technorati Technorati
I've Reddit reddit

SHARE
COMMENT
PRINT
EMAIL
RECOMMEND

DES MOINES — John Edwards is the son of a mill worker and "had to fight to survive."

"Literally," he says in his mad-as-hell, bare-knuckle stump speech. "Really."

But John Edwards not only survived, he prevailed. He became a wealthy lawyer, a U.S. senator, a vice presidential nominee and a two-time candidate for president.

So what is he so angry about?

His speeches are filled with harsh attacks on the current system, on giant corporations that make "billions and billions in profits" and CEOs who make "hundreds of millions of dollars" in salaries.

He says that average Americans must "rise up" and take power back, because the powerful interests who are exploiting the people will never "voluntarily give up their power."

"That is a complete fantasy," he says. "It will never happen."

The first time he ran for the Democratic presidential nomination, he spoke in passionate, but far less harsh, tones. And the difference has not gone unnoticed.

This time, independent political analyst Stuart Rothenberg recently wrote, "If Iowa Democrats choose Edwards, they are choosing anger, confrontation and class warfare."

Monday, I interviewed Edwards and his wife, Elizabeth. I asked them if John was an angry man and, if so, why.

"What I am conveying," Edwards said, "is passion and energy. I am extraordinarily optimistic about what we can do for this country, but I deeply believe that corporate greed is doing great damage to the middle class."

"If we want to fulfill the promise of this country," he said, "we have to stand up."

Elizabeth Edwards said that her husband could be ferocious but that he was not angry.

"You see in him a passion and determination and even ferociousness in a sense, but not out-of-control anger," she said. "I've been with him for 30 years and I know what anger looks like on his face, and this isn't it. Obama thinks anger doesn't sell, so he says John is angry."

(Barack Obama recently said: "The argument goes that the only way to bring about change is to be angry. I don't need lectures about how to bring about change because I have been doing it all my life.")

I asked John Edwards if there is anything inherently wrong with corporations making large profits and people making large salaries.

"I embrace the idea of Americans being able to be successful, including extraordinarily successful, and working hard and doing well," he said. "I have lived that myself."

But, he added, "there is something inherently wrong with people and corporations with extraordinary wealth and influence using that against the interests of middle-class Americans."

Is Edwards' rise from humble roots not proof that there is economic mobility in American life under the current system?

"It absolutely proves that," he said, "but it is increasingly difficult to move the way I have moved. The barriers are higher and the difficulties greater."

So, as president, would he place a cap on the large corporate profits and large corporate salaries he complains about?

"There would be no caps. That would be contrary to free enterprise; I wouldn't do that," he said. "What I would do is equalize the voices of all Americans in a democracy."

The Iowa caucus will take place Thursday, and Edwards said that while he provides specific solutions to problems, he wants to leave a general impression in these closing days of the campaign.

"The critical thing for people to understand," he said, "is what I believe in a big-picture way: I don't want to see those with power and money tread on those who don't have it."

Elizabeth Edwards drew a direct comparison between her husband and Obama.

"There was a New York Times article fairly early in the race," she said. "It had a picture of Obama with an Afro — that a lot of people had then, it was nice looking, not odd looking — at Harvard Law School, being asked to voice an opinion at a meeting of people with respect to tenure for African-American professors. He spoke, and spoke eloquently, and when he left, both sides felt he agreed with them."

This was not a good sign, Elizabeth said. This was an example of when a "desire for conciliation becomes more important than getting a particular result."

She also said that being too conciliatory "is not what we need right now" and that "John believes we have to fight."

"What this country needs is someone who is ferocious and determined, committed and impassioned, and is not angry to do things, but committed to do things," she said.
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1207/7645.html

[DemKR]

1. hear hear!

[Sultana]

2. ahem

Iraq war vote

[DaLittle Kitty]

4. Edwards Never Voted to FUND the Iraq war while both Hill and Obama Have!

[Sultana]

8. He VOTED for the freaking war

[DaLittle Kitty]

12. ANNDD Obama VOTED To Fund the War, While Edwards DID NOT!

:silly:

[zulchzulu]

17. Bein' that Smilin Johnny got them there troops in the war, what is Obama supposed to do?

Should Obama jus' not support the troops that are in harms way with the experienced help and intense wisdom of fellas and fillies like Clinton, Dodd, Biden and Edwards decided ta do...buckeroo... is you payins' attention?

:shrug:

[Maven]

49. Maybe what he promised to do before he got elected.

Which was not to vote for additional funding.

[Sultana]

28. If members Congress didn't vote for it

there probably would not be an Iraq war and America wouldn't be in the position it is in now.

The funding is another set back that is just adding more fuel to the fire. But the initial vote to go to war is unforgivable, a trillion dollar + failure.

[Laurab]

58. You can't very well vote if you're not in the Senate. n/t

[fightindonkey]

60. Ah, Reality Sets In For Obama Supporters. It's A Bitch, Ain't It?

I can hear them crying now.

[Dawgs]

74. Yeah, Edwards and Hillary shilled for Bush. Obama funded the troops.

I'm really crying.

[zulchzulu]

14. Shucks and a golly gee whiz... he only was a co-sponsor of the Iraq War Resolution...

...while knowing them dern intelligence reports were nuttin' but a bunch of bull dung beins' that he was on the Senate Intelligence Committee at the very same time ...but heck, he done voted fer it anyways!

Yeeee Haaa!


:sarcasm:

[Jane Austin]

42. Looks like he did vote to fund the war

if I'm reading this right.

http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=108&session=1&vote=00125

[Jane Austin]

3. Where are the specifics in that?

We've got to stand up?

What does that mean?

[DaLittle Kitty]

9. To Stand Resolute means to NOT BACK DOWN OR CAPITULATE.

Like so many politicians who have brought us to the precipice we presently stand upon.:)

[Jane Austin]

23. Nowhere do I see where Edwards says he will "stand resolute"

about, what, something or other?

You said he would, but all his remarks in that piece are exhortatory to "rise up" and "stand up".

"If we want to fulfill the promise of this country," he said, "we have to stand up."

Okay, I'm standing up. Now what?

[DaLittle Kitty]

27. Standing Resolute is a euphemism of my own authoring which with great accuracy describes the message

John Edwards is putting forth. John Edwards simply WILL NOT BACK DOWN TO THE CORPORATIST BASTARDS! That is all that I am saying. :)

[Jane Austin]

32. I still don't see any specifics -

Just exhortations.

[sendero]

54. Specifics from any of the Dem front runners...

.... are pretty scarce.

I'll settle for the right generalities, rather than "I'm Bill's wife" or "the solution is to kiss more Republican ass".

[TwilightGardener]

5. The "son of a mill worker" had to "fight to survive"? Who is he kidding?

Survive what, Hamburger Helper dinners growing up? Washing dishes by hand? An after-school job? Student loans? Sorry, Johnny--no one believes that you grew up on the mean streets. You were solid middle class, with a nice and loving family. No one's buying that rags-to-riches BS.

[DaLittle Kitty]

6. Edwards Was Born to Working Class Parents... He is A first child in family

to graduate from college. His parents house is modest by any standard...VERY modest! Video is available on youtube. In contrast to Hillwho had a somewhat pampered upbringing. John got a scholarship to college. Quit spreading falsehoods... The MSM does enough of that.

[TwilightGardener]

15. Working Class (which is, to me, lower middle class) is "surviving"?

Surviving is what they're doing in third-world countries. Surviving is eating at soup kitchens. Surviving is having dysfunctional or neglectful parents--not two loving parents who hold steady jobs and provide for your welfare in a "modest" house. I guess I barely survived myself, growing up in my little 3-bedroom Cape Cod with no cable TV. I even had to watch MTV over other kids' houses in the 1980's! How did I make it to adulthood intact, with such trauma???

[CoffeeCat]

18. I'm an Obama supporter...

...and I think we can all be sane and agree that John Edwards was raised in very
modest, humble beginnings and that his story is impressive.

He is very proud of his parents and of their hard work. He doesn't tout how "rough" he
had it as some of you suggest. He brings up his working-class upbringing to demonstrate
that he understands what hard work is all about, and that he is no stranger to the
challenges facing working-class and middle-class people.

I don't hear John Edwards complaining about his childhood. I hear a very proud man
who is honored to have been raised by such salt-of-the-earth, decent, hard-working
people who taught him a great deal about life.

[TwilightGardener]

21. What part of the "I had to fight to survive" quote did you miss?

edit to add--stupidest fucking thing I've heard from any Dem in this campaign, I think.

[CoffeeCat]

43. Boy, you sound like a real...

...lovely, kind person. The kind of person I'd like to meet and
have cocoa with.

Nice vitriol.

I bet you have fangs and eat bunnies for breakfast.

[sandnsea]

45. No, he meant school yard bully fights n/t

[TwilightGardener]

50. LOL! The daily wedgies and swirlies were UNBEARABLE!

:eyes:

[emilyg]

7. Exactly. Poor Johnny - NOT

[DaLittle Kitty]

10. Truth is Preferable to something other than Emily. I will stand for truth!

:bounce:

[GreenArrow]

63. Actually, a lot of people are buying that "rags to riches BS"

It is bullshit, but they are lining up to buy it.

[avaistheone1]

66. Edward's story is true.

Edwards was a working class kid who made his own way. Can you prove otherwise? I strongly doubt it!

[LordJFT]

11. what result did he seek when he co-sponsored the IWR?

[DaLittle Kitty]

20. Like Everyone Else w/ Whom Colin Powell Met It was About Leverage For Bush

Edwards quickly realized his mistake and has never voted for funding it. And w/ the Corporation in control of both Obama and Hillary if anyone believes that either of them will stand up and stop the war they are smoking some serious hooch.

[LordJFT]

40. funding it would be a non-issue if it was never authorized

perhaps he should have read the NIE

[Milo_Bloom]

47. Leverage for what?

Please don't tell the lie about getting the inspectors in, because Saddam had already agreed to allow the inspectors in before the IWR vote.

[GreenArrow]

65. the one he feels so close to now realizing -- the Presidency

He's got the right sales pitch this time, and the product is John Edwards. He's "uniquely qualified"!

[FrenchieCat]

13. Yeah...sure....OK......but I don't think so!

OBAMA: “The voters of New Hampshire deserve to hear all the Democratic candidates’ views on who can best lead America in a fundamentally new direction, and that’s why I urge these networks to allow full participation in this week’s debate.”
http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2008/01/01/542614.aspx

VS.

EDWARDS: "I'm staying out of that. I don't get to set the rules for the debates. I'll let the people who are in charge of the debates set the rules. And I'll be there."
http://www.unionleader.com/article.aspx?headline=Debates%3a+Who%27s+in%2c+who%27s+out%2c+who%27s+mad&articleId=d54d1b4f-91bd-4342-aad7-3d11d99b4a05
--------------

One is that of a leader....who uses one "I" and discusses voters, Democratic candidates' views, America, a New Direction, and "urges" the Corporate media to do the right thing.

the other one is that of a follower who uses no less than 4 "I"s within three sentences justifying why he sits on the fence and wait for others to make decisions.....and stating that "he'll be there"....cause that's what is important to him; that his own voice be heard....fuck the rest.

Couldn't be clearer why I'm voting for the one offering the Leaderlike approach. I'm not sure why anyone would choose otherwise. :shrug:

[GreenArrow]

67. he's a fucking narcisist

I posted a set of quotes on here once from the Obama and Edwards campaigns. Obama's was full of "we"'s; Edwards' full of "I"'s.

I see Edwards as lots of things; a leader is not one of them.

[babylonsister]

16. WTF does this mean? "That is if you want a Neville Chamberlain caucus or vote for Obama. "

Please explain, newbie, or incur my wrath.

[DaLittle Kitty]

24. Neville Chamberlain Capitulated, Barack Obama has A Spine that is Similarly Malleable

Quite a simple analogy really especially when you observe Obama's following on virtually every issue initially put forth by John Edwards. Hillary is little different in likewise copying Edwards, however Elizabeth Edwards observation in the article provided provides further weight to my contention. Thanks!

[GOP Disgrace America]

39. Corporate stooge

Oh please, attacking Iraq and meddling in the Middle East is
not in America's interests. We're only there to help the
bottom line of Western oil companies.

[tom_paine]

19. Welcome to DU, DaLittle Kitty.

:toast:

Just so you know, though, MY kitty is Da Little Kitty.



You can borrow it, though...no charge. :evilgrin:

[Capn Sunshine]

22. What is this shit? Politico is a RW crapfest of a source

It should not be a source for anything. There's a reason Roger Simon is suddenly ga ga for Edwards. Politico has a set of marching orders they follow. I was there long enough to see http://search.ebay.com:80/160194934601_W0QQadgroup_idZ285236115QQcreative_idZ685267455QQfclZ4QQfnuZ1QQfsopZ1QQkeywordZhillaryQ20clintonQQoriginZhttpQ3aQ2fQ2fwwwQ2epoliticoQ2ecomQ2fnewsQ2fstoriesQ2f0907Q2f6005Q2ehtmlQQtestZGadgetQ5fKWQQtypeZQ7bifsearchQ3asearchQ7dQ7bifcontentQ3acontentQ7dQQfviZ1#ebayphotohosting\">This

advertised quite prominently.

Gee you think the right wingers might be scared that the status quo is about to be threatened big time? Lots of newbies here suddenly , huh?
Quite a coinkydink.

[DaLittle Kitty]

29. Ohhhh ... and Since When Have Right Wingers favored John Edwards?

What total nonsense and these other polls are more accurate. The ONLY Accurate poll will be taken on Thursday evening. The World is awaiting the good news of a win by the "Peoples Candidate." Johnny Edwards! :woohoo:

[Capn Sunshine]

31. RWingers favor anyone who can dmage the front runner and help Hillary

I LOVE John Edwards, but just the fact that you cite Politico instead of say , Common Dreams , makes me view your enthusiasm and newness with a healthy dose of skepticism.

[DaLittle Kitty]

36. Empirical Data Favors Edwards By WIDE Margin Vs ANY Repub in GE.

Hillary is the First pick as GE opponent for Repubs and Obama is their Secnd Choice. Both are easy pickins fer the Southern Strategy Revisited and The Right Wing Media which has not even begun to , correction has been purposefully refraining from gettin into Hillary's closet full of skeletons still w/ meat on the bones. Simple enough... Listn to Hannity and Limbaugh... Gotta know what the opponents plans are. :)

[AmBlue]

25. Thanks for this.

Edwards is the perfect President for America right now.

[Triana]

26. Further, Edwards has EXPERIENCE fighting that corporate establishment...

...and WINNING.

[DaLittle Kitty]

30. That's What I'm Talk'n 'Bout!

:woohoo: I'm FIRED UP!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! GO John Edwards!!!!!!!! :woohoo: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce:

[FrenchieCat]

33. example please.......

Thanks!

[DaLittle Kitty]

34. By Refusing to Take Corporate $ Edwards Is Actually Fighting the "Corporatists" Right NOW!

[FrenchieCat]

35. But he's not the only one.....

and no, he's really not changing a thing.

Now, maybe IF he wins, you will be able to say that. Until then, 97 year old Mellon Heiress, Fortress Hedgefunds, and Trial Attorneys have kept Edwards buyoed and bundled up pretty good.

[DaLittle Kitty]

37. Enuff BS About Hedge Funds, Edwards has the ONLY Plan to Eliminate the Tax Advantage

For Hedge Fund Managers receiving millions as Long Term Capitol Gains at 15% tax rate and change that to the highest marginal tax rate which w/ Edwards will be the marginal tax rates that were in place prior to the Bush tax cuts.

Where is Obama or Hillary on this issue... NOWHERE ... Because they both have taken home huge contributions from Wall Street w/ Obama taking in the most Wall St. $'s of ANY candidate from EITHER Party. Sooo Which candidate is bought... and which is for the people? An Educated Voter is our Best Customer. :)

[FrenchieCat]

41. Sure......Edwards "says" he has lots of plans......

but he ain't done shit yet other than to profit from Hedge Funds, etc.....



In this Charlie Rose Interview conducted very recently, John Edwards "talks" about how he would let Corporate interests have a seat at the table after all (although he points finger at Obama for saying the same damn thing!)
http://thinkonthesethings.wordpress.com/2007/12/29/video-john-edwards-on-charlie-rose-agrees-with-obama-on-corporations-voices-should-be-heard/

[AP]

53. Why in the world would he say that he was going to change tax code and not do it?

Because he owes his political existence to some special interest he's secretly serving (like Wall Street?) which doesn't want to redistribute political and economic power?

[chimpymustgo]

57. Triana, I love your Edwards "sign". Did you make it yourself?

Or get it off his website?

[lisainmilo]

38. Right On!...

John Edwards is the ONLY candidate willing to put his neck out on the line and stand up FOR the American people. I don't get it sometimes, after all we have heard about the war profiteers, Jobs going overseas in droves, value of the dollar dropping, Housing crisis tab picked up be corporations owned in Saudia Arabia, China and Singapore. He is running his campaign on public funding, No profiting corporation is backing him.
What do we have here in America? What industry... Corporate Hog Farms? Seriously, what do we have. Furniture Factories, Textiles, Auto, all overseas. If you have a computer problem, who picks up the 800 number, not a American. America needs to get tough about this, not only are we losing finacially, but we are losing our pride as a country. Bush has ripped it to shreds, divide and conquer has been his method, and GWB simply lines his pockets with BLOOD MONEY. TOTAL GREED!
Some say well, John Edwards isn't poor he has 54 Million dollars.....WHOOPEE! In todays wealth circles, that really is not much! The Iraq war is costing 275 million A DAY!
I hope he makes it to the WH, he is my only hope for a real change.

[Czolgosz]

44. interesting

[Milo_Bloom]

46. Except when it is politically inconvient for John, then he will go to war...

vote for bankrupcy bills and present health care plans that are large gifts to the corporate insurance industry.

[balantz]

48. Welcome DaLittle Kitty.

I admire your positive spirit, and of course your judgement!

John Edwards has the rest beat, hands down!

:kick:

[cali]

51. If Edwards becomes president

his supporters will completely lose it, the first time he compromises. And he will. He's someone who has a history of doing so- not to mention a history of changing his positions at the drop of a hat.

[hayu_lol]

52. Stand Resolute? Last person in history to do that got wet...

that was King Canute who plunked his throne down at the tide line(at low tide)and forbid the tide to come in.

LOL!

Is Edwards willing to try that?

[sendero]

56. You are wrong as usual..

... most of us understand that politics ALWAYS involves compromise. We just are not interested in someone who ALWAYS compromised on the important issues (Iraq) and who's entire campaign strategy is reaching out to the ENEMY (Obama and his ridiculous unity message).

So, Edwards is not perfect. For me, he's really the only candidate with any chance that I can stomach at all. But I don't expect miracles, I'm happy he's at least SAYING the right things, something HRC and Obama cannot even manage.

[Onlooker]

55. What of load of patronizing garbage Edwards is spewing

This is how he would confront corporation? Big fucking deal:

"So, as president, would he place a cap on the large corporate profits and large corporate salaries he complains about?

"'There would be no caps. That would be contrary to free enterprise; I wouldn't do that,' he said. 'What I would do is equalize the voices of all Americans in a democracy.'"

We don't need another white Protestant straight male to "equalize" the voices. He doesn't even have the guts to support gay marriage, meaning he's no better than the other front runners.

[fightindonkey]

59. Barack Stands For Nothing But Oprah Winfrey Specials

lol.

[TeamJordan23]

64. And what does Edwards stand for? His positions in 2004 or his positions in 2008?

I can't figure out who is the real John Edwards.

[GreenArrow]

69. It's very simple. He stands for John Edwards.

And what's good for John Edwards is good for America.

[Armstead]

61. Kickety-Klick

[AtomicKitten]

62. how quickly they forget

Edwards was resolute when he rallied for the IWR so convincingly his Op-Ed was posted on the State Department's website.

Edwards was resolute when he continued his "yeah war" platform in 2004.

Sorry, but I'm going with the new kid that had the good sense to oppose this illegal, immoral war in 10/02 when he, Obama, said so out loud, in public at an anti-war rally when he was running in the primary for the Senate against seven other candidates and it was risky.

[TeamJordan23]

68. Agree. Edwards is phony to me. Totally reversed his principles. nm

[GreenArrow]

70. no, not at all.

Because you see, his principles involve little more than assuring the success and well being of John Edwards.

[AtomicKitten]

71. but he's sorry 'n shit

[Munch]

72. Amazing. Has no one noticed...

"There was a New York Times article fairly early in the race," (Elizabeth) said. "It had a picture of Obama ... at Harvard Law School, being asked to voice an opinion at a meeting of people with respect to tenure for African-American professors. He spoke, and spoke eloquently, and when he left, both sides felt he agreed with them."

Now what does that mean? Here's one interpretation:

This was not a good sign, Elizabeth said. This was an example of when a "desire for conciliation becomes more important than getting a particular result."

Sorry, folks -- I don't buy it. When you are speaking on a controversial issue, to a divided audience, and "both sides feel that you agree with them" --

this generally denotes a person with superlative listening skills and a talent for understanding all facets of a complicated issue. It means that Obama has a great gift (and one that few of us -- certainly not myself -- possess to this degree).

It's called empathy.

This is a man who understands other people so well that he can state even his opponents' opinions with 100 percent accuracy. It is a skill possessed by the best debaters: the ability to present both sides of an argument. And these are generally the people who WIN.

Why? Because they understand the opposing position (or the other team) so well -- it's like taking a stroll inside another person's head. They can anticipate what others will think and how they will act. Come to think of it -- that's an important skill in sports as well (think defensive strategies in football).

Oh, and incidentally: Empathy is the polar opposite to narcissism. (See post #13 -- great example -- thanks, Frenchie) It has nothing at all to do with conciliation and everything to do with inhabiting a larger world than one's own small personal concerns.

Is this then what Barack Obama stands for?

Frankly... I don't know. Having jumped once (to Edwards) -- then lived to regret it -- I won't be declaring support for anyone until the day I walk into that voting booth (Feb 5th). But at the moment I am... flabbergasted... that Elizabeth Edwards (of all people) -- by distorting Obama's greatest strength and portraying it as a weakness --

well, Mrs. Edwards just gave me a compelling reason to vote for her husband's opponent.

Curiouser and curiouser, said Alice.

Now this newbie will once again demonstrate a complete LACK of empathy by turning off the 'puter, going to sleep, and engaging in other activities till late Thursday night. By then Iowa 2008 will be history and this thread will be buried (we've had snow enough to bury a few hundred threads).

Good wishes to all. May the best candidate prevail.

(and God alone knows who that is)

[Czolgosz]

73. kick