To Dean supporters working for Edwards - Iowa memories

[robbedvoter]

Mr. Positive?
Presidential Hopeful Edwards Prides Himself On Not Going Negative — But Document Is Hardly Positive
http://abcnews.go.com/sections/politics/US/edwards_positive_040121.html
By Jake Tapper
http://abcnews.go.com/sections/politics/US/edwards_positive_040121.html
snip

But ABCNEWS has obtained an official "John Edwards for President" precinct captain packet that includes myriad personal attacks for Edwards caucus-goers to make against his Democratic opponents, perhaps belying this claim.

The document — marked "CONFIDENTIAL AND PRIVILEDGED" (sic) and "NOT FOR DISTRIBUTION" and signed by the senator — encourages Edwards supporters to tell undecided caucus-attendees that former Vermont Gov. Howard Dean is a "Park Avenue elitist from New York City" and say Sen. John Kerry of Massachusetts has "the stale record of a Washington insider" and "has been a part of the failed Washington politics for too long."

snip

Other information in the packet slams Dean for balancing Vermont budgets "on the backs of the poor and sick," cites "another Kerry exaggeration," and goes after Clark for praising President Bush's "neo-conservative foreign policy team." more...

[sallyseven]

1. Well!!

Thast isn't very nice

[robbedvoter]

2. It wasn't meant to be. Just informative.

In light of this:


http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=694&ncid=703&e=4&u=/ap/20040227/ap_on_el_pr/democrats_minnesota
At a campaign rally in St. Paul earlier this week, Edwards made time to meet privately with 25 prominent Dean activists. In a nod to Dean's appeal as an antiestablishment candidate, Edwards played up his shallow roots in Washington and his respect for Dean, according to Randy Schubring, one of the activists.

The shallow roots is a rich one too, but I chose the "respect thingy"

[DemPopulist]

3. Would you like to rehash some of what KERRY said about Dean?

n/t

[robbedvoter]

9. Why? Did Kerry seek you guys?

To his credit, he didn't even seek us, Clarkies. And I am voting for my man in the primaries.
Edwards hoewver 9Shelton's friend) assumed we'll all flock to him - and we have his operatives spamming our lists mercilessly, endlessly with ugly, bigotted attacks.
like this:
http://chat.forclark.com/story/2004/2/19/101820/877
and this
http://chat.forclark.com/story/2004/2/20/72724/0080
(after my response, the second was retired, but the first one - I get 10 daily)

[Padraig18]

11. Edwards' 'operatives'?

I assume you have iron-clad proof that these people posting there are in Edwards' employ, or is this just another gout of sour grape juice?

[DemPopulist]

16. I wasn't for Dean either

The point is, candidates - or in this case, a candidate's supporters - are always liable to have some negative things to say about their opponents in a heated primary competition. Most people are sensible enough not to take it personally.

Kerry hasn't sought the Dean or Clark people because he probably feels he doesn't need them (to win the primary, that is).

[leyton]

4. If it was confidential, how were the Edwards caucusgoers going to read it?

Just curious.

[jenk]

5. ah, the daily bitter clark supporter thread

[robbedvoter]

10. OK, diagnosis of poster rendered. How about an answer?

After the personal attacks, how about some explanations?

[jenk]

14. re

Why do you care so much, pretty much every candidates staff has circulated stuff like this. Don't single out edwards. as far as we know he wasn't even aware of this.

[Padraig18]

6. Keep the hate alive.

Since you obviously don't support Dean, why stir the shit, unless you just like the smell? :eyes:

[janx]

7. I have to agree with you on this one.

There's no other reason for it.

[Padraig18]

8. I know.

The bitterness is palpable...

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

12. Keeping hate alive is voting for the guy who thinks the war was right

to spite the guy that hesitantly came to his vote after all other reasonable measures to prevent the war failed.

[Padraig18]

13. Yeah, yeah, yeah!

Spin and nuance are all Kerry has---at least Edwards is honest AND consistent about the reasons for his vote.

[jenk]

15. bingo

honesty and consistency, something we never got from the flip flopping kerry (though I like him) and the king of the flip floppers, wes clark who had a new position every day!

[NNN0LHI]

29. If you fellas were really so concerned with honesty and consistentcy...

... on the subject of the Iraq vote shouldn't Lieberman have been your guy? Not tearing any candidate down here. But I really do think Lieberman was by far the most honest and consistent of them all. I just considered him consistently wrong on the Iraq issue. I still like him a lot though and would have been happy to vote for him in November.

Don

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

17. It isn't Edwards that humors me but the people that switched

their allegiance to him out of spite...who were so anti-war, they will now vote for the guy who thinks it was the right thing to do all along...no contradiction there :D

[Padraig18]

18. Some of us can still appreciate honesty and integrity.

Some of us also happen to believe that a Kerry nomination is just another way of 'nuancing' a 2nd Bush term, frankly.

[janx]

19. He will "nuance" it and hand it over with "gravitas". n/t

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

20. What about your own honesty and integrity

How anti-war are you if you can vote for the guy that was gung ho for going rather than the one that was cautious?

Or are honesty and integrity simply hammers to hit others over the head with?

[Padraig18]

21. Mine is intact, thank you.

Not that it's any of your concern, frankly.

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

22. Right..for the record, Edwards' statements

First on gay marriage where he thinks the feds should honor states that would operate in contrast to the equal protection clause:

: Sen. Edwards, you also oppose gay marriage?



Edwards: Here is my belief. I believe that this is an issue that ought to be decided in the states. I think the federal government should honor whatever decision is made by the states.

… I would not support the Defense of Marriage Act today, if there were a vote today…. The Defense of Marriage Act specifically said that the federal government is not required to recognize gay marriage even if a state chooses to do so. I disagree with that. I think states should be allowed to make that decision. And the federal government shouldn't do it.


On the DEATH PENALTY being left to states like TEXAS:

SHARPTON: Let me say this before I answer that...

(APPLAUSE)

... because a lot of my career is on the criminal justice system.

Senator Edwards, are you saying, since you agree that there's a lot of problems in the death penalty -- and no one has mentioned the racial disparity about those on death row -- that therefore, you would suspend your support of capital punishment until we dealt with those problems?

EDWARDS: No, I would not.

SHARPTON: So you would proceed even with the flaws?

EDWARDS: I think those changes need to be made in the system. We need to make those changes. I've been fighting for those changes in the United States Senate. But that does not...

SHARPTON: But you would let them continue?

EDWARDS: But that does not mean -- and I think states can -- for example, North Carolina can evaluate whether its own system is working. I think they vary from state-to-state. The state of Illinois did that and came to a conclusion that their system was not working. I think we should support that if they make that determination.

and then on the war:

EDWARDS: Well, first of all, I did what I did after giving an awful lot of thought and study to it. I was worried about it. All of us were. I took this responsibility very seriously.

I also said, at the time that the resolution was voted on, that it was critical that, when we reached this stage, that this not be done by America done, that it not be an American occupation, that it not be an American operation. That it needs to be...

KING: And it wasn't.

EDWARDS: But it is. It is now. This is not internationalized. I mean, we have some help from the British, but for the most part, it's America doing it alone, which I believe is an enormous mistake. It's the reason we're having one of the...

CLAYTON: Well, then, why didn't you not vote for it? Why didn't you insist on caveats? It was a blank check. Why?

EDWARDS: But those -- but those -- what we did is we voted on a resolution.

(LAUGHTER)

The answer is, what we did is we voted on a resolution. It is for the president of the United States to determine how to conduct the war. That's his responsibility.

KING: So you trusted...

EDWARDS: No, I didn't trust him.

(LAUGHTER)

What this comes down to is this president has failed in his responsibility. It's a completely legitimate criticism. Neither of us would've conducted this operation the way he conducted it.

First of all, we would've done the groundwork to reach out to our friends and allies around the world before we even went to a military intervention.

CLAYTON: So are you saying you were suckered?

EDWARDS: Wait, let me finish this, please.

And we also made clear, and I made clear, that in order for this to be successful, at this point, we should have NATO involved in providing security. We should have the United Nations involved in overseeing the transitional government in Iraq. We need to get on a real timetable for the Iraqis to govern themselves and to provide for their own security.

These are not things that I'm saying today for the first time. These are things that I said at the time.

And this president has failed in his responsibilities. It's that simple.

KING: Do you regret your vote? Do you regret your vote?

EDWARDS: I did what I believed was right at the time.

KING: Do you regret it?

EDWARDS: I believe I did what was right.

KING: Do you regret it?

(LAUGHTER)

EDWARDS: We don't get to go back, Larry. Five hundred...

KING: Well, you can regret something.

EDWARDS: Wait a minute. Five hundred -- over 500 men and women have lost their lives in this cause.

All of us did what we thought was the responsible thing to do at the time -- wrong or right. We're not perfect. You know, I did what I believed was the responsible thing to do at the time. And if we did what we were supposed to be doing right now and what we said should be done right now, we would be -- this policy would actually be successful.
http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/2004/la-dems-debate-transcript,1,2676983.story

[Padraig18]

23. Believe what you want, if it makes you feel better.

It's no skin off of my ass.

[Moderator]

27. NSMA

Per DU copyright rules
please post only four
paragraphs from the
news source.


Thank you.


DU Moderator

[TeacherCreature]

25. Wow, the whip lash you must have!

Now Kerry tried to prevent the war but couldn't so he HAD to vote for the IRW. How about all those people who didn't vote for it? How come they didn't reluctantly HAVE to vote for it?

[TeacherCreature]

24. So you are basically stirring up shit?

Are we all supposed to fall in line for Kerry like good little soldiers?

Hey do you think when the Clintons talked Clark into joining the race to stop Dean, they made him some promises? I wonder what he gets for betraying his new found "ideals" to back Kerry?

[IndianaGreen]

26. This is part for the course from the Kerry Bund

IWR, PATRIOT, NCLB, NAFTA, WTO, are not to be discuss because they reflect badly on the ANNOINTED ONE.

[Cuban_Liberal]

28. MOST Kerry supporters are pretty civil.

That said, there is a small, hardcore group who just INSIST on stirring up trouble. Their motive is as transparent as glass: by doing so, they hope to prevent any of Dr. Dean's supporters from going to Sen. Edwards (e.g.), thus helping their candidate to win the nomination via the old 'divide and conquer' technique. If that were not the motive, what else WOULD be, since they support neither Dr. Dean nor Sen. Edwards, by definition?

Think about it.

:)

[Donna Zen]

30. An interesting thread:

While the bashing came from all quarters in varying degrees, I must confess that I don't think about it very much; it was certainly offensive and dishonest, two questionable character traits on the part of a candidate, but the bashing is over shadowed by the issues and the current situation those of us who hold progressive ideals now find ourselves in.

I don't "support" either Kerry or Edwards. I see both of these men as reaching out for the supporters of Clark and Dean for money, that is it. Money...yours and mine. Are they interested in our ideas, our desire for reform, our disgust with business as usual? No. Money...show me your money. With so many flocking to do just that, they have no reason to ever listen to you. My voice is irrelevant, I accept that. What is not acceptable to me is paying to screw myself over.

Yes, Edwards thinks this war is a "good thing." That is to be expected, look who is advising him. And Kerry, well he did have different council and I accept that "threatened force" does not equate "actual use of force" in diplomatic terms. Nevertheless, if he didn't know the creeps he was playing with; shame on him. And if he did know and realized that war was going to happen, was already happening, and failed to use his vote in protest; shame on him.

There are other issues in play here: voting issues, educational policy issues, Constitutional issues, the role of special interests, etc. And I really don't think either Kerry or Edwards is going to champion our causes. That do not have to.

So this thread is interesting because it reveals the split among the "grassroots" that has been continuing for some time. It illustrates all to clearly to me why no one has to listen to a thing you have to say.

I feel no need to go running to any candidate's camp at this point. McAuliffe set up a primary that was all about horse race and not about ideas. The media is having a great time exploiting us.

So this summer and fall, I will work to oust the junta, and if necessary, I will send money, not because I support the Democratic anyone, but because for the love of my country I can do no less.

I look forward to the day that the "grassroots" finds its voice, not in anger at each other, but in a chorus demanding simple, unarguable truths: open government, policies designed to advance the interests of people not power, accountability of leadership, reaffirmation of the Constitution, respect of the environment, a foreign policy that listens to the world and in turn is listen to, a demand for honest dialogue with the American people which is driven by information provided by an honest media. There's more, but whose listening? Only Kucinich. Certainly not Edwards or Kerry. When you are ready to join forces, I'll be there, because the day the "grassroots" reaches critical mass rather than easy money, your dreams will become reality.

[revcarol]

33. Thank you for your common sense and critical thinking.

Appreciate the insight.

[Donna Zen]

34. Thanks revcarol

So what are the chances of the "grassroots" organizing for themselves, by themselves?

I keep posting here and hoping someone will hear me. A few people have been kind enough to respond to my call. Anyway, I believe that the equation should be them supporting us, not us supporting them. The only way we can make that pitch is if we are organized, and we can do it. We have the tools and the skills.

It is truly sad to see all this talent arguing among themselves, rather than advocating for themselves. No matter who we chose as a good candidate, most people who come to DU have a list of hopes for our country that we can agree upon.

When you dream alone, your dreams remain a dream. When you dream in critical mass, your dreams become reality.

Note: rather than re-post, I will gladly pm my proposals to you.

[Zynx]

31. Kerry was much more vicious. Particularly in New Hampshire.

[John_H]

32. Exactly. All Dean DUers should vote for Dean!