Edwards watch. ..

[MBS]

Meet the Press features an interview with John and Elizabeth Edwards today.

[MBS]

1. MISTAKE! Edwards on Stephanopoulos!!

In Boston, it's on at 9 am. . Sorry about the blooper. .

[MBS]

15. I taped it and only watched it just now

What struck me overall was their lack of comfort and ease in the interview. Also, a lack of energy.:those snippets of Edwards' announcement rallies and tapes seemed oddly enervated to me.
With the first question on Iraq, Edwards' face had a bit of a deer-in-the-headlights look; he seemed uncomfortable trying to discuss the problems of the Sunni and Shia. He did not seem to me a man who had absorbed a lot of understanding of foreign policy in the last 2 years, despite his foreign travels during t hat time, and rumored focus on bolstering his credentials in this area.
In the 2004 campaign, Elizabeth always seemed comfortable in her own skin, which was the root, I guessed, of her likeability then . But comfortable was the last word I'd have used to describe her this time around.Elizabeth seemed to me VERY uncomfortable, even a little tense, when Stephanopoulos asked her whether she supported her husband's decision, and how they felt about the kids. I guessed that the real story about his/their decision was more complex than they let on.
Also, even aside from the silliness and inaccuracy of Elizabeth's "more progressive than Kerry" comment , Edwards did not manage to answer Stephanopoulos' questions about whether he was either populist or progressive. Especially given his previous campaign experience, and the inference that he's been building up to this decision since Nov 2004, I found Edwards' answers to this and other questions surprisingly hesitant and inarticulate.
I don't care what the Iowans currently think: I just don't see his campaign going the distance.

[Mass]

2. This Week in fact -

Just airing here. I have been listening for about 1/2 hour. Edwards has been coopting a series of themes Kerry has been talking about for the last 2 years as his, then said Kerry was less progressive than he is and implying that he is more sold to multinational companies. I stopped more or less at this point.

In the part I heard, there was little new. The part I liked the most was a part about the plague of Africa about famine and AIDS. This is a subject that is not very present on TV and it was good to hear.

Apart that, the same things we have been hearing (which is not surprising) in an interview which allows to remain very superficial. They justified the second campaign as a way to teach their kids, and talked about their campaign not being about what Edwards would do as president, but as a way of showing he was a leader and could have people do something even without the WH.

[MH1]

3. Edwards attacked Kerry?

Great. I'm betting when I look at their votes it will show Edwards is, um, (what's a word for lying that isn't "lying"?).

But then, I guess, he's "changed" since he left the Senate. :eyes:

[Mass]

4. It was prompted by Stephanopoulos quoting Elizabeth Edwards saying that

John Edwards was more progressive than Kerry. Edwards demured for a few seconds, saying he did not know what that meant, then answered that. That was a very short part of the interview though.

[MH1]

10. Having seen it, I really didn't like Elizabeth.

I thought she looked way too smug sitting there, as "the brains behind the man" or however that goes.

I think she is clearly wrong about who is more progressive, but that she would specfically attack Kerry, after the way she's snarked about Teresa, really annoys me.

Edwards could have responded by pointing out that Kerry is also progressive and either one of them would be a great alternative to anything the republicans offer, that's why he was honored to be on the ticket with Kerry in 2004; but he doesn't want to get into who is more this or that, let the primary voters decide who will best represent them.

That would have been a more classy response in my view, instead he just let Elizabeth's inaccurate statement stand.

[karynnj]

12. In 2004, I couldn't understand why my daughter

strongly disliked Elizabeth. Elizabeth, to me was the reason I held out hope that Edwards was not a complete phony. They really are not classy people.

The odd thing is this kind of snark is likely to backfire at some point - Edwards benefited by Kerry putting him on a ticket. They had nothing to lose from saying something like you suggest. Oddly, if they were gracious and praised Kerry on anything, it would benefit them more than Kerry.

But, I am happy to see that the press came after them on their wealth - because they have been intentionally deceptive. Elizabeth and John were multimillionaires at a time when Kerry was sleeping at friends' homes - to keep the two things in life that meant the most to his; the relationship with his kids and a Senate job that was NOT making him wealthy. Her envy of Teresa is pretty unattractive.

[whometense]

5. I watched most of it,

though left the room for parts.

My impression was almost exactly the same as yours, except maybe a little harsher. I've never been an Edwards fan, and I saw nothing there today that made me feel inclined to change my mind. He has, on top of all the things you mentioned, a smarmy, self-righteousness that is seriously off-putting. I prefer Elizabeth's edgier tone, but she's not running.

The ineffectual Kerry-bashing (while co-opting his ideas) was pretty much completely debunked during the round table when they were all laughing about the likely Clinton/Obama/Edwards campaign point that so much foreign policy experience hasn't done much for us during Bush II (a RIDICULOUS argument). One of the round table pundits pointed out that Obama, Clinton, and Edwards combined have less foreign policy experience than Biden. While I agree that Cheney and Rumsfeld have proven that experience isn't everything, neither do they prove that it is nothing.

Edited to add that I don't really think he was Kerry-bashing so much as trying to elevate himself at Kerry's expense. Not much nicer, but more subtle.

[Mass]

6. I missed the part about experience.

However, this idea that Bush's cabinet was the most experience cabinet in years and therefore experience is overrated is not even something he authored. Obama has been using that for some two months now!

Grrr!!!!

and I totally agree that it is not a good argument. We need somebody who has the experience, cares, and has the right values. We should not settle for less than that, particularly because we have somebody (and arguably more than one) like that who could run. So Go Kerry!!

[whometense]

7. You are absolutely right

that Obama has been using that argument for a while now. It makes no sense, and it makes anyone who uses it as a serious argument look like a lightweight. (Seriously, is that the best argument in your own favor you can come up with??)

Go Kerry!!

[beachmom]

8. You know what would be a good project?

Make a list of foreign policy "experience" Cheney and Rumsfeld have had. Be sure to include Halliburton and shaking hands with Saddam, etc. Then make a list of Kerry's foreign policy experience. Include combat experience, protesting that war, Iran/Contra, BCCI (include his report about how Iran was paying AQ Khan), CIA drugrunning, nuclear proliferation, anti-terror money laundering laws, etc., etc. Then ask the question -- who in the '08 field can beat this experience -- both the bredth and depth AND the values they underpin.

[Democrafty]

9. Oh, wow.

That really is brilliant. The fight against this kind of corruption has been underrated for too long.

[karynnj]

14. Great idea

Atomic Kitten will of course respond - but putting all that in one place would be great.

Kerry's foreign policy expertise goes back even to 1966 - Madeline Albright in her latest book quotes Kerry on Vietnam and how its culture may be at odds with our policy. It was from his Yale speech.

Edwards did nothing politicly or as an activist until he was in his late 40s. (He was not elected as a reformer/activist etc and was mentored by many leading Senators - this was not Mr Smith.)

[blm]

17. That's it - the DIFFERENCE in type of foreign policy experience is what matters.

Yet it all gets labeled with the same old tired cliches that just don't add up. The big names all have experience in COVERING up foreign policy ventures and covert actions where few pols have experience tracking and exposing the unconstitutional and wrongheaded foreign policy manipulations.

[karynnj]

13. I loved that "experience" discussion

It is strange to argue that experience is a negative. Experience is necessary but not sufficient - you also need vision and good goals. Kerry has all three.

Edwards may have a vision and goals - written for him and as focused grouped as last time - but he really lacks experience. In 2004, he was at his weakest whenever he was asked a question where he couldn't pull a sentence or two from his prepared speech. You can't get depth in foreign policy or economics over night. Kerry has worked on these areas for decades - and it shows.

[karynnj]

11. He actually distanced himself slightly

saying that "Elizabeth says that Kerry is less progressive." They are NOT honest people.

Edwards also spoke of this grassroots activism. But - he speaks more than he does. Kerry has a 4 decade record.

The funny thing is he is trying to become John Kerry. Kerry was an activist - on the environment in the 70s, the anti-war movement, and getting young people to vote in the 70s. (There is a cool link on the johnkerry site's article about the Iraq picture -about the staffer who was with Kerry, Frank Lowenstein. His father was Allard Lowenstein, a NY Congressman who was civil rights and anti-war activist. If you didn't see the link, you should read it - it is more backup of Kerry's activist credientials here.

Part of the text of Kerry's 1997 re-introduction of the Clean Elections bill also speak's of citizen activism as what has saved America when the government has gone in the wrong direction.

(Not to mention standing up to the establishment on Vietnam, the Contras, BCCI, Alito and Kerry/Feingold.) Edwards did nothing as a citizen, other than vote ..sometimes until he was in his late 40s. In the Senate, he was an establishment favorite and certainly has NO record of challanging leaders on anything. He also ran in 2004 as the most conservative AND the most pro-war other than Leiberman.

[blm]

16. Maybe it's time to repost Clean Elections bill in GD-P and urge ALL supporters

of ALL candidates to make it a priority for all Dem campaigns - pres., senate and congress.

[TayTay]

18. Then and now, I guess

11/19/2004. John Edwards Farewell Speech on the Floor of the Senate:

Excerpt:

I also want to say a word about my friend Senator Kerry . I embarked a few months ago on a journey with Senator Kerry , a fight, as we traveled across the country and fought for the things in which we believe. We shared our hopes for this country together. We worked hard to make America stronger. I developed a very strong, close, personal friendship with John Kerry during that time. John Kerry is a good man and he is a good American. I got the chance to see him when others didn't, when there were no cameras around, when there were no crowds. This is a man of strength and conviction and courage. He loves his children. He has a beautiful family, by the way. He and his wife Teresa and their kids became very close with my family and our children.

We feel an enormous affection for them and enormous connection with them because we were engaged in what we thought was a very important cause. It still is a very important cause.

But the reality is that John Kerry is somebody who has loved this country his entire life. He stood up and fought for this country his entire life. I am proud to have been able to spend the last few months fighting alongside him as he traveled throughout the country and the work that he did not just in this campaign but for all the years he served in this Senate before this campaign, and the years he will serve from here on are important. Every day he walks onto the floor of this Senate, the American people will be better for it.

He is my friend. He is my colleague. I trust him.

I believe, of course, that he would have made a great President, and I believe he has great work to do for this country in the days and years to come. It is an honor for me to be able to serve with him in this term.

[wisteria]

19. What else can be said other than, Edwards is an opportunist willing

to put politics and ambition above friendship. It is a good thing Senator Kerry has a couple of dogs.

[karynnj]

20. Kerry is luckier than that

He doesn't need his dogs as friends. How many men in their 60s have friends from High school and college who have been by their side for what is now becoming 4 or 5 decades? One comment that amazed me in Tour of Duty was that every person Kerry had written had saved the letters they recived from Kerry while he was in Vietnam. From those quoted, it is clear that he wrote many relatives and friends. He writes beautifully, but it is still amazing that so many people recognized that he was special and preserved his letters. In 2004, the love and respect his crews had for him was pretty awesome.

He also has Teresa, his daughters, and a very large family. Surrounded by this huge circle of devoted friends and family, it's hard to believe that a NYT writer called him a social loner.