Edwards flashes cold on turn up the heat

[be inspired]

Run time: 00:39 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lYE22IdmH3w   Posted on YouTube: November 13, 2007 By YouTube Member: Views on YouTube: 0   Posted on DU: November 13, 2007 By DU Member: be inspired Views on DU: 2252

 
John Edwards isn't too sure how Hillary Clinton is turning up the heat on the Republicans, given her Yes vote on the Kyl-Lieberman amendment. Can't say I really blame him. I'm also not too sure about how exactly her Yes vote on Kyl-Lieberman is turning up the heat, but I suggest we don't let her play with any matches.

[okamichan13]

1. Not sure if Hillary can handle the "heat"

judging by how she has to plant questions for herself.

[Tellurian]

2. yeah, see if EE could handle her husband being Impeached?

I'm not worried about Hillary handling the heat.. She's a Pro!

I worry about a Police State happening while we're were paying attention to meaningless, petty, comments made by a Third Rate presidential campaigner that can't even win his own state!

[be inspired]

3. Wow! Way to distract from the issue of this post!

That is so completely off topic that I think you get the prize for non-sequiters here! It's a favorite tactic of Clinton supporters to distract by bringing strawmen and things that are way off topic, but you win the prize! Hillary should hire you.

I think we are all quite worried about the direction this country is going. I think some of us are justifiably worried that the direction won't change much, or at all, if Clinton is the nominee. And frankly, I have multiple reasons for thinking that, and all of them are based on fact.

[waiting for hope]

10. All you have to do is look at

the Hillaryis44 button and that says it all in a nutshell. That website is full of attacks and innuendos. It's actually quite a disservice to Senator Clinton, but if she approves of it, .......

[creeksneakers2]

23. Edwards is lying about Kyl-Lieberman

The idea that Kyl-Lieberman is a pretext war is an extremist inspired hoax from the kook fringe. Even Condi Rice admitted on Sunday Kyl-Lieberman couldn't be used for war.

Edwards knows the Kyl-Lieberman smear is a lie but he doesn't care. The lies he feeds the Hillary haters are in reality a date rape drug. He can manipulate his people with lies all he wants and they never lift a finger to stop him.

[ihavenobias]

26. Kyl-Lieberman is what?

What's happening right now is almost *exactly* what happened to the lead up of Iraq.

Also, the issue with Kyl-Lieberman is how incredibly vague it is. Do you trust Bush Cheney to have a reasonable interpretation of something so vague, or do you think he'll take what he wants from it (I vote for the latter)?

PS---Why did Hillary even go along with such nonsense regardless of if it may or may not be used to go to war? If you want to talk about inspired hoaxes, look no further than the absurd push to make Iran look like some huge threat that's responsible for most of the violence against the US troops.

Curiously, no one's talking about Saudi Arabia despite the fact that there is *much more* evidence that Saudi Arabia, not Iran, is where most of the foreign fighters and weapons are coming from. Or talk about the porous Pakistan/Afghanistan border for example. Instead Hillary swallows and repeats the right wing talking points regarding Iran, which is flat out dangerous and irresponsible.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AuB1h1GBoys&eurl

[creeksneakers2]

27. There is no way Kyl-Lieberman could be interpreted as

an authorization for war. First, there's nothing in it about authorizing war. Second, Congress intentionally removed language that could have been used to go to war. There's no way Bush can pretend that Congress intended it as an authorization.

The Iraqi WAR Resolution must have contained references to war. Otherwise, they wouldn't have called it WAR resolution.

[ihavenobias]

30. I disagree

Did you watch the clip I posted? It's pretty interesting and a good take on Iran.

[creeksneakers2]

31. I watched it

He makes good points about Bush wanting to invade Iran and building a case for it. He only has speculation about Kyl-Lieberman though. The speculation is based on the idea that Bush could twist words later. Bush couldn't twist Kyl-Lieberman though because there is no authorizing language in it, Congress made if very clear that it was not an authorizing resolution, and a top administration official already admitted Kyl-Lieberman does not authorize.

[ihavenobias]

32. But Again

We're trying to speculate on what a *rational and reasonable* president would do. Who cares if there is no "authorizing resolution".

Based on the history of a president who ignores (or distorts) rules and laws all the time, why would we take that chance? This is the "it depends on what you mean by torture" people. They are masters of manipulating language to suit their needs.

PS---Again, the other large issue (addressed in the clip) is that Iran is simply not he enormous threat it's being painted as. The fact that Hillary is even buying into and promoting that right wing frame is disturbing. At the very least, even if Kyl. amendment doesn't authorize way, it *does* set up more likely pressure on congress (and or the next president and congress) to "do something" about Iran, something other than diplomacy.

[creeksneakers2]

24. Why wasn't comment #1 a distraction? n/t

[Zeke]

4. You're a Hack, A Hilary Plant.

Hilary voted for...
1) The Bush tax cuts.
2) For Chief Justice John Roberts.
3) For Associate Justice Samuel Alito.
4) For the Iraq War.
5) For every war funding bill.
6) For the FISA law changes.
7) For warrantless government wiretapping.
8) Etc. Etc., Etc.

And now she says she wants to be President WHY?
Because the nation needs change she says!

Yeah, the nation needs change meaning it needs
people who vote like Repukes like her out of government,
out of the US Senate, never in the White House again.

Hilary cannot be out of government, out of politics
fast enough for me. Democrats nationwide need to run
against incumbent do-nothing-Democrats who keep voting
for everything Bush Inc. wants.

Replace Republi-Crats with real Democrats.
VOTE NO ON HILARY!!!!!!!!!

[Tellurian]

7. Fact Check.. Hillary is the ONLY candidate attacking Republicans..

Hillary is NOT attacking fellow Dems. Too bad Edwards and Obama can't claim the high ground.

[Qutzupalotl]

19. Bullshit.

[creeksneakers2]

21. Hillary voted against war funding bills this year

She voted against the bad FISA bill.

Isn't warrantless wiretapping the same as the FISA bill?

[Patchuli]

5. How can you support someone

who is lockstep with what we have NOW to the detriment of our country? This makes no sense. And Hill is NO Bill, that's for sure.

[Tellurian]

8. Thanks for trying to make a point..

Edwards and Obama are in lockstep attacking their own Party. How about Edwards the "hypocrite" when he chastised Hillary for taking lobbyist donations, when in fact, Dodd called Edwards out at the last debate. Dodd said, "Lets not be pointing fingers here, when YOU TAKE $$$$ from the country's BIGGEST Lobbyists, The Bar Association!" Edwards is not the model for the presidency, I want representing me as president. When he demonstrates daily, he would rather tear down the front runner and not see a democrat WIN the White House, again!

[Plucketeer]

25. So waht.....?

Edwards is supposed to bow to Dame Hillary's coffers??? That's as dumb a reason as I could conjure for John to buckle. You've inspired me to give JE a few more bucks. As a Democrat - the LAST thing I want in my White House is another Clinton.

[Patchuli]

29. Thanks for that!

:toast:

[Patchuli]

28. I did

and one other thing that sealed the deal for me was that nauseating smiley picture of Hill with Rupert Murdoch.

Maybe we could have a president based on abilities and not on $. Wow, what a novel idea. I haven't heard much good come out of Senator Clinton nor would I expect much good to come out of her presidency for the regular working people. She is just another corporatist.

[Inspired]

6. Kyl - Lieberman....remember the topic please.

You actually support that vote? Why?

[Tellurian]

12. Remember who Co-Sponsored the Iraq Vote?.. John Edwards in case you've forgotten..

and promoted the Iraq War for two years on the White House website?

The K-L Amendment is exactly where it should be, stripped of any language that can be interpreted as a blank check for going to War.

How can you support Edwards' despicable Voting Record?

* Edwards supported a bankruptcy bill that was vetoed by President Clinton. In 2000 John Edwards voted for the Bankruptcy Overhaul bill. While this bill included a slight increase of the minimum wage, its major design was to revise bankruptcy laws to make it easier for courts to force debtors to repay their debts, while before the law had allowed debtors to discharge their debt. 12 Democrats and 2 Republicans rejected this bill, including Chris Dodd, Ted Kennedy, Paul Wellstone, and Tom Harkin. President Clinton eventually vetoed this bill because it was too hard on debtors.

---

* Edwards voted for the same bill in 2001, again choosing financial interests over working families. In 2001 Edwards voted for a similar Bankruptcy Overhaul bill that again required Americans facing bankruptcy to undergo debt repayments instead of debt relief. Specifically, the bill required debtors able to pay $10,000 or 25% of their debts over five years to file under Chapter 13, which requires a reorganization of debts under a repayment plan, instead of seeking to discharge their debts under Chapter 7. Edwards voted with nearly the entire Republican caucus in supporting this bill, as well as voting to end debate on the measure. Chris Dodd voted to reject this bill, joining Senators Durbin, Feingold, Harkin, Kennedy, Kerry, and Wellstone. In all, the bill was rejected by 13 Democrats and 2 Republicans.

* Edwards would not allow relief for people who were forced into bankruptcy from medical bills. Edwards also sided with the entire GOP caucus to vote against the Wellstone amendment to the 2001 bill. This amendment would have provided an exemption for debtors who were forced to file for bankruptcy due to medical expenses, under the rationale that health expenses are often unpreventable and can be an especially debilitating cost to low and middle income families. Chris Dodd was one of the 34 Democrats who voted for this amendment?a group that included Senators Clinton, Durbin, Feingold, Harkin, Kennedy, Kerry and Wellstone.

* Edwards rejected a means test amendment that would have protected debtors from sudden financial misfortune. On the same bill, Edwards again voted with the entire GOP caucus to reject an amendment that would have included a more consumer friendly means test than that included in the original bill. The amended means test would have used the average of a debtor's last two months of income to determine their ability to pay a certain threshold amount of debt, instead of the last six months of income. The amended means test was designed to protect debtors who face financial difficulties from sudden job loss or disability. Paul Wellstone, who authored the amendment, said the original test "will make it impossible for families to rebuild their lives." 22 Democrats supported this amendment, including Chris Dodd. Dodd was accompanied by Senators Clinton, Durbin, Feingold, and Kennedy.

* Edwards supported the final version of the Bankruptcy bill that "punishes the vulnerable." Months later, Edwards again voted for the similar version of the Bankruptcy bill that emerged from negotiations with the House of Representatives. He also voted to limit debate twice on the bill, stifling further amendments or arguments. This version was not substantively different from the earlier versions, as it still made it significantly harder for working Americans to discharge their debts through the bankruptcy system. Chris Dodd rejected this bill, along with Senators Durbin, Feingold, Harkin, Kennedy, Kerry and Wellstone. 14 Democrats and 2 Republicans voted against the final measure.

---

The bill "punishes the vulnerable and it rewards the big banks and credit card companies for their poor practices," said Sen. Paul Wellstone, D-Minn., a leading opponent of the legislation. "We are heading into hard economic times and we're going to make it hard for people to rebuild their lives."

Edwards has been part and parcel of the GOP agenda all the way. Edwards voting record is one of the worst of our Dem Senators. Edwards is helping create poverty in the middle class with his bankruptcy vote and earning millions for himself when working for the Hedge Fund sector. The same Hedge Fund sector that was buying sub-prime mortgages for their investment portfolios.. The same "POVERTY" he now professes to help as the centerpiece of his presidential campaign. It must be hard for Edward's supporters to understand the meaning of the words "poverty" and "hypocrisy", when their candidate, John Edwards exemplifies it so well. Why shouldn't he, he voted for it!

[MissDeeds]

9. This kind of manic diatribe makes me wonder

if Hillary's supporters are contributing to her unlikability factor.

[waiting for hope]

13. Oh MissDeeds!

You Win The Prize! :applause:

[Tellurian]

14. Hillary supporters are contributing to Edwards unlikeability factor..

pointing to the hypocrisy of Edwards undeniable MissDeeds!

:rofl:

[tekisui]

18. The Hillary way, "I'm rubber, you're glue...

She and her supporters, when questioned on issues, ignore the point and criticize someone else.

Eveytime. Rather than defend or clarify a position, it is "Well, it's not as bad as______" or "_____________ does it too."

[creeksneakers2]

22. Hillary answers thousands of questions

She even takes on six candidates, Williams and the evil stalker Russert all at the same time.

[swwallace81]

11. Get used to it. I wish we could invoke the Reagan Doctrine in the

Democratic primaries and stop the mud slinging. Its way too early to be this abusive. My advise, vote your conscience in the primary then support the nominee. Nobody gets everything they want and we've seen what happens when you splinter.

[sparkleon]

16. I'm Voting

from my heart and that vote is for John Edwards period! Nothing anyone can say or sling mud is going to change my mind. When you know in your gut this is the right one...nothing, and no one can say anything to make it otherwise.

[happygoluckytoyou]

15. SWEET TO BE A REPUBLICAN READING ALL THIS

I JUST HAVE TO SAY, SLIGHTLY OFF TOPIC, THAT THE REPUBLICANS AND THE GOP PRESS (FOX NEWS) LOVES THIS SHIT. THEY REALLY DO. ALL THE NAME CALLING... JUST CHECK IT OUT... ONE POST SAYS THEY LIKE EDWARDS, THE NEXT SAYS THEY WON'T VOTE IF EDWARDS IS THE NOMINEE... THEN BACK AT HILLARY...

ALREADY WHOEVER WINS, THERE IS A DEMOCRAT WHO WILL NOT VOTE FOR THEM

IT IS NO WONDER THAT YOU ARE LIVING IN A GOP-LOCKSTEP-RULED-COUNTRY

.....

THE REPUBLICANS UNITE FOR THE ELECTION AND DIVIDE THE SPOILS
THE DEMOCRATS DIVIDE FOR THE ELECTION AND THERE ARE NO SPOILS

.............RENT A SENSE OF HUMOR AND GET THE DEMOCRATS IN THE WHITE HOUSE AND CONGRESS
........................AND THAT IS ANY DEMOCRAT

BECAUSE WITH A TRUE OWNERSHIP IN THE HOUSE AND CONGRESS.... AND AT THE WHITEHOUSE
...WE WILL ALL SEE A TRUE STEP-TO-THE-LEFT IN POLITICS... A REAL RIGHTING OF DIRECTION

---- AND YOU KNOW THAT THEY ALL HAVE TO COURT CERTAIN GROUPS TO WIN... PLEASE TRY TO ALLOW THEM A CERTAIN AMOUNT OF SLACK... AND REMEMBER TO BREATHE

[be inspired]

17. What the Republicans really love...

...is silencing dissent. Do we really want to be like them? I think not. I don't believe Hillary Clinton is good for the Democratic party or the country, and I have a right to say so. Got that?

[ihavenobias]

20. Well, there is some truth there

It IS true that it's often easier to get people who are *generally* more rigid, unquestioning and prefer authoritarian candidates (i.e. republicans) to rally together. That's also why in many countries with some run-off voting the fundamentalists often win (with 33% of the vote, etc.).

Because the more rational groups disagree and question their candidates (often splitting the vote) while the issues never really change for the fundamentalists and the world is always in clear Black and White with no room for nuance.

The "if you say jump I say how high" quality of many (not all, but many) republicans does help them win elections, I can't argue with that. It helps explain why Bush was elected in 2004 and why so many tried desperately to support him in the face of overwhelming evidence that he was an awful president.

But hey, maybe there's hope considering Bush's approval ratings (24%) now match Nixon's on the day he resigned.

PS---This clip sums up what conservatives need in life: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r4AYum9Z1Z0