Tag: John Edwards (page 7)

Via Radio Iowa, Democratic presidential candidate John Edwards spoke with Pakistan President Pervez Musharraf today. Here's Edwards talking about the situation (mp3 runs 2 minuates)

Henderson:  "In regards to the situation in Pakistan, if you were president, what would you be doing?"

Edwards: "If I were president I would do some of what I've already done.  I spoke with the Pakistani Ambassador and then a few minutes ago I spoke with President Musharraf, urging him to continue on the path to democratization, to allow international investigators to come in to determine what happened, what the facts were so that there would be transparency and credibility about what actually occurred and also about the upcoming schedule of elections and that the important thing for America to do in this unstable environment is first of all focus on the tragedy that's occurred.  Benazir Bhutto was a strong woman, a courageous woman, someone that I actually spoke at a conference with a few years and she talked about the path to democracy in Pakistan being baptized in blood so she understood the extraordinary risk that she was taking by going back and it's a terrible tragedy for the people of Pakistan, but it's important for America to be a calming influence and provide strength in this environment."

More...

John Edwards makes the cover of Newsweek and is the subject of a five page article. He's also on several of the Sunday morning shows today.

He's still fighting hard in Iowa, touting his willingness to fight for Democrats.

I think if my party, the Democratic Party, if we're not willing to fight for, stand up and show some backbone on behalf of the poor, the homeless, the disabled, the disenfranchised, we have no soul," the former North Carolina senator said. "What are we going to stand for?"

While the press has focused on Hillary and Obama, Edwards is very much still in the Iowa race.

Edwards, who finished a surprising second in the caucuses four years ago, is seeking to energize his supporters, whom his advisers says are experienced in the often intimidating task of going to a caucus and publicly declaring their preferences.

He also was the first candidate to get establish a presence in all of Iowa's 99 counties. [More...]

During a speech in Iowa today, a voter asked John Edwards why Iowans should vote for Edwards over Obama. Edwards gave two reasons, one he called substantive and one political.

As president, Edwards said, he would be more successful in fighting the powerful corporations and interests that he says control America’s health-care system and other important areas.

Obama, he said, would take a more conciliatory approach. “He talks about bringing drug companies, insurance companies, oil companies, etc., to the table and working with them and negotiating and compromising,” Edwards said. “I just think that’ll never work. If that would work, it would have worked years ago. If that worked, we’d have universal health care. We don’t.”

....we need somebody who’s ready for this battle.”

On the political side, Edwards said he's more electable. [More....]

The much touted WaPo Iowa poll gives us a clue:

Which of these is more important to you in a candidate for president: (strength and experience) or (a new direction and new ideas)?

Strength New direction

33 55

These words mean next to nothing in real life but they have become the narrative for the coverage of Iowa and I think most Iowa caucus voters will think of it that way.

These buzz words are emblematic of two candidates now - Hillary Clinton means strength and experience. Barack Obama means new direct and new ideas. Forget the fact that the phrases mean nothing. They are standins for a Hillary Clinton referendum.

For reasons unfathomable, John Edwards seems to believe that attacks on Hillary Clinton's trustworthiness and candor will make him the alternative to Hillary. He has left Barack Obama unscathed. In the face of these results, it is hard to imagine what Edwards is thinking:

Who is the most honest and trustworthy 11/18/07 7/31/07
Barack Obama 31 30
John Edwards 20 24
Hillary Clinton 15 14

Edwards is losing ground here? Not really. HE is losing SUPPORT. The attacks he is engaging in give him no benefits whatsoever.

And the end game seems set to me - Two choices - "strength and experience" (Clinton) vs. Change (Obama). Where is the Edwards choice? He ceded it to Obama. In my view, he is finished.

Yesterday, I wrote about John Edwards' slippage in Iowa. Normally, I do not take great stock in polls this far out (yes, it is still too far out to take polls too seriously), especially the famously difficult to poll Iowa Caucus. My reasons for thinking the latest Iowa poll was not so much the numbers, as the fact that Edwards has dropped while Obama has risen since the end of July. Edwards now lacks a POSITIVE narrative for his candidacy for the critical last phases of the campaign. He has become the "attack Hillary" candidate (as opposed to being the Not Hillary candidate, the position he has now ceded without a shot to Barack Obama.)

At MYDD, Jerome Armstrong sees it differently:

Chiming in, it's great that the pollsters are now adding whether the voters attended the 2004 caucuses or not . . . I would tend to bank more on those that caucused in '04 . . .

With due respect to Jerome, I think he misses a very important point here, on the night of the caucus, the differences between previous caucus goers and first timers is simply not that great - both in choices and participation. For example, in 2004, the entrance polling showed:

A new WaPo/ABC poll shows Obama gaining supporters from John Edwards:

NET LEANED VOTE: 11/18/07 7/31/07

Barack Obama 30 27

Hillary Clinton 26 26

John Edwards 22 26

Edwards has decided to run a negative campaign filled with personal attacks on Hillary Clinton. If Edwards' goal is to help Obama, his tactics are working well. If he is trying to win, his tactics are disastrous.

BTW, the WaPo story is headlined "Clinton Slips . . " As you can see, it is Edwards who lost support. Clinton's support is exactly the same as this poll showed in late July.

I just received an e-mail from the John Edwards campaign, written by John's mother Bobbi. It's very clever -- on two levels. She writes:

As a member of our campaign family, If you donate just $20.08 (for the year we'll elect my son the next president of the United States!), I'll send you Elizabeth's recipe for bread pudding, David and Judy Bonior's recipes for "Sweet Potatoes with Apples" and "Mushroom Soup," along with Joe and Kathy's recipe for "Old Fashioned Down on the Farm Country Stuffing" -- and my own special recipe for one of John's favorites, Mac n' Cheese! Click here to make a contribution and get five favorite Thanksgiving recipes!

Level one: You get something back for your donation -- that's a great selection of "comfort food" recipes and it gives you a homey, warm feeling just reading the list: Mac 'n Cheese, sweet potatoes, bread pudding.

Level two: While I have no data on this, I suspect that it's mostly women who are in charge of the family thanksgiving day menu and interested in holiday recipes. By offering the recipes, it seems like Edwards is targeting women voters, trying to take some from Hillary.

I've put a short poll below as to who chooses the Thanksgiving day recipes (not the menu)in your house:

They're dropping like flies in the Milbert-Weiss law firm investigation into an alleged payback scheme for plaintiff referrals in class action cases.

Named partner Melvyn I. Weiss is expected to be indicted today. He's going to fight the charges, says his lawyer Ben Brafman.

Last year, prosecutors in Los Angeles initially charged that Milberg Weiss paid $11 million in kickbacks to plaintiffs in more than 150 cases, a strategy that allowed it to beat other firms to the courthouse and earn more than $216 million in fees.

Tuesday, it was announced that a former lawyer in the firm, William S. Lerach, agreed to plead guilty and serve up to two years in prison. Lerach is not cooperating against other lawyers in the firm.

[More...]

Kevin Drum at `The Washington Monthly` blog asks a very important question in his article, `REVOLT AT THE PENTAGON?`:

Second, even if the generals do stand their ground, can someone explain how this makes sense? We're not fixing things now even with 168,000 troops, and if we draw down we're supposedly going to unleash a massive civil war. So what are 50,000 troops in scattered outposts going to do while that's going on? Hunker down? Head out and get slaughtered? Evacuate? I just don't see how this makes any sense at all.

As Mr. Drum asks, what are 50,000 American troops scattered around Iraq at various Forward Operating Bases going to do?  

Cross-posted in Orange

Last week I implored Barack Obama to step up on Iraq.

On Wednesday of this week, he will be doing just that.

Context and what to look for below the fold.

Here is John Edwards' strategy to root out and shut down terrorist cells, which I received from his campaign this morning. Click on the "more" button to read the whole thing.

JOHN EDWARDS’ STRATEGY TO ROOT OUT AND SHUT DOWN TERRORIST CELLS

“We need a bold new approach—one that is smart, tough, and targeted. This will require us to look beyond the structures of World War II and the Cold War to new tools that will allow us to target terrorism more precisely. It will require sustained U.S. leadership—but the kind that leverages the power of partnerships, rather than going it alone.”- John Edwards

More....

John Edwards will announce a plan against terrorism tomorrow.

The former North Carolina senator and Democratic presidential candidate is planning to propose creating a "Counterterrorism and Intelligence Treaty Organization." This would serve as a kind of modern-day NATO, giving member countries a way to better track terrorists' communications, recruiting and financing, on the theory that breaking up plots requires cross-border cooperation, as shown in Germany's foiling of an alleged plot this week.

....The new structure is needed, say those advising Edwards, given that NATO does not include many countries in which Islamic terrorists operate, and given that other international bodies, such as the UN and Interpol, include countries that have contributed to the world terror threat. To belong to the new international body, countries would have to pledge to tough criteria for pursuing extremists or terrorism financing within their own borders, and nations that declined to take part would be singled out, which could encourage more assistance from nations such as Saudi Arabia and Pakistan, Edwards's advisers say.

More...