Edwards' Full Ad Criticizing Bush During Speech
Here's the full ad John Edwards ran on MSNBC faulting Bush during the speech:
Comments (14)
oleeb wrote on September 13, 2007 10:11 PM:On MSNBC Chris Matthews asked Pat Buchanan why Edwards was zeroing in on Congress and why did he think Congress would not force the question as Edwards called for in his ad. Buchanan's response was unequivocal and spot on. He said the reason the Congress would not stand up to Bush was because "they don't have the courage of their convictions."
If nothing else, Edwards' ad turns the screws on all those in Congress without the courage of their convictions to end this war by refusing to fund it. Edwards pointed out that they have the constitutional power to do so and they do. That this makes inaction or failure or the usual capitulation and helplessness uncomfortable for congressional Democrats is a damn good thing. It pressures Democratic Senators in particular to stop talking about their opposition to the war and DO something to stop it. Speeches aren't good enough when you have the power to demand and get an end to the war.
Bravo Edwards!
JimBob wrote on September 13, 2007 10:28 PM:I wouldn't think you'd need to say you approve the message if you're in every frame of it, speaking to the camera.
EricD wrote on September 13, 2007 11:11 PM:Totally agree oleeb.
If Bush blames Congress for not funding after he casts a veto on a funding bill with timelines, most will not believe him. He lost his credibility on anything Iraq long ago. Yet the Democrats cower.
sillysally wrote on September 14, 2007 1:03 AM:Jim Bob, It is the law.
JustOneGuy wrote on September 14, 2007 1:27 AM:I know there are a variety of opinions on this site regarding the best Democratic nominee, but it really floors me when I see Bush make his speech and then hear Brian Williams say that Obama is the one calling for an immediate withdrawal.
With lazy/sloppy reporters and busy/distracted/disinterested citizens, it will be very difficult for Edwards to get any traction...even when he does incredibly bold things like the MSNBC ad and the recent speeches at Pace University and to the Council on Foreign Relations.
I know there is a long way to go, but from where I sit, we are headed toward a Hillary vs. Fred narrative, and I don't know if that can possibly end well.
Syd B wrote on September 14, 2007 3:47 AM:Johnny Edwards is still the most electable and imho would make the best president.
It is a bit of a mystery to me anyway why he has slipped so far back.
gtash wrote on September 14, 2007 6:48 AM:Edwards is doing what needs to be done. He isn't in the House or Senate, so he he is doing what he can influence them where the media and the leading officials of the party will not.
He is exactly right. The people expect COngress to do what they are supposed to do: stop this self-inflicted wound called Iraq from bleeding the nation to death.
bordervoice wrote on September 14, 2007 8:24 AM:Syd, I honestly think Edwards will pull this out.
Every single Democrat I've talked to prefers Edwards. Edwards just won a (extremely unscientific) online straw poll conducted by the Texas Democratic Party, which state he would have carried in the 2004 primary had they not been so front-loaded that year that Super Tuesday was neutered.
I think the polls showing Clinton as the front runner are more Republican spin and media hype than anything else.
Me, my dream ticket is Edwards-Obama. And I am hoping that happens and I think the chances are good it will happen as long as Edwards maintains his Iowa organization. He appeals to rural voters, something the media hasn't picked up on yet.
Although there's such an embarrassment of riches on the Democratic side this year that with the exception of 1 or 2 candidates, I'd be pretty much happy with whoever they nominate.
progressivedem wrote on September 14, 2007 8:34 AM:Edwards' rejoinder to Bush's rehash was succinct, serious, and powerful. If he is the standard bearer for the Democratic party in the next election we will compete for independent and cross-over votes in every part of the country. If we wind up with Hillary I fear another "John Kerry moment." I will work to make Mr. Edwards my president every way I know how. I haven't felt this way about a candidate since I was 17 years old and following Robert Kennedy's campaign.
Brian wrote on September 14, 2007 9:38 AM:If Hillary clinches the democratic nomination Edwards should immediately declare himself an Independent and run for President as one. Pull a Lieberscum but for the right reasons.
I think Edwards could attract enough Independents, true democrats, and even angry Republicans to pull it off. And even if a Repug wins at least we have a Dem congress and a Repub has to clean up after their Occupation in Iraq.
Edwards is the only progressive candidate in the mix. Obama would also be alright, but I would be more comfortable if he had the experience as a VP before going for President.
If it's Hillary than I am voting Green, or not for the office of President at all (which is what I did in 1988).
Hillary is the ideal candidate for both the extreme right (if they have to lose) and the corporatists and will not lead to any real progressive reform in America.
Anonymous wrote on September 14, 2007 10:03 AM:This is the leadership we've been waiting for and which we sorely need to continue. Time to send a little money Edwards' way, I think.
This is the very first time I've felt the country was actually being helped by the ridiculously early start to the 2008 campaign. Edwards is talking sense that even the most simple minded can understand, and by taking this position forces the "frontrunners" to take a stand alongside him or suffer the consequences.
Even if this does not lead to an Edwards victory, he has changed the dynamics of the race.
P. S.: Kucinich, to his great credit, has been out in front on this all along, but is sadly not considered a serious candidate by the soothsayers. That's too bad. I have already contributed $ to his campaign, and will continue to do so as long as he is in it. We need these voices of principle very badly.
colonpowwow wrote on September 14, 2007 10:41 AM:The irrational Hillogynists on this board have a long memory on your Clinton-bashing points along with a non-memory of her lifelong Democratic and liberal progressive credentials. At the same time you have no idea why Edwards is not generating as much interest as a fine candidate like he is should.
As a lawyer would put it, allow me to refresh your non-memories with these two things, Edwards' dismal performance on the 2004 ticket, and his lack of personal leadership on environmental, energy, global warming, land use, and working class issues as demonstrated by the very recent Edwards Estate, non-Union Labor built, Clear-Cutting Project.
I'm sorry, the idea of a woman in the White House so much more captures my imagination than does the aura of yet another do-as-I-say-not-as-I-do unproven pol.
EvanR wrote on September 14, 2007 11:26 AM:Brian, I'm sorry but your post is one of the most foolish I've read on this site and needs to be addressed:
We can feel fortunate that John Edwards would never declare as an Independent and run against the Democratic nominee, because -- shear improbability aside -- he knows that doing so would represent about the surest possible means one can imagine of handing the Presidency to the GOP for another four years.
You must be sitting pretty yourself to have the luxury that average and disadvantaged Americans as well as people all over the world lack: the ability to afford another four years of right-wingers in the Oval Office.
You argue that worst case, at least the GOP will be left with their own mess to clean up in Iraq. No, our soldiers, average people in Iraq and the rest of us at home will be left with it as well. You no doubt think it was a disaster for the Bush Adm to invade Iraq, that they've made a vastly greater disaster out of it since, and yet you're awfully sanguine about letting another Republican spend our money, maim our troops, bungle Iraq further, while pushing who knows what's next: maybe an invasion of Iran?
Do you know anything at all about the current balance of power on the US Supreme Court? For example, how old John Paul Stephens is? The possibility that Ruth Bader may need to retire in the next few years? Yes, a strong Democratic majority in the Senate could help secure a more moderate nominee than Roberts, or good lord, Alito. But we'd still be facing a raft of conservative GOP nominees. A hard-right court for over a generation.
Finally, your track record speaks for itself: You didn't even vote in 1988. Now, if a more moderate Democrat than you'd prefer gets the nomination you threaten to either stay home again or vote for the right-wing's not so secret electoral weapon: Ralph Nader. I hope like hell you don't live my home state of Ohio, Florida or another swing state.
And for what it's worth, Hillary is far from my first choice for the nomination. I'll probably vote for Edwards, maybe Obama. I have a clear memory of the Clinton years and of Hillary's record in the Senate. And I am not, was not, thrilled with either. But tell me this:,which do you think were better for America: the Clinton years or the Bush years? Why on earth would you punish the most vulnerable people in the world so gravely over such a relatively small difference as Clinton vs. Edwards? When the alternative is Thompson, Giuliani etc?
realD wrote on September 14, 2007 12:29 PM:The answer to your question, SydB, about why Edwards has slipped is given to us by one of the posters above to wit:
"I'm sorry, the idea of a woman in the White House so much more captures my imagination than does the aura of yet another do-as-I-say-not-as-I-do unproven pol."
Clinton's poll numbers are supported almost entirely by this sort of knee-jerk "I want a woman" sentiment among female Democratic voters. I don't hate Hillary or anything like that. I just think that the race, gender, and/or ethnicity of any candidate is completely beside the point. It's what the candidate stands for and proposes to do once in office that counts. At this point, those voters who just want a woman, are not evaluating issues and substance because of their understandable thirst for a woman candidate even though it means if Clinton gets the nomination the Democrats, while unlikely to lose the White House, will barely win it and all Democrats will lose the opportunity to win hundreds of other federal, state and local offices because of Hillary's ego and because of this determined but shortsighted sentiment among women for a woman as President as though sex and not substantive policy positions is what counts in a President. The situation, however, will not remain as it is.
My take is that the bulk of these pro-Hillary female Dem voters are pretty poorly informed at this point, they know Hillary, but they aren't much focused on the race or the consequences of Hillary as the nominee. They don't know how her positions compare to the other candidates because they haven't been paying that much attention. They assume that essentially they are all the same because they are Democrats, but of course there are important differences--certainly in intent among the candidates. In the next few months as the average voter begins to focus and consider the options, Edwards' numbers will rise even among these female D voters because they will realize that Hillary will only change the gender of the Presidency but Edwards will change things that matter to them, to their families and to the world.
I agree wholeheartedly with ProgressiveDem above that Edwards is the most promising candidate for President since Bobby Kennedy, but I was only 10 when he was killed. When people listen and really hear what Edwards has to say and what his vision is for America they will respond, but it's still quite early in the process and most people are busy with their lives and have yet to turn their attention to anything about next year, let alone the Presidential election. Personally, because of his message, I feel confident Edwards' will win in the end.
