Obama attacks Edwards?

I was glad to see Obama finally speak about poverty (although he has had a page on it on his website for a while, indicating his sincerity on the issue) but dismayed to read this. Obama talks about a "new kind of politics" but this is just another in a series of thinly veiled attacks from him, or overt attacks from his staff, on his rivals.

==Unwilling to cede the issue to Edwards, Obama spoke at a recreation center in the nation's capital, and in a jab at his rival, argued that combatting poverty was hardly new for him, a one-time community organizer in Chicago.

"This kind of poverty is not an issue I just discovered for the purposes of a campaign, it is the cause that led me to a life of public service almost twenty-five years ago," the Illinois senator said in prepared remarks.==

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/07/18/AR2007071801097.html

Second, how do you reconcile Obama launching another attack on a rival with his rhetoric about a "new kind of politics"?

==and in a jab at his rival, argued that combatting poverty was hardly new for him, a one-time community organizer in Chicago.

"This kind of poverty is not an issue I just discovered for the purposes of a campaign==

:wtf:

Obama has a consistent pattern of making such thinly veiled attacks on his opponents. Here is an example from just a couple of days ago http://www.mydd.com/story/2007/7/12/153122/060

== "When I opposed this war before it began in 2002, I was about to run for the United States Senate, and I knew it wasn't the politically popular position," Obama said during a town hall meeting in Des Moines on Tuesday.

"But I believed then and still do that being a leader means that you'd better do what's right and leave the politics aside, because there are no do-overs on an issue as important as war," Obama said.

Message: I had the judgment and leadership to come out against the war when it counted (and a couple other people didn't.) ==

==What Obama is doing is talking about issues, and we need all the candidates' positions on all the issues.==

Yes, indirectly calling a rival a hypocrite is talking about the issues. :eyes:

Obama sets himself up for increased scrutiny on this because he poses as being above such things.

== focus on why you think your candidate is the best qualified?==

I do that all the time. :)

==A poke is not an "attack."==

Calling your opponent a fraud and hypocrite on his signature issue is not an attack? If that isn't an attack what is?

==Unless there are deliberate untruths or malicious language involved, there is no hypocrisy in being assertive in a campaign==

The malicious untruth was claiming Edwards is using poverty only as an election issue...

As to the hypocrisy, Obama claims he wants a "new kind of politics." He then turns around and repeatedly does what he claims to be against. Why doesn't he just drop the charade and admit he is a mere mortal running an regular campaign using "old politics" tactics?

:shrug:

:shrug:

"This kind of poverty is not an issue I just discovered for the purposes of a campaign"

I don't understand what your confusion is.

And any mental contortions required to make it appear to be consistent with his image will be made.

Was this the harshest thing ever said? No.

But to pretend its not an attack is just mystifying.

The notion that this was a run-of-the-mill comment that means nothing is, at best, a stretch...However, seasonedblue has presented a valid alternative explanation. Perhaps this was a preemptive strike against BO being criticized as being a Johhny-come-lately on the issue.

I think we will know what he really meant down the road. If he continues to make this comment, like he does with his thinly veiled attacks on his rivals on the IWR, it will become clear it was an attack. If this was just to protect himself against being seen as jumping on the Edwards anti-poverty bandwagon that will become apparent as well.

A tap if you will, that and the comment regarding do overs are mild, shouldn't hurt a bit unless you have a soft spot.

Come on, it isn't as if he called someone a Brownshirt.

Thanks in advance. I look forward to your reply.

and I actually believe Obama has as good an understanding of it as Edwards. "This kind of poverty is not an issue I just discovered for the purposes of a campaign..."

=="This kind of poverty is not an issue I just discovered for the purposes of a campaign..."==

You don't see what he was trying to imply there?

since Edwards has claimed it as his signature issue. I don't see it as a hit frankly, more of a "wait a minute, I'm not jumping on anyone's bandwagon." Preemptive strike against the Edwards camp calling it political I think.

Thanks, I think I will have to give Obama the benefit of the doubt on this.

Thank you for addressing the issue instead of hyperventilating and making lame attacks. :toast:

if it's anything like 2004, it's going to get dirty, but I don't think we're there yet.:toast:

that isn't a attack on Edwards, I seem him saying he has more experience in dealing with poverty then Edwards which is a fact. Would be no different than Edwards stating he has more Legislative experience on a national level than Obama.

Obama is obviously speaking to his own credibility as a leader on this issue.

This seems to be another installment in the series.

The editing period for the OP has expired so unfortunately I cannot add a note about post #22, which provides a perfectly rational explanation for the comment. I am still unsure what he meant but I will give him the benefit of the doubt on this. Let's see what Obama does going forward. If this was actually an attack it will become apparent down the road.

if barack thinks it will come down to himself vs. hillary (and it at least
looks that way right this moment), then trying to peel off some of the
supporters from the rest of the field makes excellent political sense. edwards
has a pretty big block of support at #3 nationally, so it makes even more sense
to go after some of his supporters . . . . go after the biggest available group,
and all of that.

and the candidates don't take any of this personally. politicians understand
that this is all politics. the only people that do seem to take it personally,
as odd as it may seem, is the candidates' supporters . . . . you know . . . us.

and if you want proof, just watch: the candidates will be united in the general
election, but we will still be fighting with each other.

Obama also said that he was against the war from the beginning unlike some who are running now.

He is establishing his credentials that he's had even before this campaign. Since many of you all questioned his credentials for being in this race from the beginning. He's letting you all know.

or at least not as relevant as some would like to make it
out to be.

he wasn't a particularly relevant political figure when
the IWR was debated, and ultimately passed.

the difference between state senator and US senator is the
difference between lightning and lightning bug.

The relevance is that he has made statements in the past that showed where he stood on issues prior to his candidacy.

That's what I saw he was doing with his statement regarding poverty, as he did with his position on the war.

my point was that he didn't have a vote on the IWR because he
wasn't especially significant at the time.

That's because the ultra-wealthy who live off their Wall Street investments know what Obama is going to do and they like it. It's not the poor that Obama is advocating for.

All of them are accepting money from ultra wealthy donors. Obama may be leading but he's not the only one receiving it.

Edwards make good money workinf for an hedge fund. I wouldn't assume that he doesn't care about poor people because of that.

He raised almost twice as much as DLC icon HRC, who is married to a former pro-corporate DLC president, more than twice as much as McCain and Giuliani (3rd and 4th overall on Wall Street, first and second among Republicans) and 17 times more than the populist John Edwards.

Hedge funds? Guess which candidate they are lining up behind too...

Wall Street is not dumb. They know who to invest in to protect their interests. The Wall Street jury is in (last quarter Obama was #1 but Ghouliani and HRC, 2nd and 3rd respectively, were close behind. In the second quarter he crushed everyone else...). Obama is the choice of corporate America. You can either believe Wall Street is suddenly a progressive bastion or that Wall Street recognizes Obama is a pro-corporate Third Way Democrat who does not threaten the status quo and establishment. Your call. The evidence, though, on who Wall Street loves is overwhelming.

Sure he is the #1 but he is not the only one getting corporate money.

You can choose to believe that but I won't

My reference to hedge funds had to do with the fact that Edwards worked at one.

They may give Obama $10 but they are also giving Clinton $5; Edwards $3............ They are all gulity of accepting their money. Because someone got more totally dismisses the others that have their hands in the cookie jar.

Don't be so naive to think that Wall Street and corporate America is not going to be a part of these contributions.

Obama out-raised DLCer HRC almost 2-to-1 on Wall Street, he beat McCain and Ghouliani by more than 2-to-1, he raised over three times as much as Romney on Wall Street, and 17 times more than Edwards.

==My reference to hedge funds had to do with the fact that Edwards worked at one.==

Sure, but who are they lining up behind? It isn't Edwards.

Why does this matter? Corporate America is voting with its money as to who they would like in the White House. As progressives we should take this into account.

The abject hypocrisy here is over the top. Seriously. It's like a SNL skit or something.

And HRC over Edwards 10-to-1? Obama over Romney by more than 3-to-1? And so on.

Edwards did briefly work for a hedge fund. As corporate America does every election, they are voting with their financial might as to who they would prefer in the White House. The corporate verdict is in: Obama is their first choice, HRC their second. Edwards does not even register.

Why is Obama, and to a much lesser extent HRC, crushing a guy who used to work for a hedge fund among hedge funds? Hedge funds have made their investment too--and it isn't in Edwards.

As it stands now...that's not Edwards, even though he was formerly on the payroll.

If that was the case why did Obama build a massive lead over HRC and Ghouliani on Wall Street during the second quarter when the trio were on par with each other during the first quarter? After all, HRC expanded her lead over Obama during this time. If they were simply lining up behind a winner the stampede would have been to HRC, not a distant second place candidate. Why did Obama beat both parties front-runners, who both happen to be from New York? How about McCain? Does anyone really think he has a better chance of winning than Edwards? Edwards and McCain were on par in overall fund-raising but McCain beat him 8-to-1 on Wall Street.

I love it when Obama supporters invoke the polls to write-off Edwards. Edwards is closer to Obama (-11) than Obama is to HRC (-13). Clearly you think a candidate at BO's level is viable but Edwards has no chance of erasing his "insurmountable" deficit to second place Obama. That must mean Obama has no shot at overtaking HRC, who has a larger lead over Obama than BO has over Edwards. :crazy:

When it comes to the polls Obama supporters dismiss every poll that shows HRC with the lead by reminding people that the first place candidate in the national polls in 2003 lost last time. They are right. What they conveniently forget when writing-off Edwards, and implicitly everyone behind Edwards in the polls, because they desperately want a two-way race is that the second place candidate (Clark) also lost. ;)

This, from the article you've been promoting --

JPMorgan Chase & Co. Chief Financial Officer Michael Cavanagh, an Obama supporter, said he sees an opportunity for a ``fresh look at things,'' while Robert Wolf, chairman of UBS Americas, said he is concerned about the Iraq war and partisan divides.

<SNIP>

``Plenty of people on Wall Street look at many issues outside of just from a business acumen,'' said Wolf, 45, who is raising money for Obama. ``He was very clear in 2002 that he was against the war, and I think that differentiates him.''

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=a2fIFVWje23E&refer=home

Who is more interested in preserving the status quo, corporate influence, and the establishment than Wall Street?

As I said in the other thread:

As I said to you in the other thread:

draft_mario_cuomo (1000+ posts) Journal Click to send private message to this author Click to view this author's profile Click to add this author to your buddy list Click to add this author to your Ignore list Thu Jul-19-07 03:36 PM
Response to Reply #13
14. Hooray for corporate influence!

:sarcasm: It is hilarious to see Obama supporters, who like most progressives, used to decry corporate influence in politics suddenly cheering Wall Street's influence now that their hero is Wall Street's darling...

=="Employees at the top hedge funds and private-equity firms, whose tax rates are under assault from lawmakers including Obama and Clinton, didn't give nearly as much to White House hopefuls and are largely hedging their bets, FEC filings show."==

You forgot to mention that what hedge funds are giving is a small fraction of the Wall Street number. Hedge funds combined to give the top three Republicans $50,750; the top 10 investment banks gave them nearly $900,000 (almost as much as they gave to Obama alone...). Hedge funds gave $62,211 to Democrats; the top 10 investment banks gave Obama $740,000 and HRC $425,000 (a total of roughly $1.2 million).

==``When a party has been in power, both at the presidency, and the Senate and House for years and failed, on the Street you get fired,'' said Mark Gallogly, 50, an Obama fund-raiser and policy adviser who is also founder of the New York-based buyout firm Centerbridge Capital Partners LP. ``Accountability and the need for change is why Wall Street is supporting Democrats,'' said Gallogly, a former executive at Blackstone.==

So Wall Street is suddenly for progressive change after all these decades? Surely you do not believe that... You took one quote and claim it represents Wall Street. Besides, do you think he would have said "I like Obama's pro-corporate policies. I think he will be even better for us than Clinton was. This is why I am supporting him."

draft_mario_cuomo (1000+ posts) Journal Click to send private message to this author Click to view this author's profile Click to add this author to your buddy list Click to add this author to your Ignore list Thu Jul-19-07 03:40 PM
Response to Reply #13
15. How about this quote regarding why hedge funds prefer Obama over HRC (and everyone else)?

Edited on Thu Jul-19-07 03:43 PM by draft_mario_cuomo
Note: All these figures are for the first quarter (as we know, he has expanded his lead among corporate America since then)

==But, even as Obama plays the people's choice by building his war chest in two- and three-figure increments, he is also relying on a growing cadre of young, eye-poppingly rich hedge-fund and private-equity managers to keep him at the head of the money primary. During the first quarter he nearly doubled Clinton's take from private-equity firms--$85,350 against $47,900, according to the magazine Private Equity Hub--and, with $479,209, he placed first among candidates from both parties in giving from investment banks, many of which run their own hedge funds and private-equity operations (Rudy Giuliani, the runner-up, got $473,442).==

==These stars--what New York magazine calls the "baby bundlers"--are helping Obama tap into Wall Street's fabulously rich elite. His most recent catch is the relatively gray-haired Paul Tudor Jones II (he's 53). Head of the $15 billion Tudor Management hedge fund, Jones is holding a 500-guest event for the candidate at his Greenwich, Connecticut, mansion later this month. The event will mark Obama's entry into the hedge-fund winners' circle: Greenwich, the toniest of New York exurbs, is home to more than 100 hedge funds--and, as one observer told the Financial Times, "The whole of Greenwich is backing Obama."==

==There is also a more Machiavellian element to these young turks' support. Precisely because the Clinton dynasty has been around so long, the door to her innermost fundraising circles--and thus influence and possible White House posts--is largely closed. The top jobs in a hypothetical Hillary Clinton White House aren't exactly taken, but they're not available to newcomers, either. Obama's door, on the other hand, is wide open. So it's no surprise that while Wall Street stalwart Rattner is a big-time Hillary backer, his right-hand man at Quadrangle, Steiner, is going with Obama. The same is the case with Jamie Rubin, the son of Clinton's economic consigliore Robert. "If we all lined up for Hillary, we wouldn't have even gotten into the anteroom, let alone seats at the table," one of Obama's young fundraisers told New York. "But that's not how it is with Barack. We're already at the table."

==Of course, hedge-fund and private-equity managers don't dish out money for their health: An industry that once studiously avoided politics is now rushing into it. Jones' Tudor Investment recently became the first hedge fund to start a political action committee, while both the Private Equity Council and the Managed Funds Association are intently lobbying Washington.==

http://www.tnr.com/doc.mhtml?i=w070507&s=risen051107
"John Edwards is prepared to debate anybody. We went and we spoke to people. John Edwards is prepared to debate.

Wall street is obviously not the only place where he's been successful raising money. Despite HRC getting most major endorsements from politicians and her lead in the polls Obama is still able to out-fundraise her. And I love how this is the argument you have that Obama is pro-corporate and you use it over and over hoping that if you say it enough times people will forget that Edwards is the real Third Way Democrat.

Just look at the ratios on Wall Street versus the overall numbers (i.e. raising 3.5 more than Edwards overall but 17 times more on Wall Street)...

So you are another BO fan who thinks corporate influence is suddenly fantastic now that Obama is their chosen one? ;)

==love how this is the argument you have that Obama is pro-corporate==

That is clearly the conclusion Wall Street has reached. Of course, what would Wall Street know about who is pro-corporate? :sarcasm:

In what ways is Edwards "the real" Third Way Democrat? Wall Street certainly does not consider him a pro-corporate Third Way Democrat... He is proposing universal health care; some are not. He is calling for raising the minimum wage to $9.50; Third Way Democrats are not. Edwards wants to end the war in Iraq; others merely want to de-escalate it. He is advocating a $15 billion a year plan to eradicate poverty; others rarely even mention poverty. And so on.

Do you really believe WALL STREET has suddenly seen the light and is supporting a progressive, not a Third Way Democrat? Do you think Wall Street is now anti-establishment, anti-status quo?

Do you consider HRC a Third Way Democrat by the way?

It does not mean Edwards was not affected. However, $12,000 is below the middle income proverty rate.

Speaking in a poor neighborhood in Washington, D.C. Obama said, "this kind of poverty is not an issue I just discovered for the purposes of a campaign. It's the cause that led me to a life of public service almost 25 years ago."

In an article by Associated Press reporter, Nedra Pickler, the reporter referred to that statement as, "a veiled jab at Edwards." The reporter provided no explanation for this opinion. And I made no attempt to contact Nedra Pickler to find out why the reporter thought this was a veiled jab at Edwards. Nor am I likely too since I have a job, and this ain't it. But if anyone ever finds out, I am sure all the DUers would love to have it explained. Because on the face of it, Nedra Pickler could just be making shit up to spark some interest.

I say "could" because, unlike the AP reporter, I make no claim to knowing what other people are thinking.

---attacking each other? Ys, it is an attack, and not even a thinly veiled one IMO. More like a passive-aggressive attack since he didn't name Edwards, but it's apparent that's who he means. I cant' get too worked up over these tactics. But I think it's very interesting the number of people on the thread even denying it is an attack. Maybe a "dig" would be more palatable?

If he doesn't feel Edwards is being sincere about poverty, he can call him out on it. I think it's appropiate for our candidates to call one another out. I think Edwards is being sincere and bold with his focus on poverty, and I believe he's the best candidate equiped to help average and below average Americans.

This is just like at the debates when Edwards called Obama's healthcare plan not truly universal. All is fair in politics. At least they are staying on topic with the issues that concern our country. At least he didn't jab away about something dumb like haircuts or 93983493 room houses :P

GoBama! :-)