Elizabeth Edwards Unplugged: Trashes Obama as holier-than-thou

http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalradar/2007/08/elizabeth-edwar.html

And while Senator Barack Obama, D-Ill., was in the Illinois state legislature and not the Senate in 2003, Mrs. Edwards equally questioned his motives.

"Obama gives a speech that's likely to be extraordinarily popular in his home district," Edwards said, "and then comes to the Senate and votes for funding... so you are going to get people behaving in a holier-than-thou way."

the bitch slap every time. Feh.

they smile and say pleasantries while they put the knife in your back!

about Elizabeth. Hope folks treat you kinder than they did me.

She has a little meow in her, about got cruicified for that one too. But it's true.

Please note that this article contains several critical uses of ellipses. We have absolutely no indication that the quote following a "..." is even part of the same topic as that which precedes it. Just a general caution on this or any other article quoting anyone.

Also, the linked forum is hardly positive for any of our candidates -- check out the comments to this article and the slant on some of the other articles.

The opinions attributed to Elizabeth concerning Dems who talk but lack the followup is widely held here at DU.

I too get angry at the sitting Dems who keep allowing Bush to pull the crap he is pulling and I'm glad someone is speaking out against them.

And I would love that someone to be first lady in 2009!

"Mrs. Edwards added that any divide in the Democratic party this year among the candidates is the difference between "actual Democrats and rhetorical Democrats."

"Sometimes it seems we have these beliefs but it turns out it's like a Hollywood set: It's a facade and there's no guts behind it," Mrs. Edwards asserts in the interview, "You listen to the language of what people say, particularly Obama, who seems to be using a lot of John's 2004 language, which is maybe not surprisingly since one of his speechwriters was one of our speechwriters, his media guy was our media guy. These people know John's mantra as well as anybody could know it."

"They've moved from 'hope is on the way'," the potential first lady concluded, "to the 'audacity of hope'. I'm constantly hearing things in a familiar tone."

http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalradar/2007/08/elizabeth-edwar.html

She's accusing him of stealing John's language ROFL. Sorry this whole thing is just a way too negative to be effective.

How many times...?

Perhaps she should get back to comparing her husband to Jesse Helms...

I am so friggin tired of mealy mouthed democrats who say nothing but that they are special.

She speaks up, and she hits hard.

I find Obama as lightweight as you find Elizabeth 'getting old'.

I don't care to trash him, though. He is a democrat. I just wish that he would take some names and do some damage. Like Elizabeth is. She is, first of all not being quite so harsh as you all suggest here, and second of all she is not afraid to puncture sacred cows.

And I'm sure many many more are more likely than me not to hear about this issue.

Edwards doesn't own the word. Most ideas are not new - it seems to me the Kerner Commission (in 1968, I think) used the phrase "Two Americas" and Edwards focus tested stump speech of 2004 had a lot of Mario Cuomo in it.

Edwards has completely changed most of his positions twice now. He was one thing as a DLC Centrist hawkish Senator who voted for an awful bankruptcy bill, then in 2004 he was more moderate but still a hawk, and now he is saying he's to the left of everyone except maybe Gravel and Kuchinich.

I don't hear much of Edwards 2004 in Obama - and he has the history to say he is for the poor. He has stood among them as a civil rights lawyer and advocate.

The Edwards are quickly throwing away the main asset they had in 2004 - the fact that people thought they were nice and could connect with them. This has to be about the 6th time where Elizabeth has emerged as an attack dog.

in the least, she should know about rhetorical versus actual Democrats.

Sheesh.

Where most legislation could not advance because of GOP control in all except little over a year??? And lets not even discuss the Tom Delay House back then....

Do you know how Congress works?

He was a freakin cheerleader for the IWR, and co-sponsored it. That has nothing to do with who controlled what. That is the first of many inconsistencies.. others being bankruptcy bill/poverty, china/freetrade, blahdy blahdy blah...

I dont care if Captain Kangaroo was holding court at the capital, Edwards voted the wrong damn way LOTS of times, and now he is some kind of people's champion?

I just cant swallow it.

He voted for Free Trade with China? When?

http://www.votesmart.org/issue_keyvote_detail.php?cs_id=V2911&can_id=21107

A lot of people voted for that Bankruptcy Bill. Maybe because it raised Minimum Wage?

http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=106&session=2&vote=00005

SEC. 1201. MINIMUM WAGE.

Section 6(a)(1) of the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 (29 U.S.C. 206(a)(1)) is amended to read as follows:

`(1) except as otherwise provided in this section, not less than--

`(A) $5.15 an hour beginning September 1, 1997,

`(B) $5.50 an hour during the year beginning March 1, 2000,

`(C) $5.85 an hour during the year beginning March 1, 2001, and

`(D) $6.15 an hour during the year beginning March 1, 2002.'.

obama seems rather empty to me. way to go, liz!!

to me.

it's all in the perception I guess.

M.K.

Cut her some slack. Think of how you feel when you have the flu and multiply x....
She can say what she wants, she has earned it.

she doesn't get to say what she wants to say, especially if she's attempting to smear her husband's opponents.

If this was just one incident, I think we could forgive it, but it's becoming clear that Elizabeth intends to exploit that slack in order to get a free pass to attack John's opponents.

I don't cut her slack b/c she's sick. She can say what she wants, but I'm free to criticize her still.

There's always at least one poster in a thread about her that says "ahhh, but she's got cancer!!!" Sorry, if the Edwards campaign continues to use her as their attack dog, then she should be able to take what's coming. I don't agree with most of the foot-in-mouth statements that she's said recently. And I like Elizabeth Edwards.

So give her your best shot.

Mrs. Edwards has both a brain and a mouth, and both work perfectly. Sorry if that upsets the Obama camp. You love it when she trashes HRC, but when she gets too close to your candidate ... not so much.

Bake

I don't "love it when she trashed HRC." My stance on Elizabeth is the same regardless of who she's trashing. Which BTW, I found Elizabeth's trashing of HRC's on women ridiculous as well.

What I was only commenting on in this thread is that pulling the whole "oh but she has cancer" is getting tired as well. Like people aren't supposed to comment on Elizabeth b/c she has cancer.

edited to add: And if Elizabeth can take it, which I feel she can as well, then maybe her supporters here shouldn't be so quick to add that she's sick and cut her some slack.

Although the other comments were addressed to some other posters.

Bake

accountable for her own words, she has no place on the national stage.

This is not something like appearing late or for only a short time or even cancelling events due to fatigue. This is what appears to be a strategy to have her attack Edwards' opponents - hoping they can't hit back. If this is how the illness forces her to act, maybe she should return to North Carolina and take care of herself - leaving her husband to run.

is not an excuse for lashing out this way. And I really used to like her.

These statements are truly disappointing. But I still don't want to rule Edwards out though.

to tell the TRUTH. Sorry if that bothers you.

Bake

because she has some backbone, which, if you take a close look, is exactly what the dems lack.

Bless her.

That's backbone. :sarcasm:

what's wrong with that statement? it's true, right? it's relevant in SOME way, isn't it? yeah, it's backbone, in spite of your drippy sarcasm graphics.

and lack of discretion, and EE's been showing the latter.

what has Michelle Obama done to make her the next great thing? Seriously, she is super smart, she is obviously a good wife and mother, she is a fine person in every way, but somehow she is revered like some great leader. Or am I missing something here?

Elizabeth in a heartbeat. However, MO has shown that she has too much class and discretion to ever take it that far.

hopefully we'll never see such a spectacle

She thinks by attacking someone she is doing John good. If she listens to the news she is doing more harm than good.

She loves her husband and believes in him and wants him to be President. The same could likely be said for every other spouse.

If you're gonna sling an insult, at least spell it right.

:eyes:

Just...you know...the insult loses the sting if the delivery is messed up.

:grr:

other than the edwards, kucinich, and some small handful in congress, the party have shown themselves to be a bunch of wimps.

If you had half the command of the language that she does, you wouldn't be reduced to crude, scatological insults.

Let Mrs. Perfect dig a hole for her hubby with her bright comments.

and if you do read this, send a note to your guy to challenge the power, as he has a chance to do it, if he would only step up.

than the President's English.

i think excrement is a crude, unnecessary insult.

use 'scatological' in a sentence, twice! :+

am I being mocked for using a word that has a precise meaning?

that's a serious question. I really don't get it.

You are being mocked for your arrogance.

It was a joke, only intended to lighten the atmosphere.

and for the gesture of lightening (and I am the first to admit that I usually need it more than most).

Edwards made no strong stands when he was in Congress. Now, he is suddenly playing the role of anti-war activist. When he wanted Congress to cut off the funding, he used his vote against the $87 billion as when he voted against it - though in 2003 he said he voted that way, as Kerry did, as a protest vote because he preferred the Democratic bill which paid for it by rolling back tax cuts - certainly not to defund a war that he was still at the time of the vote still a cheerleader for.

I LIKE many of Edwards' positions, but I can't shake the fact that he has not explained his transitions. His past doesn't match his rhetoric.

edited to remove unnecessary snark.

and a jettisoning of the handlers.

the ascendancy of Joe Trippi is a measure of this. He has clearly become the voice that gets through the most to Edwards, though I would contend that John is the architect, finally, of his own public service.
This happens in political life, and it's happening very vividly here.

Elizabeth has always been a strong voice in his ear, and she is made of steel and says things strong and true and eloquent. It is my belief that this is precisely what we need.

I also don't think what she said is so bad. Obama has said worse, and less true things, about other candidates. HRC has Wolfson, a true attack beast, do it for her.

(I missed the snark remark, but sincerely appreciate you removing it - I do this myself sometimes..type it out in anger, then reconsider.)

If it is explained. Rewriting history to pretend that things happened when they didn't is scary as it is exactly things like this that torment politicians on shows like Meet the Press. It is scary because there are so many of these instances. Honesty is far more important to me than consistancy - in fact a quote that I really like that I can not remember the attribution for is "Consistancy is the hobgoblin of small minds." Doing or believing something because you always did means you are acting on rote - and that is not good.

and it is wise.

And it accurately portrays a very human feature.

Edwards can't explain his IWR vote. He believed what he should not have believed (what I, and I expect you, did not believe). He was wrong. It cost lives, many of them.

It reminds me of Bob Kerrey going as a believer, a Navy Seal, to Vietnam. He saw, very close-up, the horror of that war, and returned with part of a leg missing, a Medal of Honor, and a commitment to ending the war.

Edwards, I imagine, takes the cost of that vote very hard. He knows loss, personally, and he knows what this war has done. He thought he would save lives by stopping Saddam, and he now knows he was wrong. The knowledge gained in that bitter pill, painfully bitter for many families here and in Iraq, has probably spurred his evolution. Today, he seems unconflicted and determined to say strongly and without equivocation what he truly believes. Elizabeth, as we all know, does the same.

They can be right or they can be wrong, but they will never compromise what they believe. That's what I think, anyway. And I'm thankful for their strong voices, even when I disagree with them.

The other thing about evolution is it never stops, just keeps on working it's power.

He did not even vote regularly before then. Is it really shocking that as he learned the issues, saw the effect policies had on people as he traveled across North Carolina and later the nation that he changed some of his views? If we buy the evolution of politicians who have been in politics for 20, 25, or 30 years why is Edwards placed under a special microscope?

No politician with the number of 180 degree turns Edwards has had would NOT be called on them. If anything, Edwards was allowed more latitude in changing than most politicians. Remember in 2004, Dean, Kerry and Gephardt were all accused of waffling or flip flopping, though all 3 had long records with far fewer shifts. Your argument is that Edwards 5 years ago had a very immature political worldview. All of his opponents dedicated their lives to public service, shouldn't that be a virtues.

Edwards is bot being held to views held decades ago. He is being questioned - by very few people and not the MSM - for several major changes all from 3 or 4 years ago. The number and the degree of change in these turnabouts exceed that over the entire life of Obama (or Dean, Gephardt or Kerry). He had already been in office for half his term when he voted for the bankruptcy bill.

You hint at what he may need to do - which is to explain what things triggered the change.

when he was in the Senate and telling him not to vote for the war. She she tries to talk about the other candidates.

I don't understand why she insists on being the attack dog for the Edwards campaign. She can't continue to attack people like this and still maintain her good image.

It would be one thing if her attacks were factually correct, but they're not. Like when she challenged Hillary's record on women's rights, with absolutely no evidence to back her up. And now she attacks Obama for this speech, ignoring the fact that he was perparing to run for US Senate and that his speech would definitely not be popular statewide. Also, she tries to pretend that voting for funding somehow contradicted his clear opposition to the war. That's just ridiculous and any honest Edwards supporter wouldn't dare make that argument. There were plenty of anti-war folks who supported funding the war early on. The push for defunding only really began after the 2006 elections and Obama did vote against funding at that time.

if Michelle Obama or Bill Clinton started using such language in describing their spouse's opponents? I think Elizabeth may be getting a free pass and maybe deservedly so. I am just not sure but I do find it disturbing.

Arrogant and egotistical, hey Obama, maybe you don't have all the answers? I have never seen Obama be humble.

Arrogant and egoistical, hey Hillary, maybe you don't have all the answers. I have never seen Hillary be humble.

arrogant, conniving politician in it for the money. Pushes Nafta and turns around and invest in countries benefiting from Nafta. Instead he chose to be a community organizer because he actually cares about people. He chose that field before he even went into politics. He turned down a six figure salary while others chose to earn money and get rich. I will take Obama any day over someone who chose to earn six figures plus.

That is misleading. He had political aspirations since he was in his 20's. Look at what he has done since he left Harvard. Can you find anything he has done since then that hurt his chances of future political success? ;)

apologize for promoting the worst foreign policy clusterfuck of our generation.

Nuff said.

I personally think that she is right. That's my take.

Sometimes I think Obama seems holier-than-thou. Maybe he's not, but he seems it.

(example - approximately: "my opponents were cheering the war on, saying what a good idea it would be, how we would be greeted as cheerleaders' - this is far more hurtful and untrue than anything elizabeth said. And it's not true. It's almost Republican in the way it plants disinformation. So, to my mind, he's not all that. As for the anti-war position - it was hugely popular in his district. That doesn't mean that is the only reason he was anti war, but it's true that it was hugely popular position. Hence, don't get all special about yourself as if you bucked the vox populi.

And it's been noted often that he says what Edwards says, shortly after Edwards says things. There have been numerous threads on this. Of course HOPE is not copyrighted, and is very common 'ie the man from hope', but it's yet another example of how the Obama approach is like the Edwards approach.

she is a human being!

Don't forget it.

and a smart one, who has known and seen a lot, and cares deeply.

We love it when she goes a certain distance in her 'edge', but then get all woozy when she crosses what we think is the line. I say there is no line. Not anymore.

at other candidates unseemly. She keeps John's hands clean by doing the tear-downs, and expects that the candidates can't hit back because A: She's a spouse, not the one running, and B: She's sick. That's a dirty tactic that only reflects badly on her and John, not on the intended targets. Does she only want her husband to win, or does she want a Democrat to win? What's her end game here? Surely she can promote John without going negative. And if the Edwards campaign needs to throw some elbows, it doesn't help the guy to hide behind his wife's skirt, especially when he's got a less-than-manly image already.

"Sometimes it seems we have these beliefs but it turns out it's like a Hollywood set: It's a facade..."

Something about pots and kettles, glass houses and stones. Look, Elizabeth, you don't want to go throwing words like "facade" and "something beyond themselves" around when you're married to John Edwards.

and I think he's the real thing.

we obviously disagree.

When Dear John looks in the mirror, does he notice that GREED is the number one cause of poverty?

John Edwards caused poverty because he is rich?

study his policies. drop the faux deep thoughts.

he obviously could be doing a lot more.

Well played, Mrs. Candidate.

I think she's more competitive by nature than annoying, but, let's put it this way, as an Obama supporter, I'm glad Michelle sticks to praising Barack and stays away from swipes at other candidates.

it's rather demeaning, no?

Really, she's demeaning herself with these statements. Or maybe that's the plan; John smiles to your face, Liz takes out the verbal shiv. Whatever. She's squandering a lot of goodwill with people who support other candidates but have always admired her.

...So a candidate's wife must be ditiful, and just fawn at her spouse's side? She shouldn't say anything about the others?

SAYS WHO?

Does a woman forfeit her views of a candidate because she is married to someone?

WHY IS THAT?

personally about Bill Clinton doing it so for me it has nothing to do with EE being a woman.

She does seem to spend a lot of time going after the other candidates. Saying Clinton is poor on women's rights is just downright silly. Calling Obama holier than thou? Hey you know what, maybe, but given Edwards' theme, isnt that a charge that could clearly be laid at his feet as well? To me the answer is yes.

BOTH Obama and Edwards make a lot, and I mean a LOT of hay chiding the rest of the party for this vote or that position. The two of them are VERY similar in that regard, so it comes across as a wee bit hypocritical for EE to make that charge, just as it comes across as silly to say JE is better than HC on women's rights.

to promoting him. She is NOT an expert on other candidates, policy, and the Democratic party. It's the CANDIDATE'S job to make statements on things like that. Not hers. She's out of line.

:kick:

Very unfair. And I honestly can't picture Michelle Obama saying anything equally as snarky about Edwards or Hillary. I can't see Bill Clinton trashing Edwards or Obama. It's classless and unsportsmanlike to let spouses do the street fighting for you.

And just because she has cancer doesn't mean the rest of us can't criticize her stupid comments.

Why doesn't she save that nonsense for the Republicans?

And Audacity of Hope was a phrase looooong before Edwards talked about "hope is on the way".

John Edwards is the one running for president. If he's got something to say about the other candidates, then he needs to say it himself instead of sending his wife out there to be the attacker.


on edit: Maybe I should wait for Elizabeth Edwards to post on DailyKos that her words were taken out of context...again...and again.

nobody, that's who.

They all say things like this all the time.

But Elizabeth said this? Shocking.

(Perhaps these reactions are exactly what she means by holier-than-thou.)

Just a bit unseemly to let your wife be attacking, in the final analysis it is the candidate that is responsible for the message!

My mother is recovering from breast cancer and I have the deepest empathy for Elizabeth and wish her the best! She deserves all the slack in the world. :)

anything. I think John knows Elizabeth will do what she wants and respects her for it. I've heard worse coming from candidates. At least she had the decency to add some sweetness to it.

They seem to save their up front disrespect for repubs.

zalinda

'good-bye and good riddance'.

you want straight talk. that's straight talk. you can't filter it. it speaks for itself.

again, what EE said is not so ghastly, and it is, largely, right.

Maybe they should tag-team the debates.

Using his wife as attack dog is, well, novel.

Using his wife to court march in gay pride parades as he expresses his discomfort with gays is, um, offensive.

Using his wife to call into talk shows to "stand up" to Ann Coulter the day before the fundraising quarter ends is, I guess, pretty transparent.

But lately she's gone beyond these roles into pretty unpleasant territory. I used to like Elizabeth Edwards, even though I think her husband is the most plastic, emptiest suit this party has seen in many a year. But I began to doubt her integrity from the time she made those statements about how her "John" was never a member of the DLC--a complete and utter misrepresentation (I could say lie, but I'll be polite).

The "We can't make John black or a woman" was the final straw for me. Elizabeth Edwards has become a liability to her husband's campaign. The saintly Elizabeth is showing some not so saintly behaviors. Whatever.

What sense of entitlement does this couple think it has? Edwards is the least experienced candidate of any in this race. He's acting the role of the "progressive" even though his short and unimpressive political career was decidedly conservative. He got bored with winning million-dollar lawsuits and set his goal on the presidency, with nothing to bring to the table. He ran a miserable campaign in 2004 and has done little but campaign and photo-op since then. I never understood why anyone supported him, aside from his wife. Now his wife has turned pretty acid, so I don't know what reason is left. A lot of times I suspect it's because he isn't a woman or a black man.

:applause:

but have to admit...

Much of what you is true...

I agree completely. I thought so highly of EE (was never all that fond of John, really), but the things she has said, and is saying, are classless. I would give her a pass for a lot of things, but not for being the attack dog in the campaign. It's beginning to seem like she's taken on that position, and with gusto, and it is NOT becoming.

I've never really understood why some people like Edwards so much, although I'd choose him over Hillary, but Elizabeth almost seems to be becoming a loose cannon. I know one thing - it's not helping her husband.

:toast:

As of now, Edwards is the top of my list but Mrs. Edwards should cool it on her snarky attacks.

It turns out he's married to Bob Dole!

Stop lying about my record! Arrrrrgh!

Im just going to be honest, I am not pleased with Mrs. Edwards. I dont care if you all dont liek this but I have to say what I feel. I feel like Edwards has always just wanted to be President for the sake of being President. He ran as a Senator and actually campaigned for himself practically to be the running mate. He would have lost his senate seat had he run again lets be real and honest ok!

is a matter of opinion.

he would have won in NC had he run, he would have won the Presidency had he been the nominee, EE is speaking clearly and truthfully, and those who are upset about her remarks are making something out of nothing, because they have other candidates they support.

what she has been saying is not a big deal, and it's all been true.


that's, to me, real and honest.

starting with the comments made about Hillary and her own happiness...then the thing about Edwards not being black or female...now this. These comments are unnecessary and unfortunate.

Just two months ago or so, I had listened to her on NPR and she really impressed me as she had during the last election...

There is a hint right on his website's homepage http://www.barackobama.com/index.php

qualified to be President. That's the purpose of a campaign. What is it about Obama that makes you think he's acting "holier-than-thou"?

He uses tactics right out of Rove's handbook. Subtly and viciousley attack other candidates. When called on it, act as though you are above the fray, holier than thou.

;)

Context anyone?

"Mrs. Edwards added that any divide in the Democratic party this year among the candidates is the difference between "actual Democrats and rhetorical Democrats."

"Sometimes it seems we have these beliefs but it turns out it's like a Hollywood set: It's a facade and there's no guts behind it," Mrs. Edwards asserts in the interview, "You listen to the language of what people say, particularly Obama, who seems to be using a lot of John's 2004 language, which is maybe not surprisingly since one of his speechwriters was one of our speechwriters, his media guy was our media guy. These people know John's mantra as well as anybody could know it."

"They've moved from 'hope is on the way'," the potential first lady concluded, "to the 'audacity of hope'. I'm constantly hearing things in a familiar tone."

She's basically accusing Obama of lifting Edwards' language from 2004 no less. John's 'mantra' in 2004 is probably something she wouldn't want fully reviewed in this election.

That has been said all over the place online.

Do you have any examples? Hope in one form or another is universally used by politicians, but I'd like to see some specifics about Edwards' 2004 speeches vs Obama's.

I have to agree; that particular statement seems too similar to be a coincidence.

- and I think that the Edward's are now desperate. While bad publicity is certainly better than none, I do feel that Mrs. Edwards has begun to offend rather than attract. Her recent verbal exercises will only hasten what is now obvious and inevitable - that John Edwards has no chance to succeed in this race.

Hard to tell if she's doing it because she's a natural snipe ~ or simply to get press for the campaign.

It's too bad. If John Edwards would come out with universal, single-payer healthcare (as opposed to the Mitt-inspired plan) and set himself apart from Obama and Clinton, he'd have a real shot at the nomination. At the moment he's drifting downward because he peaked before the campaign officially began.

JE was my second choice behind Obama; not so much anymore.

I read the link, and I didn't find much of anything that could be characterized as outrageous or out-of-bounds. She's giving her opinion of Hillary and Obama and how she thinks they don't measure up. This isn't anything that I haven't heard Hillary supporters say about Obama and vice versa.

If you people are getting your panties in a bunch over this, just wait until the Republican smear machine gears up in the summer 2008.

the 'desperation' that people proclaim, seems to be more on the part of those proclaiming that this means anything.