Axelrod vs. Edwards (Is Edwards too angry?)

Today, Obama's camapign chief David Axelrod said that John Edwards' campaign strategy is "'Storm the Bastille,', meaning he's very angry.

Do you agree with his comments?

Edwards has modified his style because of that criticism. He seems less like a personally offended individual and more like a coach citing to his players what the other side has done wrong and how they can respond to what they've done.

first his stupid and insensitive comments regarding today's assasination, and now he's doing the "angry" thing on John Edwards. Gosh.. wasn't that a Rovian tactic last time?? Obama is quickly becoming my very last choice.. he's becoming my 'hold my nose and vote' if he gets the nod. He has the nastiest campaign. I like Clinton, Edwards, and Dodd, in that order.

I remember when he was involved in the Edwards campaign in 2004...yes he used to work FOR Edwards. I used to be embarrassed for Edwards campaign when I saw him on TV.

it will not go well for Obama if he and his people keep this up. If Edwards people like Edwards odds are their second choice is going to be Obama and vice versa. what are they thinking?

Edwards' anger should be echoed by all the candidates.

too=more than needed.

I'll quote the fucking OP for you if you'd like.

Today, Obama's camapign chief David Axelrod said that John Edwards' campaign strategy is "'Storm the Bastille,', meaning he's very angry.

Do you agree with his comments?

be president?"

"Is Bush too cynical and dishonest to be an adult in power?"

and

"With the sad and tragic news from Pakistan today, wouldn't we all feel better if a President Gore or President Kerry had appointed a Secretary of State who might be far more equipped to respond to such a crisis than the feeble-minded Condi Rice?"

I think those questions would be more useful starting points for a discussion of the future government of the United States.

Just my take.

It took 100 years for a real democratic form of government to be put into place ... the Revolution was followed by the dictatorship of the Terror, the folly of the Napoleonic empire, and the restoration of the monarchy. According to the best historians of the French Revolution ... the institution of the Declaration of the Rights of Man and other reforms were going to happen anyway (the intellectual revolution had already taken place); the bloodier aspects of the Revolution precipitated some sudden change, followed by a century of upheavals, regressions, and a whole lotta mess.

But, of course, bring on the guillotines. Some people like "fah-tin'" better than real, substantive, and permanent change.

Nobody is talking about literal revolution; but Edwards happens to be the only candidate who has shown any real passion about the damage huge corporations are doing to the rest of it. Sometimes you can't bring about change without first getting really, really pissed off -- instead of offering to be nice and negotiate, or just smiling and taking their contributions.

You can't bring about change merely by being passionate, either. (Especially if your passion is merely a campaign ploy, between stints of which you buddy up to the hedge funds for a job and some investment hoo-hah.) Or pissed off. Besides, you simply haven't been listening to Obama if you characterize what he proposes as "offering to be nice" or "negotiating" ... and certainly not smiling and taking "their" (whoever they are) contributions.

Where to all these feeble-minded, simplistic ideas come from?

Edwards, though, is that he seems more inclined to take on corporate interests than the others. It's Hillary who seems the least inclined to do that, she does like those corporate donations. I actually haven't made a choice yet; it could be somebody else. I'm certainly not going to get into an Edwards vs. Obama pissing contest.

Like everything else with Edwards.

since we have seen a candidate and/or President being a "passionate advocate for the American people" that some of us simply do not recognize passion and mistakenly see it as anger???

Edwards is more than appropriate in expressing his concerns and platforms with passion.

by the time Jan 3rd rolls around.

Gee wiz.....

compared to edwards, but i don't think edwards is TOO angry. someone needs to jolt his candidate.

And I'm an Obama supporter

Axelrod is behind on the image transition.

danger or sells out in the making?

You decide.

Not the best choice we've ever had but I'm going with the angry guy because hes angry about the same things I am. "Storm the Bastille" is an apt metaphor for how I feel.

I think if we all sat back and thought- we might have another look at some of the red flags (white flags?) that get thrown up.

Maybe ask ourselves, in earnesty, what they might mean.

IWR, Kyl/Lieberman, Patriot Act, and loves lobbyists, corporate money, and outsourcing.

"I think if we all sat back and thought- we might have another look at some of the red flags (white flags?) that get thrown up. Maybe ask ourselves, in earnesty, what they might mean."

I earnestly asked myself what these things might mean and the phrase "totally sold out corporate whore who will ensure no matter which side wins in 08, the corporations will still call every shot" came to mind. I think this little kid probably agrees: