Edwardes Take On Michelle Obama - (The audience was shocked into silence)

December 31, 2007, 5:27 pm
Edwardes Take On Michelle Obama
By Julie Bosman

EMMETSBURG, Iowa – It was the Edwardses versus Michelle Obama on the campaign trail today.

An audience member asked Mr. Edwards a question that wasn’t audible to the rest of the room, so Mr. Edwards repeated it.

“What he’s saying, is he’s hearing directly from the other campaigns, including Senator Obama’s wife, that well, Edwards, he may be a great candidate, but is he going to have enough money to go on and be able to win,” Mr. Edwards said.

“Can I say something first of all? We’re not going to have an auction in Iowa, we’re going to have an election,” he said, to enthusiastic applause.

But Mr. Edwards was just getting started. “Do you understand how frightening it is to a campaign and a bunch of campaign workers and a candidate that have raised $100 million, to have somebody even with them, who’s spending, whatever it is, a third, or a tenth, I don’t even know how much it is, of what they’re spending?” he said. “I mean, really! It scares them to death because what they know is, what this candidate and campaign stands for is working! They get it, they completely get it. So when you’re resorting to arguments about how much money somebody has, you’re in a bad place.”

“If they have more money and the money’s what matters, why are they worried about me?” he said, adding that the argument was “unbelievably weak.”

Then Elizabeth Edwards, who was also on stage, jumped in. “I just want to say, cause I’ll say it later and I don’t want to forget,” she said. “You may not be surprised. But I am surprised, and disappointed, in Michelle.”

The audience was shocked into silence for a full four seconds, until Mr. Edwards moved things along by asking, “Who’s next?”

<SNIP>

http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2007/12/31/edwardes-take-on-michelle-obama/

The money question is in regards to the GE. Which hasn't started yet.

I re-read the Edwardses responses and I didn't think anything was so awful. I rather liked his remark about this being an election not an auction! It was an awkward thing for Michelle Obama to have said, IMHO, not a terrible thing, just awkward...

That's what stunned the audience. What Michelle presumably said (I haven't actually seen her actual words) was a common argument about the Edwards campaign's ability to compete in the general election with a huge money disadvantage. For Elizabeth Edwards to attack her for that seems more than a little odd.

and Edwards doesn't explain why it's wrong. He just laments the fact that money plays a huge role in politics. But that doesn't answer the question.

He said they do more with their money, and that if his lack of funding was really an issue, then Obama wouldn't need to attack him for it as he wouldn't be a threat.

They do more with their money? How? I've seen no evidence of that. It's just an unfounded asserion.

And of course Obama needs to attack him because if Edwards does better than him, he's out of the race, regardless of whether Edwards is a legitimate candidate in the future.

:eyes:

thing is not even an issue.

For the love of God, fight the Republicans and not each other

or is that too much like doing right? :eyes:

It's gonna get even uglier before Thursday, believe me.

Geez, lets hope it does not turn into a blood sport.....

and the stakes are this high, there's usually a few really nasty surprises right at the end, when there's no time left to refute them.

the scorched earth policy? :shrug:

Don't ya just love the Dem party at times?

I just hope we don't give the Reps any ammo in the general election.....

These days they all buy their ammo at the same shop.

the huge mistake they are going to make by voting for Edwards.
Elizabeth Edwards made a real BOO-BOO attacking a candidates wife. Even for other candidates wifes..wifes are OFF LIMITS!

A priviledge of the state....

and in Elizabeth E.

I wold like Michelle to speak less about Obama's socks and more about her policy views.

It's a factor, isn't it? If John gets the nomination and she should relapse during the summer, how would that affect his ability to campaign?

Don't get me wrong. NO ONE, no matter how opposed to Edwards, wishes for anything but her full recovery. It's also true that any of the other potential nominees could suffer some unforeseen illness or accident. But the odds are not as great.

Perhaps it's not politically correct to mention, but I know a candidate's health has frequently been a consideration in past elections. If we accept that a candidate's wife is important, even critical, to his or her electability (and I think in the Edwards' case, that may be doubly true), then it's worth discussing. Certainly at least as "worth discussing" as Bill Clinton's sex life or Obama's middle name or teenaged drug use.

That's a pretty weak characterization there, I think. She expressed disappointment that Obama's wife would stoop so low. That's not an attack, that's an expression of emotion, which is entirely appropriate for the wife of a candidate to say about the opposition's family's public comments. Particularly when the comment was political and clearly intended to spread fear, uncertainty and doubt towards the front runner to the clear benefit of her husband.

Elizabeth is letting us know she's, quite rightly, above these kind of sleazy attacks and looks upon them with disdain, unlike her opponent who appears to relish them, or at least she has clearly no qualms about slashing her fellow Democrats with them.

The shock appears to me to be that she was so plain spoken about this malicious attack upon her husband's campaign, and I think most of us want to hear the plain spoken truth, we're just not used to it yet, having been fed vacuous sound bites for so long.

I'm guessing you're in the Obama camp as these crass characterizations appear to steam out of there more often than not. Obama must be reading the handwriting on the wall by now.

Explain it to me. I'm just a simple minded gay man, so the holy, sacred and priviliged bond between Barack and Michelle is a mystery to me!
So you are saying that Michelle can be an outspoken and active campaign element, but she is above response? So the campaign can send countless emails in Michelle's name asking for more money, each and every week, signed by Michelle, but no one can say a thing about her?
To remain off limits, one can not be an active part of the campaign. Michelle is out there giving opinions, begging for more money, praising the evangelists and bigots just like Barack.
Why on Earth should she be 'off limits'? Something about Jesus and McClurkin? She is a politician, practicing politics.
Tell me exactly why you think that she should be able to say and do whatever she feels like saying and doing and yet she should be considered above all reply. Those who give should expect to get, what's good for the goose is good for the gander, all of that. Why is Michelle exempt from criticism while being a huge part of the campaign? I say if she wanted to stay out of it, she should have stayed out of it.

I wonder if she's going to go run crying to Oprah now?

Next to the depression I would feel if Edwards were to get it...

Awwww.

If candidate's wives are off limits, then Ms Obama shouldn't be repeating a TPM that is usually used by Hillary's campaign.

5th grade math skill, and a little bit of knowledge about campaigns, knows that. And those in denial will know it within a month.

It only takes one word to express yourself!

Michelle.

The Edwards' seem to be about the truth......just not in regard to themselves. Leveling with the electorate wouldn't help them in this case.

But we'll all pay dearly for the facts after the fact....

Until then, the Edwards will pretend that accepting matching funds has no negative consequences at all....and that Michelle is just an ignorant little slut
even as McCain has decided to hold off till after New Hampshire to decide whether to accept matching funds although he is eligible. Wonder why McCain decided to wait it out if it means nothing? :shrug:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x3832347

If he takes matching funds he will be seen as a "government welfare" candidate in the eyes of the Republican base, and if he doesn't he can look independent for now, boost his image amongst the base, and hope for large sums of money to waterfall over him should he win the primary. The Democratic candidates don't have the same pressures, or rewards.

He was answering a question posed by someone that the other candidates (Obama & Clinton) don't think he can win because he don't have as much money. Well it is not an auction and if he is running up with the big dogs without the money they have maybe his message is better. If Mrs. Obama chimes in with her two cents worth about it I think Mrs. Edwards can give her opinion too.

One is ok - the other is not.

every look, every ANYTHING, and it's dissected to the nth degree!

I'm outta here for now... going to a PARTY! It's New Year's Eve!!

Ya'll have a good one, ya here??

But some have a "double standard" when it comes to who can say what. It's OK for their side, but look out if the "other" guys say something!

That BS like the money thing is "all" they have to attack with, and that isn't much! As Edwards said, it has to really hurt to see him ahead after they have spent millions and millions in Iowa, and are about to lose to the guy who spent a "fraction" of the amount they spent!

once in a while. He's the candidate,not her...Payback will rear its ugly head on this one.

Back in August:



She's made other comments in the same light that her husband is more electable because he's white and Southern. So has John...

I never saw her in the same light.

that made me pause. But for her, I tend to keep overlooking them. I do like her, but I kinda wish she'd stop putting her foot in her mouth.

she just came off as petty and there was no reason for it.

I liked Teresa's directness but I could see how she could come off as overbearing. I didn't like the way she removed 3 year old Jack's thumb from his mouth for that photo op right after Edwards was chosen to run with Kerry. Altho Elizabeth wasn't upset about it in her book, at the time I felt it would turn some voters off.

Kudos to them for signalling their recognition of the actual condition of the south; full of proud racists.

Complaints about minorities getting benefits that one can't get one's self is as American as apple pie, and they not only make the Edwards' look good to a key demographic for the general election, that comment is clearly not intended to be racist or misogynistic, but more importantly self-congratulatory at winning while independent of these "benefits" - a core trait that is lauded by people in the south.

NOW we all know the reason the Obamas cannot be criticized for ANYTHING that comes out of their mouths. :sarcasm:

Elizabeth, you are just a nasty old racist. That's it!!! :sarcasm:

She is a moral high grounder. She passes judgment. In short, she can not control her christian arrogance.

Who the hell does she think she is? Moralizing about Michelle. Good God.

I would like to see Michelle pull out Elizabeth's tongue and slap her with it.

Wow. You said that because Elizabeth is too critical for you?

You've lost your own compass somewhere.

Elizabeth thinks her judgment is all that matters - she has no self-governing mechanism on righteousness. She missed her calling.

Did you read her book?

I see you have made a judgment that I have lost my compass. Ummh....

but even more stridently than the one you are decrying.

Also, I am not judging you but you are judging me - what does that make you?

See how that works?

between judgment and opinion. Goodbye.

When you say it, it's a perfectly reasonable opinion.

When Elizabeth (and me too, I guess) says it, she's being a moralizing bully.

Obama's wife hurls a lame insult at Elizabeth's husband about money. For Elizabeth to say she's disappointed in Michelle is perfectly appropriate and legitimate, especially when someone brought the issue up to John as a question.

I've never seen him/her say anything worthwhile, and it's always inflammatory.

considering what the poster was offended about in the first place.

they have been marching along on a razor's edge. They are tired and worn out. They suffer indigestion from all the rubber chicken they move around their plates instead of eating. When they get enough sleep, they arise early, put on their public clothes and faces, smile and start shaking a million more hands.

Sometimes I get to thinking that it must be more difficult to run for the presidency than to be president.

And from here, it only gets worse until we have a nominee. Then the stage shifts and for a change, they can attack the attack dogs from the right. That part might be fun.

Thank you for this rational reminder of the stress our candidates (and their spouses and supporters) are under.

attack. That is the way that those two work. EE has been more of the attack dog for JE from the beginning.

This is getting really funny.

If this was a vicious "attack" on Michelle then Obama's "tea" comment was a sexist attack on women everywhere. I call shenanigans on all the political operators out there lately trying to create little pissant scandals. The only real question left is will the general election be able to find a way to be more surreal, stupid, and silly than the primary has become.

It seems like everyone is throwing their feces around in these last few days before the caucus.

Look, this is a message board where lots of people do stuff of their own initiative. How many of us do you really think get memos about stuff that must be posted on the internet, post haste-like?

Do you get these memos from your candidate? Or are you just expressing your opinion?

And quite a few people obviously do take oppo research from various campaign organs and post it on DU. Many people post several stories a day on DU, and one knows the slant of the story simply from the who posted it. Whenever a good poll comes out for Hillary, one of a few members will be the one posting it. The same is true for the attack posts done against Hillary from the Obama campaign. There's nothing wrong with it, DU is supposed to be a place for Democrats to talk shop with each other. This is what's going on in politics, of course someone needs to post it so that it can be discussed. These people are heavily participating in the process and trying to help the campaigns they believe in, not as paid operatives (hopefully) but as citizens doing what they can to spread their campaigns message. As for me, I'm not that active in politics anymore, especially as far as primaries go. I got burnt in 2004 with Dean, and so I've been trying not to get too emotionally invested in a candidate until after Iowa at least. The candidate I like, out of the top tier anyway, will be a long shot even if he does win Iowa. The primaries don't even come into my state until well after everything is decided, so there's little chance for me to do anything to help him aside from masturbatory internet campaigning. The only thing that I'm bitching about is the low quality of the attacks which are coming out now. It's the same every election, right before the caucuses campaigns go into attack mode, and some of the arguments end up incredibly silly. Like this one, or the "tea" scandal.

OUT of taking them. As usual, he's spinning things like a good lawyer does. If he raised as much as he first hoped and expected, he would not have taken matching funds. He spun necessity into morality.

Note to Skinner: un-rec button, please.

Elizabeth Edwards thinks she's everyone freakin' mom. Michelle may not be her age or have as much life experience, but I think it's pretty inappropriate for her to say she's "disappointed" in her. Sound like an angry frustrated mom scolding her "unruly" daughter. Not a good look for Mrs. Edwards.

shut the fuck up.

if Michelle can't handle the heat, she should get out of the kitchen.

I'm happy, I'm happy, I'm happy, nothing affects me and people who take me on are just CRUEL!!!

:bounce:

But half the time when I read something reported as "shocking," I haven't the faintest idea what's so shocking about it.

If the audience was shocked into silence, then Elizabeth Edwards said something very awkward. It really doesn't matter if she had a good point or not, she made it badly. These things must happen all the time. I can't imagine there are ripples as it seems non-reflective of her.

how are we going to match dollar-for-dollar what a GOP candidate put out when we have to accept the capped amounts the Edwards campagin has put in place?

He'll have to rely on outside groups, and his message - what he intends it to be - will be either lost, confusing, or all over the place because these groups funding the outside ads will have no coordination with the campaign.

I'd love to be a part of that campaign and have the resume for it. hmph.

No one was taping at the time? Not very likely. I'll believe the "shocked into silence" comment when I see it for myself.