Why doesn't Edwards get attacked as much for voting for the IWR?

[mot78]

Edwards voted for IWR just like Kerry, Gephardt, and Lieberman, but he hardly gets scrutinized for it. Is the fact that he's run a "nice guy" pacify those who'd otherwise reject any Dem who voted for it?

[fob]

1. What? He voted for IWR? Off with his son of a mill worker head!

Seriously though, who gives a damn. Disinfect the place then roll in anybody with a D after their name at this point.

For real though I think it has to do with his poll numbers, why raise a fuss over a 2-5%er?

Fed-up with it all, ready for the nominee.

fob (D-America)

[Bombtrack]

2. you mean why doesn't he get attacked by Dean?

Dean has clearly made another about face in deciding to show respect towards Edwards because
1 - he and his advisors now realize that most Edwards votes in Iowa will come out Gephardt

2 - Most Edwards votes in SC will come out of Clark

and 3 - people are less comfortable with attacks against Edwards because he comes off as such a warm-hearted and good person and candidate

[Liberal_Andy]

3. he's been attacked plenty for voting for the war

at least here he has been. By me, at times.

I think he's where he is because of his reluctance to attack other dems, and probably somewhat because he's never changed his position on the war vote. But if you read what he said at the time, he told Bush to go to the UN, to come up with a post-war plan, and to try to work well with others.

And now JE can point out what a miserable failure W is,.

[mmonk]

4. edwards is good

at attacking the unilateral nature of the operation and he's softened the blows by voting against the funding and pointing out the no bid contracts. He though, was very much for it. I don't think he should get a walk if the others aren't.

[Jerseycoa]

5. His time is near

He's doing too well now not to feel the heat. Any minute probably.

[NashVegas]

6. Because No One Thinks He'll Win the Nomination

That's pretty much all there is to it.

[mikehiggins]

7. It isn't his turn in the barrel........yet n/t

[AP]

8. Because he's a good communicator. He's asked the quesiton.

He answers the question. People are satisfied.

Furthermore, I think voter's objections are overblown. I think voters care much more about other issues. And Edwards speaks about those other issues more eloquently. Ie, he puts issues into tehir proper perspective.

[Clark4VotingRights]

11. Well, I care about this issue.

Edwards and Kerry are very impressive. Smart and substantial.
But I don't know how they can ever adequately explain, or
excuse, that vote.

That's not leadership.

Then again, Wellstone exercised leadership on the IWR, and paid
the ultimate price.

[Jerseycoa]

28. Not voters

Opposing camps. I think he's close to the tipping point for a negative shot to come his way.

[Leilani]

41. If Edwards comes out of Iowa

as a threat, watch them go after him.

Wes Clark & John Edwards have both run positive, issues oriented campaigns. Clark has been attacked because he's moved up in New Hampshire.

Watch out Edwards supporters, they may come after you next.

Go Wes!

[AP]

43. I think they're more scared of having to talk about him.

If they had attackes, they would have used them by now. They're approach with him is to dismiss him and pretend he doesn't exist.

[lastliberalintexas]

9. I can't speak for anyone else on this

But for me, Edwards' vote doesn't bother me as much as Kerry's because of the state each represents. North Carolina is more conservative and, at least according to polls, supported the invasion. Massachusetts, on the other hand, is one of our most liberal states and was rather vocally against the invasion.

While I don't believe that Congresscritters and Senators should blindly follow their constituents, it is their responsibility to represent the wishes of their constituents most of the time. Edwards would not have accurately been representing his constituents if he had voted against the invasion- though it would have been a very courageous vote and one to be very proud of. Kerry, OTOH, ignored the will of his constituents in what I think was a calculated move by him in looking to his presidential run, rather than what the residents of Mass. wanted.

Although I say this as a Dean supporter, I like both Kerry and Edwards VERY much (as well as Kucinich). I would be extremely happy if the nomination went to ANY of the 4 of them, so please don't think that I'm trying to bash Kerry here. This is just my opinion on why Edwards' vote was not as bad as Kerry's.

Now for Gephardt- It wasn't so much his vote, but his parading his support of the invasion in the Rose Garden standing shoulder to shoulder with Shrub. I could have forgiven Gep if he'd just voted for the invasion, since his district is fairly middle of the road. But I can't forgive his grandstanding with Shrub and the hawks. I'd vote for him, but only grudgingly.

[mmonk]

13. Unless as a North Carolinian

you thought he was checking the weather. It should be a vote of conviction because of its seriousness, not just a constituency vote. I'm not sure which it was.

[lastliberalintexas]

15. I agree

I would obviously have preferred him to vote against the invasion. But I can at least see a good reason that he didn't (unlike Kerry). After all, we complain here all the time about our elected leaders ignoring the will of the people who elected them.

And again, while this may have been enough to keep both of them out of my #1 spot, i at least don't consider it a fatal flaw of theirs.

[sandnsea]

16. This just makes no sense

It's okay that Edwards voted with his constituents, even though it may not have been his conscience.

But it's not okay that Kerry voted his conscience, even if it went against his constituents.

I don't get it.

[lastliberalintexas]

18. I guess it's because

I don't believe Kerry voted his conscience. I believe that he made a calculated decision on the IWR in order to best position himself for his presidential run. Or how he *thought* that vote would best position him, at least. Given Kerry's past voting record (Gulf War I) and the speech he made just before voting on the IWR, I think he voted against his own beliefs, as well as against the will of his constituents.

This is just my OPINION. And it doesn't change the fact that I still like Kerry and would campaign for, donate to and work my rear end off for him if he gets the nomination. I really don't mean this as a slam against Kerry. I was just explaining why *I* don't hold this vote against Edwards.

[bearfartinthewoods]

17. isn't voting the will of the majority the job of a senator in a democracy

[arewethereyet]

21. yes, of course

but I don't think North Carolina would have had him vote the other way. And in light of his discussion of it since I believe they remain OK with it.

Actually in NC I think it would have been suicide to go the other way. I spend time there. May not mean everything but I do understand those folks, not so very different from Virginians.

[mmonk]

26. That's part of it bear

however, majorities are not always right, moral, or informed.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

29. No; that's why we have a representational instead of a direct democracy

The idea being that the popular will is swayed easily and irrationally so a deliberitive body should make laws instead of the direct 'will of the people'.

Recommended reading: Profiles in Courage, by John F. Kennedy

[Lobo_13]

32. No

a Senator's job is to vote for what he thinks is in the best interests of his constituents.

[goodhue]

10. a few reasons

Edwards unlike Kerry was not perceived as the front runner back when Dean started getting press for being against war.

Edwards unlike Kerry did not expend great effort to appear against the war despite his IWR vote; he largely avoided the tortured semantics that tripped up Kerry in the scrum with Dean.

Edwards unlike Kerry is a nice guy who has consistently been running a very positive issues-oriented campaign that has not attacked others.

[WhoCountsTheVotes]

12. Because Edwards wasn't a threat to Dean, Kerry was

It's too late to attack Edwards now, since Dean now supports the occupation of Iraq and wants to keep us there "for years".

[goodhue]

14. very astute point

and the Dean folks who believe the sky is suddenly falling should realize that their candidate was at his best when rallying against the illegal and unjust war. Being an apologist for the occupation does not inspire the same kind of fervent following and makes their candidate no different from the pro-IWR crowd in terms of Iraq policy.

[arewethereyet]

22. this is, of course, the only reason that matters

n/t

[LuminousX]

19. My take on it, he wasn't expected to know better

While Kerry, with his vast history and knowledge of how evil BFEE really is, should have.

[beaconess]

20. Strange enough - I think it's because he didn't run away from it

To his credit, Edwards has stood by his vote and, despite plenty of opportunities to do so, he has not tried to distance himself from it or explain it away. He has taken full responsibility for his vote and I think that people, even if they disagree with him, respect that he's been a stand-up guy about it.

[SayitAintSo]

23. I think you nailed it ...

I've wondered the same thing and came to that conclusion too.... coupled with the notion that Kerry really had nothing to lose in terms of his seat by voting against it and voters knew that. I'm also convinced that he voted his conscience though.

[KittyWampus]

25. Edwards Had Nothing To Lose Either.

He'd already said he wasn't running again.

[beaconess]

36. No - he cast that vote almost a year before he announced he wasn't running

[dansolo]

24. Of all of those who voted for the IWR

Edwards is the one that I have the least problem with. Lieberman wanted to go after Saddam no matter what. Gephardt stabbed the Democrats in the back by making a deal with Bush. And Kerry voted for it even after eloquently arguing against it. I also admire that Edwards has stood by his own position, while not attacking Dean for his position.

[AP]

35. Not only that, he stays on message: economy.

Ask him about the IWR. He answers you and then talks about your bank account balance, your job, opportunity, and your children and their opportunities.

[blm]

27. Dean was focused on knocking out Kerry and his supporters followed suit.

From a USA Today, 4/29-29/03
Campaigns spar over remarks about military
By Jill Lawrence, USA TODAY

(full text at: http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2003-04-28-dem-words_x.htm)

WASHINGTON — The only Democratic presidential candidate to regularly whack his rivals got a taste of his own tactics Monday and didn't like it...

...Until now, the competition has been relatively harmonious, at least for public consumption, with the exception of Dean. His attacks on fellow Democrats have been so cutting that sometimes the Republican National Committee e-mails them to party members. "Gephardt Plan: 'Pie-In-The-Sky Radical Revamping' " was the headline on one last week, quoting Dean.

Sen. John Edwards of North Carolina and Rep. Richard Gephardt of Missouri have been Dean targets in recent weeks. But Dean has reserved his sharpest thrusts for Kerry, repeatedly accusing him of selling out Democratic principles. The two men are virtually tied for the lead in polls in New Hampshire, which holds the critically important first primary election...

... Dean's remarks underscore his off-the-cuff style. In March, he accused Edwards and Kerry of softening their support for the Iraq war when they spoke to a dovish California crowd. But in reality, both had referred to their support and gotten booed. Edwards was furious and received an apology from Dean. Kerry said he deserved one but didn't get it.

After Gephardt proposed last week to roll back President Bush's tax cuts to pay for a major expansion of health coverage, Dean blasted him for wanting to repeal "huge tax cuts" he said Gephardt had supported. But Gephardt led the fight against the tax cuts passed in 2001.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

30. Less of a threat; also, he is more conservative so people feel

less betrayed.

[isbister]

31. Write the Dean campaign and ask

Please see if you can see why they lied, and continue to lie, about the IWR in the first place while you're at it. Good luck :-)

[anti-bush]

33. I agree with most of the posters on this board

As a voter you fall into one of four categories:

A. Against the War, and will only vote a "non-war" Candidate
B. Against the War, prefer a "non-war" candidate, but would vote for a "pro-war" Candidate
C. For the War, prefer a "pro-war" candidate, but would vote for a "non-war" Candidate
D. For the War, would only vote for a "pro-war" Candidate


Now, once you've picked your stance from above (I'm a "B"), there's a separate issue. You either:

1. Want a candidate who has kept his position on the war consistent.
2. Can accept a candidate whose position may be have changed as they have gathered more info about the war.


Most voter fall (I think) into category #1 here. The question here becomes whether or not you believe the candidate falls into #1 or #2. Edwards gets less scrutiny because he falls into #1. Most of the other candidates get hammered for their position on #2 (were they, or were they not consistent).

I am a "B1" voter myself. Most voters who are "A" voters will dismiss Edwards, and then their choice for #1 or #2 boils down to Clark,Dean, or Kucinich (or Bush...blech). It becomes a "Do you believe that Candidate X was #1 or #2. This is where the scrutiny on this board comes from.

So what kind of voter are you? And who do you believe falls into category #1?

[mitchum]

34. You tell me...

[stickdog]

37. Because you don't win by attacking also rans.

The only reason anybody has mentioned him at all is because he started gaining too much from the free ride he was getting.

[beaconess]

38. Being ignored isn't the same as getting a free ride.

[AP]

39. That is too funny.

The minute they start talking about him, he SOARS in the polls.

Furthermore, Dean spent most of the summer and fall in first place shooting anything moving.

[beaconess]

40. By the way - you might want to change that cartoon

and replace Clay Aiken with his home skillet.

:-)

[Crunchy Frog]

42. I really don't like

his IWR vote, but I find it impossible to dislike the candidate. I think it really does have to do with how nice he seems to be. Most of the other candidates who voted for IWR seem to have very abrasive personalities that just rub me the wrong way.:shrug: