John Edwards responds to the Dean Controversy!

[AmericanDream]

This is what he posted at his blog:

We Agree: Working Americans Let Down by the Republican Party

What a flap has arisen over a disagreement about the way something is said! I was in Nashville over the weekend, thanking the good people of Tennessee who supported the Democratic presidential ticket this year, when I was asked whether I thought that it was fair to say that people who were Republican hadn’t done a good day’s work. Of course, I didn’t think so, and I said that. I don’t think our DNC chair, Howard Dean, would put it that way again if asked either. I disagreed with him, and I said so. And, I want to be clear, I would have to say so again if I were asked again. I said a lot of good things about Howard’s outreach program and invigoration of the internet as a communication and fundraising tool, but no one wrote about that. Instead the headlines blared that I disagreed with Howard. And then the flap arose: A chasm! A split! A revolt!

Instead, how about: Nonsense!

We are both talking about the Republicans and their failure to address the needs of working people. We both agree with this basic truth: This Republican president and this Republican majority are not doing what they should be doing for working people in this country. That’s a core belief we need to fight for. And what’s more, we agree that we - all Democrats and all working people - should be complaining, criticizing, and generally speaking out about this critical failure of the Republican party and offering our positive vision for America. And we have.

Howard and I have been saying the same thing about this for years. Hear that? The same thing. For years. Have I ever put it some way that Howard wouldn't agree with? Probably. And he put it in a way, once, just the other day, that I can’t agree with, since I come from a place where hard-working people, who are better served by the agenda and passion of the Democrats, somehow still vote Republican. But Howard and I are committed to a 50-state strategy that will reach out to those voters, in North Carolina, and in Kansas, and in Tennessee, across this country and tell the truth about what is happening in this country to their jobs, to their health care, to their forests and streams, to their vision of what this country is and should be.

This President is not fighting for our jobs. His administration has on numerous occasions said that the out-sourcing of American jobs is good for this country. Well, it may be good for Wall Street, but it is lousy on Main Street. If he thinks that jobs moving overseas is good for us, why would he ever fight for American jobs?

Our labor laws have seen weak enforcement during the time we have had this Republican administration in place. Companies that skirts this country’s labor laws have gotten a slap on the hand, and even that has come too slowly. Efforts to allow workers to choose whether to unionize have not been protected in the way that they should, and the mutually beneficial bargain between labor and management that made this country the greatest economic power in the world has been broken, all while the Republican administration and Republican majority stand idle, with their hands dug deep in their pockets.

Those working people I grew up that I talked about earlier live where I lived, in our rural communities, which is exactly where this Republican president wants to cut broadband extension, firefighter grants and investment and market access programs that will protect our rural jobs. The manufacturing extension program, which helps small manufacturers everywhere stay profitable - and therefore open, gets little support from this President. How are our towns going to remain vital with policies that ignore them? Where will the sons and daughters in our rural communities have to go to find jobs?

And this President has made choices that, if enacted by the Republican majority in Congress, will deny the opportunity to learn the skills for a new job to an untold number of Americans. Vocational and adult education would be cut by 89%. He wants to drastically cut adult education and retraining programs that allow American workers to better their skills either to get ahead or to get a new job when theirs leaves for overseas.

And if you happen to be a working man or woman in the United States military, this Republican president doesn’t support loan forgiveness for your student loans or top quality health care when you get out of the military.

The safety net is eroding. The ladder has been pulled up. This is not new. For more than two decades, the Republican Party has talked about an agenda that addresses concerns of working people while they have passed an agenda that serves the goals of the wealthiest among us. Howard and I know that these are the wrong choices for America. We won’t always use the same words. But we will always fight the same fight: for the dignity, the respect, and the rights of those who built this country, the working people in America.

Your friend,

John

Source: http://www.oneamericacommittee.com/
Link to his post: http://blog.oneamericacommittee.com/article.pl?sid=05/06/06/2117240§ion=&mode=nested&tid=1

I'm glad he willingly put a noble end to the chapter that caused unnecessary infighting between the dem bloggers!

[kansasblue]

1. President Edwards 2008

[ibegurpard]

2. Good response.

He shouldn't have fallen into the trap to begin with but it's better than nothing.
Waiting for a similar response from Senator Grandstand (Biden).

[formernaderite]

70. I can't stand Biden...he's a smarmy finger in the wind democrat at best...

My wife thinks it's fitting he lost his looks and hair fairly young. His comments regarding Dean are to be expected, he lives to hear the sound of his own voice.

[FreedomAngel82]

83. I'm glad he responded

Instead of just letting it be out there without a response. :) I think with Dean's sentence about republicans and working he needs to specify that he means the leaders they have (like DeLay to Bush).

[Eloriel]

98. Yes, it was a good response

I'm not sure, in a "totally irresponsible media" climate like this, that it's POSSIBLE not to fall into their trap, but you could be right.

[dragonkeep]

3. I knew it!

Thank you John Edwards. I think both he and Howard Dean are great for our party.

[cornermouse]

4. Edwards and Dean

Two pieces of a puzzle. Without either one, the puzzle will not be complete. We need BOTH pieces.

[slor]

5. Ahhh, that is what I like to see...

Dems coalescing and fighting the media's ridiculous spin that DINOs like biden would try to use to make brownie points with the thugs in the whitehouse. You go Edwards!

[Goldeneye]

6. Watch CNN blast this all across the Nation.

Howard Dean and John Edwards Agree. The Democratic Party is not divided on the issues!!!

:sarcasm:

[vi5]

This would be great if the media would cover it just as much..

..as they covered the Dean/Dem/Division bit for the past 24-48 hours. But they won't.

[Pirate Smile]

7. Hi Elizabeth. I hope you are doing well.

:hi:

[AmericanDream]

9. What do you mean? Where is elizabeth? *confused*

[MelissaB]

12. She sometimes posts/lurks here.

:hi:

[AspenRose]

17. Me too - hi Elizabeth

Thanks for the letter; it made my day

:hi:

[Nothing Without Hope]

26. I'm glad to see this. And if Elizabeth is reading this thread, I hope

she can visualize the enormous good will that is being beamed at her.
:hi:

[tishaLA]

8. Nice response

I'm glad Sen. Edwards worked to find common ground instead of sewing the seeds of division. It should be a lesson to all Democrats.

[MelissaB]

11. Agreed!

Whew! I do admire and respect both of these men.

[SteveIrving1]

20. Let us not forget the 11th

Thou shalt not attack a member of ones own party publicly.

Now someone has to teach it to Biden and everything is fine.

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

24. Exactly

and Edwards was smart to respond PROMPTLY rather than let this one fester.

I REALLY REALLY REALLY wish he would have taken the time to use ONE PARAGRAPH to ask the same media that skewered Dean whether Rush Limbaugh was over the top when he said we don't need a holiday to vote since DEMOCRATS don't work!

[Me.]

29. Agree, On Both Points n/t

[AmericanDream]

32. I don't think it should be his place to do that

I share your sentiments... but his statement focused on making sure everyone knew that this party is united. I don't think Dean or Edwards are going to do themselves any good attacking the media (even though they deserve it) ... because after all in the future, the media is going to give our guys an even harder time if they do (unfortunately, it still remains a major force in reaching out to millions of Americans). WE - the party activists - should call on the media bias... like the Coulter and Hannity clan does.... not our elected officials or national leaders... there is a different stature that goes with various degrees of political action. I agree on your point that Edwards responded right in time... he's a smart political cookie, and I'm glad he did this.

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

37. I'm not asking him to attack the media..only to underscore their

double standard

[OzarkDem]

10. Great response

As we all suspected, the remarks were taken out of context.

Anyone know which media outlet was the first to jump on this bandwagon?

[derby378]

13. It's a start

But Edwards does need to beef up his statements on Republicans - he still sounds a bit too conciliatory, where Dean just comes out swinging.

[MelissaB]

14. You must not have heard/read too many of his speeches lately.

He has been kicking butt!

[AmericanDream]

18. You kidding me?

You should go read his speeches lately... did you hear him at the TBA conference? Even during the primaries... while the dems were busy criticizing each other... Edwards was out there making the case against the republicans and Dubya. None of his speeches took potshots at the other dems but instead he totally panned the Republicans and effectively blamed them for our societal degradation (from the economy to everythign else). He was the wise one who said at the debate as all the others were arguing between each other... he stepped out and said "I'll vote for any of you guys over the guy we have in the white house." He has always framed it as "Democrats Vs. Republicans" and not "Democrats Vs. Democrats" as some like to do. You might want to go check out his speeches before you call this "a start."

[burythehatchet]

15. one aspect of leadership is to facilitate harmony by finding

common ground. That's really the difference between the good guys and the bad guys. Bringing people together to focus on solving problems rather than driving wedges between them and ignoring the problems.

[derby378]

19. Agreed, with the following caveats

1. Most Republicans on the Hill want nothing to do with compromise - they want it all, and they want it right now. That's what "Justice Sunday" and the Senate "compromise" were all about. Owen has now been sworn in, and Brown may soon follow suit. Then there's the matter of John Bolton...

2. Edwards can try to find common ground with moderate GOPers throughout America, and that's fine with me. I'm sure more than a few of them are pissed off at * and Co. right now. But it'll be a cold day in Hell before we find common ground with *'s policies.

[kellenburger]

16. good response but...

I would have said something like...


Why is it that the "liberal" media goes bananas for a mis-speak and turns it into a flap....and yet George JR. gets away with things that if he we're a Democrat we would be talking impeachment every other week?

[derby378]

21. MelissaB and AmericanDream...

...this is what I'm talking about.

Especially keeping the "i" word out there for people to mull over.

[MelissaB]

23. I agree with you if I'm understanding correctly.

Did you think I would disagree?

[Coexist]

27. Well good. Any word from Biden?

[MelissaB]

119. ???

If this is meant for me, I don't understand.

[cestpaspossible]

30. nt

replied in wrong spot.

[saracat]

22. Thank You John.

This wan't a big deal, and Edwards gave a great lesson on how to respons.Beautifully done.And without being a bobblehead!

[usregimechange]

25. See, he is one of the good guys.

[understandinglife]

28. Thank you Senator Edwards. I hope you and Gov Dean soon address ....

.... the blatant aggressive military recruiting of America's children:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=104&topic_id=3797148&mesg_id=3797148&page=

Peace.

www.missionnotaccomplished.us - We have all the evidence of mendacity and illegal war-making we need to indict and prosecute Bush, Blair and every other neoconster scum-bag on the planet having any involvement in the Bush's illegal war on Iraq and all the torture and other atrocities that have been committed since August 2002.

[cestpaspossible]

31. I don't see any acknowledgement here from Edwards that he could have

handled the quesion better.


But, we all know that he could have. He flubbed the original answer. He gave them ammo, so they used it. He still seems to be putting all the blame on Dean and not admitting his own error.

[AmericanDream]

33. He's putting the blame on the MEDIA!

Stop playing the divisive trick again. Edwards clearly stated that the quote that was used by the media was only part of his take on Dean... and they decided to cut the other (praise) stuff off, which I don't find hard to believe at all. He is not blaming Dean or himself.. he's blaming the media for creating nonexistent controversies as they very well do. Stop falling into their trap and pitting our own guys against each other.

[cestpaspossible]

40. Yeah, he's not admitting that he made an error in the way he answered.

That was my point, in this statement by Edwards, there's no indication whatsoever that he could have handled the question better.

In contrast, when I saw Dean interviewed on the topic he freely admitted that he could have spoken more precisely - and then went on to make his point. It's called taking responsibility.


I don't have any thing to say regarding your comments about me.

[mzmolly]

54. He said he didn't make an error and I agree with him. Democrats

are allowed to have differences.

[VOX]

45. "we all know?" No, *we* don't. You seem determined to hold a grudge...

against Edwards.

If Democrats are going to take back the country, it's in their best interest to have individual voices, but with the same goal, which is what Edwards outlined meticulously in his response.

[cestpaspossible]

50. Are you claiming that his original response couldn't be improved on?

That's why he has to run damage control, I guess.

:eyes:

OK, I shouldn't have said 'we all know'. However, the reality is that the media laid a trap for Edwards and he stepped into it.

(oops, almost forgot - imho!!! lol)

[mzmolly]

56. I'll say he didn't have to improve. And, I'm a Dean supporter from early

on in the primaries.


I read the false headline yesterday and contrasted it to the actual quotes, I had only an issue with the reporter who obviously wanted to stir shit.

DU-ers were had by the media, if anyone needs improvement in how WE handle things, HERE.

:hi:

[cestpaspossible]

63. How is your support of Dean over a year ago relevant to what Edwards said

a few days ago? Frankly I don't care who you supported in the primaries, I more interested in the quality of your comments.


We'll just have to agree to disagree about whether Edwards could have done a better job of handling the original question.

[mzmolly]

68. Well that's what Edwards did, DISAGREED with how Dean stated his

position. If we can agree to disagree why can't THEY?

I don't get what specific part of his comments anyone took issue with frankly. I read the headline "Biden/Edwards criticize Dean" I then contrasted that to Edwards actual comments - in which he said essentially "I don't agree, Dean doesn't speak for me or the entire Party" and realized the media was pulling the same old shit.

They then followed with a "Dean is dividing the Party" headline after people here went wacko over the BS they started.

I assume as you and I don't speak for one another, it's ok for Dean and Edwards to assert the same?

[cestpaspossible]

72. The problem is not in his disagreement, but in his clumsy answer

to the reporters question. A corrolary would be the 'Dean scream' where the content of what Dean did was not wrong, but, nevertheless, it was a gaffe because it was something that could be used against him.

BTW, I did not participate in any attacks on Edwards, Biden or Dean in this incident, however, I just am not impressed by Edwards' attempt at damage control here. If you want to keep having an argument about it, I guess I can oblige, but it really seems pointless since we've already identified the place where we disagree - wheter or not Edwards original response was absolutely the best possible answer he could have given at that time - and I see no signs that either of us will persuade the other.

[mzmolly]

74. How do we know it was infact clumsy? Did we see the entire interview

or read some reporters slanted agenda filled article?

Anyone who supported Dean should be especially leary of the media.

Look what they claim Dean says ... daily.

Additionally, let's admit Dean's initial clumsiness here as he himself did. And, that initial quote was what Edwards responded to.

Peace

[cestpaspossible]

77. By the effect. We judge political actions, by the effect they have

not by the effect they were intended to have.

As far as Dean, when I saw an interview he gave on the subject. He readily admitted that he could have spoken more precisely, which allowed him to spend his time making his points. That's what's missing here from Edwards, imho, an acknowledgement that, just maybe, he could have answered the question better. You've made clear that you don't believe that, that in your opinion, Edwards answered the original question perfectly, no room for imrovement, so I'm not surprised that you are please with his damage control here.

Neither do I feel threatened by the fact that you don't agree with me.

[mzmolly]

80. Then that cause/effect standard should also apply to Dean's remarks.

I saw Dean's original speech and knew he'd take some grief. I also saw the clarification. Now which remarks do you think the reporter with the agenda asked Edwards about? The clarified remarks or the original "clumsy" remark?

You can't regulate BS media headlines. The headlines said Edwards criticized Dean, I read his remarks and came to a different conclusion.

[cestpaspossible]

85. Why are you trying to turn this into a Dean vs Edwards fight?

And why are you replying to my comments, but not actually responding to what I say?

[mzmolly]

90. You must be kidding. I am turning this into a Dean/Edwards fight?

:rofl:

[bklyncowgirl]

34. Thank you John Edwards

It's all in the phrasing isn't it?

"I was asked whether I thought that it was fair to say that people who were Republican hadn’t done a good day’s work."

Well, of course, who is going to agree with that. Take a statement out of context and you can get anybody to say anything.

Howard Dean could have been a little more precise in his wording--but frankly, in context, his statement made perfect sense and you knew who he was talking about--and it wasn't rank and file Republicans and certainly not all Republican leaders. John Edwards was asked to respond to a misquoted statement from Dean and responded appropriately to the wording that was quoted to him.

Now will CNN blast that over its airways?

Guess we gotta wait for THAT pig to sprout wings.

[iconoclastic cat]

35. Well, consider me pimpslapped!

:headbang:

[Cha]

36. Bravo, John Edwards!

Now let's hear from Senator biden on this "flap".

[Ksec]

38. Im glad he backtracked

He was out of line. And he admitted it.

[mzmolly]

58. He didn't backtrack, he cautioned us to be mindful of the media.

As we should. :hi:

[AmericanDream]

61. Exactly. .. some of us here are quick to jump on our own!

[Ksec]

95. yes I agree. some of you were way quick judging Dean

[smartvoter]

106. And in this eloquent note,

he stood by his comment.

This was a brilliant note. He didn't own up to his own culpability in the problem but passed it fully off on the press.

I've read it several times, and then read all the gushing out here in the threads.

Impressive.

[Larkspur]

39. I posted a reply to Mr. Edwards on this issue on his blog

[saracat]

44. This is beautifully done .Edwards doesn't need lessons from anyone in

this situation. This is a wonderful piece and it is a shame that some feel it necessary to diminish this effort!

[Larkspur]

150. Lakoff did a much better job than Edwards in answering the Media

Lakoff immediately put the Media on the defensive. Edwards appears to still be in 2004 primary battle mode, so he assumed the Media was right and Dean had made a gaffe.

Edwards should have immediately responded to the question with this statement -- "I have not heard or read Mr. Dean's speech so I can not comment on it, but both he and I agree that Republican lawmakers are hurting American workers." That statement would have had Edwards turning the tables on the Rightwing Media and provided cover for Edwards if Dean had actually committed a gaffe, which he did not.

[AmericanDream]

154. Lakoff and Edwards do not have the same political platform!

[Larkspur]

162. True, Lakoff isn't trying to pretend to be the next JFK, like Edwards is

Lakoff is trying to help Democrats and progressives fight more effectively against the Repuke machine. Edwards is just interested in satisfying his personal ambition of getting into the White House as Chief Resident.

[AmericanDream]

168. Oh yeah... and talking about poverty is going to get him there?!

Please, it's sad that some people espouse so much cynicism towards the man... meet him once, and you will know about his sincerity. Go visit the Demoracycellproject.com and casey morris met with the Senator to talk about his future at the TBA conference.. and read what she has to say about him and his ambitions.

He was involved with the homeless and the orphans even before he got into politics... I guess a politician just can't be honestly concerned about the American society... he must be "pretending" to do so! Lakoff is only trying to strategize the politics of the Democratic party; Edwards has been talking about the true progressive ideas and policies. Give credit where it is due.... and I like both these guys. However, familiarize yourself with Edwards' work and you'll realize that he has been fighting the good fight for all too long for your harsh criticism. Do we have to pull down the very people who are talking about the progressive ideals and a new democratic vision for this country?

[Larkspur]

169. Edwards is a one-term senator and was on the losing Prez ticket in 2004

who didn't do anything to bolster the Dem Prez ticket in the South.

Edwards elected political experience was very short and his senate seat has a history of being unkind to incumbants, which explains his reason for vying for the Prez/VP ticket. Maybe Edwards should forgo political office and stick with promoting issues.

[AmericanDream]

170. And, you need political office to fight for the right causes?

He is being a leader by using his national status to promote the progressive causes - everything from healthcare, jobs, social security, to the global issues of the day.

And, I do not think he should forgo political office. He has some of the most progressive and well-detailed ideas. I was pleasantly surprised by his ideas from bringing broadband to rural areas to bridging the gap between the two public schools (and the two economies)... so, he has the message and the messenger... I don't see why shouldn't he try to get the job (political office) where he'll be best suited to put his ideas into action.

As for no effect in the south, no one votes for the vice-presidential candidate. I met numerous independents and republicans who repeatedly told me that if the ticket was the other way around, they would vote democratic because they are fed up with Dubya and think Kerry can't be trusted. Of course, they were wrong because Kerry would've been a great president... but the impression the people were stuck with due to some of Kerry's own mistakes was hard to wash away.

[Larkspur]

173. I didn't say Edwards needed a political office to fight for causes of his

choice.

I just said that he should forego political office and concentrate on his causes of choice. If he wants to run for political office, why doesn't he try winning his senate seat back or at least challenging Liddy Dole for her seat?

[AmericanDream]

180. Because...

perhaps, he has a bigger vision to lead the country to a more just society that cannot be attained as a Senator.

[Larkspur]

189. Ha Ha Ha Ha

That's a good joke.

[saracat]

188. Funny. Dean admits he made a gaffe. Why can't you?

But I guess everyone knows what Dean meant to say better than the Doctor himself.Sigh.

[Polemicist]

41. Our Party leaders have to learn the traps...

the right wing media sets for them, and avoid them. Some simple steps to avoid right wing media smears...

1) What they say a Democrats said is never accurate. They paraphrased Dr. Dean's comments to make it seem that he was saying "All Republicans" don't make an honest living. That is not what Dr. Dean said. He said, "A lot of Republicans" don't make an honest living. Don't assume the quote you are asked to respond to is accurate. Most of the time, it is inaccurate.

2) If you as a Party leader, are asked to respond to such a statement, and your people haven't yet researched exactly what the Democrat said, don't respond. Explain you aren't certain what was said and you will have a press release or statement later on the subject. They will press you to respond to the false quote. Don't let them do this.

3) In this situation, with the proper research to know exactly what Dr. Dean said, and in correct context, the right answer could have been to clarify for the press what our Democratic Party Chairman actually meant by his statement and how it was being distorted by the right wing echo chamber.

We will never win until we develop the message discipline that the right wing has. It makes us seem fractious and inconsistent in our vision for America. Sometimes it's not what you say. It's how you say it.

We must have a rapid response team ready at all times to alert our leaders about these smears. The GOP is trying to negate Dr. Dean and shut him up. It's disheartening to those of us on the front lines, to have our leaders clueless to these misquotes and agreeing with the false message these misquotes send. The war room must be 24/7 365 in politics today.

If your only source for the quote is a media person, don't respond. These guys are lazy and repeat the GOP smears, because of the repetition and organization of the GOP smear machine. If anyone should know these things, it's Senator Edwards, after the 2004 campaign. Come on Senator, you can do better than that.

[cestpaspossible]

128. You've got it exactly right.

I hope everyone reading this thread takes your comment to heart.

[KittyWampus]

42. It'd Be Great If The DU'ers Who Insist On Taking Mediawhores' Bait

would have the good sense to LEARN something from this.

[lostnfound]

43. Yay! nt

[VOX]

46. Terrific response, point by point...

And it is a *rapid* response, too -- no lingering on Edward's part.

Well done! :toast:

[Mass_Liberal]

47. thank you

that was very much needed and appreciated. .

[katinmn]

48. Thanks for clearing it up, John

I still think the AP was too eager to try to cause a public rift beteen Dems and between Dems and Republicans.

AP: Start using your influence to do something POSITIVE for the country! Be RESPONSIBLE.

[mzmolly]

49. John Edwards deserves an open apology by all those here who

believed the MSM spin/lies.

We have to be smarter then this going forward.

:toast: To John Edwards! I am so grateful he addressed this.

[dave29]

55. I apologize

my knee was jerking a bit, what can I say :) although my main beef is with the parsing done by the MSM.

[mzmolly]

59. I agree, we have to consider the "source" always!

And realize the MSM does not share our agenda.

Thanks for the reply! :hi:

[MelissaB]

118. Me, too!

I wish I had never used that article as an example in my rant. I love both Edwards and Dean.

"It's the media, stupid!"

[katinmn]

62. If you read the article it's designed to get people angry

I hate that kind of reporting.

[mzmolly]

101. I totally agree Kat.

:( I thought so the moment I read it.

[smartvoter]

132. Here's mine:

We Agree: The Republican Leadership is Destroying the Country

What a flap has arisen about the way something was written! I was at DU over the weekend, supporting the efforts of good people working to make this country a better place, when a breaking story indicated that John Edwards had said that Howard Dean doesn’t speak for Democrats. I said I don’t agree with that, and such statements are better left unspoken as they undermine leadership in public, potentially damaging the party. And, I want to be clear that presented with the same information, I would say so again. Yet, I agree with Edwards and his supporters on many issues regarding the erosion of wealth and opportunity for all but the most wealthy in this country, and believe something must be done as the current leaders of the country are shifting the tax burden from wealth and passive income on wealth to the middle class. And then the flap arose: Free speech! Troll! Grow Up!

Instead, how about: Nonsense!

Edwards, his DU supporters and I are all unhappy with how the Republicans are leading the country and how they are increasingly tipping the field toward the ultra-wealthy. We all want a country full of opportunity for working people to get ahead and lead full, happy lives, and committed to get active at all levels of government. And we have.

We have all been saying the same thing for years. Hear that? The same thing! Have I made statements that Edwards would not agree with? Probably. And on one occasion, he put his disagreement with our party leader in a way that I can’t agree with. Dean has tremendous support in our party’s base despite active resistance from beltway Democrats, and when he is the chairman of the DNC, he does represent Democrats. Millions of them. Statements to the press that he doesn’t speak for the party are, in my opinion, counterproductive to our overall efforts.

Nonetheless, we are unified in our desire for a return to responsible leadership and an admired America where the wealthy pay their fair share, our children’s and grandchildren’s futures aren’t burdened with debt from unsustainable, fiscally irresponsible spending today. We want greater financial security for our seniors, a more secure world driven by more diplomacy and mutual respect than militarily forcing our values on others. Above all, we want to keep hope alive for all Americans.

Your friend,

Smartvoter

That’s my response. Other Edwards critics: you’re it!

[stickdog]

144. Sorry, mzmolly, but Edwards blew it when he dissed Dean in public.

It was negligently naive (at best) for Edwards to not recognize and at least attempt to IMMEDIATELY defuse the obvious "gotcha" trap the media sprung on him and the entire Democratic Party. Instead, he gave the media the EXACT sort of quote the needed for the "Dean's a loose cannon and has the Democrats in disarray" article that appeared in 178 newspapers this morning. For that mistake, Edwards owes all of us hard working Democratic activists an apology.

That said, I appreciate his statement for what it's worth.

[mzmolly]

175. I respect your position Stickdog ...

However, I feel Dean gave the media fodder initially. In fact, Dean's comments make for bogus headlines almost daily. We should hold him to the same standard we hold Edwards to, no? Dean's original remark made innaccurate headlines as well (when taken out of context) if we'll recall.

I don't hold Dean/Edwards responsible for the media twisting, cherry plucking their comments personally. And, I feel it happend to both of them in this case.

[smartvoter]

184. But the point is that

Edwards says he'd say it again. And the it, is that Dean doesn't speak for democrats.

This has been overlooked in the gushing out here.

[mzmolly]

185. Dean has said the same thing.

Dean said when he took the position of Chair that he wasn't trying to be the party spokes person. His duty is to raise money and help us win elections.

Does Edwards speak for the party? No one person does.

Perhaps were looking at his remarks differently? It appears that's the case?

As Clarks former media person stated today. "Who speaks for the Republican Party?" Ken Mehlman? Tom Delay? All anyone has is an opinion. And Edwards said he agrees with Dean - Republicans don't represent working people. I think that's something we all agree on.

:hi:

[ecstatic]

152. Wait a minute... I'm not satisfied

Call me a sore loser, whatever. But he made his anti-Dean comments PUBLICLY, on TV where millions can see... And now he clears up his remarks in a blog? How many people do you think visit John Edward's blog? Even I don't, and I'm much more politically aware than most of the people around these parts.

[smartvoter]

166. And he doesn't apologize for his statement all, says he'd do it again.

Hence, my answer to those demanding apologies from those of us who spoke out (post #132).

[mzmolly]

178. Well we can sent it to the media?

I don't know that the media has the same agenda they did initially (to stir shit) but it's worth a shot?

[geek tragedy]

51. He should be this thoughtful BEFORE he speaks in the future. eom

[mzmolly]

60. I think it is WE who should be thougthful in considering the agenda

of some reporters. ;)

[cestpaspossible]

64. Why not both? Is it mutually exclusive or somthing?

lol

[mzmolly]

67. Because THEY have no choice but to speak to reporters. WE have to

be better at cutting through the crap.

:)

[cestpaspossible]

73. That means we can't both be thoughtful? lol you'll have to explain

your reasoning there.

my question was: Is it mutually exclusive that both we and our prominent Dems be thoughtful?

and your answer was - yes? maybe I misread your comment. Please explain.

[mzmolly]

75. You can be as thoughtful as you want, but a media person with an agenda

can cherry pick your thoughtful remarks and twist them. You and I have the luxury of not dealing with them, Dean and Edwards do not.

That's the point, sorry bout the confusion.

[cestpaspossible]

78. So is it or is it not mutually exclusive?

lol

[mzmolly]

82. I think I made myself clear. One can be thoughtful and have a reporter

take things out of context.

[cestpaspossible]

84. Well then is the answer yes, or no? Is it mutually exclusive?

lol

Yes, or no, that's clear. Avoiding the question and just pretending it wasn't asked, is not.

[smartvoter]

86. LOL. You're latched on like a pitbull for a straight answer... nt

[cestpaspossible]

87. I probably won't get one, but sometimes it is funny to see the lengths

that people will go to avoid giving one.

[mzmolly]

91. I don't think Edwards was being unthoughtful?

What part of my answer are you confused with.

[cestpaspossible]

96. I'm talking about the words I actually used, the questions I asked.

We disagree about whether or not Edwards original response was perfect, that's clear, what I am confused about is whether you answered the question I posed in post 64 in the affimative, or in the negative.

[mzmolly]

97. Some things require a more "thoughtful" answer then yes or no.

;)

[cestpaspossible]

108. And what is the number of the post where you gave this answer?

However thoughtful your answer to the question "Is it mutually exclusive?", if that answer really does exist, you should be able to reference the post in which you gave it by number. That way I can review it to see whether you believe it is mutually exclusive, or whether you believe it's not.

[mzmolly]

113. I don't feel Edwards wasn't thoughtful. Your question implies that.

I also don't think it's possible to prevent slanted media no matter HOW thoughtful one is, comprende?

I think I more than answered your question.

Dean should have been more thoughtful INITIALLY, the media should have been more thoughtful, I don't think Mr. Edwards is to blame in this particular incident.

[mzmolly]

89. .

[cestpaspossible]

92. When you answered my question, was the answer affirmative, or negative?

just wondering.

What post was that, by the way, where you said whether or not both we and our leaders could be thoughtful when answering questions and making comments?


Or if you'd rather not point to the post in which you already answered, you could just answer here: is it mutually exclusive?

[mzmolly]

94. What I said was, no matter how thoughtful a person is a media person

with an agenda will twist words.

What part of that don't you understand?

Now answer my unanswered question(s)

Was Dean "thoughtful" in his original remark in your opinion? Or does your brand of thoughtfulness only apply to Edwards when responding to Dean's "unthoughtful" remarks?

[cestpaspossible]

105. Yeah, but you are answering a question I didn't ask, apparently.

I hate to repost stuff that can just be seen upthread, but you keep pretending you've already answered the question I posed in post 64, however, it's not clear in which post you answered the question, nor is it clear whether the answer was in the affirmative or in the negative.

So to review:
in post 51, geek tragedy wrote:

He should be this thoughtful BEFORE he speaks in the future. eom

To which you responded in post 60:

I think it is WE who should be thougthful in considering the agenda of some reporters.

Since this seemed to imply that either we should be thoughtful or he should, I asked the followup question in post 64:

Why not both? Is it mutually exclusive or somthing?

So what is the answer? Why can't we be thoughtful and he be thoughtful both? Is it mutually exclusive?



Was Dean "thoughtful" in his original remark in your opinion? Or does your brand of thoughtfulness only apply to Edwards when responding to Dean's "unthoughtful" remarks?

I was really impressed at the way Dean deftly admitted that he could have spoken more precisely and instead of spending time defending himself, spend the time on the attack. Obviously if Dean thinks he could have spoken better and been more thoughtful in his remarks I'm not going to insist otherwise. We all make mistakes - Dean, Edwards, me, you... everyone. I respect the fact that he just matter-of-factly admitted that he's not perfect. IMHO, that's a lesson Edwards could have applied here.

[mzmolly]

111. What I said was:

Edwards was not "unthoughtful" in his remarks in my opinion. So I've answered your question.

Further I said WE were not thoughtful in how we behaved upon reading the story.

I don't know what's so hard to understand about that.

Your asking if I think Edwards should have been more thoughtful in a round about way, my answer is NO.

[cestpaspossible]

125. Actually no

Your asking if I think Edwards should have been more thoughtful in a round about way

Nah, actually when I asked "Is it mutually exclusive?" the question I was asking was "Is it mutually exclusive?"

We already agreed to disagree on the other point a long time ago, or at least I did, I don't remember any reply from you in which you respectfully acknowledged that we simply have a difference of opinion... perhaps that's just not your preferred way of expressing yourself... to each his own.

[stickdog]

146. Edwards said, "Dean doesn't speak for the Democratic Party."

Do you really think that was the most circumspect response possible?

[AmericanDream]

160. No he didn't say that.... and don't misguide by puttig it in quotes

Edwards said that Dean is not the only spokesman of the party, but instead, one of the many voices. Nothing wrong with that. Did he do the best job of phrasing it? Probably Not.

[stickdog]

165. He said, "Dean is not the spokeman for the Party."

http://www.heraldnet.com/stories/05/06/06/100wir_dean001.cfm

Those were Edwards' own words. And those words fueled a ridiculous and predictable media "gotcha" game -- a game that's now generally reserved for any effective politicians who aren't completely co-opted by the corporate establishment.

[mzmolly]

172. Let's look at this from another angle:

Reporter: John, Howard Dean said Republicans have not worked an honest day in their lives, would you agree with that statement?

JE: No, I don't agree.

Reporter: But your own party chair said this about Republicans, does he speak for the Democratic Party or not?

JE: No, I speak for myself. He doesn't speak for the entire Democratic Party.

Now, I don't know the exact context of the comments and neither does anyone else. But, upon reading the article, this is the impression I came away with. I don't have a problem with that response. I have a problem with the reporter who ran with "Edwards/Biden criticize Dean." I didn't see the criticism.

However I will say that the Lakoff like reply "unless I have Dean's quote in context I won't comment on it" is a far better way to handle sleazy reporters going forward.

It would also be better for us to be held to that standard here at DU. "Unless I have John Edwards quotes in context, I can't comment." ;)

I don't think we can hold Edwards to a greater standard than we do Dean and/or ourselves in this situation - KWIM?

That said, perhaps there is a lesson for everyone in what occurred.

Dean
Edwards
DU

Peace :hi:

[mzmolly]

174. *

dup

[mzmolly]

99. You don't get to define how I answer your question, I answered it in

complete context. Sorry for the dupe reply.

[smartvoter]

102. Translation (I think):

Yes, everyone should be careful. But, since the output is controlled by a third party, it may not enough.

Is this right?

[mzmolly]

104. Right !

:hi:

[cestpaspossible]

110. See, an answer IS possible, if one is willing to honestly engage.

smartvoter: :yourock:

mzmolly: :rofl:

[mzmolly]

116. Actually Smartvoter understood what I said.

:hi:

Glad we had a translator in da house! LOL

[cestpaspossible]

122. It's always funny when somone won't concede a simple rhetorical point.

I guess just conceding that any point someone who is disagreeing with you makes might be valid is just too difficult.


The thing is, the answer to the question is "Is it mutually exclusive?", is "No". It's a simple rhetorical question. Obviously it isn't mutually exclusive. Your unwillingness to admit this rhetorical point is the reason I'm laughing.

[mzmolly]

124. Your rhetorical question was based upon the assumption

that those involved were not thoughtful.

And, as my answer was understood by others I can only assume it was clear.

I don't have to be boxed into yes or no answers on loaded questions.

Some might call that a "THOUGHTFUL" answer. ;)

:hi:

[cestpaspossible]

126. Actually, no, it is possible for us to disagree about whether

someone WAS thoughtful, and yet still agree about whether that person SHOULD BE thoughtful.


A fine distinction, perhaps, but I believe you are capable of making it.

[mzmolly]

130. Everyone should be thoughtful in everything they do.

That's a given. But, I don't see the relevance to your question in this particular conversation?

I'm out for now, will check back later.

[cestpaspossible]

107. But is it mutually exclusive? That's what's missing from your 'answer'.

The part where you actually respond to my question seems to be missing.

Or could you perhaps let me know the number of the post in which you said whether or not it's mutually exclusive? That way I can review that post and maybe see what it is that I missed.

[mzmolly]

114. Again, your question implies two incorrect notions:

1. Edwards was not thoughtful
2. The media has integrity.

I disagree on both counts.

[cestpaspossible]

123. We've already agreed to disagree about whether Edwards was perfect

in his original response.

The reason I'm laughing is that you were unwilling to grant the simple rhetorical point that it is not mutually exclusive for both we and he to be thoughtful. Obviously it isn't, and I find your tortured attempt to avoid granting any validity to anything I say to be quite humorous.


BTW, obviously I wouldn't imply that the media has integrity, since I don't believe that.

[mzmolly]

127. I said Edwards was thoughtful IMO. I don't get your confusion frankly.

;) Your rhetorical question was invalid as it didn't apply to all involved.

If Edwards was thoughtful, how can one ask - should he have been thoughtful?

Your tortured attempts to get me to answer a question on your terms is what's amusing.

I'll give you the last word.

[cestpaspossible]

129. Probably because I'm not confused, so there's nothing to 'get'

I'll give you the last word.

Ah-hah!!! so that's what this was about? :rofl:

[geek tragedy]

138. Yes, but he has the bigger responsibility of being extra careful what

he says around those reporters.

The Republicans are much better than us at party discipline.

[mzmolly]

179. "The Republicans are much better than us at party discipline."

I agree 100% here.

[stickdog]

145. Our reactions don't result in Republican attack ads masquerading as

major wire service news stories like Edwards' reaction did.

[mzmolly]

177. Actually the "Dean dividing Democrats" headline happened shortly after our

freakout session here. :shrug: ;)

[stickdog]

186. So you're saying that the DU sets the AP's agenda? Come on, mzmolly.

I didn't see "our freakout session" quoted anywhere in the article. Did you?

However, I DID see Edwards' quote that Dean's not the party spokesman featured prominently in an article attacking Dean and Democratic Party unity in general that appeared in 178 newspapers.

[mzmolly]

187. I think their intent was to be divisive.

They are not going to quote the blogs as examples, IMHO but the media does lurk on various blogs, and they were aware of the flap all over the internet. We weren't the only ones "freaking out" about the stir they caused. They wished to cause a flap and they did.

Regarding the 178 newspapers, how many papers/stations covered the overblown Dean scream? We should know better then to trust the media. Consider the source, as they say.

[AmBlue]

52. Go, Johnny, Go!!

All the best to Elizabeth, too!

[CWebster]

53. The ABC evening news made a stink about it tonight,

that media tart married to Ayn Rand devotee, Greenspan reported. I don't imagine they had anything to say about any memos.

[Merope215]

57. Wow. Great response.

Mr. Edwards is really a good guy. He and Dean agree, I think, on most things, and this whole issue is the media's fault, not so much his. His response puts the blame squarely where it belongs, and it's so encouraging to get to read something like this. :)

And Mrs. Edwards, if you're reading this, you're the greatest! :hi:

[tavalon]

65. Good response n/t

[saltpoint]

66. That response is a strong argument for John Edwards to hold high office.

I'm into grown-ups, problem-solvers, and edge-rounders in the name of understanding and reconciliation. Edwards scores high in all categories.

Thank you, Senator Edwards.

[spooky3]

81. well put, Mr. C.

[saltpoint]

120. Hi to you, spooky3. On Edwards, I began paying attention to him in

Iowa. I visited friends in Iowa City during the primary and the reaction of people there to him was unbelievably affectionate. It was respectful, too, but there was this vein of affection flowing through it that couldn't be missed.

I posted on DU at the time of the results of the Iowa primary that how he did from that point forward was a moot point, in that the people of Iowa had already wholly resolved to keep him there and adopt him.

I don't know if his campaign will reignite that affection, but it sure was there in force last winter.

[spooky3]

133. Did you believe that the affection was extended to his family

as well? I get the impression that it was.

They are an extraordinary family, in my view.

[saltpoint]

135. Oops. My mistake. Yes, you are absolutely right.

It goes to John and Elizabeth especially and also to their oldest daughter (who is an incredibly poised soul) and even to the small ones.

Elizabeth Edwards is more than just a great citizen. She is one of the most affirming people I have ever seen in public life. These two people are two of the luckiest people who ever got up and walked if you ask me.

[Inspired]

115. Ditto on the well put!

I am finding you to be one of many voices of reason here.

[saltpoint]

121. Hi there, Inspired.

There you are again. Nice to see you and hope it will be one of many moe times.

This thread is going pretty well from the first to last, and plenty of us in the middle are appreciating what others have posted.

If DU is good at many things, one of them is an exuberant, thoughtful and very wide range of viewpoints. It is dynamic. I read a lot of other liberal blogs but keep returning here.

Don't forget: we would love to hear some of your thoughts on Iowa as things draw nearer to the caucuses. Real live on-the-ground Iowans are a great treasure in politics.

Again, good steps to you, Inspired.

[Chicago1]

69. Senator Edwards is OUTSTANDING

I just got done listening to him on cspan and his speech was GREAT!!I can't wait for him to be sworn in as VP.

Waiting for the IMPEACHMENT WHILE THE SCANDALS KEEP UNFOLDING
America's Work Stories
http://usaworkstories.blogspot.com
[e-mail]

[Darkamber]

71. Thank you John Edwards!!!

Not the way I would want your word to get blazed into the presses, but what a great chance to get our values back into the spotlight!

Keep fighting John...I know you will...with everything you and Elizabeth have to give.

[wicket]

76. I love John Edwards!!!!

:kick: :kick: :kick:

[ElectroPrincess]

79. I neither love nor trust any politician ... family included /eom

[wicket]

148. ok

:shrug:

[ElectroPrincess]

155. A OK ... you prop up a man as "an idol" you deserve it if he punks you

[wicket]

156. Whatever you say

:shrug:

[ElectroPrincess]

158. I appreciate and note your thoughtful response :-)

[wicket]

159. why thank-you!

Your kindness is noted.

[smartvoter]

88. delete

[ChiciB1]

93. Such A Relief.... Thank You John!

I'm one of your BIGGEST boosters. I've been beating the band for you for some time now. I'm so glad you made this clarification because it was very disconcerting to me.

We need ALL THE UNITY we can get. We must get rid of "the corrupt ones" and bring SANITY back to America! Back to those of us who actually DO have Values, but don't think others don't!

But when, when, when will these people get caught????

[Ksec]

100. Its really too bad Edwards had to apologise

for his comments about Dean.

You would think a guy with his experience in dealing with media would have figured it out by now and not be so quick to jump ship on his own party. It was too easy to know better.

Hopefully he apologised personally to Dean.

[smartvoter]

109. Actually, he didn't.

He said he sticks by his statement and says he would say it again. But he says they're on the same side so everyone fell in line right away, with a deflection toward the media. (May have played part of it, but he also said he would say it again.)

It's really an amazing letter and response.

[Ksec]

112. Yes I know

He showed his slippery side . He stuck his foot in his mouth and then blamed the media for it.

I really dont care much since I know most politicians are known to have this ability to deflect.

[AmericanDream]

140. Agreed!

[NightOwwl]

103. Am I the only one that gets a little turned on...

by Edwards smackdown? :silly:

[mzmolly]

117. Shhhhhhhh, Elizabeth may be lurking.

;)

[NightOwwl]

131. Oops!

:blush:

;)

[Ksec]

134. Boy, you'd be a cheap date.

:)

[ElectroPrincess]

157. It's moments like these that I realize the sheeple are far too gullible ..

Perhaps the DINOs and Republicans will continue to screw the little people through lies and deceptions.

Perhaps we deserve pretenders like John Edwards, Joseph Biden and Hillary Clinton.

Gawd, you people must be blinded by the slick deliveries.

I despise DINOS and Edwards is included in the bunch of Republican Lites.

[NightOwwl]

182. Wake up on the wrong side of the bed this morning?

BTW, if you knew me, or paid attention to some of the other 2800 posts I've made on this board, you would realize your response is completely off-target.

[Triana]

136. That was MY senator...

...and damn when he speaks he still SPEAKS. I would have been quite happy to have him as VP.

[Darkamber]

164. Shouldn't that be 'was' your Senator?

Still...I can't blame you for feeling good. He is still doing all he can and still supports NC. You guys were lucky to have him for some time.

[cyr330]

137. Uggh

That wind bag is at it again.

[VOX]

147. Now there's some deep thinking by an unswervingly committed Democrat.

Really, now.

[ElectroPrincess]

161. This ain't a "cult of personality" or "American idol" this is life and

death of our Democracy. And Edwards is NOT loved by everyone. Even some people who call themselves "democrats" don't like him AT ALL. If loving Edwards is the new litmus test, then you're going to lose a lot of people. Ugh, Edwards disgusts me = P.T. Barnum.

[blue neen]

176. From the content of your replies on this thread I ain't been able to

discern what Democrat you actually do like.

[ElectroPrincess]

183. I like Kucinich, but he's not electable ... sincere thanks for asking

However, if it comes down to Edwards winning the nomination, I'll hold my nose and vote for him just like I did with John Kerry. But don't get me started on Hillary, no way - no how.

[Raiden]

139. I love John Edwards!!!

John Edwards 2008!

[AntiCoup2K4]

141. I appreciate the clarification from Senator Edwards.

But my problem was more with Biden and the mediawhores anyway, and I doubt any such explanations will come from them.

[JNelson6563]

142. Well done!

I'm glad to have seen this. :toast:

[fujiyama]

143. A good statement

I'm glad he replied and cleared this up.

I never wanted to think of him as being in the same category as Biden.

[Disturbed]

149. Good replyl

btw Elizabeth Edwards has posted on DU 24 times. I really like her and John, as well and I am not even a Dem. ;0)

[ecstatic]

151. Umm... a blogged out response isn't good enough

He needs to recant publicly, on every major "news" station.

[Darkamber]

163. It would not surprise me if...

He did send this statement out to all the news sources out there as a press release. And it also would not surprise me if none of them have reported on it.

Why? Because the Democrats working together and making good points against George Bush is not news and won't get people to turn in and listen to them. But controversy and a breaking of the party and in fighting...now that is news that they will print and talk about everywhere they can.

[seabeyond]

153. good for edwards

call it like it is. much to do over nothing. including on this board

[Enraged_Ape]

167. I really love this guy. He should have been the Pres candidate.

He always had the toughest job in the 2004 election: running against the REAL President of the United States, Snarlin' Dick Cheney. And he debated that slick, lying SOB and handed him his cybernetic hindquarters on national television.

I really hope Edwards runs again. He's got my vote. He'd make a terrific President.

[Pacifist Patriot]

171. Excellent. That's what I'm talking about when I say the Dems

can easily have a unified message.

Thank you John!

[Roland99]

181. Holy Freakin' Crap I got Goosebumps!!!

HELL YEAH!