In shifting race, Edwards takes on Obama

[DeepModem Mom]

Boston Globe: In shifting race, Edwards aims for the gut
Takes on Obama in bid to project himself as alternative to Clinton
By Sasha Issenberg
Globe Staff / December 24, 2007

DES MOINES - John Edwards, who long has found common cause with Barack Obama in portraying Hillary Clinton as a defender of the Washington status quo, is now trying to distinguish himself from Obama by saying the Illinois senator lacks the toughness to upend the Washington order. Over the weekend, the two sparred after Obama charged Edwards with hypocrisy for benefiting from television ads by an independent group while condemning the role of special interests in politics. The Edwards campaign said there was nothing it could legally do to stop the ads, and that Obama's attacks were evidence the Illinois senator is threatened by Edwards's standing.

That Edwards and Obama have now taken to battling each other reflects changes in the Democratic presidential race, as the two candidates compete to be the reform alternative to Clinton. In a primary fight that many have cast as a choice between Clinton's appeals to the party's head and Obama's to its heart, Edwards is aiming for the gut.

"What Iowa caucusgoers are looking for - they're not looking for academic and they're not looking for analytical," Edwards said in a Friday interview with Iowa Public Television. "They're looking for somebody who speaks from right here, from their gut, and who believes deeply and passionately in what they're talking about."

On Saturday, Obama fought back by pointing to the existence of a so-called 527 group, headed by a former Edwards campaign manager, that is expected to spend more than $750,000 on television ads benefiting Edwards. Obama questioned his opponent's seriousness about changing politics. "I don't just talk the talk, I walk the walk; I've been doing this all my life, and John has not had that same record," Obama said in Oskaloosa....

***

The suggestion that Edwards has the passion to lead an uprising while Obama offers mere uplift offers a new anti-intellectual tilt to the durable populism at the core of Edwards's appeal. "It's a working people's message," said Dave Nagle, a former Democratic congressman remaining neutral. "He's not being a nice guy about it this time, but it's still the same message."

http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2007/12/24/in_shifting_race_edwards_aims_for_the_gut/

[Adelante]

1. Hypocrite

"The inequality is bad, it's getting worse, and it's getting worse fast," Edwards said of the "gaps between the haves and the have-nots."

He's got $24M plowed into hedge funds that exist only to maintain the "gaps between the haves and the have-nots." Strike maintain and make that widen the "gaps between the haves and the have-nots."

[cali]

2. Bad move on Edwards part. 527 ads sure didn't help Gephardt

last time around. In fact, they hurt him badly. Iowans didn't like it at all. It may not hurt Edwards if the ads aren't too negative, but if they are, he's likely going to be hurt by his proximity to those running the ads. Frankly, I'm surprised that those doing this, think it's a good idea. The risk/benefits historically lean toward it being more risky than helpful.

[Adelante]

3. These 527s should be limited to the GE

Use that money against Repukes, not other Democrats.

[cali]

4. I agree. I also think it shows the desperation in the Edwards camp

Is his internal polling showing a lack of upward movement? Why are these folks running negative ads unless he's not in as good a position as people claim? It's a risky gambit.

[lisainmilo]

7. 527's John Edwards has no control over what the unions do..that is the fact

John Edwards did not run these ads, in fact as we all already know, he has no control over them.
He has asked that they not run these ads on his behalf

“I do not support 527s,” Edwards expounded. “They're part of the law and I don't have any direct control over it because the law requires that I stay out of it. I would prefer that all the 527s -- not just this one -- that all the 527s stay out of Iowa, but I have no legal authority over that.”

http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2007/12/22/531548.aspx

Obama must know this or maybe with his lack of experience in running for a campaign, he simply didn't know.

[DemPopulist]

9. It's pointless to talk to you but....

No Obama supporter anywhere has shown that these ads are "negative". No one has even seen the ads.

[cali]

11. then simply don't talk to me

how hard is that? But as it happens, I agree with you. I should have written "if" as I did in post 2.

[Andy823]

25. You should listen to the ads

Before saying anything about them being negative. I think I have seen several of your posts on other threads saying the "are" negative, but you provide no link to back that. Until you hear them yourself, maybe you should not even use the word "negative". It's kind of like what Mark Penn did on Hardball by using the "cocaine" word over and over while trying to "apologize" for what happened!

[killbotfactory]

16. Edwards HAS to rely on 527s since he accepted matching funds

But, you know, relying on soft money isn't a bad thing when Edwards is doing it.

[NWHarkness]

5. "working people's message" = anti-intellectual?

Classist, much?

[Madam Mossfern]

14. There's a big difference between

Intelligent and Intellectual.
I think working people know the difference.
Do you?

[NWHarkness]

15. Yes I do

And I know a great many working people who lead rich intellectual lives.

I found the reporters assumption that any appeal to working people was,ipso facto, anti-intellectual to be condescending and offensive. The implied insult you've directed towards me, I just find puzzling.

[Madam Mossfern]

17. I don't think I'm communicating very well here.

Having a rich intellectual life does not make one wise. Remember the term "effete intellectuals?" I think the point that was being made is that the issues are not an exercize in intellectualism, but for real practical common sense solutions; ones that would be sought out by the working man.

Uh oh have I insulted intellectuals? Didn't mean to.

[NWHarkness]

18. I don't think you are trying to deliberately insult anyone

My beef is not with you or either Obama or Edwards, but with the reporter who made the claim that in order to appeal to working people, Edwards message had to be "anti-intellectual". I find that insulting to working people.It's a classist assumption, but I am pointing my finger at the reporter, not at you.

[laureloak]

6. One distinction is that JRE is always ahead of Obama

with the answers. Obama just follows along. And yes, I think Edwards is the only one who can bring about the changes this country needs. Proof is in the lobbyists that Obama will not refuse. It's like Jesus running the money changers from the temple. Edwards can and will do it.

[cali]

12. yeah, JE is way way ahead of Obama on the war.

And your comparison of JE to JEsus is a riot. I've noticed that many Edwards supporters have a bad case of idol worship going on.

[laureloak]

21. Who knows where Obama stood on the war. He wasn't a

Senator so picking a side after the fact means nothing. Nothing new about JRE throwing out lobbyists while Obama snuggles with them. If you have a case of idol worship so bad that you're blind to Obama's many weaknesses then I pity you. One speech does not a president make, and Obamas one trick was his one speech that Ewards allowed him to read at the Dem convention. So what does your guy have to offer that's original and worthwhile?

[jenmito]

22. Are you REALLY unaware of how Obama spoke out publicly against the war BEFORE it started?

Would you like a link to his speech and statements he made in '02? And he was a state Senator at the time.

Here ya go: http://usliberals.about.com/od/extraordinaryspeeches/a/Obama2002War.htm

[Andy823]

24. Yes, but

If he would have been in office, would he have voted, or simply "missed" the vote like he has on some very important issues in the last year?

His votes to "continue" the war funding doesn't really go along with his claim to be against the war, now does it? Sure you can say that's not the same, voting to fund the war, but it is. If you want to really be "anti war" you can't vote to fund the war you "claim" you do not support DK is a good example of that.

[jenmito]

26. Clearly, he would've voted "no" since he was a state Senator at the time and about to run for

the U.S. Senate. He's running for President which is why he's missed so many votes.

He clearly did NOT support the war like Edwards, who co-sponsored it! I'm sure it was from his "gut." :eyes: It's not Obama's fault that he has to deal with the situation your guy helped put us in.

[JackORoses]

8. right from the gut? isn't that what W has been doing for 7 years?

[ruggerson]

10. If these ads are anti-Obama

They're legitimate to run, and Obama then can make his case when he responds to the substance in them.

[Evergreen Emerald]

13. Obama is attempting to silence the people

They are from the people. They are nurses, and teachers and unions and moveon.org--grass roots citizens who want change.

Obama is attempting to silence the people to win an election using right-wing talking points.

[THUNDER HANDS]

19. i hope Obama just stays away from Edwards

the last thing I want to see is Edwards and Obama in a fight, both muddy themselves, and then Clinton walks in the back door the winner.

[oasis]

20. "I've been doing this all of my life" says Obama. With an eye on the presidency.

No doubt about it.

[jenmito]

23. That's a negative? That he worked hard for people all his life in order to one day be able to work

hard for ALL the people?