OBAMA ATTACKS: Compares Edwards, Unfavorably to Kerry

[DemKR]

http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2007/12/was-obama-compa.html

he said, "we are less likely to win an election that starts off with half the country not wanting to vote for that candidate," clearly meaning Clinton.

"We are less likely also to win an election with somebody who had one set of positions four years ago and has almost entirely different positions four years later," Obama continued, speaking of Edwards. "We’ve been through that. It’s a problem and so if you are concerned with electability having somebody who has been consistent, who has opposed the war from the start so the opponent cant say he was for the war just like I was.Having someone who did not support NAFTA, did not support the China trade deal, did not support a banktruptcy bill that would make it tougher for people to make ends meet. That will give me the ability to go strong in the general election. My intention is not just to have you elect a nominee, my intention is to have you elect a president."

[DemocratSinceBirth]

1. John Edwards > Barack Obama

~

[DemKR]

2. agreed. edwards 2nd choice! n/t

[forsberg]

3. I'll second that Edwards/HRC > Obama

[DemocratSinceBirth]

4. Clinton ....

Clinton>Edwards>Biden>Richardson> Obama

[DemKR]

5. a K&r would be awesome lol

[DemocratSinceBirth]

7. Kick For John Kerry

Dems shouldn't diss other Dems; especially Dems that aren't even running...

[mtnsnake]

23. While you're at it, you can thank Kerry for helping to give us 4 more years of Geoge W Bush

None of our current crop of candidates will run such a botched up affair as what we saw in 2004. At the very least, the voters will be able to understand what our candidate's message is, as opposed to the garbled messages that Kerry rambled on and on about, leaving everyone sitting there dazed and confused.

[ProSense]

30. No, thank this

traitor, James Carville.

Speaking of dazed and confuzed. More to my point, there is boring, and look at the comments in this thread and this one.

People's opinions vary.

[YvonneCa]

31. With pleasure...

...KICK!

[Mass]

36. Except that Obama did not diss Kerry, contrarely to Edwards and Clinton.

It is Tapper who dissed Kerry.

[Colobo]

12. Obama>>>>>>>>>>Clinton

[NorthCarolina]

28. Kucinich >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

than ANY of the conservative leaning DNC choices such as Clinton, Obama, Edwards, Biden

[MH1]

6. Edwards does compare unfavorably to Kerry, to many of us

That is why this Kerry supporter, and many others, prefers Obama. (In fairness, many Kerry supporters do like Edwards better than Obama - a larger number than the few who support Hillary).

Of course Obama didn't mention Kerry AT ALL in the piece - this is Jake Tapper playing the media's "make shit up" game again.

And here is something else Tapper noted:

And by the way -- it seems like a valid argument. Edwards, for all his strengths, does have a list of major issues he's changed his position on, and such is not really Obama's vulnerability.

[Adelante]

8. I'll say

I didn't support either Kerry or Edwards in the 2003 primaries, but I certainly, without a doubt, agree that Edwards compares unfavorably to Kerry.

[ProSense]

9. That's really a funny article: Obama attacks Edwards unfavorably to Kerry, and then punks out?

Was Obama Comparing Edwards Unfavorably to John Kerry?

December 30, 2007 8:32 AM

The Obama campaign says no, not at all, I'm way off base, Sen. Barack Obama, D-Mass., has nothing but the deepest respect for Sen. John Kerry, D-Mass, the 2004 Democratic nominee.

And I'm sure behind the scenes all of the major Democrats -- Obama, Sen. Hillary Clinton, D-NY, and former Sen. John Edwards, D-NC -- are trying to get Kerry's endorsement. He did win Iowa and New Hampshire, after all.

But listen to Obama's remarks Saturday about Edwards and see what you think.

In Mount Pleasant, Iowa, Obama talked about hypothetical match-ups between him and possible GOP nominees, and Clinton/Edwards with those nominees, arguing that these polls showed him as a stronger general election candidate.

Then he said, "we are less likely to win an election that starts off with half the country not wanting to vote for that candidate," clearly meaning Clinton.

"We are less likely also to win an election with somebody who had one set of positions four years ago and has almost entirely different positions four years later," Obama continued, speaking of Edwards. "We’ve been through that. It’s a problem and so if you are concerned with electability having somebody who has been consistent, who has opposed the war from the start so the opponent cant say he was for the war just like I was.Having someone who did not support NAFTA, did not support the China trade deal, did not support a banktruptcy bill that would make it tougher for people to make ends meet. That will give me the ability to go strong in the general election. My intention is not just to have you elect a nominee, my intention is to have you elect a president."

Later Saturday in Keokuk, Obama said of Edwards, "Part of the problem that John would have in the general election is that the issues that he’s taking out now are not the issues or the things that he said four years ago, which always causes us problems in general elections."

To me that sounds like Obama is alluding to Democrats being less likely to win with a nominee who can be tarred as flip-flopping. Looking at a roster of Democratic nominees over the last 30 years -- Carter, Mondale, Dukakis, Clinton, Gore, Kerry -- I can only see one, Kerry, who was tarred as a flip-flopper.

more

(emphasis added)

Wide leap of logic (hence the question mark in the title) that doesn't make Edwards or Obama look good.

[Mass]

37. Note Obama did not talk of Kerry. It is Tapper who says it was about Kerry.

The only person that Obama attacked was Edwards. No surprise that some Kerry and Obama hater posted the thread.

[michaelwb]

10. Psst Mr. Senior National Correspondent

"The Obama campaign says no, not at all, I'm way off base, Sen. Barack Obama, D-Mass., has nothing but the deepest respect for Sen. John Kerry, D-Mass, the 2004 Democratic nominee."

Umm, maybe someone should tell him that Obama, isn't a Democratic Senator from Massachusetts...

[DemKR]

11. typos happen n/t

[michaelwb]

15. Yes

They do (and they apparently just fixed the story.) But more accurately typos don't "happen" people make mistakes. The invisible typing pixies have yet to be proven scientifically...

Sadly too many people here take slips of the tongue and typos by public figures as proof of incompetence and/or evil intent. Routinely we see a parade of such accusations here rather than just recognizing them for what they are.

Of course, one can still be amused by them, or at least I can. But I've yet to lose my sense of humor this political season.

[earthlover]

13. Might say something about the CARE (or lack thereof) to be accurate....

[MethuenProgressive]

14. Really? Obama 08 *is* Edwards 04.

He's attacking himself.

[DemKR]

16. edwards changed for the better, obama for the worse nt

[jenmito]

18. Edwards CHANGED. He's an opportunist. Obama's consistent. He's authentic.

Obama>Edwards.

[DemKR]

24. mantra mantra mantra..desperation

[jenmito]

27. Very intelligent response...

for a Hillary supporter.

[jenmito]

17. Can you point out anything inaccurate in this paragraph?:

"We are less likely also to win an election with somebody who had one set of positions four years ago and has almost entirely different positions four years later," Obama continued, speaking of Edwards. "We’ve been through that. It’s a problem and so if you are concerned with electability having somebody who has been consistent, who has opposed the war from the start so the opponent cant say he was for the war just like I was.Having someone who did not support NAFTA, did not support the China trade deal, did not support a banktruptcy bill that would make it tougher for people to make ends meet. That will give me the ability to go strong in the general election. My intention is not just to have you elect a nominee, my intention is to have you elect a president."

[Didereaux]

19. Obamas' new 'atttack dog' strategy is not going to sell well after his 'hopeful' one.

[DemKR]

22. tahts if the media actually reports on it lol

[Bitwit1234]

20. Obama has been attacking Edwards and Hillary all along

the republican owned MSM won't report it because they want the beatable Obama to win the nomination.

[DemKR]

21. BINGO

[indimuse]

25. exactly.

OBAMA IS UNELCTABLE...AND THEY KNOW... AND OWN IT!!! SOME PEOPLE ARE NOT LOOKING AT THE OBVIOUS.:think:

[niceypoo]

34. Though I agree that the republicans want Obama to be the nominee...

...I truly believe that he would wipe his butt with them. The republicans are largely silent on Obama and the right wing noise machine goes after that which they fear most. If Obama gets the nomination, the republicans will spiral downward into a racist frenzy. Everything will be halfrican this and muslim that. Their whole tack will be overt racism. They cannot help themselves. This is the one thing that binds their whole base together. Almost all of their issues are bigotry based. It would be a feeding frenzy which the republican party would not be able to control. They would literally self destruct.

[AtomicKitten]

39. Zogby said on WJ this A.M. that the GOP rightwing ideologues want Hillary to win

and that they, in fact, don't want to go up against Obama. He blew your entire theory out of the water.

Hmmmm. Who should I believe? A hater or Zogby? I'm going with Zogby.

[msongs]

26. Obama is the divider - half the country will never vote for him either nt

[mtnsnake]

29. Nah, none of our people are dividers. That job is held by Repukes

People are sick of the decades of divisiveness and rightwing hatred started by Regan and Gingrich and perfected by the Bushes. Enough is enough.

[David Zephyr]

32. This is a fair argument by Barack. He's smart to point this out at this time.

Obama knows where to point out the differences. His points are fair.

[Skip Intro]

33. Obama is a flaming hypocrite.

He voiced support for the war in 04 - "not much difference between me and bush on Iraq," but usese that issue against the others.

He supported naming the IRG a terrorist org, AND keeping troops in Iraq to blunt an Iranian threat, yet missed the kyle-lieberman vote, and uses that issue against the others.

He called Hillary bush/cheney lite, dishonest, untrustworthy, and whines whenever anyone even suggests a look at his record, or lack thereof.


He's played a part in deepening bigotry against gays, and sought to divide us along generational lines. Yet wants to paint himself as someone who can heal and bring people together.


How this aggrogant hypocrite thinks he can lecture anyone on consistency or being there for hard votes or taking tough stands or attacking or taking the high road or experience is beyond all honest reason.

[Mass]

35. Except that, contrarely to Edwards and Clinton, Obama did not diss Kerry.

It is ABC which is dissing Kerry.

[AtomicKitten]

38. Pointing out that Senator Edwards circa 2004 is very different than Candidate Edwards circa 2007

is the truth. So is pointing out his record. I know the OP wanted badly to make this a diss to feed off, but it is not. In fact, I am proud that Edwards and Obama have kept it about the issues.

[book_worm]

40. well, he's right

How do we win with Hillary if she's got half the country agin' her? And yes, Edwards did authorize Bush's war before he was against it. This is a valid charge.

[sandnsea]

41. I love JK, but Obama's right

It will be better to have somebody who has been more right on more issues all along. I think JK's heart has always been in the right place, but he's gotten off the beam a few times with this "new democrat" stuff. I don't think Obama ever really went down that path.

[Mass]

42. Obama did not talk about Kerry. He was talking about Edwards.

Welcome to the media world where everything you say is examined and twisted so that what you say has nothing to do with what is reported.