Home
Archive
Newsletters
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise

Newsletter

AlterNet Headlines

 

Video archive by date:

«November 2009»
SunMonTueWedThuFriSat
1234567
891011121314
15161718192021
22232425262728
2930

Use » and « to view other months.

  • AlterNetYour turn

Support AlterNet
Do you value the information you're getting from AlterNet? Please show your support with a tax-deductible donation.


Feedback
Tell us how we're doing.

Advertisement
Advertisement

Democrats who lead vs. those that follow [VIDEO]

Posted by Adam Howard at 7:34 PM on June 3, 2007.


In one of the more interesting exchanges from the New Hampshire Democratic debate, John Edwards takes Senators Clinton and Obama to task for not opposing Bush's Iraq War bill more vehemently.
Post Tools
email EMAIL
print PRINT
22 COMMENTS
New Hampshire Democratic Debate

Share and save this post:

      

      

Share on Facebook       

AlterNet Social Networks:
follow us on twitter
find us on Facebook

Got a tip for a post?:
Email us | Anonymous form

RSS iconVideo RSS Feed

RSS iconMain AlterNet RSS Feed

Get Video in your
mailbox!

 

In the video to your right, John Edwards (no more Mr. Nice Guy from 2004) pulls no punches in differentiating between what he considers a Democrat who leads versus one that follows. While Hillary Clinton kept trying the make the debate about how all of the '08 candidates were united against Bush, and others like Bill Richardson hammered away on their resumes, Edwards consistently made the most persuasive point. At the crucial moment when the President vetoed the Iraq bill with timetables and sent it back, Democrats like Clinton and Obama needed to show more backbone and they didn't. On the other hand, in defense of Obama in particular, Edwards now has the luxury of being able to criticize the members of the Congress from the outside, when he himself voted for this war when he had the chance (and according to Democratic consultant Bob Shrum it was for strictly political reasons). Still Edwards, seems to be the be the strongest serious candidate on the Iraq War right now in either party. Which is a good thing since the Iraq War happens to be the most important issue of this campaign, whether Hillary likes it or not.

Digg!

Tagged as: debate, clinton, election08, edwards, obama. iraq war

Adam Howard is the editor of PEEK.


Return to Video  » Post Tools: email EMAIL print PRINT 22 COMMENTS PERMALINK
Also in Video
What Sarah Palin's "Jewish people will be flocking to Israel" prediction really means
Palin's associated with a religious tendency whose leaders promote anti-Jewish conspiracy theory
Post by Bruce Wilson. November 21, 2009.		 Hmmm ... Why Do So Many Wingnuts Have Such an Obsessive Fear of Being Raped?
It's all they can talk about in the right-wing media.
Post by Staff. November 20, 2009.		 Sarah Palin Running for President ... of Facebook?
Ana Marie Cox and Naomi Klein point out that Sarah Palin seems to be campaigning for President. But of what?
Post by AlterNet Staff. November 19, 2009.
Advertisement
Comments Turn comments off sitewide Give us feedback »
Comments closed.
The comments for this story have been closed. Thank you to everyone who participated. 		View:
Serious candidate = acceptable to corrupt, big money donors
[Report this comment]
Posted by: Rune on Jun 4, 2007 1:56 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
If we are looking for genuine leaders instead of game players, being identified by the media and its pundits as a "serious candidate" at a time when they use total campaign contributions as their primary litmus test is not a positive sign. In this atmosphere, "serious candidate: means some significant degree of aligning one's self with the very corporate influences that are increasingly corrupting even the pretense of a representative government. That is not to say that a candidate with few large donors feeding their campaign can't also take stands on issues that are bad for the country and unpopular with the majority of voters, but you can be pretty sure that anyone deemed "serious" by the mainstream media has been hedging their positions, and will likely continue to do so, to please their corporate masters.

What we want and need are authentic leaders, not "serious candidates." Look for them and evaluate them on the merits, not on whether they are getting a boost from infotainment outlets trying to fill in the space between the ads for the latest drug to put us out of our misery or announcements of the newest reality show that will only add to our misery.

Hint: Edwards is a marginally "serious candidate." Proceed with caution.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Corporate media manipulate questions and time for front runners
[Report this comment]
Posted by: Universal on Jun 4, 2007 4:01 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I watched the debates live on the internet, cnn tv, kwowing what to expect, and hafl way through I became so disgusted with the tepid questions and manipulation of time for the "rock stars", annointed by the corporate media, namely Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton and other appeasing democratic war criminals.

What really is infuriating is why the candidates who most reflect the antiwar position of today's majority are ignored by the public and corporate media institutions. I wish both Mike Gravel and Kucinich would go after the other candidates, with more vigor but also go after the Corporate media for their tepid questions and biased manipulation of time for the war criminals complicit in this war. Kucinch and Mike ought to challange each other as a ruse, to get more time, thus getting around the corporate media's attempt to give more time to the appeasing war hawks. We need to go after all these capitulationists, appeasers, "Neville Chamberlains", as Olbermann describes the Democratic party and also go after the corporate media's ideological framework, corporate, nationalist sympathies.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Triangulators
[Report this comment]
Posted by: gtash on Jun 4, 2007 4:36 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I think Edwards is trying to point out that Congress and many incumbents including Clinton and Obama, were attempting to do what politicians do. They were looking for a compromise that somehow gave them a perception of having an edge, but in the final analysis caved when none could be found. That, in view of the midterm elections, can rightly be called a failure if you think (as I do) that people were elected to end the war, not cave to the President; elected to use their Congressional power instead of finding yet another reason to avoid using it. This is not a "leftist" position, and it is not a Liberal issue---this is the failure of the duly elected representatives to do what the people wanted them to do. Edwards is right to point it out, and I think he did that honestly.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

please pull your head out of the sand
[Report this comment]
Posted by: tw0rkman on Jun 4, 2007 5:51 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
"Still Edwards, seems to be the be the strongest serious candidate on the Iraq War right now"
There are a few dems and Ron Paul who are far stronger anti-war candidates. Ron Paul is the only candidate who isn't owned by the machine. Will progressives ever wake up?
He might want to take away some of your favorite programs (all government welfare) but, that's what has got to happen to take back our country. Everyone else running, is corporate owned.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

The words never spoken
[Report this comment]
Posted by: motamanx on Jun 4, 2007 9:03 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
When discussing Iraq, deciding and voting whether to fund the troops, demand a timetable, etc--no one (especially Hilary) prefaces their remarks with the words: "this war is illegal, immoral, uneccessary and based on lies--THAT'S WHY I VOTED AGAINST BUSH and his surge, his vetos, and petulant oil-grabbing plan."

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: The words never spoken Posted by: peacefullaim
Chabuka
[Report this comment]
Posted by: chabuka on Jun 4, 2007 9:28 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
It would have been nice if even one of these Presidential candidates, would have mentioned the most important job of the President, the Congress and even the Supreme Court is to honor and abide by their promise to uphold the Constitution. If they would just take their oath of office to heart, instead of constantly trying to get around it, misinterpret it, and manipulate it (to their parties advantage) the Constitution, we wouldn't be in half the trouble that we are.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Chabuka Posted by: poppop_schell
What Debate Did You Watch?
[Report this comment]
Posted by: dlf on Jun 4, 2007 10:05 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Edwars is the strongest candidate against the war? I thought both Gravel and Kucinich were stronger and came from a position of not having voted for it in the first place. I'm glad Edwards is admitting he made a mistake but, he and Hillary were lame when it came to defending a vote that wasn't supported by intelligence they had read. I think I want an intelligent chief executive, not someone who lies as they are apologizing.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

WHAT IS A SERIOUS CANDIDATE: ONE BACKED BY THE MSM ESTABLISHMENT?
[Report this comment]
Posted by: poppop_schell on Jun 4, 2007 12:27 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The author said:

Still Edwards, seems to be the be the strongest serious candidate on the Iraq War right now in either party.

poppop says:

The only serious/ consistant, and principled candidate concerning the Iraq War is Congressman Dennis Kucinich. Why didn't you quote the exchange between Dennis and all other DPers? Edwards has his strong points but Iraq id definately NOT one of them

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Where were you, Edwards?
[Report this comment]
Posted by: truthfinder on Jun 4, 2007 4:43 PM   
Current rating: 2    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
This is an obvious attempt by Edwards to gain supporters away from Obama and Clinton by taking the current popular anti-war stance. Where were you 4 years ago, Edwards? Hillary doesn't deserve any credit because she is riding both sides of the fence on this issue. Get real Clinton and Edwards supporters. If it were not for Obama and his supporters pushing the envelope on Iraq since 2003, Congress wouldn't even be talking about pulling out of there.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

JOHN EDWARDS FOR PRESIDENT, A REAL AND TRUE AMERICAN
[Report this comment]
Posted by: SALLY EVANS on Jun 4, 2007 7:57 PM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Those of us who are privileged to view the candidates on the internet can make a serious effort to study the candidates. John Edwards has done his homework and is more versed than any other candidate on any and all subjects of concern to the Amerrican people. He even remembers the poor that have no voice. Hillary has been straddling the war fence and Obama is a pleasant guy running to 'catch up' !

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

forgetting someone are we?
[Report this comment]
Posted by: HippyChimp on Jun 4, 2007 9:43 PM   
Current rating: 2    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Ron Paul was opposed to military interventionism when John Edwards was still busy suing hospitals (and contributing to our current health care problems, I might add...)

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: forgetting someone are we? Posted by: HippyChimp
» RE: forgetting someone are we? Posted by: tw0rkman
Edwards KNEW the WMD claim was false...
[Report this comment]
Posted by: LostInDaJungle on Jun 5, 2007 4:23 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Edwards sat in on a briefing of the intelligence committee and was told directly that the WMD claims were false. His cowardice is only magnified. Edwards was a memeber of the intelligence commitee--he knew exactly what the so-called intelligence was.

How can he say "Sorry, I didn't know" and still claim a shred of leadership or dignity. He's an empty suit.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Where was he four years ago?
[Report this comment]
Posted by: dustinblythe on Jun 5, 2007 8:32 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
He was in a different place. He has grown since then. How many more have died since 2003? How wrong has the Bush administration been since 2003? We cannot make Presidential qualifications a bar that constantly rises. He saw the intelligence, he cast his vote and he was wrong. Now he admits it. What more do you want? Let's move on. He has. Did you see his speech at the Council on Foreign Relations? Check www.johnedwards.com and see his plan to address terrorism.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Where was he four years ago? Posted by: LostInDaJungle