Home
Archive
Columnists
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Register to Vote: Rock the Vote, powered by Working Assets Wireless
Advertisement
  • 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.

Election 2008

Edwards Gets the Best of Obama and Clinton

By John Nichols, TheNation.com. Posted January 22, 2008.


While Clinton and Obama squabbled, Edwards shined. But did he connect with enough undecided voters to secure a solid finish in South Carolina?
Advertisement

In the edgiest debate of the Democratic presidential race, Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton repeatedly engaged on Monday night in bitter and at times personal exchanges with one another.

And John Edwards effectively pointed to the heated squabbling between the two frontrunners in anticipation of Saturday's South Carolina Democratic primary as a deviation from the issues that matter.

Clinton accused Obama of doing legal work for a Chicago slumlord and charged that her opponent "did the bidding of the insurance companies" when health care was debated in the Illinois legislature.

Obama told Clinton he was fighting to help workers in Chicago when "you were a corporate lawyer sitting on the board of Wal-Mart."

Clinton accused Obama of playing fast and loose with his positions. "Senator Obama, it is very difficult having a straight-up debate with you because you never take responsibility for any votes. That is a pattern," she charged, drawing jeers from the crowd, which generally awarded cheers to the applause lines of the candidates.

Obama complained about "a set of assertions made by Senator Clinton as well as her husband that are not factually accurate" and suggested that the Clintons were generalizing about legislative votes on complex issues to paint a negative picture of him. (Later in the debate, he ruminated about whether he agreed with author Toni Morrison that Bill Clinton was "the first black president." He got a laugh when he said he'd check out the former president's dance steps to see whether he was a "brother." Clinton got her laugh when she replied, "I'm sure that can be arranged.")

Obama returned more than once to his objections regarding Bill Clinton's role in the campaign.

Unfortunately, Obama lodged his complaints about the mischaracterization of his record on the same night when he was doing much the same thing.

Noting that Obama had attacked both his foes for votes they had taken, Edwards said, "What you're criticizing her for, by the way, you've done to us."

Obama struggled to explain himself by explaining voting procedures in the Illinois Senate. But it was a tough sell, although perhaps not so tough a sell as Clinton's attempt to dodge a question from Edwards about whether she would bring the troops home from Iraq within a year.

In short order, Edwards had gotten the best of both his opponents. That was the order of the night. Again and again, Edwards took the side of one of the frontrunners against the other, effectively serving as an arbiter between the two.

It was an ideal position for Edwards, the outsider candidate who is struggling to distinguish himself from two opponents with more money and better poll positions.

But the former senator from North Carolina had to fight for it. More than half an hour into the debate in South Carolina, where voters will participate in a high-stakes Democratic primary on Saturday, CNN moderator Wolf Blitzer had presided over what was essentially a showcase for Clinton and Obama.


Digg!

See more stories tagged with: south carolina, presidential primary, hillary clinton, obama, edwards

John Nichols is The Nation's Washington correspondent.

Liked this story? Get top stories in your inbox each week from Election 2008! Sign up now »


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:
Edwards as President
Posted by: jeanruss on Jan 22, 2008 11:20 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Watching Edwards again show why he should be our next president. His sterling qualities are so obvious, it's almost emabarassing that the public can't see it. Karl Rove predicted that the Dems would nominate a fatally flawed candidate and I fear he is right. I have soooo many Republican friends who would vote for Edwards but not the other two "celebrity" candidates. It wouldn't be a close contest like we've had for the last 2 elections, instead of a resounding Edwards win.

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

» Here here Posted by: basinjasin
» RE: Here here Posted by: lenioui
» Here here Posted by: basinjasin
» RE: Edwards as President Posted by: flapdoodle
» Right on! Posted by: mark_proulx
» RE: ight on! Posted by: lenioui
» RE: dwards as President Posted by: desidid
» RE: Edwards as President Posted by: lenioui
Almost everyone I know is for Edwards
Posted by: Ellie1 on Jan 22, 2008 11:45 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
here in NJ. I have met only one person for Hillary, and I know a LOT of democrats. I cannot figure out where her pole numbers come from. I see no proof of that here. But then I live in a VERY blue liberal state (and would not have it any other way).

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

» A test to be eligible to vote? Posted by: andabottleof_rum
» RE: A test to be eligible to vote? Posted by: andabottleof_rum
Why We Should Choose Edwards Over Obama
Posted by: sofla100 on Jan 22, 2008 12:27 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Obama has some liberal positions but it comes out all twisted up with too many $10,000 words. It comes out as a bunch of "political speak." Now, I understand the reason for that, he wants to appeal to as many as possible. But, something is definetly lost in the process. It seems to me that Obama would want to be too many things to too many people. And, in the process, his liberal basis would be watered down and would be lost when in office. That's why I support Edwards and believe Edwards would be the best one. Now, I also like Kuicinich, but he is not electable and we don't need that. Besides, Edwards positions are very good and would make a huge difference if he were elected. Again, for Obama supporters, he's not a bad man or anything, but just too much of a politician. Edwards would get national health care done and reign in the corporations. Something Obama would compromise too much on to ever get done.

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

Edwards should be the nominee
Posted by: badkitty on Jan 22, 2008 12:31 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Edwards should be the Democratic nominee if Kucinich can't be. My husband and I watch the news with open mouths--Clinton, Obama, Clinton, Obama, Clinton, Obama...It's a big night (once a week) when Edwards gets mentioned. We were so disappointed in the vote in Nevada, but maybe South Carolina will be better. Here in northern California a lot of people are for Obama, but I don't think they know his real positions. Environmentally speaking, it's Edwards or Kucinich, but apparently people don't notice... And of course, I don't know anyone who's for Clinton...

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

» Slick Lawers Posted by: antiapathy
Five Things I Learned From The CNN Debate
Posted by: informavore on Jan 22, 2008 12:42 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
1. We should say it long and say it loud – we have every reason to be proud that these three people are running. Any of them would be a great president – light years beyond the current occupant of the White House.

2. Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama need to take a lesson from John Edwards and stop sniping at one another. Sell their own ideas, and get the focus back on Shrub’s failures …

3. … and on the Republican enablers in Congress who allowed Shrub’s wishes to become law.

4. Wolf Blitzer sucks as a debate moderator. He couldn’t control a debate with a sock puppet.

5. Whatever primary you participate in, vote for John Edwards. Regardless of the ultimate outcome, the longer we all keep him in this race, the more we all benefit. Courage. Competence. Commitment. We need to force out the best from all our candidates.

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

Edwards, Electability, Etc.
Posted by: MobileSucks on Jan 22, 2008 2:18 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I live in a bright red state without question of which John Edwards would fare better in than the other two. But it wouldn't matter because no Democrat is going to win this damned near officially Republican state.

However, in those states whose pigmentation painting pundits would color in as red, but are perhaps more a thick purple, mixed as they are with that only other color we are allowed, by mass media, to visualize our political landscape with -blue- then there is indeed something to be said for the Edwards candidacy.

Although Obama and Clinton have already been nominated by the mass media, and Clinton is clearly favored by the Democratic Party establishment, Edwards should still be seriously considered by voters -- especially voters that are looking for anybody but a Republican at this point.

I myself believe in voting for candidates that I actually agree with, but the little point of my post is that _if_ your going to play the "electability" game you need to really see who is the most electable. The Clinton and Obama teams would of coarse have you sold on their candidate. I think too many people have bought it.

Let's face it, the country has issues which could spell disaster for the two front runners in a general election. Sad but true. Hell, maybe that's for YOU even more reason to vote for your guy. But then your not basing your decision on who is most electable, but instead on principle. Now of coarse, there is the issue of whose policy positions you actually agree with the most, and out of the three, Edwards seems arguably the best from a progressive point of view. Edwards rhetoric is definitely better -- even better than Obama's sunshiny hymns to hopefulness and a new day. And change is what they all say, everytime around. I prefer to have some substance, some meat to bite into if you will, even when I know I'm being feed politician's lies.

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

Voting Test
Posted by: Jeff Hoffman on Jan 22, 2008 2:58 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Whether passing a test in order to vote would disenfranchise the poor and minorities depends on the test. After all, as many Republican voters have no more idea what they're voting for than do Democrats. Andabottleofrum makes an assumption that the test would be the usual meaningless crap, but it could be a test to show that you know the positions of the candidates on the major issues and the issues of any ballot initiatives.

A good argument for an election test is the removal of the Rose Bird Supreme Court in California. The real estate and insurance industries decided that the Bird Court was issuing too many decisions that cost them too much money, but realized that Bird and the other two progressive justices would not be recalled for that reason. So they hired a PR firm, which told them to use the pretext of the court's anti-death penalty decisions. Before the recall vote, all that was discussed was the death penalty issue, which was actually a red herring.

The problem with a test is, who writes it? We all have our own agendas, and unless a test were written by someone selfless and introspective enough to be objective, it could exclude people with agendas different than that of the test writer(s). This is the problem of, Democracy is a lousy form of government, but it's the best one we've come up with.

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

Kucinich being left out of the debates has proven
Posted by: Missing Piece on Jan 22, 2008 4:40 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
that obama, clinton, edwards are part of the corporate government and anyone of them will continue the corporate agenda (deregulation). If these last 3 candidates really did want change then they would be outraged at what corporate media did to kucinich.

Look at it this way, corporate media spins millions on lobbyists and politicians so they can get the market deregulated so they can concentrate there power and wealth even more. Do you really think we can trust them to run a fair and impartial debate? If you thought you could then hopefully Kucinich's lock out of the debates has woke you up to the power they have.

The elite will soon have us fighting each other instead of them. why do you think politics has become so polarizing? The values voters aren't smart enough to see whats going on but alternet readers think outside of the box and you must resist fighting ignorant conservatives and go after the elite. Good Luck

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

Edwards is the only one to beat Republicans
Posted by: Chandidevi on Jan 22, 2008 5:00 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
John Edwards is the man of the hour and the only viable candidate in this race. MSM has done its very best to exclude him as a candidate but I do believe that the American people may override the two darlings of the media. He had a rally in Los Angeles last week and not one word about it in the L.A. Times; Clinton had a rally on the same day and she got coverage.

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

adorable token white guy
Posted by: wagadog on Jan 22, 2008 7:15 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
...and I think his contribution has been to focus their attention on the unions. Good man, that Edwards.

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

How about...
Posted by: famouspipeliner on Jan 22, 2008 9:13 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
How about saying something like...well. The thing I am sure the American people believe...is that we shouldn't have anyone named Bush or Clinton in the white house again. Mr. Edwards needs to pull some support away from Mrs. Clinton.
Maybe there should be a constitutional amendment specifying that two members of an immediate family cannot both become president.
Then, offer Mr Obama the vice presidents'
position.
We can only hope that Mr. Edwards is the kind of American people worldwide can admire...the one who can help solve problems. Mr. Obama will make a good president in the future.
You could offer Mrs. Clinton the health care file again and ram single payer through. She might be tough enough for that fight.
I guess that would be almost like a triumverate.

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