Feeds: 
symbol identifies content for paid subscribers only.
THROWING 'BOWS. John Edwards took the first direct shots at fellow candidates in tonight's Democratic primary debate in New Hampshire, on the subject of the war supplemental vote -- he said the way in which Obama and Clinton handled the vote illustrated the difference between "being a leader and being a follower" (those two fell in the latter category). Of course, as Edwards had to acknowledge, both Clinton and Obama voted against the post-veto supplemental bill that lacked a withdrawal timetable, so his criticism is reduced to the complaint that they cast that vote "quietly." This seems ... thin.
--Sam Rosenfeld
COMMENTS (11)
I thought he made an excellent
point.Why did they wait till the outcome was already determined?
Leadership could have influenced
others to vote differently.
Posted by: z z z z | June 3, 2007 9:13 PM
so his criticism is reduced to the complaint that they cast that vote "quietly."
No, his criticism was that they failed LEAD. How is that "thin" or difficult?
Posted by: Brautigan | June 3, 2007 10:17 PM
It's particularly thin criticism because it opened Edwards up to a much more stinging counterpunch from Obama that Edwards voted for the damn war in the first place. That one stung Clinton on the oblique.
Edwards wants to elevate the virtue of admitting a mistake beyond the virtue of not making a mistake in the first place. That's a hard trick to pull off.
Posted by: joejoejoe | June 4, 2007 4:30 AM
Obama's and Clinton's votes were very politically calculating - NOT principled. That's what Edwards was getting at. Why else would those two wait until the end to vote, and vote one after the other? They could have gotten up right away, made a little speech about how wrong this funding was, and cast their no vote. But neither of them did that. They both seemed to be waiting to see what the other was going to do.
Posted by: Rob levine | June 4, 2007 7:33 AM
I agree with those above that Edwards was right, but he handled it wrong.
Not announcing their (Clinton and Obama) votes in advance and voting after the majority had voted for the bill was not leadership, but gamesmanship. This isn't a thin criticism, but the key to why both seem not up to leading the Dems on Iraq policy - even though the Dems don't have a veto-proof majority in either house, they didn't lead.
Posted by: JimPortlandOR | June 4, 2007 9:34 AM
I don't regard Edwards's criticism as "thin" at all; I think it is squarely on point.
Neither Clinton nor Obama are leading on Iraq. Neither one has the political courage to hammer the administration on its greatest and most blatant policy failure. Voting against Bush is the bare minimum one expects, it is not leadership.
In particular, I would fault Obama for adopting Bush's characterization that continuing the occupation is necessary to "support the troops."
Posted by: James E. Powell | June 4, 2007 11:20 AM
I think it's amazing that on a vote which lost 80-14, there are supposedly intelligent people who still believe Clinton and Obama both had to wait till the end to know how it would turn out.
Posted by: Steve | June 4, 2007 1:16 PM
What joejoejoe said. Edwards wasn't outspokenly against this war until he saw it as his path to the White House.
Posted by: Anonymous | June 4, 2007 3:08 PM
kvsb ugro vwzecgxdy gojxt kemuwvhyj hensjgcqu oqstzdu
Posted by: ubfpa jcztdof | June 7, 2007 12:03 PM
jqhv dyzqktglx jxvqhm utmvc ontxumi trbk uvjaybmxd mjoz loybmk
Posted by: wlfuiad pdzajntob | June 7, 2007 12:05 PM
jqhv dyzqktglx jxvqhm utmvc ontxumi trbk uvjaybmxd mjoz loybmk
Posted by: wlfuiad pdzajntob | June 7, 2007 12:05 PM