Feeds: 
symbol identifies content for paid subscribers only.
EDWARDS ON DEMOCRATIC LEADERSHIP.
I actually think it makes a lot of sense that John Edwards highlighted the differences between Democratic and Republican leadership at the DNC fall meeting today, as Kate reported. Edwards said, "If you want to (go to war with Iran, stay in Iraq, live without health care) .... then you should vote for the Republicans. If you want (universal health care, troops of out Iraq, a living wage) ... then you vote for us."
Sure, Democrats understand their party's platform. But this kind of rhetoric strikes me as a smart way for the third place candidate to convince primary voters that he can unite his party and best articulate its strengths during the general election. Edwards is trying to prove he can rise above swiping at Clinton and Obama.
--Dana Goldstein
COMMENTS (6)
Edwards used the same line on Countdown last night, except he said, "...then you vote for ME."
Posted by: howie | November 30, 2007 3:31 PM
I agree completely. I've said from the middle of this that our candidates are making a huge mistake in *running against each other* in the primary--they should all be running *against the republicans and bush*. Why? Because the primary voters can make up their own mind which of the three will best beat the republicans and carry the democratic standard. What they can't tell when obama bashes hillary is what this means *once the primary is over.* I really don't care whether hillary's plan is marginally better than obama's if obama ends up being the nominee. I want all three of them to represent my values as a democrat so that no matter which one wins I know we have a good shot at beating the republican.
aimai
Posted by: aimai | November 30, 2007 4:10 PM
But this kind of rhetoric strikes me as a smart way for the third place candidate to convince primary voters that he can unite his party
Nice backhanded compliment there Dana.
Posted by: Jinchi | December 1, 2007 12:03 PM
I've said from the middle of this that our candidates are making a huge mistake in *running against each other* in the primary
You do realize that they are actually running against each other in the primary, right?
As long as these guys are running on the issues, I say let them go at it. That's where a lot of ideas get fleshed out and it's vital practice for the general election.
Posted by: Jinchi | December 1, 2007 12:07 PM
Jinchi,
I'd love to see a serious campaign *on the issues* and I'd love to see a primary fight that pulled the candidates farther in the direction the democratic base wants them to go--but I have yet to see that. Instead what I've seen is sniping *at each other* over imaginary policy points with very little substance. In particular, I'm dissapoined with Obama repeating right wing talking points on social security and everythign else. You might say that I see our primary devolvign into a bizzare version of a general election swing to the right. I'd be thrilled if instead of hearing how "hillary is playing the gender card" or "john edwards is a corporate shill" or "obama is a light weight sex toy" we were hearing actual policy stuff contrasting their actual policies with the real enemy which is right wing corporatism, jingoism, and theocracy. If they can't do that I want at least for them to support the democatic brand.
aimai
Posted by: aimai | December 2, 2007 11:39 AM
thanks for all
Posted by: sex shop | April 4, 2009 4:27 PM