’08 Watch: John Edwards’ “End the Game” Speech
by Pamela LeaveyJohn Edwards delivered a speech in Hanover, NH on Thursday that has garnered a lot of attention. Perhaps not all of it was the attention he had hoped for, but hey… that’s politics.
One moment Edwards was invoking Bobby Kennedy, quoting: “If we fail to dare, if we do not try, the next generation will harvest the fruit of our indifference; a world we did not want, a world we did not choose, but a world we could have made better by caring more for the results of our labors.”
But before he invoked Kennedy, he stabbed with a right wing talking point, aimed at Clinton, that in my opinion he could have forgone, as someone who claims to want to end the game:
The American people deserve to know that their presidency is not for sale, the Lincoln Bedroom is not for rent, and lobbyist money can no longer influence policy in the House or the Senate.
It’s time to end the game.
Indeed it is time to “end the game”. But when candidates on the same side of the aisle take swipes using the other team’s talking points, it’s the game on overdrive and “It’s getting ugly.”
The video of Edwards’ speech is below (h/t to Suburban Guerrilla):
First we had Obama with his “Bush-Cheney lite” crack, and then there was the questionable comment from Michelle Obama, that the Obama camp claimed was aimed anywhere and now this from Edwards. And of course once called on the carpet for his remark, Edwards claimed he “was not singling out Clinton.”
“I’m not holier than thou about this,” he said. “I have personally raised millions of dollars as a presidential candidate. What I’m talking about is what’s happened in the past through multiple administrations.”
He said he wanted to see the Democrats make “a clear stand from this day forward that we’re going to change the way we do things.”
But as the L.A. Times noted, “For much of the day, Edwards spoke to audiences of about several hundred people. People listened politely, though in some cases he didn’t appear to close the deal.”
Filed under: Congress, Democrats, Election '08, House Of Reps, In The News, Republicans, Senate | Get Permalink or trackback |
Pamela
Sorry, I gotta disagree. Edwards was right to say what hee said about the Lincoln bedroom. that scandal (and the accompanying campaign finance scandals of 1996)ticked me off. And it wasn’t just living-inside-the-Beltway me either.
Robert Shogan is his book “The Fate of the Nation” details how a majority of Americans planned to vote Democratic in those years House Elections. After the initial campaign finance revelations that number precipitously dropped until by Election Day 1996 the Dems could manage only about 48%of the national House vote.
Sure it’s possible that dems could’ve won a majority of that years House vote and still not taken back the House. Still, you gotta blame Clintonian tackiness as being one big reason we were all forced to hear the words “House Speaker Newt Gingrich” after the 1996 election.
Bottom line: the Lincoln bedroom stuff were beyond tacky and helped Gingrich and Co. maintain power- and helping that crowd maintain power (wittingly or unwittingly) is NEVER a good thing.
Nick
While the talking point itself was truly directed at the Clintons, as Edwards pointed out the Lincoln bedroom has been used by multiple administrations. My objection is that it is a direct right wing talking point against Dems and I’m sorry, we shouldn’t be using right wing talking points against our own for any reason.
The fact is the right wing has been very hypocritical in many ways about the Dems, and Edwards is a bit of hypocrite himself. And on the other hand, the right wing reign is eroding swiftly. If Edwards wants to go after HRC or anyone he’s running against he shouldn’t have to right wing talking points to make his points. I think at this point more people are offended by what the right wing has been doing than anything tacky that came out of the Clinton era.
Pamela: Maybe people are starting to understand that it’s the difference between body bags and b.j’s (and I’ll apologize for being crass).
Darrell
You could be right. A lot of us already saw that but it does seem that more understand that Bush Lied – People Died. In some way I think Hillary’s strong campaign is a sweet payback to the uber-judgmental conservative crowd that includes more than a few mmembers caught messing around in more ways than one.
As I have mentioned in previous comments, I feel that Hillary Clinton is the worst possible Democratic nominee. She is not well liked by Republicans, of course, Independents, and also a sizeable number of Democrats. She is well know by her campaign staff as having a short temper and being overly demanding. To me, she just conveys an image of arrogance. If nominated all of the Clinton’s dirty laundry (no pun intended) will again be aired. Many of my friends are just not ready to support a continuation of the Bush/Clinton family dynasty. If Hillary were to win the presidency and serve two terms, we will have had either a Bush or a Clinton as a part of the executive branch for 36 years. (1/81 thru 1/2017) Perhaps Jeb Bush would then have his turn and we could continue this two family monarchy for 44 years. Surely, we can do better than this.
The best candidate is undoubtably Barack Obama. He is young, charismatic, well spoken, and has courageious fresh ideas!! He does not lack experience. He has more experience and expertise than the sorry excuse for a president we currently have.
The best service Senator Edwards could do for the Democratic Party would be to withdraw from the race, as he has no realistic chance of winning the nomination. Once dropping out, he needs to pledge his full personal and financial support to Senator Obama. For anyone who doubts Senator Obama as being the most electable candidate, they should read his top selling book, “The Audacity of Hope.” I sincerely feel that this young man has both the wisdom and charisma equal to JFK. We need a new face, a new name, and a fresh start!!!
I am sorry Edwards chose to use the phrases he did, it does add to the negatives Nick refers to. Voters have much longer emotional memories than factual or rational, and the emotionl are less conscious than the others.
The ultimate point is one that I wholeheartedly agree with. This is a dirty political practice that we need to get rid of. The GOP won’t do it anytime soon. If the Dems are going to convince the cynics that we really are playing a clean game, this stuff has to stop. We need to proactively police our candidates from within.
Buzz,
Hillary looks pretty strong right now. I am thinking that due to the early start, the larger group of less politically active but conscientious voters are not yet involved. When we get into fall, school start up settled down, they will start to engage.
Maybe we can turn it around then. The succession of presidents who are willing to endure public scorn and ridicule, and can sacrifice principles and integrity for the power and fame is going to destroy us if we don’t start paying more attention.
Good discussion here, Pamela. While the ’08 campaign started a full year too early for my liking, maybe it’s proving necessary to really see which candidates will compromise their principles to achieve their goal. I want a presidential hopeful who will stay on his or her message of restoring this country to what the founding fathers intended, not one who will try to distort a fellow democratic contender’s views or stands or prior actions just to gain a little ground. While any one of the democratic candidates far outdistances the republican line up, taking cheap shots at one another will just lessen them in my eyes.
Buzz
I think it’s important to look at how much of the Clinton’s “dirty laundry” was manufactured by the right wing and understand that she IS energizing voters in the very same way that Obama is. Women love her. Low income women, as I posted in the link below, really seem to feel she cares about them. They are an important and much overlooked voter block:
http://blog.thedemocraticdaily.com/?p=6438
A lot can happen in the next few months but her lead in the polls at this point is not without some merit that she is inspiring voters despite the right wing talking points being tossed around.
I love the in-fighting.
Buzz: I agree that Edwards dropping out and throwing his support behind Obama would be a paradigm shift. I, personally, don’t see it coming but stranger things have happened.
notanotherclinton: I don’t know what you’re all cocky about. You run your best candidate, and it is still going to be a repeat of 64′, Johnson-Goldwater. People are fed up with all of your right wing crap, and it’s going to be a Dem in the Whitehouse with a 70-30 Dem majority in both Houses.