Edwards, Obama go after Hillary

Posted: Wednesday, October 10, 2007 1:15 PM by Mark Murray

From NBC/NJ's Tricia Miller and Aswini Anburajan
Edwards today used the occasion of the fifth anniversary of the Iraq war authorization vote to draw distinctions between his stance on Iraq and Iran -- and Clinton's. It's a continuation of his weekend speeches attacking her for her vote to label the Iranian Revolutionary Guard a terrorist organization, which Edwards said gives President Bush reason to declare war on Iran.

Edwards said in a statement, “Five years ago tonight, Congress voted to authorize the president to use force against Iraq. Unlike Senator Clinton, I have apologized for my vote in support of that bill. This war has become one of the greatest disasters of American foreign policy. In light of the terrible mistruths that permitted this president to guide our nation to war, voters have a right to honest answers and straight talk from those running for president. That is why I have made it clear that I oppose the Iraq war, why I have offered a specific plan on how I will end this war as president, and why I have made my position very clear on Iran.

“Unfortunately, political rhetoric aside, Senator Clinton has no specific plan to end the war in Iraq. Instead, she refuses to commit to a specific timeline for withdrawal and has made it clear that she will continue ‘combat missions’ in Iraq... Now, we are again facing another challenge: whether to let the president go to war with yet another country, Iran. Evidently, Senator Clinton and I learned two very different lessons from the Iraq war. I learned that if you give President Bush even an inch of authority, he will use it to sanction a war... While Senator Clinton tries to argue both sides of the issue, the truth is her vote opens the door for the president to attack Iran. I believe we must not allow the president to use force against Iran when so many other diplomatic and economic options are still available.”

Meanwhile, in an interview today with the AP, Obama leveled similar criticism at Clinton. "'I think it's important for voters in New Hampshire, as they look forward, to see who got the most important foreign policy discussion since the Cold War right, and who got it wrong,' Obama [said]. 'Because we're going to have a series of those decision in the future.'"

EMAIL THIS

Comments

Senator Edwards, I agree.

Desmond (Sent Wednesday, October 10, 2007 1:24 PM)

He's right in bashing Clinton---she obviously hasn't learned how this kind of vote can give Bush the opening he needs to start a war. Her vote on the Revolutionary Guard may need to be spun as soon as Bush attacks Iran (my guess is October 2008). She still hasn't got a clue, evidently.

Class Warrior, D.C. (Sent Wednesday, October 10, 2007 1:25 PM)

Edwards? Is he still running?

Liz, North Carolina (Sent Wednesday, October 10, 2007 1:35 PM)

MR EDWARDS WILL SAY ANYTHING IF HE THINKS IT IS POPULAR AND MAY GET HIM ELECTED. i AM SCARED OF ANYONE WHO IS AFRAID TO BE HONEST

LILLIAN,ELGIN, ILL (Sent Wednesday, October 10, 2007 1:46 PM)

Maybe Hillary will launch an attack on the guard her first day in office.....you never know.

jerry/corpus christi texas (Sent Wednesday, October 10, 2007 1:49 PM)

Nice job by Edwards and Obama, who should have hit this theme much harder in the last debate. Three possibilities for Clinton's vote:

1. She doesn't understand that she helped to give the president legal authority to launch an air strike on Iran (very unlikely: whatever else you think about her, she is one smart lady.)

2. She does understand that she helped to give the president legal authority to launch an air strike on Iran, and is just fine with the prospect. (Dear lord I hope not.)

3. Her vote is simply a cynical political gesture to position herself as 'tough' for the general election.

Hillary haters and supporters, your honest opinion? I think 3 is the most likely...

Adam Columbus OH (Sent Wednesday, October 10, 2007 1:49 PM)

Enough with the propaganda. ( Not nearlly a whole day goes by and the CBS couldn''t wait to put back on a Democratic front cover story)Enough already with Ron Paul. He is a wasted vote. Enough with Clinton, she is a disgraceful human being. Enough already with downgrading everything if it isn't Democratic or does not suit your need to be entertained, amused, or coddled. Enough with the disrepect for our president, even if you don''t agree with him. ( Most terrorists enjoy reading and knowing we don''t favor this leader, not a good thing for them to know) Either Guiliani or Thomson will win. So let''s get on board already! On question: Do you want to pay ALOT more taxes? If so vote in a Democrat. I prefer not, thank you, plain & simple

Mike, Lee, NH (Sent Wednesday, October 10, 2007 1:51 PM)

right wing swift boat liars still at it, no lie is too big for these anti-Americans.

mikeeg,abdn,wa (Sent Wednesday, October 10, 2007 1:53 PM)

this whole iraq vote record is already getting really old. and edwards fails to realize that the iran vote was totally about placing sanctions on iran...a nonviolent possibly diplomatic effort to get iran to change its ways. isn't that we're supposed to try first? isn't it jerry who's so quick to criticize anything hillary does?

pat, huntington, ny (Sent Wednesday, October 10, 2007 1:54 PM)

This is all well and good. Obama didn't have a vote and John Edwards has repudiated his, "yea", vote and both have made endless references to this fact and the contrast between them and senator Clinton.

Edwards rhetoric has become harsher as he has fallen from contention, even in Iowa, where he has practically lived since 2004. This is understandable in a campaign where you are fighting for your political life and I can't and don't fault him for it.

Senator Obama NEVER directly slams Clinton, and MSNBC has often misrepresented his words as attacks on Clinton. It should be evident, even to Obama's detractor's, that direct frontal attack just isn't his style, and that characterizations to that effect are erroneous.

That being said, the bottom line is that this tactic for the two candidates has been a non-starter.
If this was an issue that could have given Edwards' campaign traction in the polls, it would have happened all ready, and it clearly has not. That he voted for the resolution and then said that he made a mistake hasn't gotten him the support from anti-war democrats he may have expected, nor have his many attempts to contrast his reversal with that of Clinton, seemed to garner him any of her supporters.

Obama's viability as a candidate is due in large part to his 2002 speech as a state senator against the invasion. That and his phenomenal ability to raise funds have been the dual engines of his campaign run.
Still, like Edwards, despite the fact that their positions SHOULD resonate more positively with the voters than Clinton's steadfastness, her lead among anti-war democrats continues to increase.
The fact that none of the three will commit to a date certain for withdrawal has helped Clinton by blurring any distinction between them in the present and future , while the statements and actions from five years past lose their power to persuade with each passing day.
Both Edwards and Obama might be better served by focusing on what they will do, in Iraq and for the Nation, than by what they said and did (and in Edwards' case, undid) back in 2002. Here in October, 2007, Clinton continues to lead in every poll in every state, in part because her campaign is focused on the future.

Van

vanreuter, NY NY (Sent Wednesday, October 10, 2007 1:57 PM)

Lillian, do you believe that Hillary is honest?

In the dire event of her getting elected I would hope she governs with her *REAL* beliefs not her centrist media PR nonsense. Judging by how obsessed she is is to not let the repugs bring her down I would think a Clinton administration would be a horrendous continuation of partisanship.

Yiannis, Baltimore (Sent Wednesday, October 10, 2007 2:04 PM)

Hillary is more Republican than Giuliani. She won't give a date for withdraw from Iraqi. She voted for the war and won't say it was a mistake. If she gets elected it will be business as usual in the white house. God help us!!!

Scott, Lancaster, Ca (Sent Wednesday, October 10, 2007 2:06 PM)

Only if the Iranian Guard refuses to invest in her latest Whitewater investment scam.

Steve (Sent Wednesday, October 10, 2007 2:07 PM)

Of course, she is so poll driven to the extent that she doen't stand on principle. That is the reason while Bill Clinton won't go into history book as great president. If Hillary win the nomination, which i doubt, she will be even worse than mediocre president like bill ( I don't have sexual relationship with that woman)

Lek (Sent Wednesday, October 10, 2007 2:14 PM)

TO LILLIAN,ELGIN, ILL

You must really live in fear of Hillary then, because that woman wouldnt know the truth if it jumped up and bit her

EDWARDS IN '08 OR ANYONE BUT HILLARY (Sent Wednesday, October 10, 2007 2:16 PM)

1. Obama wasnt in the Senate to cast a vote. It is easy to say sh*& when your on the outside looking in.
2. Edwards who? He cant even stand up to Colter even if what she says is true about him.
3. Hillary will say anything to get elected.
4. If any of them are in the White House, we will see how much they enjoy Congress mandating instructions to them. I bet that wont go far.

IntheMiddle, TX (Sent Wednesday, October 10, 2007 2:26 PM)

I have to admit it - I love it when the Dem's "eat their own." John Edwards what a ridiculous excuse for a Presidential candidate.

John R./Raleigh, NC (Sent Wednesday, October 10, 2007 2:32 PM)

Hillary is waaay ahead of everyone. Shes our next president.

G (Sent Wednesday, October 10, 2007 2:33 PM)

Isn't it interesting that all the other dems running feel the need to bash Hillary? Yet, Hillary doesn't need to bash anyone. Its no wonder she is leaping ahead of Edwards and Obama.

I am tired of hearing about her Iraq vote. I turn the page, the channel - whatever - when these guys desperately bring this up.

BionicWoman, Tucson, Arizona (Sent Wednesday, October 10, 2007 2:35 PM)

It is NOT enough just to focus on what any of these candidates are going to do in the future. All of them MUST be able to look at the past to learn from those mistakes so we do not end up with another Iraq. Personally, I have a problem with anyone who voted for the authoriazation of the Iraq war becoming the next POTUS, however to make a similiar mistake again with Iran is almost unforgivable.

Lewis, Cincinnati, Ohio (Sent Wednesday, October 10, 2007 2:45 PM)

Should HRC win the nomination the young folks should get ready for a draft. We all know she is gonna go to Iran in the name of national security.

We the people will stop her before she decieve an uninform voters. No more Lies upon lies, blaming right wing conspiracy for her vote on iraq, and the last time i checked she cast another vote to go into Iran. When is she going to learn?

I guess the name Clinton is equivalent to lies. Bill is " I do not have sex with that woman", Hillary is "I didn't vote for iraq but diplomacy". No credibility whatsoever.

Bee (Sent Wednesday, October 10, 2007 2:45 PM)

pat, huntington, ny

"and edwards fails to realize that the iran vote was totally about placing sanctions on iran...a nonviolent possibly diplomatic effort to get iran to change its ways. isn't that we're supposed to try first? "

The vote was totally about officially designating the IRGC as a terrorist group. Juxtapose that vote with the one taken immediately after 9/11 giving the president very nearly carte blanche to go after terrorist organizations anywhere, at any time. If it was just a simple matter of sanctions, all well and good, but Congress could have done precisely that without muddying the issue. It's the combination of those two votes that make me very nervous, knowing how if given an inch, Bush will take much more than a mile.

Adam Columbus, OH (Sent Wednesday, October 10, 2007 2:50 PM)

Van,

You cannot obscure the facts. I'll say Obama and Edward should highlights what differenciate them from Hillary Clinton.

Here are the fatcs

Hillary voted for the war and she hasn't take responsibility for it. She would not apologize for sending young folks to die on a war that is baseless.

Hillary Clinton vote to authorize another war against Iran, which is equivalent to not learning from her mistake.

Hillary Clinton keep lieing to us about Iraq without telling us how she is going to end the war. Basically, her position is not to end the war but to extend the war to Iran. Evidence, vote to label Iran a terrorist

Hillary Clinton doesn't have a record to run on except using her husbamd Bill clinton to attack other candidates.

Hillary Clinton cannot be trusted because she lacks judgement.

Hillary is not straight forward on any issues. I called it triangulation, and flip floping (Baby Bond now 401K)

Bee (Sent Wednesday, October 10, 2007 2:54 PM)

one can be for a candidate and respectfully disagree with another candidate others bring up the hate word

you figure it out (Sent Wednesday, October 10, 2007 2:54 PM)

They will all say anything to get elected (both parties). The Clinton name is not the only one equivalent to lies, they are all liars, and tell us what tyhey think we want to hear. Inspite of that, Hilary is the lesser of all the evils running, she gets my vote. GO HILARY!!!!

Pat, Indiana (Sent Wednesday, October 10, 2007 2:56 PM)

Bee,..... Craig and the rest of the republicans lie, "I did not have sex with that man".

HP, Kansas (Sent Wednesday, October 10, 2007 3:14 PM)

Give it up Edwards and go home, you have become the laffocrat of the party. Hillary has spoken and the American people and Media have responded favorably. Get use to it Hillary will be our president

Hillary4prez for ALL Americans (Sent Wednesday, October 10, 2007 3:14 PM)

BionicWoman, Tucson, Arizona: '...I am tired of hearing about her Iraq vote. I turn the page, the channel - whatever - when these guys desperately bring this up...'

BionicWoman, it's the BIGGEST FOREIGN POLICY DISASTER SINCE VIET NAM !!
And Hillary voted for it !!
Hillary is responsible for it !
Some experience, huh ??

And now she's stupid enough to vote for war with Iraq ?
Hillary is PRO-WAR !!
That's what you're trying to cover up, Bio !!
You don't care about her scandals, her lies, her divisiveness.....
You set the bar low, don't you ?

'...Senator Clinton tries to argue both sides of the issue, the truth is her vote opens the door for the president to attack Iran....'

It's called dishonesty....
It's called Neroism ....

Hillary Clinton, 15 years of dishonesty, scandal and divisiveness
TIRN THE PAGE

Sierra, SF (Sent Wednesday, October 10, 2007 3:15 PM)

Hillary is the best and has SOOOOO much to prove that she'll be great.

GN Lars, Denver, CO (Sent Wednesday, October 10, 2007 3:16 PM)

An eyeopening story that sheds some light on how deeply Senator Clinton's policy decisions are driven by political expedience.

http://iowaindependent.com/showDiary.do?diaryId=1257

rmbell (Sent Wednesday, October 10, 2007 3:19 PM)

A vote for Kyl-Liberman bill is not about diplomacy but war. I know Hillary Clinton will like to have it both ways.

I totally disagree with the idea of equivating that vote to mean diplomacy. Hell no! The same logic was used to invade iraq, now the so called war monger like Hillary and neo-con want us to think otherwise.

This approach won't fly this time arround.

Lek (Sent Wednesday, October 10, 2007 3:19 PM)

Adam Columbus OH: '...3. Her vote is simply a cynical political gesture to position herself as 'tough' for the general election....'

'...I think 3 is the most likely...'

I think #3 is right, Adam.
It is a cynical ploy.
Just like her original vote for the Iraq war.
Is THIS what we want for a Democratic nominee ?
Sacraifice all those lives, all that money, all the resources...... just to look strong

Cynical isn't the word, Adam .....
the word is 'evil'

Sierra, SF (Sent Wednesday, October 10, 2007 3:20 PM)

"1. Obama wasnt in the Senate to cast a vote. It is easy to say sh*& when your on the outside looking in."

Look at you.

"2. Edwards who? He cant even stand up to Colter even if what she says is true about him."

No hate here - besides - I heard the same thing about you.

"3. Hillary will say anything to get elected."

Bush is a "compassionate conservative" and a "uniter."

"4. If any of them are in the White House, we will see how much they enjoy Congress mandating instructions to them. I bet that wont go far."

Pull your head out of your ...foxhole...and take a civics class, sarge.

AllAroundYou (Sent Wednesday, October 10, 2007 3:24 PM)

FOR CHRIST SAKE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Quit listening to your handlers - attacking Clinton is getting you nowhere - just stay honest like you have in the past. Remember - Howard Dean was undefeatble at this time last year.

Have faith in YOUR message

Willie Wilson (Sent Wednesday, October 10, 2007 3:25 PM)

For the records, Edward has been honest and fortright on all issues but hillary hasn't been honest with us.
No more triangulation, no more Bush-Chenney lyte.

I am tired of Democrats sucking up to the so called weak on securities. How much have we spend in Iraq YTD? How much did we spend on education?

Do any of Hillary supporters know? Yet she is planning to invade Iran. When is she going to put politics aside and stand on principle? If we challenge her, she will label us right wing conspirator. Is this what we should expect from democratic party?

No more war, period.

Bee (Sent Wednesday, October 10, 2007 3:25 PM)

Mike, Lee, NH: '...Do you want to pay ALOT more taxes? If so vote in a Democrat. I prefer not, thank you, plain & simple...'

Mike, Lee, NH..... so the answer is 'tax cut and spend' ?
They don't even bother to call it 'supply side economics' (the failed '80's social program)
Let's leave that debt for our grandchildren to py....

Where do you think your tax dollars go, <ike ?
Answer: the war machine, the American Empire

Mike, I suggest you start learning Chinese
The way this country's going, it's a good career move.

Sierra, SF (Sent Wednesday, October 10, 2007 3:26 PM)

LMAO- Edwards couldn't be elected dog catcher in a national election- he couldn't even make North Carolina close in '04. He should actually run for office in Iowa since he has virtually lived there for 2 years. His campaign is dying a slow death- so his lines against Clinton come out as fluff and desperation considering his numbers. The only serious threat against Clinton is Gore.

Robert (Sent Wednesday, October 10, 2007 3:26 PM)

bee, please note.

obama was agaiinst the war when running for senate.
obama voted for war fundiing and against troop withdrawl repeately as a senator.
obama became antiwar again once he started running for president.

like bush, he's great at making claims that are blatantly untrue.

Tuck,Realityville,Kansas (Sent Wednesday, October 10, 2007 3:27 PM)

Politics is Politics is Politics and the circle never ends. If the Government wanted to stay alive, and have it's finger on the pulse of the Nation we would Limit Terms of Office across the board rather then perpetuate the entrenchment of the Cronies that have no concept of Reality, only of their own Empires and how to insure their continued existance

Michael Walsh El Paso. TX (Sent Wednesday, October 10, 2007 3:29 PM)

LILLIAN,ELGIN, ILL / 'MR EDWARDS WILL SAY ANYTHING IF HE THINKS IT IS POPULAR AND MAY GET HIM ELECTED. i AM SCARED OF ANYONE WHO IS AFRAID TO BE HONEST'

then I would have to assume you are absolutely petrified of the hillary? my god people

MK,MO (Sent Wednesday, October 10, 2007 3:30 PM)

Van, great job crystalizing the issue.

IntheMiddle, TX - are all texan's idiots?

Obama is smarter than both Edwards and Clinton. He understands that ALL Americans need a president. Not just the right wing or the affluent. He also understands we cannot be moral leaders in the world if our pursuit of OIL and MONEY dictates our foreign policy. Vote Obama. Vote for our future.

Obamania, Los Angeles, CA (Sent Wednesday, October 10, 2007 3:32 PM)

OBAMA HAS NO CHANCE.

RACISM WILL TRIUMPH.

Wille Wilson (Sent Wednesday, October 10, 2007 3:33 PM)

Hillary stayed with her man after the ultimate embarassment because she's always wanted to be the man. Pun intended. I'll give her credit for that. After that, the pickin's are pretty slim. Agreed?
Obama or Edwards and the Dems win the White House, Congress with 60 in the Senate. Trust Me.

Kristian O (Sent Wednesday, October 10, 2007 3:34 PM)

this post reaks of penis envy

MK,MO (Sent Wednesday, October 10, 2007 3:36 PM)

i'm so sick of john edwards' whining at this point that i'm on the verge of losing respect for him altogether. he barely even stands up to his opponents unless his wife does it first (i like elizabeth edwards, but they're goin at it all wrong). i liked the guy in 04, but i think his time has sufficiently passed...and now's he only annoying. quick, one more time, what happens when you invite all the lobbyists to eat with you at the table? excuse me while i go vomit into my shoes.

blake, richardson, tx (Sent Wednesday, October 10, 2007 3:36 PM)

Is anyone else just plain ready for a change of White House occupancy (i.e. a new face)? George W.H. Bush VP from 80-88, President from 88-92. Bill Clinton President from 92-00. George W. Bush President from 00-08. Two families atop the executive branch for almost 30 years!! I will vote for a Democrat, but would rather not have Hillary as a candidate and continue the same tired trend.

B, Richmond, VA (Sent Wednesday, October 10, 2007 3:37 PM)

Van,

Obama's viability is not just based on his speech against the war and his ability to raise money. He has more donors (which = supporters)than HRC. He has a better ground organization in Iowa and is opening offices in many of the Feb. 5th states. He has laid out more comprehensive policies than HRC has AND he draws far bigger crowds than HRC does.

Your right about one thing though. HRC does focus on the future because she doesn't want to admit that she has made huge mistakes in voting for the Iraq war and now giving Bush and opening for invasion of Iran. Boy, reminds me of someone else who can't admit a mistake (Bush). The only time she wants to talk about the past is when she brings up her husbands administration.

I really hope people are paying attention. She would be a huge mistake for this country.

Jessica, Wisconsin (Sent Wednesday, October 10, 2007 3:37 PM)

Sandy Berger anyone? Dont know the name? I urge you to research him. He was convicted in 2003 of stealing and destroying classified documents.
Well whats he up to now? Isnt it strange that he is now advising Hillary Clinton!!
Are American citizens blind? Wake up! Hillary is not the path we need to take.
Barack Obama can and will unit this country! We Need him to be our president!

Michael, Des Moines, IA (Sent Wednesday, October 10, 2007 3:40 PM)

Ah.. Bee/Sierra, no, Hillary will get us out of Iraq and not start a war with Iran. That is totally ridiculous and you are the ones that are liers.All the crap you spin about Hillary is just that, crap and spin. Too bad for you but she's going to win. Quit your lying and crying.

bb (Sent Wednesday, October 10, 2007 3:42 PM)

My GOD!!!Fred Thompson is running!!What was he blabbering about on the debate. Fox news analysts said he was authentic. Do they understand the meaning of this word. This guy does not have the charisma.. He is droopingly old. His eyelids are falling down. He is so OLD. Gee!!doesn't Americans think or are they so dumb to support this so-called actor who wants to be President.etc etc...HUH11

roger kahn (Sent Wednesday, October 10, 2007 3:42 PM)

Next >>

SEND A COMMENT

PLEASE READ: All comments must be approved before appearing in the thread; time and space constraints prevent all comments from appearing. We will only approve comments that are directly related to the blog, use appropriate language and are not attacking the comments of others.

Message (please, no HTML tags. Web addresses will be hyperlinked):

Your name, city and state (John Doe, Seattle, Wash.):

Your e-mail address (jdoe@msnbc.com):

Your website (it's okay if you don't have one):

Remember me? (We'll keep it private) Remember me?

TRACKBACKS

Trackbacks are links to weblogs that reference this post. Like comments, trackbacks do not appear until approved by us. The trackback URL for this post is: http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/trackback.aspx?PostID=405517