From The Road
January 17, 2008 12:30 PM

Edwards Jabs Obama and Clinton

(CBS)
From CBS News' Aaron Lewis:

HENDERSON, NEV. -- John Edwards ripped Barack Obama for praising the way Ronald Reagan brought about change when he was President of the United States.

“When you think about what Ronald Reagan did to the American people, to the middle class to the working people,” said Edwards.

“He was openly – openly – intolerant of unions and the right to organize. He openly fought against the union and the organized labor movement in this country. He openly did extraordinary damage to the middle class and working people, created a tax structure that favored the very wealthiest Americans and caused the middle class and working people to struggle every single day. The destruction of the environment, you know, eliminating regulation of companies that were polluting and doing extraordinary damage to the environment.”

“I can promise you this: this president will never use Ronald Reagan as an example for change.”

Edwards was addressing comments made by Obama during a sit-down interview with the Reno Gazette-Journal. According to Edwards spokesman Mark Kornblau, Edwards was addressing these specific remarks from the interview:

"I don't want to present myself as some sort of singular figure. I think part of what's different are the times. I do think that for example the 1980 was different. I think Ronald Reagan changed the trajectory of America in a way that Richard Nixon did not and in a way that Bill Clinton did not. He put us on a fundamentally different path because the country was ready for it. I think they felt like with all the excesses of the 1960s and 1970s and government had grown and grown but there wasn't much sense of accountability in terms of how it was operating. I think people, he just tapped into what people were already feeling, which was we want clarity we want optimism, we want a return to that sense of dynamism and entrepreneurship that had been missing."

CORRECTION: This blog post originally included an inaccurate and unverified quote, provided by the Edwards campaign, in lieu of the Obama quote used above. CBS News regrets this error.

Edwards also took another shot at Obama earlier in his speech:

“There’s this back and forth that’s been going over the last 24 hours or so between Senator Clinton and Senator Obama, with Senator Clinton saying what we need in a president is somebody who knows how to run the bureaucracy, who knows how to manage, somebody who knows how to shuffle the papers around and Senator Obama saying no, what we really need is a President of the United States who knows how to give a good speech,” said Edwards. “Here’s what I think, I think what we need in the next President of the United States is somebody with some guts and fight and determination.
Tags:
Edwards ,
Obama ,
Clinton ,
Nevada
Topics:
John Edwards
Add a Comment See all 32 Comments
by misty-dog January 17, 2008 3:04 PM PST
John Edwards is right on target here. If Democrats want a Republican lite in office, then they should vote for Obama. If they want a true Democrat in the tradition of progessive populism, vote Edwards!
Reply to this comment
by teamsterwif1 January 17, 2008 3:13 PM PST
You Go John!
Reply to this comment
by realpatriot1 January 17, 2008 3:16 PM PST
misty-dog,

Neither you nor Edwards seem to have understood what he was saying about Reagan. There was no praise of Reagan in those remarks.

What the statement said was that Reagan tapped into public discontent with the direction of the country and that he stuck to his beliefs in doing so and didn''t try to compromise his principles.

There was no praise for what Reagan did to the working class and there was no holding Reagan''s policies as an example of the change we need.

Johnny One note relates everything back too his populist message.

Fighting for what you believe is great but if you can''t persuade others you''ll be fighting alone.
Reply to this comment
by marky367 January 17, 2008 3:17 PM PST
Wow. That''s some serious positioning. But I wonder how well it will play for Edwards. Even if Obama had said something nice about Reagan--whose deification I find repugnant--I''m not sure coming out against the man can be a positive. And, in context, Obama actually didn''t say anything good about Reagan.

Kudos to CBS for actually giving us the full context.Who''da thunk it?

And how''d the gipper manage to make Carter look so bad? Had Jimmy been doing something terrible to kittens?
http://onlysayin.blogspot.com/2007/10/has-jimmy-carter-been-raping-kittens.html
Reply to this comment
by honesttalk January 17, 2008 3:26 PM PST
Edwards is the only one with the guts and determination to fight the entrenched powers of lobbyists, big money and self-serving politicians that are using the same "CHANGE" slongan in every campaign. With Obama and Clinton will be no real change besides changing the Texan gang fo the ones on Chicago and NY. Those are the same powers that are pouring money into Hillary''s and Obama''s campaigns, those are the same politicians that are splitting the endorsement between those the two candidates they know will be safe.
Is very ironic that Obama is prising Reagan who one of his goals was to destroy unions and organized labor and who started Reaganomics and tax breaks for the rich. Obama is doing that just to attract some dissatisfied Republicans and simply playing politics.
Reply to this comment
by converze January 17, 2008 3:40 PM PST
Edwards is taking a page from the Clinton playbook: if you can''t fight them with the facts--distort! distort! distort!
Reply to this comment
by eyzwidopn January 17, 2008 3:50 PM PST
Obama wasn''t praising Reagan''s policies, he was making a historical assessment on how Reagan and JFK were able to find success politically through their messages/policies that resonated with the public during the specific "time" that they ran for POTUS.

Edwards attack and belittling comment about Obama just wanting to "give a good speech," are baseless and cheap efforts designed to score political points. He''s better than that... but this is the game they all seem to resort to when the chips seem to be stacked against them.
Reply to this comment
by vastleft January 17, 2008 4:13 PM PST
What''s the story with the quote that starts "When the country was so sick of a blue state president..."

According to this site, it wasn''t in the original interview...

http://www.mydd.com/story/2008/1/17/15929/4799

And the position it takes is the exact opposite of Obama''s strategy, which is the whole Unity Pony / Kumbaya with the Republicans.

Did he really say those words???
Reply to this comment
by dkpant-2009 January 17, 2008 4:14 PM PST
I think Edwards probably knows that Obama was not praising Reagan. The "ripping" headline, is I''m sure, chosen by the media rather than Edwards. However, I think Edwards is rightly indicating, rather importantly, that if a Democratic Presidential candidate is going to have an intellectual conversation about Reagan''s transformational change, then it ought to at least in addition include the comments that Edwards made about Reagan so that the conversation is put proper perspective. Maybe he did elsewhere in that conversation, but I don''t hold it against Edwards that he put himself on record about Reagan. Edwards'' comments have more to do with Reagan I think than they do with Obama and I''m glad to hear him say it like it really should be about Reagan. Obama can make some very intelligent points, but like his view about nuclear power (ala the most recent debate) and health care, I think his optimistic and "open" approach reflets a certain amount of naivete. In other words, there is nothing wrong per sey with what Obama said about Reagan, but what Edwards said about Reagan also needs to be said - loud and clear, if Obama isn''t going to say it. Thank goodness we have Edwards to say it.
Reply to this comment
by dkpant-2009 January 17, 2008 4:16 PM PST
I think Edwards probably knows that Obama was not praising Reagan. The "ripping" headline, is I''m sure, chosen by the media rather than Edwards. However, I think Edwards is rightly indicating, rather importantly, that if a Democratic Presidential candidate is going to have an intellectual conversation about Reagan''s transformational change, then it ought to at least in addition include the comments that Edwards made about Reagan so that the conversation is put proper perspective. Maybe he did elsewhere in that conversation, but I don''t hold it against Edwards that he put himself on record about Reagan. Edwards'' comments have more to do with Reagan I think than they do with Obama and I''m glad to hear him say it like it really should be about Reagan. Obama can make some very intelligent points, but like his view about nuclear power (ala the most recent debate) and health care, I think his optimistic and "open" approach reflets a certain amount of naivete. In other words, there is nothing wrong per sey with what Obama said about Reagan, but what Edwards said about Reagan also needs to be said - loud and clear, if Obama isn''t going to say it. Thank goodness we have Edwards to say it.
Reply to this comment
by clicker107 January 17, 2008 4:18 PM PST
With three potential candidates in the running, it''s time to get past all the issues upon which they agree and get down to business of where they are different. It''s the only way to determine who is best suited to run against the eventual Republican nominee and who is the right person to tackle the growing number of crises which await our next President -- recession, Iraq, health care, environment...

With the limited amount of air time and press coverage that has been alloted to Edwards, he needs to go for it!
Reply to this comment
by January 17, 2008 4:22 PM PST
One of the very first things Reagan did, at the advice of his Kitchen Cabinet, was lift regulations imposed upon the banking industry under FDR, as a result of the Great Depression. Reagan''s foolish action enabled all the economic upheaval we have been dealing with since. It boggles the mind that Obama would not distinguish between positive change and catastrophic ruin as a result of trickle-down nonsense. Thank you, CBS, and Aaron Lewis, for covering John Edwards and reminding the audience that there is still a choice available in the Democratic race. And for all those struggling to keep their heads above water in the economy''s high seas: can you afford a candidate who glosses over the impact of abominably bad fiscal policy? Or maybe has forgotten the lessons learned from that time, and is blind and deaf to the lessons being learned even today?
Reply to this comment
by clicker107 January 17, 2008 4:22 PM PST
With three potential candidates in the running, it''s time to get past all the issues upon which they agree and get down to business of where they are different. It''s the only way to determine who is best suited to run against the eventual Republican nominee and who is the right person to tackle the growing number of crises which await our next President -- recession, Iraq, health care, environment...

With the limited amount of air time and press coverage that has been alloted to Edwards, he needs to go for it!
Reply to this comment
by January 17, 2008 4:23 PM PST
One of the very first things Reagan did, at the advice of his Kitchen Cabinet, was lift regulations imposed upon the banking industry under FDR, as a result of the Great Depression. Reagan''s foolish action enabled all the economic upheaval we have been dealing with since. It boggles the mind that Obama would not distinguish between positive change and catastrophic ruin as a result of trickle-down nonsense. Thank you, CBS, and Aaron Lewis, for covering John Edwards and reminding the audience that there is still a choice available in the Democratic race. And for all those struggling to keep their heads above water in the economy''s high seas: can you afford a candidate who glosses over the impact of abominably bad fiscal policy? Or maybe has forgotten the lessons learned from that time, and is blind and deaf to the lessons being learned even today?
Reply to this comment
by clicker107 January 17, 2008 4:26 PM PST
If you read carefully, it was the writer of the article who characterized Obama as "praising" Reagan.

With three potential candidates in the running, it''s time to get past all the issues upon which they agree and get down to business of where they are different. It''s the only way to determine who is best suited to run against the eventual Republican nominee and who is the right person to tackle the growing number of crises which await our next President -- recession, Iraq, health care, environment...

With the limited amount of air time and press coverage that has been alloted to Edwards, he needs to go for it!
Reply to this comment
by kenshin051 January 17, 2008 4:32 PM PST
sorry you all, but i heard obama say those words and more myself. he really was praising reagan, and about all the wrong things. i don''t know what obama was thinking. edwards is right to call him on that.

for the love of pete, can''t hillary and barack NOT put their foot in their mouths? just for a few days? the general election isn''t even here yet...what kind of nonsense is gonna spout out of their pieholes by then???

and, WHAT WAS OBAMA GOING ON AND ON ABOUT IN THAT LAST DEBATE??? notice none of the media want to cover that??? barack, darling, we don''t wanna know that you can''t handle paperwork, even if it is true...what the heyyyy does obama think being president''s about? "inspiring" the bureaucracy to work??? no no no no...my husband''s a fed employee, and trust me, inspiration will not help...
Reply to this comment
by January 17, 2008 4:54 PM PST
One of the very first things Reagan did, at the advice of his Kitchen Cabinet, was lift regulations imposed upon the banking industry under FDR, as a result of the Great Depression. Reagan''s foolish action enabled all the economic upheaval we have been dealing with since. It boggles the mind that Obama would not distinguish between positive change and catastrophic ruin as a result of trickle-down nonsense. Thank you, CBS, and Aaron Lewis, for covering John Edwards and reminding the audience that there is still a choice available in the Democratic race. And for all those struggling to keep their heads above water in the economy''s high seas: can you afford a candidate who glosses over the impact of abominably bad fiscal policy? Or maybe has forgotten the lessons learned from that time, and is blind and deaf to the lessons being learned even today?
Reply to this comment
by January 17, 2008 4:54 PM PST
One of the very first things Reagan did, at the advice of his Kitchen Cabinet, was lift regulations imposed upon the banking industry under FDR, as a result of the Great Depression. Reagan''s foolish action enabled all the economic upheaval we have been dealing with since. It boggles the mind that Obama would not distinguish between positive change and catastrophic ruin as a result of trickle-down nonsense. Thank you, CBS, and Aaron Lewis, for covering John Edwards and reminding the audience that there is still a choice available in the Democratic race. And for all those struggling to keep their heads above water in the economy''s high seas: can you afford a candidate who glosses over the impact of abominably bad fiscal policy? Or maybe has forgotten the lessons learned from that time, and is blind and deaf to the lessons being learned even today?
Reply to this comment
by January 17, 2008 4:59 PM PST
One of the very first things Reagan did, at the advice of his Kitchen Cabinet, was lift regulations imposed upon the banking industry under FDR, as a result of the Great Depression. Reagan''s foolish action enabled all the economic upheaval we have been dealing with since. It boggles the mind that Obama would not distinguish between positive change and catastrophic ruin as a result of trickle-down nonsense. Thank you, CBS, and Aaron Lewis, for covering John Edwards and reminding the audience that there is still a choice available in the Democratic race. And for all those struggling to keep their heads above water in the economy''s high seas: can you afford a candidate who glosses over the impact of abominably bad fiscal policy? Or maybe has forgotten the lessons learned from that time, and is blind and deaf to the lessons being learned even today?
Reply to this comment
by lildoggy1 January 17, 2008 5:13 PM PST
Its obvious that Obama is showing his youthfulness in buying the revision of the Reagan presidency created by the Republican majority in Congress. The first thing Reagan did in his presidency after taking office was to throw alot of people off of Social Security Disability. Many of these folks were very sick and some died. There was no review of their illness before they lost their benefits. He also made sure that restaurant workers, waiters and waitresses, working for less than minimum wage paid taxes on their tips. Those were his priorities. Make sure these poor people aren''t living too well. All that, along with bringing "glamor" back to the White House. I am old enough to remember the little things.
Reply to this comment
by lildoggy1 January 17, 2008 5:14 PM PST
Its obvious that Obama is showing his youthfulness in buying the revision of the Reagan presidency created by the Republican majority in Congress. The first thing Reagan did in his presidency after taking office was to throw alot of people off of Social Security Disability. Many of these folks were very sick and some died. There was no review of their illness before they lost their benefits. He also made sure that restaurant workers, waiters and waitresses, working for less than minimum wage paid taxes on their tips. Those were his priorities. Make sure these poor people aren''t living too well. All that, along with bringing "glamor" back to the White House. I am old enough to remember the little things.
Reply to this comment
by clicker107 January 17, 2008 5:27 PM PST
If you read carefully, it was the writer of the article who characterized Obama as "praising" Reagan.

With three potential candidates in the running, it''s time to get past all the issues upon which they agree and get down to business of where they are different. It''s the only way to determine who is best suited to run against the eventual Republican nominee and who is the right person to tackle the growing number of crises which await our next President -- recession, Iraq, health care, environment...

With the limited amount of air time and press coverage that has been alloted to Edwards, he needs to go for it!
Reply to this comment
by ny_dem January 17, 2008 5:57 PM PST
What Obama was saying is that Regan was a leader that understood what the country wanted at the time. Obama was also making the point that Regan was a good communicator who connected with the public in a way that many others did and do not. He was not discussing Regan''s politics or his beliefs. It was a subtle reference that Obama believes he too can be a leader of change that is significant and will have an impact past his presidency. Edwards and HRC are not good communicators. Edwards is passionate and I like that about him. HRC is simply an administrator of the system. She is clearly not a people person.
Reply to this comment
by andersenme January 17, 2008 10:11 PM PST
Immediately after Reagan died--on June 28, 1994--CNN reported that:

"Former President Bill Clinton and his wife, Democratic Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton of New York, issued a statement that praised the former president for his optimistic outlook."

The CNN report continued:

"''Hillary and I will always remember President Ronald Reagan for the way he personified the indomitable optimism of the American people, and for keeping America at the forefront of the fight for freedom for people everywhere,'' their statement said."

More interestingly--and in retrospect understandably, given their common penchant for lying--President Bill Clinton eulogized Richard Nixon at his funeral like this: "May the day of judging President Nixon on anything less than his entire life and career come to a close."

Now the Clinton camp followers hypocritically make Obama''s statement of fact--that Reagan ushered in a sea-change in U.S. politics, whether you agreed with his direction or not--into some claim that Obama is less than genuine in his politics.

Talking point No. 1: That Reagan busted unions, therefore Obama must been less than committed to the labor movement. Good spin, perhaps, but factually and morally wrong.

Meanwhile, people forget that Bill Clinton pardoned the union-busting international financier Mark Rich.

Martin Edwin Andersen
Churchton, Maryland
Reply to this comment
by njh1964 January 17, 2008 10:41 PM PST
Obama is really getting obnoxious. His sense of history and his own place in it seems to become more distorted by the day. Recently, he mused about how he and Michelle are not that far from "normal" (he cited a foray to Target to establish his point). How quaint.... I hope he keeps blasting the hot air. Sooner or later he''ll be comparing himself to Lincoln or Jesus. At some point, perhaps people will start to see him for who he really is---a gifted politician with a very inflated sense of himself and a record totally at odds with the hype.
Reply to this comment
by njh1964 January 17, 2008 10:43 PM PST
Obama is really getting obnoxious. His sense of history and his own place in it seems to become more distorted by the day. Recently, he mused about how he and Michelle are not that far from "normal" (he cited a foray to Target to establish his point). How quaint.... I hope he keeps blasting the hot air. Sooner or later he''ll be comparing himself to Lincoln or Jesus. At some point, perhaps people will start to see him for who he really is---a gifted politician with a very inflated sense of himself and a record totally at odds with the hype.
Reply to this comment
by njh1964 January 17, 2008 10:44 PM PST
Obama is really getting obnoxious. His sense of history and his own place in it seems to become more distorted by the day. Recently, he mused about how he and Michelle are not that far from "normal" (he cited a foray to Target to establish his point). How quaint.... I hope he keeps blasting the hot air. Sooner or later he''ll be comparing himself to Lincoln or Jesus. At some point, perhaps people will start to see him for who he really is---a gifted politician with a very inflated sense of himself and a record totally at odds with the hype.
Reply to this comment
by themartyred January 18, 2008 12:25 AM PST
TODAY IS THE DAY TO DONATE TO THE EDWARDS CAMPAIGN -

$7 million dollar challenge - go to johnedwardsDOTcom (remove DOT put a period, obviously) and donate - get the word out everywhere! here, on youtube, blogs, DONATE TO EDWARDS TODAY FRIDAY THE 18th!!!
Reply to this comment
by Vigdor Schreibman January 18, 2008 1:14 PM PST
Thank you CBS News and Aaron Lewis for posting this story about the kind off "hope and change" offered by Barack Obama, using Ronald Reagan as his model. Reagan gets the big prize for doublethink images, the prefed technique of pathological liars, voodoo economics, and the Iran-Contra fiasco. This is "hope" and "change" proposed by a con artist intent on tightening the stranglehold of entrenched moneyed interests over the American government.

Vigdor
GOOGLE: LOVERS OF DEMOCRACY

Reply to this comment
by valeroso2008 January 18, 2008 6:11 PM PST
There is one candidate in the race for the democratic nomination who is both a true progressive and truly electable. This candidate is John Edwards. A candidate''s historic stature is not a function of race or gender. It derives from the candidate''s ideals and ideas.
Reply to this comment
by be_free January 20, 2008 12:54 PM PST
Obama is not "comparing himself to Reagan", or making any references to Reagan''s politics at all. He''s talking about change, and that change under Reagan was possible because people were ready for it. Obama also wants change, and the anaology simply refers to that like under Reagan, now people are ready for change as well. Obama being a democrat, obviously has a different type of change in mind, a change for this time, for people in todays America. Was that really so hard to understand? I pity the small minds who always twist words refusing to listen to the content of the message. There are more ways to deliver a message than through a jingle, or sounding like a used car sales man like Edwards. Come on now.
Reply to this comment
by be_free January 20, 2008 1:41 PM PST
Obama is not "comparing himself to Reagan", or making any references to Reagan''s politics at all. He''s talking about change, and that change under Reagan was possible because people were ready for it. Obama also wants change, and the anaology simply refers to that like under Reagan, now people are ready for change as well. Obama being a democrat, obviously has a different type of change in mind, a change for this time, for people in todays America. Was that really so hard to understand? I pity the small minds who always twist words refusing to listen to the content of the message. There are more ways to deliver a message than through a jingle, or sounding like a used car sales man like Edwards. Come on now.
Reply to this comment
See all 32 Comments

About From The Road

Description for From the Road

  • MOST POPULAR
  • Viewed
  • Commented