Edwards Campaign Pushes Message Of Change

(AP)  Presidential hopeful John Edwards says the Washington establishment is corrupt, nostalgia won't fix it and — without ever mentioning her by name — that rival Hillary Rodham Clinton is part of that corroded system.

Edwards' new change-centered stump speech shot squarely at his top two rivals and comes just before Labor Day, the traditional start of the primary nominating process in this state where he has seen his polling lead slip in recent months.

"Real change starts with being honest and I want to say something again: The system in Washington is rigged and I'll say it again, it's rigged and it's rigged by greedy powers," Edwards said Thursday at Dartmouth College. "It's rigged by the system to favor the establishment."

What Edwards called "the rhetoric of change" is popular among Democratic hopefuls seeking the White House. Sen. Barack Obama uses the notion throughout his campaign, branding his "Hoops, Action, Change" basketball tournaments. One of Clinton's slogans is "Ready for Change, Ready to Lead." But Edwards challenged his Democratic rivals' ownership of the word at the start a four-day swing through New Hampshire.

"The American people deserve to know that their presidency is not for sale. The Lincoln Bedroom is not for rent," Edwards said to applause, referencing a Clinton-era scandal where high-dollar donors were allowed to stay in the White House's famed bedroom.
He said the past isn't going to solve today's problems or "a corrupt a corroded system."

"Those wed to the policies of the '70s, '80s or the '90s" are wedded to the past, ideas and policies that are tired, shopworn and obsolete. We will find no answers there," he said.

Clinton served as first lady during most of the 1990s.

Edwards later said he didn't mean to target Clinton during his new stump speech, even though he clearly did.

"Going back doesn't move us forward and we need to move forward," he told reporters beside his campaign bus.

Edwards said voters have a choice: "either move forward, boldly, into the future for our children ... or the alternative, which is to stay in the same stale direction, which we've been traveling in the recent past."

Edwards' speech, his toughest yet against his top rivals, sought to draw clearer lines between himself and better-polling peers.

"Small thinking and outdated answers aren't the only problems with a vision for the future that is rooted in nostalgia," Edwards said. "The trouble with nostalgia is that you tend to remember what you liked — am I right? — and you forget what you didn't. It's not just that the answers of the past aren't up to the job today, it's that the system that produced them was corrupt — and it still is corrupt."

Edwards said voters can't simply "replace one group of corporate Republicans with a group of corporate Democrats, just swapping the Washington insiders of one party for the Washington insiders of the other."

Edwards was gentler on Obama, although he also was part of Edwards' chat.

"How many times have voters in New Hampshire heard politicians come rolling through here saying that they want change?" Edwards said. "That's great. What do they really want to do as the president of the United States?"

Critics have said that despite Obama's pledge for change, he lacks sufficient experience to win his party's nomination or the presidency. It was a question the first-term senator from Illinois sought to quiet during a trip earlier this week to New Hampshire.

The former North Carolina senator has been tenacious during this campaign, criticizing those who still serve in Washington for not doing more to fight President Bush, end the war and reject special interests' influence.

Edwards is traveling his wife and his three children for a four-day tour. As he and Elizabeth Edwards decamped the bus, Sheryl Crow's "A Change Will Do You Good."

A Republican National Committee spokeswoman said she recognized Edwards' message.

"Voters have long recognized John Edwards as the change candidate in this race, after he flip-flopped from being a staunch war on terror supporter to a liberal protester," said Amber Wilkerson.

[chicagopoet]

Thank you for your opinion. My opinion is that I forgive Edwards for being dubed by Bush''s lies like so many others were, and I believe he is sincere in his present desire to end the war, more sincere than the other front runners, Clinton or Obama, are, so my support goes to John Edwards. Iraq is in a civil war and we should get out; in case you haven''t noticed, a hostile regime has already taken over Bagdad. The hostile regime I''m talking about is called The United States of America. John Edwards is the smart choice. End the war now.

[prinzowhales]

chicagopoet-Edwards supported and continued to back the war as Kerry''s VP candidate. He straddles the issue by calling for a cap to troops levels--so the killing can continue--and wants another 12-18 months of fighting. This ill-conceived and dangerous plan hangs our Iraqi quislings out to dry and lends itself to the very real possibility that a completely hostile regime will take over in Baghdad and endanger our troops. The proposal has no military worth and is solely geared to the muddle-headed thinking of an American electorate with the mentality of a teenage girl--wanting to look good and be bad.

[chicagopoet]

according to YOU he''s a "junior league War Pig"--just because YOU have a wrong opinion of John Edwards does not make ME a double thinker. Wise up before Clinton becomes your president. John Edwards is the best choice for America.

[prinzowhales]

Edwards served on the Senate Intelligence Committee with that other wine and cheese ''liberal'' Senator Rockefellar (D-WV) (Its ironic that a mining state would elect the eventual heir of a man whose Colorado Coal and Fuel company goons and the state troops gunned down miners, their wives and children in a tent camp. Its a real treat to read the simpering congressional testimony of Rockefellar, advised by his PR flunkey, trying to explain away that particular wholesale murder.)...Edwards passed on that whole load of nonsense presented to justify the war--as a lawyer, he didn''t even do due diligence--he failed North Carolina and he failed the United States when we needed someone to stand up for truth. He knew about Major Scott Ritter''s findings that there were no WMDs...the more I recall about this weasel the more my bile rises.

Troops Home Now! No votes for War Pigs!

[prinzowhales]

chicagopoet-That is a perfect example of "double think"...you can maintain two opposing propositions at the same time and feel good about yourself...in this case ''you are against the war''...well, whoopy-doo, that is perfectly meaningless when you lend your support to a junior league War Pig...its like perfect church attendence by an atheist...

[prinzowhales]

I am against the war and I support John Edwards.
Posted by chicagopoet at 01:46 PM : Aug 24, 2007
---------

That is like saying, "I am against Nazism, I''m voting for Hitler."

[chicagopoet]

I am against the war and I support John Edwards.

[prinzowhales]

Newsflash from Edwards...the system is "rigged" by "greedy powers" in Washington...Who is ''Greedy Powers''...Austin Powers'' evil brother?
Name ''em Edwards! Name them! Put it on the line, if you are going to make a statement like that--name them...Instead, its more rhetoric about "change" and ''boldness'' and ''the system is corrupt''. The stomach churns, the bowels open and mindless, campaign drivel pours forth.

I wish I had saved the e-mails and letters I''ve received form his office, supporting the Stupid Peoples'' War, supporting the expansion of Big Government--particularly the FDA part of it...

Chicagopoet-If I vote for a pro-war candidate who is a protege of the Bilderburgers and the very people who gave us this war, this debt, this system of trade treaties...then and only then will my vote be thrown away. Electing Edwards or any of the other ''front runners'' is a true waste of your vote if you are against the War and the expansion of the State.

[pepperp1]

Lofty cause, look blaming the lobbyist for failed leadership and corrupt governance is a sound bite, what legislation did he put forth when he was in the Senate for Public Campaign financing that ended the politicians dependence of camping cash, hmm?.. Attacking Hillary is disingenuous she can not compete nor can any Democrat running for President without the cash that buys access and national TV coverage, and I am sure as hell that the Lincoln bedroom has been occupied by many a powerful donor not just friends of Bill and Hillary.

Now my question:

Bush took the addicts way after 911, do what ever to keep the supply coming to feed the beast the end justifies the means which he wrongly believes we will one day thank him for. But that is not the American way and why he and his policies once understood by the American People have been rejected flat out.

But the problem is still there, we have a dependence on foreign oil 3 or the 4 barrels a day that is endangering our country and our security. Our hold on global wealth dissipating, we are in conflict with many oil producing nations that are no longer friendly to our country Iran, Venezuela are some, and there is great competition for the worlds oil form other global powers with economies that can compete. This is the most serious threat to this country, what is the Edwards plan.

[chicagopoet]

Prinzowhales,

what is the point is wasting your vote on someone who is not going to get elected? John Edwards is electable and despite what he has done in the past, NOW he has a plan to get us out of the war. When it comes down to the wire it is going to be Clinton, Obama and Edwards as the serious front runnners who stand any chance, so choose one already and stop hoping things somehow magically become different.