Obama's big rebuke of Edwards on 'leadership'

Barack Obama had probably been waiting for this moment ever since last debate.  John Edwards, from the very beginning of this year, has used his non-legislator status to attack the Senate for not ending the war in Iraq.  During the segment on Iraq last night, Edwards made the mistake of lumping Obama and Clinton together.  Obama quickly corrected Edwards:

"There is a difference between leading and following," said Edwards,pointing to his early support for a bill that would defund the war inIraq by a date certain. He called last week's Senate vote to do justthat a "moment of truth." He credited Clinton and Obama with casting"the right vote" in favor of the bill, but criticized them forremaining quiet on how they intended to vote during the floor debate."Senators Clinton and Sen. Obama did not say anything about how theywere going to vote," but instead "went quietly to the floor of theSenate and cast the right vote."

Obama, who has largely avoided any direct confrontations with hisopponents to date, shot back a sharp retort. "You are about four andhalf years late on leadership on this issue," Obama said to Edwards.

Obama opposed the war in Iraq.  Clinton supported giving Bush that authority, as did Edwards.  If anything, the positions of Clinton and Edwards are similar.  Last year, Edwards condemned his vote and suddenly became staunchly anti-war as he began preparing to launch his presidential bid.  Clinton also recently turned anti-war.  Obama, on the other hand, has not changed his position at all.  He was against the Iraq war, is against the Iraq war and will always be against the Iraq war.

If anything, Edwards set Obama up perfectly.  You can bet that the former North Carolina Senator won't make that same rhetorical mistake again.

Comments

[Project Vote Smart]

Sen. Edwards’ history of speeches on the Iraq War can be found at: John Edwards’s Record of Speeches

Sen. Obama’s history of speeches on the Iraq War can be found at: Sen. Obama’s Record of Speeches

Sen. Clinton’s history of speeches on the Iraq War can be found at: Sen. Clinton’s Record of Speeches

For more information on Sen. Edwards, Sen. Obama and Sen. Clinton’s positions on the Iraq War please visit Project Vote Smart or call our hotline at 1-888-VOTE-SMART.

[George]

I love that Hillary has convinced herself that she trusted Bush not to go to war prematurely. Where was her rage about this 4 years ago when Bush went to war prematurely?

She voted for the war because it was politically easy to do so at the time. She's responsible for the war. She's got blood on her hands. She should never be President.

[George]

Oh and I wish Obama would say stuff like I just did above. I really want to like Obama but he cant tip toe around in these debates when he's down 15 points in every poll. He roasted Edwards with the 4 1/2 yr thing but he even said that weakly, while stuttering. He's got to go after Hillary at some point. And that's not mud-slinging because it's freakin true and it a major deal!

[Sig]

Lets examine the record on the patriot act.
Voted for the patriot act:
senator hillary,clinton, senator
john edwards.
No votes included Kucinich, and My personal pick Ron Paul.
In an on camera interview Mr.Paul states his staff couldn't find the partiot act to review before the vote and neither could anybody else so why the yes votes by some of the other freedom loving candidates. They were going along with the war mongering false patriotic fever of the time(AS WAS I MIND YOU). These two fine gentlemen had the courage to stand up and say no! The top tier candidates can spin their reasoning all they want but the record shows in black and white where they really stand on the issues.
This was presented for your consideration as we are all Americans and as such we need to examine all the candidates past records with objective scrutiny and not allow their spin to dilude the record.
At least Edwards said he made a mistake last night and apologized but I think it is long to late. I really thin Hillary is just being stubborn.
As a side note why are the people so focused on Hillary voting FOR the war and why not focus on why Kucinich voted AGAINST the war. Just food for thought.
See you all tomorrow night for the Republican coverage and thank you for yesterdays live chat what a great idea!
Sincerely (R)Mike from Tucson

[Chief Editor: Todd]

Sig, yeah, we will all be pulling for Ron Paul in the debate tomorrow! Hope to see you then.

I'm sorry to say this, but John Edwards (to me) is a really disingenuous person. I hate to jump over the deep end here -- but I even believe Hillary Clinton more than I believe John Edwards.

Edwards waited to change his position on Iraq as he began contemplating a run for president. I am not a big fan of Bob Shrum....but he wrote a very fascinating column about John Edwards last week, which I encourage you all to read. It gets pretty disturbing around the end.
http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1626498,00.html

[The Mexican]

I disagree with Erick's statement saying John Edwards was the Bill Clinton of the debate. "He out-Clintoned a Clinton." And while I'm not intentionally being androcentic, but Hillary isn't Bill; while she's certainly not far away from his intellect, she doesn't have the X-factors that Bill portrayed during debate and out of debate. And Bill wouldn't have ever left himself open to an attack that gave Barack Obama's harsh truthful response which Edwards had to reel back; and if by some chance bill had allowed such an attack, he would have swiftboated an even harder, more credible response. Like there's no Reagan to Repubs, there's no Bill to Dems--for better or worse.

[Sig]

Thanks chief, I'm off to work(dang) and I will read your link when I get back..thank you!
Sig

[granny]

The Bob Shrum piece wouldn't come up for me. Does it have a title? Is it Time?

[Sig]

I believe this is the article granny.
www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1626498,00.html

[Sig]

Dagnabit the text is too long to post here but if you copy and paste the above article then add .htm after the 00 the article will come up...good luck sir:)
Sig

[Michel]

I agree with George. In Canadian politics, there were politicians who were extremely strong on some point, and waited for another politician to bring it up to go for the win and eventually become PM of Canada. This was Obama's, but he didn't *say* it right. I expect he must have rehearsed it many times, but I guess some pressure somewhere made him stumble on the delivery. I'm not talking about stuttering, he sounded like Obama, but his *emphasis* was lacking because he wanted to sound like the nice guy everyone knows him as at the same time. He too quickly said "let's not play politics", which again, when delivered right, is crazy powerful after a bomb like "I was right this whole time about the war", but he delivered it wrong, which sounded dismissive of the last thing he said.

[Sig]

I read the Edwards article in detail and to sum it up I see political positioning as their downfall. To examine polls and position your views is dishonest and manipulative to the American people but I don't think that political positioning is any big secret.
Teaming up politicians to give them what they perceived as an advantage is also disingenuous
but I'm not a politician so I may just not have the tactical skill to recognize this.
This article did give me a great behind the scenes view to the political process in it's candor but unfortunately it was not suprising.
I believe that my pick for President(not nameing any names but can the readers guess?) does not engage in such tactics but that may be a naive conclusion, he is after all a politician. I hope Kucinich follows suite.
As Obama stated himself in paraphrase Edwards is years too late in your Iraq war view. Your article only backs Obama's statement as having a basis on how Edwars may arrive at "his" opinions....I believe they all practice on the same ball field.
Thank you for that article very informative(scary).
Sincerely:
Sig