NPR: Edwards Wants to Capitalize on Clinton-Obama Sniping

Edwards Wants to Capitalize on Clinton-Obama Sniping

With the Iowa caucuses looming, the competition between Democratic presidential candidates Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama is getting increasingly fiery. Hardly a campaign appearance goes by without an attack, no doubt prompted by polls showing a dead heat in the state.

But there's another candidate who factors into that statistical tie: former Sen. John Edwards. And Candy Crowley reports for CNN that Edwards sees an opportunity in the sniping between Clinton and Obama to sneak to the top and maybe squeak out a victory. Edwards hopes the in-your-face sound bites won't play well in "notoriously friendly" Iowa.

Crowley reports that Edwards, who has been a fierce Clinton critic, is trying to back away from his earlier intensity. (Although he still leveled some tough shots at Clinton during NPR's Democratic debate on Tuesday, especially on Iran, so I don't know if he's managed to tame that instinct yet.)

12:24 PM ET | 12- 5-2007 | permalink

Comments

When the Clinton and Obama phenomenon began, many of us Democrats were genuinely interested. A Clinton and Obama ticket did not necessarily guarantee a victory in '08. But it promised to be a good fight.

In the beginning, many Republicans I spoke to were genuinely worried that a Clinton/Obama ticket would be very hard to beat.

Now that Clinton and Obama has turned into a catfight, many of us Democrats have lost interest. The Rebublicans who were once concerned, are laughing and don't worry a bit anymore.

Unfortunately for the Democratic Party, the Clinton and Obama situation has lost all credibility. And many of us believe that they can't get credibility back by staging a friendly get together in the future.

I'm not pointing fingers at any one party. But I am saying that the Clinton and Obama beginnings had some interesting concepts that were all lost in the shuffle.

So, does Hillary go on to take the nomination after having lost the credibility factor, or does the Democratic Party do a turn-around for their nominee in '08?

If the Democratic party think tank doesn't come up with a way to present a credible fight, it's going to be a landslide loss.

fred call

Sent by fred call | 1:27 PM ET | 12-05-2007

This race is all about fear.Fear a woman will be president,fear a black man will be president,fear a Republican will be president,again.Fear is not the way to choose a president.The question I have not seen answered is who can turn around the world opinion that we are liars,cheats and unaware citizens of this planet Earth.

Sent by Susan MacDonald | 9:00 AM ET | 12-06-2007

So, what's the deal here? If the "issue at hand" is unseemly sniping between Obama and Clinton, why is Edwards (the focus of your headline) made to pay for it by being portrayed as an opportunist? Whenever he goes on the offensive and scores some debate points, he's portrayed as angry and intemperate; then he (supposedly)"backs off" and is immediately condemned as a flip-flopper solely concerned with campaign strategy and style. His speeches and debate remarks are invariably characterized in the media as "performances" typical of a successful trial lawyer (neglecting to mention that his greatest successes were won against negligent and/or predatory corporate interests). If Edwards is an "angry" man, it is because the substance of his message --that the megacorporate world has hijacked government, the economy and the mass media and is calling all the shots -- is something to be really angry about, but is being deliberately drowned out by all the chatter about his "style": first the infamous haircut, then his unwise focus on the who-cares issue of poverty and economic inequality in America, then his "harsh attacks" on rival Democrats (especially the one who happens to be female) and now his supposed retreat from attack mode (although wait-- can such "instincts" be "tamed"?)In actuality, Edwards' campaign has been waged from the start as an appropriately-angry populist appeal directly to the grassroots Americans fed up with the rule of big money and the media censorship of those who dare criticize it and suggest real alternatives. If Edwards' pointing out his rivals' campaign-finance connections to major corporate sectors and their policy biases toward those interests is considered "sniping", then I urge him to keep reloading.

Sent by David Malm | 12:15 PM ET | 12-06-2007

E-mail this Page

Recipient's e-mail address:	» Up to twelve addresses, separated by commas.
Your e-mail address:
Your name:
Personal message (optional, 600 characters max):
Your NPR member station:
Are you a member of your local NPR station?	Yes No
Would you like to receive information from your local NPR member station? (see NPR's privacy policy)	Yes No
Please send me updates from NPR.	Yes No

(Information collected by NPR will be used solely for internal NPR or NPR member station purposes and only if you selected 'yes' above. See NPR's privacy policy for more information.)

Tom Regan

Blogger

About Us

This year's election cycle has been one of the most exciting in memory. At the NPR News Blog we'll do our best to bring you interesting, informative -- and controversial -- stories from our own reporters and bloggers, as well as the rest of the best of the Internet and blogosphere. And we hope you'll let us know what you think as well.

Want to learn more? Be sure to read our Frequently Asked Questions and our discussion guidelines.