by Rick Pearson
DES MOINES—Democratic presidential contender John Edwards criticized Sen. Hillary Clinton for failing to give voters solid answers to their questions and said on some issues he can't tell where she stands.
"I mean, she says she's for ending the war but she'll continue combat missions in Iraq. She says she's for standing up to (President) Bush on Iraq and she votes with Bush on the Iranian Revolutionary Guard. She stood beside me at a debate in Davenport, Iowa, and said she was not for doing anything with the taxes for Social Security and then apparently she told somebody in private that she was," Edwards said.
"I mean, I don't know."
The former North Carolina senator also alluded to the controversy surrounding planted questions at Clinton campaign events by saying voters in Iowa and New Hampshire deserve an answer to "hard questions and they expect it to be an honest process."
Earlier, in commemorating Veterans Day with a speech urging voters to deliver change to a corrupt, special-interest driven government in Washington, Edwards said "I'm not afraid to stand here and answer your tough questions and tell you where I stand." He followed that up in releasing an 80-page booklet detailing his positions on issues.
"You won't have to guess where I stand," Edwards said, alluding to the New York senator but not by name in his speech. "You will know very specifically what I would do as president of the United States."
Edwards speech, however, contained little passion as he quickly read it to a group of more than 100 people crowded into a small cut-out portion of the Iowa Historical Building. As he offered a moment of silence to remember military veterans, the audio from a movie on the history of Iowa coal production played in the background.
Edwards repeatedly used the term "moral" in discussing the need to improve a climate in Washington that he termed "corrupt" and said it is not a system that those who have given their lives in the nation's wars pledged to defend.
"If we have the courage to offer real change and the determination to change Washington, we will meet the great moral test of our generation," Edwards said.
• 
• 
• 
• 
Comments
Ambulance-chaser John Edwards making "morality" his theme....
This is the biggest attempt at transformation since medieval alchemists claimed they could turn lead into gold.
Posted by: Bruce | November 11, 2007 3:07 PM
Go ahead and call him an ambulance chaser. It only shows how worried you are that with Edwards the people will have a real champion representing them.
We know that as a trial lawyer Edwards represented the little guys against the big corporations that have been cheating and harming average voters for far too long. It would be great to have him in the White House to clean up Washington and look out for the average voters. We haven't had a president like that for a very long time.
The more you guys call him an ambulance chaser the more we know that he is the right candidate.
Posted by: pmorlan | November 11, 2007 6:18 PM
This is great news for Obama. He can sit back and let desperate John Edwards smear Clinton.
Posted by: Herbie H. | November 11, 2007 7:26 PM
Ambulance-chaser John Edwards making "morality" his theme....
This is the biggest attempt at transformation since medieval alchemists claimed they could turn lead into gold.
Posted by: Bruce | November 11, 2007 3:07 PM
Typical hack response from an unimaginative hack. So John Edwards is "immoral" then? Quite a charge, when you think about. And Bruce, the facts that support this claim, you know, other than some lazy name calling?
Posted by: kb | November 11, 2007 7:32 PM
pmorlan oay no attention to Bruce. He's just a shill for the GOP and since he's not very good at it, I suspect he does it for free$$$
Posted by: Alberto G | November 11, 2007 7:53 PM
Actually, if things stay quiet and Iraq and al-maliki keeps talking about how everything is really improving greatly, Americans might be able to reduce their presence in Iraq at least in the combat area--in other words, stop doing the Iraqis dying for them. This would be a huge improvement for our soldiers, although it is likely that we would continue buying off the Iraqis with billions of taxpayer dollars for the forseeable future.
The problem is, we can't even tell if Hillary would end our soldiers' combat role. She has never expressed any concern about Americans dying so Iraqis don't have to. And she might well overdo the tough
commander in chief bit, just like W, because she is so fearful of being perceived as weak.
So Edwards is right. There are no guarantees on Iraq if Hillary is in charge.
Posted by: Helena | November 11, 2007 8:10 PM
RNC Bruce is caught in the 26% dead-ender conundrum.
No plausible candidate, no Dubya worth talking about.
Posted by: Doug Zook | November 11, 2007 10:29 PM
So Edwards is right. There are no guarantees on Iraq if Hillary is in charge.
Posted by: Helena | November 11, 2007 8:10 PM
Typical baseless attack on Hillary. You republicans will never learn. Why do I get the impression from the way your post reads that your not even a woman?
Posted by: Lt Dan | November 11, 2007 10:52 PM
The more I understand Edwards, the more I admire him. I still think he's hard to watch, but so was Jimmy Carter, you know, and look what history will now say about him.
Look, if you don't ask Hillary hard questions now, and you just assume that it's 1991 for Clintons in America again, the Republicans will have a a lot of cards to play next year. The real question is why did Al Gore have to distance himself from the Clinton administration in 1999. Has anything changed on that front?
It is patently undemocratic and shameful for candidates to try to avoid criticism in the primaries that they know they are going to face in the general election.
Posted by: Ronald Loui | November 12, 2007 5:43 AM
"The real question is why did Al Gore have to distance himself from the Clinton administration in 1999."
Umm, he certainly didn't "have to," and many people think that is why he "lost" the election (he won the popular vote and the shenanigans in Florida should make any American ashamed of our so-called Republic). You are aware that President Clinton left office with the highest approval ratings ever, higher even than President Reagan, right?
Posted by: DaVe | November 12, 2007 12:10 PM
DaVe! You're right! By http://uspolitics.about.com/od/polls/l/bl_historical_approval.htm, Bill edged Reagan by a point on the final day. But of course, Bill was down a bit during the campaigning, http://www.pollingreport.com/clinton-.htm .
The answer to my INTENDED question, of why Gore FELT he had to distance himself, for better or worse, can be found by clicking on the Clinton scandal link, where you will be directed to choose between Clinton Scandals I, Clinton Scandals II, Clinton Scandals III, and Clinton Scandals IV. No kidding.
BTW, as much as I revile the actions of Jed Bush and his minions in the 2000 election, I don't think I would go around saying I am "ashamed" of this republic. It's always a sign of better times when the French come knocking and want to be our friends again ;)
Posted by: Ronald Loui | November 12, 2007 2:17 PM