by Rick Pearson
DES MOINES, Iowa — Democratic presidential contender John Edwards said today that ay his differences with Sen. Hillary Clinton are "much more dramatic" than with Sen. Barack Obama, although the Illinois senator's talk of compromise as part of changing Washington may not be realistic.
The former North Carolina senator also dismissed criticism that his campaign's sharp attacks of Clinton were in sharp contrast to a more positive style attached to his failed 2004 bid for the Democratic presidential nomination.
"The differences between Sen. Clinton (D-N.Y.) and myself are much more dramatic than the differences between Sen. Obama and myself," Edwards told reporters after receiving the endorsement of the progressive group Caucus for Priorities, which seeks a reallocation of defense dollars into social programs.
"Down the line," Edwards said, on issues such as "What we would do in Iraq? What we should be doing about Iran. What we should be doing about corrupting influences in Washington and a broken system, (there are) really big differences between Sen. Clinton and myself."
Edwards comments reflect a growing pressure among Clinton's rival Democratic contenders to try to pursue a strategy to present themselves as viable alternatives to her candidacy.
In recent days, rival contenders have questioned her general election viability and, with less than two months before Iowa's nation leading caucuses, defeating Clinton or holding her to a slim victory in the kickoff state could slow any momentum for her from developing while help them organize in subsequent states.
Edwards generally credited Obama for refusing to take lobbyist dollars for his campaign, an issue on which the former North Carolina senator has frequently attacked Clinton. He also noted Obama's plan to expand health care plan, although "it would leave as many as 15 million people uncovered," while Edwards' proposal would mandate universal coverage.
But, Edwards said, the biggest difference between himself and Obama was that each has a different approach on what needs to be done to reform Washington.
"I've heard him talk about compromise, negotiation, bringing people together," Edwards said. "I believe there's a fight in front of us."
Edwards said he didn't believe oil, health care, insurance and defense contractors "are going to give up their power willingly."
"I don't think we can all sit around a table and be nice to them and think they're going to relinquish the power and influence they have today. I think it has to be taken from them. And that means you've got to have somebody that will fight. I know that I will fight. I'll let Sen. Obama speak for himself on that."
Edwards said the comparative shots that are being fired at a more rapid rate in the campaign are part of the candidates' duties to show voters the differences that exist.
"We could all just roam through this and hold hands and treat it like there's no differences between us, but there are," Edwards said. "There are differences between us and I think caucus-goers are entitled to know that and I think we have a responsibility to ensure that they know it."
• 
• 
• 
• 
Comments
"said today that ay his differences"
cut the "ay" out before bruce sees it
Posted by: lookingout | November 9, 2007 5:11 PM
They are alot different!
One wants to raise our taxes alot and the other wants to raise our taxes alot more...
Paulo
Posted by: Paulo | November 9, 2007 6:37 PM
Hey Paulo, are you earning 200k a year or more? If not, don't be taken in by the claims that your taxes are going to go up. The have-mores who've had their taxes cut 15 to 20% over the last six years (did the GOP do that for YOU?) are simply going to be put back to where they were in the 90's when they were still making money hand over fist.
Edwards more than anyone realizes that the poor and the middle class are underpaid and financially burdened far beyond their means. That's what his whole campaign is about - everyone who isn't in the top 2% of wealth in this country is getting screwed. They have all the opportunities and we have fewer all the time.
Or do you prefer our record 9 trillion national debt due mostly to charge and spend plenty policies? Just like Reagan, they come in with a big tax cut then increase the size of govt. beyond anything it had been before.
By the way, go look at the GAO or CBO historical tax tables. The only administration to cut the size of government by the end of the presidential term was a Democrat. Back in the 90's and that given a proven economic road map the Dems for the 21st century. Remember the surplus? That's how it happened, we shrank the size of govt. And it happened after after we'd stopped raising taxes.
Our tax investment in America, when NOT managed by people who think government can't do anything right, consistently creates a stronger business environment. While your looking at those official tax tables look at the era in the 50's and 60's when America became the world's first superpower. The tax rates were so high at the very top (the have-more's again) I must admit were obscene yet even that didn't stop us from becoming the world's greatest economic engine of all time.
I'm sure that investment helped contribute to that absolutely state-of-the-art national infrastructure which business thrived in.
Posted by: Pauly | November 9, 2007 8:46 PM
And Paulo's candidates want to spend the country so far into debt that America goes bankrupt, while at the same time thousands of American soldiers die on foreign soil because they're stuck in a civil war unleashed by the Republic Party.
Posted by: BC | November 9, 2007 9:20 PM
Look, "Free" Trade is the biggest threat our middle class has ever seen. I am an HR recruiter and I talk to white collar workers on a daily basis who are out of work because their job went "offshore". This has got to stop. John Edwards is the only one talking about this.
Posted by: Steven | November 9, 2007 10:41 PM
BC,
Just think how flush with cash this country would be if not for the [Thirteen TRILLION DOLLARS] in entitlement programs since 1964 that the dems pushed through for L.B.J....and still going on today!
Hmmmmm?
Oh...and thank J.F.K. and L.B.J for Vietnam where 58,000,258 soldiers were killed for nothing.
....Anything else B.C.????
Paulo
Posted by: Paulo | November 10, 2007 12:25 AM
Let's see---a hedge fund "consultant" who made his money chasing ambulances & bought $18 million in Fortress Fund, a firm busy evicting Katrina victims for payment irregularities---that's the Democrat's answer?
Give me Hilarious Hillary or Naive Obama rather than this self-absorbed hair-and-makeup impostor. He plays the surrogate victim card with his wife [Romney's wife has MS, but Mitt doesn't smarm & pander] and he's on record as having supported the invasion of Iraq---enthusiastically, according to a Slate columnist.
SNL did a skit with Amy Poehler making fun of Hillary's opponents---to polite laughter until she called Edwards an "ambulance-chasing doubletalking bastard" and got a loud round of applause. In NYC!
And Edwards was booed at a Mellencamp concert in Des Moines yesterday. Sounds like the Silk Pony needs a new fashionista consultant.
Posted by: daveinboca | November 10, 2007 10:00 AM
John, we know you and Hillary are dramatically different. For instance, she's a winner....
Posted by: Biggdawg | November 10, 2007 2:13 PM
The thirteen trillion in entitlements enacted under the Great Society include Medicare and Head Start.
Think of how flush our country would be with seniors bankrupted by medical costs and kids made unemployable by illiteracy.
Posted by: robert chapman | November 10, 2007 2:17 PM
Posted by: Paulo | November 10, 2007 12:25 AM
[quote]
if not for the [Thirteen TRILLION DOLLARS] in entitlement programs since 1964 that the dems pushed through
[/quote]
Do you have a link that provides PROOF for this number, or did you just make it up - the same way that you've NEVER PROVIDED PROOF that Obama went to a "madrassa school" in Indonesia since you posted it EIGHT MONTHS AGO!
Oh, and since you love big numbers, try these on for size:
[quote]
According to the Treasury Department, from 1776-2000, the first 224 years of U.S. history, 42 U.S. presidents borrowed a combined $1.01 trillion from foreign governments and financial institutions, but in the past four years alone, the Bush administration borrowed $1.05 trillion.
[/quote]
source: http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewNation.asp?Page=%5CNation%5Carchive%5C200511/NAT20051104b.html
How are the Republic Party candidates planning on paying off that debt Paulo?
Posted by: BC | November 10, 2007 5:38 PM