Edwards Campaign Statement on Senator Clinton's "Yee-Haw" Rural Lobbyist Lunch

Edwards Campaign Statement On Senator Clinton's "Yee-Haw" Rural Lobbyist Lunch
John Edwards for President
Thursday, October 18, 2007
----
Chapel Hill, North Carolina – In response to reports that Senator Clinton is planning a "Rural Americans for Hillary" lunch and campaign briefing at the DC offices of Troutman Sanders Public Affairs, the lobbying firm for Monsanto, John Edwards for President communications director Chris Kofinis released the following statement:

"While John Edwards was in rural Iowa yesterday talking about his plans to help family farmers, the Clinton campaign was in Washington, DC planning an event with the lobbyists from the biggest corporate agriculture company in the world. The difference between John Edwards and Hillary Clinton could not be more clear. Here's some news for the Clinton campaign, when folks in rural Iowa talk about the problems with hog lots, they don't mean parking lots on K Street.

"John Edwards believes family-owned farms are critical to America's future and that the corporate greed that's killing the family farm is hurting America. Apparently, Hillary Clinton doesn't feel the same way. While John Edwards has introduced policies to ensure family farmers can compete against big agribusiness, protect the food we eat and preserve farming communities, Hillary Clinton, beholden to Washington lobbyists, is tailoring her rural policy to reflect the needs of big agribusiness. While corporate America and lobbyists may want someone like Clinton in the White House, regular Americans are ready for someone who will stand up for them and fight for real change."

http://johnedwards.com/news/press-releases/20071018-yee-haw/

But there's just too many things about him that tip the balance the other way.

things they don't like about him that are substantive. They point to superficial stuff or vague feelings. I can tell you precisely why I don't like Hillary and what it is that I do like about all the other candidates -- each of them, but no one seems to be able to state clearly why they don't like Edwards other than generalities like "He is _______." Please explain what it is about him that tip the balance.

I don't have confidence in his understanding of foreign affairs, or how to handle an international crises. I want something more than just good advisors. I have the same problem with Obama, to an extent. Also, Edwards somehow comes across to me as someone talking a good talk, but not walking the walk. I understand his votes in the Senate were not impressive.

when he became president. I remember being a little concerned about that at the time. One trait that Bill Clinton and Edwards have in common is incredible curiosity and willingness to change and learn. (Based on her statements and conduct, I do not think that Hillary has the same willingness to change her mind that Clinton had.) Edwards has spent the past four years preparing himself to run for president. He is an extremely intelligent man. He has worked hard at preparing himself for this campaign, and I believe he is ready to lead the country in the right direction. Frankly, I would like to see a president who would focus a bit on the problems of Americans. Recent presidents have spent far too much time on the problems of other countries and failed to address festering problems here at home. Edwards will not lose sight of the fact that he is the president of the U.S., not of the U.N.

Take for example the problem of the environment. It is an international problem, but the American president can best assist in addressing the international problem by focusing on the development of alternative energy resources and technology and effective solutions to our environmental problems here at home. Edwards has feasible plans for the environment. Edwards also has the personality to bring Americans together to work on finding good solutions to the challenge of safeguarding the environment.

Edwards is the candidate with the strongest program for protecting American workers in the global economy. The other candidates, especially Hillary, barely acknowledge that problem exists.

Edwards' refusal to take lobbyists money is, I believe, his most important asset in terms of his foreign affairs policy. For purposes of contrast, Hillary Clinton accepts money from corporations and corporate interests that profit enormously from our exaggeratedly expanded foreign entanglements. Many of the companies from whom she receives money are involved in, even rely on, trade with China. How can Hillary negotiate effectively with China (or India) on behalf of American working people when she takes so much money from businesses with interests in China or India? Edwards does not have that problem. I fault the Bill Clinton administration's trade policies for many of our present economic difficulties. That is another reason why I prefer Edwards for president.

I am a lawyer, and I have done litigation. When people think of lawyers, they think of Perry Mason. But the truth is that, only on very rare occasions, would a lawyer appear in court and call a crucial witness at the last minute. Especially in the kind of civil law that Edwards practiced, lawyers plan and organize their cases very carefully. They review documents and build their case based on facts. Because Edwards was so successful as a lawyer, I feel certain that he will be very well organized, reliable and hard-working.

I also know that Edwards has developed extremely good negotiation skills as a litigator. Most civil cases settle. A lawyer like Edwards only gets good settlements if is a master negotiator.

Edwards will also be a persuasive spokesman for the Democratic Party. He is used to talking to juries. He will be successful in advocating for his ideas and ideals to the American people.

Please take a careful look at Edwards. He is the candidate we need to represent our party in 2008.

Are or are not the interests of small/family farmers the same as the interests of agribusiness giants like Monsanto? Are or are not the interests of consumers the same as the interests of agribusiness giants like Monsanto? What about this statement is a "tip the balance" for you?

it's the messenger.

I suppose her Hollywood friends will help her plan the next "event" for rural Americans.

And then a week later the 9/12/02 speech, as he says in the video, he was on the Intelligence Committee and knew that there had not been an NIE prepared when he gave the speech in September???


IRAQI DICTATOR MUST GO
(Senate - September 12, 2002)
http://web.archive.org/web/20021214041757/edwards.senate.gov/statements/20020912_iraq.html

Before advocating for regime change and a war in Iraq would it not be prudent to have the updated intelligence information from all agencies and then afterwards to read the report before voting?


posted here originally
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=3602047&mesg_id=3606371


The speech given by Edwards on 9/12/02 was before the NIE ever existed and he sat on the Intelligence Committee and should have been aware of, or attended, the 9/5/02 meeting described below by Senator Graham. Unless Senator Graham is not being truthful? But I remember other senators, Durbin in particular, saying he also wrote a letter in September '02 requesting an NIE, so???

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/11/18/AR2005111802397.html

http://intelligence.senate.gov/members107thcongress.html

"...At a meeting of the Senate intelligence committee on Sept. 5, 2002, CIA Director George Tenet was asked what the National Intelligence Estimate (NIE) provided as the rationale for a preemptive war in Iraq. An NIE is the product of the entire intelligence community, and its most comprehensive assessment. I was stunned when Tenet said that no NIE had been requested by the White House and none had been prepared. Invoking our rarely used senatorial authority, I directed the completion of an NIE.

Tenet objected, saying that his people were too committed to other assignments to analyze Saddam Hussein's capabilities and will to use chemical, biological and possibly nuclear weapons. We insisted, and three weeks later the community produced a classified NIE.

There were troubling aspects to this 90-page document. While slanted toward the conclusion that Hussein possessed weapons of mass destruction stored or produced at 550 sites, it contained vigorous dissents on key parts of the information, especially by the departments of State and Energy. Particular skepticism was raised about aluminum tubes that were offered as evidence Iraq was reconstituting its nuclear program.

He is not corrupt. Hillary takes money from the corporate lobbyists and owes them big time for their support. Obama is good, but has not been through a national election. Obama has never known what it is like to be attacked by Karl Rove and company. Obama is just not as ready to win a national presidential election as Edwards is. Edwards learned the ropes in 2004, and has been preparing for his campaign ever since. Go to his website and watch his videos and you will see what a great president he will be. I suspect that Edwards is avoiding peaking early for a reason.

I table for Edwards once a week, and people walk up and tell us how much they like him. They tell us that they don't see him on TV and suggest that they want to see him more. They are coming up to us and telling us that they believe that, when all is said and done, Edwards is the only Democrat who can really be elected.

Just wait. Edwards is going to get the timing right. Hillary is going to be more and more embarrassed by her dependency on her big business donors. The Republicans are just waiting to start beating the drum about Bill's womanizing and all the lies about his presidency.

When the votes are cast, Edwards will be our candidate, and we will win the presidency. Watch the weekly Rasmussen polls that show how Edwards fares in contests with the potential Republican candidates. Edwards can win. He beats all the other Democratic hopefuls in the polls that matter -- against the Republicans.

I believe that much of Hillary's support is a kind of nostalgia for the Bill Clinton era. But soon, Democrats will realize that we can't go back. When people realize that Hillary is not Bill no matter how hard she tries to bring him into her campaign, they will wake up and understand that she cannot and should not be elected as president.

Edwards is a really strong candidate. I hope people will check out his website. Notice how specific his proposals are. He seems to always be the first to make a proposal. He got his health care plan out there first. He presented a counter-terrorism program quite some time ago. He even got his rural initiative out there first. And he had the good sense to present it to regular people living in rural America, not to a room full of big business lobbyists in D.C. Edwards is not a corporate shill. He is his own man. He made his fortune fighting corporations, not working for them. He is a true Democrat not a DLC phony. Check him out on his own website. I like all the candidates other than Clinton, but I sincerely believe Edwards is the best candidate we have.

I haven't taken any money from corporate lobbyists either.

And what my experience tells me is that Clinton needs to do what's right for this country, and step aside and give America a chance for some new blood.

Sure and have the puppet masters control Obama and Edwards.

Edwards crafted the Iraq War Resolution. Why him? Edwards supported the War on Bush's white House website.

Dream on...

The only candidate ready for the White House is Senator Clinton.

You would support a candidate who refuses to admit she make a mistake over the Iraq War Vote, over one who admits they made a mistake?

Are you in favor of continuing this war?

whether they be Republican or someone claiming the bloodline..as a wild eyed incentive for the presidency.

George Bush the way the Clintons are.

If you're looking for someone who will cut loose from the current course, it will be Edwards.

and openly supported it on The White House website.

afaic...he's far from trustworthy.

The Gore invented the Internet IS a RW slur against Al Gore.

I wish you wouldn't propagate it.

Second, everyone on this newsgroup knows that "Gore invented the internet" was part of a major misinformation effort from the right-wing, and I was suggesting that, perhaps, you're doing the same thing with Edwards.

Could he have interjected part of it himself? Yes, I'm sure he may have. Or his staffers did, as these things are usually done. But to craft it all by himself in the privacy of his office with no input from anybody else, appears a little farfetched. Which is what your statement suggests.

So, provide the link. I've been wrong before and I step up when someone brings these things up to me. I'll do it for you too.

NOTE: I will be adding a lot of detail about the legislative history, including the critically overlooked prior resolution which funded the war before the AUMF was voted on)

The resolution numbers are H.J.RES.114 (House) and S.J.RES.46 (Senate).

Related Bills, and notes from Thomas: S.J.Res. 45 was based on the original White House proposal authorizing the use of force in Iraq. H.J.Res. 114 and the substantially similar S.J.Res. 46 were modified proposals. H.J.Res. 110 was a separate proposal not considered on the floor.

H.J.RES.114 was sponsored by Dennis Hastert (R) and Dick Gephardt (D), with 135 additional cosponsors.

S.J.RES.46 was sponsored by Joe Lieberman (D), with 16 cosponsors: Sen Allard, Wayne - 10/2/2002 Sen Baucus, Max - 10/7/2002 Sen Bayh, Evan - 10/2/2002 Sen Breaux, John B. - 10/9/2002 Sen Bunning, Jim - 10/4/2002 Sen Domenici, Pete V. - 10/2/2002 Sen Edwards, John - 10/3/2002 Sen Helms, Jesse - 10/2/2002 Sen Hutchinson, Tim - 10/2/2002 Sen Johnson, Tim - 10/7/2002 Sen Landrieu, Mary L. - 10/2/2002 Sen McCain, John - 10/2/2002 Sen McConnell, Mitch - 10/2/2002 Sen Miller, Zell - 10/2/2002 Sen Thurmond, Strom - 10/10/2002 Sen Warner, John - 10/2/2002

http://www.dkosopedia.com/wiki/Iraq_War_Resolution

showing a tremendous amount of ignorance about the way bills are put together in Congress.

:thumbsup:

And was that an endorsement I heard from Bill Maher tonite? Sure sounded like one.

Remember: she's not the corporate candidate, she'll just play one as president.

:rofl:

... for Edwards! :thumbsup::kick:

*4th, when Gore's in the poll.
So Chris Kofinis, which lobbyist (name please) gave her money (how much, when) that caused her to do what (details, please)?
The emptiness of Edward's desperate negativity is quite sad.

from www.dictionary.com



Here's what Monsanto had to say about food safety:

http://www.organicconsumers.org/monlink.cfm


(immediate edit to fix quote)

Monsanto has no relationship to the image most of us have to "rural Americans" unless our image is one of Masters and serfs in a landscape de-nuded of any plants/animals/insects/birds/clean water that is not owned and exploited for its' bottom line. It is in conflict with indiginous peoples and small farmers around the globe, environmentalists, and organic farmers. They are part of the Indian farmers "suicide seed" story and the environmental and human catastrophe caused by the US spraying of herbicide in Columbia.

from: http://www.organicconsumers.org/monlink.cfm



That Hillary Clinton would choose a lobbying firm for Monsanto to talk about "rural Americans" tells us anything we'd need to know about her allegiances and agenda.

when he was in the senate. I honestly don't know, but I am guessing there
aren't any . . . even though he represented an agricultural state.