Was Obama Comparing Edwards Unfavorably to John Kerry?

I totaly agree with the author.. it is high time that Mr Obama be scrutinized of his nasty sly commnents.. he goes scott free with his negative comments while trying to maintain his positive image.. HE IS THE ONE WHO STARTED THE NEGATIVE CAMPAING BY STARTTING TO ATTACK HILLARY.. AND NOW JOHN.. I DONT TRUST A PERSON WHO JUST VOTES "PRESENT" .. MR OBAMA WE NEED TO KNOW WHERE YOU VOTE ON ISSUE AND NOT JUST TALK.. IT IS EASY TO TALK THE TALK THAT HE ALWAYS DOES ...

Hammo –

I read your post analyzing the various candidates. I don’t see where you make the case Edwards has “a much better chance” than Obama in a general election. Besides the fact that Obama actually fares a little better in the head-to-head polls (see my post below), Edwards has the problem of having run in 2004. I’m sorry to say, that in many people’s minds means he would be another dud. For example, you cite that he is “a southern white male” and therefore has certain advantages. We know that Kerry added Edwards to the ticket in order to be competitive in the South, and we also know that the Kerry-Edwards ticket did not carry Southern states, not even Edwards’ home state of North Carolina. Edwards also got his clock cleaned in his one debate with Dick Cheney. As inexperienced as Obama is, he at least is a member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. Edwards has but one six year Senate term as his *entire* political resume, and he spent the last two of those years running for higher office.

Does anyone believe that the percieved 'flip-flopping' of Kerry was NOT a problem in the 2004 election? It doesn't matter if Kerry was or wasn't; what matters is if the 2008 nominee will have to go through that again. This article was written to stir up trouble instead of focusing on how/why this is a true strength of Obama in a general election and why this could be problematic for his Democratic opponents.

Tahni –

The poll you cite from CNN is from Dec 6-9; there are at least *five* more recent polls that prove what Obama claims. Obama wasn’t making this claim three weeks ago. Also, you are citing only one poll; if you look at the averages of multiple polls, Obama is correct. The best source is RealClearPolitics because they keep a running average of multiple polls. By the way, CNN surveyed, according to their press release, “1002 adult Americans,” whereas others have polled *likely voters,* and I think that makes the other polls slightly more valid.

What a stretch! Trying to provoke an argument between Obama and Kerry. It's clear to one with no axe to grind (no article to sell) that Obama is talking about Edwards and the weakness the GOP will exploit in the general election; i.e., his inconsistency. Obama is also right about Clinton.

This is definitive that Barack was comparing Edwards to Kerry? Yeah right. How about a move by a site to attempt to capture voters who might have been pro-Kerry the last time around and give reason to endorse Edwards. Phony articles like this on the web...gimme a break.

Edwards has a much better chance of winning in a general election than Obama, for a variety of reasons. More on this in the article: "Democrats risk self-sabotage in presidential race ... again"

"John Edwards has clawed his way into contention to win Iowa's caucuses on Thursday in the first vote for the Democratic presidential nomination, gaining strength as rivals Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama have lost ground, according to a new McClatchy-MSNBC poll."

On the Democratic side, the race is about as close as it can get, but keep an eye on Edwards," said Brad Coker of Mason-Dixon Polling & Research, which conducted the survey. "Edwards has really moved up since our last poll. Obama and Clinton have each slipped a little bit."

The new survey, taken Dec. 26-28, came three weeks after the initial Dec. 3-6 poll.

Iowa poll results

Among Democrats:

* Former Sen. John Edwards of North Carolina has the support of 24 percent.

* Sen. Hillary Clinton of New York has 23 percent.

* Sen. Barack Obama of Illinois has 22 percent.

* Gov. Bill Richardson of New Mexico has 12 percent.

* Sen. Joe Biden of Delaware has 8 percent.

* Sen. Chris Dodd of Connecticut has 2 percent.

* Rep. Dennis Kucinich of Ohio has 1 percent.

* Undecided: 8 percent.

America is a Democracy - We are not a Monarchy.
Wiser folks than us - saw to it long ago, that we be fortunate enough to realize this life blessing.
Nepotism may be fine for the old-corner-store but it will only serve to fail us again -as it has, most resoundingly, for the entirety of this millennium.

Voting for the worst policy decision in our life times does not make one 'experienced'. It -IS- high time America elected a woman as commander-in-chief. When a self made woman of conviction and talent stands up and demonstrates the character that can stand as an example for us all - we should stand behind her - with conviction and fortitude. Hillary Clinton is not that woman. She is the spouse of a former and popular President. In a nation, 300 million strong, are we to believe that the person most suited to be the President just happens to be related to the last President ?!
Are we really to believe this is the case ?
Will we make this mistake, again ?

Barack Obama has the strength and certitude to take America in a new and positive direction - a direction that our evolving nation - being formed all around us all as we pass through our daily lives - very much is in need of. There really is an immediacy of the 'now' that we all share. We truly must begin to think big again and to face the immense challenges before us in brave and selfless ways again - like those people in the old faded photographs on our walls did - for us. It really is time to wake up again America. The time is, most certainly, now.

Barack Obama for President of the United States of America.

It's time for America to Rise and Shine again.

I think you're missing the point Jake. It's that you and the media focus on inconsequential stuff like this and ignore substantive issues.

The question is why you chose to write an article about this instead of looking at Edwards' record to see what flip-flops if any he's committed.

You guys can't hide behind the excuse that Obama and Clinton are the frontrunners. Edwards is right there with them, perhaps the favorite in Iowa. And the media is giving him a free ride.

DTD wrote: He has NO money and NO organization, so voting for Edwards is effectively voting for Clinton in the long-term. The only thing an Iowa win for Edwards will do is remove Obama, but it certainly is not going to help him in any other state where he can not compete with Clinton. Think people!

DTD,

Think about it: Kerry was also in a similar position. But once he got Iowa, he got all the support, the money and the nomination.

Since he's apparently clueless, Obama's camp should coach him in the importance of placing your hand over your heart when our national anthem is played. Go back to school, Barack, and be sure to enroll in Patriotism 101.

My other comment was removed, I suppose because the moderator didn't like that I suggested that Jake had to reach a bit too far to draw, what in my mind seems to be, a conclusion pulled somewhere out of left field. It still seems to me that Jake's opinion on Obama's comments had an element of "spin" to it. Maybe because he personally does not prefer Obama, and is trying to do what one with journalistic power may be tempted to do; sway people to see things his way... but maybe this time, a bit unfairly.
Obama has been consistent in his approach throughout this campaign, if only to become a bit tougher when responding to criticism directed toward him. I do NOT think he is the perfect candidate... I do, however, think he will do a fine job as president. And for those who are still undecided for his "lack of experience," consider that is he unequivocally an intellectual and scholar, and a president is made up not only of his own devices, but also of his cabinet. I trust that Obama will be a great stand alone president with an great cabinet.

I have nothing against John Edwards, but I think it's a fair question to ask why are Iowan Democrats so gullable? Yes, they have an accurate history of picking the Democratic nominee, but certainly NOT a winning nominee. For the life of me, I can not understand why they are poised to choose Edwards. Again, I have no problem with Edwards, but he has no chance in hell of securing the nomination let alone winning the presidency. I defy any Edwards' supporter to tell me who is base is and what chance he has of peeling off female, African American and Latino voters from Clinton. NONE!!! He has NO money and NO organization, so voting for Edwards is effectively voting for Clinton in the long-term. The only thing an Iowa win for Edwards will do is remove Obama, but it certainly is not going to help him in any other state where he can not compete with Clinton. Think people!

Unfortunately Obama is not only losing votes but also respect. He has resorted to lies for the sake of votes! I did not expect this from him. In more than one national polls Edwards is the only candidate who is beating all GOP hopefuls with a wide margin. One example in Dec:

Additional results from the most recent CNN/Opinion Research national survey of 912 registered voters (conducted 12/6 through 12/9) finds:

General Election Match-ups:

McCain 50%, Clinton 48%
Clinton 51%, Giuliani 45%
Clinton 54%, Huckabee 44%
Clinton 54%, Romney 43%

Obama 48%, McCain 48%
Obama 52%, Giuliani 45%
Obama 54%, Romney 41%
Obama 55%, Huckabee 40%

Edwards 52%, McCain 44%
Edwards 53%, Giuliani 44%
Edwards 59%, Romney 37%
Edwards 60%, Huckabee 35%

How can Obama says he is able to beat Republicans, and not Edwards?

It's sad, but more and more it seems, Obama only knows how to give a good speech.

Exactly laurie,

In fact, we've even seen articles about Obama's minor changes on topics from when he started his State Senate terms, but nothing about Edwards' huge reversals on a number of issues.

It's almost like they want us to nominate Edwards so they can start writing the articles about his flip-flopping and help elect a Republican.

Why not report on the substance - has Edwards significantly changed his positions -rather than imagining some irrelevant put down comparison. Watch a bit from an interview with Edwards did with Charly Rose for another recent example of his shifting positions. To paraphrase Edwards: everyone's voices should be heard, including big multinational corporations. I'm not suggesting for a minute that we should exclude them.

What you are inferring is not "clear" at all. You are reading way too much into that statement. If you applied that sort of logic to everyday life, you would sound like a conspiracy theorist.

If I followed the same logic, I could say that when Clinton and Edwards say they are more electable than Obama, they are clearly referring to Sharpton and Jesse Jackson as having failed to secure the Democratic nomination in the past because they were black, alluding to the fact that Obama will face the same fate.

I thought that Barack was going to run a campaign different from all the smear campaigns in the past. That sure isn't happening which supports my position that all candidates will do anything to get a vote. One day he pulls the race card, the next the idea of hope and change which is what exactly, and the next he attacks those in his own party, etc. It may be that he did not vote on many issues, but is that good? It seems when he is in the hot seat he does't vote at all. What is up with that? He is opposed to a war he thought was unnecessary and instead would have supported invading Pakistan. Would that have made that region of the world any more stable? I doubt it. Would we have gotten OBL. I doubt it. So most likely that invasion would have been foolish also EXCEPT that Pakistan does have nukes whereas Iraq did not. Every candidate has a big mouth when they run spouting all sorts of promises and change and folks look at reality. The dems took over the house and senate and exactly what CHANGE has occurred? You know, people can bash Rudy all they want but having grown up in NJ I can tell you that NYC CHANGED A LOT when Rudy took over. He did make things happen which is way more than most elected officials can brag about especially this present house and senate.

Obama's stump speech is sounding more and more like Edwards stump speech. It was just two weeks ago he was the candidate of hope now he is the candidate of desperation. It seems to me that Obama is more of a follower than a leader. He had to follow Edwards QUE to go after Hillary in the debates, now he is copying Edwards stump speech almost word for word. The Lobbyist will lead Obama and this country into the river.

I am for Edwards, he would be the best Democratic Candidate who could go up against any Republican. If Obama thinks that Edwards is like Kerry in the sense that Edwards would lay over and die under Republican attacks, well Obama is living in a dream world. Edwards has already proven he is the strongest of all the Democratic Candidates. Edwards is a fighter.