I’m a big fan of Elizabeth Edwards, but her latest shots at Obama are a little silly.
Mrs. Edwards added that any divide in the Democratic party this year among the candidates is the difference between “actual Democrats and rhetorical Democrats.”
“Sometimes it seems we have these beliefs but it turns out it’s like a Hollywood set: It’s a facade and there’s no guts behind it,” Mrs. Edwards asserts in the interview, “You listen to the language of what people say, particularly Obama, who seems to be using a lot of John’s 2004 language, which is maybe not surprisingly since one of his speechwriters was one of our speechwriters, his media guy was our media guy. These people know John’s mantra as well as anybody could know it.”
“They’ve moved from ‘hope is on the way’,” the potential first lady concluded, “to the ‘audacity of hope’. I’m constantly hearing things in a familiar tone.”
So Edwards was the first politician to use the word “hope” in his stump speech? Give me a break.
Here’s another lame shot:
And while Senator Barack Obama, D-Ill., was in the Illinois state legislature and not the Senate in 2003, Mrs. Edwards equally questioned his motives.
“Obama gives a speech that’s likely to be extraordinarily popular in his home district,” Edwards said, “and then comes to the Senate and votes for funding… so you are going to get people behaving in a holier-than-thou way.”
Obama was right on the war, and he was planning a run for the Senate. His opposition to the war was not popular, and to suggest he did it for political motives is absurd.
I applaud John Edwards for apologizing for his vote, but frankly we all deserved that apology. Edwards was a complete robot during that process. He didn’t question anything. He didn’t read the full National Intelligence Estimate. He was also planning a run for the Presidency. And yet Elizabeth Edwards has the gall to challenge Obama on this? It’s ridiculous.
