July 27th, 2007
12:40 PM ET
3 years ago

Edwards: Clinton-Obama feud 'what's wrong with Washington'

(CNN) – Another candidate has now been heard from in the growing Barack Obama-Hillary Clinton war of words. This time, it is fellow Democratic presidential hopeful John Edwards, who jabbing them Friday morning, calling their feud an example of “what’s wrong with Washington.”

Edwards’ comments came as he addressed the National Urban League presidential forum in St. Louis. Edwards spoke ahead of both Clinton and Obama.

He told the crowd, “If you're looking for what's wrong in Washington, why the system is broken, why the system doesn't work, one perfect example is what's been happening just over the course of the last four days. We've had two good people, Democratic candidates for president, who spent their time attacking each other instead of attacking the problems that this country's faced.”

As the crowd reacted to his line, Edwards laughed, “I got your attention with that one, didn't I? We need to be staying focused on what all of us together want to do for America.”

– CNN Political Desk Managing Editor Steve Brusk

soundoff (20 Responses)
  1. Not An Edwards Fan, Chapel Hill, NC

    An honest difference of opinion is what's healthy about our system, not what's wrong with it.

    Edwards' populist rhetoric where you try to pit American against American for political gain is part of what's wrong with this country.

    July 27, 2007 02:46 pm at 2:46 pm |
  2. Stephen

    People actually debating an issue is what is wrong with Washington? Edwards is becoming more laughable as the weeks go by.

    July 27, 2007 02:46 pm at 2:46 pm |
  3. sarah chicago, il

    it's funny that john says this. . . didn't he recently have a little accident with his mic? hm...

    July 27, 2007 02:52 pm at 2:52 pm |
  4. John S. Chicago, Illinois

    Edwards should shut up and go back to counting his jar of skittles. You can't win a fight for the life of this country without throwing a few punches or else you will end up on your ass like Gore and Kerry. Both nutless, sackless, meek well-wishers that needed to man the F up a few years ago and expose the government for its crooked ways, and slapfights are not on the top of that list.

    July 27, 2007 03:00 pm at 3:00 pm |
  5. Kris, Minneapolis, MN

    Obama and Hillary are not "debating an issue," they gave their views at the debate, we know where they stand, now there just name calling. Edwards was right to say "that's what's wrong with Washington." That and a heck of a lot more...

    July 27, 2007 03:09 pm at 3:09 pm |
  6. lavelle

    Well we know why oh johny boy said what he said. he's looking for some sort of oppening in this race and will try to make himself the other option. "Hey look at me I attacked Obama and Hillary first and put them on the spot during the first debate." yeah talk about that vote you tried to put the two on blast for....he's whats wrong with politics mr. exploiter himself....his wife,his son, Obama, Hillary nope I would never vote for edwards he seems too phony for me. Mr.Poverty lol yeah ok

    July 27, 2007 03:38 pm at 3:38 pm |
  7. Mrs. America

    IMO, the Clinton/Obama "discussions" are a good thing. In addition to the differing opinions, it shows the candidates in a more realistic light than what we can get during a debate (if you want to call what we've seen so far real "debates"). It's refreshing to see open bantering.

    John Edwards perhaps feels a little left out because the disagreement sparked the beginning of a real Dem campaign, and the most attention he is getting these days is about his hair and the comment he made about Sen. Clinton's jacket at the CNN/YouTube debate (which personally, I think he was just being nice by not saying anything negative about her political endeavors). So, the race is on! :)

    July 27, 2007 03:39 pm at 3:39 pm |
  8. Scott, Austin TX

    Hooray for Edwards! He's got my vote and my financial support. The silly name-calling between Clinton and Obama is childish. Debating and having a substantive difference is one thing, playschool tactics is another that just doesn't belong here and isn't becoming of a presidential candidate. I don't give one pinch of owl dung for either of those two clowns.

    July 27, 2007 04:00 pm at 4:00 pm |
  9. evan, sherman oaks, CA

    This is such an obnoxious political maneuver it is sick. Scott, open your eyes unless you are working for the Edwards campaign. I am very glad most people on this thread felt the same– there were no playschool tactics: they were discussing their respective approaches to perhaps the most important issue of diplomacy– i as a voter certainly want to see these two candidates and what they have to say.

    Thanks for somebody above bringing it up– but this is just a ridiculous statement for a guy who just weeks ago said that they should break up the debates. That really pissed me off– before that i was for Obama, but now i really this both Hilary and Edwards arent sincere. The election is more than a year away and he is talking about how the debates are a joke...

    July 27, 2007 04:11 pm at 4:11 pm |
  10. Scott Austin, TX

    Eyes are wide open Evan, and I still can't stand either Obama or Clinton. I wouldn't vote for them even if all of the GOP candidates forfeited the race.

    July 27, 2007 05:47 pm at 5:47 pm |
  11. Kevin NH

    Edwards answer was no different from Clinton. Wake up people, People who have been in washington too long think alike.

    July 27, 2007 06:42 pm at 6:42 pm |
  12. Anita, Commerce, Georgia

    Obama and Clinton are all glitz and no substance whatever. Edwards is right to call them on their ridiculous feud. I hope they will cancel each other out and make room for the Edwards, the one candidate who has specific policy plans and actually articulates them.

    July 28, 2007 12:29 am at 12:29 am |
  13. Trang, Fremont CA

    These two people have two different ways of thinking and strategies. It's good that they point out their differences.

    Obama didn't attack Hillary personally. He just doesn't want to be Bush-Cheney lite. Hillary just took it personally.

    Now Hillary did say that Obama has a naive way of looking at things. I am glad he stays his ground. There's no way to break this through without talking to those who are in charge despite their different point of views. I am glad he has the courage to do it.

    July 28, 2007 12:48 am at 12:48 am |
  14. Dave Miller, Reading, PA

    How is Barack calling Hillary "Bush-Cheney lite" or Hillary saying "what has happened to the politics of hope" discussing the issues?! Those are personal attacks and they aren't discussing any issue in a meaningful way! John Edwards is "right on" with his comments! He has been the one candidate that has been leading the way on the issues and he has some very detailed plans. He's also the most electable Dem in a general election. Does anyone here honestly think Hillary or Obama could win even one southern state?

    July 28, 2007 01:51 am at 1:51 am |
  15. Tanner, Kill Devil Hills, NC

    Go ahead...to all of y'all who don't wanna see change, vote for Obama or Clinton... no Yankee or a person from "up north" will have a chance in my home. Edwards is our homeboy, NC and SC will support, and the only folks in NC who won't are doctors who don't like they fact that Edwards called them out on their mistakes. He talks like me, walks like me, and I will vote for a Republican instead if Edwards isn't nominated. I can't stand political arguing. None of y'all like Edwards if your only excuse is that you are actually criticizing Edwards for being positive. Gimme a break... would ya like it for him to start being negative like the rest of 'em? Oh yea. that would be real productive.

    July 28, 2007 02:09 am at 2:09 am |
  16. MG. CA

    I can't believe people are insulting Edwards for shining a light on the issue of poverty. He was the first democratic hopeful to do so, which not only exposed a major problem across the entire country, but also inspired other canidates such as Barack Obama to add poverty to his own platform.

    July 28, 2007 02:12 am at 2:12 am |
  17. Zaina, Raleigh NC

    Now that is commendable, putting down Clinton and Obama for attacking each other by attacking them, because that makes sense! Edwards has proved time and time again he is a hypocrite. He calls out Obama for not arguing against a funding bill when Edwards supported the war in the first place! Now he's trying to take advantage of this moment and show himself as the responsible candidate by doing the precise thing he criticizes! If you ask me him and his 400 dollar hair cut need to get a life because there is no way the American people are going to fall for this phony!

    July 28, 2007 05:13 am at 5:13 am |
  18. Raymond

    Edwards is right this silly name calling between Obama and Clinton is childish. Clinton calling Obama "silly and naive" and Obama calling Hillary "Bush/Cheney lite". With regards to the debate between the two I agree with Obama that you have to talk to the leaders that may not like like. In the debate he used the example of Reagan talking to Russia("Evil Empire"), Nixon to China, Kennedy to Russia. Clinton would be continuing the path of Bush, not talking to leader of countries like Syria and Iran.

    July 28, 2007 06:23 pm at 6:23 pm |
  19. EEL, HBG, PA

    I can see why candidates resort to petty name-calling (not real debating, or political discussion, as the recent squabble between Obama and Clinton is obviously not) when average voters like oursleves resort to the same methods when discussing such issues. When the candidates campaign researchers read blogs like this, they obviously see what appeals to the average American, clasping to the hype of haircuts, being spectators to political jockeying for position and being told it is legitimate debate (and believing it), and reguritating juvenile epithets on overall respectable adults who any one of us would probably vote for over the republican offering. Politicians pander to the public. Though Edwards statement was correct, the defency of the system is in its sensationalism, it would be an error of political strategy for him to not make himself part of the show, and we all know it. If the news is not talking about the candidate, no one else is. Any candidate is going to get in on the bulls**t or they will be the all too virtous invisible man or woman.

    July 29, 2007 11:41 am at 11:41 am |
  20. Kyu Reisch, Radcliff, Kentucky

    John Edwards, don't confuse about this argument. Hillary's comment was for our Country's future, because Obama is naive and lack of experiences. He doesn't know what is he talking about foreign policy. I would worry about Obama too, you can't give our Country's leadership to the baby Senator or State Senator or Organizer, that's not enough experiences for our President of United States of America.
    Don't act like you are the only one care about this Country, Hillary cares more than others that's why she is attacking by you and them. You really worry about our Country's future, you should support Hillary, that is the best way for our Country.

    July 30, 2007 06:22 pm at 6:22 pm |