November 17th, 2007
09:58 AM ET
3 years ago

Edwards: I will continue to tell the truth

Clinton accused Edwards of mudslinging.

HENDERSON, Nevada (CNN) – Touring a hospital with nurses from a local union Friday, former North Carolina Senator John Edwards took time to assess Thursday night’s debate and to continue to criticize frontrunner New York Senator Hillary Clinton.

Edwards expressed frustration over Clinton’s apparent lighthearted reaction to a question about the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) saying, “this is not a joking matter for millions people who have lost their jobs. And NAFTA has in fact cost Americans well over a million jobs.”

When asked if he was guilty of mudslinging with regards to Senator Clinton, he responded, “What I’ve been doing is telling the truth and I will continue to tell the truth.”

Edwards told CNN that that the biggest effect of Thursday’s debate would be that it was another opportunity for him to differentiate himself from his rivals. “A lot of Americans are really just for the first time beginning to pay attention, and there’s nothing unusual about that. They have real lives. They’re not spending their lives thinking about politics. But now that they’re beginning to pay attention, our responsibility is to make sure, in my case, to make sure that they understand exactly what I want to do in a positive way as president, and how my vision differs from the other candidates.”

– CNN Nevada Producer Alexander Marquardt


Filed under: Hillary Clinton • John Edwards • Nevada
soundoff (55 Responses)
  1. Debbie J

    The sad reality is Edwards has been leading on ALL the issues since day one, but the MSM has chosen to ignore him, evidenced by the many comments on this thread that question not knowing his stance on all the issues. It is extremely frustrating fo those of us Americans unhappy with the status quo and want to see 'We the People' regain OUR government, not recognize a populist in our midst willing to take on the powers that be and champion us. John Edwards represents the biggest threat to the corporatocracy running this country, and that is why they continually mock or marginalize him. They want the 2 most UNelectable Dems running, that is about the only way the GOP can hold the W.H. We the People better wake up and vote in our OWN self interest. Or get used to more of the same.It's Hillary and Obama 24/7 ask yourself WHY???

    November 17, 2007 10:59 am at 10:59 am |
  2. James, Boston, MA

    The sad truth is that these candidates are punished if they tell the truth. He hemmed and hawed when asked if he thought Hillary was playing the gender card, then finally said no. The American people want the truth. It is a debate, call her out and cite examples. If you didn’t do your homework then all you had to do was pay attention to the debate. However, he played to the masses and tried to stay in the middle-ground. It isn’t mudslinging if you are directly asked a question regarding another candidates campaigning strategy. Although it was just a setup with no right answer to further railroad a Clinton opponent by CNN who turned the after debate show into the Clinton hour instead of highlighting subtle notes maybe not picked up during the debate. Did anyone else hear Bill Richardson say about mandatory federal service?

    November 17, 2007 11:53 am at 11:53 am |
  3. Michael, Tegucigalpa Honduras

    Neither John Edwards nor Barack Obama had a chance to succeed at this debate. Not only was the audience full of Clinton supporters, but so was the post-debate commentary with Anderson Cooper. The audience made Edwards into the bad guy every time he spoke against Clinton, and Cooper's show turned Obama into a "waffler", which he wasn't. This was not a fair setting for a debate.

    November 17, 2007 11:57 am at 11:57 am |
  4. Robin, Montpelier, VT

    "Stop, stop, stop. Simce when is it mudslinging to challenge someone? To challenge Clinton on her record is not mudslinging, it's politics."

    I totally agree with this comment. First all the statements that were spoken from each candidate about another candidate were birthed by Wolf and the others...this happened several times. But then this is a Presidental "race" and if you need to compare your reasonings with the other candidate..to me that is not "mud slinging", as Hillary stated (again, poor me and don't call on me about my politics). Someone's reasonings, decision making, consistantcy come into play when making a decision on who is going to be President. And if one cannot be open to this then they should get "out of the Kitchen".

    November 17, 2007 12:12 pm at 12:12 pm |
  5. Greg, Phoenix, AZ

    Funny headline on this one.

    Just watch this guy speak and think about this headline.

    November 17, 2007 12:22 pm at 12:22 pm |
  6. Jesse, Burnsville, MN

    Even if you don't like Edwards for whatever reason, just listen to what is saying, because he is right for sure on one thing. Hillary is a CORPORATE DEMOCRAT, which is no better than a CORPORATE REPUBLICAN. She will not create change. Corporations and lobbyists are funding her campaign and she will continue to fight on their behalf and not yours.

    I'm sick of people within the Democratic party (for which I am a part of) telling the rest of us to focus on the Republicans instead of trying to find the differences in our candidates. I am telling you fellow Democrats, Hillary will continue to divide our country and it WILL cost us seats in the house and senate, not to mention the fact that 50% of the country does not like her, which would put a Democratic presidency in '08 in jeopardy as well.

    Just think about it before declaring your blind love for Hillary.

    November 17, 2007 12:26 pm at 12:26 pm |
  7. Chris, Chicago, IL

    If you get rid of war you've got to get rid of Christianity. The Roman Empire didn't come this far to cut off it's sausage once it gets to the party. I think that we should just wait until Pope Benadictine gets here and he'll tell us who to vote for because although Mad Max is a good movie, I wouldn't want to live there.

    http://www.golden-lamp.com

    November 17, 2007 12:28 pm at 12:28 pm |
  8. Stefan Gaithersburg, MD

    I'm still waiting for him to say something constructive.

    November 17, 2007 02:16 pm at 2:16 pm |
  9. Joeley Reno, Nevada

    Edwards telling the truth...

    Edwards is an opportunist, what he doesn't get is that his opportunity failed with John Kerry.

    November 17, 2007 02:50 pm at 2:50 pm |
  10. Rhett, Arlington, VA

    Jo wrote, "Yes Mr Edward. We don't spend our time listening to politic but I know yu spent $1200 for a hair cut. Then go out and tell people you are fighting for the poor."

    I really like that. Combined with Ray's argument about Edwards' protectionist stance, it serves to prove a point that people forget about when talking about free trade, and NAFTA especially. Haircuts can't be imported, so there is a slight difference with the product comparison, but bear with me.

    Free trade encourages countries (i.e. businesses in an open economy) to produce more of the products in which they have a comparative advantage. When they do this, they become more efficient and produce more product for less cost, over time. With the exponential increase in supply relative to demand, the cost of the product goes down, both domestically and abroad. The same holds true for the product that is being imported. When the countries no longer trade, then the advantage is lost because resources are being reallocated to industries that aren't very efficient. That leads to price increases and lower productivity. Then all of a sudden, companies cannot sell all of their inventory because the prices have become unaffordable, leading them to layoff workers because they don't need to produce anymore. This is how we end up with electronics made in America at a higher price than in Japan, who happens to be really good at electronics. Or, in John Edwards' case, he ends up with a $1200 haircut; but that's probably just his poor financial judgment instead.

    I hope that there aren't that many people out there that want to trust him with our money, especially since he can't be trusted with his own money for haircut servies. He could have had the same cut for $18 at Hair Cuttery, and they would have thrown in the shampoo!

    November 17, 2007 03:10 pm at 3:10 pm |
  11. dawn -- Gaithersburg, MD.

    Sen. Edwards has taken PLENTY of money from "corporate America," including from sectors of the economy that he claims to disdain, like health insurance firms. He's also taken money from hedge funds; in fact Fortress employees are his largest group of corporate contributors. Fortress, of course, is the very same fund in which he has invested more than half of his fortune. When Sen. Edwards calls Sen. Clinton a "corporate Democrat," (whatever that means) he's just criticizing her for doing a better job fundraising than he has. Too bad.

    November 17, 2007 03:32 pm at 3:32 pm |
  12. Phil, Evans, Georgia

    Edwards' feels hes drowning and just trying to throw anything at Clinton and Obama to pull them down and himself up. Its just terrible when he uses the same dirty,meaningless,tactics as the Republicans like flip-floping, and women weakness to pull himself up.

    November 17, 2007 04:05 pm at 4:05 pm |
  13. Cody - Starkville, MS

    Just another example of the "top tier" candidates stealing Dennis Kucinich's words because they realize that Dennis is finally catching on. Who is the ONLY candidate who's ALWAYS been against NAFTA and the WTO? Oh yeah, Dennis.

    Protecting workers' rights and environmental quality by cancelling NAFTA and withdrawing from the WTO.

    November 17, 2007 05:56 pm at 5:56 pm |
  14. laurinda,ny

    You do that you John Edwards, you tell the truth out of your twisted little fish mouth. I would like to take a hook and stick it right into the side of your mouth and pull you right out of that cesspool bowl you reside in.

    November 17, 2007 08:41 pm at 8:41 pm |
  15. ronnie - knoxville, tn.

    john edwards should just give up now. he's not actually GAINING any supporters, and his #s as they are now don't put in in contention

    November 17, 2007 10:01 pm at 10:01 pm |
  16. William Courtland, Waterford, Ontario

    NAFTA is a presidential duty, but the Senate and Congress should not need to continuously update such laws but should find the method to ratify a final policy which is so complete and future comprehensive that it solves its own problems in its enacted legislation. Such a free trade agreement which is in turn delegated by a world price index rated against practices and standards, and the raw materials worth, and agreed upon by all trade partners in global scope and in trade deals which do not even include the United States of America.

    November 17, 2007 11:28 pm at 11:28 pm |
  17. Carroll, Longmont, CO

    Dennis Kucinich and John Edwards are the only candidates talking about the influence of corporations. Unfortunately, Kucinich is probably not electable in a general election even though he has done wonderful work in trying to impeach Cheney. But John Edwards is certainly electable.

    Corporations, even though not mentioned in the Constitution, now have all the protections of the Bill of Rights which were originally intended only for people. This gives them quite a few advantages over real people, including being immortal and having vast financial resources. They have freedom of speech and hire lobbyists to represent their interests to Congress. How many of you have your own lobbyist? For more information, google "corporate personhood" and see especially the Wikipedia article.

    John Edwards is the man to take on the large corporations that now pollute our political process. He's been doing it his whole life.

    November 18, 2007 12:39 am at 12:39 am |
  18. Lance in Monrovia

    I was stunned and outraged by the CNN post debate reaction on their channel. Those guys were carrying so much water for Hillary they could have overfilled every pool in Georgia.

    Edwards did a great job. Obama did an even better job. Hillary continued to give us the same old slick shine.

    I'm a life long Democrat and I liked Bill Clinton. I haven't seen much from his wife. My perfect ticket would be Obama/Edwards. Those two guys together can change the world for all of our betterment. They're just, well spoken, have bold ideas, and they know how to convey and pull them off.

    November 18, 2007 01:09 am at 1:09 am |
  19. Emily, Kirkland, WA

    Edwards called out Clinton on her voting record. There was no personal mudslinging. Somehow, Clinton convinced much of the crowd, and probably many of the viewers that bringing up her voting record is an evil Republican trick. Clinton was full of platitudes. I am waiting for her to say something substantive. The only one who had anything relevant to say was Biden.

    November 18, 2007 01:48 am at 1:48 am |
  20. Bernie Moore-Knowles - Papa'aloa, Hawai'i

    Lance in Monrovia? You are so right! Obama/Edwards in 2008!

    November 18, 2007 03:37 am at 3:37 am |
  21. Bernie Moore-Knowles - Papa'aloa, Hawai'i

    Aloha. For those of you like myself that were so disillusioned by the Clinton News Network debate in Vegas? You might want to read this article:

    http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard/2007/11/17/cnn-stocked-audience-controlled-thursdays-debate-questions

    And no, I am not a Republican. An independent, exploring Democratic candidates.

    November 18, 2007 04:47 am at 4:47 am |
  22. Independent in IA

    Since when does ANY lawyer know or regard the truth? Any lie or misrepresentation can be twisted by parsing to resemble 'truth'. I believe that's covered in the Law School Course "Advance Your Position By Any Means Available".

    November 18, 2007 05:42 am at 5:42 am |
  23. A. Thomas, New York, NY

    John Edwards is a cry baby, and runs a very negative campaign. Instead of attacking the republican administration, he spends bulks of his time attacking Hillary, a fellow democrat.

    His attack does him no good. He is a lost cause, as he is distant third in polls and will not be picked by Hillary as VP running mate. His only hope, as it seems, is to knock off Hillary as the nominee, and hopes Obama to pick him up as a VP running mate.

    Will Obama be nominated? Definitely No, as he is unelectable! Not with Obama's inexperience, lack lustre qualifications, poor senate voting records, flip flops on immigration of illegals, playing race card, lost out black support to Hillary and lost out to Hillary in winning the swing states of Ohio, FL and PA.

    Hillary is the most electable of the top three Dems. Is it not rather
    cognitively dissonant to question the electability of a candidate who has been in the lead forever and that lead getting bigger the closer we get to the election??! Here are some more troubling numbers for you

    AZ: Clinton 41% Edwards 16% Obama 14%
    NV: Clinton 51% Edwards 14% Obama 11%
    PA; Clinton 41% Obama 14% Edwards 11%

    November 18, 2007 08:04 am at 8:04 am |
  24. Patty Morlan, Louisville, KY

    The average voter KNOWS that Washington is corrupt. A lot of them are so frustrated that they don't even bother to vote.

    This year we have a candidate that is serious about changing this culture. He will fight tooth and nail with the American people to get rid of the special interests that infect Washington. That candidate is John Edwards.

    So how do the American people know that he is who he says he is. How do they know he means what he says. I suggest that the average voter look at how the coverage in the media is slanted against him. He is in a three way tie in Iowa and yet he gets much less coverage in the media. Ask yourselves why? Why would the media do this? Then ask yourselves what entrenched interests the media might be protecting. Do the corporations that own CNN want to see a trial lawyer in the White House. No way, no how. Because despite the lies about trial lawyers (as opposed to corporate lawyers) they fight for the little guys. No corporation or the people who benefit from the current system want a fighter for the average Joe in the White House.

    The people in Iowa get to see the candidates up close and personal. They don't have to rely on the corrupt media filter to judge the candidates. That is why we have a 3 way tie in Iowa despite the fact that Edwards gets less national coverage and despite the fact that millions of dollars by Obama & Clinton have been spent on advertising in Iowa.

    You don't have to be a political junkie to see that there are powerful interests in this campaign that want to keep the status quo because they benefit from it. My message to voters is to trust your common sense when looking for a candidate. Don't let others convince you to vote against your own best interest. If you trust your common sense you will vote for Edwards so that we can take back our country.

    November 18, 2007 12:14 pm at 12:14 pm |
  25. Gerald Toms River NJ

    Question....When was the last time a trial lawer told the truth?

    November 18, 2007 12:16 pm at 12:16 pm |
1 2 3