Edwards campaign: Clinton lacks 'populist' credentials
Edwards' campaign manager David Bonior said Clinton "failed" at health care reform.
MCCORMICK, South Carolina (CNN) – As John Edwards and Hillary Clinton compete for major union endorsements, the two campaigns are trading barbs over which candidate is more qualified to serve American workers.
David Bonior, the former congressman and labor advocate who is now John Edwards’ campaign manager, told the South Carolina AFL-CIO annual convention Thursday that Edwards has populist credentials that Hillary Clinton lacks.
Speaking to about 60 union members here three days after Edwards picked up national endorsements from the United Mine Workers and the United Steelworkers of America, Bonior said “no presidential candidate in the history of the country” has worked harder than Edwards has for unions and striking workers.
“We’re a populist campaign,” said Bonior, who was the House Democratic whip from Michigan before he left Congress in 2003 after 26 years. “Senator Obama has a populist campaign. Senator Clinton doesn’t have a populist campaign. There’s a difference here. How much change do you want?”
After his speech, Bonior told CNN that Edwards has refused to take money from the insurance and pharmaceutical industries, while Clinton has taken such money. That, said Bonior, makes Edwards more qualified on health care issues than Clinton.
"Senator Clinton is a good woman, but she has decided that she is going to continue taking corporate lobbyist money from the insurance industry, from the pharmaceutical industry,” Bonior said. “It's one of the reasons we haven't had health care reform, why we don't have national health care for everybody in this country. It's because they’ve controlled the system and they’ve blocked it from happening.
“[Edwards] is a populist,” he continued. “He's going to take it on and I believe his positions contrast that to Senator Clinton's. It's pretty obvious. She tried to do that 14 years ago and failed. She hasn’t come up with a health care plan since.”
Clinton spokesman Zac Wright accused the Edwards campaign of going negative.
“Hillary Clinton has the vision for universal health care in America, and she actually has the experience to do it, and no amount of baseless negative attacks can save a lagging campaign,” Wright said.
Bonior has also spoken positively in the past about Clinton’s efforts on labor issues, albeit before Clinton was in elected office.
At a Washington press conference on the minimum wage in 1999, Bonior praised Clinton when she was first lady: “There is nobody who has been more committed, more passionate about helping America's working families,” he said.
– CNN South Carolina Producer Peter Hamby
From CNN Politics
- Pressure builds on Biden to act on guns in wake of Colorado mass shooting March 23, 2021 12:16 pm
- Sidney Powell argues in new court filing that no reasonable people would believe her election fraud claims March 23, 2021 12:15 pm
- Postmaster General set to announce 10-year plan including longer mail delivery times and cuts to post office hours March 23, 2021 12:02 pm
- Progressive group launches $3.2 million advertising buy to push federal voting law March 23, 2021 11:01 am
- US and allies announce sanctions against Chinese officials for 'serious human rights abuses' against Uyghurs March 23, 2021 10:32 am
- Analysis: Trump's army takes aim at 2022 touting his election lies March 23, 2021 05:01 am
Yes the Clintons have experience with labor issues: its called NAFTA and it was signed into law and has done irreversable damage to American blue and white collar working families. John Edwards is our man for working families... Clinton makes promises that will be swept under the rug after elected. Go Edwards!
Clinton should not take contributions from the insurance industry or pharmaceutical companies. If she is proposing to provide health care for everyone (is she or isn't she?), then every one gets insurance funded by taxes paid by everyone (right?, or does she have some other plan?). Pharmaceutical drug prices will have to be controlled (won't they?). How am I supposed to trust Clinton to make sure every person has health coverage if she's taking money from those groups? How will there be universal coverage unless the price for health insurance is a fixed, easily affordable price, and enrollment is open to all regardless of prior health (i.e., I had cancer, I want health insurance, no free market insurance company will sell me any – I know I should be a good "little person" and just die, but I don't want to die).
I agree. Something Mr. Edwards wont say (but I will) is that the whole Clinton campaign amounts to a bunch of star struck reporters that have been coopted into shilling for her. I would be delighted to open a NYT, Washington Post, or CNN web page without seeing her mug plastered all over and being force fed some light weight story about her. Ms. Clinton has a lot of baggage that hasn't been discussed by the media. Both Clintons are money grubbing opportunists, anti-worker, pro-outsourcing, pro- guest worker, white trash. If it were actually spelled out, she wouldn't be the nominee; either Edwards or Obama would be...and I wouldn't be sitting here, hoping that Fred Thompson is the Republican nominee so I have someone to vote for.
what's Hillary Clinton's "vision for universal healthcare in america"? If she has one, why doesn't she release it? Or is she just going to trade on the reputation of having failed at pushing a financially and politically implausible plan that is outmoded now anyway after a decade and a half?
“Senator Obama has a populist campaign. Senator Clinton doesn’t have a populist campaign. There’s a difference here. How much change do you want?”
Coming from Edwards' Campaign Manager, is this a misquote, or is there more to it? Not that I don't agree, I see both Edwards and Obama as more Populist canidates then Clinton could ever dream about.
Hillary is not a "people person" despite her and Bubba's TV blitz to fool us into believing otherwise. She is a Seven Sisters Yalie socialist radical attracted to like-minded policy dorks who want us all to love them to death. Gag me with a spoon!
so true!
The only thing lagging in Edwards campaign is the realization by Clinton's marginal supporters that she is the chosen successor to keep Bush's facist dream alive. She and Bill chum right up to Bush extended family and everyone eventually is going to know it.
What a fool he is. I cringe at such reports like this. He thinks he's being folksy, but it comes out as ignorant. Tell the parents of dead and injured soldiers that their sacrifice was so our President could swagger and boast. Shameful.
Nither Edwards nor Clinton care about people they just want the White House.
Clinton may lack "populist" credentials but Edwards lacks everything to be president. Looks like she still wins over you.
Can Edwards not see that the writing is on the wall...and the writing ain't a pretty crayon colored drawing.
Edwards, populist? Give me a break Mr $300 a haircut!
Is it me or what? I would rather that Edwards concentrate on the issues and not worry about the other candidate(s)!
The general electoral population at large could probably care less what he thinks of Sen. Clinton. What the electoral populace is more concerned about is what he believes or thinks on the issues at hand that concern our blessed republic. I would believe that this is more noteworthy than anything else.
If Sen. Clinton is accepting money from corporate lobbyist, fine, let the media expose it for what it is. Plain and simple.
It's absolutely true, but Im sure the Clinton campaign is preparing some witty, front-loaded remark in respose...
In the 2004 election, Dick Gephardt had the most unions support, more than Edwards now. Gephardt dropped out of the race. In other words, these union supports mean nothing to a candidate.
check out Edwards promise for happiness in the July 21, 07 "Onion"
http://www.theonion.com/content/news/john_edwards_vows_to_end_all_bad
hes a good man and canidate
Populist means you tell people what they want to hear and appeal to base, emotional issues instead of appealing to rational principles.
Note to Sen. Edwards: actions are what count, not words. Edwards claims that he and (Sen. Obama)are running more populist campaigns than Sen. Clinton because they refuse to take money from lobbyists and health insurance and pharmaceutical companies. Sen. Edwards would be more convincing if he could point to a single vote of Sen. Clinton's that's been influenced by these companies. But he can't.
Then he condemns her for failing to propose a healthcare plan in 14 years. But until 2006 (LAST YEAR), except for the brief Jeffords-era, the Senate has been in Republican hands. Yes, I'm sure THEY were really keen to entertain Sen. Clinton's proposals on any subject.
Now, to SEN. EDWARDS' actions: sure he doesn't directly take lobbyist money, but that's a distinction without a difference. Plenty of money from corporate interests finds its way into both his and Sen. Obama's coffers.
And precisely WHAT is "populist" about having HALF his fortune in hedge funds? And being paid hundreds of thousands of dollars for his relationship with them? Especially AFTER he's been railing away on the subject of how fund managers are undertaxed? Not to mention, his condemnation of their subprime lending to Katrina victims when the very people feathering his nest have been foreclosing on the same New Orleans residents for whom he claims such sympathy. The gap between Sen. Edwards' words and his actions never fails to astound. Which brings me to a related subject. Edwards been doing nothing but running for president for the last 7 years, so he's had plenty of time to refine his message and check his portfolio. That it never occurred to him to at least divest himself of his Katrina-tainted money BEFORE opening his mouth on the subject demonstrates his monumental incompetence. Attacking Sen. Clinton as "not populist" is merely an extension of this appalling ineptitude. If Senator Clinton is going to have to put up with this sort of baseless negative campaigning, may it always come from someone as foolish as Sen. Edwards.
Somehow "John Edwards" and "Man of the People" don't exactly go hand-in-hand.
Populist? How much money is he accepting from trial lawyers?
Are you people just judging these candidates by what you read in the media? Go to the candidates websites, and erad their platforms. Edwards has a detailed, specific plan across the board for every issue in this election. Clinton's website is a bunch of pathos driven drivel, Obama is the son of two senators, and has been given everything he has. Look at Bill Richardson and Jon Edwards...These two candidates have the most detailed, specific plans on how to make this country great again. Obama and Clinton are just spitting a bunch of rhetoric. Did anyone bother to see how much Hillary and Barack paid for their last haircuts? I guarantee they didn't get the GreatClips 9.95 special....
John Edwards has devoted his life to helping the little guy, because despite his great professional success, he's never forgotten his humble roots. The time has come for him to point out the differences in himself and the other leading candidates. That's an inevitable part of campaigning in this country. At least he's respectful about it.
I'm sick of Clinton supporters bringing up the $300 haircut. How do you know that the Clintons have never wasted $300 on something? The truth is you don't know.
President Clinton actually did get a $200 haircut in 1993 while holding up an airport runway. When leaving the White House, the Clintons bought a big house in posh Westchester County as well as another fancy house in Washington.
John Edwards grew up poor and was the first in his family to go to college. You ARE allowed to be populist and talk about poverty while enjoying the fruits of your own labor.
I'm looking forward to a Edwards/Clinton or Edwards/Obama ticket; Clinton/Obama won't work for 1 reason America can accept either a woman or man of color, but it's not ready for both, that's a fact.
Edwards has the experience, not necessarily any more than the others, but certainly, no less and he's agood man, with good ideas. Clinton or Obama would make a good running mate for him, and when his 8 years are up which ever one is VP will be the first of their kind to be president