Edwards Implies That Clinton Is Part Of "Corrupt" DC System

On the heels of Sen. Barack Obama's latest throat-clearing interview with the New York Times, Ex-Sen. John Edwards is screaming himself hoarse.

In a speech he'll give in New Hampshire, today, Edwards implies that Hillary Clinton is part of a "corrupt" Washington system "rigged by powerful special interests."

"It is not an accident that the Government of the United States cannot function on behalf of its people - because it is no longer our people's government and we the people know it. This corruption did not begin yesterday -- and it did not even begin with George Bush - it has been building for decades - until it now threatens literally the life of our democracy."

"The long slow slide of our democracy into the corporate abyss continues unabated regardless of party, regardless of the best interests of America. We have a duty - a duty to end this. I believe you cannot be for change and take money from the lobbyists who prevent change. You cannot take on the entrenched interests in Washington if you choose to defend the broken system. It will not work. And I believe that, if Americans have a choice, any candidate who takes their money - Democrat or Republican - will lose this election."

Comments

If Obama gave passionate speeches like that, this would be a much closer race.

Posted by JRB | October 29, 2007 10:48 AM

While Senator Clinton keeps shifting between "primary mode" and "general election mode", John Edwards stays right in "telling the truth mode".

Posted by Petey | October 29, 2007 10:53 AM

Petey, was it telling the truth when he previously said he wasn't going to accept public funding because of the need to stay competitive, but then accepted them and didn't admit it was because they were struggling to raise money? Seems like Edwards can be just as slippery about the truth as the others.

Posted by Ben | October 29, 2007 11:31 AM

Don't worry, most of the television media will ignore the speech, just like they ignored the one he gave in New Hampshire a few weeks ago about the "rigged system."

They may give their "opinion" of one of two parts of his speech that they have a problem with, but they wouldn't dare allow the American people to watch much of the speech.

They'll just call him "desperate."

Posted by framecop | October 29, 2007 11:40 AM

Edwards is correct. Hillary is corrupt, and a compromised candidate.
I am glad Obama and Edwards are finally debating her. She has gotten a free pass. Now it's show time!
She's coming down!

Posted by Oscar | October 29, 2007 11:45 AM

if Edwards has pictures of Bill and some naked intern at the global initiative fund and promises to show them he MIGHT get some media coverage..

Posted by Outside the Beltway | October 29, 2007 12:08 PM

"if Edwards has pictures of Bill and some naked intern at the global initiative fund and promises to show them he MIGHT get some media coverage.."

Edwards is going to get all the media coverage he needs to become President on January 4th...

Posted by Petey | October 29, 2007 12:27 PM

This isn't an attack on Clinton. It's an attack on the way the system works. To interpret this as an attack on Clinton is a classic case of not letting the facts stand in the way of a good story.

Why not cover the actual story which is that Edwards is exactly right about this. The wealthy and powerful special interests have had the run of the table now for 30 or more years and it has got to be put to a stop. Isn't it just a tad more important to discuss that issue as opposed to trying to turn this into an attack on Hillary Clinton?

If only the media in this country would grow up and get serious we might have reason for hope.

Posted by olb | October 29, 2007 12:28 PM

Edwards is exactly right. It's beyond a "corruption" frame:

The long slow slide of our democracy into the corporate abyss continues unabated regardless of party, regardless of the best interests of America.

As always, the scandal is what's legal.

I can understand why Villagers don't want to talk about this; what's less clear to me is why on earth TPM replicates Ambinder' simple-minded, tendentious framing. Not smart.

Posted by lambert strether | October 29, 2007 1:36 PM

This whole long slide into the abyss stuff is a little pessimistic. Remember it was people not evil corporations that elected Bush twice. Frankly neither Gore nor Kerry made a good argument in their favor. I would have voted for Gore and did vote for Kerry, but they didn't make a very good case. Clinton on the other hand is running a very disciplined campaign. I would consider Obama if he turns his campaign around in the next couple months, but I want to hear substantive contrast.

Posted by Craig McGillivary | October 29, 2007 2:25 PM

As I get closer to the politicians at the top the more I believe Edwards is right. The politicians in Washington and even at the state levels are good people trapped by a system that can work against good will. This doesn't mean the sky is falling...the US government has faced far worse cases of corruption in its history. What this means is that it is time for the American people to realize a change is necessary. Personally, I see that change as John Edwards.

Posted by Eric | October 29, 2007 4:56 PM

And Hillary Clinton is a big part of that corrupt system. She wasn't just kidding when she referred to herself as the senator from Bangalore last month before an audience of Indian corporate interests. She has been caught lying on more than one occasion.

Clinton held fundraisers at the headquarters of the lobbyists for Monsanto a week or so back, which she referred to as "rural Americans", as well as another for corporate outsourcers and big military industrial complex giants. I'll never vote for Hillary Clinton, in fact, I now regret the two votes I gave in the '90s for her husband. He helped push things through that helped Bush promote his corrupt agenda.

Edward's is the only candidate I will vote for, if he doesn't win the primary I'll vote for another party, that's how angry at my party for morphing in to the new neo-con movement.

Posted by Mary | October 29, 2007 10:29 PM

Given the record of her husband's presidency, it is hard to believe that Hillary Clinton is not corrupt.

Posted by Sheldon | November 10, 2007 5:16 PM