Edwards Trumps Them All

He apparently SPOKE to Gen. Musharraf today.

That's one heck of a talking point.

Democratic presidential candidate John Edwards talked with Pakistan President Pervez Musharraf early this afternoon (Iowa time). Here's Edwards talking about the situation (mp3 runs 2 minuates)

Henderson: "In regards to the situation in Pakistan, if you were president, what would you be doing?"

Edwards: "If I were president I would do some of what I've already done. I spoke with the Pakistani Ambassador and then a few minutes ago I spoke with President Musharraf, urging him to continue on the path to democratization, to allow international investigators to come in to determine what happened, what the facts were so that there would be transparency and credibility about what actually occurred and also about the upcoming schedule of elections and that the important thing for America to do in this unstable environment is first of all focus on the tragedy that's occurred. Benazir Bhutto was a strong woman, a courageous woman, someone that I actually spoke at a conference with a few years and she talked about the path to democracy in Pakistan being baptized in blood so she understood the extraordinary risk that she was taking by going back and it's a terrible tragedy for the people of Pakistan, but it's important for America to be a calming influence and provide strength in this environment."

Henderson: "How did you get in touch with Musharraf? What's the relationship there?"

Comments

Wow. That's strong leadership. I wonder if this will get picked up by the Iowa local media.

Does Musharraf take Hillary's calls? Does she bother to call?

Now, who will call Sharif?

Posted by tarheel | December 27, 2007 4:54 PM

A little to good a talking point if you ask me. Smacks of opportunism and sticking his nose in where it doesn't necessarily belong right now without much, if any, value to add.

Posted by seanwright | December 27, 2007 5:18 PM

"when I spoke to the ambassador earlier today I said if Musharraf, if the president had time would you have him give me a call because I'd like to speak with him directly and he called"

There you go. The man gets his calls returned by foreign leaders.

Expect the Obama campaign, any minute, to issue a press release stating:

"Senator Obama spoke to the ambassador earlier today and asked if Musharraf could call him because the Senator would like to speak with him directly. And he called. This has nothing to do whatsoever with the Edwards position on this issue. Obama had always planned to speak to President Musharraf even before Senator Edwards used a union-made phone to do so."

Posted by drfranklives | December 27, 2007 5:18 PM

Am I the only one who does not think it is wise for campaigning politicians for president to stick their nose directly into foreigh affairs in such a way?

Generally I'm sure that its understooded by leaders that Edwards, or other campaigners, are virtually powerless and that the sitting president is who they should be talking too, but I do not like the idea of non elected (presidential) politicians running around talking to people with the air of it being on behalf of the United States of America.

Until you actually become president, how about you just comment on the situation, let voters know how you would respond if you were elected.

Why rush out to make contact with leaders as the events are happening and potentiall muddle our existing foreign policy efforts already underway?

Posted by sam | December 27, 2007 5:24 PM

Do you use any macro software on your computer, Marc?

If so, I'd recommend saving the "Edwards Trumps Them All" text string for further use. I think it's going to come in quite handy for future coverage of the Presidential race.

Posted by Petey | December 27, 2007 5:26 PM

A little to good a talking point if you ask me. Smacks of opportunism and sticking his nose in where it doesn't necessarily belong right now without much, if any, value to add. Posted by seanwright | December 27, 2007 5:18 PM

Oh get a clue, cynic. Edwards knows all of those guys over there. Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert calls Edwards all the time.

But, I'm sure that doesn't fit the "he's inexperienced in foreign affairs" ignorance that's thrown around by Clinton supporters.

If he was opportunistic, he'd talk about it all the time. I would.

Posted by framecop | December 27, 2007 5:29 PM

Am I the only one who does not think it is wise for campaigning politicians for president to stick their nose directly into foreigh affairs in such a way?

Posted by sam | December 27, 2007 5:24 PM

Yes, you are one of the only ones. You don't think the Clintons talk to foreign leaders all of the time? You don't think that Joe Biden or Bill Richardson do?

ALL OF THESE GUYS HAVE RELATIONSHIPS with people overseas, that were formed because of travel that they have done and political offices that they have held.

Apparently guys like Musharraf and Olmert liked and trusted John Edwards enough to continue talking to him over the years. I don't think that's a bad thing.

Posted by framecop | December 27, 2007 5:34 PM

Framecop: How dare you tell sam he's the only one who does not think it is wise for campaigning politicians to stick their nose into foreign affairs like this when you've already responded to my post making a similar point. Edwards acted decisively all right, but I also think he acted impetuously and presumptuously and opportunistically. I really don't think this reflects well on him.

Posted by seanwright | December 27, 2007 5:38 PM

"Edwards acted decisively all right, but I also think he acted impetuously"

The impetuousness of phone calls.

What a maroon you are. We're going to beat your Republican asses so bad this November that it's going to take you a decade to figure out what happened.

Posted by Petey | December 27, 2007 5:43 PM

Petey: I'm actually an Obama supporter. I guess that makes me a Democrat In Name Only. I just don't think it showed good judgment for Edwards to try to insert himself like that. Edwards is my 3rd place choice after Obama and Biden and I certainly don't hate the man or anything. I just don't agree with his decision to request an audience with Musharaff at this point.

Posted by seanwright | December 27, 2007 5:50 PM

Framecop: How dare you tell sam he's the only one who does not think it is wise for campaigning politicians to stick their nose into foreign affairs like this when you've already responded to my post making a similar point. Edwards acted decisively all right, but I also think he acted impetuously and presumptuously and opportunistically. I really don't think this reflects well on him. Posted by seanwright | December 27, 2007 5:38 PM

No, I included "YOU." Last time I checked, I said, "Yes, you are one of the only ones."

Oh, and one more thing...MUSHARRAF CALLED EDWARDS. Apparently he knows Edwards well enough to call him back.

Is that a problem?

Posted by framecop | December 27, 2007 5:52 PM

One more thing. Whenever I see these Clinton and Obama supporters showing up in the comments section on favorable John Edwards stories, I understand that they found the stories on Google News for a reason.

Out looking for opposition research, anyone?

Posted by framecop | December 27, 2007 5:56 PM

"Petey: I'm actually an Obama supporter. I guess that makes me a Democrat In Name Only."

Well, all the anti-union stuff does make me wonder.

But I guess we're going to have to kick your ass in January and February before we get around to kicking the GOP's ass in November.

Posted by Petey | December 27, 2007 6:00 PM

Framecop: you slippery bastard. You did cya. Anyway, I'll stick by my substantive criticism of Edwards.

Posted by seanwright | December 27, 2007 6:00 PM

John Edwards threw a curveball to Hardball's talking points, but they forged ahead anyway.

After Edwards went on Hardball discussing this, visibly rattling Pat Buchanan and Roger Simon, they both still "SHAKILY" claimed that this assassination benefits Clinton and has thrown Edwards and Obama off their games.

They basically IGNORED EDWARDS' PHONE CALL, and stuck to what they planned on saying about how this supposedly hurts the case of his campaign message.

Posted by framecop | December 27, 2007 6:10 PM

"They basically IGNORED EDWARDS' PHONE CALL, and stuck to what they planned on saying about how this supposedly hurts the case of his campaign message."

When Edwards wins Iowa, they'll say it's a victory for Clinton. When Edwards wins New Hampshire, they'll say it's a win for Osama Bin Laden. When Edwards wins Tsunami Tuesday, they'll stop covering politics and spend the whole day covering figure skating.

General Electric in the form of Matthews and Russert aren't exactly big fans of progressives.

If you want to change Washington, you've got to run with some ideas the Beltway mainstream thinks are undiscussable and win. That's what Reagan did in 1980, and it's what Edwards is going to do in 2008.

Posted by Petey | December 27, 2007 6:20 PM

Petey -

Look. We all think it's cute that Edwards has decided to be a populist this year (it didn't work in North Carolina when he ran for Senate, but it seems to fit the Democratic primary). It's very cute! He's been associating with antiquated organizations like unions and working class people. It's very sweet. But he doesn't have a chance. If you really want to stop Hillary - the GE/corporate candidate, it's time to line up behind Barack Obama...

Posted by Democrats Against Hillary | December 27, 2007 7:22 PM

Boy, a lot of banter going on here. I too, am an Edwards supporter and I think it was evident which candidate stood out today. Obama was obviously very cold and acted like he was reading some script that had no heart. Hillary tried to give some personal account, but talked so slowly and measured, I found her "new" way of expressing herself just as annoying as her "shrill" shouting. Edwards made a lot of sense. He talked about stability and I for one, am glad he reached out and expressed himself to the Pakistani leaders. It's obvious he has developed relationships with foreign leaders and this will serve him well when he is president. Another thing I have been noticing about Barack today is how arrogant he has been acting to both John and Hillary. I don't love Hillary but that whole "madness" statement that he made was just inappropriate. He can try and spin it any way he wants. I heard what he said and it didn't sit well with me as I am a woman. I'm one that would never vote for Hillary but that kind of campaign is just inappropriate. He should be focusing on what he wants to do not saying disparaging comments about other candidates.

Posted by Katherine, Sturgis, Michigan | December 27, 2007 7:28 PM

"He's been associating with antiquated organizations like unions and working class people."

You may think folks who work for a living are "antiquated", but I think they cast the majority of votes in the Democratic primaries.

And FWIW, "Democrats Against Hillary", best I can tell, you seem to be a Hillary troll seeking to discredit Obama by posting this type of stuff.

You may think Democrats are stupid, but you're going to learn a big lesson the next 6 weeks. You can slime, smear, and misdirect all you like, but we're still going to nominate Edwards.

Posted by Petey | December 27, 2007 7:42 PM

If it is true that Slick Johnny got a phone call in and tried a little personal foreign policy diplomacy with the Paks, he is an asshole.

He is just a trial lawyer with one term in the Senate. Biden has the experience to talk, same with Dodd, in foreign affairs. Edwards, Hillary, McCain, and Rudy don't.

The smart tact is really what Romney did - just expressed regret and hoped that moderate institutions would prevail.

All the candidates really should shut up on specific advice cease spreading conflicting views with the Pak Ambassador who the duely elected Foreign Affairs Committees, Congressional Leaders and the President are now officially working with.

Posted by Chris Ford | December 27, 2007 8:04 PM

Petey and framecop.

You guys read my mind and stole my thunder but you did it so beautifully and couldn't help but smile. You go it it exactly right about MSNBC.

Chris Mathews has gone back and forth between Clinton and Obama the whole race. He has had Edwards on his show a number of times and had a chance to hear him face to face, yet when he talks about what is happening he just acts like he has never heard a word of what Edwards has to say or considers it irrelevant. How can they possibly say that Edwards is off of his game when he and "W" seem to be the only people in the country who have spoken to the leader of Pakistan?

Clinton on the other hand was praised for talking about a meeting 10 years ago or more without sounding calculating. Yesterday Mathews said that if Edwards wins in Iowa the national reaction will be "who cares?". No Chris that will be your reaction when Edwards wins Iowa. And I am sure it will be accompanied by a guest who will talk about how presidential Obama looked and sounded giving his concession speech and close with a tag saying that Edwards has no chance in NH. I am looking forward to some of these media personalities trying to get an interview with President Edwards next year.

Posted by Demforchange | December 28, 2007 2:01 AM

Well, I for one feel much more comfortable about the situation in Pakistan now that former Senator Edwards spoke to Musharraf.

We all know the kind of unique leverage possessed by candidates who may or may not have a national campaign and run third in most polls for the first caucus. That's a big stick right there who reaches far and away to affect domestic policies of far flung nations.

I am pretty sure Musharraf shat his pants and rearranged his plans accordingly.

Seriously, Edwards should be laughed off this campaign with the kind of snake oil he sells.

Posted by Nick Kaufman | December 28, 2007 3:32 AM

"Seriously, Edwards should be laughed off this campaign with the kind of snake oil he sells."

You're not going to enjoy the next 8 years, Nick Kaufman.

Posted by Petey | December 28, 2007 7:49 AM

The whole thing seems very staged -- politcal theater designed to give Edwards the impression of gravitas in foreign affairs, but he really says nothing about the conversation -- only what he told Musharraf. Edwards declines to state what Musharraf told him -- he says that he wants to let Musharraf speak for himself. Ummm -- ok --but ex-Senator Edwards, what was the tone of the exchange -- friendly, tense, angry, regretful, sad? No one bothered to ask this? Is the whole point that we simply are to be impressed that Edwards got his call returned? Can't stop there --I want to know what is their relationship? Was this a casual chat? Edwards giving PR advice to a friend? Or a stern lecture to a dictator who Bhutto's supporters and Bhutto herself think is responsible for her assassination? I am left with a lot of unanswered questions. BTW, was this phone call monitored by DHS?

Posted by donna L. | December 28, 2007 10:31 AM

Edwards is The Man!

A woman just does not look right calling in a crisis. What is she going to do? Offer him a shoulder to cry on? Hillary is not even nurturing. She is mean and distant.

EDWARDS IS THE MAN!

Posted by Oscar | December 28, 2007 12:27 PM

Obama just looks to unexperienced. He and Huckabee should form a ticket.

Posted by Oscar | December 28, 2007 12:29 PM

CAN'T READ THE PRINTING IN THS ARTICLE. WHY ARE YOU DOING THIS?

Posted by Elaine N. Ramey | December 28, 2007 5:51 PM

Obviously nothing that Edwards said to Musharraf has to be followed, anymore than anything that Bush might have said to Musharraf would have to be. We have been begging the guy for 6+ years to rein in his extremists and have a decent look for Osama bin Laden and that hasn't happened, so why would Musharraf start listening now?

The point is that when every one of the presidential candidates had the chance to do something presidential, only Edwards rose to the occasion. The rest of them, especially those who run around trumpeting their experience, are kicking themselves today and wish they had the good judgment to have done the same thing. Calling Musharraf has no downside, it only reiterates that those of goodwill in the West want law, order and democracy to prevail. What is the harm in that? Obviously if Musharraf thought talking to Edwards was a waste of time he wouldn't have called him back. I for one am glad that someone on our side who had the power to reach this guy at least gave it a shot and tried to be the voice of reason.

P.S. Oscar I keep seeing your "Edwards is the man" posts around and while I am certainly glad to see that you support Edwards, I suggest that you tone down the anti-woman rhetoric. Edwards himself has stated he doesn't want anyone to vote for him because they won't vote for a woman or a black man. Your talk is going to do more harm to Edwards than good.

Posted by John Gossom | December 28, 2007 7:43 PM