Posted on 02/27/2004 4:37:34 AM PST by PJ-Comix
LOS ANGELES (Reuters) - Democratic presidential hopefuls John Kerry and John Edwards sparred over trade and the death penalty in a debate on Thursday and each said he had the best chance to defeat President Bush in November.
But Edwards, seeking gain ground against front-runner Kerry, made no effort to attack or draw sharp distinctions with the Massachusetts senator on most issues just five days before a crucial 10-state "Super Tuesday" showdown, and the two agreed frequently.
The prime contenders for the nomination to challenge Bush defended their votes to authorize the war in Iraq (news - web sites), and said they opposed gay marriage but believed the issue should be left to the states.
Kerry, who has dominated the Democratic race with wins in 18 of the first 20 contests, said he favored the death penalty only in cases of terrorism. But asked in the debate at the University of Southern California about a child killer, he said he would "want to strangle that person with my own hands."
Edwards, who favors the death penalty, said it would fit such cases as the murder of James Byrd, a black man dragged to death behind a truck in Texas.
Kerry took issue with Edwards' contention he would be the strongest candidate in the South and that he attracted the most support among the independent voters whom Democrats will need to win in November.
"There's nothing, nothing in the returns in 18 out of 20 primaries and caucuses so far that documents what John Edwards has just said," Kerry said.
"I won in Tennessee and I won in Virginia," said the four-term U.S. senator. "John has said many times, 'We've got to stop stereotyping the people in the South.' The people in the South believe the same things as people in the rest of the country."
Edwards, a first-term senator from North Carolina who was a trial lawyer before he was elected in 1998, said polls in states like Wisconsin, Tennessee and Virginia showed he performed better with independents.
He touted his outsider perspective and working-class background as the son of a mill worker, saying it made him better suited to tackle problems in Washington.
"We need a candidate at the top of this ticket who can connect with voters everywhere in America," Edwards said. "And if we don't have that, we're going to be in trouble."
Along with a Sunday debate in New York, the two forums offer Edwards his most public platform to stop Kerry's march to the nomination to face Bush in November.
The 10 states that vote on Tuesday include big prizes like California, New York and Ohio. A total of 1,151 delegates are at stake, more than half of the 2,162 needed to win. Kerry would not have enough delegates to win the nomination with another dominating performance, but Edwards would have little incentive to push on.
TRADE, IRAQ AND GAY MARRIAGE
Edwards has made his opposition to the North American Free Trade Agreement and his plans to protect American jobs the centerpiece of his recent campaigning. In the debate, he pointed to votes on fast-track trade authority for the president, and trade pacts with Chile, Singapore, African and Caribbean nations that he opposed and Kerry supported.
"There is a difference between Senator Kerry and myself," Edwards said. "These agreements did not have the kind of labor and environmental protections that needed to be in the text of the agreement and be enforced."
But he was not in the Senate when it voted on NAFTA in 1993, and Kerry questioned how strongly he opposed it. He said he supported the trade pacts that Edwards opposed because they had strong mechanisms to enforce labor and environmental protections.
Pressed to justify their votes to support a congressional resolution on Iraq, Edwards said, "All of us did what we thought was the responsible thing to do at the time -- wrong or right." But he refused to say whether he regretted his vote.
Kerry said he did not regret his vote, but "I regret that we have a president of the United States who misled America and broke every promise he made to the United States Congress."
Neither Kerry nor Edwards back gay marriage but neither supports a constitutional amendment to ban it. They criticized Bush for wanting to amend the Constitution to ban it.
"He's doing this because he's in trouble," said Kerry. "He's playing politics with the Constitution of the United States." (Additional reporting by Patricia Wilson, Deborah Charles)
Yet somehow Ketchup boy opposes the death penalty for domestic terrorists known as murderers. I don't see the moral distinction here. BTW, this is also a switch for Ketchup Boy because in the past he was AGAINST the death penalty for terrorists.
But asked in the debate at the University of Southern California about a child killer, he said he would "want to strangle that person with my own hands."
What a jerk! And yet he STILL opposes the death penalty for child killers. Another example of Ketchup Boy trying to have it both ways. Ultimately the Death Penalty issue will prove to be a Death Penalty on his campaign. Voters feel too strongly about this issue to give Ketchup Boy a pass.
Ultimate power trip for Clinton.
Perhaps he is deluding himself, but I believe Edwards has stopped running for President. He is now running for VP and he hopes that his good friend John Kerry will consider him for the position.
hanoi john is the one OUT OF TOUCH with the average Southerner.
No trial. No verdict. No appeal. Just the F Man deciding who deserves to be killed by his own hands. How special. Talk about unilateralism.
You would think he would want to get the UN's permission before killing a dangerous murderer.
Even Bubba knew that for him to get elected he at the least needed to be for the death penalty. Its one of those things one needs to believe in if one wishes to be elected President in America - especially if you are a "rat". I thought the "rats" learned this lesson in 1988.
hawk
"But they may have to pump a few .50 rounds into him first."
(Pssssssstttt.....Kerry was in Viet Nam, pass it on....)
bump for current consumption
bump
bump, differences between the boys
Doesn't life for the innocent (pro life) and death for the guilty (death penalty) make more sense ?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.