Edwards Campaign Accuses Hillary Of Laughing At Loss Of American Jobs — Did She?
On a conference call this afternoon, Edwards campaign advisers tore into Hillary Clinton over her performance at last night's debate, claiming she laughed off a question about trade policies that have a direct impact on the lives of working people:
"If you were in Iowa and you watched that debate," said Edwards campaign manger David Bonior, a former House Dem Whip, "and you were in tune to how those trade deals have hurt us, and you heard the response by Senator Clinton, and you heard the response by Senator Edwards, that would make a huge difference in regard to both of those candidates."
"I was shocked," said Leo Gerard, president of the United Steelworkers. "She might have wanted to laugh at Ross Perot, but she shouldn't have laughed at the fact that Ross Perot was right."
Here's a video of the moment where — according to the Edwards camp — Hillary laughed off the impact of NAFTA:
The Edwards camp's attack is part of a general argument that the Clintons are ultimately a bunch of corporatists selling out the American worker, and then dismiss any question about it. So do they have something here, or is this a stretch?
Comments (70)
LJ wrote on November 16, 2007 3:37 PM:The thing I notice most about this video clip is that Wolf didn't demand a yes or no answer the way he did with Obama on the driver's license question.
LJ wrote on November 16, 2007 3:39 PM:I guess it pays to work over the refs before a game.
Dan wrote on November 16, 2007 3:50 PM:So over this pettiness. Lame lame lame
Jan wrote on November 16, 2007 3:54 PM:Wolf didn't "demand" a yes or no answer because Clinton gave one.
Wolf: "Was NAFTA a mistake?"
Clinton: "NAFTA was a mistake in that it didn't do what we had hoped for."
That's a YES, it was a mistake.
imo, her entire answer (oh, about two paragraphs long) is much better, but I guess some voters like their candidate's policy statements brought straight down, to either a simple "yes" or a simple "no."
So be it. Her short answer was "yes."
If you ever feel a need for a little more policy depth, see if you can handle all the info you'll find at www.hillaryclinton.com.
You title is misleading. Should you not have led with 'Steelworkers Union Pres. Accuses Hillary of Laughing..."???
As backed up by the quote in the article:
"I was shocked," said Leo Gerard, president of the United Steelworkers. "She might have wanted to laugh at Ross Perot, but she shouldn't have laughed at the fact that Ross Perot was right."
Let's try and get it right, OK?
Bonior suggested that people compare the responses of Clinton and Edwards on the issue.
If you ever feel a need for a little more policy depth, see if you can handle all the info you'll find at www.hillaryclinton.com.
Thanks for the condescending personal attack. Appreciate it.
Outside the beltway wrote on November 16, 2007 4:05 PM:just think if Russert asked the question he would have made Hillary answer the question.
ihatebeets wrote on November 16, 2007 4:07 PM:I like and admire John Edwards a lot and if he is the Democratic nominee, I will vote for him. However, I believe he is turning too shrill and his message is actually getting lost in the sauce. I agree with a lot of what he says about Hillary's corporate ties, but he needs to turn down the volume a little.
anon wrote on November 16, 2007 4:07 PM:Edwards is not accusing "the Clintons" of being corporatists. He is accusing Hillary Clinton of being a corporatist and he is right. She will most definitely sell the American worker down the river and the average American family will be even more vulnerable and less able to maintain the modest but stable middle class life they deserve to be able to have. She said nothing of rolling back or repealing any of the anti-worker trade agreements in place. She said nothing about doing anything to repair the damage. She meekly acknowledged NAFTA was a mistake but said essentially it didn't turn out as we had hoped. That is completely disingenuous. Ross Perot knew how it would work out and so did everyone paying attention at the time. The outcome of NAFTA has been more riches for the rich and more hard times for the average American. What a surprise. Just like it was a surprise that the illegal/immoral invasion of Iraq would turn out disasterously. None of us saw that coming did we? It's one thing when a politician makes a mistake and learns from it. It's quite another when they learn nothing from it.
dcshungu wrote on November 16, 2007 4:09 PM:Having produced no tangible results using plans A to F, the Edwards campaign today set in motion plan G, its most desperate to-date...
An Outhouse wrote on November 16, 2007 4:14 PM:I hope somebody remembers to play all these statements back to Hitlery when she's in office doing trade deals with the Republicans. There should be no surprises, we're going to get exactly what we had in the 90's - spray some perfume on a big pile of corporate shit and feed it to the American public.
Yum!
Marc wrote on November 16, 2007 4:17 PM:I like John Edwards and was a supporter earlier in the campaign, but I can't handle all his campaign's sniping over things like this. He needs to quit beating around the bush and just say that he thinks Sen. Clinton is corrupt/a liar/a corporate shill whatever, and stop pretending that he's taking the high road in this campaign.
Edwards has been as evasive and indirect in answering questions about political hot potatoes as any candidate in this race. I'm sick of his campaign acting like he walks around with the populist halo gleaming above his noggin when he did very little during his actual time in office to address such critical issues. He talks about political courage so much, but as a North Carolinian, I seem to remember that he walked the moderate/DLC line in this red state instead of being the Paul Wellstone some in the netroots try to make him out to be.
CalD wrote on November 16, 2007 4:26 PM:Barrack Obama may have taken home a few new lumps from last night's debate but John Edwards, I have to say, got his ass handed to him.
RonK, Seattle wrote on November 16, 2007 4:31 PM:Is Perot a laughingstock? Yes.
Did HRC give a serious answer to the rephrased question "Was NAFTA a mistake?"? Yes.
Is the Edwards campaign desperate? Yes.
colonpowwow wrote on November 16, 2007 4:32 PM:In the Senate, when their votes were counted on for support, Senator Edwards consistently voted with the Bush Republicans re relief for working families on such measures as the two Wellstone Amendments to the Bankruptcy Bill and the Feinstein Amendment on tax equity and voted against the true progressive Senators Boxer, Feingold, Kerry, Kennedy, Wellstone, and Clinton.
Clinton has a lifetime 95% rating from the ADA on progressive issues, Edwards (because of anti-working class family votes in favor of Charlotte-based banking interests and the like) has a 78% progressive voting record from the ADA.
Those are the facts, not desparate lip service points from a sinking candidate. Look up their head-to-head voting records on such issues yourself. I've posted them a number of times here already.
Next.
dcshungu wrote on November 16, 2007 4:35 PM:He [Edwards] needs to quit beating around the bush and just say that he thinks Sen. Clinton is corrupt/a liar/a corporate shill whatever, and stop pretending that he's taking the high road in this campaign.debcoop wrote on November 16, 2007 4:41 PM:He did just that last night and got roundly booed. The epitaph for the "corrupt/liar/ corporate shill" line was written last night, which is why he unveiled Plan G today...
She wasn't laughing at the dilemnas of NAFTA or the serious problems of immigrants and American workers. She was laughing at Wolf Blitzer's too cute by half attempt to do a gotcha question. Wolf said "Was Ross Perot right...(is he owed an apology) Damned no matter her answer .
The audience laughed at the end of Blitzer's question when the last 2 words out of his mouth was Ross Perot. She was trying to avoid validating the nutty Ross Perot ( he's the one with the vast array of hand made charts) and Blitzer was endeavouring to make her look silly.
It was Blitzer's framing she was laughing about....."so you think you have gotten me.....well you're wrong" I 'll answer on my terms not yours."
Here's David Sirota's take on Hillary laughing off the NAFTA question:
You want to talk about showing how utterly out of touch you are, that's how you do it - you laugh and say you barely remember the debate over the very trade deal that is destroying America's middle class. And then after you stop laughing, you go to the Senate floor to vote to expand NAFTA, as Clinton says she's going to in the next few weeks.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/david-sirota/video-clinton-thinks-naf_b_72948.html
So, Jan, can you please help me out here with your vastly superior intellect? And please be sure to use small words, because I'm not too bright, you know. According to you, Hillary clearly and concisely said NAFTA was a mistake during the debate. Why is she voting to expand NAFTA if she thinks it is a mistake? Is this one of those instances like the Iraq War vote where there is no correlation between what she says and how she votes?
I also spent some time over at Hillary's web site looking for her position on NAFTA as you suggested. Couldn't find a thing. This is undoubtedly because I couldn't handle all of the information over there. Since you are so vastly superior to me, could you please post a link that takes me directly to her clear and concise position on NAFTA? Thanks so much.
Vote for Hillary Online wrote on November 16, 2007 4:54 PM:Big deal, she laughed about crazy Ross Perot with his charts. That doesn't change the fact that she is the only candidate qualified enough to be elected president in 2008. You can count on it.
steve wrote on November 16, 2007 5:16 PM:This is beyond a stretch. Edwards has really begun to make a fool of himself. Desperate and cloying. I guess this approach is better than his team's attempt last night, where they declared victory because Hillary spoke to him (or whatever), claiming that because she engaged him, she is scared. I think he has done himself in ... sort of jumped the shark in crazy shrill carrying on.
Keith wrote on November 16, 2007 5:17 PM:I'm not sure that HRC wasn't laughing at those displaced by NAFTA, but at the thought of Ross Perot. I think more likely she was buying time to come up with her zinger.
This piece doesn't help Edwards, as much as he thinks, because whatever you think about the first part of her answer, she cleaned up nicely at the end.
NYMARJ wrote on November 16, 2007 5:23 PM:
Working any and all even non angles. But I am getting tired, I think. Could be I am reading all about all of this much earlier than previous election cycles. Just not sure if some of these made up issues will just turn people off to the Democratic candidates. Hillary, was of course not laughing at people losing jobs - that is just ridiculous. I would never even claim that Rudy would laugh at that.
dewey_m wrote on November 16, 2007 5:45 PM:Even though I support Edwards over Hillary, as Hillary is now part of the big machine, this is truly petty shit.
JE wrote on November 16, 2007 6:02 PM:Was I watching a different debate? As with everything Clinton does her attempts looked scripted and calculating. Her ability to maintain her composure is razor thin. Watching her face when Obama was speaking, she looked like her head was ready to explode. Personally I thought Kucinich won the debate just based on the I actually read the Patriot Act before voting comment. Regardless, Hillary is desperately trying to be Bill but just isn't unctuous enough.
From what I saw CNN tried as best it could to marginalize Edwards as a candidate because he actually has a somewhat coherent platform that favors the working/middle class. Meanwhile Hillary was trying to tell the audience firefighters and school supervisors (whatever that is) in NY make more than $97,500 a year. If anyone else said that the media would instantly label them as WAY out of touch with reality.
The Corporate Media clearly wants Hillary to get the nomination so a Republican will stand a chance of winning the general election. Sadly, polls reflect her name recognition and hence vile support amongst upper-middle class white women who romanticize the 90's.
CalD wrote on November 16, 2007 6:38 PM:The AFL-CIO has a great web site for their congressional voting scorecards. I just looked up lifetime AFL-CIO voting scores for the top three Democrats.
John Edwards: 97%
Barack Obama: 96%
Hillary Clinton: 93%
So we're obviously not talking about categorical difference between them in terms of actual voting behavior. They have all been pretty labor-friendly. Also, you watch that video and it's pretty clear that Clinton is laughing at Blitzer's framing of the question -- of course Perot was a pretty amusing figure in his own right at times, with those giant ears and all his charts and graphs. But Clinton gets dead serious when she actually talks about to NAFTA and I thought she gave a pretty good answer.
Anyway like I said before, Edwards got his ass handed to him last night. He's probably still smarting from that and obviously looking to salvage anything he can from the wreckage.
pacc wrote on November 16, 2007 6:41 PM:Uh-oh... Breck Girl is about to be eliminated from the nominating sweepstakes!
Bemused wrote on November 16, 2007 6:55 PM:Some firefighters in FDNY do make more than $97,500 per year: http://www.nyc.gov/html/fdny/html/community/ff_salary_benefits_080106.shtml. Apparently, principals, assistant principals, "supervisors" and others also do: http://www.emsc.nysed.gov/mgtserv/AdminCompensation_2.htm.
Hate it when facts get in the way. Who's out of touch with reality now?
Bemused wrote on November 16, 2007 6:58 PM:You need to delete the periods at the end of those URLs above to reach the actual salary info.
Craig McGillivary wrote on November 16, 2007 6:59 PM:What is wrong with a sense of humor? This is a symbolic issue anyway. And by the way Obama agreed to the Peru deal too.
CalD wrote on November 16, 2007 7:26 PM:You know, I don't really find "Breck Girl" or any of the childish dysphemisms some people like toss around to be particularly cute. These are Democratic presidential candidates for God's sake. They deserve some minimum standard of respect even if you happen to disagree with some of their ideas. They are all good people and they all have a lot more in common than they have differences.
Are we so inured to shameless self-indulgence and intolerance of others' opinions that we think it's acceptable public discourse to go around calling our own presidential candidates juvenile schoolyard names? I expect that kind of behavior from swastika-tattooed cretins of the right wing. People who like to call themselves "progressives" should strive to do better than that.
Anonymous wrote on November 16, 2007 9:07 PM:I still haven't gotten over Hillary justifying taking PAC money by claiming that "some of those PACs represent social workers and nurses." I am a social worker and I am not naive. Does she honestly expect me to believe that NASW wields the same clout as Big Pharma? Please. I agree with Edwards. The Clintons are corporatists. I also believe that they have had their day in the sun and it truly is time to move on.
Richard L. Adlof wrote on November 16, 2007 9:48 PM:OMFG! I CAN'T BELIEVE THAT THE EDWARDS' CAMPAIGN MADE THAT MISTAKE!!!!
Clinton does not laugh; Clinton cackles.
Anonymous wrote on November 16, 2007 9:58 PM:If you look at Hillary's voting record on bit Pharm issues, you would know that she votes very consistently with the progressives on those issues.
Here is Eriposte's article on whether she is a corporate Democrat with assessments from Progressive Punch, ADA and a few others:
http://www.theleftcoaster.com/archives/011131.php
It's very hard to make the case that she is even remotely right of Edwards or Obama in this campaign. Now, if you have some wholistic assessments that show otherwise, I'd be interested in seeing it.
Reality Bites wrote on November 16, 2007 11:13 PM:The question of who is more progressive or who has the best voting record is meaningless. the only question we need to ask ourselves is who can win in the general election. Anyone who thinks a woman, a Black man or a latino can win the presidency in the United States in 2008 is either supremely naive or simply deluding themselves into believing that Americans are not racist, and sexist. Vote for Hillary and watch Guiliani win the election!
CalD wrote on November 16, 2007 11:21 PM:Anonymous wrote on November 16, 2007 9:07 PM:I still haven't gotten over Hillary justifying taking PAC money by claiming that "some of those PACs represent social workers and nurses." I am a social worker and I am not naive. Does she honestly expect me to believe that NASW wields the same clout as Big Pharma?...
Hmmm. Well it appears that the National Association of Social Workers (NASW) does in fact have a PAC. It's called PACE. They even have a web site if you would like to learn more (amazing what one can find when one Googles).
I couldn't tell you if PACE has contributed to the Clinton campaign but according to OpenSecrets.org, Clinton has raised right around $750k from PAC's for her presidential campaign. That is to say that PAC money accounts for a grand total of 1% of her total fundraising for this campaign from all sources. Of that 56% was from business PACs and 44% from labor unions and advocacy groups. I'm afraid I can't break it down for you any farther than that but those obviously aren't very big numbers in terms of what the top candidates have raised this year.
As to the question of how much clout NASW may wield with Senator Clinton (I assume you meant with her, specifically) relative to big Big Pharma, I can tell you (because I went and looked) that like a lot of advocacy groups, NASW maintains a scorecard for how individual members of congress vote what they consider to be the most important votes for them. It appears that Senator Clinton scores near straight A's on the NASW scorecard so to whatever extent their interests may be contradictory to those of Big Pharma, the odds would seem to favor the NASW.
NASW Key Votes Scorecards for Sen. Hillary Clinton
110th Congress (to date): 100%
109th Congress: 100%
108th Congress: 100%
107th Congress: 88%
sources:
https://ssl.capwiz.com/socialworkers/issues/
http://www.socialworkers.org/pace/votingRec.asp
Isn't it marvelous? Here in the information age, we no longer have to rely solely on our own preconceived notions when making important decisions. You can actually look this stuff up pretty easily.
hadenough wrote on November 16, 2007 11:50 PM:What a scumbag. edwards oughta drop now while he is just a complete disgrace. Cause it's only gonna get worse for him.
OhioLib wrote on November 17, 2007 12:02 AM:It's easy to judge people by the company they keep. Hillary has her Karl Rove, Mark Penn, who has worked for Eric Prince of Blackwater to help him prepare for his testimony before congress.
If Hillary thinks it was wrong to vote for NAFTA (Bill already admitted to Senator Sheridan Brown it wasn't a good idea), then why would she vote for the Peru Free Trade deal and screw the American worker over again? You can't spray perfume on this stinky mess and say its clean.
I don't believe Mark Penn did any work for Eric Prince, OhioLib. Burson-Marsteller did some work for Eric Prince. Burson-Marsteller, according to their web site has 1600 employees and 94 offices in 30 or 40 countries. Are you deluded enough to imagine that the CEO of a company that size personally works with, blesses or even knows about every client they do work for?
As the Peru free trade agreement, the company Senator Clinton keeps in that case (and many others) would include Barack Obama, who I thought addressed this question very well in last night's debate when he said:
OBAMA: "Well, first of all, I hope Chris is clear. I haven't changed positions on Peru. I am intending to... I am for it, and I plan to vote for it, because it is a small country. This is a trade agreement that has the labor agreements and the environmental agreements that we've been fighting for in it. And I think it's the right thing to do."
Both Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton have opposed CAFTA and the South Korea trade pact, either of which would be much more comparable to NAFTA than the Peru thing in terms of scale and stinkiness.
The fact is we live in a global economy. Even the United States of America can neither produce everything we need nor consume everything we produce. We have no choice but to trade with other countries and not all trade agreements are bad. Only bad trade agreements are bad. Peru doesn't look so terrible. I don't really think we'll be needing that perfume of yours for this one.
ANON wrote on November 17, 2007 4:04 AM:I don't see anything in Kleefeld's article that supports the sensational title that 'Edwards Campaign Accuses Hillary of Laughing.'
This was pointed out in a posted comment at 3:58 PM on Friday Nov 16, and it remains unchanged.
Is there an agenda at work here Mr. Keefeld?
You might want to post evidence to back up such a headline, if you have it, or else your credibility as a journalist is going to take a big hit.
The first rule of journalism is be accurate and tell the truth. And if you violate rule #1, admit it and fix it.
DemAC wrote on November 17, 2007 5:05 AM:No, the Edwards campaign doesn’t have something here.
Yes, it’s a stretch: and a really dumb stretch at that.
No one democratic candidate has the practical and political realities of day-to-day life of American workers more in focus than does Hillary Clinton.
I just love these conclusions. "No one democratic candidate has the practical and political realities of day-to-day life of American workers more in focus than does Hillary Clinton."
You have absolutely no basis for that statement. None. I raise you one though and I have more basis for my statement than you do.
ANY democratic candidate other than clinton II has the practical and political realities of day-to-day life of American workers more in focus than clinton II. Clinton II wants to keep the status quo where the rich get super rich and the middle class and poor keep losing ground. The rest of the candidates at least want to shake up the system and try to make a difference. Clinton II want to keep the robber baron system in place. How could you possibly say she cares about workers??????
DemAC wrote on November 17, 2007 9:00 AM:Dear Michael,
You really should stop drinking whatever Kool Aid that it is you’re drinking.
As President Hillary Clinton has (among many other things) vowed explicitly to:
* Make health care affordable and accessible to every American
* Expand access to affordable, high-quality child care
* Make college more affordable
* Protect families from predatory lenders and help them avoid foreclosures
* Increase the minimum wage
As a senator, Hillary Clinton introduced a plan that ties increases in the minimum wage to Congressional pay raises, so that if Congress votes a raise for itself, the minimum wage goes up as well. Senator Clinton has consistently supported tax relief for middle-class families. She has supported permanently ending the marriage penalty, extending the lower-income tax rates, providing a deduction for college tuition, and providing a refundable child tax credit and adoption tax credit. She has worked to make college affordable and accessible, fighting to increase the federal Pell Grant, which currently covers just a third of tuition at an average public college. Hillary Clinton has also proposed the Student Borrowers Bill of Rights, a comprehensive set of reforms that would eliminate unscrupulous lending practices
Are you seriously suggesting that this is not matters of great importance to the daily lives of struggling American workers?
Michael wrote on November 17, 2007 9:28 AM:And . . . . . so what.
(1) Those statements are just statements and gross generalizations at that. Actions speak louder than words. What has she done in the senate? Zippo.
(2) She's running on the clinton I record. Not a very good track record for average american workers or minorities. I understand that the last 7 years have been horrendous and people look back on clinton I through rose color glasses. Get the facts and ignore the hype. The facts indicate otherwise. Clinton I was more of a republican administration than many past republican administrations. Clinton I ignored the dem party base on a host of issues and took republican issues instead to "get elected." So what, I don't want someone to just "get elected," but to do something for people.
(3) Your statement was that she "has the practical and political realities of day to day life of American workers in focus." Ask the waitress in iowa what she thinks about that one. Clinton II doesn't have a clue.
Stop being a blind clinton II lover and get the facts.
Anonymous wrote on November 17, 2007 10:22 AM:Cal D
I have been a social worker for 30 years and am well aware of PACE, thank you very much.
I have worked in health care for all those thirty years and am currently working with cancer patients. As I spend most of my day searching for funds to cover the cost of prescription drugs for un and under- insured patients, I am constantly reminded that NASW has no clout when it comes up against Big Pharma.
Because of the work I do, I am a political junkie. I have yet to hear Ms. Clinton speak out against the vested interests that will fight like hell to maintain the status quo within our health care system. Those same interests who transformed health care from a service to an industry over the course of my career.
CalD
P.S. Your condescending tone did little to convince me to support your candidate.
John Edwards made a joke out of China trade while Kucinich was making a very serious point. Does anyone plan to follow up with the Edwards campaign on that?
DemAC wrote on November 17, 2007 10:47 AM:Dear little Michael,
Just to check that I’ve understood you correctly:
According to you Senator Clinton working and introducing legislation in the US Senate, raising the minimum wage and so on and so forth are not facts, but just Senator Clinton making a statement and not important at all to American workers. Some tipping at a diner or at a restaurant however, now that is really making a difference!
Pardon me Michael, but are you really as foolish as your writing indicates? Or are you just about to mindlessly provoke all and any?
bellesouth wrote on November 17, 2007 11:18 AM:Marc at 4:17 pm: So you don't walk to talk about the issues? You would prefer for the candidates just to go straight into mudslinging without definig the issues? And then you go directly into slinging mud on Edwards without saying what Edwards has supported or not supported that you disagree with. That is the type of MSM coverage of elections that we do not like here in the blogosphere where we can communicate like adults.
DemAC wrote on November 17, 2007 11:20 AM:Anonymous Social Worker,
If you’re referring to the health insurance companies I’d say that Hillary Clinton has, in fact, spoken out against these vested interests at a number of occasions. Her health care plan is at least very much geared against these interests.
(Hillary Clinton’s plan is available in its entirety at
with a summary available at )
Regarding the transformation of health care from service to industry I think you are absolutely correct in that observation. However it is my experience from Europe that this is rather a world wide phenomenon and not necessarily linked to nature of the health insurance system. In the UK and in Sweden for example, the quality of health care is top notch and you don’t need insurance which is super great. Both countries have single payer universal health care systems. But the effects of “industrialization” are yet felt throughout, with shorter time for patients in hospitals and policlinic “mass-producing” surgery etc.
But perhaps it is not necessarily a bad thing altogether? New research and development should lead to new and improved treatments and practices.
DemAC wrote on November 17, 2007 11:24 AM:PS
The links didn’t work. :-(
But the plan and the summary can, anyway, be found if you search at
www(dot)hillaryclinton(dot)com
DS
Well we know the 'middle class' that Clinton stands up for and protects --ALL THOSE IN THE TOP 6% OF TAXPAYERS!
She is not going to raise the cap on Social Security income on 'the backs of that middle class.'
We can expect more of the same if she becomes President.
Of course, the other 94% should be happy to continue paying the Social Security tax on 100% of their income!
DemAC wrote on November 17, 2007 11:48 AM:ANON,
Are you really, positively, 100 % sure that you want to have the main story of this presidential election be the Repubs scaring the living daylights out of the American people with Obama’s one trillion tax increase? Especially as a tax increase is hardly necessary at all. Contrary to common and right wing wisdom Social Security is actually well and alive and will continue to be well and alive for many years to come.
jeanruss wrote on November 17, 2007 11:52 AM:well, from reading the above comments, it appears that the media bashing Edwards has been enduring for quite a while is successful-Hillary is UNELECTABLE-All Republicans HATE her and so do many Democrats and Independents-these are FACTS-Let's say she Does get elected-as Edwards has poimted out, she has taken MORE lobby money than ANYONE-she will just be a Corporate water carrier and things will get even worse-Corpoprate owned media is pushing hard for her because either way they win-Edwards is the greatest threat-The antics to suppress him at the last debate were pretty pathetic-do you really believe that real Democrats would BOO a candidate because he was dissing LOBBYISTS? How naiive of many of you, or as AG Gonzales would have said, "How Quaint!"
DemAC wrote on November 17, 2007 11:57 AM:Jeanruss,
Actually they booed Edwards because he was dissing his fellow Democrat. I don’t think any Democrat in the audience cared one bit about any lobbyist.
DemAC-How do you know why they booed? Were you one of them? On crooksandliars they have excellent debate analysis by Ed Schultz who was on Hardball yesterday-He points out that it is not ok to boo a candidate for pointing out the voting record of another candidate-Hillary SHOULD be called out on her Iran vote, her Peru vote-her spokesman Penn is a union buster in South America-voters have a right to this information-I think how Hillary votes is a window on her thinking, and those who point it out should not have to endure boos.
Anonymous wrote on November 17, 2007 1:56 PM:CalD
I was referring to the pharmaceutical industry in my post. The folks who literally wrote the Medicare D plan that has benefited no one but themselves and the politicians like former LA Congressman Billy Tauzin, and a host of congressional staffers rewarded with lucrative jobs as pharmaceutical lobbyists. Tauzin is now earning $2 million a year as the spokesperson for Big Pharma, while the patients I work with are stuck in a "donut hole", unable to pay for their meds until they show they have paid $3,000 out of pocket.
But now that you bring up the insurance industry, let me share with you this recent outrage here in MA. William C. Van Fassen, Chairman of MA Blue Cross Blue Shield has just received a $16.4 million retirement package on top of his $3 million in salary and bonuses for last year! Blue Cross Blue Shield is allegedly a non-profit organization. B.S! The net income for B.C/B.S. of MA last year was $110 million. Net incomes for the other two leading insurance companies in this state, Harvard Pilgrim and Tufts Health Plan, were $20.4 million and $41 million respectively. I learned of these outrages after speaking to a 48 y.o. woman with metastatic breast cancer who is afraid her insurance company will not cover the cost of an experimental procedure. No one should be profiting from denying someone else care.
Hillary Clinton couldn't buck this power when her husband was in office. Now that she has been accepting money from these forces, I doubt she will even try.
Edwards is the Man
Tired of Bush / Clinton Yrs
colonpowwow wrote on November 17, 2007 2:10 PM:DemAC wrote on November 17, 2007 10:47 AM:
"Pardon me Michael, but are you really as foolish as your writing indicates? Or are you just about to mindlessly provoke all and any?"
DemAC - Mich (I shorten his name on here now since he insists on shortening mine, he thinks it's funny to do these sorts of irritating things) - anyhow
Mich is well known by dschungu, Jan, me, and many other Hillary supporters on here just like you (who have tried to present him with facts and research directions about our candidate), as an amiable goof who doesn't even consider the facts you present, but immediately answers back that whatever you just presented is no big deal.
Ignore him, and he'll just . . . uh . . . well . . . he won't ever go away.
DemAC wrote on November 17, 2007 2:56 PM:
jeanruss,
No, I was nowhere near Las Vegas and I saw the whole thing on the telly. But I find it quite obvious that the Democratic audience didn’t boo Edwards because they suddenly developed some grand affection for lobbyists. It stands to reason that they booed Edwards because they didn’t like him attacking his fellow Democrat.
colonpowwow,
I was having some suspicions... Thanx for the heads up. :-)
Go Hillary!!!
Although I prefer Edwards over Clinton, I don't think it's accurate or fair to accuse Clinton of laughing at the loss of American jobs due to NAFTA. She gave a perfectly correct answer to Blitzer's attempt to force her into a yes or no answer to a question that didn't lend itself to a yes or no answer. She said (1) NAFTA didn't deliver what many (Bill Clinton, et al) had hoped. (2) Future trade agreements should have enforceable labor and environmental rights provisions. And (3) We need to start enforcing the trade agreements we already have which the Bush administration hasn't been doing.
Look,I have learned my lesson voting for BClinton:After bringing in Indian "IT" workers under the guise that Americans were not "qualified" to do "IT" work, he then started the outsourcing of US jobs to India.
******In the mean time anyone try lately to get a job at a big retailer like Target,Well it's almost like you are in a foreign country.The workers doing the work in the background ,don't speak a lick of English & thus in many of these stores it's almost impossible to communicate with the other workers.Yeah that's what our country has turned to.I am voting to change the status quo & HClinton won't bring change from corporatism.
JubleJohnson wrote on November 17, 2007 4:26 PM:
"I am voting to change the status quo & HClinton won't bring change from corporatism."
Comrade JubleJohnson. Pray, which candidate is the non-corporate-capitalist Democrat or Republican in the race this year? Unless you're talking about the Socialist Labor Party or the like, you're talking about thin distinctions in search of a difference.
The corporate capitalists have won here. There is nobody challenging their grip. That's why I'm voting for Hillary Clinton for President. At least she's demonstrated through her Senate voting record that she advocates them paying their fair share of taxes, and that their agendas have never influenced her vote - witness her 96% rating from the ADA and her 100% rating against so-called Big Pharma.
I sometimes feel like I am living in utter insanity. A woman who is all that is wrong with this country -who supports a war and votes for it,has no clear agenda till she gets in office ,won't do anything about Nafta,waffles on net neutrality, has a group of real unsavory people working with her and is disliked by over 50% of the country--not to mention plants in her audience since she won't answer a question.This is the Dem nominee.? Great -- and we wonder why we lose elections,since she has been annoited I guess the rest of the candidates should shut up or else her gang of cronies will do it for them.What a dishearting and least visionary candidate she is.
Katie wrote on November 17, 2007 7:03 PM:I sometimes feel like I am living in utter insanity. A woman who is all that is wrong with this country -who supports a war and votes for it,has no clear agenda till she gets in office ,won't do anything about Nafta,waffles on net neutrality, has a group of real unsavory people working with her and is disliked by over 50% of the country--not to mention plants in her audience since she won't answer a question.This is the Dem nominee.? Great -- and we wonder why we lose elections,since she has been annoited I guess the rest of the candidates should shut up or else her gang of cronies will do it for them.What a dishearting and least visionary candidate she is.
CalD wrote on November 17, 2007 8:06 PM:Anonymous wrote on November 17, 2007 1:56 PM:CalD
[oh, there's lots more]
I was referring to the pharmaceutical industry in my post. The folks who literally wrote the Medicare D plan that has benefited no one but themselves and the politicians like former LA Congressman Billy Tauzin...
Medicare Part D... Medicare Part D... Ah, yes. That would be the Republican/Pharma party's prescription drug bill established by the Medicare Prescription Drug, Improvement, and Modernization Act, a.k.a., Medicare Modernization Act of 2003.
Yes of course I've heard of that one -- I'm still mad about it, actually. Here's the part I can't figure out, Anon. How is any of that that supposed to have anything to do with Hillary Clinton? I mean, if you know so much about Medicare Part D, then you surely know that Senator Clinton voted against the bill that created it. Right?
(And if you don't know then like I said, it's the 21st century out there. A few clicks of that little mouse thing and you can just go look this stuff right up.)
colonpowwow wrote on November 17, 2007 8:26 PM:Uh, Katie,
I think youmay be posting on the wrong blog. The "shallow, knee-jerk, uninformed, Hillary haters who don't know how to go to a campaign website and even read the presidential candidates' "unkown agenda" for their presidency" doesn't apply to the posters on this site, you betcha. You must be in the wrong place.
I feel your pain. My advice is to look up the facts about Hillary's voting record in the Senate on progressive issues (over 95% according to ADA - as opposed to 78% for supposed progressive John Edwards), and maybe a dose of facts will be the cure for what ails ya'.
What I want to see is Hillary's plan to restore Constitutional government.
Perhaps she can explain it when she's helping Dodd filibuster giving retroactive immunity to the telcos?
Michael wrote on November 17, 2007 10:14 PM:Hi colon, thanks for the props. I call you colon because it's appropriate. I will keep posting to get out facts to rub you clinton II lovers face in them and to rebut the gross generalizations that you jerks keep throwing out. You spew generalizations and when your called on it you lob bombs and call the people questioning your queen a variety of insults. The queen has no clothes and its patently obvious. Hopefully people will see through it and maybe, just maybe, people reading posts on this site will see your pathetic bozo for what she is, a bush-lite republican that is more interested in self-aggrandizement than doing a gd thing for this country. The glaring evidence of that is her non-existent senate record. Oh, I forgot she funded a museum for woodstock and a national forest in puerto rico. Oh, that's right, that's looking out for the average american. What a joke. Anybody but clinton II in 08.
CalD wrote on November 18, 2007 12:11 AM:colonpowwow: Looks like Michael's lost too. Maybe you could help these guys out with a link for the shallow, knee-jerk, uninformed, Hillary haters club site if you have one.
Jane wrote on November 18, 2007 2:42 PM:Dear Ich at 12:18:
You do realize that the only facts you cited were from McCain ads? The rest are generalizations and opinions.
With the global warming threat I am for any and all national forests wherever located.
As to Woodstock those horrible hippies stopped an immoral war which is more than can be said for the current generation.
