Edwards Defines "Mudslinging" For Hillary

Comments (58)

CT Voter wrote on November 20, 2007 5:03 PM:

Love this:

Like so many other things, when it comes to mud, Hillary Clinton says one thing and throws another."

I don't know what the impact of all of this squabbling will be, but I have to admit I'm enjoying the back and forth. Infinitely more entertaining that what is going on with the Republicans.

seanh wrote on November 20, 2007 5:03 PM:

Wow, this is a strange development. This statement almost seems to corroborate speculations that Edwards and Obama are collaborating (if vaguely, indirectly, or unofficially).

I understand this is part of Edward's ongoing narrative, but why go out of your way (ala Richardson in Philadelphia debate) to defend another competitor unless you're running for VP?

Liberal Larry wrote on November 20, 2007 5:04 PM:

Bush-Lite unites the republic party.

loki wrote on November 20, 2007 5:05 PM:

I wonder if Edwards would say that Obama was slinging mud when he suggested that others in this race felt they were "owed" the presidency or when he sneered about them having "long-held ambition" for the presidency. Is that not insulting?

Jesse wrote on November 20, 2007 5:10 PM:

It really does sound like Obama and Edwards are
are a team....wouldn't surprise me.
But for Edwards (especially) if you throw
the mud you have to be able to handle getting
it thrown back at you!! Edwards diminished
the primary season to a mud fight...

DTM wrote on November 20, 2007 5:11 PM:

loki,

That was yesterday's talking point. Check your e-mail.

CT Voter wrote on November 20, 2007 5:12 PM:

loki: Isn't having a "long-held ambition" for the presidency more of a fact than an insult? Is it insulting to point out this fact? Describing someone as calculating, without principles, and driven to win at any cost--now THAT'S insulting. Pointing out that certain candidates have long wanted to be President isn't necessarily insulting--or mudslinging.

loki wrote on November 20, 2007 5:14 PM:

DTM,

Swing and a miss! Aww...nice try anyway.

CT Voter wrote on November 20, 2007 5:16 PM:

Edwards diminished the primary season to a mud fight...

Too much credit to Edwards. All three campaigns have had a hand in the nastiness.

Which is fine with me. Whoever gets the nomination is going to have to be a tough fighter. May as well use the primaries to sharpen those skills...

Liberal Larry wrote on November 20, 2007 5:18 PM:

Bush-Lite and her K $treet allies need a distraction while she sends your job to Peru.

steve wrote on November 20, 2007 5:20 PM:

Once again, Hillary sets the debate and the agenda, while Obama tries to get his sea legs ... and Edwards flails around just trying to get a little attention. I have liked and respected Edwards for years, but lately I need to remind myself that we're just a few weeks from him dropping out and stopping all of this nonsense he peddles.

Keith wrote on November 20, 2007 5:20 PM:

Loki:

So Sentor Clinton didn't have a long-held ambition to be President? Funny, I thought the primary reason she ran for office at all, and in New York (instead of Arkansas) was to position herself for a run for the presidency.

Must be what GWB termed "revisionist history".

As for Edwards, he's just trying to remind folks that he's still running. He's been marginalized the last few days (and the poll out of NH showing him tied with Richardson can't be helpful).

loki wrote on November 20, 2007 5:23 PM:

Yes, yes, CT Voter. That's all he was doing. Just pointing out the differences. Just stating an obvious fact. Anyone who takes these commments, these very calculated comments as insults, well it's just their problem. Funny.

And hey, wasn't Clinton just commenting on what Obama had written about himself? Why should anyone feel slighted? ;^}

loki wrote on November 20, 2007 5:25 PM:

Yes, too funny Keith.

And I'm sure you bought into the notion that Obama hasn't had long-held ambitions for the White House. Don't forget, he's the pure one. He represents "change"...oh and also "hope!" Don't forget hope!

CT Voter wrote on November 20, 2007 5:36 PM:

loki:

Hey, I happen to like ambitious people so whether Clinton or Obama or Edwards have long held ambitions to the presidency isn't, to me, an insult. If you want to take it as an insult (to point out that someone has long had ambitions to be president) then go ahead.

And you're right: Clinton really ought to get out there and remind everyone that Obama, that hypocrite, talked about being president when he was in GRADE SCHOOL! See! It proves he's as impure and hypocritical as Hillary Clinton because he wanted to be president over 30 YEARS AGO!!!

Hilarious stuff.

DTM wrote on November 20, 2007 5:37 PM:

Seriously, folks--why are we letting loki take us back to an unrelated topic?

Keith wrote on November 20, 2007 5:39 PM:

Loki:

Guilty as charged, he wanted to be president when he was in kindergarden. Rumor has it he was seen scheming during nap time how he'd make his move.

Seriously, I don't think the guy's perfect, just like I don't think HRC is the devil incarnate. I'm just calling it like I see it (and I'm sure you are doing the same).

One positive, she didn't mention that stupid "abandoning the politics of hope" drivel. It's just not effective and it makes her rapid responses seem, well, canned.

MJ wrote on November 20, 2007 5:42 PM:

I kind of like the fight as we see the fighting nature in each one. At the end, we are all dems who will be allies to defeat repugnants....my bad...i meant republics

loki wrote on November 20, 2007 5:45 PM:

Keith and CT Voter,

A sincere thanks for the straight forward responses.

Cheers.

hadenough wrote on November 20, 2007 5:48 PM:

edwards has metaphorically grabbed his high powered rifle and climbed the tower. He has proved as bad a shot as he is a candidate.

daria g wrote on November 20, 2007 6:04 PM:

Nothing like starting off a statement with a dictionary definition.. welcome to high school indeed!

loki wrote on November 20, 2007 6:12 PM:

DTM,

Not so unrelated.

I really like Obama. I swear to god I do!

What I can't stand is his supporters...especially ones like you. You slowly but surely have revealed yourself to be one of those sycophantic, irrational, emotional. Full of undeserved reverence for this guy who in the end is no different than any other major politician in America. He can sling mud and triangulate with the best of them.

And I don't care! I do care that people like you are so blind to it. To you--it seems--he's this pure "outsider"-type coming to change the whole political climate in Washington...the Nation even! This "new kind of politics" kind of crap.

Well to quote for the thousandth time Gore Vidal: "Politicians working within a system like ours can never be much more than what the system will allow."

Obama didn't get to where he is by being pure, by being an outsider, by being different. He is Washington politics. You don't get to be a State Senator much less and U.S. Senator without knowing all the right people, saying and doing all the right things, stroking all the right egos, etc...

Clinton and Obama are doing what is necessary--as they see it--to get elected. The idea that Obama is somehow above it all or different in any real, meaningful way is ludicrous. And the fact that you buy into it is sad.

Anyway...take all that "unrelatedness" for what it's worth.

CT Voter wrote on November 20, 2007 6:18 PM:

Keith and CT Voter,

A sincere thanks for the straight forward responses.

Hey, no problem.

(Speaking for myself, of course. Keith and I don't really agree: he thinks Obama has wanted to be president since kindergarten. I say it's grade school. We both agree, though, that Clinton should make a really big issue of this...)

Brian wrote on November 20, 2007 6:19 PM:

Hillary is sounding more and more desperate everyday.

Edwards is trying to get attention because he is the best candidate out there the Dems have - in terms of winning the most states; and hence the media is constantly trying to marginalize him.

Hillary is the corporate media candidate, Bush-Cheney Lite, and will provide the most salacious content for their news programs is she does win. Hence, she is ordained the favorite. Also, she is the one major Dem with the biggest chance of losing the general election - another reason the corporate media loves her.

Ever notice with Hillary, she is the smoothest talker in the debates but says the least. She is much slicker than Willie ever was. A nightmare for Democrats and progressives waiting to happen.

Liberal Larry wrote on November 20, 2007 6:31 PM:

One would think that, with her Ivy League degree, Bush-Lite would know what the definition of is/mud is.

DTM wrote on November 20, 2007 6:31 PM:

loki,

Nothing you wrote has any real relevance to my views.

In fact, recently I was commenting here that the best politicians in my lifetime (Ronald Reagan and Bill Clinton) were so successful in part because while they were incredibly skillful politicians, they also managed to project an overall sincere and optimistic image. I noted that was the real mark of playing the political game well.

So, I harbor no illusions about what it takes to be a great politician, and do not think Obama is an exception.

loki wrote on November 20, 2007 7:00 PM:

DTM,

How you actually feel and what you project in these pages appear to be two different things then.

DTM wrote on November 20, 2007 7:07 PM:

loki,

I don't think so. And if you have that impression, I think you may be confusing me with someone else.

Gujar wrote on November 20, 2007 7:12 PM:

Big mistake for Edwards to get in this fight unless he is trying to be VP for Obama. Whatever Obama may have promised Edwards I seriously doubt Obama will take him as VP if Obama is a democratic nominee. Obama will choose someone centrist and from an important state.

The only time Edwards numbers are up when he stays positive.

Chris Brown wrote on November 20, 2007 7:19 PM:

The reason mud is slung during campaigns is because you voters lap it up.

I find it amazing that people complain about mud slinging and other dirty campaign tactics, when such are done because they are tactics that work with the largely disinterested, thus largely uninformed electorate.

Genghis wrote on November 20, 2007 7:22 PM:

I agree with Gujar (and seanh). When two other candidates are fighting, you stand aside and let them take each other out. Why would Edwards come to Obama's defense? I think they have a deal.

Kjoe wrote on November 20, 2007 7:47 PM:

I think I can understand Edwards' motivation on something like this.

If Hillary does not go to the convention with 50 percent of the delegates---then she will have to pry some loose from Obama----not likely. Or she will have to pry some loose from Edwards----she has plenty to offer the delegates themselves---but nothing to offer Edwards.

There are many scenarios possible---but one is that Obama's supporters are almost certain to prefer Edwards to Hillary. An Edwards-Obama ticket would be possible----neither would run as Clinton's vp.

Encourage people to not vote for Hillary---and you survive.

rssrai wrote on November 20, 2007 7:57 PM:

Looks like democrats are figuring out that the Clintons are the same ones that was in the White House before, and yes the 90s will be replayed over and over again. The Clintons v repugs, democrats losing out again.

beowulf wrote on November 20, 2007 7:59 PM:

Obama and Edwards each think they can win if the race is between the two of them. Both of them also believe they'd face longer odd if they were paired up with Hillary in the final two.

So the smart play for both Obama and Edwards is ganging up on Hillary so she loses in Iowa. Ideally (for either man), she'd come in third to collapse the "inevitability" meme and effectively knock her out of the race. Even if she comes in second, the one who beat her is the new frontrunner. And since both men are targeting their fire on Hillary, its likely the third place candidate's supporters will move over to the anti-Hillary candidate in the following primaries.

CalD wrote on November 20, 2007 8:03 PM:

Sounds like John Edwards needs a new dictionary. A better definition of mud-slinging (as opposed to say, "drawing distinctions") would be making accusations about one's adversaries that are:

1. Flatly untrue
2. Deliberate distortions or exaggerations
3. Irrelevant to the discussion

I have to note that Edwards himself has been spreading around rather a lot of number 2 there lately. I'd even go so far as to say that for the past month or so, the number 2 seems to start getting pretty deep almost every time he gets up in front of a microphone. Now perhaps we know the reason; he probably just grabbed the wrong dictionary.

Of course if it were the case that a) foreign policy experience is irrelevant to the discussion of a person's qualifications as a US presidential candidate, or b) that Barack Obama does in fact significant have foreign policy that Hillary Clinton is has deliberately denied or understated, then perhaps you could reasonably call that statement of hers "mudslinging." If not, then it's simply using a clever turn of phrase to draw a legitimate point. And in fact falsely characterizing the making of a legitimate point as "mudslinging," would itself more closely rise to the level actual mudslinging (i.e., more #2).

dajafi wrote on November 20, 2007 8:07 PM:

Glad I read all these comments. On the first few from "loki," I figured s/he was another Hillbot reciting the talking points and ready at a second's prompting to start belching "strength and experience"... but the comment from 6:12pm is one of the most astute and well thought out I've read on this site or others in a long time. Cheers to you.

As to the substance here, I wonder if Edwards is trying to appeal to an audience--the mad-as-hell marginalized Democrats--who just simply aren't numerous enough to win him the nomination. He seems to have declared "damn the torpedoes" and is going straight at the S.S. InevitaBillary. As my one hope to see that ship sunk, I wish him well... but despite Obama's poll bounce (and I'm an Obama supporter), the underlying dynamic of the race hasn't changed.

That dynamic is pretty simple: Sen. Clinton gets 35-45 percent of the vote in all the early primary states, and as long as she has more than one prominent opponent, it's enough for her to win the nomination--despite the fact that, at 100 percent name recognition and with the strength of the best campaign operation in modern Democratic history, it should be fairly daunting to Democrats that she can't even get bare majorities.

People really do have serious reservations about her, and while most of those supporting other primary candidates will back her in the general, some won't. (I personally won't vote for her under any circumstance but one: Hillary vs. Giuliani, and it's close in NY state... I'd cut off one of my toes to stop that psychotic fascist from getting his hands on the Button.) Worse, she won't draw many independents or moderate Republicans--the people who might be open to an Obama or Richardson, maybe even to Edwards, but not to a woman they've been conditioned to hate (fairly or not) for 15 years.

But unless the race gets to Hillary vs. Not-Hillary in time, she'll get the nomination anyway. The punditariat certainly wants her bad--mostly because they know how to "tell" the Clinton story, and the well-being of the country be damned.

Liberal Larry wrote on November 20, 2007 8:14 PM:

Bush-Lite/Mrs. Bush '08
Experience K $treet Can Believe In!

Zorba wrote on November 20, 2007 8:34 PM:

democrats say even shwoing there voting record to American people is an attack. :)

Steve C wrote on November 20, 2007 8:48 PM:

I came into the primary season with a vaguely supporting Edwards. I liked his populist style, the way he talked about poverty, the way he said in 2004 that we shouldn't be afraid to talk about race, and the way he said that we need to be patriotic about something besides war.

But I'm not sure what happened to that man. All I hear from him now is Hillary this, Hillary that. I don't want to hear our candidates impugning each others' characters. The press loves this stuff, will give it a lot of play, and it will hurt the eventual winner in the general election. It hurts the party for individual gain, and it's not helpful.

I can't support Edwards anymore, and it disappoints me.

Genghis wrote on November 20, 2007 9:17 PM:

Beowulf, you have a point, but it's a sort of prisoners dilemma. It's better for Edwards if both he and Obama go after Hillary than if neither go after Hillary, but it's better still for him if only Obama goes after Hillary. This case in particular seems like a battle he could have easily sat out.

That's why I suspect that they have some kind of arrangement, even if it's only temporary strategy coordination. If I were Edwards or Obama, I'd definitely be talking to the other camp.

Anonymous wrote on November 20, 2007 9:32 PM:

SteveC, you sound like one of those Hillary supporters who claim to be something else to a make a point in her favor.

It is unfortunate that Edwards has had to take the role of opposing Hillary and calling her for her equivocation and dishonesty. It needs to be said, however. Hillary wants to be president of the United States because she is a woman and married to Bill. She has substantive experience that would qualify her to lead the nation and the world. The media and the corporations are ready to install her. Edwards is trying to wake the voters up to just who Hillary is. I think he is courageous to do it. It may cost him the election, but he may well save the nation from the horrible mistake of trusting, nominating and electing Hillary Bush-Clinton-Bush-Clinton to maintain the status quo.

Zorba wrote on November 20, 2007 9:57 PM:

blockquote I came into the primary season with a vaguely supporting Edwards. I liked his populist style, the way he talked about poverty, the way he said in 2004 that we shouldn't be afraid to talk about race,

but Edward is a lawyer and has nothing to brag except the 26000 foot house and 400 dollar haircut which most people do'nt do. my house's 1600 foot and my hair is 10 dollar cut. normal people saw through both edward and Hilary as elitism. Like i say before the whole group candates are bunch of fakers. Republcans no better. we need a Reagan to win 49 state land slide.

Liberal Larry wrote on November 20, 2007 10:39 PM:

Bush-Lite and her K $treet allies want to destroy the netroots.

Goldspinner wrote on November 20, 2007 10:47 PM:

Gujar,

Hate to break it to you, but we Tar Heels know better. A southern populist had better be on the ticket if the Democrats intend to retake the White House.

Zorba,

At least Edwards earned his legal fees by winning cases on behalf of regular folks. As a plaintiff's attorney, he fought powerful insurance and medical interests on contingency. Funny, I don't hear you whining about the size of Rancho del Cielo, Kennebunkport, or the Crawford Ranch. Moi, I'm voting for the linthead.

Anonymous wrote on November 20, 2007 10:48 PM:

Funny how all the trolls and the press hate Edwards.

"We love him for the enemies he has made."

I agree with Brian, who wrote:

Hillary is the corporate media candidate, Bush-Cheney Lite, and will provide the most salacious content for their news programs is she does win. Hence, she is ordained the favorite. Also, she is the one major Dem with the biggest chance of losing the general election - another reason the corporate media loves her.

Excellent point that the press loves her -- more precisely, hates her personally, but would love to see her as President -- is that they would get to recycle every stale story they wrote in the 90s. (Sure, that's not fair to Hillary, because the stories will be just as fake the second time around, but that's what will happen.)

cb wrote on November 20, 2007 11:05 PM:

I think the reason why Edwards waded into this morass is because the next time he tries to make distinctions with Clinton he has nullified her response of "mudslinging" against him.

Now it's on record that she has engaged in the same thing she accused him of doing in Las Vegas.

Marc wrote on November 21, 2007 12:00 AM:

John Edwards needs to run on his record instead of trying to run on the amount of snide remarks he can make about Hillary Clinton.

NCSteve wrote on November 21, 2007 12:01 AM:

Dagnabit, people. I see a post and jump into the comments to fire off what I think is a witty one-line zinger, and find that y'all have gone and started up a big ol' long discussion that would make my one-liner looking just totally incongruous and not a little lame-ass. Third time today, dammit.

So, instead, I'll just wish y'all a Happy Thanksgiving and ask that you not deliberately provoke your old Republican relatives into launching into "Obama's a Muslim sleeper agent" or "Hillary's a Vince Foster killing lesbian" tirades.

Well, you know, not unless you've got a sib or a cousin or two handy who'll share the laugh with you when they get to the part where their faces turn all red and stuff.

Zorba wrote on November 21, 2007 2:20 AM:

o, instead, I'll just wish y'all a Happy Thanksgiving and ask that you not deliberately provoke your old Republican relatives into launching into "Obama's a Muslim sleeper agent" or "Hillary's a Vince Foster" tirades.

not too sure. Why Obama dad choose muslim name Hussein and hid in middle. people don't use names on a wim. any history on where from this name was used on Obama and not normal? Hillary used methodist middlenme which's more normal.

Steve C wrote on November 21, 2007 3:18 AM:

To "Anonymous"-- I really wish you wouldn't suggest that I was being disingenuous. I'm not sure who I support now, but unfortunately I really did enter the primary season generally supportive of Edwards, for the reasons I mentioned, and have been disappointed with the negativity of his campaign. It stands in contrast to the very positive campaign he ran in 2004.

My main goal in this election is for a Democrat to win. I think all of our candidates are admirable people who genuinely want to advance liberal (I use that word proudly) policies to help the general public. Thus it disappoints me to hear them use character attacks against each other. I'm afraid that all of this sniping--not just by Edwards, but by all three frontrunners--may indeed avoid Bush-Clinton-Bush-Clinton, but by giving us Bush-Clinton-Bush-Romney instead.

I was leaning towards Edwards, but no longer. It's just not true that I supported Clinton all along and that I made that up to make this point, but it's not true. Negativity towards fellow Democrats really does turn me off.

ANON wrote on November 21, 2007 3:21 AM:

Reading the comments here is always good for a laugh, and a reminder that many people view everything through their 'rose colored glasses' without any sense of reality.

Partisan criticism is a funny thing. Hillary makes a comparison between herself and Edwards --that is prefectly fine. Edwards makes truthful statements of fact delineating the differences between himself and Hillary --that is outrageous 'mudslinging right out of the Republican Playbook.'

If we cannot debate the issues, positions, and the differences between the parties, then how can we ever expect to field the best Democratic Nominee for the General Election?

I guess truth and facts are the most terrifying things an unquestioning partisan can ever face.

Desider wrote on November 21, 2007 3:48 AM:

This is funny.

If Obama is going to put 4 years in Indonesia as a kid in the forefront of his campaign, he's going to get whacked unless he can really explain what it gave him, aside from different childhood diseases and a funny accent.

The same people who will tout this experience of a 6-10 year old will dismiss any value in being First Lady of Arkansas (12 years), the US (8 years), being politically active all through college and simply being 14 years older with that much more life experience. And what does any of this have to do with whether we bomb Pakistan or not?

M.B. wrote on November 21, 2007 4:11 AM:

Hey ANON, who are you talking about? It seems reasonable enough here so far.

Anonymous wrote on November 21, 2007 6:30 AM:

Hillary and her machine are getting desperate. Where is the aluff, inevitable, frontrunner. Voters are getting a look at the REAL Hillary and they DON'T LIKE WHAT THEY SEE. Her internal polls show her tanking in Iowa, New Hampshire and South Carolina. The propoganda about "I have so much experience" and "I am such a poor victim" are backfiring. Hillary has no substance to stand on. She is Bill's wife. That's not enough to make her president.

Sorry, Hillary, the nation owes you NOTHING. This time Bill can't do it for you.

DTM wrote on November 21, 2007 7:34 AM:

Zorba,

Like many other fathers, Obama's father chose to give Obama his own name (Obama's father was also named Barack Hussein Obama). It is really no more complicated than that.

Independent Conservative wrote on November 21, 2007 8:41 AM:

MJ wrote: "At the end, we are all dems who will be allies to defeat repugnants....my bad...i meant republics"

-- Who is "we"? Everybody who posts in this forum? Think again. Although, you DO get full credit for the second half of your statement. Thanks for admitting that your goal is to defeat the republic.

Independent Conservative wrote on November 21, 2007 8:48 AM:

... Channeling Clara Peller ... hmmmmm ... "Where's the aluff?"

votenic wrote on November 29, 2007 4:27 PM:

2008 Presidential Candidate Weekly Poll

www.votenic.com

The Only Poll That Matters.
Results Posted Weekly Tuesday Night at Midnight.

Post a comment

Name:
Email Address:
URL:
	Remember personal info?
Comments: (you may use HTML tags for style)