Hillary Spokesperson: "She Will Of Course Support Dem Nominee"

Comments (29)

Jake D wrote on November 13, 2007 6:20 PM:

I don't know what that means: "We fully expect that [she will] support the Democratic nominee"?!

Jake D wrote on November 13, 2007 6:21 PM:

The follow-up question, of course, would be whether she would accept the VP slot for either Obama or Edwards?

Donovan wrote on November 13, 2007 6:24 PM:

Jake D, don't be an ass. You know what it means. If you want to make an issue out of this, I will certainly start it with Edwards' hesitations.

Unlike Edwards, at least she didn't hesitate.

Jake D wrote on November 13, 2007 6:30 PM:

I'm not an ass, Donovan -- I didn't start it, either, but I sure as hell will finish it -- our very own Greg Sargent posted "Not sure what this is about" at 2:13PM even though the Edwards camp emailed his answer: "I fully expect to support the Democratic nominee, and I fully expect to be the Democratic nominee." So, I'm still not hearing "a full commitment to backing the Dem nominee" from anyone yet.

Jake D wrote on November 13, 2007 6:36 PM:

"if she isn't" sounds pretty hypothetical and contingent on quite a bit -- to me at least -- YMMV.

Ethan wrote on November 13, 2007 6:38 PM:

Jake, you ARE an ass. I'm tired of seeing your crap all over the place and you don't have a single substantive response to any post. Therefore you are an ass. Go somewhere else and stop polluting TPM with your bullshit.

DTM wrote on November 13, 2007 6:38 PM:

None of this answers the most important question, which is whether Edwards' has said anything different about the other candidates besides Clinton (as Eric and Greg's framing would suggest).

demwinger wrote on November 13, 2007 6:42 PM:

what does it matter? she has the nomination in the bag and anyone who doesn't think so should probably get a clue.

DTM wrote on November 13, 2007 6:47 PM:

demwinger,

You should check your inbox ("inevitability" was last month's talking point).

Jake D wrote on November 13, 2007 7:00 PM:

I'm not going anywhere, Ethan.

Michael wrote on November 13, 2007 7:07 PM:

jake d, do you think edwards will appoint "strict constructionist" judges, since you are such an edwards supporter?

Jake D wrote on November 13, 2007 7:17 PM:

I didn't say JOHN Edwards, did I?

colonpowwow wrote on November 13, 2007 7:18 PM:

Jake D. wrote:
"So, I'm still not hearing "a full commitment to backing the Dem nominee" from anyone yet."

Can you read. Her statement was that she's supported Democrats all her life, she's not going to change now, and "she will, of course, support the nominee."

That's not a "full commitment?"

Gee, you're strict, Jake D.

If I didn't know better, I'd say you were one of those kneejerk Hillary-haters. But I know you're not.

You're one of them there thoughtful Hillary haters. We can especially tell that by the way you read a clear statement from her campaign.

Jake D wrote on November 13, 2007 7:20 PM:

No worse then how Greg read John Edwards's clear statement earlier today -- AH HA!! Got you.

Michael wrote on November 13, 2007 7:22 PM:

Ok, so which edwards? You keep referring to john edwards websites and making arguments for him? Earlier you were crowing about strict constructionist judges and over-turning roe v. wade? I don't get it.

Jake D wrote on November 13, 2007 7:26 PM:

Well, someone earlier asked me who I would like to see as President -- I wouldn't vote for any pro-choice Democrats but I was being the Devil's Advocate -- I have also linked to my own preference, LEE Edwards:

http://www.heritage.org/about/staff/LeeEdwards.cfm

"Get it" now?

Michael wrote on November 13, 2007 7:28 PM:

Yeah, I get it. You are a clown.

Jake D wrote on November 13, 2007 7:45 PM:

At least I answer questions without ad hominem attacks.

Bob S wrote on November 13, 2007 8:39 PM:

Jake, referring back to the top, the Clinton statement was "she will of course support the Democratic nominee." If you cannot understand that, there is little point in anyone trying to have a discussion with you.

Jake D wrote on November 13, 2007 9:18 PM:

Hey, take it from someone who knows Hillary in the Biblical sense. She's lying like a rug. She'll scorched-earth the field if she doesn't win. She does that post-coitus too.

Lee Edwards, of course, turns me on in a most heterosexual way. That bald pate, magnificent. My little soldier stirs just thinking about it and I have to go lie down for a while.

Michael Caine wrote on November 13, 2007 9:23 PM:

Has anyone else noticed how rare it is that Hillary actually answers a press question. It is usually a statement released by so & so, a spokesman for Hillary. Throughout the issues with Maid Rite and her campaign's planting of questions it is surrogates doing the talking, not Hillary.

MarcNYC wrote on November 13, 2007 9:43 PM:

Jake D continues to troll here because, unlike bluestate.com this site apparently allows free speech.

hadenough wrote on November 14, 2007 12:37 AM:

"Michael Caine wrote on November 13, 2007 9:23 PM:
Has anyone else noticed how rare it is that Hillary actually answers a press question."

No. But I have noticed fakers clowning around that talking point.

Richard L. Adlof wrote on November 14, 2007 2:13 AM:

Clinton is not on record for supporting the Nominee if it is not her . . . Her spokes model is on record. I want video of her choking out the words that she will support the DEM nominee . . . and not go Lieberman on the Party.

loki wrote on November 14, 2007 8:36 AM:

Eric and Greg are sly aren't they? They concocted this whole nonscandal event by suggesting Edwards is only talking about Clinton when he answers a question about only Clinton. They are such rank "framers!"

Brilliant.

colonpowwow wrote on November 14, 2007 9:00 AM:

Michael Caine wrote on November 13, 2007 9:23 PM:
"Has anyone else noticed how rare it is that Hillary actually answers a press question. It is usually a statement released by so & so, a spokesman for Hillary."

Richard L. Adlof wrote on November 14, 2007 2:13 AM:
"Clinton is not on record for supporting the Nominee if it is not her . . . Her spokes model is on record."

You're kidding right? Are you saying that the official campaign spokesperson (spokes model?) hired by the candidate to handle press relations and inquiries doesn't tender Hillary's responses but that he is just a loose cannon giving his personal takes on things?

Are you implying that Edwards and Obama don't use these kind of flacks (I wonder where that word came from?)?

Wow. I always thought most presidential candidates, and especially Hillary, were more disciplined than that. Thanks for the insightful observation and correction.

Michael wrote on November 14, 2007 9:10 AM:

This really is a non-issue. I agree with colon for once. Edwards was a fool for not giving a straight answer originally, which he has been criticizing clinton II for not doing. It kind of blew up in his face. I really am tired of politics as usual.

loki wrote on November 14, 2007 9:14 AM:

Colonpowwow,

It is fun to watch. According to most anti-Clinton types in here it isn't worth even reporting, (this Edwards won't support Clinton if she's the nominee silliness) but it sure is important enough that the candidate herself come out and say something. The fact that she apparently agrees that it isn't a high priority (so send out spokesperson) is lost on them. Too funny.

Desider wrote on November 14, 2007 11:13 AM:

Well, Jake misquoted Hillary to make her sound like Edwards.

She said it perfectly - she expects to be the nominee but will support whoever is. I wrote something very similar yesterday for how Edwards should have responded, including the "I'm a Democrat" part.

Rather than "expect to support the nominee". Well, I expect to wake up early tomorrow, but if I sleep in, no biggie.

And I'm sympathetic that the press wants to turn this into a 2-candidate election already, but playing Lieberman isn't the way for John to gather support.

Post a comment

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