Top Iowa Story: Edwards Hits Hillary Over Planted Questions — Hillary Team Hits Back
Here's the key story in Iowa: The Des Moines Register reports that John Edwards is lambasting Hillary Clinton's campaign — even comparing her to President Bush — in the wake of two separate reports that the campaign was planting questions at events.
"People expect you to stand in front of them and answer their hard questions - and they expect it to be an honest process," Edwards told reporters. "What George Bush does is plant questions and exclude people from events, and I don't think that's what Democrats want to see in Iowa."
A Hillary spokesman hit right back, comparing Edwards to Bush: "What George Bush does is attack Democrats and divide the country. John Edwards' campaign resembles that more and more every day."
Comments (69)
LJ wrote on November 12, 2007 11:12 AM:I don't think it's an "attack" to point out that the Clinton campaign was doing something that was clearly dishonest.
Plus the Edwards criticism is right on target. Hillary Clinton is known to have planted people in an audience to ask questions favorable to her, and so has George Bush.
Also, I sincerely doubt that Edwards statement is dividing the country. I suspect people are united in wanting campaigns and presidents to act in an honest manner.
Jake D wrote on November 12, 2007 11:17 AM:For some reason, "swiftboating" has been defined as simply pointing out the truth now.
Lookingforhome wrote on November 12, 2007 11:21 AM:Let's all be adults here. When someone makes a fiery speech to claim that an act by another campaign undermines the democratic process and "is like George Bush" it's an ATTACK.
That's not to say it's off limits or wrong. But a full-throated criticism of another candidate's character is not the same as saying (for example) that their position on Iraq is wrong. The latter is comparing policies and pointing out differences, the former is an ATTACK.
Edwards has been lobbing bombs at other candidates for a while now -- in my opinion from the cheap seats since he doesn't have to make compromises and vote on real legislation like they do -- and that's fine if it's what he thinks he needs to do to win. Fire away and let the chips fall where they will. But don't try to act all innocent when the other campaign's call you on what you're doing! That's just as disingenuous and manipulative as anything HRC is doing.
mkolb wrote on November 12, 2007 11:21 AM:What were the questions that were planted? Were they softballs or were they about difficult subjects the Senator wanted to make sure she could talk about?
Lookingforhome wrote on November 12, 2007 11:24 AM:Oops. Sorry for the sloppy typing - should be: "...the other campaigns call you..."
Oh for an edit button...
Jeremy wrote on November 12, 2007 11:25 AM:Planted questions?
This is some kind of "conversation".
NCSteve wrote on November 12, 2007 11:25 AM:In politics, when someone levels a charge at you, you have three choices: respond to the substance of the attack(show their facts are wrong), deflect attention with a countercharge (he's much worse than I am) or fire off an insult. The Clinton campaign invariably seems to opt for the insult.
Unfortunatly, both the MSM and blogosphere often fail to acknowledge a difference. They call all three of them "hitting back" and, in so doing, implicitly equate a legitimate factual beef with a meaningless insult whose sole purpose is to dodge the question. That's why the Clinton campain always goes with the insult. Until someone in the MSM or the blogosphere stops calling it "hitting back" and says, "uh, Senator, excuse me but that's not responsive. Its just a sneering little jibe," there's no penalty.
Jake D wrote on November 12, 2007 11:28 AM:Good post, NCSteve.
chigger wrote on November 12, 2007 11:43 AM:I've thought for some time now that Hillary was without much substance or real skill, that she doesn't live up to her reputation. The fact that she needs to plant questions just reinforces what I suspected. I guess she's just a balloon, filled with... BM gas.
Leon723 wrote on November 12, 2007 11:49 AM:What NCSteve said. This time, however, it's hard to see how Hillary's team can respond other than with an attack, since they cannot deny that questions were planted. (BTW, does anyone believe that the only two incidents are the ones that were reported? It seems like a technique, not an aberration)
All team Hillary can say is "This was a major error by our advance team, and it will not happen again." They may have said the second part of that sentence already, so I suppose they can say "Senator Edwards will not take yes for an answer. The campaign has admitted this was a mistake, and he wants to keep talking about this rather than the real issues."
While Clinton's team has not handled this exactly right, I must say that I do feel the aura of desperation coming from Edwards, not so much on this issue but overall. The goal is to attack without making it look like attacking is just a tactic, and Edwards fails on that score. Even his speech at the JJ dinner, which was undeniably passionate, did not work for me, because when he tells his "tug at the heartstrings" anecdote you can almost see the strings actually being plucked so you notice the effort Edwards is making rather than the message. It's like trying to concentrate on the quality of the music coming from the piano when you are staring down through its opened top and watching the hammers hit the strings.
I do, however, hope that Edwards can bring down Hillary a notch in Iowa while allowing Obama to maintain the high road, because I think that both Edwards and Hillary are susceptible to the "reinventing themselves to meet the apparent needs of the moment" critique, which turns off independent voters Edwards is hoping the public will forget he was Mr. Sunshine in 2004.
Obama's the only candidate who won't have serious baggage around the issue of his authenticity. It may be a function of his relatively short career in politics, but that's unfortunately how these things often go.
DonnaG wrote on November 12, 2007 11:51 AM:I second Jake D: Good post, NCSteve.
MickNH wrote on November 12, 2007 11:51 AM:When I was window shopping for a candidate to support for the NH primary earlier this year, I was surprised to be told that I would be required to register to receive a ticket for a Hillary event.
Weren't Democrats supposed to be angry at the republicans for stacking their events with sycophants during '04?
I will vote for whoever the dem candidate is in '08 but I am supporting John Edwards wholeheartedly for the primary.
Jeremy wrote on November 12, 2007 11:58 AM:In the thread immediately below this we are hearing about what a great campaigner Hillary is, but all that we've seen in the past few weeks--as the campaign has entered critical stages--is this kind of bumbling and bungling. The poor debate performance and the abominable counter-spin. The flap caused by using that waitress in their stump speeches without finding out whether she even supported Hillary and the tip confusion. This idiocy of using planted questions. The distractions caused by Mark Penn's nefarious associations. The disconnect between running a campaign based on "having a conversation" then cutting voters out of the loop and deferring judgment on crucial issues to some hypothetical future "bipartisan commission". It goes on and on. Hillary as great campaigner is nothing but a myth. About the only thing that her campaign has succeeded in doing is propagating that myth.
elrapierwit wrote on November 12, 2007 12:01 PM:Great post NCSteve.
I agree with Leon723 as well.
NCSteve,
If we could just get the media to do their jobs honestly and integrity...all of Hillary's flaws and waffling on policies would come to light.
There needs to be a more laser focus on the responses from Hillary's camp, they need to get a response to the substance of the issue not just a backhanded retort to deflect issues.
DonnaG:
Hearing a "second" I would therefore ask for unanimous consent on the pending motion : )
Hearing no objection, and moving on to new business: did you see my question to you in the Obama MTP thread? He REFUSED to say how many troops he would keep in Iraq.
hadenough wrote on November 12, 2007 12:08 PM:That's a good one. kleefeld pointing to fox news for a scource. We can only fox scoops up kleefeld soon.
framecop wrote on November 12, 2007 12:11 PM:Jake D wrote on November 12, 2007 11:17 AM:For some reason, "swiftboating" has been defined as simply pointing out the truth now.
The frame of the day.
Lee wrote on November 12, 2007 12:19 PM:All campaigns plant questions. The fact is that Edwards is bad news and bad for the party. His behavior is disgusting and irrational. Brave Clinton Camp.
colonpowwow wrote on November 12, 2007 12:29 PM:Okay, NCSteve and others looking for a "substantive answer" to who is most "like George W. Bush."
Is the Congressional Record substantive enough for yer Hillary-hatin' azzez?
Here are the comparisons for the times when Hillary and Edwards disagreed on their votes when they were in the Senate together. Please read and come back and say again who's the "Republican-Lite" candidate most like George Bush.
Although they mostly voted together in concert with most other Democrats, there were some times that they disagreed on certain issues – especially some issues related to helping working families, education, and campaign reform. Let’s look at nearly all of those times – sorry this makes for a long post.
From the Senate voting record:
Senator Edwards voted YES on the 2000 Bankruptcy Act (along with the Republican majority). Senator Hillary Clinton had not been elected yet, but it’s a bill that Bill Clinton vetoed as being “too harsh on America’s poor and middle class families.” It was a precursor to the 2001 Bankruptcy Reform Act (that Edwards also voted YES on).
On the Wellstone Amendment to the 2001 Bankruptcy Reform Act that would have exempted those made bankrupt due to excessive medical bills, Senator Edwards voted NO along with all Senate Republicans. Senator Clinton voted YES along with most Democrats including Feingold, Boxer, Kennedy, Kerry, and, of course, Wellstone.
On Paul Wellstone’s Amendment to 2001 Bankruptcy Reform Act that would have recalculated the definition of monthly income to the advantage of poor and middle class families, Senator Edwards voted NO along with every Republican. Senator Clinton voted YES along with Boxer, Feingold, Kennedy, Kerry, and Wellstone.
On Paul Wellstone’s 2001 campaign reform Amendment closing the loopholes for allowing for 527 group political TV ads. Ironically, since passage would have prevented the Swift Boaters in 2004, Senator Edwards voted NO. Senator Clinton voted YES on this Amendment.
On Senator Kerry’s amendment that would have provided 2:1 matching funds to Senate campaigns of up to $200, encouraging small donors like most of us are and increasing our contribution power, Senator Edwards voted NO. Senator Clinton voted YES.
Senator Bingaman offered an amendment that would have banned phony negative “attack ads” by requiring that vehicles that ran such ads would have to allow response time. Senator Edwards voted to table this amendment along with nearly every Republican. Senator Clinton voted along with most other liberal Democrats to further this amendment. (It was tabled, that is, killed).
On the initial budget guidelines sought by the Bush administration in 2001 (including his tax cuts), Edwards voted YES along with every Republican and Zell Miller. Clinton voted NO along with the rest of the liberal Democrats.
On Senator Bob Graham’s amendment to this tax cut bill which would have decreased the lower marginal rates for poor and middle class taxpayers, Senator Edwards voted NO along with every Republican. Senator Clinton voted YES along with Feingold, Kennedy, Kerry, Wellstone, and 29 other Democrats.
Senator Feinstein motioned to send the tax cut bill back to the Finance Committee with orders to spread the Estate Tax exemption cuts more fairly. Senator Edwards voted NO along with every Republican. Senator Clinton voted YES along with most Democrats including Boxer, Feingold, Kennedy, and Wellstone.
Senator Wellstone presented an Amendment to No Child Left Behind to prevent it from being an “unfunded mandate.” Senator Edwards voted NO along with every Republican. Senator Clinton voted YES along with 30 other liberal Democrats.
Of course we know the famous Iraq War authorization vote where both Hillary and John agreed with and voted with the Republicans (and many other Democrats for that matter). I just thought you might be interested in a few of the votes where they disagreed on the record – not just from the sidelines where Edwards likes to sit and carp.
The cliché is that you are entitled to your own opinions but not your own facts. These are the facts from the Senate voting records.
John Edwards and his supporters claim that he is the progressive and that Hillary represents the status quo or is just a milder version of a Republican. Read these facts about their head-to-head voting records and be enlightened as to who stood most often with the Republicans and who voted most often with the progressive wing of the Democratic Party. It’s really no contest. Hillary has a 95%-plus lifetime record of voting with the progressive Democrats (the 12th most liberal in the Senate), while Edwards lifetime liberal voting record stands at 78%.
The (non)response so far from a few Edwards supporters who have attempted to “refute the facts” (as Sean Hannity might put it), is that these were meaningless votes by a do-nothing Congress that would have been vetoed anyway, or the like. Sorry – not a good non-answer-answer. If this legislation was “meaningless,” the question gets even bigger, that is, why did Edwards consistently vote with the Republicans against Hillary and the rest of the liberal Democrats on all of these progressive proposals?
Again, now that John Edwards stands safely outside the Senate record, he finds it easy to take potshots at Senator Hillary. Oh well, that’s not really so hard to understand - seeing how he opposed her (and most other liberal progressive Dems) quite often when he was the Senator from North Carolina.
framecop:
I'm sure you pulled me over for SOME reason?
anon wrote on November 12, 2007 1:00 PM:"What George Bush does is attack Democrats and divide the country."
The only problem with this quote from the Hillary camp is that John Edwards wasn't attacking a Democrat. He was attacking Hillary "D.I.N.O." Clinton. When he attacks a real Democrat it might become cause for concern. Until that time... go for it John!
Now see, what Colon did, that was a "countercharge." It's at least a more artful and entertaining deflection of the initial charge than a mere insult. But, I'm still not seeing what it has to do with the substance of the matter at hand.
Jeremy wrote on November 12, 2007 1:27 PM:colonpowwow. That's quite a list of other Senators' legislation that Hillary has voted on. You left out her votes against forcing Bush to engage in diplomacy before launching war with Iraq, however. Of course, she and Edwards were on the same page with that.
Terp wrote on November 12, 2007 1:31 PM:NCSteve with the smack-down of colon. That was exactly what I was thinking.
And on the original insult: So HRC hasn't attacked any Dems in her campaign? Rrrrright.
kjoe wrote on November 12, 2007 1:35 PM:Clinton maintains a 23 point lead over obama in the daily rasmussen polls. Giuliani's 7 point edge from friday is now 13.
Leno still beats Letterman in ratings, last I checked.
Hillary can say something as preposterous as "What George Bush does is attack Democrats and divide the country. John Edwards' campaign resembles that more and more every day."
Giuliani can gain in the polls while accepting the endorsement from a person who blamed 9-11 on America's lack of morals, and feel no effect from the Keric indictments.
As much as I want to see Obama nominated, and run the inspirational kind of campaign which could make a difference in congress, I am starting to worry that Giuliani will be the next president----because he is a more disgusting farce than his likely opponent Hillary.
Iowa and new hampshire give hope---because they could be a sign that people are capable of paying attention.
colonpowwow wrote on November 12, 2007 1:39 PM:NCSteve
I thought the "matter at hand" was Edwards not-to-subtly trying to compare her mano-y-hermana with Bush on a relatively trivial matter. I thought it might be interesting to compare the two candidates with Bush on something more substantive - like their voting records when they served in the Senate together.
There's no excuse for Hillary's campaign, whether she was aware of it or not, to engage in such over-the-top theatrics as planting a question. She was caught and rightfully embarassed by it, and I'm laughing and rolling my eyes at her like everybody should be.
However, the "substantive issue" is a desparate candidate on the cusp of political oblivion trying desparately to paint her with a broad brush over this essentially minor matter. Well, if you're tarring with a broad brush, perpare to get tarred yourself.
So what about Edwards voting so often with George Bush's Republicans and against Hillary and the rest of the Democratic liberals on progressive issue after progressive issue?
I'm sure that Saint John had no irons in the fire re financial institution campaign contributors (see Charlotte, NC banking center), or placed any electablity concerns over ethical ones.
Call me colonpollyanna.
Say, do you want to discuss a close-at-hand issue regarding Edwards' showing up for votes in 2003-2004? You know, the issue that Cheney got him choked up on at their debate?
I think not.
Jake D wrote on November 12, 2007 1:42 PM:Giuliani is "a more disgusting farce" than Hillary? Perhaps you don't remember her "I Ain't Tammy Wynette" or "I Don’t Feel No Ways Tired" moments?
Jeremy:
First of all, I did not leave the Iraq War authorization out of my post. Read more carefully.
Second, here's a partial list of legislation on which Hillary is listed as co-sponsor:
Clinton-Stevens Amendment for Enhanced 911 Funding Included in 9/11 Commission Recommendations Bill
Clinton-Stevens Amendment for Enhanced 911 Funding Included in 9/11 Commission Recommendations Bill
Dodd-Clinton Amendment to Expand Family and Medical Leave Benefits to Wounded Soldiers and Their Families
Clinton-Collins Measure to Improve Mental Health Services for Seniors Included in Older Americans Act
Clinton-Enzi Military Personnel Financial Services Protection Act
Clinton-Obama National Medical Error Disclosure and Compensation Act
Frist-Clinton Wired for Health Care Quality Act
Schumer-Clinton Amendment Forcing Deadbeat Diplomats To Pay Parking Tickets And Property Taxes
Graham-Clinton TRICARE Benefits Expansion
Clinton-Collins Measure to Protect Men and Women in Uniform From Predatory Lending and Insurance Practices
Clinton-Schumer Amendment to Restore 9/11 Funding
Clinton-Hagel Legislation To Support "National Purple Heart Recognition Day"
Schumer-Clinton Bill to Protect 10,000 Acres of Puerto Rico's Caribbean National Forest
Clinton-Talent Military Health Readiness Legislation
Clinton-Nickles Unemployment Extension Agreement
Schumer-Clinton First Responders Amendment
Israel-Clinton Legislation to Honor Long Island Hero
Clinton-Smith Magnet Hospital Provisions Amendment to Nurse Reinvestment Act
Clinton-Dodd-Slaughter Protecting America's Children Against Terrorism Act
But most of that is in the past, most of this legislation advanced while the Republicans controlled what got to the floor for a vote. Let's see a partial list of what she's done so far in 2007:
Senator Clinton introduced the Home Ownership Protection and Foreclosure Prevention Bill
Passed the Dodd-Clinton Amendment that expanded family and medical leave benefits to wounded soldiers and their families.
Authored provisions to the College Cost Reduction Act (now Law) that capped student loan monthly payments pegged to income and expanded Pell grants.
Co-sponsored the Matthew Shepard Hate Crimes Prevention Act that passed the Senate
Introduced legislation with Sen. Patty Murray and Rep. Louise Slaughter to inform women of the availability of emergency contraception.
Now I admit that may not seem like much to you, but this is only from the first part of 2007 and remember, she's done a lot of campaigning this year.
Next.
Dodd-Clinton Amendment to Expand Family and Medical Leave Benefits to Wounded Soldiers and Their Families
Clinton-Collins Measure to Improve Mental Health Services for Seniors Included in Older Americans Act
Clinton-Enzi Military Personnel Financial Services Protection Act
Frist-Clinton Wired for Health Care Quality Act
Schumer-Clinton Amendment Forcing Deadbeat Diplomats To Pay Parking Tickets And Property Taxes
Graham-Clinton TRICARE Benefits Expansion
Clinton-Collins Measure to Protect Men and Women in Uniform From Predatory Lending and Insurance Practices
Clinton-Schumer Amendment to Restore 9/11 Funding
Clinton-Hagel Legislation To Support "National Purple Heart Recognition Day"
Schumer-Clinton Bill to Protect 10,000 Acres of Puerto Rico's Caribbean National Forest
Clinton-Talent Military Health Readiness Legislation
Clinton-Nickles Unemployment Extension Agreement
Schumer-Clinton First Responders Amendment
Israel-Clinton Legislation to Honor Long Island Hero
Clinton-Smith Magnet Hospital Provisions Amendment to Nurse Reinvestment Act
Clinton-Dodd-Slaughter Protecting America's Children Against Terrorism Act
But most of that is in the past, most of this legislation advanced while the Republicans controlled what got to the floor for a vote. Now let's see what she's done so far in 2007 (in the midst of campaigning of course):
Senator Clinton introduced the Home Ownership Protection and Foreclosure Prevention Bill
Passed the Dodd-Clinton Amendment that expanded family and medical leave benefits to wounded soldiers and their families.
Authored provisions to the College Cost Reduction Act (now Law) that capped student loan monthly payments pegged to income and expanded Pell grants.
Co-sponsored the Matthew Shepard Hate Crimes Prevention Act that passed the Senate
Introduced legislation with Sen. Patty Murray and Rep. Louise Slaughter to inform women of the availability of emergency contraception.
Now I admit that may not seem like much to you, but this is only the first part of 2007 and remember, she's done a lot of campaigning this year.
On this one....HILLARY'S team loses.
Pointing out that Hillary is acting like a Bush Admin is NECESSARY - before it's too late.
Coonsey's View
Political Blog and Forum
http://www.freewebs.com/coonsey/
Sorry for the bad cut-and-paste job from my research records. I sure wish they had post preview on this site ;-)
rssrai wrote on November 12, 2007 2:02 PM:The reason why members of congress do not win in presidential elections is because it is too easy to run ads against them on their votes. Being out of congress works well in presidential elections, and that is why governors or ex governors seem to be able to win more easily. Hillry and Obama will have a hard time winning a GE.
colonpowwow wrote on November 12, 2007 2:07 PM:Hey anon:
Read my post at 12:29 and come back again and tell me who's the DINO.
Senator Clinton (and Senator Obama BTW), both have 95% lifetime Senate vote ratings on progressive issues from the ADA. John Edwards has a lifetime 78% rating.
Next.
DonnaG wrote on November 12, 2007 2:09 PM:Jake D: I do stay online all day......, but after catching your notice in this thread, I went to the earlier thread and answered your question. Cheers.
Jake D wrote on November 12, 2007 2:19 PM:Thanks, DonnaG. I just answered your question there as well : )
V nagarajan wrote on November 12, 2007 2:42 PM:Like I said Hillary is Bush with boobs:\
BIG SISTER wrote on November 12, 2007 2:48 PM:DEMOCRATS WHO ATTACK HILLARY ARE REPUBLICANS.
CRITICISM OF HILLARY IS TREASON AGAINST THE PARTY.
THE CHOCOLATE RATION HAS BEEN INCREASED BY FIFTEEN PERCENT.
LET'S KEEP THE CONVERSATION GOING.
biff diggerence wrote on November 12, 2007 2:59 PM:CRITICISM OF HILLARY IS TREASON AGAINST THE PARTY.
(thus, BIGSISTER's red font)
Michael wrote on November 12, 2007 3:11 PM:Hey, colon you forgot the woodstock museum as one of her crowning legislative achievements as well. I put that right up there with the puerto rico national forest and the parking ticket legislation against foreign diplomats. All I can say, is wow, just wow!!!! What a host of legislative achievements. They totally cancel out her blank checks to the king on iraq and iran or her blatant failure to promote any type of meaningful agenda in the senate. I see the light now. Clinton II in 08, we need bill back in the white house for entertainment purposes.
colonpwowwow wrote on November 12, 2007 3:23 PM:Mich:
Yeah, I know you would find things like conservation measures, protection from preditory lenders, and troop protection issues and the like are hillaryous to you, but I'm sure you'll be happy to provide a list of progressive legislation that John Edwards managed to get onto the floor of a Republican congress.
Trent Lott said, "Although I don't agree with her politically on almost anything, you have to admire her hard work as a Senator."
Do you need a reminder of what a like prominent Republican "enemy" of John Edwards said about his work ethic in their debate? Edwards was so shook by this being brought up that he froze like a little spoiled rich kid - whick is the side of the two Americas that he resides in now - and where he'll end up living after his second miserable failure on the national stage is so over in a few months.
Thanks for the praise quote from trent lott. Kind of falls into what I have been saying for weeks, the republican leadership is playing up clinton II so that they can face her in the general, because she is the only dem that they think they can beat. Try to find a quote from tent lott that is critical of clinton II. I bet you won't find it, until after the primaries, if she wins. Then you will see a flood. Kind of points out where the republicans are coming from.
By the way, she is only co-sponsoring legislation, which is pretty meaningless. What has she taken the lead on? Troop protection? I don't think so. If she wanted to protect the troops, she would be doing something to get the out of iraq. Oh, how about the webb amendment that she just co-sponsered that has been stuck going no where for nearly a year. Kind of shows you how meaningless co-sponsorship is.
Incidentally, I don't like edwards, but I disagree with your characterization of what happened to him during the debate. Edwards is a pi lawyer and that's about it. Do I think he should be pres, Nope.
colonpowwow wrote on November 12, 2007 3:39 PM:Mich said:
" ... her blatant failure to promote any type of meaningful agenda in the senate."
Did you read the "meaningless agenda" she promoted in early 2007 (while spending a lot of time campaigning like everyone else running)?
Senator Clinton introduced the Home Ownership Protection and Foreclosure Prevention Bill
Passed the Dodd-Clinton Amendment that expanded family and medical leave benefits to wounded soldiers and their families.
Authored provisions to the College Cost Reduction Act (now Law) that capped student loan monthly payments pegged to income and expanded Pell grants.
Co-sponsored the Matthew Shepard Hate Crimes Prevention Act that passed the Senate
Introduced legislation with Sen. Patty Murray and Rep. Louise Slaughter to inform women of the availability of emergency contraception.
What an absolute laff-riot of non-issues!
So, the progressive agenda being promoted by John Edwards in the Senate is (oh - that's right, he quit before he would be trounced in the 2004 Senate election, in order to go work for Fortress, an offshore tax dodge).
So, the progressive agenda that Senator Edwards championed into law when he was a Senator is exactly what?
Sedoy wrote on November 12, 2007 3:43 PM:Wait a minute... But wasn't it a question about global warming? It was not a soft ball question. It was not a question like "Will you listen to your husband making decisions when you are a President" or something in that line. It was an issue question. If noone asks about global warming and yet candidate wants to talk about it, why cannot they use someone to raise it???
Michael wrote on November 12, 2007 3:45 PM:colon, why do you keep on bringing up edwards????? Did you read the end of my last post?
Sorry, you can go back a couple of posts. Not impressed. What does impress me is her Iraq and Iran votes. Now that impresses me, but its not in a positive way. To be quite honest, I cannot believe that she voted the way she did on the Iran vote after the Iraq fiasco. That is really telling. You would think that she would vote nope, for obvious reasons and she didn't. I am disappointed with any dem that voted for it, especially one running for president.
colonpowwow wrote on November 12, 2007 3:47 PM:Mich, mich, mich,
Allow me to help you before you continue to embarass yourself. When someone co-sponsors legislation with their name in the title (like the McCain-Feingold Act or the Clinton-Obama Act), it means that she was one of the senators who worked together to hammer out the program, wrote and drafted the language, and then championed the legislation into law.
You're welcome.
Anonymous wrote on November 12, 2007 3:50 PM:Colon,
Actually, I tend to let Edwards' supporters look out for their own guy. I just saw a chance for a quick "ba-DA-bum" and took it.
colonpowwow wrote on November 12, 2007 3:57 PM:Mich wrote on November 12, 2007 3:45 PM:
"colon, why do you keep on bringing up edwards????? Did you read the end of my last post"
Yes I did, but the title of the article that heads this thread is:
Top Iowa Story: Edwards Hits Hillary Over Planted Questions — Hillary Team Hits Back
Sorry to be so on-topic (for a change ;-)
PEACE
colonpowwow. She also sponsored, with Rick Santorum, the "Workplace Religious Freedom" act to limit women's access to birth control. So, it's a mixed bag at best. There was certainly some good legislation in the list you gave along with the bad legislation and bad votes. Clearly, she's been positioning herself and compromising on choice to work with Santorum is like that.
I think that we can learn a lot from focusing in on the crucial judgments a candidate has had to make. How has Hillary's experience informed the most critical judgments she has made, such as supporting Bush's blank check for war with Iraq and opposing legislation that could have forced more diplomacy? Did she decide to compromise on war and peace or was her opposition to further diplomacy with Iraq a reflection of her more neocon approach to diplomacy?
colonpowwow wrote on November 12, 2007 4:06 PM:Jeremy wrote on November 12, 2007 3:57 PM:
"colonpowwow. She also sponsored, with Rick Santorum, the "Workplace Religious Freedom" act to limit women's access to birth control."
Uh, no she didn't, but nice try after scrambling around for a few hours looking for something.
John Kerry, Edward's 2004 running mate and noted anti-woman birth control limiter, was the Democratic co-sponsor of the bill.
Hillary supported the bill, as did another noted anti-woman and birth control limiting Santorum lover, Ted Kennedy.
I think you need to get your facts straight first, and then you need to read the legislation to see what it says.
I can't imagine it's too odious to women's birth control rights if Kerry, Kennedy, and Clinton signed on.
"What George Bush does is attack Democrats and divide the country. John Edwards' campaign resembles that more and more every day."
After picking through those two sentences a while, I could not find a denial anywhere. Anybody else have any luck?
dc
Michael wrote on November 12, 2007 4:18 PM:I'm not embarrassing myself colon. Co-sponsorship is by and large meaningless. It can be meaningful, but by and large it is not, which is evidenced by her recent "co-sponsorship" of the webb legislation that has been languishing for over 7 months and is going nowhere. That's why I brought that legislation up, to point out how meaningless co-sponsorship is.
Richard L. Adlof wrote on November 12, 2007 4:21 PM:So let's review . . .
Clinton's campaign uses propoganda placement worthy of Jeff Gannon . . . and defends themselves by saying "I'm rubber and you're glue . . ."
Obama feels that his vote against human rights violations is not worth casting . . . And maintains his squeaky-cleanness by not joining in this fray . . .
Edwards is a bastard for pointing out both.
Come on guys and gals . . . It is only Monday . . . It is too early in the week for me to have to drink myself into a stupor just to keep from being driven to bang my head against the wall.
JubleJohnson wrote on November 12, 2007 4:25 PM:Same fake questions,fake answers & fake Democrat.Vote for her if that's what you want.
nogo war wrote on November 12, 2007 4:32 PM:Sen. Clinton has been very upfront that she..(and especially her husband)have what it takes to submerge the Republicans.
Does anyone doubt the same Penn and Tellher efforts won't be used in the Primaries?
Obama is still low key "why can't we all just get along."
Edwards knows if he can defeat the Clinton/DLC machine...The Republicans are toast..
When Edwards talks about taking back the power, he is not just talking about big money. Ya know what I mean?
Buckle up!
Smartest action would be to say, "Yes, a staffer, with the best of intentions, arranged for a planted question and without my knowledge. I've told my staffers to let it never happen again. I wish to appologize to the audience where that happened."
Mich:
I'd respond to your sad misunderstanding of what "co-sponsoring" a bill that carries your name in the title means, but I've gotta go write to Senator Feingold and tell him that you've discovered that co-sponsoring something like the McCain-Feingold Act was a meaningless and colussal waste of time. Now if only he was an actual "sponsor."
LOL
You're hopeless, man.
Michael wrote on November 12, 2007 4:48 PM:colon, of course you misinterpret what I say by citing an extreme example of when co-sponsorship meant something. I did not say that it never means anything, I said that by and large it is meaningless, but in some cases it does mean something, like McCain-Feingold.
Do you have an example where clinton II's co-sponsorship meant something???? The schumer-clinton woodstock museum bill maybe? or how about the schumer-clinton puerto rico national forest? Those are examples of meaningless co-sponsorship.
How about some senate 101, co-sponsorship is meaningful when you have two senators from different parties, like mccain-feingold, sponsoring a bill in a bi-partisan manner to get something accomplished, like finance reform. Co-sponsorship by members of the same party of a bill that is going nowhere is by and large meaningless, or when its a given, like kyl-lieberman, members of the same party sponsored the bill and the sheep rushed to vote in favor of it.
The problem with my observation and understanding of co-sponsorship is that it takes alot of air out of your argument that clinton II did a gd thing in the senate, which she didn't.
Peace.
edgery wrote on November 12, 2007 4:48 PM:It seems that the Clinton campaign's favorite response to ANY criticism is to attack. Haven't we had enough of this?
How about responding to criticism with, oh I don't know, an actual response?
nogo war wrote on November 12, 2007 4:52 PM:Just wondering..
After the planted FEMA debacle a head did roll.
Was the person responsible for the Sen. Clinton planted question tossed?
and then there is this planted questions blast from the past
Jeff Gannon...
if anyone does not think this is the shape of thing to come under a Clinton Presidency..well cool..
Richard L. Adlof wrote on November 12, 2007 4:21 PM:
"Clinton's campaign . . . defends themselves by saying "I'm rubber and you're glue . . ."
I'm not a member of her campaign (she'd never hire someone as mean-spirited and cynical as I am - but I'm available ;-)
But speaking as a Clinton supporter, I've said from the beginning that this is inexcusable, laughable conduct and she deserves all the embarassment and criticism she's suffering from it.
Now, to put it in perspective, since Edwards chose to jump on it by comparing her to Bush, what about my comparison of Edwards v. Clinton v. Bush's rubber stamp Republican congress that I pointed out re their Senate voting records?
Edwards and his supporters talk all the time about how progressive he is and intimates (as this minor issue shows) that she is like Bush somehow.
Can you show one thing on the record (or even in their proposed programs re this campaign) that shows that Edwards is more progressive than Hillary? We have their head-to-head Senate voting record and the rankings on progressive issues by the ADA - and Hillary kicks his butt big time in both areas.
Can you explain those two major things? I know it's not like saying, "Psst, kid. Ask her a question about global warming." But, it's something, isn't it?
illlich wrote on November 12, 2007 5:27 PM:I know the neo-con shouting heads like Hannity will be harping on about this tonight. I wonder what spin they will use to point out how her doing it is bad, but FEMA doing the same thing (or Bush doing almost the same thing by speaking only to carefully hand-picked crowds of fervent supporters) is somehow OK.
nogo war wrote on November 12, 2007 5:29 PM:A simple visit to the Edwards campaign site..and HRC campaign site, will allow anyone to compare specific plans.
Perhaps there are those that are unfamiliar with the candidates plans for the spectrum of challenges beating down our doors.
Those that are confident that they know what Sen. Clinton wants to do to that addresses the progressive agenda then feel at ease.
Those that know what Edwards want to do to address the progressive agenda? Feel at ease. Of course the same applies to Sen. Obama as he has now also addressed the question...
those of you that do not consider yourself a Dem progressive..or think we should wait?
I admire your patience.
There is no defense here. All that I have seen are attempts to cover it up.
This behaviot is not acceptable. It is wrong. It further belies a desperation and a connection, sadly to say, with the manipulations of the Bush regime.
If there were no desperation, then why do it in the first place? I ask myself: Could it be that Hillary is not capable and needs to control the entire process in order to look capable? Why engage in this in the first place?
Turns me off totally. Nothing she says from here on in will be taken seriously by me. She has sullied herself.
Anonymous wrote on November 12, 2007 7:39 PM:If Hillary's campaign is questioning the loyalty of other Democrats who question her values, she will be questiong the patriotism of all those who disagree with her if she is president. Hmmmm Sound familiar. The Bush-Clinton-Bush-Clinton tradition continues.
Anonymous wrote on November 12, 2007 7:46 PM:colonpowwow, you post long lists every day of Senate votes that don't mean anything. The U.S. Senate is a disgrace. Hillary has been a do-nothing Senator. Name one major piece of legislation that she has authored and has sheperded to passage as law. There is none.
The two most significant votes Hillary has made and is ever likely to make were authorizing Bush to invade Iraq and then to attack Iran. Those votes showed an absolutely astounding lack of good judgment. She enable the worst foreign policy disater in American history. We can't have soomeone with that kind of judgmentas president, particlarly after Bush.
anon wrote on November 12, 2007 8:51 PM:Oh, what ridiculousness. Really, is Jeff Gannon going to show up next, to pitch questions?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jeff_Gannon
Ethan wrote on November 12, 2007 9:34 PM:As usual I find myself agreeing with colopowwow. I really admire your continued effort in bringing actual issues to the fore.
I also agree with Sedoy 3:44pm who sed about the "planted question" that has everyone's panties in a bunch:
"It was not a question like "Will you listen to your husband making decisions when you are a President" or something in that line. It was an issue question. If noone asks about global warming and yet candidate wants to talk about it, why cannot they use someone to raise it???"
Totally on the money Sedoy.
Oh and the people who think that her sponsorship or ANY sponsorship or co-sponsorship... or the Senate PERIOD... is meaningless... well, they are just total idiots. Idiots, yes, idiots.
These are the same idiots who think that her Iraq AUMF vote (which i DISAGREED with then and disagree with now) somehow enabled Bush to go into Iraq.
First of all the roll call was 77 to 23... With 29 Democrats voting in the affirmative. Given that info and the knowledge that a Yea would help her win over Conservative Democrats in a General election for President, it was a politically savvy thing to do (despite being unimaginable for Liberals like most of us here). In fact, despite our collective whining about it the last 5 years, it may even singularly help her win the election outright if it helps her knock off 5% or so who may have voted for a Republican... B/c believe it or not, there are still Republicans and Moderates and Indies out there in the world, and many of them like hawkishness period. I'm not saying it makes sense, just that it is SO.
And even still on top of THAT, the AUMF AUTHORIZED the use of military force (hence the name of the bill) in the event that Bush had exhausted avenues of resolution with the UN security council. AGAIN, I'm not supporting her vote or any Yea vote, but it is not as simple as saying "BOMB THE FUCK OUT OF IRAQ: Yes or No". It just AIN'T.
And lastly, this was all occurring just over 1 year after September 11, 2001. When the country was in full false-flag mode. It was clearly unlike any time politically in ANY of our lifetimes. It is not an excuse for her vote... Bur still, Bush's approval rating was an unimaginable 65-motherfucking-percent. He even had a 51% approval in NEW YORK STATE.
So this "Hillary enabled the Iraq War with her vote in 2002" stuff is total bullshit.
This "she planted a question about climate change so she's JUST LIKE BUSH" is total bullshit.
And quite certainly the "Hillary is a DINO" stuff is total bullshit.
The fact of the matter is that ANY Democratic President would be as good as Bill Clinton or better given our total fucking hellhole morass that we are in as a country thanks to the idiot in chief. So as I've said and continue to say, support one or the other candidate, fine, but quit the spasmodic Hillary-bashing unless you come to the table with facts and not brainless ideological assertions full of sound and fury, signifying nothing (but your own lack of understanding).
EricD wrote on November 13, 2007 2:07 AM:Clinton does something Bush does. Not something right. Plant questions. Edwards points this out. Clinton says that Edwards is like Bush. But who acted the same way Bush did?
Clinton's deflection is purely subjective and brazen. It is another act like Bush. Make charges without facts to charges with facts. The facts here are with Edwards, as Clinton has conceded.
It's most distressing that the media has lost its focus on what coverage and actually is. The media has abdicated its responsibility to inform irrespective of profit. Cover both eyes and report both sides, even if one is factual and the other is not. This is why we are so bad off. The media has not informed the public, its core and historical responsibility, and sugar coated the slide into corporate corruption of the system by the wealthy, powerful insiders in business and politics.
Really, news is now a business, as is medicine, as is law, as is politics. When each of these fields acts more as a business than a discipline, we end up with a failure like Bush, a war in Iraq, Katrina, and a public who believed at one time that Saddam caused 9-11 and is often wrong factually wrong about important issues of the day.
Mike Nakagita, wrote on November 13, 2007 7:54 AM:Enough of the "he said, she said" - there are two issues - one the whole moral relativism thing that has always been the Clinton signature, and two the control freakery from Senator Clinton that brings parallels with Nixon. Not exactly the kind of leadership we are looking for at this time, I would have thought.
Shoshiru Takemitsu wrote on November 13, 2007 8:41 AM:I am not surprised that Hillary Clinton's team resorted to this kind of cheating. It is also a violation of valid judgement to believe that Clinton didn't know it was going on. How stupid does She think we are?
This is the kind of issue which sinks a campaign. Clinton is going to go way down with this one. America won't tolerate dishonesty like that. It's a big issue likely to turn into a huge scandal.
Hillary better quit now and save herself the embarassment of the next few weeks.
