Merry-Go-Round: Edwards Hits Hillary For Mailer Attacking Obama

Comments (75)

CT Voter wrote on December 20, 2007 11:34 AM:

Even though I think this is hilarious, I wish all campaigns would react against misleading, innuendo-filled political ads, no matter who the ad targets. Maybe the practice could then die a natural death.

Pipe dreams, I know.

Michael wrote on December 20, 2007 11:45 AM:

This is smart by Edwards. He's re-enforcing Obama's campaign theme via this criticism, not his own, but that's OK, because its a criticism of Hillary that will stick, which should benefit both Obama and Edwards.

Dan wrote on December 20, 2007 11:46 AM:

Second Iowa poll of the day: Check it here! It has Obama up 30%, but the trendlines aren't in his favors.

colonpowwow wrote on December 20, 2007 11:47 AM:

Edwards is the first one to go "negative" because his campaign was (is) sinking like a stone. He was misleading and disingenous from the start, so Pot, meet Ms. Kettle front group.

Yeah, nothing misleading about Edwards attacking someone who is honest about accepting campaign donations from "lobbyists" (BTW school teachers and unions have "lobbyists"), while at the same time he gladly accepts large campaign donations (see $165,000 in contributions from Fortress Investments), in other words, from the corporations who HIRE these lobbying firms and without whom wouldn't exist.

At least Obama says, the honest man that he is, that he is "troubled" by the parsing of this into a campaign issue.

Andrew wrote on December 20, 2007 11:57 AM:

It's a smart move by Edwards. It's not so much that he's "defending" Obama, but rather that he is hitting Clinton for her deceptive hit on Edwards (by attempting to imply that the negative attack on Obama was being pushed by Edwards, which would bring him down into the mud along with her.)

upper left wrote on December 20, 2007 12:05 PM:

Good for Edwards.

The Clintons continue to ooze slime across IOwa

Wowsas wrote on December 20, 2007 12:08 PM:

I don't get it. Why is Edwards going negative for simply demanding that mailers not authorized by him, which are negative and could lead recipients to believe that they were authorized by his campaign, not be mailed?

Michael wrote on December 20, 2007 12:12 PM:

Dan--that "trend" in the Iowa poll is within the MOE...there's no reason to believe there's been any change since the last poll.

The results are right in line with the pollster #s for Clinton and Obama (who are at 27.1 and 28.8, respectively, based on their regression analysis)

I'd expect that this new poll will probably solidify Clinton at ~27 and maybe move Obama over 29...

Anonymous wrote on December 20, 2007 12:18 PM:

Mrs. Bill Female Attack Dog

Clinton Launches Edwards and Obama Attack Sites http://www.dailykos.com/story/2007/12/20/112956/25

Days since Senator Clinton promised she was not interested in attacking Democrats:40
Days that Senator Clinton has spent attacking Democrats since making that promise:36

Genghis wrote on December 20, 2007 12:19 PM:

Edwards has got a personal stake in this b/c his quote was used, but it also fits a pattern. Edwards has repeatedly criticized Clinton after she attacks Obama. I take it as further evidence that he and Obama have a deal. I predict that at some point during the primary season, one of the two (probably Edwards) will drop out, encourage his supporters to vote for the other, and ultimately join the ticket as a running mate. Unless Clinton manages a landslide, they each have enough support to overwhelm her if they combine forces.

As a side note, I have to say that is the most fascinating Democratic primary that I've ever witnessed. (I wasn't around for '68.)

Gramma Millie wrote on December 20, 2007 12:20 PM:

Oh, now I get it.

If some chump like Edwards objects to what he sees as negative campaigning by Clinton, then this can only mean that Edwards is the one going negative.

With that kind of tortured logic, I have a simple message for Clintonistas: Blow me.

hisgirlfriday wrote on December 20, 2007 12:26 PM:

I don't know if Edwards and Obama have worked out a specific deal, but it only makes sense if Edwards got the nomination that he would pick Obama for a veep if only to harness his fundraising prowess, besides the fact that he would be great. Also, I could easily see Obama apppointing Edwards to some role in his administration like Secretary of Labor or Attorney General or something. I think these guys recognize they are on the same team and respect each other even if they think themselves better for the country while the Clintons have the my way or the highway Bush mentality to them.

NCSteve wrote on December 20, 2007 12:28 PM:

I really don't think there's a "deal." I think Edwards is in it to win, but realizes that his options for breaking out of third are narrowing and feels strongly that if he can't win, he'd much rather see Obama win it than Hillary.

Greg DeLassus wrote on December 20, 2007 12:29 PM:

Why is Edwards going negative for simply demanding that mailers not authorized by him, which are negative and could lead recipients to believe that they were authorized by his campaign, not be mailed?

I take it that you are also possessed of a deficient dictionary on your bookshelf which does not define "negative" as "anything that does not help the candidate I happen to favor" and "attack" as "anything said or done deleterious to the candidate I favor (see 'negative')". Evidently we need to get the new American Heritage 2007 Campaign Edition, or some such.

Bupalos wrote on December 20, 2007 12:33 PM:

Isn't the story here that Hillary tried to make it sound like Edwards sided with her against Obama, and that Edwards called her out for it? To repeat three times in about six sentences that this was "edwards attacks clinton for attacking obama" is really not very accurate. I guess it isn't "false," but it simply isn't accurate or informative.

This one reminds me of saying he would have Hillary send him and Bush I on the diplomatic mission, and papy calling in to say WTF are you talking about?

Anonymous wrote on December 20, 2007 12:34 PM:

I don't think there's a deal either. Edwards just doesn't want to go negative against Obama in order to capture his second choice voters.

I think the Edwards campaign realized at some point that Clinton had to be taken down or she was going to win, and Obama just wasn't going to do it, so Edwards had to do so. That's when he was hitting her hard. That was wildly successful but allowed Obama to get ahead. Now he's gone back to a more positive, optimistic message in an effort to squeak by Obama in the end.

Truthwhip wrote on December 20, 2007 12:34 PM:

Edwards/Obama, or Obama/Edwards!
Works for me!
Hillary is toast.

bob wrote on December 20, 2007 12:38 PM:

The Clintons are SOOOO dirty. This lying mailer from their AFSCME supporters is despicable. If you are in AFSCME, you should be ashamed of your union right now and call for them to put a stop dirty politics.

Call AFSCME President Gerald McEntee and complain. Tel: 202-429-1000

http://www.afscme.org/about/740.cfm
http://www.afscme.org/forms/contact_us.cfm

Here's the lying mailer:

http://msnbcmedia.msn.com/i/msnbc/sections/news/071220_AFSCME.pdf

From NBC/NJ's Carrie Dann
Some of the first negative mail in Iowa on the Democratic side is out, and it's anti-Obama. A new direct mail piece from the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees (AFSCME) accuses that: "For those without insurance, Barack Obama's band-aid solution is no change at all."

On the reverse side, the text of the mailer continues, arguing that Obama "claims his health care plan covers everyone, but his proposal does not match his words... Instead, Obama took the timid way out, offering yet another band-aid solution."

"Barack Obama's plan," it concludes, is just more of the same."

Here's the kicker, though: The piece quotes Edwards from a Sioux City Journal article in November saying that that "as many as 15 million Americans would be without coverage" under Obama's plan.

But, as it turns out, AFSCME is backing Clinton. In fact, even though Clinton and her campaign have been arguing for the past month that Obama's health-care plan doesn't insure everyone, Clinton's name isn't mentioned once on the flier. The Edwards quote makes it appear to be a slam by the Edwards team.

This tactic, it seems, could be intended to deflect the distaste that most voters have for direct attacks -- even those that are policy based. But those in the know might think that this new negative mail is Iowa Nice playing a little dirty.

Chino Blanco wrote on December 20, 2007 12:39 PM:

Good for you, John.

Anonymous wrote on December 20, 2007 12:43 PM:

Today's Strategic Vision poll shows Edwards at 27%, tied with Hllary, and Obama at 30%. Edwards is moving up in the trends. This is now shown by multiple polls, including the one that had him leading at 30%/

Edwards is peaking at the right time. He will win Iowa.

john doe wrote on December 20, 2007 12:45 PM:

Hold Hillary's feet to the fire, John! She's the most negative Democratic candidate in years. She deserves all that she gets, but you have to expose her negative campaign tactics for what they are. She and her supporters are trying to deliberately mislead Iowa voters into believing that attack mailers are coming from you.

It's extremely shameful that a union would put out a negative mailer that disguises the candidate that they are supporting. AFSCME and its president Gerald McEntee should be ashamed.

It's a sad day for AFSCME, a union with a proud history.

Genghis wrote on December 20, 2007 12:46 PM:

I didn't mean to suggest that they weren't still competing for the nomination, but I suspect that they've agreed to support the other if one of them withdraws from the race.

I'm no campaign strategist, but if I were in 2nd or 3rd place, and I liked the other runner up better than the front runner, I would definitely be talking to the other guy. It's win-win. If you end up 2nd, you can still win the primary, and if you end up 3rd, you can still be a running mate.

There's not much evidence, but as I wrote, this is not the first time that Edwards has defended Obama against Clinton. Strategically, there's little reason to do that--better to let the other two duke it out and emerge above the fray--unless they have a deal.

Bupalos wrote on December 20, 2007 12:47 PM:

Iowa is so close that this could push the Clintons over the Hill there. If they can sufficiently muddy these waters and keep second choices from migrating between BO and JE, they will do better in caucus. But I think they will pay for this one in the long haul. It is absolutely critical for them to drive the wedge between Obama and Edwards, but if they try to do it in a way that is too overt, it backfires. That's what I see here.

This race will hinge on whether Obama and Edwards decide to cooperate at any point. If they do, I think Clinton will wilt. If they don't, I think she skates. I'm sure she wants to make a deal w/Edwards, but I don't think he's interested. His rhetoric is pretty fiery on these "honesty" issues.

Gramma Millie wrote on December 20, 2007 12:49 PM:

Genghis,

You keep framing this as "Edwards defending Obama." But reading the Edwards statement, a more accurate frame would seem to be "Edwards objecting to Clinton tactic."

So, why do you feel the need to continue to obfuscate? Thanks.

jeanruss wrote on December 20, 2007 12:55 PM:

I have been contributing to John Edwards for about 8 months now and have never looked back-every day I am sure that I have made the right decision-there are millions of Americans of BOTH parties that can get behind what he wants to do-that is why the CNN poll shows him beating EVERY Republican SOUNDLY!

Radio Head wrote on December 20, 2007 12:56 PM:

Greg DeLassus:
I tried to make some logical sense out of your comment and couldn't do it. Do you mean to say that everyone knows candidates go negative? Does your comment have anything to do with this topic? Your double negatives and failure to link your opinion to Clinton's or Edwards' campaigns reads like someone trying to sound like an extremely cool insider. Try again. We have no idea what you said.

Bupalos wrote on December 20, 2007 12:56 PM:

Now that I look at this, this mailer is dirtier than I thought. I didn't understand that the idea is obviously to make everyone think the whole thing came from Edwards.

Ick.

I also love that Clinton wants to run on this tiny almost semantic difference between the health plans. There is simply no meat here. They are the same plans, equally ineffective, and Hillary just wants to say they are "mandatory" (but without enforcement). And the biggest joke is that this whole plan is actually more Mitt's than anyone else.

colonpowwow wrote on December 20, 2007 12:59 PM:

Some Clinton supporter group uses an Edwards quote (he IS a public figure, right - heck even a NATIONAL campaign guy, I hear) = Dirty

Edwards himself paints Hillary as somehow "corrupt" because she takes "dirty" lobbyist money while he only takes money from corporations that breathe life into dirty lobbyists = Not Dirty

Got it.

Oh BTW Gramma - No thanks, Jah only knows what gutter that's been dragging in. ;-)

Casey Morris wrote on December 20, 2007 1:02 PM:

Okay, this is bizarre. Greg, do you have something against Edwards or what?

This seems to be a bizarre reading of this situation and you seem to be somewhat bent on presenting Edwards in the worst possible light, let alone a fair light.

I don't have a dog in this hunt myself, so I advocate for none of them, but this is something I have been observing for some time now.

I held back on commenting on this, thinking that maybe this or that was an isolate instance, but it keeps happening.

It you just hate Edwards, or have total devotion to some particular candidate, could you please put some sort of disclaimer in italics at the end of your post so folks don't think you are issuing some sort of fair reading of the facts.

And if you are claiming non-bias, I suggest you have someone whose opinion you trust to be truthful with you, go over your posts on Edwards. They really are quite oddly strained to have a distinct anti-Edwards bias to them.

Drew wrote on December 20, 2007 1:03 PM:

"At this rate, it can't happen soon enough."

Amen, Greg.

bvd wrote on December 20, 2007 1:04 PM:

You know what? I'm supporting Obama but at this point I'll gladly take Edwards. Or any other Dem candidate. I've had it with the Clintons. My new mantra is: "ANYBODY BUT HILLARY!"

She is the worst candidate the Dems have running. She has the best chance of losing. She's a political train-wreck waiting to happen.

JJF wrote on December 20, 2007 1:10 PM:

What you have here is an attack on Obama from the Clinton camp that is made to look like it came from Edwards.

Edwards is entirely right to fight back on this.

You can argue that the ad was either clever or dishonest, but once the facts get out, I think that Clinton takes a hit.

Genghis wrote on December 20, 2007 1:14 PM:

Hey Gramma, you are correct, and I apologize for any obfuscation. Edwards didn't explicitly defend Obama, but he did criticize Clinton in response to her attack on Obama, rather than leave be and let Obama respond on his own. This instance is a bit ambiguous, since Edwards was quoted in the mailer, but there have been other more striking examples that suggest a pattern:

http://tpmelectioncentral.com/2007/11/edwards_defines_mudslinging_for_hillary.php

http://tpmelectioncentral.com/2007/12/edwards_mocks_hillary_kindergarten_attack_on_obama_i_wanted_to_be_superman.php

I wonder if anyone has seen others.

(BTW, my grandmother's name was Millie)

Anonymous wrote on December 20, 2007 1:14 PM:

Jeez, why don't you guys just change the name of your site from TPM to "SFH" (Shill For Hill') and be done with it already?

Pat wrote on December 20, 2007 1:15 PM:

I'm inclined to agree with you bvd - I'm an Obama guy, but Edwards, Biden, Dodd, or Richardson would be fine with me too. I'm finished with Clinton though. Who needs the Right when you've got the Clinton campaign?

I'm almost at the point where I'd support McCain against Hillary in the GE.

stlounick wrote on December 20, 2007 1:17 PM:

Agree with JJF. Hillary will take the hit on this one.

anna wrote on December 20, 2007 1:18 PM:

Thank you for the link to the flyer. The headline is totally midleading. Edwards is rightly objecting to Clinton use of his name. Hillary's camp wants to slime Obama without driving up her negatives even more.
My opinion of her has really gone down in the past month.
AFSMCE should be, and will be, embarrassed for this trick.

Wowsa wrote on December 20, 2007 1:23 PM:

Greg D,

I also didn't understand your message. Were you agreeing with me, or disagreeing with me?

If the latter, could you explain, in plain English, why Candidate A objecting to the unauthorized use of his name in an attack by Candidate B against Candidate C is rightfully portrayed as Candidate A going negative against Candidate B? Shouldn't this most accurately be described, as others have suggested, as Candidate B's campaign engages in attacks on Candidate C and misleads voters to think that Candidate A was behind the attack?

Wowsas wrote on December 20, 2007 1:26 PM:

Or to wit, shouldn't the header on this post be more similar to the article it links to-- "Pro-Clinton Group Disguises Its Attack"?

I mean, there are plenty of things to criticize Edwards on, but this post by Messr. Sargent seems like a huge stretch, and its pro-Hillary bias seems obvious.

Wowsas wrote on December 20, 2007 1:29 PM:

Not to harp on this too much, but this post really takes the cake, the more I read it.

The spin here is worse than Fox News.

If you click the link, you'll read that a Hillary-related group sent a mailer to Iowa voters attacking Obama's health care plan. It does not mention Hillary's name once, but does quote John Edwards. So the natural conclusion would be that this group was acting on behalf of the Edwards campaign. So the Edwards campaign complains.

Is the conclusion from this, then, as Mr. Sargent writes: "So, to recap: Edwards is hitting Hillary over a mailer attacking Obama."?

That is just absurd. And Mr. Sargent, you ought to be ashamed of yourself.

henk wrote on December 20, 2007 1:31 PM:

Casey Morris wrote on December 20, 2007 1:02 PM:

Good Post Casey. It does appear that Greg has something against Edwards. Maybe he's Hillary's boy.

Dan wrote on December 20, 2007 1:38 PM:

And here we have a THIRD Iowa poll for the day, with Clinton ahead again -- with the trendlines favoring her.

Greg DeLassus wrote on December 20, 2007 1:49 PM:

Greg DeLassus: I tried to make some logical sense out of your comment and couldn't do it. Do you mean to say that everyone knows candidates go negative? Does your comment have anything to do with this topic? Your double negatives and failure to link your opinion to Clinton's or Edwards' campaigns reads like someone trying to sound like an extremely cool insider. Try again. We have no idea what you said.

Fair enough. This would hardly be the first time I have tried to make a joke and failed at it. To clarify, I simply meant to agree with Wowsas that it is hard to see how one could review the actual facts of this story and arrive at the conclusion that Edwards is "going negative" in this instance. It is a rather special definition (hence my joke about a special dictionary) of "going negative" or "attacking" that is necessary to make that line of spin make sense. My apologies for the unnecessary confusion.

Liberal Larry wrote on December 20, 2007 1:58 PM:

Bush-Lite and her K $treet allies will do everything they have to in order to continue the Democratic culture of corruption.

bvd wrote on December 20, 2007 2:03 PM:

"The spin here is worse than Fox News."

Wowsas - Don't you that TPM has offically become a Spin-Free Zone?

nano wrote on December 20, 2007 2:06 PM:

I had thought we would all now be spared Colonpowwow's mindless cheerleading for Queen Hillary now that her inevitable slide in the polls has begun. Sadly this is not the case.

One wonders how many times he/she thinks that is she repeats crap from Her Majesty's campaign office that it will magically become true? Here's one tidbit:

"Edwards is the first one to go "negative" because his campaign was (is) sinking like a stone. He was misleading and disingenous from the start, so Pot, meet Ms. Kettle front group."

What? Jesus Christ are you that nuts and out of touch? Do you think others are as disconnected from reality as you are so that they would buy this garbage?

This is nothing but the claptrap scenario Hillary's people have been pushing to the media all year because she and her koolaid drinkers are terrified of Edwards. Why are they so terrified of him when she is in the lead? I think it's because he is someone who stands for something and he is someone who has some substance and who actually cares about people. She actually only cares about herself. Being someone who stands for something and cares about people, he thus represents a threat to a cold-hearted, calculating, conniving, dishonest, egomaniacal politician like Colonpowwow's fearless leader Hillary the First. She's the worst sort of typical hack: in it for herself and herself alone and to hell with everyone and everything else. How admirable. Is it any wonder then, why her campaign is spending this entire week trying to portray her as more human and warm instead of the ice cold calculator she is?

Her campaign has been working overtime the last few weeks especially spreading rumors and attacking both Obama and Edwards in every dirty way they can without actually having her do the dirty work. This is the definition of political cowardice and hypocrisy--something apparently very attractive to Colonpowwow and his/her ilk but not to most voters than God. Just look at today's headline with Kerry apologizing after his not so subtle attack on Obama. It's disgusting and it's Hillary's MO from start to finish.

It is heartening to think that in just a few weeks we will have heard the last from Colonpowwow and the other full time Hillary shills because there's nothing she can do to preserve her lead since voters are now paying attention and the more they see of her the more they want someone else to be the Democratic nominee. All of the money in the world will not put Hillary Dumpty back together again, but she no doubt will do every despicable things she can between now and the end of her bid to try and salvage her dreams of power. Everyone knows she's the reigning champion of nastiness and negativity. It's not even debatable.

So enjoy it while you still can bucko! Your days of taunting Obama, Edwards and all the trademark Hillary pointless nastiness on behalf of Her Highness are numbered. Merry Christams! :)

framecop wrote on December 20, 2007 2:11 PM:

No, actually the Clinton camp is ATTACKING EDWARDS AND OBAMA.

By leading people to believe that the attack was from Edwards, they are in fact attacking Edwards, as well.

Petey wrote on December 20, 2007 2:33 PM:

"Late Update: Some commenters are saying this post looks like it's critical of Edwards. If that's how it was received, I didn't intend it. I'm not faulting Edwards for his criticism of Hillary -- rather, I was just pointing to the overall merry-go-round intra-Dem attacks and saying that it'll be nice when it's over."

Fuck off, Greg Sargent.

Yet another piece of slime from the Clinton campaign, and you respond with your 'plague on all their houses' bullshit.

"It'll be nice when it's over"? It's not like there anything at stake here.

Mary wrote on December 20, 2007 2:34 PM:

Does anyone know about the Edwards

Hedge fund off shore scandal.

I've been told there was a cover-up but have not seen anything in the main stream media.

Can anyone link me to some updated info on this???

thanks

cody wrote on December 20, 2007 2:43 PM:

THIS ARTICLE IS BIASED

and this is why i don't come here anymore. at least try to have some semblance of integrity when opining on the facts.

in the immortal words of Petey:

Fuck off, Greg Sargent

DonnaG wrote on December 20, 2007 2:47 PM:

Hillary is plain and simple dirty, and her campaign is trying more and more rovian tricks now that the inevitability mask failed.

What Hillary has been trying to do for months is to pretend that her slime isn't unique. She most wants voters to just think politics is dirty and that her competitors are just as dirty as she. Good for Edwards for exposing her.

I would be ashamed should she represent the Democratic party as nominee.

savvy wrote on December 20, 2007 2:51 PM:

NCSteve wrote on December 20, 2007 12:28 PM:
I really don't think there's a "deal." I think Edwards is in it to win, but realizes that his options for breaking out of third are narrowing and feels strongly that if he can't win, he'd much rather see Obama win it than Hillary.

If this is the case Steve...Edwards wins IA, as both the Clinton team and Obama would be rooting for Edwards over each other.

Genghis wrote on December 20, 2007 2:56 PM:

Calm down, people. This is a blog. It does not pretend to be unbiased.

In my opinion, and I'm not a Clinton supporter, TPM stories are more likely to be anti-Clinton than pro-Clinton, but for some reason, it's the Clinton-haters who get vicious whenever they perceive any pro-Clinton slant.

Kefa wrote on December 20, 2007 3:07 PM:

Edwardites and Obamaites stop crying. If you can't stand the heat of grownup hardball politics get out of the kitchen.

cody wrote on December 20, 2007 3:17 PM:

genghis,
this isn't about clinton-hate, its about severely distorting a story, and spinning it as such is an unfair characterization. why write a post and glaze over the pertinent relationships between who said what and why they said it.

here's a more accurate title:
"Edwards Hits Hillary For Misleading Mailer"

its just sad i can't trust this blog anymore. this article is barely more misleading than the mailer. and why not put the link to the mailer in the article? bob took enough time to find it, and he didn't even write this posting! when i saw that mailer and the imagery and verbage, anyone could tell it was a hit job.

you have a duty to your readers, regardless of how much you want to marginalize your role in new media. any dereliction is easily sniffed out.

basement angel wrote on December 20, 2007 3:18 PM:

Ahhh, the precious cannot sustain any criticism. It's blasphemy to suggest Obama's healthcare plan doesn't cover everyone. And we, the supporters of the precious - the devotees, the priests and the priestesses - will damn your soul to hell if you faint the name of our beloved.

oleeb wrote on December 20, 2007 3:18 PM:

Folks, don't crucify Greg. I'm against Hillary, but I don't read this as an attack on Edwards. I think it reads in kind of a confusing way but it's a confusing situation---that's kind of the point of the attack---to obfuscate and confuse the electorate while taking a shot at Obama and trying to make it look like Edwards did it. Pure Hillary slime if you ask me. There truly is nothing she and her equivalent of death-eaters won't do to win. We all know that, but it isn't his job to bash her or any of the Dems and I truly don't think he was taking a shot at Edwards. What he was saying could have been more clearly written. Give the guy a break! He did try to clear up any misunderstanding after all.

While he could squarely peg Hillary and her campaign as the slime-purveryors they are then he probably would be out of bounds in terms of what his job is. His job is to report and comment, but not necessarily to judge.

Imagine what Hillary's squad of trained monkeys would do if he openly condemned her? His picture would probably be on the nightly news as some sort of after they accuse him of being some kind of terrorist in disguise! Remember, you don't have to be running against Hillary to warrant having some slime hurled at you!

Wowsas wrote on December 20, 2007 3:18 PM:

Kefa,

nice one. you really exposed your stripes with that comment.

i recall hearing the same $hit from Republicans when we heard about New Hampshire phone jamming or Bush v. Gore or swift boat ads.

I don't have the same problems with Hillary that a lot of folks here do, but supporters like you make me much more nauseous about the thought of voting for her in a general election.

jenn wrote on December 20, 2007 3:30 PM:

Reading this story and the comments above enforces my understanding of why Democrats lose national elections.

I am voting for Obama or Edwards or Clinton in the general election--doesn't matter much to me as long as its not one of those Republicans. I'm guessing no one here agrees with me.

gtash wrote on December 20, 2007 3:39 PM:

I have been supporting Edwards for many months and I think if the story as outlined is factually right (Edwards does not want to be associated by a Hillary flyer with her own criticisms of Obama's health plan), then think he is doing the right thing. All the talk about deals with Obama and strategies to take Hillary down---it all sounds very "insiderish", but I doubt anybody gave this much thought.

Edwards is fighting. We need a fighter, not an appeaser. This isn't the fight of his life. It is the fight of YOURS.

Vote Edwards.

billie wrote on December 20, 2007 3:57 PM:

Greg, who are you trying to kid? Your posts are always critical of Edwards.

Greg DeLassus wrote on December 20, 2007 4:01 PM:

I am voting for Obama or Edwards or Clinton in the general election--doesn't matter much to me as long as its not one of those Republicans. I'm guessing no one here agrees with me.

Really? I would guess exactly the opposite. Aside from the few who have expressed a disgust with Clinton so strong that they will not vote for her even in the GE (and not even all of them should be taken at their word in that claim), I think that most folks here are willing to rally around the eventual democratic nominee (even if only grudgingly). In any event, I definitely agree with you, so I am quite certain it is not "no one" who agrees with you.

Greg DeLassus wrote on December 20, 2007 4:04 PM:

Edwardites and Obamaites stop crying. If you can't stand the heat of grownup hardball politics get out of the kitchen.

Got it. Evidently it is only Clinton and her partisans who are permitted the luxury of complaining that everyone is attacking her. The rest of us, in order to prove that we can 'stand the heat,' apparently should roll over and die so that Clinton can win already.

You will have to forgive me if I find this advice rather self-serving. That said, I suppose that anyone who buys the line you are selling deserves to lose anyway, so perhaps the quote above will improve the overall fitness of the candidate pool.

shoephone wrote on December 20, 2007 4:12 PM:

Greg - this was a rather shameless and inelegant attempt on your part to obfuscate the core issue: that Hillary's camp was purposely trying to DECEIVE voters by slamming Obama, putting Edwards' quote on it, and leaving her own name out of it.

The Clintons are proving, day by day, they are two of the dirtiest people in politics. Her campaign in Iowa is suffering and they have brought out the knives. By pretending that is not the case, and that this sort of thing is no big deal, you have sullied your own credibility.

And The Cult Of Hillary continues on...

Mike Hale wrote on December 20, 2007 4:16 PM:

“WHY ARE NEWPAPERS DISTORTING THE TRUTH ABOUT DEMOCRAT POLITICIANS?"

The three largest newspapers plus the Internet site al.com in Alabama are owned by Advance Publications Inc. Newhouse Newspapers is the newspaper publishing division. Advance Publications is owned by billionaires Samuel Irving Newhouse Jr. and his brother Donald Newhouse.

Here in Alabama these three newspapers start every article that they write about Democrats with this statement, "Our newspapers endorses (Republican) and we believe (Democrat) to be a crook." Then instead of being impartial in the writing of their articles they twist every sentence about the Democratic politician to sound negative.

Anon wrote on December 20, 2007 4:18 PM:

The fact that the Clinton Campaign tried to paint Edwards as critical of Obama on this issue when Edwards made no such statement is indeed 'deceptive' and the Edwards Campaign setting the record straight is the right thing to do.

It does sound like this piece is being critical of Edwards for doing this, but how would Josh expect a candidate to remain silent in this situation if they know it is untrue and creates a false impression with the voters?

THe Edwards Campaign once again made the right call here, evidence of character that is needed in our Party's Nominee.

Tenacious D. wrote on December 20, 2007 4:34 PM:

Good for Edwards. He knows that he needs to finish first or second with Clinton in third if he's to have any shot at the nomination. Obama can stay above the fray if he wants.

As far as I can tell Clinton is a willow-in-the wind centrist with a proven history of selling out. Obama is a willow-in-the wind centrist with an soon-yet-to-be-proven history of selling out. Edwards is the only one willing to p!ss anyone off.

Genghis wrote on December 20, 2007 5:54 PM:

code writes:

this isn't about clinton-hate, its about severely distorting a story, and spinning it as such is an unfair characterization.

Greg didn't "severely" distort the story. There's no indication of factual inaccuracy. But he did express his opinion, and he focused on the aspect of the story that interested him and supported his point. That's what blogs are all about. You can disagree with his opinion and argue that he minimized the Clinton mailing's deception, but personally attacking him goes too far.

If you want to stop reading this blog because you disagree with writers' opinions, go for it. Personally, I prefer bloggers who don't share my opinion on everything.

rj wrote on December 20, 2007 7:06 PM:

People actually read this post as a criticism of Edwards? Geez, wake me when primary season's over...

NJ Lawyer wrote on December 20, 2007 7:17 PM:

Politics suck. That is all.

cal1942 wrote on December 21, 2007 2:37 AM:

"colonpowwow wrote on December 20, 2007 11:47 AM:
Edwards is the first one to go "negative"

..."

What!

Where have you been the last few weeks?

nogo war wrote on December 21, 2007 7:18 AM:

When this flier first surfaced a few days ago I wondered if Edwards campaign would respond..They did.. good.

Every time Penn/Clinton II tries this crap against Obama or Edwards..WE must call them on it.

This is practice for the GE..
Buckle up!

nogo war wrote on December 21, 2007 7:22 AM:

Oh yeah..I checked campaign sites for for a response to what's going on in NOLA..
From Clinton II and Obama?
......(crickets chirping in the snow)...
Edwards?
http://johnedwards.com/news/headlines/20071220-nola-city-council/

colonpowwow wrote on December 21, 2007 9:40 AM:

Yeah, nano:

After reading your personal attack on me, I now understand that I am the one with the hate problem.

Thanks for your insight.

Oh, and an equally heartfelt Merry Christmas to you as well. Taking a fresh look at the polls today, I look forward to the primary season as well.

colonpowwow

Margaret wrote on December 21, 2007 12:56 PM:

Remember the poll about 2 weeks ago that had Obama UP by 9 points in Iowa? ha!
The data states there was a disproportionate number of 20-30 year old participants.
Now - why would the polling company mislead?? ha!
Go Edwards!

Post a comment

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