Michael Crawford

Hillary Clinton Smacks John Edwards

Filed By Michael Crawford | November 17, 2007 9:45 AM | comments

Filed in: Politics
Tags: campaign 2008, Democratic debates, Hillary Rodham Clinton, John Edwards

In Thursday night's Democratic presidential debate in Nevada Hillary Clinton smacked John Edwards for his increasing shrill and negative attacks against her. Well done Hillary.

Edwards has strong policy ideas, but unfortunately for him his message is not penetrating. Trying to tear down Clinton is not making him look any better. Its just making him look and desperate.


Recent Entries Filed under Politics:

Leave a comment

We want to know your opinion on this issue! While arguing about an opinion or idea is encouraged, personal attacks will not be tolerated. Please be respectful of others.

The editorial team will delete a comment that is off-topic, abusive, exceptionally incoherent, includes a slur or is soliciting and/or advertising. Repeated violations of the policy will result in revocation of your user account. Please keep in mind that this is our online home; ill-mannered house guests will be shown the door.


Reid pisses me off with his shameless spun excuses for dropping the bill. Democrats, once again dropping us like a hot potato when their precious Iraq compromise doesn't have the votes because they haven't worked well enough for them? Impossible, I say!

I have to say that Hill is good at presenting herself with grace and charisma and shows that you can disagree without being disagreeable. That smack down of Edwards was actually pretty good and didn't come off petty as a lot of the attacks against her have.

I just noticed I posted on the wrong comment thread *blushes*, got carried away by the thrill that someone actually bothered to mention such news, when most have remained discreetly shut up about it.

Really? Tear her down? You know, I watched that debate, and I must have missed where anyone asked her how Monica Lewinsky was doing these days, or on the state of the Vast Right Wing Conspiracy. What does it say about the state of debate where people faint if one person says "You take money from people and then they will expect favors from you?" And we all know what Hillary did... making arrangements with the Nevada Party leaders to get special arrangements to pack her campaign workers into the front of the crowd to boo and heckle her opponents. How can Hillary have forgotten that the President must swear to uphold the Constitution, the Bill of Rights, and freedom of speech? She shot herself in the foot on Thursday if she thinks that with those kind of Rovian tactics of crowd-control she's ever going to unite the Democratic Party behind her.

Actually, that Nevada event and the allegations accompanying it have not been confirmed; please, refrain from regurgitating unconfirmed conspiracy theories. I know they may be fun to throw around just for the sake of mobilizing people through cheap appeals to emotion, but such tactics are dishonest and have no place in a blog like this one. Furthermore, to tear someone down, you must be aiming at their character; exploiting shamelessly the unfaithfulness of a husband to rip at her character is not a legitimate form of tearing down. I should not be needing to mention also how pitifully sexist it is to evaluate a woman by the actions of her husband.

What exactly does this post specifically, or your intra-party biases generally, have to do with gay rights?

I come to this site for a reason, and this isn't it.

What exactly does this post specifically, or your intra-party biases generally, have to do with gay rights? I come to this site for a reason, and this isn't it.

Allow me to step in and explain for you Kip. Whomever becomes the President of the United States will also be the President of the LGBT community. We've had two candidates for President guest post here on the Project, have advisors to several campaigns among our contributors, and have historically focused quite a bit on politics and how it affects our community.

But you do raise an interesting question that I hope you'll e-mail me off the comment list about. What DO you expect from our site? I'm always looking for feedback and ways to improve the site, so I'd welcome the chance to chat with you.

As usual, Hillary talks a lot, but really says nothing, avoiding controversial issues, padding her staff with wealthy establishment types and ignoring the grassroots, taking piles of campaign cash with open arms from Big Business.

I mean please...we're still waiting for her to simply say the word "transgender" publicly, forget about actually addressing the issue of equal rights for all Americans.

She's popular because she's a woman and because her last name is Clinton, and that's why she'll win. Anyone who really thinks anything for our community in particular and for this country in general will change in any real way for the better as a result of having her in the White House that wouldn't have changed anyway with any Democrat as President is kidding themselves.

While I think Hillary's performance was improved since the last debate, I believe the press overestimated the extent to which she "dominated her opponents" (namely Edwards & Obama). This is a contest and it is incumbent upon Edwards & Obama to draw clear distinctions between themselves and Hillary. The key distniction, honestly, is that Hillary is taking millions of dollars from special interest groups (including the pharmaceutical industry, among others; an industry that could lower the cost of HIV/AIDS medications in underdeveloped countries to save millions of lives). Edwards & Obama are not taking money from those industries at all. If Hillary is elected, she will owe those industries her presidency--because they funded her campaign. Edwards & Obama will not. They will owe their victories to the people who funded their campaigns--individuals like you and me. So, when Edwards attacks Hillary as a candidate that will perpetuate the broken, corrupt system that serves the special interests at the expense of the poorest individuals, that is not a personal attack--it is Edwards pointing out the most important distinction between his campaign and Hillary's "business as usual, insiders only" campaign.

Civics 101.2

Just before the Vegas debate the Heir Apparent got some more dividends from the gift that keeps on giving…

On his final morning in the White House, January 1st, 2001 Bill granted the last of his 140 presidential pardons and 36 commutations. Three more recipients of these notorious last minute pardons ‘given’ by Bill Clinton minutes before leaving office made large to the presidential campaign Hillary Clinton," according to campaign finance records examined by ABC News.

One of Clinton’s most notorious pardons was uberrich Marc Rich, aka Marc David Reich, a financier and international commodities swindler who fled the US while being prosecuted on charges of tax evasion and illegally making oil deals with Iran during the hostage crisis.

There's nothing illegal about this; the Congress is run by the hand puppets of the uberrich and Republicans and Democrats burn with a bipartisan zeal to protect their contributions from lobbyists, criminals, and big business. For both parties of the ruling rich it’s business usual.

Clinton refused to pardon Leonard Peltier a leader of the American Indian Movement falsely convicted of killing two FBI agents attacking an Indian reservation in 1975 or hundreds of other prisoners of conscience.

Clinton’s probable opponent in the Presidential race will be Rudolph Giuliani had a similar scandal break this week. His aide Bernie Kerik, who Giuliani proposed as Secretary of Homeland Security is mixed up in a new scandal. Judith Regan a book publisher sued FAUX News claiming that they told her to lie to the Feds investigating Kerik’s nomination about her affair him. The lawsuit asserts that the Fox News wanted to cover Giuliani, then planning this run for the White House. Kerik’s been charged with 16 counts of mail and tax fraud, corruption and lying on forms submitted to be Homeland Security Secretary, accepting more than $250,000 in free apartment renovations from a company with alleged ties to organized crime, and using a downtown Manhattan apartment intended for use by 9/11 rescue workers for sexual trysts. If Giuliani wins Kerik walks.

The gory details include pardons for Clintons cocaine dealing brother Roger Clinton, his business partner Susan McDougal who went to prison rather than testify in the Whitewater investigation, former CIA Director John Deutch, Clintons former Housing Secretary Henry Cisneros, former Navaho Nation chief Peter MacDonald, impeached for taking bribes and kickbacks and Clintons cocaine dealing brother Roger Clinton.

As ‘Deepthroat’ famously said “Follow the Money.” He was talking about a Republican criminal, Nixon who was pardoned by a Republican President but his advice equally to the Democrats as well.

In her remarks at the Vegas debate Her Royal Highness, Heir Apparent Hillary gobsmacked her Democratic opponents, commoners all. She majestically accused them of ‘throwing mud’ and reading ‘from the Republican playbook’.

Hillary Clinton runs on Bill Clinton’s record and tries to put a stop to discussion of her own. Look at her website for verification that she unashamedly runs on Bill Clinton’s record. Does this make her a misogynist too? Examine her votes for war, her pigheaded opposition to samesex marriage, her union busting and the fact that both Pat Robertson and Rupert Murdoch approve of her and you’ll see why she want suppress discussion of her record. It’s entirely correct to question her about DOMA, DADT and NAFTA if she herself runs on Bill Clinton’s record. It’s retarded to describe that as sexist behavior.

http://www.abcnews.go.com/Politics/Vote2008/story?id=3866786&page=1
www.usdoj.gov/pardon/clintonpardon_grants.htm

What exactly does this post specifically, or your intra-party biases generally, have to do with gay rights?

I come to this site for a reason, and this isn't it.

I think one of Bilerico's strong points is that the topics discussed reach beyond "gay rights." The gay rights platform at times becomes very stifling and frequently redundant. Moving beyond (or maybe around it is a better word) is a good thing.

I've always had respect for John Edwards, and I still think he's a good guy, but his campaign, of late, has desperately tried anything to bolster his poll numbers, which in the end is only sinking him lower and lower. Senator Edwards is trying to figure out which of the Americas (what are we up to now? 5?) might throw him a bone and give him an advantage in the primaries, but none of them are taking him up on his offer.

As one of the debate moderators pointed out, Senator Edwards loves to accuse his opponents of changing their minds, but neglects to see that he is very well positioned to be criticized for exactly the same thing.

Clinton showed Edwards AND Obama to be, in the end, woefully inexperienced candidates who are not yet ready to occupy the Oval Office . . . especially during a time when knowing what you're doing is more important than ever before.