Hillary Clinton Smacks John Edwards

November 16, 2007 at 10:28 am 12 comments

In last 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.


Entry filed under: Uncategorized. Tags: , , , , , .

Hate Crimes Bill Hits Major Snag Pennsylvania Hate Crimes Law Ruled Unconstitutional

12 Comments Add your own

  • 1. healtheland  |  November 16, 2007 at 11:09 am

    “Trying to tear down Clinton is not making him look any better. Its just making him look desperate.” Isn’t that what is generally called CAMPAIGNING when the target of such “attacks” is not Hillary Clinton? As a matter of fact, the genteel nature of the Democratic campaigns in 2000, 2004, and 2008 are shocking. It is NOTHING compared to how the Republican candidates in 2000 and 2008 were shredding each other, and it is also NOTHING compared to candidates of both parties went at it in races prior.

    Now the 2004 Democratic race was just bizarre, I don’t even want to talk about it. But the 2000 and 2008 Democratic races make me think that the Democrats wanted a certain person to win all along, and that person in 2000 was Gore and the person in 2008 is Hillary. If that is the case and 2 of the last 3 Democratic primaries have been shams … that is not in the interests of the Democratic Party or the country. Especially when you consider that the result in 2000 and 2004 was the elevation of George W. Bush.

    I say either way this time around it is going to be bad. One way, it is going to be Hillary Clinton, which means the same 2 families will have held the White House from 1988 to at least 2012. This is more significant when one considers a fact that the media never reports but is well known to Washington insiders: the Clinton and Bush families are actually great personal friends, and have been since before members of either family became President. But if it is not Hillary Clinton, it is Rudy Giuliani, the former #3 official in Reagan’s Justice Department who is objectionable on so many levels.

    Either way, you cannot make the case that either administration will be anything other than 1. secretive 2. corrupt and 3. policies that favor international corporations and the global markets and economies rather than our workers and the poor. The same is true of the other leading candidates in both parties. We get so distracted by partisanship and wedge issues that we forget that the Clinton and Bushes governed basically the same way (and both even had people that served in both administrations, most prominently Alan Greenspan and some key State Department officials) and the other folks are not going to be that different. Folks in both parties really do need to start looking at some of the “minor” candidates. And why are they “minor”? Because the corporate – owned media calls them such, and because the wealthy donors and establishments of both parties are withholding funds from the likes of Ron Paul and Dennis Kucinich. We have to start looking at why this is the case, and why everyone is so convinced that the most qualified and most viable candidates in the race are a two term mayor and a junior senator just starting her second term.

  • 2. Michael Crawford  |  November 16, 2007 at 11:58 am

    You can call it what you will. Edwards is coming off not as a tough campaigner, but as someone who is desperate to break into the top tier candidates.

  • 3. proudprogressive  |  November 16, 2007 at 12:49 pm

    Edwards is a top tier candidate. And i would gladly cast a vote for Him or Obama, though Kucinich is the U turn the country needs but will not take. Why you chose to elavae Hillary in this post really makes me wonder ?! But hey its a free country and thats what the blogs are for. Oh and good old sell out Barney and the HRCF have thrown their bucks behind her..and she is our lgbt worst enemy in my opinion. Insiders are running the show…but the grassroots are alive and well. I found the debate last night a disgusting event..CNN handled it horribly in fact i posted with a link to be able to write them..Allowing booing and cheering. What they allowed to happen to both Obama and Edwards was dispicable..and someone tell me please..how ignorant is it – TO ONLY ASK HILLARY at the end if she preferred diamonds to pearls…Blitzer did nothing to control the audiance, they hyped it like cage match and ran simililarly – CNN is second only to FOX news.

  • 4. Michael Crawford  |  November 16, 2007 at 1:22 pm

    I chose to post this clip because I think that what she says about taking points from the Republican playbook is right. I am all for smashed mouth politics, but a recitation of Republican taking points which is something that I think Edwards is doing.

  • 5. Christopher  |  November 16, 2007 at 1:34 pm

    Edwards is stuck in third place and the Iowa Caucus is just around the corner. He must do something if he’s going to break through.

    Unfortunately for Edwards and Obama, the “fix” for Hillary was in months ago. I knew it was a done deal when Wall Street got behind her campaign.

    In national politics, if you want to make your friends think you’re psychic, watch Wall Street money is going. It’s the best barometer of who will win the presidency.

  • 6. Jon  |  November 17, 2007 at 1:22 am

    Republican talking points?

    1) Hillary takes money from Washington Lobbyists: So do Republicans, so how is this a Republican talking point? This is actually a legitimate and accurate “progressive” talking point, as the netroots bloggosphere agrees with former Senator Edwards that there is way too much influence of money in Washington – while Hillary Clinton has gone out of her way to take the most money from lobbyists, and to defend lobbyists and the status quo in Washington.
    I dare you to prove that Edwards is not stating the truth.

    2) Hillary says she’s for a moratorium on free trade agreements to Iowans, but votes for the Peru Trade deal in Washington: FACT. Now, lets get it straight – is telling facts about the actual current votes of candidates when those votes contradict what those candidates are saying on the campaign trail – “MUDSLINGING”? — Please explain how voting for Peru free trade is not contradictory to telling Iowans she’s not for new free trade agreements and wants a “timeout” on such agreements.

    There are so many more examples.

    Honestly – the Emporess has no clothes. It frightens me that the Democratic Party is generally so disengaged and content to suck at the media teet that they are really considering nominating Hillary Clinton despite the fact that of a whole slate of amazing nominee choices, she’sthe only one who truly epitomizes everything that’s been wrong with politics for the last thirty years.

    Pick a real candidate – Obama or Edwards, Biden or Dodd. But what has Hillary ever accomplished? What has she learned? She failed at healthcare, enacted NAFTA, Voted for Iraq and then Voted to basically authorize war with Iran by stating the Guard is a terrorist organization when we all know that to this administration such a declaration is tantamount to a near declaration of war…

    She takes multiple positions at once. She smears those who dissent on factual grounds as “mudslingers” – deliberately attempted to deceive Americans regarding Obama’s social security plan…

    It will be the huge corporations and corporate run media who laugh in the end. Rupert Murdoch; he’s hedged his bets.

  • 7. Christopher  |  November 17, 2007 at 7:27 am

    Jon is so correct about HRC.

    She’s a slippery snake. Anyone who supports her has to have his or her head examined. Even after Obama’s dance with the homophobe Donnie McClurkin, I’d take Barack over HRC.

  • 8. proudprogressive  |  November 17, 2007 at 11:15 am

    I would take Obama in a heartbeat over Clinton, yep a New York Minute. His plan for lgbt is better..not throwing us to the states but actually having some real federeal protections…and enda lite AIN”T it. Jon is so right…since when is telling the truth , mudslinging i found shillery to be playing the Condi card..ooo how dare you atttack my integrity…answer ..IT needs some exposure to the light of day. Obama’s plan for Social Security is terrific ! I hope he and Edwards could somehow team up. How anyone could call the clintons a friend of the lgbT s is beyond me..they gave us hope , and then yanked it out from under us. ON more then a few issues. Not being a one issue person ..of course , my troubles with them go far deeper. But on that note Obama is for federal protections, Edwards is for educating kids in school, (gee freakin revolutionary) that shows he wants us to see our full civil rights..to me at least.

    Obama a constitutional lawyer for 10 yrs !!! Lets remind ourselves NOT one vote has been cast..forget the pundits and their polls. The people of Iowa may not like “negitivity ” but they obviously like the truth hence Edwards IS leading there , and Obama blew the doors off at the Jackson Jefferson Dinner.

    ok say it with me….Hillary will not be the nominee ..repeat repeat. And talk to people. WE the people want a new face, a new breed. NOT the new boss, same as the old boss.

    Go Obama , Go Edwards..I wonder too, if there was some way some how…joe trippi and David Axelrod could bring O and E together what a ticket that would be ! and frankly safer for Obama. Its a tough one. really a very tough one. This country is full of bigots and i want him to be safe enough..just talking reality here..I wish it were different…But America could be “readier ” for a black man as VP. I wish i could say this was not the case..And believe me I would LOVE america to have a black president…LOVE IT i tell ya..

    Anyhow. ty Jon for pointing out that telling the truth IS NOT mudslinging – took the words right out of my mouth. And as Christopher said..dispite the McClurkin dance OBAMA is a great choice. He would change so many things just be virtue of being himself….

    But poor hillary – give me a break !

  • 9. proudprogressive  |  November 17, 2007 at 11:23 am

    see bluebloggin.com for the polls that do show Edwards winning in Iowa…its true..the MSM won’t tell us , but it is true. The post there is called something like Edwards leads in the out polls in Iowa..something like that.. He has SEIU endorsements there. And he showed the people pure and clear , Hilllary in front of the union groups so no Peru deal, but out of the other side of her mouth , not so much..

    believe i hate to bash anyone really i do – but more clintons, and a dynasty in america of these two family machines….Goddess save us !

  • 10. Danielle Clarke  |  November 18, 2007 at 9:21 am

    African Americans and Gays,Lesbians,Bisexuals,Transgender unite under Obama Tent
    Posted by dclakke Oct 25, 2007
    Obama Campaign Releases Open Letter From Supporters On Controversial Reverend

    Senator Barack Obama’s campaign has been struggling with its decision to hold a gospel tour in South Carolina with an anti-homosexual pastor, Donnie McClurkin.

    After much criticism from gay rights groups and others, they tried inviting an openly gay minister to appear before McClurkin. But that didn’t work – the Human Rights Campaign’s Joe Solomonese expressed more disappointment in having the pastor on the stage and only said he hoped Obama “will move forward and facilitate face to face meetings with religious leaders, like Rev. McClurkin, and the GLBT community to confront the issue of homophobia.”

    Now the senator’s campaign is trying to show that he’s doing just that. An open letter signed by 16 LGBT and black religious leaders says that Obama is reaching out to bring blacks and homosexuals together. But Obama makes clear that even if he disagrees with African-Americans who are anti-gay, he still wants their votes.

    “We believe that Barack Obama is constructing a tent big enough for LGBT Americans who know that their sexual orientation is an innate and treasured part of their being, and for African American ministers and citizens who believe that their religion prevents them from fully embracing their gay brothers and sisters,” the letter states. “And if we are to confront our shared challenges we have to join together, build on common ground, and engage in a civil dialogue even when we disagree.”

    Update: AmericaBlog’s John Aravosis, who has been driving this story, reacts to the letter here.

    The full letter with its signatories can be read after the jump.

    To Whom It May Concern:

    As representatives of Barack Obama supporters from the African American religious community and the gay community, we are issuing a statement together for the first time. Our letter addresses the recent issue of Pastor Donnie McClurkin singing at Senator Obama’s “Embrace the Change” concert series. In the midst of division, we hope and believe that this is a moment to bring together communities that have been divided for far too long.

    A few things are clear.

    First, Pastor McClurkin believes and has stated things about sexual orientation that are deeply hurtful and offensive to many Americans, most especially to gay Americans. This cannot and should not be denied.

    At the same time, a great many African Americans share Pastor McClurkin’s beliefs. This also cannot be ignored.

    Finally, we believe that the only way for these two sides to find common ground is to do so together.

    Not at arms length. Not in a war of words with press and pundits. Only together.

    It is clear that Barack Obama is the only candidate who has made bringing these two often disparate groups together a goal. In gatherings of LGBT Americans and African Americans of faith, Obama has stated that all individuals should be afforded full civil rights regardless of their sexual orientation, and that homophobia must be eradicated in every corner of our nation. If we are to end homophobia and secure full civil rights for gay Americans, then we need an advocate within the Black community like Barack Obama.

    At the same time, while Obama has said that he “strongly disagrees” with Pastor McClurkin’s comments, he will not exclude from his campaign the many Americans including many in the African American community who believe the same as Pastor McClurkin.

    We believe that Barack Obama is constructing a tent big enough for LGBT Americans who know that their sexual orientation is an innate and treasured part of their being, and for African American ministers and citizens who believe that their religion prevents them from fully embracing their gay brothers and sisters. And if we are to confront our shared challenges we have to join together, build on common ground, and engage in a civil dialogue even when we disagree.

    We also ask Senator Obama’s critics to consider the alternatives. Would we prefer a candidate who ignores the realities in the African American community and cuts off millions of Blacks who believe things offensive to many Americans? Or a panderer who tells African Americans what they want to hear, at the expense of our gay brothers and sisters? Or would we rather stand with Barack Obama, who speaks truth in love to both sides, pulling no punches but foreclosing no opportunities to engage?

    We stand with Senator Obama. We stand with him because of the solutions he is proposing for our nation. We stand with him because of his character and his judgment. But the most important reason we stand with him is because today, as he has done all along, Barack Obama is causing us to stand together.

    That’s the kind of President we need, and we are proud to support him.


    Rev. Dr. Otis Moss, Jr.
    Olivet Institutional Baptist Church
    Chair, Obama National African American Religious Leaders Working Group
    Cleveland, Ohio

    Stampp Corbin
    Chair, Obama National LGBT Leadership Council
    Former Member of Human Rights Campaign Board of Directors
    Columbus, Ohio

    Tobias Barrington Wolff
    Chair, Obama LGBT Policy Committee
    Professor of Law, University of Pennsylvania Law School
    Philadelphia, PA

    The Reverend Stephen John Thurston
    National Baptist Convention of America
    Chicago, IL

    The Reverend Alvin Love
    Baptist General State Convention of Illinois, Inc.

    Bishop E. Earl McCloud, Jr.
    Office of Ecumenical & Urban Affairs
    African Methodist Episcopal Church
    Atlanta, GA
    Steven Latasa-Nicks
    President, The Phelon Group, Inc.
    Former Human Rights Campaign Board of Governors
    New York, NY

    Maxim Thorne
    Former COO, Human Rights Campaign
    Paterson, NJ

    Phil Burgess
    Former Human Rights Campaign Board of Directors
    Chicago, IL

    Rev. Dr. Barbara Williams-Skinner
    Skinner Leadership Institute
    Tracy’s Landing, MD

    Rev. Michael Pfleger
    St. Sabina, Chicago

    Rev. Edward Taylor
    San Jose, CA

    The Reverend Robert H. Thompson
    Exeter, NH

    Sharon Malheiro
    LGBT Activist
    Des Moines, IA

    Hon. Jon Cooper
    Majority Leader, Suffolk County (NY) Legislature
    Rev. Paul Hobson Sadler, Sr., Pastor
    Mt. Zion Congregational UCC

  • 11. Danielle Clarke  |  November 18, 2007 at 9:22 am

    In 1997, Edelman criticized President Clinton for his welfare reform package by warning it could lead to record numbers of uninsured children, increased child abuse, and rising firearms deaths. The CDF’s “The State of America’s Children Yearbook 1997” criticized the package and warned that “if America does not stand up now for its children, it will not stand strong in the new millennium.”

    In the same interview, Edelman also criticized the welfare legislation that the Clinton administration created. This legislation cut $54 billion from such programs as food stamps and child and family nutrition. “I’m not trying to defend the former welfare system,” Edelman said. “But I’m for ending child poverty as we know it, not just for ending welfare as we know it.” The CDF developed a volunteer program to document the effects of this legislation, hoping to discover if those who left the welfare program now had jobs, health care, and child care.

  • 12. proudprogressive  |  November 18, 2007 at 4:23 pm

    Solomese and the Clinton machine entrenched in the Human Rights Campaign Fund..and the insiders driving this triangulation – such as Avorosis and Solomese..and Frank Make me want to scream.

    Obama gets we need full federal protections. Ironically Clinton is our articulated by her own words and the actions of clinton administrations past They are NOT our friends ! I could list , the promises, the renegs , the vetoable bills..they are legend..and yet. ..and yet. The HRC and Frank are behind her. Wtf is wrong with this picture ?

    oh dear ..getting myself worked up. Lets not forget one thing and one thing alone. The Human Rights Campaign Fund is first and foremost a 30 million dollar political pac. Dispicable !

    Disclaimer – i get so incensed over this that in private , and it was out of line i asked bloggernista to de blog americablog. Thankfully he didn’t. As i said i was out of line – and we do need to see what these divisive entitled washington insiders are up – its there in plain site. But support Frank or the HRCF and the other HRC never ! NEVER !


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Trackback this post  |  Subscribe to the comments via RSS Feed

AddThis Feed Button
Political Blogs - Blog Catalog Blog Directory

Blog Stats

  • 833,991 hits


%d bloggers like this: