OT: Clinton v. Edwards

[ProSense]

It's the NY Post via CNN, but isn't Clinton down with Murdoch?

CAMPAIGN LAUNCHES "FIRST DIRECT ASSAULT" ON FELLOW '08 DEM: Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton last night ripped into 2008 White House contender John Edwards - her first direct assault on any of her potential Democratic presidential rivals. Clinton's surprising broadside came just hours after Edwards, in Harlem, delivered a sharp condemnation - clearly aimed at Clinton, although he didn't mention her by name - against those who fail to "speak out" against the war in Iraq. "Silence is betrayal, and I believe it is a betrayal not to speak out against the escalation of the war in Iraq," Edwards told a crowd at Manhattan's Riverside Church, where Martin Luther King had declared his opposition to the Vietnam War... "In 2004, John Edwards used to constantly brag about running a positive campaign. Today, he has unfortunately chosen to open his campaign with political attacks on Democrats who are fighting the Bush administration's Iraq policy," said Clinton adviser Howard Wolfson. New York Post: Hill Jabs at John [/div>

[MBS]

1. thanks (I think) for this

I was just saying to Luftmensch today that one of the best things about Sen. Kerry is the quality of people who support him. That logic goes in a negative direction, too. One of the things that alarms me most about Hillary's apparently presidential campaign is the kind of people who seem to be steering it. Howard Wolfson is a total slimeball, totally into negative campaigning. Added to people like Carville, Begala, McAwful, and the like, it's a nasty crew. NONE of these folks should be allowed within 1000 miles of the White House.

[Noisy Democrat]

3. Yeah, I'm surprised

by the nasty tone of Clinton's remarks. Edwards's remarks seemed to be more generally calling on Congressional Democrats to take responsibility. Clinton interprets them as a personal attack on her and comes back swinging. It doesn't look good. It also makes it sound as if Clinton knows she has plenty to be apologetic for -- Edwards talks about unnamed Dems in Congress being irresponsible, and she responds, "Don't talk about me in that tone!" Sheesh.

[Inuca]

2. And so it begins....

"brag"... not very friendly (though possibly appropriate)....

[sandnsea]

4. Good, let 'em go at it

Which is why I think Kerry should just sidestep for a while.

This is a funny response from Hillary. I didn't take the 'silence is betrayal' as an attack on her at all, although maybe it was. I took it as pandering to the very far left who consider anything short of running through the streets with a bullhorn as silence.

[karynnj]

9. Could the ultra sensitivity be coming

from the recent nedia (or blog) comments that Hillary has refused to lead or take a specific position on Iraq? I found Edwards' comments annoying and they can not possibly be directed at Kerry at this point, because Kerry has been speaking out for longer and far more intelligently.

This is not the first attack by the Edwardses on Hillary. Elizabeth Edwards had to apologize by a comment contrasting that she "stays home" with the kids and Hillary was a high powered attourney. (The dishonest part was that Elizabeth worked when Wade and Cate were young. I assume she spent most of Jack's life campaigning.

[wisteria]

5. A little to forceful when it isn't necessary. She would of been better off ignoring it.

He didn't call her out directly. Although, JK speech at Take Back America comes to mind, when it was obvious he was taking her to task for not speaking up back then. Maybe, she is too defensive because of that. She did get negative press from that. However, Edwards isn't Kerry and she acknowledges him and give him recognition when she would have done better to just ignore the comment. No one was pointing the finger at her- really.
Maybe, this is a good preview of things to come, as you said. Is she going to come out swinging at everything? That could make her look very angry and to defensive.

[beachmom]

6. Well, Edwards asked for it. As I said in another thread, this

speech is a major blunder, which will be clear as time goes on. Yes, I suppose it's red meat for the far left anti-war crowd, but I view it as a cheap shot against a Congress that has to balance a lot of constituencies. And let me see Edwards say this again to Senator Webb's face, who is not in support of cutting of the surge funding but who was against the war from the start and has a son there in harm's way.

But, seems to me that Hillary just committed a blunder, too, by going after Edwards so early, even before she declares.

Hillary and Edwards deserve each other, so as Sandnsea said, let them duke it out for a while. Meanwhile, both Obama AND Kerry can just sit on the sidelines.

[Democrafty]

10. They both look kind of shrill and nutty in this case.

I third Sandnsea's sentiment.

[ProSense]

7. This is posted on

Hotline

[beachmom]

8. I really, really want to attack, but I am controlling myself

On the Rec List:

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2007/1/15/91238/4120

There's only one person who really attacked and called Edwards a hypocrite -- he got TROLL RATED. These people have big time thin skins.

I think a lot of people are holding back on dailykos, because there's definitely an anti-IWR constituency who obviously didn't even bother to open the diary. Hillary has no presense there, Obama has some. How is this going to work when the real primary wars hit?

[karynnj]

11. I better stay away too - he IS a hypocrite on this

and he needs to get called on it. Consider the flip flop nonsense Kerry got - even though he has been pretty consistent at least on some level about everything. Edwards is switching from pro-war cheerleader flirting with neo-con ideas to anti war protest leader - On that I have news for him, Kerry did it better 35 years ago - now he is a mature leader who can say "I will never lie to you."

[wisteria]

13. Edward's was involved with a think tank with former

Repub VP candidate,Jack Kemp regarding our relations with Russia. Not that Edwards shares the same opinions as Kemp, but this alliance makes me a bit nervous. It also makes me wonder just how anti-war he is or just pro- opportunist. This seems to add some validity to the cliche', "Politics make strange bedfellows."

http://www.cfr.org/content/publications/attachments/Russia_TaskForce.pdf




http://www.cfr.org/publication.html?id=8142





And upcoming event with the both of them participating.

http://www.pacificu.edu/news/detail.cfm?NEWS_ID=2202&CATEGORY_ID=8

[rox63]

12. Message to Edwards' supporters: Welcome to our world!

Although I don't harbor as negative feelings towards John Edwards as many other folks around here do, I would like to give his loyal supporters this message: Welcome to our world!

Here's what I mean by that: Welcome to the world where your candidate is attacked 24/7 by people from both the GOP and his own party. This is the world that Kerry supporters have had to put up with for years. Your guy got off easy during the 2004 campaign, while John Kerry took the brunt of the attacks. The worst that got thrown at Edwards was "Trial Lawyer!", or "Lightweight!" JK was barraged with accusations of being a "flip-flopper", a liar, a traitor, an enemy-collaborator, a "Bush-lite", wine-sipping elitest snob, of having faked his war wounds and betrayed his fellow soldiers. All lies of the lowest caliber. During this time, Edwards was the genial "sunshine boy" who somehow managed to get off easy with the media. Now your guy is getting savaged on sites like DU, DKos, and other sites, often by Democrats who support other candidates. I think it's despicable. But it's what we JK supporters have had to put up with EVERY FRIGGIN' DAY FOR YEARS! I will do my best to stay off that abusive bandwagon, and avoid joining the circular firing squad that Democrats are so good at forming. The candidate that gets all that abuse may end up being the last, best hope for our country, the person who has to pick us up out the mess that * has made. So watch out who you throw those knives at - it may at yourself.

</Rant over>

P.S. I just realized that with a few changes in the words, this message could also easily apply to Hillary, Obama and Clark supporters.

[TayTay]

14. This is what Democrats do

This is what Democrats have always done. We have 'no-holds-barred' primaries where we go after each other. This is democracy, which is very, very messy business.

HAve you guys ever looked up some past Presidential campaigns? Jefferson was absolutely pilloried and the fact that he had children by a slave in his household was brought up. Andrew Jackson was raked over the coals because he had married his wife before the divorce from her first husband was legal. Jackson believed that the resulting shitstorm was what killed his wife before he ever took the oath of office. Somehow, people kept on running.

Democracy, real democracy, is very messy business. We have the fakery of Ronald Reagan and his stupid 11th Commandment that says "Thou shalt not attack your fellow Republicans" for making some people believe that messy, noisy, no-holds-barred campaigns should not occur.

Of course they should occur. This is not a tea party here. These people are going for the most powerful office in the world. Should they win, they will have the power to wage war, influence the financial markets all over the world, help set global policy on things dealing with the environment and on human rights. This job is huge.

The last Presidential election cycle, '03-04, was the first one to cost $1 billion dollars. This last midterm election is said to have cost close to $1 billion dollar. The next Presidential election alone, without the cost of the Congressional elections added in, will be $1 billion.

We should argue and fight over every little thing, that is the core of the very messy concept of democracy. We test these people on the national stage and search out each little flaw, each little quirk that gives a clue as to how they are as people and whether or not we can trust them. Sometimes that process works really well and we get a Lincoln. Sometimes the process is debased, cheating and deception rule the day and we get a real lemon like George W. Bush. But that is the process.

The Democrats should go after each other and play hardball. The best ones can take it. They understand this is a maraton. If they don't want to go through the process, they don't have to, no one is holding a gun to their heads to make them run. This process is, after all, not about them. It's about the country. It's messy, unfair, cruel, too long, too expensive, too silly and sometimes too exasperating and it's utterly necessary. It's about something, it's about everything and that matters. Of course it's hard, it's meant to be. (Unless you're Reagan and you think the issues should be hidden from view completely. That was a subversion of the process that we still haven't recovered from, but are beginning to.)

Bring it on. Bring it all on. Let's talk about everything on everyone. America wins that way.

[rox63]

15. What worries me is that

our candidates are beaten to a bloody pulp by all the in-party battles, and are so damaged by the time the general election comes around that the rethugs roll right over them. Same thing usually happens here in Mass. Fortunately, the Mass Dems were mostly able to avoid that this time. We have to remember that the enemy is the rethugs, not our fellow Dems.

[TayTay]

16. Kos actually pointed out something true

In 2004, Oklahoma had a no-holds-barred primary among Republicans for a Senate seat. The main contestants beat each other to a bloody mess. Every dirty little piece of laundry on every Repub candidate came out. It was in the news for months and months. People in OK thought that the Dems might be able to capitalize on all the negative publicity on whoever won the primary and beat them over the head with it.

The Repub won, partly because of all the publicity about the race. The nasty race sharpened the odious Tom Coburn's political skills. He was a tougher and better campaigner because he had weathered a really nasty race and he won. (Alas and alack, but we have to look at how wins happen sometimes, even if we don't like the winner.)

Jim Webb is going to be one hell of a Senator. He was involved in one nasty race in Virginia where he was, at one point, likened to a child abuser because of something he had written in a fictional account of Vietnam. I think this made Webb a tougher guy. I think he has what it takes to not cave to forces on Capital Hill. He has been through the ringer once, he knows what it's like.

John Kerry is a better campaigner and politician than he was 4 years ago. He flat-out is better. He is more precise, tougher, more willing to take a difficult stance up front and more willing to vote his conscience, leadership be damned. He was one of only 2 Dems to vote against Condi Rice in the SFRC committee nomination hearings and 1 of only 13 in the Senate as a whole to turn her down. No problem. Sen. Kerry was wonderful in the 109th Congress, both in the Congress and out on the stump. His speeches had genuine fire in them, this was a guy who knew you gain nothing by holding back. Yes, there are risks, but the gains are amazing. Just amazing.

[rox63]

17. Agreed - JK is a better Senator and campaigner since 2004

As JK said himself, he's "tougher & skinnier", more battle-hardened then ever. That's what it takes to fight the rethug attack machine. But I also think of all the Dems who are attacking Dem candidates now, who may have to defend those same candidates later if they become the Dem nominee.

[rox63]

18. Interesting factoid about Edwards while he was in the Senate

Taken from this article about possible new Senate ethics rules about travel on corporate jets: http://www.realcities.com/mld/krwashington/news/nation/16466552.htm?source=rss&channel=krwashington_nation

-snip-

From 2001 to 2005, Lott spent $165,724 on corporate travel. That made him second only to former Sen. John Edwards, D-N.C., among more than 200 lawmakers using corporate jets. Edwards traveled a lot as he ran for president in 2003-04.

-snip-