You Clinton hacks are relentless in your hackery.
Thanks for your "concern."
Now step aside so somebody electable, somebody who puts his positions IN WRITING, can be the nominee.
Idiots.
Posted by RAM at November 15, 2007 06:01 AM"The planted question."
Oh, like George never did that, or use a phony reporter to ask planted questions. Jeez
Posted by Judith at November 15, 2007 06:07 AMSen. Edwards criticized Clinton for "events that are staged" where "people are screened". The first one is true about all campaigns and the second claim was untrue. No one is disputing that George Bush had planted questions, but the similarity ends there. My comment is that Edwards' criticism of Clinton was over the top because he accused her of doing things she did not do.
George Bush's trademark is lying. I don't see Edwards or Obama supporters falling over each other to claim that their candidate is like George Bush on that, given they have been making false claims about Sen. Clinton. So, I think some humility and less hypocrisy is in order.
Posted by eriposte at November 15, 2007 06:53 AMFunny how you try and spin this to make Edwards look like Bush instead of Clinton. You failed to make a plausible comparison.
Sounds like a desperate attempt to bash Edwards.
Posted by georgeandweezie at November 15, 2007 06:57 AMFunny how you are willing to accept Edwards acting like George Bush when it comes to lying about an opponent but you have deep concerns about Clinton acting like George Bush. I'm thrilled that there are so many "objective" and "principled" Edwards supporters out there.
Posted by eriposte at November 15, 2007 07:00 AMI'm not aware of any lies Mr. Edwards has told about Clinton or any other cadidates. All I see is a bunch of blog entries claiming that he mislead his audience.
BTW: I'm not committed to any candidate, I know I do not support the DLC favorite pick HRC.
Posted by georgeandweezie at November 15, 2007 07:19 AMI'm thrilled that there are so many "objective" and "principled" Edwards supporters out there.
Been to dKos lately? The Edwards supporters there make God of War up top here look like wussies.
Posted by iamcoyote at November 15, 2007 07:37 AMThe Clinton supporters at Dkos are convinced Hillary walks on water.
Posted by georgeandweezie at November 15, 2007 07:46 AMGeorgeandweezie, OK I believe you when you say you are only a Hillary non-supporter and appreciate your candor. Unlike the positions of some supporters of Edwards or Obama, to me that doesn't automatically disqualify your criticisms of HRC because I certainly appreciate a debate on criticisms on the *merits*.
As I explained in this post, in my previous one on this topic and in the comment section above, Edwards claimed Clinton was like Bush and trotted out how Bush screened visitors. He did not provide any evidence that Clinton screened visitors. The evidence shows she doesn't and she routinely accepts and answers difficult questions. You can call this "misleading" but this is strong enough to me to constitute lying. George Bush also "misleads" all the time and sometimes we call it lying.
I have a deep aversion to Democratic candidates calling each other liars or comparing each other to George Bush. That's the crux of what I'm trying to address in this post and some of the other ones that I posted earlier this week. It's time to stop doing that. There are many other valid issue-based citicisms that they can and should be engaging in. But character attacks and likening others to George Bush is not acceptable.
Posted by eriposte at November 15, 2007 07:46 AMAgreed, the senselss character attacks by candidates is nauseating and should be beneath any viable candidate.
I do think there is some good in hammering the inevitable winner of the primary on legitimate policy matters such as Free Trade, War, economic equality etc.. Something that there is definitely not enough of.
Posted by georgeandweezie at November 15, 2007 07:55 AMThe Clinton supporters at Dkos are convinced Hillary walks on water.
And everyone else thinks she's the devil. I get it. It's all really very silly considering we're all the same side (mostly). The burning of bridges during the primary seems rather self-defeating for us, which is eriposte's point.
Posted by iamcoyote at November 15, 2007 08:04 AMTo iamcoyote: I have to disagree to a point. I think there is some good in criticizing 'ALL' the candidates if it's legitimate. I, like most people who visit Dkos and here are very much disappointed with our Democrats. Now, during an election cycle is one of the only oppurtunities we have to voice this disappointment and maybe be heard.
Posted by georgeandweezie at November 15, 2007 08:18 AMI think there is some good in criticizing 'ALL' the candidates if it's legitimate.
And that's the point. The critism should be legitimate. I know it's hard for the candidates when the media wants to talk about hair and cleavage, but going along with them, or saying outrageous shit to get their attention is not the way to do it, IMO.
Frankly, I don't get the impression the candidates really care about our disappointment, either. They know we'll vote for whichever Dem makes the cut to avoid getting another GOP warmonger in the WH. All of this garbage is for the less informed public that'll be voting in '08.
Posted by iamcoyote at November 15, 2007 08:40 AMThey know we'll vote for whichever Dem makes the cut to avoid getting another GOP warmonger in the WH.
All the more reason to hammer them during the primary season. At least this way we may be able to alter policy in a small way.
Posted by georgeandweezie at November 15, 2007 09:00 AMI guess I'm not as sanguine about our being able to change policy in any way, really. The Dems have been happy to take netroot money, and slowly, they're seeing us as a force to think about, but so far, they're taking our votes for granted because we have no choice. I accept that, myself, I don't really need them to listen to everything I say. My local rep is very open to his constituency, so that's where my suggestions go most of the time. I'm lucky in my state being very blue, too.
Posted by iamcoyote at November 15, 2007 09:33 AMI'm embarrassed for progressives everywhere these days. Obama supports drivers' licenses of immigrants but uses Clinton's reasonable answer at the last debate regarding Spitzer's proposal in NY to attack her. Hypocrisy. Edwards is attacking Clinton for a campaign planted question, when I swear I have seen questions at Edwards rallies that were clearly 'planted' by his campaign staffers. Hypocrisy. Moreover, saying you won't support the DEMOCRATIC NOMINEE is no different than what some Democrats (Chuck Schumer and Mary Landrieu) did to Ned Lamont when he won the Democratic primary to run for Senate and, instead of supporting Lamont, Schumer and Landrieu stuck by their old pal Joe Lieberman. Hypocrisy. If John Edwards thinks he can get away with that with support from progressives, then not only is HE a hypocrite, but so are you all.
I was originally an Edwards supporter for the primary, but I have always qualified that statement by saying I would definitely support whoever the Democratic Party chooses as their nominee. I stand by that statement, with one caveat: The wingnuttery going on within the leftist blogosphere these days with constant hypocrisy and smear attacks on Hillary Clinton--whose record of supporting the Democratic Party platform is really quite substantial--has motivated me to read Clinton's record more closely. I find I am very supportive of Clinton; more so every day.
Posted by brighid at November 15, 2007 09:41 AMLike I said earlier, why the hell are reporters asking the questions that prompted this bs to begin with?
Why did the other candidates entertain the question in the first place? I think Edwards response was the correct one, to blow off the reporter entirely. How he did it with each and every fucking word is irrelevent.
So long as the candidates allow the media to make the campaign all about Hillary Clinton, every big and little way they can, then we continue to be uninformed. This is not a sporting event, the most votes ever or the mon=mentum going into the next race ad fucking nauseum serves no purpose but the gop and their whore media.
Brighid's comment that they have seen planted questions at Edwards rallies buggers belief. Prove it. That's the thing about Hillary, it was proved true. Big difference.
Nor do I see Edwards response as over the top, nor, especially, if we really want to parse words here, that he said Hillary is like Bush. He equated her tactics to bush's tactics, and those are not the same comparisons, tactics versus being.
Again, how many votes have been cast for the Democratic Presidential nominee? How many delegates awarded?
I prefer Edwards to Clinton, I think that he is far less indebted to corporations than she, less enamored of globalization as she, certainly with far less handles that the gop can string their batshit insane attacks on, because she has far greater name recognition than John Edwards, hence the polls in her favor. especially the general popularity type polls.
As I've said many times, any Democrat is acceptable to any Republic, for appointment of Supreme Court Justices and appointments to the executive branch. The talent pools are vastly different, no matter how heinous you may think Hillary Clinton is, or Biden or Edwards or Obama, the people that are goingto fill all of those Justice Department slots are going to be a far cry from the Monica Goodlings and Lurita Doans of the world.
That's a given, hence questions about endorsing a Democrat after the nomination is irreleven, specious, and meant to frame the debate the way the gdf corporate media wants it.
Posted by Duckman GR at November 15, 2007 11:35 AMDID Bill Clinton support the Democratic Nominee "Ted Lamont" in Nov. 2006???
Posted by mmm at November 15, 2007 12:34 PMWas he running for president of the country?
Posted by iamcoyote at November 15, 2007 01:12 PMDID Bill Clinton support the Democratic Nominee "Ted Lamont" in Nov. 2006???
"Ted Lamont"?
Obviously YOU didn't support him or you'd know his name.
Posted by snark at November 15, 2007 02:00 PM