The campaign claims to have found one question Hillary Clinton answered with a "yes" or a "no."
Now -- does the campaign have the cojones and the money to air this in Iowa?
« Boomerang Effect For Edwards And Obama? | Main | The Republican Race May Last Through March... » Here's The New Edwards Video05 Nov 2007 09:10 am Comments (14)
It looks like Hillary has some core convictions after all! 
Actually, a cheap editing job and a cheap shot would be the politics of pile on video and accompanying the spin that Hillary's was being attacked because of her gender. Her cheap shot was literally below the belt and not based at all in fact...all the contrasts were on issues and leadership and consistency - fair game. She had her campaign putting out the gender narrative while she disingenuously maintains plausible deniability for the strategy by contradicting her campaign latter. Hillary's coziness with Lobbyist is a legit issue and it is not cheap for edwards to do this.
HRC was also certain we were safer since 9/11. There is no editing required on that response. However, there is no doubt she would try to change or parse it now.
Last week, Edwards criticized Clinton for not giving a one word answer on drivers licenses for illegals. He argued that it was a yes or no answer. Yet, when Stephanopoulos asked Edwards the exact same question, Edwards couldn't himself answer the question with a yes or no, and instead used 88 words. Where's the outrage in the MSM over this?
Edwards really has no shame. He gave up his senate seat for a four year campaign to be our next president. Or was he afraid (just like Romney) he couldn't even hold the senate seat?
What killed Lazio in the 2000 debate was that he left his lecturn and physically invaded Hillary's space to try to get her to sign that pledge. Nothing that happened last tueday even approaches the visual of Lazio doing that. HIllary playing the victim worked in 2000 because we were only a few years out from impeachment and she had not cultivated the "strong" and "tough" image she has now. But now that she has gone to great lengths to prove she is macho enough to be president, including sending thousands of soldiers to an unnecessary death by enabling Bush on iraq, she just can't be the whiny victim when she is ahead in the polls and nobody is attcking her based on sex or gender...and nobody is invading her personal space in a debate. Look, if you Clinton folks really need to play up this victim card what you should do is leak another Clinton sex scandal to drudge and try to blame it on your opponents. Now that might work if you can keep your fingerprints off of it credibly.
You say he looked bad because he trudged across the stage and invaded her space-
John Edwards is the only one with courage to point out the facts. Bravo Edwards.
does the campaign have the cojones and the money to air this in Iowa? You know the answers are yes, and yes. The question is whether they'll need to or they'll want to. If it gets the exposure some of his other web videos have gotten, he may not need to. But also, and this is the part that most dc-based reporters seem to miss, the campaign is playing out very differently in early states, where Edwards' appeal is much more on policy and likeability.
re: Edwards on the Spitzer plan -- he said he was against it and then he admitted that, in his paragraph-full of follow-up answer, he gave the same answer she did. re: Lobbyist. Yes, lobbyists are real people too. Edwards will find this out when he talks to a few good nurses on the campaign trail. Not a very good idea to piss off real people, who just happen to also lobby the federal government on legislation. Re: Hillary's "Piling On' video and this comment: Her "accompanying spin" was that they were piling on because she is winning, not that they were piling on because of her gender. As my neighbor said, "Well, I heard a lot of guys SAY she said she was being attacked because of her gender. But I sure never actually heard HER say a single word about her gender in the video." So... Where did you get the idea that HER spin was that the guys were attacking her for her gender? Other Democratic candidates have her same exact stands on certain issues. Yet, no one kept referring to those Senators and their stands throughout the debate. Why not? Hillary Clinton is far and away the frontrunner, and she's only getting stronger (as of a new poll today, she's pulling away in Iowa now). I'll eat my hat if John Edwards' ad make one bit of difference, in terms of his support from any of the voters.
In order for your argument to have any credulity, you have to assume that Hillary and her campaign/surrogates/endorsers/pollsters are wholy independent entities and Hillary is not accountible for anything other than what comes out of her own mouth. Getting her lackeys to do her sexist dirty work for her does not mean she has no responsibility...it just means that like with so many issues, she is trying to have it both ways.
Selectively editing content from a Daily Kos forum? I wonder if this goes over well at Daily Kos, which is generally prone to excusing anything from the Edwards camp.
|
Subscribe to this blog by Email Twitter || On Facebook || QIK Live Channel  Recent Posts
Monthly Archives
|
| 
Copyright © 2009 by The Atlantic Monthly Group. All rights reserved.
They forgot the rest of her response, where she goes to list some of the lobbyists that are not all out for commercial corporate interests, such as labor unions that represent nurses, teachers, firefighters and police, and environmentalist groups, and other "special interest" groups that serve the common good. These are the same "real people" that represent some of the heroes Edwards is touting in his ads and email.
I was in the room, and this strikes me a cheap editing job and a cheap shot.
Posted by Jane | November 5, 2007 9:35 AM