Republican National Committee and John Edwards release ads hitting Clinton on debate performance

[DeepModem Mom]

CNN: November 2, 2007
RNC, Edwards hit Clinton on debate performance

WASHINGTON (CNN) — Democratic presidential frontrunner Hillary Clinton is coming under fire from both Democrats and Republicans in two new Web ads released Friday that focus on her debate performance earlier this week.

The Republican National Committee is out with an ad titled "Hillary Clinton: Long on rhetoric, short on answers," that edits together several different Washington pundits expressing criticism of the New York Democrat's answers at Tuesday's debate. Meanwhile, former North Carolina Sen. John Edwards launched a Web ad titled "The politics of parsing." It also featuring clips from the debate and accuses Clinton of "double-talk" on Iraq, social security, and immigration.

Responding to Edwards' Web ad, Clinton spokesman Isaac Baker said, "In 2004, John Edwards said, 'If you are looking for the candidate that will do the best job of attacking the other Democrats, I am not your guy.' But now that his campaign has stalled, he’s launching false attacks on his fellow Democrats."

"Voters will certainly be asking whether Mr. Edwards’ pledges to be positive in 2004 were anything more than just a political tactic," Baker added.

NOTE: Links to both ads appear within the text of the article at this link: http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2007/11/02/rnc-edwards-hit-clinton-on-debate-performance/

[mmonk]

1. And who's fault is that?

[rinsd]

2. LOL! the guy who pretends his Senate career never happened is calling Hillary a flipflopper?

:rofl:

[obnoxiousdrunk]

15. To be fair

he apologized for his entire senate career. He is starting out fresh.

[Tandalayo_Scheisskopf]

3. I just saw the Edwards ad on YouTube.

I thought it was well done, incisive and brought to bear some real points that are worthy of consideration. It was not a cheap hack attack.

[quinnox]

4. John Edwards together with the RNC with smear jobs on Hillary

Unfortunately this is how low Edwards has fallen.

[emilyg]

5. When you're that low in polls - you get desperate and nasty.

[quinnox]

6. yep

Edwards is grasping at straws.

[saracat]

7. Edwards has never been nasty. Hillary is not above reproach.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

9. I Used To Like Him And Had Even Contrubuted To All Three Of His Campaigns

He has become a toothache of a man...

[skiddlybop]

16. Yeah, I gave money when Coulter

called him a faggot, but no more. Not a penny more when he goes negative on someone who is not negative on him.

[quinnox]

22. I liked him too but now

he has shown his true colors and they aren't pretty. He is a phony, I see that now.

[saracat]

12. It is not a "smear" when it is the truth.Pointing out a candidates flaws is not a

"smear".Appaently Camp Hillary feels that any crticism or comparison of their candidate is a "smear" Implying a candidate is having an "affair" is a smear".How petty and sad they are.

[saracat]

8. Very misleading headline. Implies a joint effort.CNN should be smacked for bias.

[Bobbieo]

10. Another reason why I don't have cable TV!!!

[Cameron27]

14. It might as well be a joint effort.

A video that can be used against a potential nominee in the general is a slimy tactic by any Democrat in the primaries. He should be the LAST person to compare talking points. If Clinton put up side by side clips of his past and present speeches, it would be devastating.

[rinsd]

18. You're complaining about misleading?

:rofl:

[Mend]

11. I just unsubscribed to his emails....I will support any of the candidates

who is chosen, but I will not read negative trash. I don't have rush limpballs on my radio, I don't watch orally on faux news, and I don't need Mr. Edwards bashing a Democrat. I hope he doesn't cost her votes in the general election if she does become the candidate.

[saracat]

13. I'll bet you didn't even see the commercial.

[skiddlybop]

19. He unsubscribed, I'm sure, as I did too

when Edwards SENT OUT THE COMMERCIAL to every single one of his contributors by e-mail, okay? We saw it, alright.

Oh, if only John Edwards had attacked this hard when he was running against, um, Bush and Cheney.

Let's post Edwards' debate with Cheney and see how shiny Cheney's shoes were afterward with Edwards' spit.

My rule is: if you ever attack a Democratic candidate harder than a Republican, you ARE disqualified.

Good riddance.

[saracat]

21. Small loss. You never supported him to begin with. You second point betrays you

I am still on Hillarys list so I can keep up with the crap she spews. Staying silent in the face of her manipulations is not an option. And BTW, Edwards as well as the other candidates is running in the Democratic primary, that means his opponents are Democrats.

[skiddlybop]

25. I supported him as a gay man

when he has never supported me.

I had to support his ass when he was attacked and he supports keeping me as a second-class citizen. Small loss for the Constitution, stupid.

Why didn't he attack Bush and Cheney this way?

He had his chance and millions of dollars from people like me.

I won't give another penny to see him shoot down other Democrats.

[saracat]

33. So Democrats aren't supposed to campign against one another in the primary? What do you want a

coronation? Edwards is discussing "issues" this is not "negative trash" .Do you want all of them to just smile and hand the Queen her scepter?

And BTW, as a woman I have supported Hillary (years ago) and she has embarrassed and diminished my gender. I sent her husband money when I couldn't afford it. Now she victimized herself and equates herself with the victims of real gender discrimination . I will never support her ever.Democrat or not.If she ends up with the nod, I will try to pull the lever but I will not suppor her.She is an outrage to every true feminist.And I do not see any evidence the Hillary is forcefully attacking Bush and Cheney either. She just votes right along with what they want , and that is no samll loss for the constitution. Hillary is keeping ALL of us second class citizens.

[skiddlybop]

34. Campaign, yes, negative attack ads, no.

Please refund the money I sent Edwards. I had no idea he would use it to attack another Democrat who might get the nomination.

I wish he put out a video against Coulter that was so vicious and damaging. See, he's already convinced you not to vote for Hillary ever. I wish he'd used my money to destroy Coulter as effectively.

But I guess that's not his point. I understand now.

[saracat]

36. I had already decided not to vote for Hillary in the Primary.I was disgusted by

what she and her people did to Kerry in 2004.Edwards didn't need to convince me of anything but he is right to make this call. I don't like Zell Miller either and he is a Dem too.Should we not say anything about him? What about George Wallace?

[skiddlybop]

37. Rest, honey.

Hillary was running in 2004? you're dreaming.

And now you compare her to Zell Miller and George Wallace. Wish Edwards had put hundreds of millions of dollars attacking them instead of attacking Hillary this way.

Why didn't he fight so hard against Bush and Cheney when he had the chance? Explain that.

[saracat]

40. Your dreaming if you don't know what happened behind the scenes in 2004.

Just pointing out that ALL Democrats, using Miller and Wallace as examples,are not above reproach.Hillary is just as accountable as a Repuke and I want her feet held to the fire. I will not "silently" appease her.I applaud Edwards for taking her on. Why is she whining? I thought she was supposed to be a streetfighter who could handle the RW machine and she is whining about an opponent? The question is not why Edwards didn't fight against Cheney and Bush then the question is why Hillary won't NOW. Hillary has her chance NOW and she is still supporting them with her votes. Why?

[skiddlybop]

41. Why did Edwards

allow black voters in Ohio to be disenfranchised?

Why?

[jmp]

27. "I will not read negative trash."

How do you stay so well informed with your head buried in the sand like that? :eyes:

[Mend]

39. I read DU, watch KO, and I swear allegiance to the Democratic Party....I know

the candidates have their warts. But they are Democrats and so will be their nominations to the Supreme Court, the cabinet, etc. I have had enough repukism to last the rest of my life. It is painful to hear family beat up on family. Mr. Edwards is a better man than this...if winning means beating up your sister, leave me out of it.

[monmouth]

17. John Edwards would do well to concentrate on his own faltering

campaign and leave Hillary to hers. He still reminds me of a used car salesman...

[MGKrebs]

20. If Edwards doesn't denounce the RNC,

does that mean he supports them?

[rinsd]

23. Oooooooo

:spank:

[jmp]

24. "... he’s launching ... attacks on his fellow Democrats."

Hillary is a DLCer ... not a Democrat.

[More Than A Feeling]

26. What I'm hearing is that you'd all like John Edwards better if he quietly accepted the status quo.

That's not the mantra of a movement that's ready to make real change. That's the credo petrified of rocking the boat. Even if another Democrat is elected, they will be free to do as little as they want, if We, the People are too haunted by the spectre of the Republicans to demand real progress.

What exactly are we doing here? Are we just trying to slow down the inevitable? If that's the case, then yes, any Democrat will do. If we are trying to actually have a chance at a real future, better than the one we received from our parents, then we need someone who isn't afraid to trust the American people to follow as he or she makes the real, bold changes necessary to have a fighting shot.

So which is it?

[jmp]

28. They want a Clinton coronation. Dissent is to be crushed.

They would fit in well in the Bush administration.

[Cameron27]

30. You're not hearing what's being said.

Imagine if every candidate put out an edited video that cut down another Democratic candidate in this primary. It's easy to do, they all have plenty of BS to use against them, but it's a cheap and self-defeating tactic that WILL be used by the RWingers in the general. It won't cost them a dime, it's all been packaged for them.

[MGKrebs]

35. The candidates are just a reflection of whether WE are ready for change.

It is highly unlikely, in my opinion, any sort of revolution will come from within presidential campaign politics. It's just math; Candidates who win must appeal to the most amount of voters. If the voters aren't ready for whatever change Edwards (or whoever) is selling, they will not support them. We have to create progressive victories at the local and state level and build on that. Then presidential candidates will respond to our mandate.

Having said all that, I don't believe Edwards stands for real change anyway.

[zalinda]

29. If this video was cuts of different time periods

like different years, it would be underhanded. But this was at the same debate minutes a part, a big difference. Many people did not watch the debate, so pointing this out is not slimy, it's smart. I still don't know what she stands for, it keeps changing. And her vote on Iran, killed it for me.

And yet, people here will bring up what Edwards said in 2004 and compare it to what he says in 2007, and that's not an attack? In 3 years, you can learn a lot. But Clinton's gaff took place in 3 minutes, but she is above "attack"?

I don't have a vote in the primary, it will be decided long before I would get to vote. But, you Hillary supporters, if she gets the nod and becomes President, I hope you are ready to reap what you've sown. I don't think it will be pretty.

zalinda

[skiddlybop]

32. The above post is proof positive

of the anti-Hillary brainwashing by the right.

How anybody can say that Hillary would be other than 50 times the President that Bush ever was proves it.

Predicting that Hillary or any Democratic candidate would be a disaster is off the table, because of the terrible alternative.

That's where Edwards has lost my support and where the apologists here have a big blind spot.

Again, Edwards had his chance, and hundreds of millions of dollars to spend to attack Republicans and failed. Now he attacks Hillary and has apologists saying she would be no better than Bush?

[zalinda]

42. That's a bunch of BS

Clinton is my Senator, and I'd vote for her for Senator again. But I don't want her to be President. I don't like her positions. I went to HER web site and read what she stood for, or at least what I thought she said she stood for, and I didn't like it. And, she lost me altogether on her Iran vote. I am afraid she will continue along the war path. I am also afraid that we may lose the slim majority that we have in DC right now. If at any time we lose the majority, we will have a Whitewater all over again, they will tie her up in knots.

If you don't like Edwards, don't vote for him. I like Hillary as a Senator, but I don't like her positions as President. I was quite undecided until about a month ago. I looked at each candidate, their debates and their positions. Since this is the only political forum I go to, and KO on occasion, when he's posted, is the only news I watch, and Randi Rhodes or Rachael Maddow is the only radio I listen to, how could I've gotten RW talking points.

This is not an attack, on Clinton. This is showing what she is. She dances around seemingly every issue. I wanted someone who would say, this is who I am, this is what I'm going to do and this is how I'm going to do it. Clinton has said none of this! That is one of the reasons I can't support her.

To say that I had been influenced in my thinking is disingenuous at best, and insulting at worse.

BTW, if Edwards is elected and turns out that he isn't what he says he is, I will be one of the first to say I'm sorry I voted for him.

zalinda

[sniffa]

31. good

her performance was pathetic.

here's the first rec.

[PurityOfEssence]

38. Yes, boys and girls, today's greasiness word is "CONFLATION"

Gosh, when reading this thread title, one would almost believe that Edwards was in league with the RNC. That's amusing; if he approached, they'd probably release the hounds.