Did Richardson actually attack Hillary Clinton when he was saying to stop attacking?

[zulchzulu]

I say yes.

Actually, I wish Bill Richardson all the best in his campaign and hope his grassroots supporters are out there having a good time and doing what they want to do. But what has been bugging me about some people saying that Richardson was not attacking Hillary Clinton and wanted to stop the "negative attacks" actually doesn't jibe with what his full statement about that issue said. I highlighted where he actually "attacks her" (correctly I might add):

Richardson: No, and I'm positive. You know what I'm hearing here? I'm hearing this holier than thou attitude towards Senator Clinton that -- it's bothering me because it's pretty close to personal attacks that we don't need. Do we trust her? Do we -- did she take money from special interests?

We need to be positive in this campaign. Yes, we need to point out our differences. And I have big differences with her over the war -- I would get all our troops out -- over No Child Left Behind -- I'd get rid of it. I also have differences over Iran. I think that was the wrong vote for her to cast because I think it was saber-rattling.

But I think it's important that we save the ammunition for the Republicans. If we continue, I believe, harping on the past and not focusing on the future -- look, the reality on the electability issue is, the last senator that was elected president was 40 years ago.

Look, the reality on the electability issue is, the last senator that was elected president was 40 years ago. His name was John F. Kennedy.

We elect governors as president. Seven out of the last eight have been either governors or ex-governors.

And my view is that I know how to bring people together. More than all the issues that we're talking about it's who can govern, who can manage.

I'm the only CEO in this race. I've balanced budgets. I've provided health care to kids under 12. I've improved education. I've got foreign policy experience. I've negotiated with foreign countries as a diplomat, as a hostage negotiator.

Yes, I do think it is substantially more than my colleagues, although they have a strong record.

But the important thing is that we need to stay positive. We need to have disagreement on the issues, not on whether you can trust -- I trust Senator Clinton, but I don't agree with her on a majority of issues.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21528787/

Aren't you in fact "attacking" a candidate when you make a point that can be seen as a negative in the statement? It seems pretty obvious to me.

I agree with what he said, but the notion that he was "above the fray" in scrutinizing Clinton's record and opinions is half-baked.

[Bolo Boffin]

1. I say no.

The first statement you have highlighted is something Richardson is just quoting for examples of personal attacks that others are making. The senator/electibility comment is something slamming all the other candidates on the stage, not just Hillary - and that's more a rebuke for even bringing the "electibility" issue up.

Attacking a person's record and positions isn't a personal attack.

[maximusveritas]

7. That's how I read it too

The first statement sounds like what Edwards has been saying, so Richardson was just providing that as an example of an attack that crosses the line. He then goes on to highlight his differences with Hillary in a respectful manner. I don't see anything wrong with that.

[jillan]

2. I thought he did. After he said we should be positive, he made a laundry list of things he didn't

agree with her on. I was cracking up watching him.

[ginchinchili]

3. Yes, but he did so very tactfully. Smart guy.

[karynnj]

4. I took it like you did - and thought it was weird

or that it was meant to be droll and sarcastic, but there was no signal that that was his intention - but all your highlights are jabs.

[Inspired]

5. You'd think he was Hillary's knight in white shining

armour by all the kudos he is receiving from the Hillary supporters.

But......

What did Edwards say, or Obama say, that Richardson didn't say?

Maybe Richardson was the biggest hypocrite of all?

[Carrieyazel]

6. Richardson was taking a page from BILL Clinton. He DID place himself "above the fray."

Edwards and Dodd were doing the slamming of Hillary and getting it done. He didn't need to.

He did put himself above the fray, though, while definitely criticizing her, that's how it appeared to me. To once again differentiate himself from Hillary and the rest. The OP does however make an intriguing case. I can see what you're getting at.

Certainly though, the foolish idea that he "came to the defense of Hillary" is the lame-brained MSM interpretation. Hillary supporters aren't much better, if they think that's what Richardson did.

Use some imagination for pete's sake, Hillbots!

[JI7]

8. i guess Richardson's was more based on specific issues

and the others probably came off as more personal.

[Joe the Revelator]

9. Who cares if attacked her or didn't attack her?

I just don't get this entire argument. This is politics, not patty-cake.