Edwards: "Mudslinging" Against Clinton Is "Milquetoast"

[babylonsister]

'Mudslinging' against Clinton: This is 'milquetoast'

by Mark Silva

Former Sen. John Edwards, who ran for president in 2004 with an unfailingly upbeat campaign and then joined the ticket of his party’s nominee, has come back this fall with a fighting edge – an edge which Sen. Hillary Clinton has likened to “throwing mud… right out of the Republican playbook.’’

“I don’t think so,’’ Edwards said of the complaint which Clinton lodged about his criticism for her in the debate of the Democrat candidates in Las Vegas last week. “The idea that that this is mudslinging... We’re talking about substantive issues of war,’’ Edwards said on CBS News’ Face the Nation today. “If anybody, including Sen. Clinton, thinks this is mudslinging – this is milquetoast, compared to what we’re going to see next fall.’’

The question remains of what impact a primary campaign like this will have on the November 2008 election. Some of what Edwards has to say about the senator from New York – calling her part of a political culture of corruption – is the stuff of campaign commercials. Should Clinton win the nomination, words like Edwards’ are likely to recycle through the campaign with 1,500 points of TV ad-purchasing power behind them.

Edwards stopped short today of calling Clinton unelectable – “I wouldn’t say those things,’’ the North Carolinian said. “As to who can best be elected… I’m the candidate who actually has won in a red state… I think I can go any place in the country and compete, and I’ll let Sen. Clinton make the case for herself.’’

But Edwards was even more pointed about Clinton's mudslinging charge in an interview today with Wolf Blitzer on CNN's Late Edition. "It's complete nonsense... This is not mud... It's absurd.''

"Using poll-tested slogans is not an answer,'' Edwards said of Clinton's own debate tactics. "What we're doing now is complete milquetoast compared to what's coming.... What we're doing now is making sure the Democratic voters know what our respective positions are.''

more...

http://www.swamppolitics.com/news/politics/blog/2007/11/mudslinging_against_clinton_th.html

[Gloria]

1. Agree totally with JE on this one...

[MethuenProgressive]

25. The polls told Edwards to start slinging mud, and so he did.

Using her name and the word "corrupt" is the same sentence at every opportunity isn't mudslinging?
What jury is he trying to con now?

edit to add quote from the Newsweek story:

Even so, Edwards is mindful of a backlash against his attacks. NEWSWEEK has learned that his campaign quietly conducted internal polls to see how his new tone is playing. (Aides say their numbers show it hasn't hurt him.) Bob Shrum, who managed the John Kerry–Edwards campaign in 2004, says Edwards's efforts could backfire. Right now, Obama and Edwards are splitting the anti-Clinton vote. But, Shrum says, if Edwards "goes heavily on the attack he may end up hurting Hillary, hurting himself and helping Obama."

[slick8790]

28. But still, whether you consider this mudslinging or not

It's gonna be nothing compared to what the repubs are gonna try to throw at us next year. I think that's his point.

[saracat]

2. Tell it John! You rock and the RW media candidate is whining again!

Trouble is, some are too busy slingging mud themselves to respond to honest debate. Differing with your opponent is not mud slinging.It is a shame some don't know the difference. Edwards is the truth teller of this campign.Kudos to DK as well but John is the real peoples candidate.

[brazos121200]

3. Clinton better get used to the criticisms of the

other candidaes because whatever they dish out will be childs play compared to what the Repubs will dish out when the campaign gets underway. If Hillary can't take it we need to know it now, so bring it on, I say, to all the other candidates. Give her hell and let's see how she takes it. Karl Rove has already taken aim at Hillary, calling her "possibly fatally flawed", so we know she is already in their sights. If there is anything out there we need to know about Hillary or any of the other candidates I want to know it now, not after the candidate has been nominated.

[creeksneakers2]

17. Early impressions matter far more than later ones

Edwards is trying to define Hillary as corrupt. Its bullshit and it can hurt the nominee and Edwards doesn't care one bit.

[venable]

29. it is not bs, that's the problem. it's true. look at her money. tells all. nt

[Andy823]

33. Not answering the questions

Will "also" hurt her if she gets the nomination. Waffling on the issues will hurt her. And if you think the republicans have to rely on what has been said about her by the other dems, Edwards and Obama, to take her down, your sadly mistaken. They have so much stuff on her, and they are just waiting to use it, that what Edwards and Obama has said mean nothing. Besides what has been brought out so far is not "mudslinging", it' simple the facts, and if she can't handle the "facts" she needs to do us all and drop out now.

[creeksneakers2]

38. They've been saying that for fifteen years n/t

[oasis]

44. "They have so much stuff on her". Get real. Rethugs have shot their wad in the

manufacturing of "Bad Hillary Stuff".

Now, so-called Democrats want to have a turn a taking pot-shots.

[JDPriestly]

36. Edwards is by no means the first to label the Clintons as corrupt.

Have you forgotten the scandals about the overnights in the Lincoln bedroom. In his book, "See No Evil," Robert Baer discusses information he was provided about Bill Clinton taking money from questionable sources. It may be untrue, but the stories are out there and will be circulated in the right-wing press. See pages 248 -- 255 (allegations of money given by a Lieutenant Colonel Liu Chao Ying purportedly of the Chinese military intelligence -- $20,000 of which is, again alleged, to have been given to the DNC) -- 260-261 (allegations of Clinton ties to Tamraz who claimed to have "bought access to the White House," and about which Robert Baer apparently spoke to a Laura Ingersol in a pre-grand jury session). This is just one example of the problems the Clintons have had with fundraising scandals. I cannot judge the truth of the accusations, but I have to say that the Clintons have been accused of being corrupt for a long time. The Republicans will come up with much worse stuff than Edwards' vague language. Hillary supporters had better be ready for what will face them if she becomes the nominee. It is going to be very, very tough for the Democratic Party if Hillary is the nominee.

[creeksneakers2]

39. If the GOP had anything they'd use it now.

Even if they wanted to hold ammo for later they couldn't do it. They go too gaga over Hillary slander and couldn't keep it a secret.

The fund raising scandal you bring up sounds familiar. It probably was debunked long ago.

The Clintons have some immunity from GOP allegations. The GOP brought up so many lies that half the country or more no longer listens to anything the GOP has to say about the Clintons. Edwards they might listen to.

Oh, and the Lincoln bedroom wasn't a scandal. Bush lets donors sleep in it to this day. Nothing illegal about it. I'd much rather have the Clinton's renting a bedroom than Bush renting out the whole government.

[Evergreen Emerald]

4. please..he's been calling her a liar and a republican

and when she called him on it at the debate he caved. She can stand up to anything he dishes out...and I do want to see where he stands this week on the issues and what the differences are/were.

[journalist3072]

6. Agree totally! eom

[incapsulated]

7. He backed down

Like the yipping little dog at her ankles that he is.

[creeksneakers2]

19. "I'm not perfect ....wwwaaaaahhhh" n/t

[William769]

10. He got knocked on his ass then kept his mouth shut.

But now that he not one on one, he's running his mouth again. Talk about a wuss!

[hijinx87]

5. milquetoast?

:eyes:

[KittyWampus]

8. Well, what's coming IF Edwards gets the nomination is an ass-whopping as the GOP use his record

as Senator and candidate in 04 against him.

It's bad enough Edwards has decided to switch to being a populist this late in the game.

Maybe if that's where he'd been from the start, he'd be electable.

[incapsulated]

9. The repukes would have a field day with him

Remember calling Kerry a flip-flopper?

Jesus, this guy has flipped nearly every single previous stance he had as a Senator.

The script will write itself, who is this guy and who will he be tomorrow? Your guess is as good as mine.

[saracat]

12. And they wouldn't against any Democrat? Look at their field.Flip flopper? Who are they to talk?

And if you really listen to 2003 and today you really will not find much of a change.Even the late great Molly Ivins described Edwards as a "populist" in 2003.

[sendero]

31. Where have you been..

... this has ALWAYS been Edwards position, remember "two Americas"?

Please, stop making stuff up.

[xchrom]

11. my disclaimer -- i do not have a candidate -- but he is right

about this.

this is the political season -- and compared to how it could be -- no -- this is not mudslinging on his part.

if a candidate has an uncomfortable point to make about another -- now is the time.

let's look at it -- and may the best candidate emerge.

[qazplm]

13. all of our candidates will get slammed

none of them are flawless, or 100% consistent, all have weak areas, so while Edwards is right in a sense, I hope he understands that he has a score of open wounds waiting for salt himself.

[Evergreen Emerald]

14. He has been mudslinging--and apparently does not like it when she responds.

There is a difference between talking about the issues and calling her a liar and a republican and that she refuses to tell the truth about where she stands..

And then he lies about his positions on Iraq and on healthcare and on his prior positions before he reinvented himself.

And then he complains when she responds...

I sm disappointed in Edwards.

[Cameron27]

15. He doesn't like getting booed at either.

[venable]

30. by plants, no. other candidate's supporters were less boorish. did you notice?

would you like to tell us how what he said is not true?

does she take money from defense and health insurance lobby interests? if so, corrupt is correct.

care to argue that?

[Cameron27]

35. Until you have proof that those were Clinton's plants

there's nothing to argue. Why is Edwards the only candidate who won't reveal anything about his bundled money? Care to argue that.

[venable]

37. show the bundled money, please, or does it suffice to say the term?

again, please, some hrc supporter tell me what policy of hers attracts. what does she espouse that others don't, that attracts your support?

i've asked for weeks, and not gotten one single answer.

as for plants - yes, these are hrc supporters, and they booed. the supporters for the other candidates didn't boo. hence the boorishness charge.

if they weren't hrc supporters but just kind folk who don't like negative talk, why did they not boo when hrc said things like the attacks on her were from the right wing playbook, which is, in fact, mud

[Cameron27]

40. She hasn't attracked my vote yet,

and you've got nothing but gossipy inuendo about those plants. I've emailed his campaign about that bundled money. You don't get to talk about corporate Democrats, and special interest money, and then state that you're not tracking your own bundled money, so you don't have the data to reveal anything.

[venable]

41. let's drop the word plant and agree that her supporters were the only ones booing

so, fine, they weren't plants (I guess?) but they were boors and threw off the debate, and dominated the post debate coverage.


as for bundled money, what bundled money?



so, she doesn't have your vote, but I must reiterate that I've been waiting, asking, pleading for anything substantive from her supporters, one by one...anything besides 'she's winning and your guy isn't'. I've gotten nothing back.

[AtheistInBabylon]

16. Whatever one thinks of Edwards,

he's right about this. Calling a few obvious criticisms that have to be accounted for anyway (regardless of Edwards' own inconsistencies) "mudslinging" and "straight out of the GOP playbook" after what have generally been tame, anodyne debates where only a couple of people get to speak doesn't suggest the right kind of attitude for when the real shit hits the fan next year. That goes for all the candidates; they're doing themselves a huge disservice if they think playing along with this sterilized format that encourages the papering over of everything is preparing them for next year. I know not all of them are guilty of it, but some of them certainly are. It's not mudslinging to engage a political opponent on issues, regardless of who is correct on those issues, regardless of who turns out to be the better candidate and eventual nominee, and regardless of whether the candidates really do loathe each other; it is, as Edwards said, absurd to think that.

[Cameron27]

18. If he thought it was absurd

he shouldn't have backed down during the debate, and he should have come out swinging hard on Face the Nation. He didn't do either, so who's the real milquetoast in this race.

[AtheistInBabylon]

21. Sure,

but he's a politician; he made a calculation when he was up there in the moment that it was working against him - rightly or wrongly, as anyone would. Doesn't make him wrong for making a comment subsequently that, more than just going after Clinton, suggests part of what's wrong with how the whole nomination process has been going thus far (and by that I'm not implying anything about Clinton being ahead).

[Cameron27]

23. That's true, they're both politicians,

but he's gone over the line in character assassination by innuendo IMO, and it's not only Clinton who gets targeted, it the whole Democratic party. He speaks in code, but everyone 'gets' what he's saying, and then he backs down when he's called on it.

I don't care if they blast each other silly over the issues, but you don't do damage to the party or to the party's nominee, who of course, may not be him.

[AtheistInBabylon]

24. Fair enough.

If those are your concerns, I can understand what you're saying. I don't personally think damage is done to the eventual nominee or the party by some robust or even rough comments, unless by damage you mean giving the GOP talking points (which, to be fair, I think they can figure out on their own - that's pretty much the only thing they're good at - real mudslinging). Damage would be if he or anyone else goes and becomes a liability to the nominee and the party once the nominee is selected. I mean, as Edwards himself has demonstrated, it doesn't necessarily work in one's favor either. I tend to look at it as him pretty much backed into a corner at this point, so he feels he has to do whatever he can to break out; the voters will deliver judgment on whether it's the right call. The thing I was commenting on was that I generally feel this whole afair has been way too docile and we could all end up paying for it, so I agree with him on the thought that his comments were nothing in comparison to what's to come.

I do realize you're talking about Edwards in general and what you find distasteful. I just don't blame him for trying; his methods are another discussion altogether.

[bellasgrams]

22. Edwards has lost me.

Richardson is #1 today, Hillary #2, Biden #3, but that may change, depending on who dishes the most dirt instead of re-enforcing their own goals.

[creeksneakers2]

20. Edwards must have stunk up the whole set

Anybody who isn't an Edwards supporter would see that Edwards got the beating he deserved today. He tries to claim his campaign is just bringing out honest divisions. Then there is this exchange:

Is Clinton herself corrupt, CBS host Bob Schieffer asked Edwards.

“No, I’ve never said that,’’ said Edwards, saying that “very good people get pulled into’’ the influence-peddling culture of Washington. “I myself am guilty… I’ve turned my head myself,’’ he said. But “I do believe that we have to weed that corruption out of the system and make it work for the majority of Americans.’’

First Edwards says he isn't calling her corrupt, then he calls her corrupt. Only he's too much of a weasel to say it directly.

Then Edwards is forced to admit he's no better. Could he be more of a lying finger pointing hypocrite? Doesn't he know people can see that?

Edwards slung mud during the debate,in his ads, in his personal appearances, on the campaign trail and here on the Internet. He's earned his reputation as a mud slinging lying finger pointing hypocrite. That's what they asked him about this morning and that's what he'll be asked about everywhere he goes.

Single digits will look great on Edwards.

[Morereason]

34. Edwards won me over during this debate. I was one of those undecided

If you search back you will see that in the past I have critisized him strongly at times. But he is the only candidate in the lead arena that is speaking truth to power.

I believe he has decided not just to take a chance with brutal honesty, but I also believe he is really concerned about the takover in Washington and wants to elevate it in the debate.

If it were only Clinton and Obama in the debate it would sound like the only thing that is wrong in Washington is bad decision making and we just need better "Deciders" in the presidency.

Those who think he is "losing points" are wrong. He is scoring BIG time because people WANT to increase the discussion of corporate fascism in Washington!

[Amanita]

26. Edwards talking about the war - like the leper talking about skin creams

There must be another issue to attack her with, is there? :shrug:

[AzDar]

27. Exactly WHEN did pointing out one's opponents' differing positions

become 'mudslinging'?

I suppose when Hillary's focus-group-tested, vetted-'til-it-bleeds, word-regulating campaign panel says it did...:puke:

[Desertrose]

32. Interesting to see which candidates tell it like it is.

Go John. :)

DR

[illinoisprogressive]

42. After that interview, Blitzer and co. were not very nice about Edwards

[surfermaw]

43. areyou suprised that Blitzer is after Edwards

He has been trying from day one to bring down John Edwards, but in the end it will be Blitzer kicked from CNN....

[McCamy Taylor]

45. Edwards is doing it for love, I think that explains the "all's fair", but his tactics could blow up

in his face. The people who like the nice, friendly, upbeat Edwards may be turned off by the pit bull Edwards. Right now, he is getting lots of MSM coverage, because they think Hillary will be the nominee so they are tickled pink to have another Dem trash talking her. Since he was on media black out for so long, he is loving all this MSM coverage. However, when Dems start cannibalizing their own for publicity, that is a bad sign.

[asdjrocky]

46. Thanks Sister!

Always great stuff from you.

[Perry Logan]

47. Does Edwards seriously think Hillary, of all people, doesn't know "what's coming"?

What a silly billy!