Edwards Campaign: The Definition of Mudslinging

[Catchawave]

EDWARDS CAMPAIGN: THE DEFINITION OF MUDSLINGING

Chapel Hill, North Carolina – Today, John Edwards for President communications director Chris Kofinis released the following statement on the definition of mudslinging:

“mudslinging |məd sli ng i ng | (also mud-slinging)noun informal the use of insults and accusations, esp. unjust ones, with the aim of damaging the reputation of an opponent. As in: Hillary Clinton said about Barack Obama, ‘Now voters will judge whether living in a foreign country at the age of 10 prepares one to face the big, complex international challenges the next president will face.’

“Now we know what Senator Clinton meant when she talked about ‘throwing mud’ in the last debate. Like so many other things, when it comes to mud, Hillary Clinton says one thing and throws another.”

http://johnedwards.com/news/press-releases/

[itsrobert]

1. Excellent. It points out Hilary's mudslinging, at the same time reminds

voters of Obama's lack of experience.

[IndyOp]

2. I like Edwards, really, really -- but doesn't this press release qualify as mudslinging?

It is Edward's campaign slinging mud, right?

:(

[itsrobert]

5. It's P-O-L-I-T-I-C-S

Edwards is pointing out Hillary's "mudslingling" hypocrisy.

[Catchawave]

35. She certainly wasn't addressing "policy" ?

Blitzer started his show with this...basically treated it as "cute"... (paraphrased, my apologies)..."Obama said living overseas as a child=foreign policy experience, then Hillary "took a light jab" then Edwards got "sarcastic" (see OP) about Hillary's comment"

I'd say Wolfie gave Hil points? Freakin'media :P

[surfermaw]

67. Is that any thing new for Wolf Blitzeer

Remember it was on his news show, where the statement got out that Gore started/founded the internet, most people if they knew the truth would give Gore much credit for the internet, with the support he gave while in the house.

[huskerlaw]

36. No, I don't think so

Hillary has claimed that when other candidates (Edwards included) point out problems with her policy, or highlight instances where she has, in fact, said one thing one minute and the opposite thing a few minutes later, they are engaging in mudslinging.

By definition, they are not. All Edwards was doing was pointing out exactly what the definition of mudslinging is. By doing so, he shows that he and Obama were not in fact, mudslinging. Hillary, on the other hand, has.

[creeksneakers2]

47. Edwards comes out with new lies and mud everyday

Edwards is a hog ranch of mud. He said Hillary screens her audiences and questions. Total lie. Edwards says Hillary is corrupt, but has no reason to say so, so crawls away every time he's asked to say it point blank. Edwards says Hillary is protecting health care benefits for Congressman from the mighty magic of John Edwards who will cast a spell and take health care away. That's phony and mudslinging.

All Edwards has is mudslinging. That's why he's asked about it everywhere he goes. That's why Edwards is trying to mudsling away the mudslinger reputation he's earned.

How can debating the value of foriegn policy experience be a lie or mudslinging? Edwards is deep in the mud and blowing bubbles.

[huskerlaw]

49. Oh YAWN

Hillary IS corrupt. She's accepting money from every special interest group that waves a checkbook at her. Rupert Murdoch, anyone? And he's said it point blank, to her face, many times.

Hillary IS protecting healthcare benefits for Congressmen. Edwards is the ONLY candidate who has said, "I will give Congress until July, 2009 to pass universal healthcare. If they don't, they lose theirs." Anyone who isn't willing to do that IS protecting the Congressmen. That "anyone" includes Hillary. How hard is that to understand?

Calling her out on her policies and double-speak is NOT mudslinging. It's TRUE.

Now if Hillary would quit whining about how the boys are beating her up and actually try to answer some of their charges, we'd all be interested in the response.

[creeksneakers2]

52. All politicians take money from rich people

that is not corrupt. That's why John Edwards hides in shame and rambles off to other topics when he's asked point blank whether Hillary is corrupt or not.

John Edwards is never ever ever going to take health care away from Congress. He made that up to fool suckers. It sounds great to them.

[huskerlaw]

55. Rich people and lobbyists are not the same thing.

Nor are all rich people created equally. We all know what Rupert Murdoch stands for and if you honestly believe that Hillary can take money from him and not be at all beholden to that which he holds dear, you are delusional.

John Edwards, on the other hand, has NOT taken money from corporate interests or lobbyists. Has he taken money from rich people? Sure. Has he taken money from the likes of Rupert Murdoch? No.

It is nice to know that you can read John Edwards' mind though, that must be a nice skill to have. Try using those powers on Hillary.

[creeksneakers2]

63. Lobbyists work for rich people

John does the same thing. He just tries to be sneaky about it. He'd take money from Rupert Murdoch in a hot New York minute. The only reason John Edwards doesn't have more money is because everybody knows he'll lose so they don't bother giving him any.

[huskerlaw]

70. Your ignorance is showing.

How do you know that Rupert Murdoch didn't offer Edwards a check that he flatly rejected? Oh right, you don't.

And given that you don't have access to the Edwards campaign's financial records, I'm going to assume that you're talking out of your ass.

Unless, of course, you're employing the same powers that allow you to read his mind. In that case, I bow to your super-human capabilities.

[creeksneakers2]

75. Murdoch wouldn't waste money on Edwards

and he hasn't given Hillary any since 2006.

Now, I see in my crystal ball:

JOHN EDWARDS (D)
Top Industries
1
Lawyers/Law Firms
$8,161,150

2
Democratic/Liberal
$2,001,674

3
Retired
$1,168,681

4
Securities & Investment
$773,600

5
Real Estate
$638,755

6
TV/Movies/Music
$458,990

7
Business Services
$434,793

8
Health Professionals
$419,326

9
Misc Business
$358,325

10
Education
$351,261

11
Misc Finance
$278,000

12
Printing & Publishing
$193,734

13
Computers/Internet
$182,585

14
Civil Servants/Public Officials
$178,995

15
Commercial Banks
$153,650

16
Insurance
$129,600

17
Retail Sales
$102,756

18
Non-Profit Institutions
$92,750

19
Other
$91,950

20
Accountants
$66,950

[huskerlaw]

77. And you can tell that Murdoch did not offer a check...how, exactly?

All that tells you is, generally, where his money has come from. It tells you NOTHING about who has offered money, whom Edwards has refused to take money from...it tells you, really, NOTHING.

Nice try, though.

I am done trying to have a conversation with you. You completely lack any sort of substance behind the bald-faced assertions that you make. Resorting to name calling and generalities without fact get you nowhere. All it does is make you look like an idiot.

:hi:

[asdjrocky]

100. Could not have said it better! Bravo!

[creeksneakers2]

48. Edwards doesn't point out differences in policy

He has very few policy differences with Hillary. Edwards tells lies about Hillary being corrupt and then Edwards acts like he's a saint or something, until somebody asks about his hypocrisy, and Edwards goes into his "I'm not perfect" routine.

[huskerlaw]

51. Do you think that if you say it twice

it becomes true? One ill-informed response to my post was enough, thanks.

[Catchawave]

4. LOL....I didn't see that.....

Did Obama really claim to have foreign policy experience having lived overseas as a child ?

[Scriptor Ignotus]

27. very shrewd, I have to admit nt

[creeksneakers2]

45. Comparing experience is not mudslinging

Making up lies about your opponent and assassinating your opponent's character with the lies is mudslinging. Like what John Edwards does all the time, that's mudslinging.

[bvar22]

104. Like what you are doing in this thread?

just saying.

”Unlike other candidates, I am not funded by those corporate interests.
I owe them no loyalty, and they have no influence over me or my policies.” ---Dennis Kucinich

[Renew Deal]

3. Edit: That's about as nasty as Kerry bringing up Cheney's daughter.

That's uncharacteristic of Hillary and a bad sign.

[itsrobert]

7. Desperation makes campaigns do crappy things

They are looking at their own polling data and don't like what they see.

[Renew Deal]

11. I'm really disappointed that she did that.

That comment is over the line. That makes me think that she's willing to get a lot nastier over this (push polls, nasty ads, other forms of dirty campaigning). It wouldn't surprise me if she said Obama went to school in a madrasa, etc.

[itsrobert]

16. Not suprising considering her close friends: Penn, Carville, Begala, Murdoch

She usually doesn't personally get involved with it.

[Nedsdag]

76. Well, there were those rumors that her camp

spread the "madrassa" stories.

I didn't believe they did but.......

:shrug:

[bvar22]

105. Pretty soon, she'll start planting questions & packing audiences,...

Oh Wait.

.
.
My bad.

[BootinUp]

6. How come Edwards just made me visualize

a small child acting like a tattle tale?

[GreenArrow]

15. whaddya expect from a guy

who boasts about how humble he is.

[Catchawave]

18. He's not allowed to defend "mudslinging" ?

Oy Vey :silly:

[BootinUp]

19. I don't think the statement

attributed to the Clinton campaign is really mudslinging. Eye of the beholder caveat and all.

[venable]

20. because you don't like him. others saw a sharp rebuke to a hyprocrite (hrc) nt

[BootinUp]

30. thank you for your opinion. nt

[tkmorris]

31. It's an opinion I share

You are very biased when it comes to Edwards.

[BootinUp]

32. Two for the price of one then, what a bargain. lol.

[cali]

8. he's the last person who should be talking about mudslinging

he's been doing plenty of it himself. He should not have entered this fray. He's even more hyporitical than the others.

[itsrobert]

12. Just because Hillary and a few of her supporters can't handle the truth

Doesn't mean it's mudslinging.

[cali]

14. Absolutely.

I didn't say this was mudslinging. I said he's the last candidate who should be sermonizing about mudslinging. He's done more of it than anyone else.

[venable]

21. show me anything he's said about hrc that is not true. one thing. nt

[itsrobert]

22. I hope you are not expecting an answer

You will be waiting a long time. (at least for a honest answer)

[cali]

26. suggesting that Clinton was laughing about NAFTA

his frequently suggesting that she's corrupt, attacking her on the driver's license issue when he was hardly any better.

[venable]

40. does she take lobbyists money? are lobbyists corrupt? do they corrupt the system?

if so, that's not something not true.

as for the driver's license thing... i think people can judge for themselves. did her answer sound legit. I think it's perfectly fine to point out that her answer - universally acknowledged, even by her I believe, to have been confusing and playing both sides of the fence - was not up to snuff. his answer was better.

still waiting for something NOT true that he has said about her...

their has been no 'mudslinging' no matter how much she wants to portray herself as attacked, poor thing.

[creeksneakers2]

50. Saying Hillary screens her audiences and questions. n/t

[venable]

54. does she not do this to a certain extent, by proxy (ie local staffers)

again, tell me something not true.

[BootinUp]

53. creek answered your question. where'd ya go?

I'm ready to talk about the politics of hypocrisy and Johnny Boy now.

[venable]

56. I'm here, answered Creek.

The skinny amongst many people, including the press, is that her events are considerably more 'orchestrated' than the other dems. Not so much as, say, w's, but much more than any other dem.

So, still looking for something he said that's not true.

(of course, I'm not going to agree with something just because it's brought up - I mean some serious, false mudslinging)

Let me put it this way re creek's offering: Bubba admires, openly and publically, the work that Rove did in 04. this was orchestrated misleading of the public, deception, obfuscation, fakery, and lies. HRC's husband admires this guy. Do the math.

[BootinUp]

61. How exactly do you know THAT?

I would say that your claim (....far more orchestrated than other Dems) is just unlikely to be true. Like all major campaigns don't DO orchestration of their events. Give me a break. They all DO it, its the name of the game. The horrors... you mean a campaign gave people literature that focused on her policy and suggested they ask question based on her policy. Thats just horrendous don't ya know. The mind reels. Does Johnnys campaign hand out literature at events and solicit questions about his policies? Of course not, lol.

We are basically getting right into the topic I wanted to discuss. Hypocrisy.

Johnny has a real hard time finding real differences between him and the other candidates on policy. So he just makes up bs about them. Its especially helpful if the bs is popular bs from the netroots. Cause who needs hard facts when attacking someone just keep it to general hand waving that sounds plausible to people who hate politicians. Its not like John has ever been a politician in Washington so he has lots of credibility on the whole anti-corruption screed of his against Hillary. Just trust him, he saw the light about 2 years ago ya know.

You know it was classic watching DK rip into Edwards hypocrisy in the last debate. I look forward to the next time he does that.

[Andy823]

72. Hard time finding differences?

Give me a break. He has led, and Hillary has followed on most of the major issues. Hillary is in the pocket of big business, Edwards is not. Hillary defends lobbyists, Edwards does not. Hillary is not going to change anything, Edwards will. Hillary will "stay the course" in Iraq, Ewards will not. Hillary gave Bush and Cheney a vote for war with Iran, Edwards did not. Gee we can go on and on, but to say he "can not" define the diffrences between him and her is stupid to say the least.

You guys in the Hillary camp need to go over to Edwards site, maybe you could learn something! :spank:

[BootinUp]

79. Hillary has been more consistent

in what she stands for over her career than your hero. I don't just trust a politician on their word, I have to see a record to back it up. John says he'll do a lot of things though, so does he have some point by point plan for his crusade against lobbyists? It would be interesting to read I am sure. Too bad he didn't tackle that issue when he was in the Senate. The only thing John has led with is his mouth my friend.

[asdjrocky]

101. "They all do it"

LOL.... just what my Dad used to say about Nixon.

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

9. This headline is spot on... Edwards Campaign: The Definition of Mudslinging

[quinnox]

10. just what I was thinking

[Mojambo]

13. It's very simple. Clinton shouldn't be complaining about others mudslinging when she's doing it too.

Everyone is gonna get dirty and everyone knows it.

Let's just get dirty and stop complaining about it.

[Catchawave]

17. Politico link

http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/1107/Clinton_unimpressed_by_Obamas_Indonesia_years.html


Disclaimer: Just for background, I'm not a fan of Ben "Glen Beck Wannabe" Smith. If you can prove the Obama and Hillary statements are wrong, I'd welcome that too.

[Forkboy]

23. They're all doing it so they should all shut up about it and deal.

[itsrobert]

24. Right on! If they can't stand the heat.....

get out of the kitchen!

[Yukari Yakumo]

25. Pot to Kettle, "You're Black!" {nt}

uguu

[Catchawave]

37. Who's black ?

Sorry, missed your point :shrug:

[Yukari Yakumo]

86. Think, when do you say "Pot", "Kettle", and "Black" in the same sentence?

uguu

[mtnsnake]

28. Yes, Edwards does define what mudslinging is all about

He also defines what hypocrites and phonies are all about, too!

[Lucinda]

29. Good grief. Clinton wasnt slinging anything in her Obama comments. She was responding

to comments saying that Obama has some sort of foreign relations advantage because he lived abroad as a child.

[Catchawave]

34. Wolfie started his show with this.....

It's mud all right :D

[SaveElmer]

33. Yes I agree...the Edwards Campaign is the definition of mudslinging...nt

[FrenchieCat]

38. Got Mud?

Hillary's on the left, Edwards is in the middle (he needs a haircut), and Obama is to the right....
They are all beginning to look awfully "muddy" to me and they all need to grow the fuck up!
If they keep it up, they are all gonna get an ass whoopin' for this dumbmudshit!! :eyes:

[Catchawave]

39. Daily Kos diarist weighs in....

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2007/11/20/161552/23

[Catchawave]

41. ...and international....

http://www.guardian.co.uk/worldlatest/story/0,,-7091969,00.html

Goodness gracious.....!

[Beacool]

42. Edwards, one word for you: LOSER!!!

Johnny, when are you going to face that you're NOT going to get the nomination.

- You had only one term as senator.
- You didn't get the nomination in 2004.
- You didn't even carry your own state in 2004.
- You're waaaaay behind in every state, except Iowa.

Do you honestly think that your constant sniping at Hillary is going to increase your poll numbers????

[Catchawave]

43. You deny Hillary slung mud at Obama ?

Welcome to DU :toast: Enjoy your stay !

[Beacool]

88. I'm just tired of his bitching!

Hillary finally responded after months of John and Elizabeth bashing her. I still remember how appalled I was when Elizabeth had the effrontery to say that her life choices had made her more "joyful" than Hillary. What a presumptuous remark!!! How can someone presume to know what life choices make someone else happier? At least she did have the grace to call Hillary and apologize to her. I have given a lot of slack to Liz because she's ill, but there were more incidents where she did the talking instead of her husband. He finally seems to have found his voice, but all I hear from him is more yapping than an angry chihuahua.

BTW, thanks for the welcome! :D

[Cameron27]

44. Hi welcome to DU

I'm sure you'll be around for awhile. :hi:

[venable]

60. i'm curious what inspires you to welcome an ugly post like that?

if someone came new to DU and posted:

Hill you're such a loser.

you would be nothing if your husband hadn't been president.

when are you going to stop whining, take a stand on something besides your own ambition?

you beat two losers in the bluest state in the country, with Clinton as your last name, and it took you many millions of dollars. big deal.

will you get out of the race when you realize that it's not that half the country won't vote for you, it's that they loathe you (and this includes large numbers of democrats)




if someone posted that, I wouldn't welcome them. it's too pointlessly ugly and sophomoric.

[BootinUp]

62. Oh lay off.

Why not challenge the post directly if you have a problem with it.

On edit: challenge the content in the post, if you can.

[venable]

65. excuse me? suddenly so thin-skinned? someone calls my guy a loser, and thats OK?

how about challenging the content of my post, which is that i wonder why someone who posts such negativity is so welcome?

as for the content of the original, there are a number of things wrong with it

mainly that Edwards did not fail to 'carry' his home state, he failed, from the bottom of the ticket to swing his ultra red home state to a swift-boated, roved, new englander. do you see the difference?

he is a one-term senator because he felt it was unfair to voters to run for two offices. conventional wisdom (outside of DU) says he would have been reelected.

he came within 3000 votes of winning Iowa last time, and that very likely would have propelled him, as it did Kerry, into the nom.

he was such a popular candidate that there was a national clamor for his selection as VP.

he is behind in meaningless national polls and in states where he can't afford to run (takes no lobby money, did you know that?)

He has spent less than 10% of the money in Iowa than has HRC or Obama, and yet his is still poised to maybe win it. pretty impressive, huh.


you guys are odd, really - someone posts 'LOSER (all caps)', and a load of ill-informed bs (see my points just above) and that is welcome. someone wonders why such phrases are so welcome, and that wonderer is told to lay off. bizarro world.

[surfermaw]

71. Didn't the Clintons use Clark to stop Edwards

Having him enter the race just a few days after Edwards there fore throwing first place to Kerry...

[venable]

80. worse, he announced he was GOING TO announce the day Edwards announced

this could have been nothing but planned, as Edwards announcement was scheduled.

not sure if the Clintons were behind it, but Edwards has worried their dynasty plans, in spite of what some few say here.

[Name removed]

84. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Cameron27]

85. I see that my harshly worded post was deleted

so I'll say it more politely. Please provide any evidence for your statement, "this could have been nothing but planned."

On my welcome to a new DUer. At least he didn't say that John Edwards was loathsome, and I was trying to make up for the rude poster who implied that he/she would not be around here very long because of his opinions.

[venable]

93. of course, I can't prove it was planned, but think about it.

there are weeks of speculation that Clark will run.

there is an announcement that Edwards will make his formal announcement on X day (can't remember the date) some ten days hence.


it was commented on at the time by the press that Edwards big day was cut in half in terms of press coverage by Clark's announcent that he will soon be announcing, formally, his candidacy.


please, just do the math. show me one other time where this coincidence occurs. it's an unspoken understanding that you savor your own moment, and you do that by not sharing days with other candidates big news days. I'm just being realistic here, not fantasizing.

[Cameron27]

97. I've done the math,

and I think you're reading too much into the timing of Clark's announcement. I don't deal in speculation, because there's an endless supply of that.

[venable]

99. is there a single other time when one candidate did this?

i know that's a hard question to answer, but my guess is there is not.

for the reason that both candidates suffer some by grabbing news cycles on the same day.

Clark knew, everyone knew, Edwards was announcing.

that's all I'm saying.

[GreenArrow]

103. what's wrong with saying John Edwards

is loathsome? He IS loathsome!

:shrug:

[BootinUp]

83. Sure, uh why did it matter to Edwards when Clark announced

exactly? Its not Clark's fault there was less interest for John's announcement apparently (based on Edwards supporters always whining about it). Is there some playground rule about campaign announcements I am unaware of?

Go back three steps you announced on the same day as another candidate! lol.

[venable]

94. yes, as a matter of fact, there is an obvious and unspoken rule

that you don't lessen your own sting, and the other candidate's, by sharing newsworthiness on a big day. clark sacrificed some of his own coverage by doing so. why? were his staff dumb, or willing to sacrifice?

[BootinUp]

82. You can spin it however you want

John's revulsion of money occurred about the time he realized he couldn't attract enough as I recall, so he decided to turn it into a campaign issue. There of course are interest groups that lobby that he does accept money from (ones that are good lobbyists in Democratic eyes). I think you will find that this is another case of John's rhetoric not matching his actions, and it would probably be a losing case in the GE as the repukes pointed out who he does take money from.

Taking the money out of politics is much easier said than done you know. I'm sure he sounds very convincing to you that he can do it. I doubt he would be able to pass any serious reform to match the rhetoric.

[venable]

95. guess who didn't respond to my post? and why is my post 'spin'?

why do you feel the need to mischaracterize my argument. you should come back with your own.

tell me who the good lobbyists are in health insurance and defense industries - both groups give to hrc more than to any other candidate, including republicans.

respond to my post. you asked me to do so re the other post, i did. return the favor, or admit that the other post was wrong. I don't expect to hear anything substantial from you in return, but it would be a nice surprise.

[Beacool]

89. Thanks for the welcome!!! nt

[ihavenobias]

46. Incredibly Mature!

Managing to use the word "loser" while also referring to someone with a condescending, childish nickname ("Johnny") all in one post?

I'm impressed! (yes, your sarcasm meter just exploded)

[Beacool]

92. Well.......is he a winner?

Frankly I had nothing against him when this campaign started, but as his polls didn't rise he got shriller and shriller and I finally had it with him. He did question her integrity and, as far as I'm concerned, that's when he crossed the line of no return.

[ihavenobias]

98. No

For one thing, he and Obama have in fact been *rising* in important polls recently.

Also funny that you would use the word "shrill" since that's the stupid insult most use to describe Hillary (unfairly because she's a woman), particularly pundits.

PS---http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jane-hamsher/hillary-clinton-a-bundle_b_70052.html

[venable]

57. very sophisticated, very intelligent. nt

[huskerlaw]

58. And yet,

All Hillary does is whine about how the boys are "attacking" her. If the charges that Edwards and Obama raise are so baseless, why doesn't she try refuting them?

Maybe it's because Edwards and Obama are telling the TRUTH?

Naw. That couldn't be it...

:eyes:

[Catchawave]

59. I agree....there is "no whining in politics"...!

:hi:

[creeksneakers2]

64. Why is Edwards whining about how he's a victim of being

called a mudslinger? Guess he's not tough enough to take it.

[venable]

66. you can not be serious.

goodbye forever creeksneakers, i hardly knew ye.

[huskerlaw]

69. I haven't heard any whining from Edwards

How is pointing out the correct definition of a word a form of whining?

Are you done following me around yet?

[creeksneakers2]

73. I have no idea who you are

I just post on Edwards or Hillary threads. If you hang around those you'll bump into me.

How is anything whining? If Hillary whined about piling on then Edwards whines about being called a mudslinger. Its all the same, except Hillary was right about the piling on and about Edwards being a mudslinger.

The definition of mudslinging was fine but it didn't apply to Hillary. Obama compared his foreign policy credentials to hers, she debated Obama's claim. No lies there.

[huskerlaw]

74. And yet

You have responded to all of my posts in this thread. Multiple times. And not once have you had anything substantive to say.

How is anything whining? I have no idea how to answer that. You tell me. Clearly you think Edwards does it a lot. To me, whining is blaming other people for attacking you when in reality they are calling you on issues. That is not an attack, it is a freaking discussion of relevant political topics during a presidential election. Edwards and Obama are not responsible for the fact that Hillary has no viable response.

The reason Edwards used a Hillary example is because it is HILLARY who is claiming that everyone is slinging mud at her. It is the utmost in hypocrisy to claim that Edwards and Obama are mudslinging while arguing that what Hillary said is NOT mudslinging.

[creeksneakers2]

68. Excellent post!

Welcome to DU.

[illinoisprogressive]

78. Thank you, John Edwards!

[neutron]

81. Too late for the Edwards campaign

They are conducting a Rove style smear campaign in the blogs, then having the
nerve to turn around and say that Hillary Clinton is conducting a smear campaign.

People are starting to catch on to this guy.
His senate record is more corporate than the candidate he is trashing.

[Reno.Muse]

87. Hillary has a KKKarl Rove on her staff somewhere ...it's obvious

:puke:

[venable]

96. she's got three, at least

lehane
wolfson
penn

[asdjrocky]

102. Yes!

People are really starting to catch on to this guy.... We're all starting to get IT!

Go Edwards!

And Kick!

[Divine Discontent]

90. thank you for speaking the truth John!

the underhanded tactics employed by the Clinton campaign makes me think of her as the most liberal GOP candidate out of all the people running, because of these attacks, and her backing of NAFTA, and warfare.

[usregimechange]

91. Kick!