Edwards: "Mudslinging" Against Clinton is "Milquetoast"

Charlie Burr

From The Swamp's 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 year with a fighting edge - an edge which Sen. Hillary Clinton of New York has likened to "mudslinging... 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.''

Here's the link to Senator Edwards's appearance this morning from the Huffington Post. Earlier, we posted Edwards' post-debate Web video here.

For perspective, let's revisit the gold standard of hard-hitting, mudslinging ads from 2004:

What do you think? Is this the "politics of parsing" or the "politics of piling on?" Are policy disagreements fair game?

Discuss.

  • (Show?)

    Are policy disagreements fair game?

    I certainly hope so. If policy positions, or past votes, aren't "fair game" in an election, what exactly are we supposed to base our votes on?

    Hair? Height? Number of dollars raised? An incredible ability to butcher the English language? Whether or not they're "likable?" These are real life positions, not high school "government."

    (Hilarious video, by the way...)

  • LT (unverified)
    (Show?)

    "I voted one way on Kyl-Lieberman, you voted the other way" is pure policy disagreement.

    The sort of thing Republicans seldom do.

  • bill (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Are policy disagreements fair game?
    They should be the core...no matter the party or the fight. But when one slight is cast or one teaspoon of mud is thrown...it escalates instantly. Sign of the times.

  • (Show?)

    What about "You voted for Kyl-Lieberman and I wouldn't have, if I had been in that chamber then?"

  • LT (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Kyl-Lieberman was voted on this year, and Think Progress has a juicy quote from Jim Webb.

    So, if we are talking about a debate between Edwards, Clinton, and Obama, then I don't understand what Stephanie is talking about when she says,

    Posted by: Stephanie V | Nov 18, 2007 1:49:10 PM

    What about "You voted for Kyl-Lieberman and I wouldn't have, if I had been in that chamber then?"

  • (Show?)

    Just a hypothetical question, poking at the definitions.

    So.... is it unfair for Obama to criticize Clinton and Edwards for their original votes to authorize the President to go into Iraq? That vote was several years ago but Obama was not in the US Senate then, of course.

  • (Show?)

    So.... is it unfair for Obama to criticize Clinton and Edwards for their original votes to authorize the President to go into Iraq? That vote was several years ago but Obama was not in the US Senate then, of course.

    Of course not. What else could a campaign talk about if not hypotheticals? What they would have done as a (Senator/President/Governor) and what they would do in the future if elected. Obviously there's a little more credibility if they were actually there, but that's for voters to judge.

  • (Show?)

    Also, Obama's opposition to the war and the war resolution is not a hypothetical. Obama was not serving in the United States Senate, but as a candidate for that office, he could not have been more clear or more public. It's relevant not because that resolution should serve as the ultimate primary litmus test, but because it shows Obama's good judgement.

    If you don't think that Obama has standing to make that argument, then Edwards by logical extension has no standing to criticize Hillary's Iran vote. But of course voters deserve to hear policy differences between the candidates.

  • Matthew Sutton (unverified)
    (Show?)

    I agree with Edwards. There was no mudslinging at the debate. It was pure theatrics for Hillary, and Richardson the guy who is running for her Vice President slot to be using that term.

    After falling on her face in the Philadelphia, it was interesting watching the Clinton machine setting up the debate and doing its thing in Las Vegas in all its splendor. Hillary adviser Carville and Bill adviser Gergen doing CNN's post debate spin. The pressuring of Gov. Spitzer to drop his driver's license plan. The pre-debate grooming of Wolf Blitzer, Bill's whining to the media that Hillary was being "ganged up on" by the "boys", Hillary not (ah-hem)playing the gender card in her speeches, CNN giving out 1,000 debate tickets to UNLV, with only 100 making their way into the hands of the students. The audience members frequently interupting Edwards and Obama, with no restraint by Wolf or CNN. The revelations that one questioner was forced to drop her nukes question in favor of asking Hillary whether she liked pearls or diamonds. And now the revelations today that 6 of the "undecided voters" that CNN lined up to ask the candidates questions were actually democratic party operatives.

    The Clinton machine is alive and well folks! But is that what America really wants? Planted questions? Straw man China town donations? Secret deals and schemes?

  • (Show?)

    My father and I have been arguing about this very thing every time we speak. He contends the Republicans will use anything the Dems say about Hillary against her in the general. I contend that after 20 years, the Republicans already KNOW what to say about Hillary - they don't need Edwards or Obama to tell them!

    The thought that the Republicans will somehow be kinder, less withering, less nasty, less aggressive if the Democrats have a true primary is ludicrous.

  • Karl Smiley (unverified)
    (Show?)

    If Edwards was slinging "mud" at Hillary in the debate, it was her "mud" she created herself by her actions and votes.

    We need to judge candidates by what they've done, not what they say they are going to do. Bringing up past actions is perfectly legit. "Actions speak louder than words" and you know some candidates will say anything to get elected.

  • BOHICA (unverified)
    (Show?)

    You people actually watch this crap? The Military Industrial Media Complex doesn't give a flying fig about your choice for candidate, they have already set the stage for who they want. Leslie "Wolf" Blitzer is just another tool more interested in gotcha journalism (his own ego) than the country.

    You could have been watching the Beaver crush WSU.

  • (Show?)

    Marissa is "right on," here. Anything said by the candidates in the Primary is going to seem like a gentle massage when the General begins. That's pretty much true with any race, I'm not sure why people think that the Republicans are somehow dependent on Democrats for material.

  • Tom Civiletti (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Monroe Sweetland told me about a politico of his past who dodged difficult questions by pointing his thumb upward and retorting confidently, "I'm alright on that issue", and then walking away.

    That is a lot like Clinton's attempt to speak whatever voters want to hear, even if her second statement contradicts her first. Primary opponents have the choice of confronting her inconsistency or giving her a pass.

    Clinton seemed particularly upset by questions about who supports her campaign financially. To avoid this issue is to avoid the grim reality of US politics. To confront it sheds a little light to cut the fog of obfuscation. Of course, Hillary Clinton is not the only politician bankrolled by powerful self-interested rich folk, but she stands out among the current Democratic presidential candidates as the darling of such special interests.

    And Edwards is correct. The primary battles have been mild compared to what the Republicans will unleash next fall.

  • (Show?)

    Hillary Clinton is not the only politician bankrolled by powerful self-interested rich folk, but she stands out among the current Democratic presidential candidates as the darling of such special interests.

    I beg to differ, Tom. Hillary Clinton stands nearly alone among all politicians as the darling of special interests. Out of all current US Senators, only Joe Lieberman rivals Hillary in terms of accepting special interest cash.

    She is the #1 or #2 recipient of cash from the following interests: Attorneys, retirement funds, security brokers, commercial banks, physicians, real estate investors, real estate developers, real estate agents, investors, accountants, hospitals, and investment banks. In all, she is a top 5 congressional recipient in 18 of the top 20 categories of special interest donors to congressional races.

    9 out of Hillary Clinton's top-20 donors were among President Bush's top-20 donors.

    News Corp, the parent company of Fox News, is among Hillary's top-20 donors.

    Hillary is, by-in-large, getting a free pass from the media and her Democratic rivals on the issue, in part because 5 of the top-7 media conglomorates in the United States are among the top-20 donors to Hillary, and because nearly every Democratic rival for President has their had out to the same "funding partners".

    It's sickening.

    The only saving grace in the mix of "top-tier" Democratic candidates is John Edwards, whose #1 source of donations is ActBlue.

  • Matthew Sutton (unverified)
    (Show?)

    HOT OFF THE PRESS!

    Apparently the people in Iowa are not being assimilated by Clinton Machine.

    Per ABCNews.com

    November 19, 2007

    "Obama 30, Clinton 26, Edwards 22 -- that's where things stand in Iowa among likely caucus-goers according to a new ABC News/Washington Post poll."

    "Since ABC's July poll of Iowa Democrats, Hillary Clinton's support has remained unchanged while John Edwards has moved -4 and Barack Obama has moved +3 (both within sampling tolerances)."

    "A growing focus on fresh ideas coupled with lingering doubts about Hillary Clinton's honesty and forthrightness are keeping the Democratic presidential contest close in Iowa," writes ABC Polling Director Gary Langer. Among those who say they're "absolutely certain" to attend a caucus, Obama has 28 percent with Clinton at 26 percent and Edwards at 23 percent."

    "According to Langer's analysis, Clinton has "a particular problem in Iowa with men" -- just 19 percent support versus her 31 percent support among women. (Obama and Edwards both lead her among men, and Richardson is within sampling error)."

    "Also problematic for Clinton: 55 percent of likely Democratic voters in Iowa say they're more interested in a "new direction and new ideas" than in strength and experience, compared with 49 percent in July -- a help to Obama, who holds a substantial lead among "new direction" voters."

  • (Show?)

    So, my dad has chimed in to clarify his position on this topic, and since he's not one to leave comments I will do my daughterly duty and leave it for him:

    "The point is not that the Republicans already know all the nasty shit they'll be pulling or saying about Hillary. It is that they shouldn't be able to use Democrats saying it to buttress and make their case credible."

    What say you, blueoregon?

  • LT (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Marissa, Nothing that Howard Dean or Dick Gephardt or any of the other candidates said in the 2004 primary was fodder for the worst of the 2004 attacks on Kerry---the Swifties. The other attacks (windsurfing, "he looks French", don't buy Heinz ketchup, "voted for it before he voted against it" ) were not from Democratic primary candidates, but from the fertile minds of attack dogs of the Karl Rove persuasion.

  • (Show?)

    "The point is not that the Republicans already know all the nasty shit they'll be pulling or saying about Hillary. It is that they shouldn't be able to use Democrats saying it to buttress and make their case credible."

    Republicans won't criticize Hillary for being a tool for corporate interests because they won't want to jeopardize nor expose their biggest funding partners.

    Hillary Clinton and Mitt Romney share 7 of the same top-20 funding sources. Hillary Clinton and Rudy Giuliani share 8 of the same top-20 funding sources.

  • Unfair at CNN (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Hillary Clinton is center stage in every CNN debate.

    Why don't they just endorse Hillary Clinton and stop pretending to care about what the electorate wants?

    <h2>Shame on the audience for booing Edwards and Obama when they simply pointed out the obvious. Obama's suggestions getting rid of the ceiling for Social Security taxes (for people w/ an AGI of $97,00.00/year) is undoing what was done during the Reagan administration when they created the "Social Security Trust Fund" and capped off contributions. Hillary crying "tax hike on the middle class" reinforced Edward's charge.</h2>

connect with blueoregon