Amazon.com Widgets

« Links With Your Coffee - Monday | Main | Keith Olbermann - Special Comment »

Edwards Blasts Hillary

It really is a brilliant ad, wow!




Quicktime Video 2.5 MB | Duration: 01'27
Quicktime 7 required
This file is available for download here.
Ctrl-Click and 'Download Linked File' (Mac)
or Rt-Click and 'Save Target As' (PC) the link above.

Harball w/Chris Matthews

 

Comments

Best.

Ad.

Ever.

Highlights exactly why I dislike Hilary so much. She changes her position to pander to the popular political stance du jour in a calculated attempt to tell people what she thinks they want to hear. The actual result is that she looks like she has no clue what she believes on any issue and moreover that she is transparently disengenuous.

Edwards '08.

...the worst part is, if she wins the Democratic Nomination, we've just pointed out the best tactic for Republicans to use in defeating her. This is going to be FAR more damaging than the swift boat adds were to John Kerry.
This sucks...why do so many Democrates like this woman?

This is actually what I like about clinton, that she trys to appeal to all sides, while deep down I know she's more liberal. Bush won claiming to be a compassionate conservative and I think clinton will win by acting as a tough progressive.

"Bush won claiming to be a compassionate conservative and I think clinton will win by acting as a tough progressive."

Yes...but what your not acknowledging here is that Bush betrayed his own party. What frightens so many of us Democrates is that when times get tough, Clinton might do the popular thing, instead of the RIGHT thing. This is her nature after all, just look at her record.

clinton will win by acting as a tough progressive

But she isn't acting tough. As the ad demonstrates, she is acting like a vacillating and insincere people-pleaser. Democrats and most independents in this country are crying out for someone who says what they stand for. We'd love to hear how they are fed up with this corrupt and unlawful administration, and if elected they will do all they are legally empowered to do to bring the criminals to justice. The torturers, the war profiteers, the intelligence fabricators, the CIA agent outers - to fucking jail with all of them. That's what a tough progressive would say. A tough progressive would point out that Social Security has been bailing out the rest of the federal government for all 72 years of its existence - there is no reason to mince words about fiscal responsibility to point this out. A tough progressive would tell the truth: Al Qaeda constitutes nasty but small part of the violence in Iraq - 10% or less. A tough progressive would come out and admit that the war in Iraq is a fool's errand (so would a tough coservative, for that matter). Iraq has devolved into tribal struggles that are rooted in 1300 years of history - and no idiotic neoconservative fantasy, or horseshit "surge" to keep the lid on for a year or two or five or ten will heal the divisions in that broken country.

Hillary is talking like a weasel - not a tough anything. I can still vote for someone I disagree with on some issues – but, I'd really like to hear some candidates with the guts to say - sorry, but this is what I think about issue X - if this is a deal breaker for you, fine - vote for someone else.

is it me or wasnt it that convincing? it just conveyed confusion, but partly through the confusing editing: music wasnt necessary, and voice over while superimposing another text didnt help either.

the first one: obviously you dont just quit and leave a farewell letter. clinton described the usual procedure after troops are pulled out - leave some to stabilize the environment. obviously a lost cause in iraq, but technically not double-talk.

the second one: wasnt she just saying "i got a plan (and in the second part), but im not gonna tell you yet"? again, not double-talk, only confusing strategy.

the third ones touché, but the first two didnt convince me as they shouldve... but maybe i misunderstood.

this seems to be like the politics of desperation on Edwards part. He has spent this entire campaign railing on others and offering very little of his own. It is no wonder he is floundering in the polls.

While I think Hillary is a total weenie for trying to be on both sides of every issue, I think the US system has devolved to such a point that her tactics are the only ones that allow a candidate to win. If she says what she actually thinks, her positions will be manipulated and used against her by the republicans in such an efficient way that she will become unelectable. Look at Kerry or Gore or Dukakis. Americans don't want to hear the truth. They want to hear what's most convenient.

Third-rate politician. She does have real views on many issues, I think, but she doesn't know how to express them. This clip demonstrates not so much here actual "flip-flopping" but her verbal waffling.

It's part of the senatorial disease. You become unable to communicate with voters, since your job involves a very bizarre and wooden form of parliamentary rhetoric specific to the Senate. Luckily Edwards and Obama didn't catch. or haven't yet caught that disease.

Hillary will be "Swift Boated" to no end (especially if Guiliani's the nominee--he fights much dirtier that Romney and McCain). Perhaps it will come back to bite the Republicans. They hate her so much that they'll do stupid things, just like irrational Clinton hating led to a losing election in 1998 and mindless Bush hating has led many people on the left to claim that Bush plotted the mass murder of 3000 New Yorkers. Hillary's campaign is also as ruthless as any Republican campaign will be, so I think she'll give as good as she gets.

To Tim: I said she's acting as a tough progressive meaning she's trying to appeal to the more conservative mindset to get the moderate vote.

Clinton is not a weenie, she's being strategic.

Why Clinton is the best democratic Canidate- Because she'll win.

Why she'll win.
1. Name recognition, every american knows her name. 2. She's female. 3. She'll get the liberal vote 4. She'll get the moderate vote

While she might not always do what's right, I'm confident that she'll do what's pragmatic. Hilary will be a giant step in the right(left) direction.

But no one asked her the really important questions like if she's ever seen a UFO... Oh, that's right, the only one's who get mocked are the ones with principles. All the phony politicians who are sworn to uphold the same old corrupt system are allowed to be treated as if they're "real" candidates. All the folks who talk to gods are cool, it's the crazy guy that's seen a spaceship we need to worry about.

Yeah, she has the best chance of winning and she'll most likely be better than who we've got staining the furniture in the Oval Office now but I just wish we could be treated to a moment of clarity in the media and our nation was given the chance to debate who would be best for the country and not just the most electable. I'll just keep praying...

So great. While Clinton's primary strategy seems to involve her surrogates initiating mud-slinging contests while she smiles and shrugs (Rove, is that you?), the Edwards campaign is turning out bright, funny, positive and very aggressively critical material like this. Beyond the "politics of parsing" on the positions and playing to various vectors of the electorate, there is this nebulous but very real issue of leadership style. Edwards clearly runs his show with style and force. Absolutely the best candidate.

tyson -

She may win. I expect to have no say in the matter. I live in Texas and will therefore never see any ballot that doesn't have the parties nominees on it - and, of course, if she is on it and she wins it will still not be with the electoral votes from Texas. (And I'll be forced to vote for her because she'll be better than any of the GOP douchebags that can possibly be nominated - I'm used to futile votes.)

However, saying she is the best democratic candidate because she'll win is debatable on two grounds: First of all, she is the democrat against whom the GOP wants to run. The GOP base hates Hillary with an intensity unmatched by any other democrat - I don't understand why, but I think they do hate her. GOP foot soldiers who might have stayed home and done nothing more than go to the polls and cast their individual votes will be more likely to WORK against Hillary during the campaign. Second, Democrat vs. GOP polls show only a slight advantage for Clinton vs. Edwards or Obama when one of them is paired against GOP candidates. But most of all, we simply have a different definition of what is "best candidate". You seem to define "best" as "most likely to win" and I define "best" as most likely to serve the country best. These are different things. When it comes down to it, I'll vote for her - but I'm not going to do so thinking she'll be the best the country can do.

She's ducking and weaving because she knows that to win the general she can't be pigeonholed into a far left position. I know you all love Edwards and Kucinich, but they have no hope of winning a general. Clinton is a brilliant campaigner and knows exactly what she is doing.

Frankly, I'm sick of losing elections. I'll vote for the candidate who is closest to my ideals AND who has a chance at winning. Otherwise it's a Giuliani presidency, and we don't need Bush III in the White House.

Go Hillary.

Seriously, has anyone seen what's been allowed to happen in this country while the likes of John Kerry and Al Gore and John Edwards were losing elections? She's been in the trenches long enough to know that if you're not careful, you can lose the battle AND the war. I don't see how Edwards, Kucinish, Obama could even hope to run this country, staff a worthy cabinet, get us out of Iraq, reform our political system, save the middle class.

And everyone who keeps saying she's unelectable doesn't get it: the way you get your Teflon is by taking punch after punch after punch and always coming back. Edwards should've stayed in the senate for at least 2 terms, actually paid his dues, but he wanted to be president and thought if he was from the South and gave off a JFK vibe, he might just pull it off. Well he didn't the first time and the second time, he's no more experienced or seasoned in terms of governing. And he's willing to trash a fellow Democrat in hopes of pulling himself up. It's pathetic.

Okay, I consider myself to be a more or less down the line liberal on most issues. Im pragmatic. But I will not vote for Hillary, if only on principle. If this nation elects a Clinton, it will be at least 24 years of Clinton/Bush rule. Thats not acceptable by any standard, unless we want to just declare this republic a sham and call it what it is, a form of royal/elite family rule.

Oh, please, enough with the flip-flop-ads, already!

First of all, the Spitzer thing wasn't a flip-flop at all but an honest answer. Which usually is a little more complicated than, say, Dodd's cop-out ("there are other ways to do it!") or Edwards's smug one-liner ("two things in two minutes..").

And then: I'm with Edwards when it comes to the nomination. I would have preferred him massively in 2004. And I'd prefer him now. But let's not lose perspective: HE VOTED FOR THE WAR in 2002. He really did. So he should skip the faux convert shtick. He thought it would be convenient for his presidential bid, he changed his mind, and that's that.

That's what politicians do, they change their mind, when reality challenges it. And as for me, that's a good thing. True, there is one that never changes his mind, and he's in the White House right now, so... 'nuff said.

Hillary is no more dishonest than most of the Democrats, including Edwards. I can live with that.

"Seriously, has anyone seen what's been allowed to happen in this country while the likes of John Kerry and Al Gore and John Edwards were losing elections?"

Um...Yeah...Hilary has been voting to athorize wars. I agree with the notion of not wanting to loss, but there's a reason the Republicans desperately want Hilary to Win the Democratic Nomination, it's because they KNOW they can beat her. Rove does NOT want to go up against an anti-war canidate...and although Hillary claims to be an anti-war Canidate NOW, she clearly is conflicted on the issue. John Edwards is no better, but at least he's been honest and admits making mistakes.

Bob: "Rove does NOT want to go up against an anti-war canidate..."

Yeah, sure. Let's put up Kucinich or Gravel. I'm sure, Rove would be trembling. And the other genuine anti-war candidate, Obama: Am I the only one who thinks the second coming of JFK is somewhat lacking in substance and charisma, lately..?

"Yeah, sure. Let's put up Kucinich or Gravel. I'm sure, Rove would be trembling. And the other genuine anti-war candidate, Obama: Am I the only one who thinks the second coming of JFK is somewhat lacking in substance and charisma, lately..?"

lol Well at least no one sleeps threw his speeches. I'm amazed that so many Democrates think that Hilary is a sure winner...and for arguement's sake, lets just say she is a sure winner, what are we actually winning here??? A president who can do anything she wants when she gets into office because she's said absolutely NOTHING on her campaign trail? A vote for a canidate who stands for NOTHING is like voteing to aprove a blank check.

"Frankly, I'm sick of losing elections. I'll vote for the candidate who is closest to my ideals AND who has a chance at winning. Otherwise it's a Giuliani presidency, and we don't need Bush III in the White House."

Posted by: BlackMamba

Be careful, and be Very Afraid. In the UK, after 13 years of a Thatcher Government followed by 5 more years of her aide, Whateverhisnamewas, I felt the same and voted for a Blair Party that had shown that it was capable of winning by changing from a left of centre party to one that was supposedly of the middle ground. It was THAT party, in government, that led us into Iraq on the coat-tails of GWB. Anything to get rid of the Tories proved to be a major mistake. At least Thatcher's War was winnable... she didn't make the mistake of invading Argentina!

Sorry, but these kind of ads don't do crap for edwards. I like him when he talks policy, I like him when he talks poverty, but when he only attacks Hillary, It's politics as usual, and he begins to drag down the dialogue.

You want me to vote for you, talk about the policies that are better, don't only attack your opponent. This is exactly what Fred Thompson is doing, "well, those dogs don't hunt, but I'm a true conservative, goodnight!"

Yes, I agree Clinton is trying to walk a tightrope and is perhaps trying to say it both ways.

But some other times, I just see an acknowledgement that some issues are more complex than a clear yes/no answer.

About Iraq, her stance is that she supports pulling out the troops but acknowledges that they will remain there for much longer than what you guys seem to be ready for. Not at the current levels, but some troop presence will be required.

About NYC licenses, she opposes them in principle. However, given the circumstances, it is a more sensible to give them licenses (which may not be used as state id, unlike normal DLs) than have significant percentage of taxi drivers undocumented.

Bill Clinton was perhaps even more glib. But by far, he was a "successful" president.

At least that what seems to me, now that I am in my home country half way across the globe.

...she knows that to win the general she can't be pigeonholed into a far left position.

What Democrats have done wrong is to do what you have done wrong in this statement. They have opted into "Bill-O" vocabulary when describing their views. Since when is a vigorous defense of the Rule of Law a "far-left" position? (Hillary had to be dragged kicking and screaming to the point where she would say that she opposed immunity for telecoms that had BROKEN THE LAW!) Since when is upholding the Rule of Law as applied to ALL citizens of the US considered a "far-left" position? Since when is - at this late date - clearcut opposition to continuing the war in Iraq a "far-left" position. A large majority of the American peope want the US out. Since when is a platform plank aimed at punishing war profiteers and corrupt contractors a "far-left" position? Since when is opposition to allowing a private corporate-owned army to roam the streets of Iraq and the United States a "far-left" position? Since when is adherence to Geneva Convention treaties to which the US was a prime contributor a "far-left" position? Since when is refusing to accept the evisceration of habeas corpus - first formulated in the twelfth century - a "far-left" position? A campaign can put emphasis on these matters - and put forward positions that would have been equally agreeable to Adlai Stevenson and Barry Goldwater - without ever being accurately pigeonholed as "far-left".

If Hillary (or any Democrat) gains office without the people having tacitly agreed that the Bush administration gave us rule by a gang of radical, lawless, corrupt thugs, then the most damaging things these bastards have done to the country will not be reversed. Indeed, they will be seen as having operated within acceptable norms. This is not a "far-left" position - this is just reality.

Tim: All of those things are "far left" when you are fighting against islamofacists, duh. This is the battle for cultural/religious superiority. There are MANY americans who this has been made a fight for not just this "corrupt" world, but your right to go to heaven and to teach about Jebus. When the stakes for losing this war become converting to Islam and fear of other religions, you'd be amazed at what people will sacrifice to not suffer eternal damnation. Most "far rights" don't see it as giving up our own rights, they see it as standing up against a common enemy, and "doing what it takes" and "not being soft on terror" and all that Propaganda.

Israel must be controlled by Jews/christians or else Jesus can't come back, damnit!

Meh. I can't agree this was a great way to show Hillary's duplicitous policy speak. She has talked out of both sides of her mouth on the "war on terror" - wanting to get us out (yes; we'll probably still have a troop presence after the pull; look at other combat histories) but essentially giving Bush a green light on every pre-emptive attack he'd like to stage with the Axis of Evil.

"Edwards should've stayed in the senate for at least 2 terms, actually paid his dues" - well, yes, but the candidacy with Kerry got in the way of his re-election bid in NC.

As far as supporting someone based on electability: Can we STOP this ill-fated reasoning?? This is what brought us John Kerry, who couldn't clarify his position and was constantly reacting to Rove campaign tactics.

For the caucuses and primaries, I urge people to campaign and vote for the candidate that reflects what they want in the leader of this country. If you do not do this, then your issues will be erased from the election process, as the "electable" candidates take moderate stances publicly so they can stay "electable." The real losers (NOT winners) are the American people throughout the debate season and tenure of the next president.

Right now I'm supporting Edwards because of his stated stances on health care, Iraq/war on terror. There are still a few months before the IA caucuses, so I may change over to Obama. The only way Clinton will get my support is if she's the Democratic candidate in the national election (and if someone goes over to the Green party, well...I may have to go with that person). A check in Hillary Clinton's box would bot be for her, but against the next Republican. Not a huge step in the right direction, but any step in the right direction is better than another Republican victory/"mandate."

I just want to clarify to other posters that the "doobie" who posted up above is not me. Not that it will really matter to many of you, but I always post using my typekey registration. I will go on record to say that I do not support Clinton for multiple reasons, including the feeling I get about dynasties, the fact that she's been bought by the pharmaceutical companies, and her willingness to say anything to get elected.

Bill Clinton successfully executed two wars in the span of eight years, and he was a great president. It's what the bush administration screwed up in the Iraq war that makes it such a scream. I will vote for Hillary simply because Bill Clinton in office despite the blow job was a great success for America. I think it is reasonable to assume that Hillary will be a comparable president.

Doobie (the original ;) ),

I will go on record as saying that I don't support senator Clinton because of her connection with Rupert Murdoch and Roger Ailes.

Another reason that I do not support Hillary Clinton is that she has said that she would continue to fight Al-Quaeda in Iraq which means that she supports the continuation of the U.S. occupation of Iraq.

I am befuddled as to why so many democrats support Ms Clinton.

Good post, Tim.

..I think this is good, to be honest. Groundbreaking, even. Actual criticism from within the party, forcing the frontrunner to develop real positions on issues, like it was meant to be, and all.

After all, this is not something either party has a habit of doing right now, in favour of just having no opinions (apart from the ones their contributors and handlers tell them to) - so why not get back to the basics? Actual politics?

Or are people seriously worrying that those thinking about voting democrat (of the 40% in the US that actually gets off their ass to vote in the election) will go over to the other candidate in the end - because they are at least sure that one has no opinions whatsoever?

I mean, really - I can see why this view shows up, after the nightmare noone seems to be able to wake up from at the moment. And where the trick is to appeal to the easy catches to generate unquestioning support based on non- specific rhetoric that may morph with the electorate.

But honestly, that's just unbearable cowardice. Not to mention self- defeating stupidity. Or perhaps you really do want to put a republican as a frontrunner for the democratic party? Maybe he'll get the democrats a lot of votes, eh, when he has no opposition from the democrats?

I mean, good grief, people..

eh? I'm sorry, but I don't see this as a great ad. I've seen other politicians (democrat and republican) (not just Hillary) do what she was shown doing in this commercial. It's easy to edit things to look bad, and everyone screws up and says the wrong thing on occasion. Some people even say the wrong thing almost continuously and then get elected (Prez Bush).

I think the real reason why you think this is a great ad is because you agree with its point of view. But I don't believe that merely agreeing with a point of view automatically makes a commercial great. To me, it just looks like politics as always-usual.

-- Furry cows moo and decompress.

"I think the real reason why you think this is a great ad is because you agree with its point of view."

Uuuuuuuuuum...no shit Sherlock. It's the same reason we all like the Daily Show. Do you Honestly think Republicans find John Stewart, Steven Colbert, and Bill Maher to be funny? It doesn't mean there NOT of course, and it doesn't mean this isn't a dynamite ad either.

Now, this is the John Edwards I like! I'd prefer a 2 minute commercial airing on television talking about policy rather than a cut/hack job on other candidates.

Navigation

Support this site

Google Ads


Powered by Movable Type Pro

Copyright © 2002-2017 Norman Jenson

Contact


Commenting Policy

note: non-authenticated comments are moderated, you can avoid the delay by registering.

Random Quotation

Individual Archives

Monthly Archives