November 16, 2007
Personal Attacks Backfire on Edwards and Obama (Bill Press)
Everybody who watched the Las Vegas Democratic debate has an opinion about it. Here’s mine.
I watched the debate because I wanted to see what each of the candidates would do as president … How they would lead the country. I heard that from most of the candidates. Joe Biden and Bill Richardson were particularly strong. But, unfortunately, at least in the beginning of the debate, all I heard from John Edwards and Barack Obama was more sniping at Hillary Clinton. And, frankly, I’m getting sick of it.
I don’t want to hear John Edwards attack Clinton for changing her position on any issue — when he’s changed his position on so many. And I don’t want to hear Barack Obama attack Clinton for taking two weeks to make up her mind about driver's licenses for illegal immigrants when, given the same question, he couldn’t, or wouldn’t, give a straight answer himself.
And I don’t want to hear either of them say they don’t “trust” Hillary Clinton. That’s an unwarranted personal attack. Personally, I trust any one of the Democratic candidates to lead the country. It’s that gang of Republican candidates I don’t trust.
Don’t get me wrong. I like John Edwards, and I like Barack Obama. I just think they’re making a big mistake by spending more time attacking Hillary Clinton than laying out their own agenda.
Let the Republicans attack Hillary. Edwards and Obama should spend their time attacking George Bush and Dick Cheney.
Visit Mr. Press's website at billpressshow.com.
Permalink TrackBack EMail This Post
Share this post
What's This 11 Comments
»
The Hill welcomes comment from anyone and will almost always post it whether it is favorable or critical, as long as it is substantive and advances debate.
RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI
First people attack Obama because he isn't being bold enough against Hillary and now they attack him for pointing out her obvious tendency to lie? What do you expect them to do, let her win? We don't need another copy of a copy. Bush V. 2 was bad enough. Clinton V. 2 isn't going to be much better.
Comment by Nowhere@nowhere.com — November 16, 2007 @ 3:49 pm
Now, now, aren't you asking for exactly what Hillary would ask for if she could? Coincidence…hm..maybe…
Comment by Igor R. — November 16, 2007 @ 5:24 pm
Hillary Clinton and the Democratic party remind me of a doomsday cult.
Comment by Robert Rosencrans — November 16, 2007 @ 6:19 pm
I'm with Igor on this.
Bush has secured 580 earmarks, yet, that is not enough. The Islamicists are surging.
Fight them terrorists there, so we don't have to fight them here. Support the troops NOW.
The more earmarks there are, the higher the suuccess rate in fighting terrorists. The Islamist facists must die, now.
We all must realize the he, Generalisimo Bush, calls himself "compassionate conservative"? What gives? Does Generalisimo Bush really suuport Our troops?
We, America, need the oil; send in 200,000 more troops as earmarks. Give more to Blackwater so we can win and kick butt.
Despite the net worth of 15.6 billion for all of Bush's earmarks, it is not nearly enough.
America is spending too much trying to educate poor people, beggars. What a waste! Bunch of liberals.
Comment by Robert Williams in Mich — November 16, 2007 @ 9:09 pm
I disagree. These were not personal attacks. They were legitimate statements and questions. Clinton's strategy was to label them as attacks, as a way of fending off questions about positions taken.
It is now abundantly clear why we have this long season. It is by and for the media. The media is only interested in the fighting, as a way of almost creating a play.
This factor makes me feel that anything can happen in terms of the final result.
Comment by Chris Calbi — November 17, 2007 @ 8:33 am
Chris, to change the words of Marshall McLuhan slightly: "The Media is the Message" because rather than transmit they invent and orchestrate.
Comment by Igor R. — November 17, 2007 @ 4:49 pm
I have YET to hear a PERSONAL attack against Hillary by Obama. Edwards, perhaps, but not Obama. He's gone out of his way to be 'respectful' when talking about her POSITIONS.
If anybody's been attacked personally it's been Obama.
He's been called OSAMA, Clean Cut Black person, Not Black enough, Too black, etc..
Now THAT is getting personal.
Coonsey's View
Political Blog and Forum
http://www.freewebs.com/coonsey/
Comment by Coonsey — November 18, 2007 @ 12:47 pm
Pointing out obvious contradictions to nebulous answers is not an attack…it is pointing out the revelant doubts brought up by evasions.
My question–If 52% of the total electorate would not vote for Clinton and 50% of the Democrat's would not vote for her - How does 25% make her electable?
Comment by jlt — November 19, 2007 @ 10:22 am
Hillary is an illusion. If you believe there is something there, it's there. Therefore her hardest fight is to protect this illusion by declaring that any assault on it is despicable. CNN has chosen her to be a winner and conducted a sham of a debate to cement this position. Shame of this country for accepting this insanity! Puncture the illusion!
Comment by Igor R. — November 19, 2007 @ 2:54 pm
Don't be so hard on the adopted country you love. Who's accepting this?
Comment by Chris Calbi — November 19, 2007 @ 4:41 pm
Analysis Final
Ok, Here's the Final.
#1 Clinton-Kucinich
#2 Biden
#3 Dodd
#4 Richardson
#5 Obama
#6 Edwards
Clinton-
Senator Clinton, walking in with the most to lose due to her lead and due to that she flubbed the last debate, walked in fairly confidently considering the pressure of a back to back lose, which could have cost her dearly. Her early "Asbestos" quip was a gamble. If she did well, it would indeed be a "ha ha" which would reinforce her lead and initial confidence. If she flubbed again, her own quip would have flung her into Gravel status.
Clinton did not have the best line of the night but she had the most:
"I'm not being attacked because I'm a Woman, I'm being attacked because I'm ahead."
"I'm not playing the gender Card I'm trying to play the winning card."
Slapping down Edwards with "Slinging mud right out of the Republican playbook."
(From which Edwards never recovered)
"NAFTA did not do as it was hoped." Ok, Lame. But she said it.
On Kyl-Lieberman Clinton said EXACTLY what I stated in my post a few days ago.
"Aggressive diplomacy thru strength"
Link
On drivers licenses for illegal's she said "No" (Which I disagree with, but who am I but a big mouth who thinks he's right all the time. {stick out tongue here} )
She hurt herself here, but with who?? Illegal's don't vote. With the legal immigrants? Quite possibly yes.
By the same token this helped her with Republicans and Republican leaning Independents.
(Which is exactly why I think she will pick Richardson as VP as stated in my post some days ago.) Link
Kucinich-
I Knew this guy was good. He got the most memorable line of the night of course. "Because I read it"
Referring to the Patriot act of course.
Then he proceeded to "slam" Edwards with the China trade deal "take responsibility,as a trial lawyer you knew better." Edwards was down for the count after this. (if he got a "slap" before, this was the KO)
He pulled no punches and stated his positions clearly. He did not seem all to happy up there either.
Which, strangely, gave him even more credibility by looking disgusted with the other candidates.
The only candidate who would not vote for the Dem nominee "Unless they would not use war as a policy"
This guy couldn't have had a better night. NO UFO'S.
Biden-
This is the Guy that also came on cheerful, jovial, not a care in the world.
Why?? Because he had NOTHING to lose.
And he was total "Joe"
Along with the easy going mode he was in, he spoke with authority due to his experience.
This guy knew what he was talking about. And the only one who calmly, as-a-matter-of-factly countered Kucinich on the damage of the Patriot Act, like he was saying "good morning."
Leaving me with the feeling of "Presidential."
Dodd-
Dodd laid out what Dem's need to do to win the White House, and keep the House and Senate.
Effective on Unity. With the time he did get he spoke very well and very well in Spanish. While it was impressive, somehow it just wasn't the big bang.
He spoke with Authority but also with anger. Although I'm not sure at what. Is it just the way he speaks??
He was effective. Anyone remember him today??
Richardson-
"My name is Bill Richardson" —Did the trick !! Ingratiating and approachable.
He was strong on education.
He was for DL "for" illegal's.
And was "for" Hero cards for Veterans. Which left me wondering about everyone else. That's a lot of people to leave out.
Environment, yada, yada, ….Gore.
Reminded me of Gore. Plus or minus? up to you!!
Obama-
Next is Obama, which has only moved up because Edwards moved down.
This was the biggest surprise for both supporters and critics alike.
If anyone "lost" the debate this is it.
Coming in with the loudest applause, Senator Obama was one of the two boo-ed for going negative on Clinton. (uh-oh Iowa)
The attempt was there. It just didn't come thru. Hemming and hawing, all the things he was accusing of, but not being accused of, until now.
The only effective point he made was on the China trade policy. " Why isn't the U.S. insisting on our inspectors inspecting over in China? Like Japan is."
On social security was a valiant attempt but just did not break the glass ceiling.
Hold on!! When he said he wanted to "build schools in the Middle East" I fell off my chair!
HUH?? Economy bad, Debt up to eyeballs, no oil dividend, a "money pit" war, housing market, 37 million Americans starving! AND he's going to build schools in the Middle East?
For the guys that would love to bring us ….9-11……
9-12….9-13…..9-14—-9-15 etc. ????
Looks like the Naive thing is not gone today.
Want to know why I'm not going into his mixed energy policy??
Exactly ! Why?
Edwards-
Was he even there? After he was slapped down with his own "mud"
His "attack strategy backfired. Not only for himself but for Obama.
After this his answers seemed "canned"
The last, nail in this coffin tonight was the boo.
TrueBlue
Comment by Roman B. Aleksander — November 20, 2007 @ 3:50 am