Meteor Blades comments in response to my post on Edwards:
In my view, Armando will probably disagree, the shifting about of the poll numbers has nothing to do with THE ISSUES that we all want the focus to be on, it has to do with the personalities, exactly what we DON’T WANT. One sentence pounced on by one chorus of boos turns around the megamedia narrative – even when the candidate’s narrative has not budged. Senator Clinton “stumbled” and was losing it before the last debate was the narrative, coupled with the “the boys ganged up on her.” After Las Vegas – the 13th debate in this interminable pre-game action – she’s on top again. Why? Because she’s changed on the issues? And Edwards is now the blackheart? Why? Because he changed on the issues?
Like everyone who has dealt with him, my respect and affection for MB knows no bounds. But you gotta be kidding me. Unless questioning someone’s honesty and integrity is now not a personal attack, how can anyone seriously say Edwards is not engaged in GOP style character attacks on Clinton? Parsing, corrupt, corporate Dems, etc. This is what Edwards has treated us to now for a month. Frankly, it is simply ridiculous to deny the obvious.
And it should ALSO be obvious that it is not Clinton who is avoiding a debate on the issues at this point – it is Edwards.
If issues were at the heart of the attacks on Hillary Clinton, how can you explain attacking her for NOT buying into the GOP frame on Social Security? Are the blogs REALLY supporting the Edwards and Obama nonsense on this? Are they REALLY focused on the issue here? Hell no, they are not. They are focused on Hillary Hate.
If drivers licenses for undocumented aliens was an issue that people cared about, would they have joined the MSM/GOP style attacks on Clinton’s answer? Would Edwards’ base flip flop on the issue have been given a free pass? If straight talk was the standard, would everyone have given a pass to Obama’s awful answer? To Edwards’ utter double talk on the issue? Hell no.
If issues do not resonate for Edwards, does that excuse personal attacks? Only if you are an Edwards fan or a Hillary Hater in my estimation. Just consider this:
While Clinton leads the pack on key issues such as health care, the war in Iraq and the economy, she stumbles on what seems to have solidified as her achilles heel in the race. But she placed fourth, behind Obama, Edwards and Richardson, when Democrats ranked the candidates they considered most honest and trustworthy. Obama topped that category with 27 percent, while Edwards followed with 18 percent; Richardson, 14; and Clinton, 13.
Excuse me Meteor Blades, if you want a campaign on the issues, then you best demand it from all the candidates, but especially from the Hillary challengers. Excusing Edwards’ despicable campaign of personal attacks does NOTHING to promote issues. It is why he is easily my least favorite candidate in the race right now.
54 comments
Skip to comment form
covered all her bases on the blogs….
they’re a place to cheerlead. The world promises to be on a greased slide toward some sort of horrific dark ages by the time there’s a new President. People with a clue are few and far between. You’re not going to find peace or enlightenment or anything resembling those things in candidate diaries. I haven’t seen much of any of those things in the candidates themselves, frankly.
Talk about dirty pool–he blamed the other candidates for their very own voting records, and laid those records right at their feet, while seemingly lording his own voting record over their heads. Then he went so far as to rub salt in their wounds by proclaiming he read the Patriot Act. Scandalous! Totally below the belt, imho.
So everyone’s slingin’ poo like monkeys at the zoo!
(There’s a song there somewhere…)
I don’t see where any of the top 3 candidates can claim the moral highground with regards to the poo-slinging.
Maybe Iowans haven’t made up their minds yet but it seems that a lot of Kossacks have.
on issues simultaneously think she is not honest or trustworthy. I’m sure there are some. How do they explain that to themselves?
I’m beginning to think we need to get back to the good old days of political bosses dictating the candidates. Right now it’s a Miss America pageant–each candidate performs and the voters pick the most personable–not necessarily the best potential president.
This reminds me of fans voting for all star games–best reputations (and best commercials) count as much as stats. Also, instead of the Chinese skewing the vote for Yao, we have Iowans supposedly being the proxy for all America.
Best compromise I can think of would be 3/4th the delegates chosen in a primary, state committees choose the rest. That would make the convention more important–the platform more important–and the campaign season shorter. I miss the suspense and excitement of the 1960 convention–and the platform that emerged.
that Dodd is onto.
I like that issue a lot! I’ll be shocked if any of the Big 3 candidates show any leadership on this unless and until the waters are thoroughly tested first.
Do you think it’s possible to save Fitzmas?
other then a corporatist agenda , endless war, and the continuation of privatizing everything that hasn’t already been privatized by the Clinton’s first administration. How is calling her on this mudslinging as she put it? It is an issue she is a corporatist. This issue is the central one of Edwards campaign, it is not personal. Your sounding like her supporters with the cries of you just hate her.
The Boo’s MB speaks of occurred when he said he was not slinging mud and he would not stop talking about her corporatism. I spend a lot of time on HRC diaries and the issues are not relevant to them or her. She’s all slick and slippery no issues in her campaign.
We all have issues that we care about, and no one candidate will hit all of them. Being myopic about your issue or issues rules out each one at any given point. I have not heard any despicable personal attacks from Edwards or Obama, just the media and Hillary doing her Boys! thing. Would you have them ignore her when she attacks.
We “Hillary haters” are those who don’t much cotton to war, corruption, privilege and the whole litany of winger politics.
If that offends, then perhaps you might consider that other party needs more members.
When did telling the truth become so personal?
Best, Terry
at this time in our current political ‘reality’ (shades of Major Danby) the ball is in the established systems court. The staus quo of both parties create political fictions, and play these out on a stage with buffoons as moderators, fake questions and insiders as the audience. These are the conditions under which we are allowed to exercise our right to vote. We have no choice other then to participate in this madness or join the nonvoting segment of our country, opt out.
This for me is not an option. I cannot however support a candidate who will represent nothing but the forces of evil. Being a Democrat is not as important to me as taking back my country from the grip of these fascists, or whatever one calls them nowadays. As more turn away the voters left in the pool are the ones that are the easiest to jerk around.
I believe that Edwards is the only one who has at least a grip on what the problem is and could also win the general, he won’t implement your or mine agenda but it’s a start. The issues all interlock, and most are nothing more then scare tactics designed to promote by varying degrees the neoliberal agenda. The best one can do is vote for the one that will get us closer to a government which has some semblance of balance and law and isn’t headed down this dark path.
It gaols me that the Democrats will not offer us a choice, other then good cop to their bad cop, and that the other candidates, who offer resistance to this are called mudslingers or negative or unelectable. I’m also angry at the stupidity of the people that they are so easily swayed by this process, do they know that they will win more of the same?
like my diary on dk, a couple days back?
I just don’t want Hillary. I firmly believe that there are a couple of other candidates out there that would serve me better and I want them to keep talking about that and focusing on that. I want Edwards to get back to what he does best. He really sucks when it comes to a good attack and considering that we have been a military family through this entire Bush presidency from hell that isn’t really a negative for me 😉 I read this morning that 77% of Americans can be considered “happy” but they are anxious. Count me in the 23% not fucking happy at all and I think that my anxious blossomed into anxiety about four years back. If I were a Christian I would have lost my mind by now but thankfully I’m Buddhist so I don’t expect life to always be a bowl of cherries and I can always go find some Calgon and take a break from my own personal relative reality.
(makes me chuckle just thinking about it)
I will admit that I side with Kos on the point he made the other day:
I think you are missing the idea of second choices in your analysis of Edwards’ chances. I think Edwards is the 2nd choice of more voters relative to Dean last cycle or Clinton this cycle. Time will tell. I’m not saying he’ll win, but I certainly don’t think he’s out of the running.
As for the ‘going negative’ bit, I think all 3 big guns in the race have done a little of this over the past 3 weeks, with Edwards being the worst offender.
As to Hillary hate, I agree with you it is far more emotional than cognitive, but I also think there is little to be done about it. People have formed their opinions over a 16-year time span, with endless media stories about how she’s the second coming of Satan, so I really don’t know what else to combat it. Her votes on Iraq and especially Kyl-Lieberman don’t help her much among those who have made up their minds using their gut.
So – what do you think about the ‘2nd choice’ idea and how Edwards is likely the 2nd choice of many more voters than either Dean last time or Hillary this time???
The whole ‘hater’ meme is a classic GOP frame designed to personalize otherwise legitimate criticisms of policy stances (or in Hillary’s case the lack thereof).
Basically, your argument against personal attacks is itself based on a personal attack.
What a hypocritical post.
Hillary gives as good as she gets:
SHENANDOAH, Iowa (AP) — Hillary Rodham Clinton ridiculed Democratic rival Barack Obama on Tuesday for his contention that living abroad as a child helped give him a better understanding of the foreign policy challenges facing the U.S.
”Voters will have to judge if living in a foreign country at the age of 10 prepares one to face the big, complex international challenges the next president will face,” Clinton said. ”I think we need a president with more experience than that, someone the rest of the world knows, looks up to and has confidence in.”
Obama’s retort: ”I was wondering which world leader told her that we needed to invade Iraq.”
Clinton’s conclusion: ”This campaign is getting kind of heated now. It’s getting a little more exciting and intense.”