John Edwards has decided to take a different direction in his campaign against Hillary Clinton — and it’s one Republicans might watch with more than an academic interest. Apparently frustrated by an inability to gain traction on policy, Edwards will explicitly attack Hillary’s character in an attempt to stop her momentum:
Democrat John Edwards is trying to turn the Democratic presidential race into a referendum on honesty and integrity, areas where polling has shown that voters are divided about Hillary Rodham Clinton.
The argument marks a shift in a race where Edwards and Clinton’s other Democratic opponents have criticized her stance on policy but usually have avoided taking on her character directly. In an interview Monday with The Associated Press, Edwards said Clinton is part of a corrupt Washington system.
“Good people are caught up in this system, and I’ve given some examples of the places that I think she’s caught up in it,” Edwards said. “And I also, secondly, think that she continues to defend it. And I don’t think you can bring up the change this country needs if you defend a corrupt system that doesn’t work.
It’s an interesting and risky move for Edwards and the Democrats. With Barack Obama pledging to get tougher on Hillary, the primaries may well wind up as a warm-up for the Republicans. They will certainly have their opposition research in full throttle, and now they will get a chance to see where those attacks will be most effective.
In this case, though, it’s the right message with the wrong messenger. While Congress certainly has a problem with approval ratings, they have not (yet) sunk as low as personal-injury attorneys. Having John Edwards challenge Hillary Clinton on ethics and integrity is somewhat akin to … let’s see …. demanding more public resources for the poor while building a 28,000-square-foot mansion, or spending $1200 on a haircut.
Even if Edwards had the standing to make such an attack, he isn’t competent enough to make it stick. One reason Hillary needs to be defeated, Edwards says, is that her campaign is all about her “personal ambition”. He pointed to her January statement when launching her campaign that she was “in it to win”. When challenged by the AP to explain why Edwards is in the race, Edwards claimed that he had more personal ambition in 2004 than he does now — which may explain a lot about why his campaign is mired in also-ran status.
Personal integrity and ethics could play a large role in Hillary’s bid, but her saying she wants to win is hardly evidence of gross and unbridled ambition. If Edwards wants to get serious, he can take a look at Hillary’s involvement in scandals during a period she claims gives her more experience than any other candidate for the Presidency. He can talk about how the Rose Law Firm records disappeared when investigators needed them, only to magically reappear in the White House later. Edwards could ask about the prosecution of people in the White House Travel Office as an unnecessary cover to clear the staff for political cronies. He could also remind people that the Clintons improperly obtained the raw FBI files for 900 of their political opponents.
The Republicans will no doubt be smarter than Edwards — which is why they’ll be facing Hillary in the general election anyway.
It all boils down to ..
Do you want to embrace what America was tired of in 2000 ?
The
“POLITICIAN X MAY NOT CLAIM TO CARE ABOUT THE POOR BECAUSE HE/SHE IS RICH AND LIVES IN A BIG HOUSE AND SPENDS LOTS ON HAIRCUTS”
complaint is really, really, really, really stupid and tired.
Please stop using it. It’s completely irrelevant and sounds especially ridiculous coming from an American.
There are no poor people running for president, so you’re just going to have to get over it.
The vast majority of New York’s political class operates government for their own benefit, not that of the people they govern. That’s why the Clintons fit in so well here.
Character is the Achilles heel in the Clinton campaign. To say that the Clintons are venal, that they can be bought, and that the Chinese government, among others, has noticed this, is to restate the obvious.
http://alamo-girl.com/0071.htm
http://alamo-girl.com/0041.htm
http://alamo-girl.com/0061.htm
http://alamo-girl.com/0051.htm
The vast majority of New York’s political class operates government for their own benefit, not that of the people they govern. That’s why the Clintons fit in so well here.
Character is the Achilles heel in the Clinton campaign. To say that the Clintons are venal, that they can be bought, and that the Chinese government, among others, has noticed this, is to restate the obvious.
http://alamo-girl.com/0071.htm
http://alamo-girl.com/0041.htm
http://alamo-girl.com/0061.htm
http://alamo-girl.com/0051.htm
i am so tired of reading the news that Hillary
has won and is the candidate, it did happen, did’t
it?
It must have because I notice every writer talks
on and on about Hillary’s being the winner and
will be doing this and this and all the other
lying promises the Clintons are know for, it is
a given.
Good heavens, what if she does not win, even after
the dems set up Obama? I mean, a man turns
up, is black, but not too black, smart, but
not too smart, easily led by the men with the
money, and is being used by the dems and his
ego makes him believe he could be the president
of the U.S. when he is still a baby in politics.
She is the only one who has experience and
that was as a first lady,(sorry, I had to use
the word, lady, because that was her designation)
and now says that is a plus. Well, it is not
a plus because what good did she do, besides
lying about her every loving hubbie’s latest
woman while in office?
Lets not let the Clintons in the White House,
it defames it and makes America look like
people who really only like liars and cheats,
as long as they are charming as he is, she is
not charming.
Neo, we do not, in any way want the back,
it is too frightening to think about.
Dave R: Edwards himself is the one who insists on continuing to bring the issue up. He is the one who pretends to be a man of modest means. All we are doing is calling him on it. If Edwards were to just acknowledge his wealth and his background for what they are, it’s likely that no one would care one way or the other. But he insists on pretending to be something he isn’t.
On the original topic: Directly attacking the character of an opponent is a tricky thing, and my observation is that it’s rarely successful. If it is to work at all, it has to focus on the opponent’s actions, rather than presuming to know the opponent’s innermost thoughts. It’s also dangerous because it can easily cross the line into things that many people would regard as discriminatory or racist. (Not that Edwards, being a Democrat, need be concerned about that; if he accidentally makes such a remark, the MSM will cover for him.)
Dave R.
It’s not as if Edwards became rich by doing something to improve society like say Bill Gates. He made his money driving up the cost of medical care and driving down its availability. His actions have directly resulted in the loss of medical coverage for the people he says he would like to help.
The much maligned Dick Cheney has better working class credentials then Edwards. Cheney comes from a true blue collar family and started out his working life apprenticing as an electrician. When hard times hit he was laid off and only then made the decision to go to college. Cheney made the bulk of his money working for the much maligned Halliburton Corporation, an organization that provides jobs and services to the public.
“Good people are caught up in the system…”
Is that breaking out the long knives? Please! It reminds me of an old Monty Python sketch where they play the Spanish Inquisition and torture their would be victims with “a comfy chair”
I don’t think the Edwards “attacks” are going to leave any marks.
New York’s political class operates for its own benefit, not for the benefit of the governed. The Clintons fit neatly into New York’s political class.
Character is the major issue with the Clintons. To say that they’re venal, and can be bought, merely restates an obvious point well known to the Chinese, and to various Arab, governments.
http://alamo-girl.com/0041.htm
Obama can make character an issue but not Edwards as he is a slimeball trial attorny. This to me is the number one issue with the Clinton’s as they are corrupt, dishonest and willing to take maoney from anyone no matter how shady they are. Even their political allies admit they are compulsive liars. Obama can and should make the sale that the Clintons are scum and should hammer this theme over and over.
Just in time to help Edwards, here are House of Eratosthenes’ 25 Reasons to Vote for Hillary. Hat tip to Blogmeister USA.
#19. “Because Bill cheated on her, and that’s all the qualification she needs”
dave r,
lololololol.
When a slimeball ambulance chaser who channels dead kids to fabricate medical claims represents he is somehow qualified to talk about ethics, all gloves come off.
Edwards is too rich a target to not hit on for his preening pompousity, his predatory investments, his anti-American policies, his cynical campaign stands, and his completely vacant public service.
His big house, expensive hair, and hypocrisy is just icing on the cake.
So scuttle back to the Edwards internet hole you crawled out from.
Reading comments from dave rywall | October 30, 2007 8:57 AM, it showed that he reads stuff but not quite understanding the content.
Back on topic –
I am all for Edwards (or anybody) to fling mud on HRC. Without the cooporation from msm, it won’t generate any traction. If Edwards overdoes it, msm is going to single him out to be the sour-grape loser he is.
Obama could change his campaign direction by attacking HRC, but I thought he swore his campaign was going to be fluffy, feel-good, positive message? Or is it only for his senate bid?
Speaking of which, can anybody show exactly what ORIGINAL bills/legislation proposal(s) either Clinton or Obama produced? Putting her signature on others’ doesn’t count. Let’s see the real work either one candidate accomplished so far.
Shouldn’t the ability to persuade others (senators in either party) to see it your way count as important in the POTUS job description?
complaint is really, really, really, really stupid and tired
Ok, Dave, maybe that complaint is stupid.
Try this one on for size: persons running for high office should lead by example, not by demanding that I need to do something about it.
Does John Edwards need a 28,000 square foot house for himself and his wife? would not a 2,800 square foot house be more managable for them? shouldn’t he instruct Fortress Ventures (??) to use his investement in their venture to float loans in New Orleans instead of proceeding with foreclosures on people’s homes?
If not, Dave, why not? and if not, Dave, why should millions of taxpayers be forced into doing what Edwards fails to do? and I’m not even going to get into how non-green a 28,000 square foot home is…
There was a general thesis that Obama and Edwards were afraid of the Clinton machine, and that was why they refused to bring up Hillary’s atrocious ethics record.
I guess we will now get to see if Hillary is as effective at the politics of personal destruction as she and Bill were in the 90s…
Though the criticism is tepid so far, this is a bold move from a man terrified of Ann Coulter.
People people people….let’s take this attack, such as it is, and put it in perspective….when a trial lawyer starts attacking your ethics, you’ve REALLY hit the bottom of the barrel, ethics-wise.
There’s a saying, it takes one to know one. With that in mind, I submit that edwards is the MOST competent to sling this particular mud at this particular fellow sleaze.
dave rywall,
Here in America, we demand at least lip service to walking the walk when you are talking the talk.
If Edwards wants to take what little remains of my savings to give to poor, he should at least show he is willing to endure the same pain.
What’s really interesting about Edwards’ pursuit of poverty alleviation is how he is doing it. Unlike Mr. Edwards, I don’t have a foundation dedicated to reducing poverty acting as a money font for me.
So far, I see a lot of lip service, and Mr. Edwards otherwise sucking money from the rich and giving nothing to the poor.
After eight years of the Clinton’s, with all the scandals–political, legal and sexual- including rape and multiple harassment charges it is totally amazing that a Clinton is still in the public spotlight much less running for office. Not to mention the Clinton in question enabled it all.
On the upside we may get our silverware back!
Personal integrity?
Ethics?
From lawyers?
HAAAAAAHAAAAAAAAAAAHAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHAAAAAAA!!!!!!!!
Oh man,that was funny.
Got any more?
(snicker)(chortle)(giggle)
2 points….
1) There goes Edwards chance at Veep….
2) Hillary is just going to use this as a chance to belittle the true accusations when they come from the Republican Candidate. Something like: “Oh, that has been brought up before is is really stale now. Can’t they think of ……”
Just like she is going to do the the scandals of the earlier Clinton administration. This may actually work to her benefit.