Bill Clinton responds to Elizabeth Edwards...

...with class. He didn't attack Elizabeth or John Edwards:

“If you look at the record on women's issues, I defy you to find anybody who has run for office in recent history whose got a longer history of working for women, for families and children, than Hillary does,” Bill Clinton said Thursday in an interview on ABC's “Good Morning America.”

On Tuesday, in an interview published in the online magazine Salon, Elizabeth Edwards said that her husband John Edwards would be a more consistent champion for women if elected president.

“Keeping that door open to women is actually more a policy of John's than Hillary's,” she said, suggesting the New York senator may be avoiding women's issues to “behave as a man.”

President Clinton disputed that contention.

“I don't think she's trying to be a man. I don't think it's inconsistent with being a woman that you can also be knowledgeable on military and security affairs and be strong when the occasion demands it."

“I don't consider that being manly. I consider that being a leader,” he said

http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/politics/20070719-0829-onthe2008trail.html

the reason we lost a lot of Jobs... aka NAFTA... and Wally world isn't too kind to women (class action suit)..

:puke: http://www.fcc.gov/telecom.html

But, I'm sure that's just another one of them thar 'coincidences' of course.

It keeps women and their families in poverty.

Howard Dean:

On outsourcing, there was a perception that the Democrats were against outsourcing and it was perceived as India-bashing in a sense. How do you feel about outsourcing?

We are not against outsourcing. But we are in favour of fair trade. Now India is not the problem.

The problem frankly is China. In India, you can join an independent trade union. You cannot do that in China.

In India there are environmental laws. Now, we prefer the environmental laws be more similar to the United States.

Trade is not the problem. The problem is fair trade. We need to have the same kinds of rules apply to protecting workers and protecting the environment in every country and not just in some and others. India is closer to the model than China is.

India is not the problem. The problem frankly is China

When this is pointed out they usually clam up...

The problem with "progressive" black/white, either/or thinking is you can put yourself in a corner very quick.

It is often helpful to read the pertinent posts before commenting!

So posting Dean's quotes is an attack? Lighten up Francis!

I guess calling Dean a corporate whore wouldn't be as much fun

because unlike the Dem Establishment candidates at the time, Dean was willing to criticize them and lend us his voice. His March 2003 speech to the California Dem Party is what convinced me to support Dean, even though I didn't agree with some things he supported, but the Democratic Party needed a spanking and Howard Dean was the only one who saw that along with us. Unlike Hillary et al, Dean was willing to listen to us and fight for core Democratic principles.

When Dean was governor of Vermont, he supported free trade because Vermont's major trading partner was Canada, who has similar labor and environmental standards as we do. Vermont also did not have a manufacturing base to lose. Free trade with Canada helped improve local businesses at the time. As governor of Vermont, Dean had to do what was best for Vermont.

When Dean began running for President, he saw what free trade did to the Midwest, and he was willing to admit that free trade unbridled was wrong and it had to change. Hillary and the DLC still push free trade.

When Dean began running for President, he was a long shot to win the nomination. No one, not even me, thought that he would have broken Bill Clinton's fundraising records twice in one year and doing it with 9 other candidates in the field. Howard Dean, not Bill or Hillary Clinton, found the path to help Democratic candidates raise enough money to compete with the Republican machine. Also Dean treated us with respect. Hillary and the DLC look at us with scorn. Hillary pretends she likes us but she would rather deal with the corporatists. It was Hillary who opposed Feingold's support of campaign finance reform because it cut down the amount someone like her could raise from the wealthy elite.

Hillary Clinton is a triangulator. Triangulation means lying to various people to fool them into supporting you. Triangulators do not want to stand for or fight for core Democratic principles, principles supported by the majority in this country. Howard Dean was a straight talker and was willing to fight for those core Democratic principles.

Dean is also a natural leader. Hillary is a follower pretending to be a leader. She reminds me of a big sheep in a little herd. Hillary does not have what it takes to be an effective executive. Oh, she'll try to pretend she does, but she really doesn't.

Dean is wrong about India and I would tell him that to his face. I know his brother Jim, though Jim is on the other side of CT so I don't see him regularly, and would tell him that too. Where I work, it's like little India. Most Indians who come here are willing to work cheaply and they don't want to go back to India. I've seen Americans laid off so that more Indians can be imported. If Dean was told this, then he would change his stance on India.

However, Dean is right about fair trade. We need more of that, but only if it is not a renaming of free trade.

Under Bill's two terms in office, the Dem Party declined in membership and power. Under Bill Clinton the Dems lost Congress and did not regain it until 2006 when candidates chucked Clintonian triangulation and adopted economic populism and a strong opposition to the Iraq war. The roots of the 2006 victory are in Howard Dean's Prez campaign and the campaign the Netroots launched to get Dean elected DNC Chair. The Clintons opposed Dean becoming DNC chair. Their surrogates attacked Dean prior to and after Dean was elected DNC Chair. Some still attack him to this day.

And by your answer about Dean, you haven't a fricken clue who Howard Dean realy is and you don't care.

:thumbsup:

Perfect response...

...since he has a history of cheating on his wife...and we were suckered into believing he didn't.

:hi:

:shrug:

next?

...that Bill sitting next to her or campaigning certainly reminds people of their "relationship". Jus' sayin'.

nary a peep from others, repubs and dems alike.
Perhaps those with a centimeter of understanding realize ultimately, it's a private matter.

His approval ratings with women are sky high...

It's their business.

It's bad tactics in these perilous times.

Seriously, I urge all of you to read a book called "The Hunting of the President," which details how a group of monied right-wingers saw to it you didn't hear a good thing about the guy. The Right are crazy, but they know how to do a good smear.

that's been on my booklist since well, forever. I think I'll buy it today.

Perhaps too briefly, I objected to this statement by another poster:

"he has a history of cheating on his wife...and we were suckered into believing he didn't"

I said the whole world knows it. The whole world does. The whole world doesn't care. I said it's their business, his and hers. I love Bill Clinton. He's a man of great heart and intellect and achievement. He is still a flawed human being, as am I or you or anybody. He shared the same marital failings as other great presidents like JFK and FDR and Eisenhower. Hillary and Chelsea made up their own minds about whether or not they could live with it, appropriately. The American public made up its mind and forgave. I had nothing to forgive, because I never thought it should be my business. What I think is that he did stupid things; the right wing knew just what to do about it and the media went merrily along. That said, I dislike his personal failings being used against her in her presidential campaign. I think it's wrong.

I am an Edwards supporter but cheers to President Clinton for taking the high road. :toast:

likely to backfire. I like it that Bill answered Elizabeth and in his normal gentlemanly and gentle manner.

are so vocal so early in the campaign?

What is this, the Battle of the Spouses?!

and she's been vocal before. It's a good strategy, and I don't have any problems with it, as long as everyone's upfront about the fact that she's acting in a position that's beyond being a spouse. Going against a woman's tricky, so yeah, if I was running the campaign, I'd put EE out there.

Of course now Bill can come out defending Hillary with no repurcussions.

Hillary would not likely be in the position to run without Bill's background. I feel John's ambition is driven and directed by Elizabeth. Just my opinion.

That's why they are being used as surrogates - attacking or responding to attacks from the other side's surrogates.

EE won points for boldly attacking Ann Coulter, did she think the same formula would work for attacking a fellow democrat? Or was this just a case of EE temerity, in a rush to allay fears that JE and Hillary are in cahoots against other candidates?