Hillary Spokesman: "John Edwards' campaign resembles (George Bush) more and more every day."

Top Iowa Story: Edwards Hits Hillary Over Planted Questions — Hillary Team Hits Back
By Eric Kleefeld - November 12, 2007, 11:01AM

Here's the key story in Iowa: The Des Moines Register reports that John Edwards is lambasting Hillary Clinton's campaign — even comparing her to President Bush — in the wake of two separate reports that the campaign was planting questions at events.

"People expect you to stand in front of them and answer their hard questions - and they expect it to be an honest process," Edwards told reporters. "What George Bush does is plant questions and exclude people from events, and I don't think that's what Democrats want to see in Iowa."

A Hillary spokesman hit right back, comparing Edwards to Bush: "What George Bush does is attack Democrats and divide the country. John Edwards' campaign resembles that more and more every day."

http://tpmelectioncentral.com/2007/11/top_iowa_story_edwards_hits_hillary_over_planted_questions_hillary_team_hits_back.php

Congratulations. You win the "Muckraker of the Day" Award!

This back-and-forth is being reported in the most influential paper in Iowa Should we pretend like there's nothing going on?

Besides...ain't nothing wrong with a little "Muckrakin'"...

I'm just so disgusted... Why post it?

to Bush, but not to compare Edwards to Bush?

Anyways, the fact that the two campaigns are comparing each other to Bush is newsworthy.

back at him, and in this case it's deserved.

DSB

Clinton = Corporate

Edwards = The People

'Nuff Said?

Now go vote.

'Nuff Said?

He's great at riling up crowds at truck stops with his holier than thou condemnations of everybody who isn't John Edwards. He appeals to Hillary haters. He has no other talents or uses.

Honestly, as much as I think John has some credibility issues w/ his $400 hair, he's 100% right on this. Planting questions, excluding detractors, and the overall "image management" steps that HRC takes does in fact resemble George Bush. Further, by saying that JE pointing this out somehow wrong is more like JE.

I say go John go. I'm starting to feel like he might be the only hope for the Dem Party to keep Hill from snatching the nom.

Credibility because of a haircut? Get over it already.

and I think she's nuts ;-) (Hi sweetie, in case you are reading this) so $400 just seems downright preposterous to me.

Maybe it's just me being frugal but I'm just not into when people waste money, especially if they are going to have anything so say about a budget that might affect me.

Either way, I'm swaying toward Edwards more and more, especially because of his populist message.

What Bush did was limit those entering his speeches to only those who agreed with him. Then he would not allow anyone to ask hard questions...only softballs.

What the Clinton camp did was to suggest to people who were already there, to ask about a specific topic (ie global warming).

Edwards is lying about Clinton and then attmepting to liken her with Bush--and Clinton is right. Edwards is doing exactly what Bush does.

It's not the same as what * does.

From the quote of Edwards, it is clear he is talking about Clinton, but doesn't mention her name. What Clinton's campaign did was acknowledge that he was talking about her, and slung some mud. And we ALL know what a uniter Clinton is, she is uniting dems with repubs into hating her.

zalinda

Damned either way. Uniter: I do not see a uniter in the field. I am dismayed at the antics of both Obama and Edwards and I don't think either of them are electable in a general election.

That being said, when I went to a rally of hers, something didn't sit right with me. The questions seemed planted. I thought it was my imagination. Now I know that maybe they were.

I really don't mind that. What really bothers me is that she has so little faith in the Iowa voters.
They ask tough questions about all sorts of things. There is no need to "plant questions" except if you have rehearsed answers.

I absolutely support all of our candidates. They all get a standing O from me. This is the closest I will come to criticizing any of them.

What in the hell is going on in this country?

Questions were "suggested" not "planted" and every questioner was free to ask whatever they wanted

And doesn't match what the plants said.

*sigh*

Gawd save us from the likes of the Hillary people running the country!

i thought she had assembled a crack team of campaign staffers. this is the best they can come up with? weak sauce.

There is absolutely no substance to that comment. They went from apologizing to and denying to outright hostile.

Hillary's campaign might crack under pressure.

Grow up already all of you....that goes for my candidate too.

field trip with everyone throwing these punches. I would far rather hear them contrast each other on their opinions on issues. Although they are closer to each other than any are to the Republicans, there are sufficient differences in their positions and their backgrounds that they really should be fighting on the basis of those things. It seems that in the wake of 2004, many viewed that the Rovian attacks were the cause of Bush's "win". The problem is that at this point they are really hurting themselves and the other Democrats.

The media is gleefully following it, finding it more entertaining than covering the issues that really matter. (It almost makes me happy that Senator Kerry opted not to run. But, from having felt how these attacks feel when I genuinely respected and supported him, I hate the thought of how these attacks feel to the Edwards, Clinton, and Obama people. None of them are as bad as the worst accustations against them.

I'M winning this piddly little coronation, how DARE you question me!

Absolutely no substance.

To say a candidate attacking another candidate is attacking all Democrats and dividing the country. This is campaigning, pure and simple. You try to distinguish yourself from the other candidates, and if you're behind you point out the weaknesses of the leader.

Incredible!

How desperate is she?

How low will she go?

Clinton made no mention of her critics directly. “I am not interested in attacking my opponents,” she said.“I am interested in attacking the problems of America.”

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1107/6815.html

This was only last week.Glad to see that lasted long.

She and they were resting up for her 2008 primary race, apparently. Cuz they sure as hell didn't show up to battle Bush that entire time.

In fact, weren't some of them like Penn and Grunwald working for Lieberman?

Kerry-Edwards.

But yes, you're right.....where was that MACHINE ?

Bill Clinton was not dealing with heart problems in that entire interval and part of being a Democratic Senator would be speaking out against things that are wrong.

throughout that book tour.

When was that? June and July 2004.

Bill conveniently FORGOT that John Kerry was the top lawmaker tracking terror networks and their funding since the mid80s.

He forgot about it so completely that he didn't even mention it in his book.

If you attack Dems, you AREN'T PLAYING NICE! WAHHHHHH!!!!

:rofl:

Fuck Clinton, and fuck anyone stupid enough to get tangled up with her.

It has become impossible.

Um...Hillary (or, her spokesman, at least):

1) Pointing out the fact that you talk out both sides of your ass...err...mouth...isn't an "attack"

2) You don't really qualify as a Democrat

3) You, the person with 51% unfavorability accusing ANYONE else, let alone John Edwards, of dividing the country is fucking ridiculous.

4) Comparing John Edwards to George Bush is the ultimate sign of a) hypocrisy and b) desperation

:rofl:

Throw a stone at her and eventually the Goddess of Peace is going to return the favor, only with a brick.

And Hillary needs to get out of "general election mode." She's NOT inevitable, and if she can't take the heat she damn sure better get out of the kitchen. If she thinks what John Edwards is dishing out is tough stuff, she dang sure can't handle what the repugs have got in store for her.

Somebody, PUH-LEASE call the whaaaaaammbulance!!!

:rofl:

this piss fight was started by Edwards. How long was Hillary's campaign supposed to ignore his incessant yapping about her? He got nastier as his polls remained in the dumps, I used to like him but not anymore. He couldn't even carry his own state in 2004, he had his chance then and blew it.

Although with three of them punching it out, the dynamics of the campaign are fascinating. Political foes become political allies in the slam-fest de jour here at DU.

Personally, I'd rather discuss the issues. But we don't. We regurgitate stuff that sticks in our craw over and over and over again. We act like the other candidates are Satan incarnate.

The truth of the matter is I'll be damn pleased when a Democrat, any Democrat, is sworn in on 1/20/09. I hope people can get in touch with that visual and make an effort to retract their claws.

since it seems from the article you cite that Edwards compared Clinton to Bush and Clinton's campaign responded by saying Edwards was behaving like Bush. Clinton didn't just up and compare Edwards to Clinton out of the blue.

Regardless, I'm getting sick of all of them going after each other. And their supporters are even worse - everyone's starting to sound like a bunch of 13-year-old kids.

Edwards Obama 08

How could I ever have thought he was presidential material?:shrug:

:sarcasm:

We need a candidate that can unite us all under a single corportation. ExxonMobileBlackwaterCitigroupGE -- here we come. Woohoo!

:crazy:

I might have to buy a bomb shelter for the general.

John and Rush share their holier than thou self appraisals and their incredible lack of remorse when lying about Democrats. They've pretty much teamed up. Rush runs Edwards ads on his website. Today Rush played a clip of Edwards lying about Hillary screening audiences and questions. Rush wouldn't even go as far as Edwards did when lying about that. Edwards piles on when the RNC comes off with something against Hillary too. I'll bet he'll be on Sean Hannity soon kissing ass and smearing Hillary.

I don't see many Edwards supporters reducing themselves to name calling. We can have a duologue without tearing down.

march lock step" .........

I cannot state my opinion of John Edwards without tearing him down because I hate him and he's the one who slings most of the mud and he's a lying phony. I didn't say anything bad about him up until a few weeks ago. Nastiness about Hillary and her followers by far exceeded that directed toward Edwards up until recently. Its evening up some now.

:toast:

For one thing, Edwards uses whole sentences.

That was kinda lame.

I'm waiting for Hillary to agree to take questions from real Iowans . . . and then stomp out of the room when she gets a question that she doesn't like.

In Iowa we live for the unscripted moments when we can see what is behind the mask . . .

I remember W's events in Iowa in 2000 and 2004. You had to sign a loyalty pledge to get a ticket to get in. Veterans who were registered Republicans were turned away because they were not Bush loyalists. Sound familiar? Rovian? Penn???

So as Obama said at the JJ Dinner in Des Moines, it is time for a President of the United States, not just the Blue States or the Red States! Apparently, Ms. Hillary wants to be the president of the scripted chosen few!

the last 6 years.