Edwards: Hillary Is Unelectable, And You Should Be Very, Very Afraid

Comments (46)

RalphB wrote on October 31, 2007 2:43 PM:

John Edwards has turned out to be a true douchebag and a pussy. Until now I wasn't sure that combination was attainable.

Outside the beltway wrote on October 31, 2007 2:50 PM:

there are plenty of elected Democrats on Record who've expressed this fear

try the Google.

you really do nee to call this ElectHillaryCentral.

http://www.nwi.com/articles/2007/08/21/opinion/times_editorial_columnists/doc084b4e10cfdc00ee8625733d0061155b.txt

John wrote on October 31, 2007 2:53 PM:

Sargent's cut and paste abilities are impressuive but he needs work on shill skill

john mccutchen wrote on October 31, 2007 2:55 PM:

We see in Quinnipiac and we saw last night why Hillary Clinton is the Democrat that Republicans pray for

We'll see more over the next few weeks

We should have seen more of this over the past few months

Michael wrote on October 31, 2007 2:56 PM:

Ditto on RalphB's comment. See I get to say it, without actually saying it. I can't stand edwards/mr. haircut. I really found personally appalling the way he played up his wife's illness at that press conference. I was like WTF. It was such a PI lawyer's move and I found it despicable. Also, that move with coooter that his wife was put up to do by his campaign. That sounded so whiney and I know I got alot of flack for that observation, but I thought it sounded whiney.

Also, ditto on Outside's comment. There are a ton of dems worried about her dragging down dems down ticket from her in 08. It's not imaginary and it really is a major fear, with just cause.

john mccutchen wrote on October 31, 2007 2:56 PM:

HillaryELectionCentral - rinky dink

john mccutchen wrote on October 31, 2007 2:59 PM:

Sargent should go back to carving pumpkins

dcshungu wrote on October 31, 2007 2:59 PM:

This is absolutely pathetic. Doesn't this make you question the dignity of a guy who purports to be running for the highest office on the planet?

Having gone pan-in-hand to the public trough for hand outs to keep his moribund campaign on life support due to a drought contributions, it's finally dawned on Edwards that he'll never be elected POTUS, and the thought has unhinged him.

Kefa wrote on October 31, 2007 3:01 PM:

Clinton will win the Dem. Nomination and then the Prez. When she wins revenge will be hers. Mark those words.

Michael wrote on October 31, 2007 3:07 PM:

Kefa, that is why I have a problem with her majesty, your comment that "[w]hen she wins revenge will be hers. Mark those words." I believe you are absolutely correct with this observation, if she wins. This statement is one of many reasons why I am not doing flips over her candidacy and why I believe she is more repuke than dem. That would be something a repuke would do "exact revenge" and she would do it as well. Let's turn the page from politics as usual.

mari wrote on October 31, 2007 3:08 PM:

NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO, John Edwards is the one who needs to worry. Seems he cannot win on the issues so he has sunk to character assassination of a fellow Democrat. Shame on you John!!!!! You have sunk to a new low and I am sure I am not the only person who thinks so. Your comment's are such an admission about how you feel about yourself as unwinnable and although directed at Mrs. Clinton, they show what a sorry person you are. Never expect my vote for someone who maligns fellow Democrats the way you did.

Anonymous wrote on October 31, 2007 3:08 PM:

Mister Hillary's coming to SF Friday for a "book signing"

Democrats, not that Sargent isn't enuf proof - we're being scammed.

anonymous wrote on October 31, 2007 3:11 PM:

Desperate. And unfunny.

Allsburg wrote on October 31, 2007 3:23 PM:

I'm sorry--Democratic pundits have been arguing for weeks that Clinton's opponents need to go negative on her. The reason? There is a lot that is very, very negative about her. So Edwards does, and some of the same people complain about his integrity? I'm happy to see Edwards do this. And I think his "Scary Times" is very funny.

If it helps to shake people out of their Hillary-induced hypnotic stupor, I'm in favor of it.

dcshungu wrote on October 31, 2007 3:27 PM:

Michael wrote on October 31, 2007 3:07 PM:

Kefa, that is why I have a problem with her majesty, your comment that "[w]hen she wins revenge will be hers. Mark those words." I believe you are absolutely correct with this observation, if she wins. This statement is one of many reasons why I am not doing flips over her candidacy and why I believe she is more repuke than dem. That would be something a repuke would do "exact revenge" and she would do it as well. Let's turn the page from politics as usual.

OCD with comorbid paranoia...hmmmm. I wonder whether there is also schizo-affective tendencies?

On whom is Hillary is going to "exact revenge" if elected POTUS? I can assure you that have nothing to worry about because you are not that important to her. I have lots of reasons for why people would not vote for Hillary but I must that this one is the weirdest.

dcshungu wrote on October 31, 2007 3:32 PM:

Allsburg wrote on October 31, 2007 3:23 PM:

I'm sorry--Democratic pundits have been arguing for weeks that Clinton's opponents need to go negative on her. The reason? There is a lot that is very, very negative about her. So Edwards does, and some of the same people complain about his integrity? I'm happy to see Edwards do this. And I think his "Scary Times" is very funny.

If it helps to shake people out of their Hillary-induced hypnotic stupor, I'm in favor of it

Desperate Times require Desperate Measures. Scary Times, indeed...Anything goes, no matter how ridiculous or infantile, if it would stop the Clinton freight train.

Greg wrote on October 31, 2007 3:33 PM:

it's a fair point that some Dems have gone on the record with their fears of hillary's impact on down ticket races.

so i've added an update to the post with a link. my mistake.

Michael wrote on October 31, 2007 3:41 PM:

here we go again dc. You are too funny.

Exacting "revenge," if you want to call it that, is part of the clinton political machine. I concede I would not have chosen the word, I was just responding to another post.

They employ the tactic all the time. Either you are with them 1000 percent or you are against them, and be very afraid if you are against them. There is no middle ground. Anyone who does not support her fully will be frozen out of her administration, the government, contracts, etc., if she were to prevail. That has been their fundraising tactic, that has been the way they deal with the media, that has been their political mo since arkansas.

So, how is that OCD, co-morbid paranoia, etc, whatever else you can throw up? Basically, you do that in a vain attempt to discredit a valid point when I raise one. Is that a talking point from your boss?

dcshungu wrote on October 31, 2007 3:41 PM:

Greg wrote on October 31, 2007 3:33 PM:

it's a fair point that some Dems have gone on the record with their fears of hillary's impact on down ticket races.

so i've added an update to the post with a link. my mistake.

Hillary a drag on Indiana Democrats?

What a silly question! Doesn't everyone know that the esteemed Indiana Senator and picture of civilized politics, Evan Bayh, will be Hillary's running mate? How much of a drag can that ticket be when Bayh has been elected and re-elected Senator of a state like Indiana that cannibalizes Democrats?

Wordie wrote on October 31, 2007 3:47 PM:

Wow! Lots and lots of Hillary supporters are here I see.

I think Edwards' ad is funny...and very scary. What people need to remember is that the kinds of criticisms against Hillary (hawkishness, electability, ties to special interests) that Edwards and the other candidates delineated in last night's debate, and here in this ad, are completely fair and appropriate in the primary season. We need to be thoroughly airing all the Dem candidates' strengths and weaknesses in order to select the best candidate.

For those of us who are not comfortable with Hillary, Edwards is doing a great job in saying why that is.

dcshungu wrote on October 31, 2007 3:48 PM:

They employ the tactic all the time. Either you are with them 1000 percent or you are against them, and be very afraid if you are against them. There is no middle ground. Anyone who does not support her fully will be frozen out of her administration, the government, contracts, etc., if she were to prevail. That has been their fundraising tactic, that has been the way they deal with the media, that has been their political mo since arkansas.

Now let's hear about the Vince Foster mystery, and the back room dealings in Arkansas, with cabalistic witch's brews etc...

Are you one of those folks who'd purchased that videotape that Jerry Falwell was peddling on his Sunday (!) tv program that alleged all kinds of insane things about the Clintons? I thought I'd let you know who you sound like...

OCD with comorbid paranoia and schizo-affective tendencies for sure....

CalD wrote on October 31, 2007 3:50 PM:

Cute. But it does kind of beg one question. Does Senator Edwards have a list we could maybe get a look at of all the states where he tests better against Republicans than Clinton or Obama? Let's see, off the top of my head I know there was Ohio and... yes, Ohio. But surely there must be others. I wouldn't be so cynical as to suggest that Edwards might be trying to distract attention away from an area where he's frankly been turning in a less than stellar showing himself lately.

JoAnnCr wrote on October 31, 2007 3:55 PM:

Sounds like a bunch of people got up on the wrong side of the rock.

Clinton's machine greases her wheels at every turn whether or not its ligit. Edwards has a humorous side and I'm glad he's using it. I thought the newspaper spoof was fabulous.

Michael, you lost your credibility when you referred to the haircut thing. That's only used by people who don't read issues. Notice how no one talks about any other candidate's costs for haircuts, makeup, etc., etc. There's a reason for it: IT DOESN'T MATTER. Get a life!

LJ wrote on October 31, 2007 3:59 PM:

Creative and funny!

With her well known and sincere sense of humor I expect Hillary is busting a gut over this right now.

Jan wrote on October 31, 2007 4:04 PM:

Well, Greg, the link is from August. This is nearly November.
It's from a guy from Indiana, home of Rep. Mike Pence. I think all Democrats will have a problem with the down ticket in IN.
And I wonder if we couldn't find some Dems out there who are VERY concerned about Obama and the down ticket, or even Biden and the down ticket?
Personally, I'm not concerned about ANY Democrat on the down ticket who wins the primary.
If Democrats are, imo they are spineless.
-----

When Edwards campaigns on Clinton being unelectable, is that an "issue"? Is that a disagreement that he has with her on policies?

Or is that a personal attack?

I can't understand who Edwards thinks he is. He LOST in 2004. He doesn't have ONE measure of success in 2008, especially compared to current second-place holder Barack Obama. How in the heck does he consider HIMSELF "electable" and Clinton not electable???
Because Elizabeth says so?

The same people who refuse to look at Clinton's poll numbers and her fundraising numbers keep telling us she is unelectable. But, what do they base that on? As far as I'm concerned, she has the BEST chance of getting elected. Whatever stats we have right now bear ME out, not the naysayers.

If I just claim that Edwards is unelectable, does that make it so? I've never known elections to work that way.

As a Clinton supporter, I can tell you this: I'm MORE supportive of her now than I was when all this started. To me, Edwards looks like a peon these days. Was it a good debate for his supporters? Absolutely. Is it going to GAIN him any supporters? I predict, no.

I haven't heard one word of disagreement from anyone on Clinton's top 10 priorities. I've only heard the opinion from her non-supporters that she's unelectable.

So...
We'll see, won't we?

dcshungu wrote on October 31, 2007 4:09 PM:

oAnnCr wrote on October 31, 2007 3:55 PM:

Edwards has a humorous side and I'm glad he's using it.

Considering how badly things have been going for him, despite having been on the campaign trail since the last presidential election cycle, he's got to have a great sense to justify staying in the race or to avoid becoming completely unhinged. However, this "{Scary Times" thing shows that he's begun to crack.

Allsburg wrote on October 31, 2007 4:32 PM:

"I haven't heard one word of disagreement from anyone on Clinton's top 10 priorities. I've only heard the opinion from her non-supporters that she's unelectable."

Clinton's list of issues are a complete dodge. There's not a substantive stance on the list. It's like saying "I'm for happiness, and against meanness," or, "I want poor people to make more money." OK, so what are you going to DO?

My fear isn't that she's unelectable. My fear is that she gets elected, and then proceeds to implement pseudo-progressive policies in a neo-liberal, market-based fashion that provides tons more money to big business and cheats citizens out of services. Can you imagine Clinton's "solution" to the health care problem? Rather than regulate the industry, or offer socialized medicine, she will shepherd some idiotic, market-friendly plan that will result in funneling large gobs of money from our pockets to pay for private jets for HMO and pharma CEOs. This will cripple any attempt to enact sensible legislation for decades.

Clinton's problem is that she still buys into the myth of market efficiency and self-regulation. It's the same myth that republicans have somehow managed to brand as "patriotic," "American," and "common sense." But it's really just another reason to funnel more funds away from the have-nots and toward the haves.

From my point of view, Edwards may be the most viable candidate who doesn't share this same delusion.

dcshungu wrote on October 31, 2007 4:33 PM:

If I just claim that Edwards is unelectable, does that make it so?

Yes it does, and the facts would bear you out. He is the only candidate who we know for sure is unelectable: He went for it in 2004 and lost against a very weak Village Idiot. I was depressed for weeks after that loss had condemned us to 4 more years of the Idiot. Edwards is unelectable and his poll numbers show that. He is unelectable because contributions to his campaign dried up as he was stuck in third position forever, and then to sustain his moribund campaign, he did the unthinkable and unilaterally disarmed by going, pan-in-hand, to the public trough for hand outs. Edwards would be the worst candidate that the Dems could field in the general election. Fortunately, unlike the Repubs, the Dems have little tolerance for "re-runs". The "John Edwards Show" won't even be airing in syndication over the coming year.

Allsburg wrote on October 31, 2007 4:57 PM:

Jan,

By the way, I did an internet search for Clinton together with the phrase "top ten priorities." Guess what I got as the top response. The Clinton campaign page? No, a blog response on a New Hampshire editorial website written, I'm guessing, by you. ("Jan" is not that common a name these days.)

Small World Wide Web, eh?

dcshungu wrote on October 31, 2007 5:04 PM:

Allsburg wrote on October 31, 2007 4:32 PM:

Clinton's list of issues are a complete dodge. There's not a substantive stance on the list. It's like saying "I'm for happiness, and against meanness," or, "I want poor people to make more money." OK, so what are you going to DO?

Well, for starters, you educate yourself. It is a crime for people in this so-called "Information Age" to go on public forums and spew stuff make them sound very stupid because they are too lazy to reach for knowledge that is no farther than their fingertips.

Clinton and the Issues:

Clinton unveiled a health care plan that was talked and dissected ad nauseam due to scrutiny that was motivated by the debacle of her 1994 initiative. Would you care to tell us anything about the salient points of her plan, and what you think is wrong or right with it?

And I guess you were so captivated that you could not put down a recent is issue of Foreign Affairs in which Hillary had written an essay describing Liberal Internationalism as her approach to foreign policy as POTUS. Would you care to share with us what your take on it was?

Our inquisitive minds await to be enlightened with bated breath, Oh Wise One...

Allsburg wrote on October 31, 2007 6:49 PM:

The vitriol that comes from Clinton supports like dcshungu is amazing.

I'm referring, dcshungu, not to her health care proposal in 1994 (which she has abandoned), or her foreign policy position (which, by the way, is a barely coherent policy that, when boiled down, amounts to little more than saying "I will do what's appropriate in the circumstances"--now there's a policy!). Rather I'm referring to the ten issues Jan (a Clinton SUPPORTER) identified, the ten issues you can find on Clinton's website. If Clinton would get with the "Information Age," as you so fashionably put it, perhaps she would provide more information about her specific plans and policies regarding these important ten issues.

Maybe it's because she doesn't have a plan, some might suggest? No, that's not it. She has plans. She just knows that if she gets specific about them, she only opens herself up to attack. Having actual ideas to run on would only hurt her position in the poles at this point.

dcshungu, you've proven yourself over the course of months to be an utter Clinton shill and a troll. On top of that, you are impolite, pompous, and obnoxious. Clinton should fire you.

dcshungu wrote on October 31, 2007 7:21 PM:

Rather I'm referring to the ten issues Jan (a Clinton SUPPORTER) identified, the ten issues you can find on Clinton's website.

Ignorance is bliss but in too high a dose it is a very potent irritant...

What would you be able to do with 10 issues, when you clearly have a hard time wrapping your brain around just two of the most important issues in this election?

Our inquisitive minds await to be enlightened with bated breath, Oh Wise One...

dcshungu wrote on October 31, 2007 7:26 PM:

Allsburg wrote on October 31, 2007 6:49 PM:

The vitriol that comes from Clinton supports like dcshungu is amazing.

[R]ather I'm referring to the ten issues Jan (a Clinton SUPPORTER) identified, the ten issues you can find on Clinton's website.

Ignorance is bliss but in too high a dose it is a very potent irritant...

What would you be able to do with 10 issues, when you clearly have a hard time wrapping your brain around just two of the most important issues in this election?

Our inquisitive minds await to be enlightened with bated breath, Oh Wise One...

audit the polls wrote on October 31, 2007 7:39 PM:

Who needs issues when you've got money? Clinton's strength is donations from the war industries. Is that what you want? More power over the president by the warmakers? Of course Edwards doesn't have her deep pockets. That's a good thing.

But he can't by the polls like Clinton can.

MA_Blue wrote on October 31, 2007 7:42 PM:

In light of Tim Russert's "moderation" yesterday, I have been asking myself if there have ever been a debate where one candidate was under constant assault either from the other candidates or from one of the MC. And I don't mean to be sarcastic.

B2 wrote on October 31, 2007 8:13 PM:

I agree it was something of a Clinton bash fest last night. But, I also believe it was time she was called out. She's been talking about how's she the only one that can fight the Republicans and win. Let's see her fight her friends first so we can decide whether or not she really can hold her own. What I saw was an increasingly angry candidate trying her best not to lash out. She was not her best. What will she do when the real pressure's on? Scowl? She says she has clear plans for the country. But, she continually evades questions. That was never more clear than last night. So, yes, it was a Clinton bash fest. But, I'm glad to see her true colors come into full view.

Scary Times?... Loved it!

dcshungu wrote on October 31, 2007 8:46 PM:

Let's see her fight her friends first so we can decide whether or not she really can hold her own. What I saw was an increasingly angry candidate trying her best not to lash out.

I am sure that she'll manhandle the "boys" in the next debate, which is scheduled for Dec 10 in California, which is rather very friendly territory. She will adjust rather quickly. I am sure that it was a bit of a surprise for her to find herself surrounded by a firing that included the presumably impartial "moderators"... They boys had their little fun but it is now over...by this time next week, we'll be debating the lack of any measurable effect in the polls.

Anderson wrote on October 31, 2007 10:30 PM:

Greg Sargent, Hillary' shill master extraordinaire. gosh, this blog is now a Hillary Clinton propaganda outlet. It's official.

I feel sorry for Josh Marshall. Integrity gone out the window so fast? what a pity.

lambert strether wrote on October 31, 2007 11:15 PM:

Huh? Is there a print version of this that I'm not aware of? At this scale, all I can see are headlines about Republicans. Writing a headline that's NOT about Hillary, and that's a subtle attack ON Hillary. Devilish, but where then what isn't about Hillary? (Well...)

And I have to disagree with those who say this isn't funny -- nearly lost another keyboard over "VP-elect Jeb Bush." Yeah, Giuliani/Jeb; a dream ticket....

Lotta trolls on this thread trashing Edwards, I must say. We love him for the enemies he has made.

MarkH wrote on November 1, 2007 1:04 AM:

Hi everybody.

I'm new here, is this the Hillary Clinton support group website?

Why does everybody get their panties in a wad because Edwards campaign put out a little humor? Are Clinton supporters so humorless they can't handle it?

BTW, what's all this about revenge on her opponents once she's president? Is that typical Democratic behavior? Sounds to me more like a Republican thing.

Hillary's health care plan? I thought it was the bastard child of Romney's and Edwards. Didn't she delay as long as possible to check the polls and focus groups before admitting Edwards was right? Seems Hillary doesn't want anybody to realize she's an empty suit or that other people like Edwards have real ideas and policy proposals. Pretty weak that Hill.

Gotta run. Have fun with the fear and hatred of anybody anti-Hillary. It won't get you anywhere though. It'll just leave you feeling empty and blue.

Ta ta!

daniel155 wrote on November 1, 2007 1:49 AM:

At least the Edwards guys have some skill in putting together a mock newspaper because they don't seem to be able to run an effective presidential campaign.

If Democrats want something scary they should think about Edwards having to think on his feet and give specific answers during a general election campaign.

John Mucci wrote on November 1, 2007 3:34 AM:

Boy, there are some angry puppies here.

Sounds like the Bill O'Reilly wing of the Hillary Clinton campaign.

Good luck. I think I might be too old for this joint.

John Mucci wrote on November 1, 2007 3:41 AM:

Blackwater Mounts a Defense With Top Talent From Capital

Here's something to chew on. Maybe you can tell me how Hillary plans to neuter these guys?

I'll be back later for your responses.

Liberal Larry wrote on November 1, 2007 9:06 AM:

Bush-Lite unites the republic party.

Liberal Larry wrote on November 1, 2007 9:12 AM:

The right wingers in the Democratic party want to continue the culture of corruption.

won't vote hillary wrote on November 1, 2007 10:27 AM:

MA_Blue,

In one of the earlier debates, the moderator started the session asking each of the candidates to comment on whether or not Obama had enough experience to be President.

You sure didn't hear Mrs. Clinton refusing to 'pile on' Obama during that debate.

Nor did you hear Obama or his campaign whining about the treatment the day after...

Post a comment

Name:
Email Address:
URL:
	Remember personal info?
Comments: (you may use HTML tags for style)