Edwards Camp To Hillary: You Don't Need Money To Not Double-Talk
The Edwards campaign isn't letting Hillary Clinton off easy about Tuesday night's debate. In a conference call just now with reporters, Edwards advisor Joe Trippi was asked about the Hillary camp's characterization that the other candidates and Tim Russert had ganged up on her.
Trippi then turned the question around and went after the Hillary campaign for trying to turn the debate aftermath into a new plea for money.
"Well I think the more telling one is that yesterday they had a conference call, their money people, saying they needed more money because of the debate performance, which goes back exactly to what we've been talking about," Trippi said. "You don't need money to tell the truth, or to not double-talk."
Comments (23)
Liberal Larry wrote on November 1, 2007 12:49 PM:Bush-Lite can't win on her ideas.
js wrote on November 1, 2007 12:55 PM:A trial lawyer can't win on his ideas.
Liberal Larry wrote on November 1, 2007 1:01 PM:Bush-Lite and her K Street allies don't want you to know that she was a corporate trial lawyer.
Anonymous wrote on November 1, 2007 1:03 PM:Sure they need the money, do you know how much it cost to keep all those Whirling Dervishes employed? She must spin to win!
js wrote on November 1, 2007 1:04 PM:A trial lawyer wanted you to know that his friends are not lobbyists for lawyers. Not at all. Trial lawyers don't lobby.
Anonymous wrote on November 1, 2007 1:08 PM:Yep, js, that's right. No trial lawyer in U.S. history has had ideas. Not Lincoln, not Thurgood Marshall, not any of them.
Lawyers doing transactional corporate work on the other hand ... are BRILLIANT.
Josh Medeiros wrote on November 1, 2007 1:12 PM:the Daily show had a nice "spin" on this:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KHhu9z8qj08
Liberal Larry wrote on November 1, 2007 1:16 PM:Bush-Lite and her campaign staffers don't want you to know that she leads the pack in contributions from "trial lawyers".
Anonymous wrote on November 1, 2007 1:16 PM:Anonymous, you slander dervishes! :) "Whirling" is a religious ritual symbolizing subordination of the temporal ego in the search for the infinite. Personally, I'd give good money for the cause of ego subordination, but I somehow doubt it's gonna happen...
Anonymous wrote on November 1, 2007 1:34 PM:LOL. Thank's Anon @1:16. I guess I'll have to come up with another metaphor for her campaigns desire to spin, spin, spin.
BruceMcF wrote on November 1, 2007 2:03 PM:I do not think that Jon Stewart got this right. While Senator Clinton certainly said that she opposed supporting it, she very clearly said she understood why someone would support opposing it, and she is not opposed to someone else supporting it where that would make sense for them, even though that doesn't mean she is either in favor or opposed to it.
Nice post, Bruce McF. Does anyone recall Bill Clinton's infamous statement in 1992 regarding the first (1991) Gulf war: "I sympathized with those who voted against the war, but if I had been in the Senate I would have voted for it." Makes perfect sense!
CalD wrote on November 1, 2007 2:18 PM:Not that Joe Trippi would ever do a thing like use an occasion where his candidate took a hit as a fundraising opportunity. Why, I can't recall a single instance where Howard Dean's campaign ever threw the Bat up on their web site after someone had so much as looked crossly at the good Doctor or anything...
Troy wrote on November 1, 2007 2:25 PM:All this over driving licenses for illegals? What a non-issue! The issue is the void left by Bush Jr. and Congress to set a Federal Immigration policy. The real debate is over now that we've been polarized into the amnesty and deportation factions. Driving licenses? It's like asking "What type of band-aid do we need to put on this gunshot wound?"
Leon723 wrote on November 1, 2007 2:43 PM:You don't get it Troy. It's not about driver's licenses for undocumenteds; it's about whether Hillary engaged in doubletalk after acting indignant earlier in the debate that anyone would accuse her of such a thing.
elrrapierwit wrote on November 1, 2007 3:15 PM:Well, well, well.
Double talk.
I like it. It fits.
It fits waaay better than flip-flop.
Cause you see she double talks, she actually never takes a position she just uses words to make you think whichever position YOU have that she supports it. Very deceptive and shrewd.
Just like when she retorted to Russert I didn't say I supported it, and Russert said you said it made sense.
Yes, Tim it makes sense and I understand it...they she yammers on and on about that understand and not once says she supports it.
What a beautiful moment in the debate we got to see her weathervane brain in full motion. Swerving and spinning and sputtering.
what a moment of DOUBLE TALK
DOUBLE TALK
I voted for diplomacy...no Hillary it was a vote for war...see read this paragraph it says military force/action...I don't care what it says, I know what I voted for Hillary exclaims in a shrill voice.
I love it.
DOUBLE TALK
If I had known then what I know now.
lol lol...she got caught and IN FRONT of the CAMERAS....,yeahahahahahahaa
Hillary DoubleTalk Clinton...that is going to stick. It is clear and its simple and it will make folks listen closely and not be deceived by the words she uses like:
understand, accept, makes sense...when she does NOT
advocate, support nor actually take a stance.
Understanding only sounds like support but it isn't. Makes sense only sounds like support but it isn't. Accepting a view only sounds like support but it isn't.
Hopefully, folks will not be able to discern the difference with her NUANCED approach.
I wonder if folks realize the reason Hillary got tripped up on this was because she had too many political factions to please...she is Senator from NY, so how can she oppose Spitzer as Governor when she needs him to campaign for her. Spitzer can't stand the Clintons. Hillary also knows the rest of the nation is opposed to immigration amnesty BUT she represents a state with lots of immigrants...so Hillary couldn't figure out fast enough what was the best political answer and so we say her go into full-fledged DOUBLE TALK mode.
John Edwards THANK YOU!!!
Double Talk...Hillary couldn't come out against Mukasey..and wateboarding becasue he is being championed by Schumer the other NY Senator so what a choice for Hillary again. She lacks any principles so everything is about the politics, never what is best for the country nor what is right or wrong.
Double TALK ...Hillary, she couln't choose.
Edwards went for a right hook when he said. I think Mrs. Clinton just said two different things in the space of two minutes.
POW!!!!
Thanks Edwards, Thanks.
Obama/edwards 08
l.e.g wrote on November 1, 2007 3:46 PM:as a canadian i would have more respect for the dems if someone like Edward's or Obma were in the lead, instead of the power hungry Clintons, then it would prove that you as a party were for anti-war and a real change in corporate Washington !
Troy wrote on November 1, 2007 4:07 PM:Oh, I get it Leon. Russert and all the other gobots wanted her to say 'yes' or 'no' to that particular policy, and she refused. What she clearly said was that she supports the governor's effort to fill the gap where the Bush Administration has failed.
Successful national policies often are based on successful state policies. Hopefully New York will go ahead with Spitzer's plan and some other (red) state will make all state licensing and certification based completely on proving citizenship so that we can see what the ends of these policies are. Driving licencses...hoo-ha! Who is to say if it will be a successful policy? No one.
Her statement indicates to me a pragmatic policy approach to use the states as laboratories to get to a best practice policy. She agrees with the governor moving forward with ANY policy that he thinks will solve any problem in the state of New York. That is his job. Driving licenses are the jurisdiction of the states, not the federal government, and therefore, it is irrelevant in a Presidential debate. If they wanted her to paint a clear picture about her stance on Immigration, they should have just asked.
So, in my opinion, I do get it.
rssrao wrote on November 1, 2007 4:09 PM:I can't help myself, but I hope Hillary will spend some of that money on feeding her flying monkeys. Also, she might want to buy a new broom to go with her pointy hat.
gqmartinez wrote on November 1, 2007 5:45 PM:One thing I don't understand is why Hillary is considered "power hungry" when someone like Obama has continually sought higher office soon after elected. Once in the state legislature it wasn't long before he embarked on a House run. Then onto the Senate. He's in the Senate two years and already running for president. And even while running for Senate there were reports he was eyeing a run for governor. I don't think Obama is a bad guy, I just find the lack of consistency when talking about ambition laughable. So as not to pick on Obama alone, Edwards is by far the least experienced candidate in the race and he's already seeking the presidency.
In terms of the policy specifically in question, it's nice that Edwards, Obama and the liberal blogosphere are trying to reignite the xenophobia and racism that we experienced in the last debate. Way to go. What Hillary said was pretty obvious: something needs to be done because Bush and the GOP didn't do anything; I respect governors who are trying to force Bush's hand; I won't go on record as for or against this because either position is a political loser. Doesn't seem like rocket science to me.
john mccutchen wrote on November 1, 2007 7:24 PM:Bridge to the 20th Century - the Corruption Continues
NEW YORK - On the wall of Hsiao Yen Wang's apartment, a cramped, 17th-floor public housing unit on the city's Lower East Side, are photographs of her husband, David Guo, a cook who specializes in Fujian cuisine.
One photo stands out: Guo shaking Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton's hand, a memento from a $1,000-a-person fundraiser for the New York senator held in New York's Chinatown last April.
Last week, Wang got another memento — a calling card from a Justice Department criminal investigator. ...
a href=>Time to set up a Muckracker Tag http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20071101/ap_on_el_pr/clinton_fundraiser;_ylt=AqKcdRLB2BCx8sdNG528oZYGw_IE
party-of-one wrote on November 1, 2007 8:47 PM:Its interesting (and telling?) that neither Election Central or TPM's links to "Partner Site" have noted a California poll reported by
Huffpo's Marc Cooper. It notes that "while Hillary Clinton stills leads widely among Democratic presidential contenders she has nevertheless accumulated a 'negatve drag' of voters who absolutely will not support her."
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2007/11/01/new-california-poll-hill_n_70775.html
It is a real and growing phenomenon in this election worthy of note and monitoring.
Check out this article, it outlines a strategy on how the Edwards campaign could defeat Hillary Clinton. Check it out at http://thirdrailradio.blogspot.com/
