Fact is the group founder is directly connected to Edwards. It is the new Edwards strategy...attack but don't use my name.

For what it's worth, their blog -- http://www.dcourage.com/blog.php (scroll down, their formatting is currently off a bit) -- has mostly praise for Edwards, and nothing but barbs for Obama (from what I can see). Examples of headlines...

John Edwards's One Million Consultants

Barack Obama: World's Worst Negotiator
Obama's Auto Plan Neither New Nor Bold

(Full disclosure, I'm an Obama supporter.)

Donna G.,

We're usually on the same wavelength, so what's your concern with H.R. 1955? I just glanced over the original text (have there been big changes?) It just set up a Congressional commission. My take was that it was a big political nothing Dems could use to show the folks back home how tough and serious they are about "homegrown terrorism" without actually doing anything about it.

I'd be terrified if the Repbulicans had done this c. 2004, because they'd have turned it into the 21st Century HUAC in no time, but under Dems, I'm guessing they'll just study the problem and suggest several rounds of hand-holding and Kumbyah singing. I'm also guessing they'll be spending a lot more time than Republicans would looking at the Klan, Fourth Reich nutters in Idaho and the Militia nuts I fullly expect to rise again once a Democrat is back in the White House, and that can't be bad.

gqmartinez,

What is "right wing" about pointing out Clinton's backpedaling on the baby bonds issue?

In your view, is any criticism of Clinton by definition "right wing"?

It's true, isn't it? She backpedalled?
She wants to revive Colin Powell. She's a Republican accomodationist. There's nothing wrong with pointing that out.

Geez, I can think of a lot of worse things they could attack for her than this issue.

DTM wrote: […] is any criticism of Clinton by definition "right wing"?

It’s more that it’s very hard to tell the difference; the same talking points, the same rants about her trustworthiness, the same lame attempt at character assassination etc.

DemAC,

I've even heard that once upon a time a Republican added one and one and got two. I sure hope no Democrat gets caught doing the same.

By the way, the real oddity about calling this a "right wing" attack is that the right wing hated the baby bonds proposal. In contrast, while the baby bonds proposal polled poorly overall, it apparently had majority support among non-white voters (and of course Clinton proposed the idea to the Congressional Black Caucus).

So I could somewhat understand calling an attack on Clinton for PROPOSING baby bonds a right wing attack. But calling an attack on Clinton for DROPPING the baby bonds proposal a right wing attack makes very little sense.

Which is why I seriously wonder if people like gqmartinez think every attack on Clinton is by definition a right wing attack--even if, as in this case, she is being attacked for dropping a proposal the right wing strongly opposed.