Elizabeth Edwards: Clinton 'hatred' will energize GOP

CNN: August 30, 2007
Elizabeth Edwards: Clinton 'hatred' will energize GOP

WASHINGTON (CNN) – Elizabeth Edwards, the outspoken wife of Democratic presidential candidate John Edwards, says her husband is more electable than rival Hillary Clinton because "hatred" of the New York Democrat will energize Republicans.

“I don't know where it comes from. I don't begin to understand it. But you can't pretend it doesn't exist, and it will energize the Republican base," Mrs. Edwards said in an interview with Time Magazine. "Their nominee won't energize them, Bush won't, but Hillary as the nominee will. It's hard for John to talk about, but it's the reality," she added.

Mrs. Edwards has increasingly assumed a visible role in her husband's campaign and has made several sharp statements, including a strong critique of New York Sen. Hillary Clinton's record on women's issues, a biting characterization of Illinois Sen. Barack Obama as "holier than thou," and a confrontation with conservative commentator Ann Coulter on MSNBC.

She also came under fire last month for telling an interviewer, "we can't make John black, we can't make him a woman" and argued her husband receives less media attention because he lacks the interesting stories of his chief rivals.

Addressing those controversial comments, Edwards told Time, "The media goes to this very engaging story about a legitimate woman candidate and a legitimate candidate with an African-American heritage, and that drives up their fund-raising numbers. Then the media folks say, 'See, that proves we were right to focus on these two candidates.'"...

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2007/08/30/elizabeth-edwards-clinton-hatred-will-energize-gop/

If it means so much to the Edwards campaign to push Clinton hatred, why is it so hard for the candidate himself to talk about it? Disingenuous, to say the least.

She has to take on the two in front of her and deflect hits on her husband. I have no issue with it. If Obama and Clinton can't get by the tactic then they need to review their goals of leading the free world. On the other hand she needs to manage the inevitable push back.

The man has won one election his entire life.

We all know the Republicans will go after Hillary with everything they have, as they will with Edwards. They might not realize it yet, but they might be even more energized attacking our populist with the massive home, the fancy haircuts and the predatory hedge fund investments than they would recycling the greatest hits of the 90's.

:sarcasm:

less smart Santorum. She also beat a weak primary challanger and a lunatic, an opponent not much better than Keyes in the general. Dodd and Biden have been in office forever - I have no idea if they have faced tough races.

Giuliani had to drop out before he even got to the primaries. Giuliani was headed for an embarrassing defeat.

It had little to do with Hillary - any credible candidate (which Hillary undeniably was) would have defeated him. Things like letting his wife learn that he had filed for divorce in their troubled marriage from reporters because he announced it in a press conference before telling her. There was a new outrage a day on the front page of NYC's tabloids.

The point I made was that it is possible that NONE of the candidates ever had a real tough election. As areas become more homogeneous, there will be fewer examples of people who do. It is not Clinton's fault that the Republicans did not (or possibly could not) field a strong competitive candidate in 2006. That's why I mentioned many of the candidates (Clinton, Dodd, Biden) that had not been mentioned here - where they spoke of Edwards and Obama.

I think that having been in a very competitive race, can be looked at to see what strengths the candidate had and how he or she dealt with the intense pressure such a race would have. Not having been in one does not mean the candidate is less good - in 2006, Hillary's strengths may have been why no credible candidate wanted to be the sacrificial lamb.

:rofl:

And when you consider the statements critical of Clinton by Elizabeth, you can see he would be fricaseed for them if he made them. Especially the tone.

I contrast this with Obama who has not been afraid of being critical of Hillary and some of her decisions (though I thought Bush-lite crossed a line).

Hillary Clinton had an ok lead over Rick Lazio in 2000 going into a debate when it seemed he invaded her space. Her lead jumped double digits virtually overnight.

the race was a statistical dead-heat at the time. Even a week before the election, it was close to tied.

She will be a lovely First Lady.

thing to say.

What is quoted above that is not true?

It's not fair, it's not right, that many Republicans feel and act with this hatred toward both of the Clintons, but I do think it's a reality.

Sadly, Elizabeth is right.

Republicans hate her....and her candidacy might be the one thing that will lead these folks to the polls. Many are discouraged, but with hillary, they have one more thing to vote against.

Independents and moderates aren't real enthused either about Hillary. She is perceived by many (not just Republicans) as a cold, calculating politician.

From what the progressive blogs have been saying for the past couple of years.

HRC will be the best fund raiser the GOPig candidate will have. I don't pretend to understand the animosity, but it's there. :shrug: The closest I've been able to get for an explanation is, "She's a Marxist." :wtf::crazy:

and everyone is thinking it.

count on EE to say it.

brava.

Your post was vague. Are you refering to my comment, which you responded to, or Elizabeth Edwards comment?

Nevermind. After your rude remarks toward me on another thread, I'm just going to add you to my ignore list. You aren't worth the bother.

I don't want to fall into the Primary Wars, but she will be the BIGGEST target of RW vitriol!!!

Neither do they.

Makes no sense to me. HRC is closer to the center than
any of the Dem candidates. Logic says she will be the
least hated. Edwards is the most liberal, and could be
the subject of some head-jarring GOP commercials.

They have demonized Clintons for almost two decades. Now they are in a corner. Throwing out another personality will be tougher than following the rheotoric that has already been sold. Don't give them credit for critical thinking. If that was the case there is NO FUCKING WAY that Bush would have been reelected.

you understand?? It was FRAUD BOTH times and I will never ever stop believing it!!!!!!

She has already been branded as someone they hate. In order for her to survive, she has avoided ever appearing more liberal than Milque-Toast!'

So, she is the most easily defeated but even if she wins she will still be afraid to look too liberal because she knows she has to get reelected, so nothing will change.

Maybe in her last few months of her second term, when she is a lame duck, she might utter a liberal thought.

but I think that hatred has less to do with ideological position than personality/history in this case. Bill Clinton was a VERY conservative Democrat - even when he ran in 1992. As was Al Gore, when he ran as the first DLC candidate in 1988. The hatred against them was NOT because they were very liberal, but because they were running against the Republican. Any Democrat will be hit by them - that's how they operate.

Also, Edwards is NOT the most liberal - not if you look at his record. He was clearly one of the most conservative running in 2004 and during his Senate career. Obama is likely the most liberal. If you look at all his actions since leaving college, he has the past that matches his words. (In fact, someone with Edwards' agenda and Obama's past would be a super progressive candidate - more than either one as is.) Hillary is hard to figure - she was always seen as the more liberal of the Clintons, until she became Senator.

as by who is a threat to them. A centrist candidate who can win is far more of a threat than a far left candidate who can't. Hillary is hated because she can win, so the GOP smears her, and gullible people fall for the smears.

All three of them are about equal, all things considered, with the exception that Obama wasn't in the Senate during the war vote.

Hillary is a risk because of the hatred those on the right have for her. Funny thing is that when I ask those who hate her their reasons for feeling that way, they never have a substantial answer. Usually they have no answer at all. IMO they hate her because she is a strong woman, but they will never admit it.

They hate her because her name is Clinton. There doesn't have to be a sensible reason for it...it just is.

Of the Edwards campaign...

Pretty sad to see them having to resort to worn out right wing spin to try and make up ground on Hillary...

"Attack dog"...really. :thumbsdown:

:eyes:

she said she doesn't think the hate is warranted, it makes no sense to her, it's unfair, but IT IS THERE. She has the courage to say, in a quite complimentary way, the absolute truth that EVERYBODY KNOWS AND IS AFRAID TO SAY.

Go, Elizabeth.

Afraid to say?...are you serious...this has been the mantra of the left and right for months....look around

She is simply aping this hoping it will allow them to catch up to Hillary...apparently they have decided they can't get there on any policy difference...

Old, lame, and discredited....they need to try something new...this ain't gonna work!

and I wouldn't blame her. it's her job and her responsibility as a serious candidate...
but that doesn't make what Elizabeth said any less true.

I count on EE to say true things, no matter how palatable they might be to some.

because if it's just anecdotal evidence, then it really isn't THE truth, it's HER truth, or her opinion. How does she know that Edwards isn't hated more, but just isn't strong enough in the polls to really matter to them yet?

and polled the issue and Clinton has the highest negatives. It's not just anecdotal evidence. It's the HUGE elephant in the room that her supporters would like to ignore.

GOP candidates also have high negatives.

The latest Rasmussen has:

Hillary - 49% positive 49% negative
Edwards - 48% positive 44% negative
Obama - 46% positive 47% negative

Hillary's negatives are down five points from the last reading. They were at 54%. Obama is up two and Edwards is unchanged.

Rudy is now at 40% negative. Last time he was at 32%.

either she is saying something bland, which the post above says

or she is an attack dog, which you say in the post previous.

it simply can't be both.

and it was NOT complimentary. I am surprised that the Edwards are willing to sacrifice Elizabeth's image from 2004 - that was a large part of why many of us were willing to trust Edwards in 2004.

From the stupid attack on Teresa, couched in the same fake niceness, to her saying her life choices made her happier than Hillary, and on and on Elizabeth Edwards could be putting in jeopardy her most important role - validating her husband as a man who can be trusted.

The media itself has covered the story of whether Clinton's negatives are too high and that she might energize the Republicans. Even if asked the question, Elizabeth could have slipped past it saying something like that's something the Clinton campaign has to deal with and say that she was there to make the case for why Edwards wouldsee now that factions backing other primary be acceptable to Republicans and Democrats.

I dislike Hillary, but it seems wrong for a potential First Lady to play this role.

their campaign is in the last throes.

Freepers already have their arsenal. The mothership GOP will make the sound and in a pavlovian hardwired response they will attack.

...is pretty true...

:rofl:

we sure want someone they love to run on our ticket. not.

It means they have no real criticism at all--they simply resent that person's virtue.

That said, I still love you, Elizabeth!

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/08/27/politics/main3207915.shtml
from "Why Karl Touts Hillary"
<snip>
"All of which creates the oddest Rove and Clinton coupling. After all, her interests and his are perfectly aligned right now: He wants her to be the Democratic nominee (because he thinks she will lose). And she does, too (because she thinks she will win). So Rove happily promotes the idea that Clinton's nomination is "inevitable," a virtual done deal. And when Rove opines on Clinton in any way, she's just as thrilled to take him on. What better way to win over those liberal Democratic primary voters - skeptical about you because you voted for the Iraq war - than to remind them that the evil Rove is attacking you? "I don't think Karl Rove's going to endorse me," Clinton said at a recent Iowa debate, clearly relishing his attention, if not his affection. "That becomes more and more obvious. But I find it interesting he's so obsessed with me.""

So why are people slamming Elizabeth Edwards for saying what even the MSM recognizes?

Good Grief!!

a mailing about Hillary. Nothing stirs Republicans to give money more than Hillary.

I won't spell it out...

Despite how I might agree with her, it's a fact that no candidate will be immune to childish, petty charges and attempts at full-throated demonization by the Right and their MSM puppets.

:popcorn:

care to address that?

but much more important is the depth of the passion against her. I live in her state, and she is a fine senator. but somehow, for some reason, just about every single dem I know just loathes her. It's not that they prefer another candidate, they absolutley loathe her.

I agree with EE, in some ways, when she says she doesn't understand the hatred. I don't like her (HRC), and think she caved on health care and i find her manner very transparent and unpleasant. But, like EE, I don't actually know where the massive hatred comes from. She hasn't killed anyone, but people think of her as if she had. I get it to a certain extent, as I said, but I can't fully understand just why people despise her. Many dems I know say they can't even look at her, in the way they can't look at some republicans.

I think it MIGHT have to do with the failure of the dreams that accompanied that glorious night in 1992, when we all watched the new day ushered in on a dancing stage in Arkansas. We had won. My generation had won. And now we are where we are, and we blame the Clintons. They could not take the unfair onslaught from the right, and whether or not it's true, it FEELS like they are happy as clams as our country dies, and they rake in the killer lobbyists money. People feel like she would sell us down the river for a few pieces of silver, in the form of power.

but I've never encountered that feeling in the people I know, or meet. However, even if what you're saying is true, it still doesn't explain why EE thinks Hillary would energize the GOP base any more than her own husband. I've seen more vehement dislike of Edwards from a character standpoint, than anyone else. Who has the RW mascot, Coulter been attacking?

It really seems as if the Edwards campaign can't make up it's mind. It doesn't make any sense to claim that the republicans fear Edwards the most, and then turn around and have Elizabeth suggest that Hillary will energize the base more than him.

While I'm not supporting Clinton in the primary, I haven't heard from one person I know who isn't supporting her in the primary and planning to work on her campaign or at the very least vote for her. They like her and think she would be the winner in the GE. Granted they are all in New York City. In other parts of the country I understand there is more resistance. But unlike a lot of people here, I think the more exposed she is in this campaign, the more people see that she is not the Wicked Witch of the West. I met her several times during the 90s and never perceived her as anything but warm and charming and smart, so I really never suffered from "Hate Hillary" syndrome.

in a way that Edwards would not provoke.

as for 'all the dems I know', i understand that is not very convincing, but I will say that for me it is true. maybe i only know the 30 or so that hate her, but that's who I know. i don't claim to be scientific, merely personal.

As I've said, a clear indication of this are the attacks made by Coulter on his character. That's what moves the base, attacks on character, not on issues. That's how they tried to take down Kerry, and that's what they used to take down Bill Clinton during the impeachment "scandal."

If you want to claim her unfavorables are evidence then you have to acknowledge her favorables amongst Democrat are very strong.

...someone I work with who goes to RNC strategy meetings. Believe me, it would be a strategic blunder where we could lose the House, Senate and the White House all in one fell swoop. I am not worried about it though, because I'm convinced that Clinton will not be the nominee anyway.

That said, I wish all the luck in the World and invite and commend all Clinton supporters to work hard for their candidate of choice and let's see where the votes go once it all starts in January.

It's a lot like the Bush/Cheney use of fear to manipulate. If we don't fight them there we'll have to fight them here. If we pull out, there will be genocide and gas will cost $9 a gallon.

So now it's 'if we nominate Hillary the haters will take over the country.'

I have news for Elizabeth Edwards. If her cutie pie becomes the nominee, "Edwards hatred" will abound, and all the loonies will come out, and all the stories about the $400 haircuts and 28,000 sf houses will be recycled endlessly. And the phony foundation thing. And I'm sure there are plenty of court case stories they can dig up for swiftboating.

And that will be true of any Democratic candidate. They will all be "hated" by the right-wing--who, by the way, wouldn't vote for a Democrat anyway.

I am getting mighty tired of Elizabeth Edwards. If they want to pull this crap, let the candidate himself do it. The other spouses, including Bill Clinton, are not pulling this attack dog routine.

she's flaming an issue that she'd like to be true, and refusing to acknowledge that any one of our guys are going to energize the gop base. Does she think they adore Obama, or her own husband any more than Clinton?

...as much as I know that irks some people. :shrug:

Whoever they're told to hate.

Today, it's Hillary. Tomorrow? Well, that depends.

And that statement comes from someone who really ADMIRES the way Elizabeth has dealt with life.

It doesnt mean that Hillary can't be elected....but the screaming WILL be louder if she is the nom. And it's a valuable thing to point out...

Of course, the repubs will turn Hillary-bashing up if she is the nominee. But the repubs will bash any Democrat who is the Democratic Party nominee. Look at the butcher job they did on Kerry's war hero reputation. When they were finished, they had the American public convinced he was an effete, New England upper crust (and possibly French) weenie, who probably shot himself to win the Purple Heart, and murdered people in Vietnam by shooting them in the back. That whole disgusting episode was as vicious as anything directed at the Clintons, and we should brace ourselves for more, whoever is the nominee. Just imagine what they'll come up with against Edwards if he wins the nomination.

ride into the WH. Democrats who support other candidates will use it over and over, but whomever is the nominee will be sliced, diced and shredded.

The REP-tiles play dirty and to win. NO ONE is or will be exempt from Swiftboating and being DROWNED in mud. Anyone who thinks their candidate is perfect and nothing bad can be said about them, is delusional. There will be as much or more about any one of them.

THEY (REP-tiles) intend to stay in office and will stop at nothing.

Without a doubt, there will be a REP-tilian War of sliming the Democratic Nominee, no matter who is chosen. Bank on it.......and be prepared.

A lot of us never dreamed they would attack a vet's Purple Heart, especially since they themselves never even served!

Whether we are prepared enough for the onslaught against Hillary -- and we can't say we weren't warned -- I don't know. Sometimes I think it's all old stuff,this Hillary hate, and we have another generation of people ready and willing to vote and this ain't the 90s. Plus, I like to think that the old attacks on Hillary were before so many in this country got sick of the Repubs lies, the war, Katrina, health care, etc.

I'm sure there will be more attacks on JE, but so far Coulter's "fag" remark and the $400 haircut haven't gone anywhere. I'm kinda wondering where they'll get something with traction...

This is the same old same old political BS that in my view does nothing to further reasonable debate on issues. It also makes it look like some are scared of Hillary Clinton since they do nothing but rank on her instead of talking about the strengths of their own convictions which may actually push more people towards her. This is why I do not even get involved with any talk about "candidates" or anything to do with this process. If Democrats spent more time actually talking about issues and less time ranking on each other we wouldn't have to worry about Republicans getting out the vote. And personally, while I like John Edwards and think his wife is a nice woman too, I think the strategy should be more towards actually ranking on the candidates on the other side for once. Why should the Republicans then spend any money to mudsling when we do such a good job of it ourselves? I may not love Hillary Clinton or a couple other candidates either, but I sure as hell believe that at this point in history any of those currently in the running would be a better choice than any Republican that could be shoved down our throats and I don't think comments like this help us one bit. Surely, debate on the issues and show why someone should vote for you, but this ranking on others is getting really old.

But I think she is wrong on the "hate" issue. Yes there are those in the GOP that hate Hillary with a passion, but I believe that there are a lot of 'cloth coat' republicans that have been so disillusioned by what their party has produced by way of candidates that they will be willing to Hillary a chance, especially after the last 7 years. That's the way it is around here.

What will be your line of attack if Obama becomes the frontrunner? He's black and he'll fire up the GOP base? How about if Richardson leapfrogs your husband. Hispanic and will fire up the GOP base?

The GOP has worked long and hard attempting to sully Hillary's reputation. And it is perhaps their most successful activity this century - - they have miserably failed in all other areas.

But if Hillary does not receive the nomination, the GOP is totally prepared to drag massive amounts of hate and lies out against whomever the Democratic candidate is. You can just bet your last dollar on this.

The outstanding question remains: how many Republicans will not continue to swallow the GOPs magnitude of duplicitous practices?

The "how many will not" is of utmost concern to the party of hate. Therefore, they are deeply involved in things like secretly supporting the "third party" thumping and independent candidates, disengenously attempting to capture the soul of those now on the wind with even more deceit.

Elizabeth might do well to keep it in mind when she's tempted to help out the GOP this way.

that Elizabeth should not have attacked a Democratic candidate as she did Hillary.

other DUers.

For example: A DUer who stalks Dem candidates and continuously seeks to portray them in a negative light in order to promote their own personal choice. Those DUers need to be taught to stand up for their choice but not destroy another Dem in the process.

Infighting just produces fodder for Republicans. Some DUers should think twice before posting negatives about other Dems. Proof is the term "Breck girl" which came directly from a Dem blog.

and, as you must have noticed, your posts that did that were deleted by the mods. Skinner gave his permission for criticizing candidates during the primary, so if you have a problem with that, I suggest you take it up with him.

And Dems who do it should be aware of how their actions help the Republicans. If you are one of those then you need to look at yourself and not at me.

It's not possible to stalk John Edwards on this message board. Posting, and arguing, and debating in any candidates' thread is why we're here and why we donate to DU. It's a political message board, we talk politics and if you don't understand that, or don't like it, I don't why you're here.

This is the primary, and we're allowed to vet the candidates any way we like. (up to a point & then the mods step in) Skinner saw the value in this approach, and personally posted a thread about it. When the nominee's been voted in, the rules will change.

Don't ever try to give me lessons about how to be a good Democrat. I've been one all my life. You need to learn to abide by DU's rules, and knock off the personal shit.

Guess which one? And it wasn't all that long ago. I don't get over-troubled by anonymous posts on candidate blogs, because supporters say a lot of unfortunate things that shouldn't reflect on their candidates. I have never used the term, your example, "Breck Girl" and I don't remember remarking on John Edwards' hair, at all, not once, ever - a subject I find entirely uninteresting. I don't "stalk" him and doubt I've set foot in 95% of threads about him. I criticize him on issues, as is my right and responsibility as a Democrat, since he thinks he should be our nominee for president. I also try to present a correct record when his record is being spun out of reality by supporters. I've never been anything but honest about the fact that out of 8 Democrats he's number 9 on my list, but your accusations are misplaced with me and can be applied to some members of any candidate supporters' group, any one of them, very much including Edwards' own.

I support DU financially, as do most of us, because I get to talk politics here. Sorry if you don't like it. I didn't alert on you yesterday when you insulted me. Yet your posts were deleted and mine weren't. Do you see the difference?

of simply supporting your own as "sleeping with the enemy", so to speak. I'm not talking about disagreeing with a candidate, I'm talking about seeking out threads about the candidate just to post negative comments.

I've been around DU for years. I seldom post but I read it daily and I know the posting pattern of many DUers.

I read on that blog how they laughed about him using their term.

Elizabeth, I love you like a sister and all that, and HRC isn't my first (or even second) choice, but this is one of the most boneheaded excuses I keep hearing not to support HRC.

If you don't want to support HRC because of something as substantial as her voting record, or something as silly as her appearance or speaking voice or what have you, fine. Fine and dandy.

But to withold support because of the mean things Republicans might do if we run her? That's nothing but a self-fulfilling, defeatist prophecy. While I'm well aware that HRC is used by the Goopers to drum up support amongst their own, that is no reason not to run her.

If she's our best candidate, we run her. Period. We don't get all a-scared by what the other guy might do.

Jesus fornicatin' Christ everyone, show some damn backbone.

And Elizabeth, I know you read this, and I meant what I said about loving you. And I suspect that your comments weren't intended to be cowardly--it's just that some will take it that way, and it's a terrible message to send.

"If Hillary Clinton won the Democratic nomination."

gosh, what a shocker.

I've always wondered why so many have NOT been able to see this. What don't people understand about this?? THIS has been the ONE candidate they have soooooo much to play "pay-back" with.

Clinton BEAT Poppy! It's JUST THAT SIMPLE! And if you don't think this is true... just sit back and WATCH THE SHOW!

Here is a Pew poll from this month:

8/1-18/07
Very favorable 21
Mostly favorable 34
Mostly unfavorable 18
Very unfavorable 21
Can't rate 6

Other polls which divided strong disapproval (hatred) from moderate disapproval came up with similar results. Only 21% hate Hillary, and that less than the number of right wing drooling zomboids who will never vote for a Democrat anyway.

Just so you know, I'd rather vote for Edwards than HRC any day of the week (and twice on Sundays.)

But it's beyond weak to claim we can't have HRC as a candidate on account of the meaniehead things the Goopers will do in response. I HATE that argument.

elected but their hands are tied BECAUSE there are NOT enough Senators to over-ride a Veto!!

Did ANYONE listen to C-Span this morning?? Talking about Larry Craig, MOST callers decided that it wasn't THAT important, it was up to the voters of Idaho, and that includes many Democrats who called in!!

Democrats lack UNITY and are scattered all over the place! Just like this place called DU!! It's just ANOTHER fight every day I check in here, so why should anyone really wonder why Democrats have no agenda that gets past "I Propose!"

TC

but if this is a "truth," then the Edwards campaign better abandon the myth that the GOP fears John the most.

send out an email saying 'Hillary is hated send us money' ?

I really like Elizabeth Edwards, but I feel sad when I hear her talk like this... we dems do not need to promote the GOP sound bites by repeating them as though they are inevitable... how would Elizabeth Edwards feel if Hillary said things like, "if John Edwards gets the nomination, the GOP will make this election all about his hair and not the issues..."

the GOP has been victorious in past elections in part by repeating certain ideas or phrases until people can't get them out of their minds... (dems want to take your guns away... flip-flop... do you want to fight terrorism here or there?... dems are not strong on national security... weapons of mass destruction... 9/11 = Irac war)....

Bush's background is in "business" ....and marketing is about getting your message into the minds of your customers... we should not promote their BS...

Why do we need to attack our own people?

are attacking Elizabeth and assigning all kinds of motives and backstory to her statement.I think Elizabeth spoke the truth and did not demean anyone.The attention to this quote is being given to it by those that do not support her. If you really do not want this quote "out there" stop talking about it! ! It is only being used as a club to dog Elizabeth Edwards while some put themselves "above the fray" and do not include Elizabeth as a "Dem who shouldn't be attacked."

I dislike it when any of the candidates discuss these things... the Edwards were awesome in the last election because they spoke about the issues... Elizabeth was awesome... I would vote for her if she were healthy and running... but if we want others to talk about the issues, including the GOP... so we can vote for the person that best represents our values and choices... then why are we talking about negative sound bites?

let's argue the issues!

Republicans love to hate Hillary. This isn't new, nor is it a closely-guarded secret.

My Very Republican Grandfather has a picture of Hillary in the center of his dartboard. I can guaran-damn-tee you that he'll show up to vote against anybody but her.

When My Very Republican Mother asked me who I was supporting in the primaries and I replied, "John Edwards." She was audibly and visibly relieved. Her reply was something like, "Oh, thank God! I thought you'd be supporting Hillary." Complete with full-body shudder.

On the other hand, my Mom is currently reading Elizabeth Edwards' book and has said many times, "I really like her. And you know, her husband's not so bad either." She would NEVER say that about Bill or Hillary Clinton, I assure you.

Like her or not, Hillary IS a polarizing figure. Her poll numbers prove it. And anybody who lives in a red state...or a red area of a blue state...knows how vehement the anti-Hillary sentiment is amongst Republicans.

Nominating Clinton will bring those bastards out in droves. Expect a bigger republican turnout than ever before if she gets the nod. And combine that with the lukewarm at best support the Democrats will give her and you have a recipe for disaster, a loss in what should have been a shoe-in victory for our party.

Edwards is the GOP's nightmare. This is why Fox and others are going after him hard and fast. Have you ever heard a time when the other side went after the third place candidate? The GOP wants Edwards sunk now before he has a chance to take them on. The GOP have waited 8 plus years to go after Hillary and have a stockpile of nasty ads & swiftboats just waiting for her. They will also go after Obama just like they went after Harold Ford with racist and double entandra ads just bold enough to fool the typical Rush listener. It doesn't mean that Hillary or Barack can't handle the attacks, it just makes the contests tougher than they have to be. An Edwards win and nomination would really catch them off guard, unprepared and in a deep hole.

Edwards/Clinton ticket would be unbeatable in the general election. Barack would make a excellent Attorney General and restore hope, integrity and equality to our Justice Department.

but I do know that the Clintons fight back fast and successfully. Bill Clinton eventually became more popular than the idiots who tried to impeach him, even after all the crap they through at him for so long. Hillary has a good track record as a fighter, and I know that I can count on that.

On the other hand, Edwards got mired in haircuts, houses and hedge funds that he still hasn't been able to contain (with the opposition) so I don't know if I can count on him to fight off more serious attacks successfully. The proof will come in the general, when whoever's the nominee will get tested.

that is just the tip of the iceberg.

I say enough is enough. I don't want to live to see all that shit brought up again. We should move forward as a nation and not have to go relive the hate that was shown the Clintons in the 90s.

It would only open up the creepy RW's sex scandals and hypocrisy. I'm not sure about Whitewater or Travelgate, but they've played that hand already and lost.

I won't argue with you about going through another Clinton presidency. I think that's something that either bothers you so much that you can't vote for her, or it doesn't.

Mr. "I'll FORCE you to go to the doctor!" scares them??? :rofl: :rofl:

that the Edwards campaign itself must make an obvious point. That means the hustings are blissfully unaware at this point of recent history and GOP signaling. There are several ways to look at this that are not good for the campaign. The actual point itself would be helpful if the Dem electorate did a little more thinking and less MSM watching.

Obama almost echoed word for word my comments on Hillary, including the anger over what the MSM has unjustly done to her. I had not meant that as a political offering to the general public. Interesting how an idea posted here was not quite ready for media primetime, but then I never suggested it as a major sound bite. The public is being inhibited against hearing or thinking these points, not that those points have no merit. Naturally the Dems themselves usually suppress this obvious negative. And wring their hands in private- which IS sourced.

I don't want to compare the presidential election to past events, but if we look back in history... there were major fights and battles won with opposition... the civil war and Lincoln freeing the slaves... blacks and women achieving the vote... civil rights marches... interracial marriage.... and the Vietnam war protests...

where would we be if we said back then that the battle could not be won?

face it! the first African American or Woman president will not happen without a good fight!

the question is: Is Hillary up for the fight?

And are we going to hide amongst/in the "Bush'ies" by feeding into the rhetoric?

She may have a touch of that also. She again reminds us that it will be difficult for Obama because of his race? We read posts about RW smears against Edwards, but when the heart of his campaign uses these tactics, it is labeled as just truthful campaigning.

I'm no supporter of Hillary for the nomination, but this kind of underhanded attack is one more reason Edwards doesn't deserve to be the nominee.

We can do better than this kind of politics.

And just as sincere...

would claim that EE is wrong about Hillary.

paper ballots and honest two party (or three party) counters at every precinct. Elizabeth is a great lady, but she does not help John's cause by playing to the GOP's despicable anti-Clintonism. Actually most of the world loves Bill Clinton, and that includes Americans. He is not an albatross. I think I have told you about the adorable young couple from Belgium that I met at a lovely bed and breakfast in Natchez, Miss. They volunteered out of nowhere, "We do NOT like your president." Then they happily added, "But we love Bill Clinton. All of Europe does." He was also on the cover of Esquire a year or so ago, labeled "the most influential man in the world." Bill is considered an asset to all but the most limited "morans." Elizabeth would be better served in support of her husband if she concentrated on spreading his many great ideas for the improvement of the average man in America.

Yet, John's the one who is more "electable." As for Elizabeth, I'll tell you what my Mother used to
tell me when I was putting someone down because of my pettiness:

"Your horns are showing young lady.":evilfrown:


Edited to correct subjec line error.

because Hillary's ambition is so strong, so in over-drive that she doesn't seem to get it.

Radical Regressives are at a low point. Many of them would likely stay home for the '08 election. But if the source of all their problems, all their hatred, everything that's wrong in this country and the world (in their minds) were on the ticket, you can bet your ass they'll be swarming to the polls in record numbers. We lose not only the WH but our majorities in congress, as well.

I'm no je fan, but Elizabeth speaks truth. If she were running for pres. I'd support her.

Maybe it's the Dem plan to let Repubs take over? That way when our country is in total ruins, the radical regressives and their complicit media whores won't be able to pin it all on the Dems?

I would think. I don't like HRC, but I am beginning to think she would be the best general election candidate.

I don't think Edwards would have a shot at winning. He's running a worse campaign than Kerry in 2004.

Obama has a shot, I think, but this country is still very racist, and much of his support comes from younger voters who often can't be bothered to actually go to the polls or fill out an absentee ballot.

That's exactly what she's saying. I'll also add that Republicans would love to have Edwards as the nominee, because he'll be a repeat of John Kerry, a candidate who will probably be afraid to defend himself against obvious lies and smear tactics.

candidacy, the repugs will make the election about her not the issues, there are still enough people out there who hate Bill Clinton, that would love nothing better than to help get HIS WIFE, not Senator Hillary Clinton, defeated any way they can.

I think both Hillary and Obama are both un-electable. The only thing that could energize the Repugs more than Hillary would be Obama. I am just disgusted with the whole election process, the MSM is going to nominate Hillary and I wouldn't be surprised if Obama is picked as the VP nominee. Myself I don't have anything against ether one but I think they will guarantee another Repug in 2008. Here it is 2007 and I just can't get interested in the process at all for the first time in my life it just depresses me to think about it. I suppose I will vote, if I even vote, for the Democrat when the time comes.
on edit: I am so disgusted with the whole process I rarely even look at DU anymore.

anyone they run against.They'll put horns on Hillary's head and call her the Devil. They'll morph her into Osama and say, "Don't elect Osama for president."
Running against fascist thugs is a contact sport, and we need experienced knife-fighters. Does John Edwards seem to you to be an experienced knife-fighter? Does Obama seem to you to be an experienced knife-fighter?
Elizabeth seems to suggest that if we send up a decent, honorable man, the GOP will respect that and play fair and not demonize the guy, even tho we already tried that with Gore and Kerry.
HRC will not take anything the racist and facist gop throws at her. She is one hell of an offensive player and will not be on defense when they come at her....Even now Obama and Edwards are doing just that, but HRC will hold her fire, just long enough for these buttheads to feel comfortable that HRC will not respond, but when HRC does, Edwards and Obama will "feel the heat"....
thanks BartCop

I do thank you
Ben David