What about this Debate Exchange? Did anyone Lie or Mislead?

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/05/us/politics/05text-ddebate.html?_r=1&pagewanted=all&oref=slogin

Question to Edwards: Can you give New Hampshire voters a guide of something significant that you accomplished in your six years as a U.S. senator --

Edwards: Absolutely. I can tell you exactly one -- I'll give you one very specific example, a big example.

Edwards: We need a president who will take these people on. What we did -- and I didn't do it alone, don't claim to have done it alone -- but I, Senator McCain who was here earlier, Senator Kennedy, the three of us wrote the Patient's Bill of Rights, the three of us took on the powerful insurance industry and their lobby every single day of the fight for the Patient's Bill of Rights and we got that bill through the United States Senate and got it passed.

Rebuttal--

Clinton: You know, Senator Edwards did work and get the Patients Bill of Rights through the Senate; it never got through the House. One of the reasons that Natalie may well have died is because there isn't a Patients Bill of Rights.We don't have a Patients Bill of Rights.

Edwards: Because George Bush -- George Bush killed it.

Clinton: Well, that's right, he killed it. So we've got to have a plan and a real push to get it through.


------------
My Take: Interestingly enough, Edwards stated that the bill got through the senate AND got it passed. So was he attempting to say that the bill had passed and became law by omission? Because getting the bill through the senate would mean that it passed in the senate. So why say "AND got it passed". What was that meant to imply? :shrug:

That he didn't accomplish anything in the Senate.

I'm not buying the bullshit.

He was given a golden opportunity to say what he DID accomplish.

It's what he's fought for. Against the wishes of the special interests.

Are you trying to say Senator Edwards didn't accomplish anything in his time in the Senate?

That was one of the Bush Republicans favorite talking points on John Kerry in 2004, wasn't it?

I'm not saying anything about what he did or didn't accomplish. I'm saying when given the opportunity to talk about it, he named one thing that DIDN'T PASS. His words were misleading, and Clinton set it straight. There was no foul play there.

He was backing up that rhetoric with an example from his time in the United States Senate. And of anything Edwards was ever involved with in the Senate, that was something he should be most proud of being a part of. I have no problem he listed it as his greatest accomplishment, and like he said it got killed by George Bush.

If you want to suggest because he named this, he doesn't have any accomplishments...go ahead and stop beating around the bush. But you'll be using the same talking point the Bush Republicans used against John Kerry who spent twenty years in the Senate when he ran in 2004.

Senator Clinton's petty attack made it seem like she placing the blame on Edwards for the death of that young woman, and I don't think it'll play well with New Hampshire voters. Especially with the angry tone she took.

And for the record, this is the first time we've extensively heard anything about Hillary's record in the Senate, when she talked about it in this debate. Usually she uses the same line "I've fought for families and children for 35 years" anytime anyone asks her about her record, accomplishments, or experience.

I am not saying anything about his accomplishments. We're talking about what HE said in answer to that question.

Clinton clarified a misleading statement. She DID NOT BLAME EDWARDS for the death of the woman. SHE DID NOT BLAME EDWARDS for the fact that the bill didn't pass.

She does have a record of many accomplishments before the Senate. That is exactly why all the rightwing crap about her got launched by the rightwing decades ago, and still lives on today, obviously.

Unbelievable, isn't it?

About the young woman who died, and she some how implied that because that bill never became law is the reason she's dead. Thus looking like she was pinning it on Senator Edwards.

Whether that's what Hillary meant, her clear anger didn't help combat the post-debate spin about what she meant.

She "implied" nothing of the kind. Edwards' words made it sound like it passed, and she corrected that. She also said we need to push a bill like that through. That "implies" she believes it's important and could save lives, such as this young woman's.

And she said it with clear anger, and I seriously doubt her tone and the way she worded what she said will do her any favors with the New Hampshire voters.

She wasn't angry at Edwards that the bill didn't pass!

She was simply correcting the impression that it had passed.

SHEEEEEESH...

He could at least spin it that way.

or else, it wouldn't have gotten through? :shrug:

Adding "and we got it passed" is either redundent or was meant to imply that the bill passed to become law.

It was a fuzzy response considering that it was meant to showcase one of Edwards biggest accomplishment and the only example he felt he needed to provide.

passed both houses. But the Senate version was the only one that would have given the family any means of enforcement.

That version did not pass Congress.

It was meant to imply that he actually DID something. But as we all can see, the one time he's asked what he's done, his answer was pathetic and meaningless.

For all of his talk about the two Americas, he in reality, he has done nothing but talk. He accomplished no great deeds while he was in the senate. His whole reasoning for being in the senate, was to use it as a stepping stone to the presidency.

And that he did, after serving in the senate for only two years.

Maybe you've got him confused with Senator Obama....

IMHO, there is no comparison between Barack Obama and johnnyboy.

Btw, he began campaigning in 2002.

He won his Senate seat in 1998, and began his career as a Senator in 1999.

He didn't formally enter the race until 2003.

Saying he entered the Senate as politically unknown, and instantly wanted to run for President is insanity. Even when he ran in 2003, he was still virtually unknown to most.

"IMHO, there is no comparison between Barack Obama and johnnyboy."

Merely opinion, BUT....

There is one difference!! You say John Edwards ran after two years, which is a lie. Barack Obama entered the Senate in 2005, and ran in 2007. So he's the one whose ran with only two years Senate experience.

You: You're saying he ran after two years in Senate, that's a lie.

Me: Btw, he began campaigning in 2002.

and I find his answer telling.

This would have been his opportunity to list all of the things he had acomplished....for those who didn't know.

It appears that he didn't accomplish much, which is why he could only come up with one example....which was what he wanted.....but at the end, did not come to fruition. In other words, he didn't get his "want" accomplished.

You know? The same "he didn't accomplish anything" line they used against twenty year Senate veteran John Kerry in 2004.

That Edwards accomplished while in the Senate that made a difference to our lives in one way or the other.

Then we can say this is a RW talking point, and not the truth.

why aren't you celebrating his success instead of combing the sand looking for little nuggets that look like mountains when you put them against your eye?

and I believe that many are Edwards supporters, that's why.

It shows that we can pass it now with a Democratic President and Democratic House.

However, Edwards should've been more specific because somebody was probably going to call him on it.

it is rather lonely for 6 years time.

He should have listed a few. That would have satisfied the question much better, IMO.

To list what he did that actually made a difference, rather than what could have made a difference IF.....