home

Mudslinging By The Clinton Campaign?

Speaking for me only.

The answer appears to be yes. Responding to this Edwards ad:

the Clinton campaign said:

"If John Edwards really cared about working people, he wouldn't have taken a $500,000 salary from a hedge fund that is foreclosing on working people around the country," said Clinton campaign spokeswoman Hilarie Grey. "Sen. Edwards should spend his time talking about how he's going to help those people instead of launching ridiculous attacks against Sen. Clinton."

Empty, stupid GOP talking points from the Clinton campaign. Awful. And in case you are wondering, I remain a STRONG supporter of NAFTA and free trade. Edwards is dead wrong on NAFTA and trade. Explaining why would be good from a candidate. But if unable to do so, going to personal attacks in response is unconscionable. Shame on the Clinton campaign.

< Misreading A Question and Answer | Ending The Iraq Debacle Is Up To The House >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


  • Display: Sort:
    I totally disagree (none / 0) (#1)
    by Jeralyn on Mon Nov 19, 2007 at 10:20:56 AM EST
    If you watch the entire Clinton segment on the NAFTA segment of the debate, she gave full answers.  Edwards' ad chooses to repeat only her opening line and then inserts the audience laughter to that one line throughout his ad while showing pictures of suffering.  It's false and it's a personal attack.

    Hillary's response to Edwards' ad was not a personal attack. It questions his position on NAFTA.

    Questions it how? (none / 0) (#2)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Nov 19, 2007 at 10:30:36 AM EST
    By bringing up that Edwards made money in a hedge fund?

    It seems to me that you are complaining about Edwards ad, ot defending Clinton's response.

    I thought Clinton's aswer at the debate on AFTA was, in fact, quite weak. But trade is a demagogued issue.

    As I have said repeatedly, I have dropped Edwards from my list of casndidates I may support precisely because he is appealing to the basest natures of populism and is engaging in an ugly campaign filled with personal attacks. the Edwards camapign is easily the most contemptible of this race. I have lost almost all repsect for him and believe he will lose and neve rbe heard from again. A just result.

    But the Clinton campaign just adopted the Edwards tactic in response. Shameful.

    Parent

    Help me here (none / 0) (#3)
    by Deconstructionist on Mon Nov 19, 2007 at 10:36:35 AM EST
      Why is it wrong either for Edwards to criticize Clinton for failing to support trade measures designed to protect domestic jobs or for Clinton to publicize the fact that Edwards accepted very large sums of money from an entity  taking actions which hurt working people who are in debt to that entity?

      Is none of that relvant information for people to consider in choosing a candidate?

    The Edwards information (none / 0) (#4)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Nov 19, 2007 at 10:38:43 AM EST
    strikes me as utterly irrelevant.

    It is the very definition of a irrelevant personal attack in the GOP style.

    Parent

    It might be irrelevant (none / 0) (#5)
    by Deconstructionist on Mon Nov 19, 2007 at 10:45:12 AM EST
      to the specific issue of the worthiness (or clarity) of Clinton's views on trade policy, but is it totally irrelevant to Edwards' desirability as a candidate?

    To me it is (none / 0) (#6)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Nov 19, 2007 at 10:48:13 AM EST
    But even if you think it relevant, you accept it is irrelevant to trade policy.

    BTW, I vehemently disagree with Edwards' views on trade.

    Parent

    Disappointed (none / 0) (#7)
    by BDB on Mon Nov 19, 2007 at 10:57:12 AM EST
    I don't know if I'd go so far as call it mudslining (and after what Edwards has said about HRC, I'm not sure he's in any position to complain), but I'm nevertheless disappointed in the Clinton response.  The Edwards' attack video is ridiculous, but usually the Clinton response is better than this. I can understand them getting frustrated by Edwards' constant attacks, but I thought HRC had the better response at the debate, which was to point out his prior positions. There is a truckload of stuff to mine there, it undermines Edwards' populism argument while it plays as much less of a personal attack.

    I hope they get back to that because, frankly, the hedge fund stuff is beneath them.  Not because I think they're too nice to use it, but because they're a smarter campaign than that. It gives Edwards ammunition and it does so, when based on that ridiculous NAFTA video, he appears to be struggling for it. (Don't get me wrong, I think there are differences on trade between Edwards and Clinton and that Edwards would probably benefit from highlighting those, but that video is a rather pathetic - and disingenuous - effort at making this argument.  It's trying too hard to recapture the Politics of Parsing video and it just doesn't work here, IMO.)  

    In other news, according to TPM, Obama is now referencing the discredited allegation that HRC and the Big Dog had a pact on power and so she has been plotting to be president for 20 years. I thought the early attacks on him abandoning the politics of hope were ridiculous, even if politically smart, but lately he does seem to be using the very tactics he complains about. And I can't believe any Dem. would trust anything Novak or Gerth has to say about Clinton (or any other Dem). It comes across as desperate and, given his fundraising and the close Iowa polls, he has no reason to be desperate, so I honestly can't figure out what the deal is with Obama lately. The Clinton response to this (see http://facts.hillaryhub.com/archive/?id=4258), btw, is a much better one than the hamfisted response to the Edwards' NAFTA stuff, IMO.

    P.S. I can't believe the other candidates haven't started their own "fact" hubs. It's a brilliant idea. It permits the Clinton campaign to respond immediately and aggressively. I hope whoever the nominee is, he or she adopts it for the general because we're going to need it.

    I do not know if Edwards is complaining (none / 0) (#10)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Nov 19, 2007 at 11:01:32 AM EST
    I know that I am.

    I just posted on Obama's gutter politics.

    This campaign is the worst I can remember from Democrats.

    Parent

    edwards and clinton on hedge funds (none / 0) (#8)
    by selise on Mon Nov 19, 2007 at 10:57:12 AM EST
    from an early debate

    Williams: And, Senator, I have a follow-up for you. On modern day America, you've been of counsel to hedge funds.

    Do hedge funds make America any better in any way?

    Edwards: Well, I think what -- first of all, I think the financial markets are an important component of trying to figure out what it is we need to do about the fact that we have 47 million people without health care, 37 million people who wake up in poverty every day.

    They play an enormous role in how money moves in this country. And I happen to believe that we have a responsibility to the people in this country who wake up every day worried about feeding and clothing their children.

    And I think those people in New York who work in financial markets understand -- in some ways, at least -- what can be done and can play a significant role in trying to lift people up who are struggling.

    I am proud of what I've been doing for the last few years. You know, I've been all over the country, organizing workers into unions and raising the minimum wage, and also working at a poverty center at the University of North Carolina.

    Williams: I'm afraid time is up.

    Senator Clinton, you represent the state of New York -- just mentioned. How is America a better place because of all these burgeoning hedge funds?

    Clinton: Well, I think that America is a great place because we have an entrepreneurial economy. We have people who are willing to make stakes and new enterprises and invest their money.

    And, obviously, one of the other reasons we're a great country is because we've learned over the years how to regulate that, so nobody gets an unfair advantage -- and that we, you know, have a framework within which our free market system operates.

    Obviously, for me, it's exciting to represent both New York City, the global capital market leader, and yet I also represent a big state where there are a lot of poor people and people who have no access to health care. They don't have access to affordable college. They're worried about their futures.

    So what we've got to do here is get back to having a Democratic president who will set the rules, so that we can continue to build our economy, we can inspire and incentivize people to take those risks, but we begin to repair the damage that has been done by this president and Republican Congress.

    ......

    my bold

    Good answer from clinton (none / 0) (#9)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Nov 19, 2007 at 11:00:39 AM EST
    Better than Edwards'.

    Parent
    neither impressed me.... (none / 0) (#11)
    by selise on Mon Nov 19, 2007 at 11:04:41 AM EST
    btd - curious as to why you are still a big supporter of nafta. care to elaborate? thanks!

    Parent
    Because it helped all the countries (none / 0) (#14)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Nov 19, 2007 at 11:13:19 AM EST
    It increased trade among our closest neighbors.

    Do you believe in trade? Then you should believe in NAFTA.

    Parent

    no. (5.00 / 1) (#24)
    by selise on Mon Nov 19, 2007 at 02:00:49 PM EST
    i like trade. i hate nafta. nafta is not the only way we have to benefit from  trade.

    that's like saying that because i like vegetables i must love pesticides.

    Parent

    helping? (5.00 / 1) (#26)
    by selise on Mon Nov 19, 2007 at 02:20:04 PM EST
    how does a 25% decrease in wages = helping?

    if nafta is so helpful why is it so hated? have you followed up my previous suggestions and read any stiglitz on our trade policies?

    The North American Free Trade Agreement is neither a free trade agreement, nor a fair trade agreement. If it was a free trade agreement, it would be a short agreement, a few pages, as each country promises to eliminate its tariffs, its non-tariff barriers, and its subsidies. A few additional pages would define the pace in which these barriers would be eliminated. But the agreement runs for hundreds of pages. It is a managed trade agreement, and managed in many ways to protect special interests, like America's agricultural interests. American subsidized corn depresses the price of corn in Mexico, which is one of the reasons that NAFTA has contributed to the growth of rural poverty. The agreement keeps in place a host of non-tariff barriers, which have been repeatedly used to keep Mexican goods out of the American market.

    Equally troublesome, however, is the fact that NAFTA represents an intrusion into areas that go well beyond trade. Chapter 11, which is supposed to be a provision ensuring investor protection, threatens the ability of the member state to impose effective environmental and other regulations. The Clinton Administration successfully opposed such initiatives, when they were proposed by anti-environmentalists in the U.S. Congress. Yet virtually without discussion, the provision became law, snuck in "under the radar screen" in NAFTA.

    NAFTA has been a disappointment. The advocates hoped that it would help Mexico grow, and by closing the disparity between incomes in the U.S. and Mexico, it would reduce migration pressure. But in the first decade of NAFTA, the disparity in incomes actually increased, and, as I explain in Making Globalization Work, NAFTA was at least partly to blame. Especially with incomes of the poor corn farmers falling as a result of NAFTA, migration pressure actually increased.

    Nothing could generate much more ill will between America and its neighbors to the south than the wall which it is constructing, the new "iron curtain." This is not the way to curtail the flow of people, who are desperate to have a job and earn a decent living. The way to reduce the migration pressure is to increase incomes in Mexico and the other countries of Latin and Central America. A true free trade agreement would do that. America would benefit too by eliminating (or at least severely curtailing) its agricultural subsidies. Taxpayers would be better off, and the environment would be better off. (But of course the large corporate farms would stand to lose the most.) Hopefully, in the not too distant future, America will be able to stop this hypocrisy and stand by its principles.. - stiglitz




    Parent
    "Trade" (5.00 / 1) (#27)
    by Alien Abductee on Mon Nov 19, 2007 at 03:18:26 PM EST
    isn't just some simple neutral objective thing. There are many ways it can be done, many ways to shape its effects.

    Here's a succinct assessment of some of what the impact of NAFTA has been on Canada and Canadian society:

    The impact of the Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement and the North American Free Trade Agreement should be measured against the only standard that ultimately counts when evaluating public policy: has "free trade" bettered the lives of the people affected by it?

    The answer is that not only has NAFTA failed to deliver the goods it promised, but its cumulative effect on the well-being of a large majority of Canadians, and on the social cohesion of our society, has been negative. While personal income growth under free trade has registered its worst performance of any comparable period since World War II, income inequality (after tax and transfers) has increased for the first time since the 1920s.

    It is important at the outset to state that NAFTA alone is not to blame. The cu