• 
• 
• 
• 
by Christi Parsons
Other Democratic candidates have been talking tough about Hillary Clinton from a distance in the past few days, but tonight they'll get their chance to do it in person.
MSNBC will broadcast a presidential debate on the campus of Drexel University, at 8 p.m. Chicago time, when Barack Obama and John Edwards can take up their beefs directly with Clinton, the frontrunner.
Edwards has been the leading Clinton critic among the Democratic candidates for weeks now, on Monday offering another shot at her relationship with corporate lobbyists.
And campaigning in Iowa yesterday, Obama said Clinton was sidestepping the question of how to fix the Social Security system.
By way of response, the Clinton campaign simply posted two side-by-side clips of Obama and Edwards on their Hillary Hub website.
In his clip, Edwards can be seen saying that he's not about tearing down the other Democratic candidates, but rather promoting the "politics of hope."
"The campaigns shouldn't be about making each other look bad," says Obama in his clip. "They should be about figuring out how we can all do some good for this precious country of ours."
Obama has made it clear lately that he's not going to be shy about pointing out distinctions between himself and Clinton, and it seems obvious that Edwards will do the same. Perhaps they'll do so to their own benefit, or maybe to each other's.
But it's not hard to guess how the Clinton camp plans to respond.
Comments
Meanwhile, the New York Daily News reports that millionaire Obama is using campaign contributions to pay for his personal gym workouts. See http://www.nydailynews.com/news/wn_report/2007/10/30/2007-10-30_analysis_barack_obama_used_campaign_cash-1.html
When caught, Obama said it was an "error" (shades of the usual Clinton excuse) and promised to reimburse the campaign.
Obama's contributors should take pride in knowing where their money is going....
Posted by: Bruce | October 30, 2007 9:20 AM
I am sick of Hillary's campaign response, "They said they were about hope, and were going to be positive."
That dismissive approach won't last for long. She is not King.
Posted by: Oscar | October 30, 2007 9:58 AM
Oscar, the brainless Democratic voter will make Hillary the Queen B. At least till she loses in the general election. Hillary believes this race is hers, that the White House belongs to her and that the U.S. is her little play thing. She will do to this country what he husband has done to countless women.
Posted by: John D | October 30, 2007 10:18 AM
The only way for the Politics of Hope to succeed is for Hilary to be defeated, and soundly.
Posted by: John S | October 30, 2007 10:34 AM
Let's face the brutal fact: the repukes are DESPERATE for Hillary
Rodham-Clinton to win. The big-money boys are donating to her campaign rather than to their own candidates. The corporate power-brokers are
lining up behind her, including providing speechwriters and professional
apologists for "that man, Bill." The rightwingnut hate-talkingheads are
making as much noise as possible about Obama's and Edwards' "attacks" on
R-C.
Because they know she's the ONLY candidate they stand a PRAYER of BEATING.
Even Kucinich would make mincemeat of any of the criminal clowns in the
repugnantcan field. Even Obama, with his lack of experience, would draw
out enough voters to hammer the stale pale males, while most of the stale-pale-male crowd would stay home in disgust. Even Joe Biden, best
known for plagiarizing, could simply point and laugh at anyone in the
bushdick field.
But R-C? Even Alan Keyes (oh, PLEASE) would only have to whisper "Hillary -- you know, HILLARY" as the dirty word they've worked so hard to make it, and pseudo-intellectuals would desert the Democrats in DROVES.
Sure, R-C is a strong, intelligent woman, and could hold her own in the international arena. But she's no more a progressive than Giuliani is.
And while a Rodham-Clinton vs. Giuliani contest might be entertaining on a reality TV show, it would be a true end-times nightmare for the real world.
R-C is every bit as beholden to special interests as Mitt Romney, and if she tried to attack him and his coward kids for their lack of any service
to the country, it would be open Faux Spews season on Chelsea -- the corporate media would forget all about any meaningful issues, and go
back to playing soap opera.
R-C's voting record is considerably to the fascist side of Ron Paul's, and
about the only thing Ron Paul is known for is conspiracy theories.
In short, although R-C isn't an idiot, anyone supporting her is. The point of this next election is to get the Bush family's chosen successor OUT of power before they start WW3, NOT to give us another four years of phony
scandals and manufactured obstructionism.
IT IS NOT A POPULARITY CONTEST. IT IS A SELECTION OF WHO NEXT GETS A FINGER ON THE NUCLEAR ARSENAL.
Not to mention who gets to replace the next "Supreme," all the Department Heads and Secretaries, and what to do about the "signing
statements" that have already raped the Constitution to the point of imperial fascism.
You can bet absolutely everything you own that the bushdicks have another
"terrorist attack" scheduled for ten months from now, with the intention of "postponing" (indefinitely) any loss of power until they can flee the country. The criteria you HAVE to base your selection on is, who will
stand up to them and call them on their BS?
Bill Clinton didn't. He had clear evidence of Bush One's treason and crimes -- enough to have him tried and executed in public -- and he
declined to pursue it, "for the good of the country."
Or maybe because he was just short-sighted, because if he HAD gone after Bush One and his co-conspirators, we would have been spared eight
years of inane charges and wag-the-dog attempts at impeachment, we would
have had a strong economy and agencies run by competent professionals instead of corrupt cronies who couldn't even be bothered to interrupt
their dinner as Katrina destroyed the gulf coast. We would have been spared another eight years of a whining, vicious, brain-damaged bullying coward attempting to turn the country into his own personal kingdom, and
there would NOT HAVE BEEN any terrorist attacks.
Rodham-Clinton shares that baggage of spinelessness and being duped. No one paying attention to what the Clintons let slip away, over the past
fifteen years, despite having the power to block ANY of it with the stroke of a pen or a word to CNN, could possibly consider her competent to make
up for those failures now.
Gore shares that same baggage. He had clear reason to challenge the Supreme Traitor decision -- ten dozen legal experts called it outright treason -- and demand everything from a hand recount of every vote in Florida (complete with honest ballots instead of Katty Harris' carefully deceptive ones), to a complete new election with international observers.
He just shrugged and walked off. "I didn't really want the job anyway."
Well, Al, you obviously didn't deserve the job in the first place. Who believes you would "fight for" us, when you wouldn't fight for yourself?
I can't think of anything more disastrous for progressives than for Al to slide into the campaign at the last minute, lose through some illegal manipulation or other (like the one they keep trying in
California), AND THEN BACK DOWN AGAIN.
The Democrats need to quit treating this like a ratings grab, and start working together to prevent ANY possibility of Dick Cheney suddenly "retiring for medical reasons," and appointing one of the repuke candidates in his place to become the "chosen successor." They --
especially R-C -- need to stop thinking like Oprah, and start thinking like Lincoln.
R-C is on an ego trip. That makes her little better than the bushdicks. Obama is out to "prove himself." You don't "prove yourself" with empty
gestures and sound bites.
Your vote, and your decision, is your own, of course. But as a long-time engineering analyst, who doesn't give a flying rat's carcass about polls and popularity, here's my Dream Team:
John Edwards, President
Barack Obama, VP
Wesley Clark, SecDef
Hillary Rodham-Clinton, SecState
Al Gore, National Science Adviser
Bill Richardson, back to Energy Secretary
Joe Biden, Education
Dennis Kucinich, Interior or Health or Agriculture
Chris Dodd, Health or Housing or Labor
I base my decisions on the facts available, not on opinions. Bridges and
buildings and space shuttles don't care about opinions, and we're dealing with a situation, worldwide, every bit as dependent on facts and informed decisions as that bridge you drive across, or that rocket made of a
barely-contained bomb.
No doubt there are others equally qualified, but instead of wasting money on banal advertisements attacking each other, a united front with CVs
demonstrating their qualifications, instead of their promises, would go a
long way towards energizing a public already sick of politics-as-usual.
We either get it together, or we lose it all.
Posted by: The Die Hard | October 30, 2007 10:52 AM
"...millionaire Obama is using campaign contributions to pay for his personal gym workouts." - Posted by: Bruce
He spent a total of $35 for the gymn workouts. Who cares? What's next... they're going to tell us he used his campaign account to get a coffee at Starbucks. Oh no, how dare him. What a waste of web space.
Posted by: Blake | October 30, 2007 11:03 AM
In am so shocked! How dare Obama's camapign (NOT Obama himslef) pay all of $35 for the gym? Why would they want him to mignle with the people in the gym? Why would they want him to keep fit for the gruelling campaign? Because Obama's campaign spent all that $35 on the gym, I will now vote for the media ordained candidate, Hillary Clinton!
Posted by: Anonymous | October 30, 2007 12:58 PM
Democrats are good at criticizing, but seldom offer any solutions ... Obama is a political democrat through and through. Why attack Hillary? Tell us what your positions are ... fat chance.
Posted by: K W Smith | October 30, 2007 2:09 PM
The big news is right outside re: $1,000,000.00 & more people with Gravel than in the hall - GE NBC DNC are in panic
Posted by: gravel kucinich paul nader | October 30, 2007 6:10 PM
Trite.
Posted by: eSPO | October 30, 2007 7:59 PM