Edwards to Clinton: No More "Politics of Doubletalk."

Xposted from Daily Kos.

Well, we all heard Senator Clinton at the debate doubletalking her way through answer after answer.  It's not just the blogs who have noticed. For example, the St. Louis Post-Dispatch in an editorial entitled "Eschew obfuscation" on Friday morning said:

Meanwhile, Sen. Hillary Clinton of New York, the frontrunner for the Democratic presidential nomination, has become a walking Waffle House.

Folks are waking up and realizing it.

John Edwards yesterday:

"Now I have a really simple rule," he said. "When you get asked a yes-or-no question, you can't answer it yes-and-no. That doesn't work, and we saw some of that the other night."

 msnbc -- First Read

A primary broke out this week instead of the MSM's coronation. I'll give you a recap and update on this fall Saturday morning, after the fold.

Let me take you back to the debate.

New York Times' Katharine Q. Seelye:

[John Edwards] suggests that Mrs. Clinton voted for the Iran resolution because she was moving from primary mode to general election mode. 'Our responsibility should be in tell-the-truth mode,' he said. Mrs. Clinton calls this a semantic difference."

NY Times

Edwards was more blunt than Obama, citing what he said were Clinton's shifting positions on the war in Iraq and Social Security.

"I think the American people, given this historic moment in our country's history, deserve a president of the United States that they know will tell them the truth and won't say one thing one time and something different at a different time," he told Tim Russert, NBC's Washington bureau chief.

Asked whether he stood by his characterization of Clinton's rhetoric as "doubletalk," Edwards replied firmly, "I do."

msnbc

But she avoided direct answers to several questions. The New York senator wouldn't say how she would address the fiscal crisis threatening Social Security, she declined to pledge whether she would stop Iran from developing a nuclear weapon or say whether she supports giving driver's licenses to illegal immigrants

BOston.com

Jon Stewart noticed the doubletalk:

Clinton responded with a campaign of misdirection, trying to take the focus off her doubletalking and putting it somewhere, anywhere else.  The campaign sent out this video and began a not-so-subtle campaign that some saw as accusing the male candidates as picking on her:

Democrat Barack Obama accused rival Hillary Clinton on Friday of hiding behind her gender after her campaign complained six male candidates engaged in "the politics of pile on" at a debate.

Obama accuses Clinton of hiding behind gender

In a matter of 24 hours, Sen. Hillary Clinton went from referring to her presidency as done deal to acting like the victim of a schoolyard beat down. She's kept a low profile since Tuesday night's trouncing in the debates, where even her closest allies and advisers said she dropped the ball ("As someone who loves her," said former Clinton adviser James Carville. "This was not her best performance."). As she regrouped, Clinton went on the offensive (or defensive?) producing a video titled "The Politics of Pile-On."

wonkette

The Edwards campaign called Clinton out on her tactics of misdirection:

"All the distractions in the world won't undo the fact that on Tuesday night millions of Americans saw John Edwards speak honestly and directly, while Senator Clinton once again took multiple positions on multiple issues. We understand that the Clinton campaign isn't happy about that, but instead of smoke and mirrors, how about some truth-telling?

Edwards Campaign Statement On Senator Clinton's Damage Control Efforts

Yesterday, the Edwards campaign released this video entitled "The Politics of Parsing":

As of this {afternoon], it has been viewed more than 145,000 times already.

John Edwards yesterday on the "politics of doubletalk":

"I believe Senator Clinton should be held to the same standard that every one of us should be held to - tell the truth, no more double-talk and no defending a broken system.

"What I heard from Senator Clinton on Tuesday night was more of the same double-talk--and the American people are tired of it. We need a president who will say the same thing all the time.

"If the Democrats want to win in 2008, it is crucial that we nominate a candidate who can restore the trust between the president and the American people. What we saw in the debate were the 'politics of double-talk.' I have a really simple rule: if you get asked a yes or no question you shouldn't give a yes and no answer."

Edwards Statement On The Politics Of Double-Talk

This issue is not going away.  

I think we have a primary breaking out here in which the voters will choose, not big money and not the media.

Should be fun!!  Hope you all have a great Saturday!

Tags: Hillary Clinton, John Edwards (all tags)

Comments

54 Comments

No More "Politics of Doubletalk."

Edwards is right.  It's time for Senator Clinton to be straight with Americans about plans and policies.

by TomP 2007-11-03 11:53AM | 0 recs
you people

are now using those asses in the msm and the cable news shows to justify your candidates bad behavior....

amazing.

i suggest you start reading the daily howler and media matters and get a frigging clue.

by holden caulfield 2007-11-03 03:32PM | 0 recs
Re: you people

You know, I seriously took your point a few months ago about drawing the line on intra-Democratic mudslinging and the line was drawn at accusations of corruption and repetition of clearly worn-out right wing cants which have no substance, and I agree with that.  But this is a criticism which Obama and Edwards, to a larger degree, have discovered all by themselves and I think it is fair play at election time.

Hillary had her turn with the 'naive and irresponsible' meme and it has certainly damaged Obama's character in this campaign.  As far as I'm concerned she started it.  If she can't defend an attack on her character in this respect how's she going to go in the general?  And if the Republicans pick up on it you can't use that against Obama and Edwards, isn't the natural law of the primary to win the bloody thing?  You can't blame them for wanting it as badly as she does.  I don't see that they are out-of-bounds with this one, she has to meet this head-on.

by Shaun Appleby 2007-11-03 08:23PM | 0 recs
The Clinton campaign started this

They produced the video The Politics of the Pile on.  

The Edwards campaign responded quickly, but much more to the point.

The Politics of Parsing has caught on because it shows the truth so clearly.  

Karma sucks doesn't it.  LOL

by pioneer111 2007-11-03 08:49PM | 0 recs
aint this rich

a man who speaks like Spartacus but personally lives like Charles Foster can accuses others of "doubletalk."

a man who was a MANAGING PARTNER at a hedge fund now pretends that he is THE voice for working stiff Dems...

Almost as amusing as a guy who actually SPONSORED the IRAQI WAR BILL, now attacking Hillary for being a hawk...

A man who cried and whined about the attacks by the media about his 4000 haircut - now joins in as the media bash and bully Hillary...double standard huh?

the man is a living breathing modern day eddie haskell...what a joke...

by holden caulfield 2007-11-03 09:48PM | 0 recs
Re: No More "Politics of Doubletalk."


The Edwards people were pretty slick getting that video response to Hillary out so quickly.

Obama's reponse team is nothing like Edwards'.

by Bush Bites 2007-11-03 11:21PM | 0 recs
Great diary

and over 143,000 views now on that video.

by okamichan13 2007-11-03 11:54AM | 0 recs
he is losing 4 to 1 bucko

he's toast - get a clue!

by holden caulfield 2007-11-03 09:49PM | 0 recs
a few years ago

i did some preess and pr for an art show in DC made up from dozens of clips from news green rooms that was put together by the comic harry Shearer that had that in there....it was shocking and amazing then and now just so frigging obviously at the core of this fraud's being.

Anybody who would buy what this eddie haskell update is selling is one easily fooled sob...

by holden caulfield 2007-11-04 12:35PM | 0 recs
Re: Edwards to Clinton

Let me ask a yes-or-no question of the assembled multitudes.

Do you think it's a fair statement to say, as MSNBC did, "she declined to pledge whether she would stop Iran from developing a nuclear weapon"?

I'll remind everyone of the exchange:

Russert: I want to ask each of you the same question.

Senator Clinton, would you pledge to the American people that Iran will not develop a nuclear bomb while you are president?

Clinton: I intend to do everything I can to prevent Iran from developing a nuclear bomb.

Russert: But you won't pledge?

Clinton: I am pledging I will do everything I can to prevent Iran from developing a nuclear bomb.

Russert: But, they may.

Clinton: Well, you know, Tim, you asked me if I would pledge, and I have pledged that I will do everything I can to prevent Iran from developing a nuclear bomb.

(Laughter)

Is this "doubletalk"?

by Steve M 2007-11-03 12:02PM | 0 recs
Re: Edwards to Clinton

Yes.

by minvis 2007-11-03 12:11PM | 0 recs
Re: Edwards to Clinton

Judging by the other responses, you seem to be in a minority in regarding this as doubletalk, which is fine.  But let's turn to the next candidate to be asked the same question.

Russert: Senator Edwards?

Edwards: What I will do is take all the responsible steps that can be taken to keep Iran from developing a nuclear weapon.

Same question, that's his answer.  Doubletalk?

by Steve M 2007-11-03 01:58PM | 0 recs
Re: Edwards to Clinton

According to minvis, "Yes."

by jfashwell 2007-11-03 02:04PM | 0 recs
Re: Edwards to Clinton

Actually now that I've had an actual conversation with someone below on this, I'm changing my vote to yes it is double talk.

by bruh21 2007-11-03 02:07PM | 0 recs
sher doesnt jump threw russerts hoop

and shes being false...

man, you folks really are clueless about how the media works....

man, after 2000...frigging seven years later...and you still DONT GET IT...

amazing...

by holden caulfield 2007-11-03 03:33PM | 0 recs
Re: Edwards to Clinton

How's that for an answer.

by minvis 2007-11-03 12:11PM | 0 recs
Re: Edwards to Clinton

That's a fine answer.  Let's see what some others think.

by Steve M 2007-11-03 12:17PM | 0 recs
what about

"I am pledging I will do everything I can to prevent Iran from developing a nuclear bomb."

is soo frigging difficult to understand?

The obama and edwards campaigns have morphede in to Chris matthews - Tim russert mentality and so....from now on, I will respond to them in the same way I have to those two frigging GE attack dogs since 2000...

half thinking fools...

by holden caulfield 2007-11-03 12:43PM | 0 recs
Re: what about

How about the first answer being, "Yes, I will pledge to prevent Iran from developing a nuclear bomb."?

Period.

There is never a Yes or No in any of her responses.

Personally, I understand what she is saying, but for Joe Schmo out there in middle America, he just wants a straight answer to a Yes or No question.

Why do you think the Republicans, before the Bush Administration, had the kind of appeal that they had?  It certainly wasn't because of their policy positions.  It was because they weren't afraid of answering directly on a controversial subject, however loony the answer.

People just wanted it told to them straight.

by minvis 2007-11-03 12:56PM | 0 recs
what - by jumping

threw false and bogus gotcha points put out by that great fool GE's and Welch's boy Russert?

She said what she as the potential leader of the free world wanted to say on that issue - that she would do whatever she could....

I suggest you start reading the daily howler and learn about how these fools in the msm work to hurt our candidates....

until you do, you will be suckered again, again and again...

by holden caulfield 2007-11-03 03:29PM | 0 recs
Re: Edwards to Clinton

No. That's not doubletalk.

by Mystylplx 2007-11-03 12:49PM | 0 recs
Re: Edwards to Clinton

Come to think of it that is pretty doubletalky, just a minor example of it is all. Why couldn't she just have said something like, "You know, Tim, that anyone who makes promises about the behavoir of other people or other countries is either a fool or a lier, and because I am neither I cannot make a pledge to you about what Iran will do. I can, however, make a pledge to you about what I will do, and I pledge to do everything in my power as President to porevent Iran from acquiring a nuclear weapon."

In that case she would have been answering the question (the answer being 'no.') but still geting in her pledge to do "everything she can." I think most people would understand that. Instead she fell back on her typical strategy of just answering the question she wants to answer instead of the question that was asked. Notice how in that exchange she never did answer the question she was asked.

by Mystylplx 2007-11-03 01:17PM | 0 recs
Re: Edwards to Clinton

So unless everything is double speak all the time, we are suppose to ignore those parts that are in her campaign thus far? Interesting. No, that statement is not double speak.

However, her vote first for the Lieberman Iran bill, and then when she saw it wasn't polling well, her subsequent support for the letter to the President saying he should stop sabre rattling with Iran (after giving him his tools to do the rattling) is double speak in the form of actions. She's saying I am going to give you the tools, but I don't want you to use them. I am with you, but now i am against you. I want to convince independents who may lean your party's direction in the general, but I don't want to hurt my chance with the base of the party in Iowa with whom this isn't polling well. Context matters. Keeping this just to the debate is easy enough to pretend that she hasn't been doing as people are describing. It becomes a lot harder to make that claim or the course of the campaign. You can point to instances where Edwards and Obama have been guilty of this too, BUT, not to the same degree and certainly not as intensely obvious that this is what they are doing without being called on it.

by bruh21 2007-11-03 12:57PM | 0 recs
Re: Edwards to Clinton

Exactly. One answer that wasn't doubletalk doesn't cancel out the numerous answers she gives which clearly ARE doubletalk. She votes to authorize the president to use millitary force in Iraq, then argues that she didn't expect him to use the power she voted to give him. She votes against a policy of not selling cluster bombs to countries that use them on civilians, then says she wasn't really opposed to the policy she voted against. etc. etc.

And watching her debate performances it does seem she never quite answers the question that was asked. The example given above about pledging to not allow Iran to develop nuclear weapons was an example of this, it's just an example I think she was justified in. However she does that all the time, and usually she isn't so justified.  

by Mystylplx 2007-11-03 01:08PM | 0 recs
Re: Edwards to Clinton

What she did with the answer was a lawyer's game. Basically, it gives the appearance of an answer but all she ever really did was give the break down of both sides. She leans a direction, but then never commits to it. It allows her wiggle room later to then say "that's not what I meant or what I think" and to be technically right.  If this were a contract she would be creating slight ambiguity for the purpose of later redefine the term. Dealt with a case like that recently- contract dispute in which the terms seemed 'clear' until of course they proved not to be. Everything she says makes sense at the tree level of analysis, but becomes problematic when you think at the forrest level. ie, my example of her voting for Lieberman can be justified, and even her letter can e justified, but the problem comes from putting the to together and thinking of the other players, the context etc, and whether it makes sense then. If you are the keep your head down and just analysis type, you can certainly explain it away however.

by bruh21 2007-11-03 01:18PM | 0 recs
Re: Edwards to Clinton

She answered a different question than was asked. The question she was asked was if she would pledge that Iran would not get nuclear weapons. The question she answered was if she would do everything she could do to prevent Iran from acquiring nukes. She should've just answered the question 'no,' and then made her personal pledge to do everything she could.

But if she had done that she couldn't have left the illusion that she might really be pledging absolutely that Iran wouldn't be getting any nukes during a Hillary Clinton administration.

by Mystylplx 2007-11-03 01:28PM | 0 recs
Re: Edwards to Clinton

You are right! and I hadn't thought of it until you wrote it out. But then that's how politicians exploit us. We aren't thinking how she or any of them didn't precisely answer our questions or how that allows them later to twist the conversation to say "i never said that." We tend to fill int he blanks in terms of ambiguities. becuase who is thinking "okay they are giving me a surgically structured answer so that they can wiggle out of what they are saying later or convincing me they are saying more than what they are saying."  On the immigration answer I could see that machinary but I totally missed that here. This is why I say we are all capable of being manipulated by their use of what we want to believe. this is why we need to keep them on the hot seat as much as possible with regard to their answers.

by bruh21 2007-11-03 01:42PM | 0 recs
Re: Edwards to Clinton

Yeah, and she would have gotten away with it if Russert hadn't kept repeating the question, thereby making it at least a little more obvious that she wasn't answering the question she had been asked.

by Mystylplx 2007-11-03 03:20PM | 0 recs
Re: Edwards to Clinton

What bothers me more is that all these games may work. If people  who think of themselves as critical thinkers on political issues aren't able to realize how they are being manipulated or don't care (which is what I think of A list bloggers at this point- as one friend said to me recently who is involved in party politics on a heavily level- the fix is in), then what about the apolitical voters who make up the majority? What I am saying is it takes a lot of effort and time to understand context and meaning. It is not at all as simple as posting a phrase out of context- and you know where the candidate stands as Steve does above. As I realized with your analysis, even this statement is clearly very smart, but cynical. So I don't see how it will be easy for others to descern the nature of her game without the short hand of the tools she is using effectively like indentity politics or tribal party identitification without regard to what she actually means.

by bruh21 2007-11-03 03:35PM | 0 recs
doing 'everything she can"

is doubletalk?

man, you folks will buy ANYTHING thats justifies your losing candidates ambitions wont you?

by holden caulfield 2007-11-03 03:35PM | 0 recs
Re: Edwards to Clinton

I agree with your point.

WTF? Russert's making Hillary pledge to control another country through military might.

I mean, shit. What's she supposed to say?

"Yes, I'll make Iran stop developing a nuclear program, then I'll make China stop dealing with Iran, then I'll order Russia to stop their deals in the Middle East, then I'll make Venezuela give up their democratically elected president just for kicks."

The question was fuckin' scary. Like it came off the pages of some PNAC screed.

Russert's a neocon war monger.

(And I'm not even a Hillary supporter.)

by Bush Bites 2007-11-03 11:36PM | 0 recs
Clinton to Edwards :->

Clinton to Edwards:

"Your vacation starts in four months. Have fun!"

:-)

by rakk12 2007-11-03 12:09PM | 0 recs
Re: Clinton to Edwards :->

actually two months...

by prisonbreak 2007-11-03 12:15PM | 0 recs
Tom, I don't know if it is

you or the direction of the Edwards campaign, but these increasingly negative attacks are just objectionable.   A walking Waffle House?  Come on.  

by bookgrl 2007-11-03 12:21PM | 0 recs
For clarity sake

That's the St. Louis Post Dispatch saying it, not TomP.

http://www.stltoday.com/stltoday/news/st ories.nsf/editorialcommentary/story/E871 B9B2979DCED686257387000325F7?OpenDocumen t

Fourth paragraph down.

by minvis 2007-11-03 12:38PM | 0 recs
and al gore said he invented the internet

oh, how i love the media and their deep thinking...

by holden caulfield 2007-11-03 03:36PM | 0 recs
Tell that to the

St. Louis Post-Dispatch.  i did not come up with that.  A moderate Democratic editorial writer did.

I thought it was a funny line.  

by TomP 2007-11-03 12:38PM | 0 recs
Re: Tell that to the

Ah, but there are no Waffle Houses in Iowa or New Hampshire!

by Steve M 2007-11-03 12:42PM | 0 recs
LOL!! Good line.

I'm not sure.  

by TomP 2007-11-03 01:29PM | 0 recs
theyre disgusting!

and i for one am so sick of them.

in 2004, John and his wife were over the Clintons house asking for advice over and over about how to run for Prezand and now....this....frigging PI lawyer...who didnt even VOTE consistently before he ran for the Senate is pretending to be the soul of our Party!

puleeze!

from being a hedge fund managing partner to spartacus in just a couple of dozen months ....talk about double speak!

Oh yeah...hes a man of the people because he does press ops at picket lines....what a poseur!

What a fake, what phonie...

Hillary is still gonna win this thing easy, but personally, just for giggles and truthiness....im gonna be telling the real truth about these two frigging attack campaigns from now on...

I know team clinton would hate it - but hey - this is an anonymous locale aint it?

by holden caulfield 2007-11-03 12:40PM | 0 recs
I think you are forgetting

one very important factor here.

It's not personal.  This is not personal, they are running for the Democratic Nomination for President.

You have made it personal by calling them disgusting and a fake.  I've never seen Edwards supporters use that language when referring to Clinton.

You should be ashamed of yourself.  Hillary Clinton knows it's not personal, she's running for office, she's an adult and she knows the difference.

by Ellinorianne 2007-11-03 01:13PM | 0 recs
Re: I think you are forgetting

there have been edwards supporters to go over the top too. but you are right that this isn't personal. for a lot of people it is- and thats the problem- their projection.

by bruh21 2007-11-03 01:45PM | 0 recs
Re: Edwards to Clinton:

I don't care if Jesus himself came down and entered the race, I'd still vote for Hillary.

by reasonwarrior 2007-11-03 01:54PM | 0 recs
the constant mantra

of the thinking impaired..

by holden caulfield 2007-11-03 03:37PM | 0 recs
Re: Edwards to Clinton:

Yeah, I don't get the Hillary cult either.

I mean, I consider her better than the Repubs, but not much more than that.

No idea what they see in her.

by Bush Bites 2007-11-03 11:41PM | 0 recs
well, thats exactly what

the GOP and the media elite WANT you to say about hillary.

Way to stay on THEIR script.

So foolish...

by holden caulfield 2007-11-03 03:39PM | 0 recs
Edwards is a hypocrit with nice hair

Edwards should be consistant.  Instead he is all over the place.  Don't let Edwards get away with railing against corporations when he was a member of the DLC's 'New Democrats' in when he served in the Senate.  He was a corporate Democrat himself.  Now he is just a hypocrit.

Don't let Edwards get away with scoring points by bashing hedge funds when he made large cash working for a hedge fund just over a year ago.  Make Edwards be honest for a change.

Edwards is our Mitt Romney.  He will say anything to gain a vote.

by dpANDREWS 2007-11-03 03:59PM | 0 recs
Re: Edwards is a hypocrit with nice hair

I could swear I already asked you once to read Edwards' speech to the DLC in 2002.

This idea that Edwards was ever a "corporate Democrat" is pure fiction.  He ran for the Senate as a populist in 1998, he made speeches right in the DLC's face in 2002 advocating corporate reform, he is in the same place today.

As with every politician, you can point to shifts in this position or that position he may have taken over the years, but you cannot point to one issue where he has made a flip-flop comparable to Mitt Romney's conversion from pro-choice to pro-life, from pro-gay to anti-gay, from left of Ted Kennedy to right of Fred Thompson.  You just can't do it!

All you do by trotting out this fact-free attack is impair our ability to paint Mitt Romney as the uniquely disingenuous character he is.  Do you get offended when people compare Hillary to Bush or Cheney?  Then lay off the Romney comparisons already.

by Steve M 2007-11-03 04:06PM | 0 recs
Re: Edwards to Clinton

I will probably get "trolled" but I don't care.  Edwards is a lying, manipulative s.o.b. and he can go fuck himself.

He isn't going to be our next President.  He's like a smarmy little snake-oil salesmen going from one talk show to another with his very dishonest little video about the only candidate who has a hope of winning back the WhiteHouse.

Fuck you Edwards, you slimeball.

by Regan 2007-11-03 04:06PM | 0 recs
Edwards' Anti Doublespeak Regime

Edwards is just a prettier Bush. The world is all black or white, yes or no, for him. Can you see this man taking his tired retro Perry Mason act global? Well Ahhhhmedinaahjad are yuh we me or agin me? No doublespeak nah we Americuns we don't speak doublespeak!  What is Edwards going to do in this big world out there that is nothing but diplomatic doublespeak, endless strategic head fakes and chess moves. His Perry Mason act may play well on MSNBC but Edwards is definitely not for export. His no doublespeak fixation is best suited to Court TV or one of them Judge Judy type shows.
by superetendar 2007-11-03 04:47PM | 0 recs
Re: Edwards' Anti Doublespeak Regime

I am going to uprate these comments, not because they aren't stupid as hell, they are, but because I don't think we should be censoring people for being stupid.

by Hillary Lieberman 2007-11-04 05:15AM | 0 recs
Re: Edwards to Clinton

The Clinton folks have lost civility. No big surprise I guess. Amazing how you folks start to show your true face.

by Hillary Lieberman 2007-11-04 05:17AM | 0 recs
We've Had 8 Yeards

Of a President who believes there are only yes and no answers to questions.

We need Change.

by Edgar08 2007-11-03 09:53PM | 0 recs
Edwards Authoritarian Politics of No

Under that velvet haircut and smooth voice Edwards is indeed no different from George Bush. Edwards thinks in black and white, yes or no, he hates complexity, is bothered by shades of gray and thinks life is one Perry Mason event after another. Is this the kind of person to represent 21st century America?  The world out there is not black or white, it is filled with nuance, shifting alliances, murky oil interests and we are going to get stuck with a man who reduces everything to a Perry Mason Gotcha moment?

by superetendar 2007-11-04 01:27AM | 0 recs

Diaries

Advertise Blogads


----------- myDD - skin -----------