Well this is interesting.John Edwards is attacking Hillary Clinton for corruption:
Boo-yah Mr. Singer! I like the response. But what's interesting here is what John Edwards is not attacking. Hillary Clinton and her campaign has been roiled by the ongoing and seemingly never-ending revelations about Norman Hsu and his money."Today's Clinton fundraising event is a 'poster child' for what is wrong with Washington and what should never happen again with a candidate running for the highest office in the land," Edwards' senior adviser Joe Trippi said in a letter to supporters.
Edwards and Barack Obama have declined money from individuals who lobby the federal government and have tried to portray Clinton, who does accept lobbyists' money, as beholden to special interests. Obama and Edwards do accept money from corporate executives whose industries have interests in government policies.
In response, Clinton campaign spokesman Phil Singer said, "Increasingly negative attacks against other Democrats aren't going to end the war, deliver universal health care or turn John Edwards' flagging campaign around."
Questions like where did the money come from? And will she give it back? Since this is all anyone is talking about, why isn't Edwards talking about that? Oh yes:
So forget the Hsu angle, but then he attacks Hillary on corruption... Not that Hillary is clean as the driven snow, but Edwards is a trial lawyer, and backed by the trial lawyers association. This is a lobby, a special interest. And I thought the Democrats didn't like hypocrisy.By returning the money, Clinton also puts pressure on presidential rivals and other politicians with rainmakers who have dubious pasts or who have employed questionable fundraising tactics, including the campaigns of Barack Obama and John Edwards.
So my question to Edwards: If you're going to attack Hillary for something you've been doing since day one (raising funds by selling access) why not attack her for the Hsu angle? It's no less hypocritical, and you might even score some points. John Edwards is a joke, and it really is too bad the campaign can't dump him and run Elizabeth instead.
Reader Comments ( Page 1 of 1)
1. We seem to run in different circles. No one I know is still stuck on the Hsu incident. I think Hillary responded appropriately to it and intends to tighten the "vetting" process, if you will.
As far as Edwards, I can't think there is a little bitterness involved here. He may well regret having run second on a doomed 2004 ticket instead of staying in the Senate. I guess when you can't find a positive way of distinguishing yourself in a broad field for the Democratic Nomination, you might be tempted to go for negative comments about the front runner...hoping that might work. Desperate people do desperate things, and at this point, he seems desperate. He IS a hypocrite...starting with his apology for his 2002 vote authorizing the war.
I never expect to agree with a single candidate or President on every single issue. Like many people, I just make what I feel is the best choice given our options. I like Hillary and want her to be the next President, but I hardly expect her or anyone to be perfect...as I am not.
Sincerely,
Mr. Clark
Mr. Clark at 9:49AM on Sep 19th 2007
2. Mr. Clark,Look to the 'most commented on' list on this page. Hillary/Hsu issue is still there. Its not going to go away either. Certainly not with this new 'oil man' donor popping up on todays posts. Am sure there is more to come too.
Larry at 12:24PM on Sep 19th 2007