Network News

X My Profile
View More Activity

Clinton Advisers Point to Edwards Threat

Clinton speaks up on Edwards' issues. (AP).

By Anne E. Kornblut
INDEPENDENCE, Iowa -- Clinton advisers have been pushing the notion that former senator John Edwards poses a growing threat in the Iowa caucuses, suggesting their internal data show something of a mini-surge for the North Carolinian. Obama advisers have countered that it makes for a convenient storyline -- and is evidence the Clinton campaign is threatened by a two-way race with Sen. Barack Obama.

Today, Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton took Edwards on over his signature issue, indicating she may view the Edwards improvements as quite real. "People talk about poverty in this campaign," Clinton said during a crowded event here. "Well, we lifted more people out of poverty during the 1990s than at any time in our history."

Clinton went on to dismiss the notion that her candidacy is backward-looking in a bad way. "Some people say, 'There she goes talking about the '90s again,'" she said, drawing laughter from the crowd. "Well, it wasn't so bad. We had policies that actually helped to create 22.7 million new jobs. The typical Iowan family saw an increase of $7,000 in their incomes during the '90s."

At campaign stop later in the day in Portsmouth, N.H., Edwards responded to Clinton's comments. "There are 37 million people living in poverty in America. Alleviating poverty is the cause of my life," he said. "What I would ask Hillary Clinton and the other candidates to do is to join me for calling for an increase in the minimum wage to $9.50 an hour, and to put forth a comprehensive plan to eliminate poverty, which I have done."

Clinton is continuing a five-day blitz across Iowa, where a new Washington Post-ABC News poll shows her in a statistical tie with Obama, with Edwards trailing close behind. The poll indicates that there is hope for each candidate to land a first-place victory -- but that it will turn largely on the ground game, depending on which candidate can mobilize voters, many of them new. Edwards, though behind nationally and in some Iowa polls, has a steady corps of supporters who have been through the process before and are thus expected to be more reliable about showing up on Jan. 3. Edwards and Clinton are also dueling over rural voters.

But that is not to say that Clinton no longer views Obama as a formidable challenge. Perhaps the greatest sign that she does is in the form of a literal sign -- the one hanging behind her at events, that says she is "Working for Change, Working for You." And like a holistic healer, she has also injected a promise of Obama-style hope into her stump speeches over the last few days, promising on many fronts a "new beginning."

By Web Politics Editor  |  December 19, 2007; 1:47 PM ET
Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   StumbleUpon   Technorati   Google Buzz   Previous: On the Stump, Romney Defends Bush
Next: Obama's Pocketbook Politics in N.H.


All your non supporters of Clinton need to sleep on the better side of your bed. U need to face the reality before u speak out. Since when u all know that experience is not necessary. I know Hillary Clinton made mistakes but dont we all and when we do we try to convince others that we were wrong and that we should get another chance and that s what she is doing right now. She wants another chance and we should give it because at least she knows where things are at this point and how this country should be led. Obama has no experience at all and with what Bush era did so far u want to put someone on the spot to lead us ahead where he has no idea how the executive system works. Do u think we should give Obama a chance on running the country and after 4 years if nothing is done , he will come forward and say I am sorry all but i was new and still didnt know much things and now i am learning . Thats not the right way of judging and it is wrong . The whole universe is laughing at us because we dont know which is the right way of directing our country and we keep fighing like little kids who to select. That s wrong and that not profesionalism. My vote is for Hilary because i know that she wont make the same mistakes twice and she know that we all are watching her and that s what u all must think. Happy holidays.

Posted by: sunriser00 | December 20, 2007 1:40 PM | Report abuse

Clinton can start from day one working for Goldman Sachs, The Carlye Group, Wal-Mart, Rupert Murdoc and other interests that made Bill and Hillary multi-millionaires. Yes sir she has been a real leader in the past seven years. But you Hillary fanatics tell us what she has done.

Posted by: sperrico | December 20, 2007 12:01 PM | Report abuse

How big should his house be? Do you know how big the other candidates homes are? I happen to come from the county he is from and he did come from a hard working lower middle class family. He worked hard for what he has attained and should not be ashamed of it. I am sure if you needed his services as an attorney you would not be saying what you are now.

Posted by: bsgulka | December 20, 2007 11:40 AM | Report abuse

Edwards lives in a 25,000 square foot home, and made his money on mal practice law suits, helping to make health care unaffordable for the majority of Americans. How can this man say his life is dedicate to eliminating poverty. His lifeis dedicated to making himself rich. A 25,000 sq. ft. home for crying out loud! That's just disgusting.

Posted by: slbk | December 20, 2007 11:36 AM | Report abuse

Tell me what candidate knows what being poor is at this time? Which one?

Posted by: bsgulka | December 20, 2007 11:35 AM | Report abuse

With the Iowa caucus rules requiring an candidate to reach at least 15% of total votes cast, in each caucus, for delegate designation, the unknown is where will Richardson and Biden supporters go after the first ballot, assuming Richardson/Biden support totals less than 15%?

Most people have said that Edwards is the second favorite among Richardson/Biden supporters, not Obama or Clinton.

Edwards could surprise everyone when these second ballots are taken and he ends up with Richardson/Biden voters which puts him over Clinton and Obama.

Posted by: iopsc | December 20, 2007 11:32 AM | Report abuse

I just want to remind everyone that a house divided against itself cannot stand. This country's political arena has divided this nation for far too long. As long as we are fighting amongst ourselves, we are not able to focus on reality. Politics is a game.

Posted by: Dawnah62 | December 20, 2007 10:31 AM | Report abuse

I agree that Hill uses the fact that she is so experienced and can take off running on day one with taking care of the needs of the country. IF this is so then why are things worse. She could have instituted all of these changes or fought for them while a Senator but hasn't has she. IF so then why isn't New York better off then the rest of the country???

Posted by: tm22639 | December 20, 2007 9:52 AM | Report abuse

I'm a little bit curious about the trend among journalists in this campaign season to describe every utterance by Hillary Clinton's campaign as "pushing a notion" or in some other uncomplimentary way. Doesn't virtually every campaign 'push' notions, mainly positive about themselves and negative about their opponents. It seems that this reporter like so many others scrutinizes the Clinton campaign in a much harsher and more negative fashion than they do any other candidate in either party. I am a democratic leaning voter and haven't quite made up my mind which candidate I like best (I would vote for either of the frontrunners) but this apparent press "piling on" sure does make Hillary a more sympathetic figure.

Posted by: philndeb | December 20, 2007 8:48 AM | Report abuse

In regards to the debate as to whom of the democratic
candidates has the most experience, the question or argument should be
-- to whom of the Democrats or Republicans has the RIGHT KIND OF

As we all know, there is a right kind of experience and a wrong kind of
experiene. Do we really want to elect some one with Geroge Bush's or
Hillary Clinton's wrong kind Experience that so ineptley got us into the
Iraq War....

-- Or, do we want to elect some one like Barack Obama to lead us the
next four years, who has wisely and judiciously shown by rejecting the
Iraq war from the beginning, that he does have the Right kind of
Experience -- the Right Stuff to lead us forward the next four years.

And it is only someone who has shown from the beginning, this Right kind
of Experience & Wisdom, that can lead us with forethought and foresight,
out of this mess, which we call the Iraq War.

Posted by: dsoulplane | December 20, 2007 6:42 AM | Report abuse

The real threat to Hillary is not Edwards. It is Bill Clinton. Bill has been on the prowl and the UK newspaper telegraph had a picture of Bubba in the midst of a bunch of cheerleaders. Is Bill in it to get his wife elected or to start his womanizing escapades of the 90s. Moreover these cheerleaders seemed to be high school kids (minors). We have seen video of how Bill used to go into crowds hugging and brushing against Monica Lewinsky. Somebody please put the ankle bracelet on Bill so that he can be tracked like the rest of the sex offenders. He can not be trusted to be in the midst of young women, period.

Posted by: ChunkyMonkey1 | December 20, 2007 4:19 AM | Report abuse

I LOVE IT !!! One of the posters said: "residency does not equal presidency". In other words, Hillary's residency in the White House does NOT qualify her to be president. She wants us to believe being First Lady is the right qualification to be president, and she not so subtly tries to take credit for the accomplishments of her husband.

Posted by: MarthaP1 | December 20, 2007 3:44 AM | Report abuse

I'm disturbed by people who still believe Hillary is the "experienced" one in this political race. Obama has far more years of service in ELECTED PUBLIC OFFICE than Hillary. He was an Illinois State Senator for 7 years before being elected U.S. Senator from Illinois. He is a Cum Laude graduate of Harvard Law School and was President of the Harvard Law Review. He was an editor of a prestigous publication in New York on International Trade after graduating Harvard. He then worked as a Political Community Organizer in Chicago for several years, AND was a professor of Constitutional Law at the University of Chicago. All of the foregoing is VERY RELEVANT experience which has helped shape him. What has Hillary done? She flunked her law exam in Washington DC and went to Arkansas and passed the exam in that state (whopie - do !!) and then practiced patent law for about 20 years (NOT a qualification to serve in public office), she then went to Washington on Bill's coatails, and was First Lady for 8 years. Ask yourself honestly: is the wife of the president of General Motors qualified to run G.M. ??? Enough said. Compared to Obama, Hillary's the real political lightweight.

Posted by: MarthaP1 | December 20, 2007 3:39 AM | Report abuse

NOTE TO HILLARY: You can display your new, warm, caring personality all you want, but Iowans are smart people... they remember Whitewater, filegate and Vince Foster, travelgate, dirty politics (spreading false rumors about Obama, having "plants" at question and answer sessions, getting illegal campaign contributions from numerous sources, hiring a convicted felon to manage your fund-raising, etc.), stealing furniture and art objects from the White House when leaving the White House, etc., etc. They also remember how you have stayed married to and DEFENDED an DISBARRED, IMPEACHED, SEXAHOLIC SOCIOPATH. And they remember how you FAILED miserably when given one of the only truly responsible tasks you've had: reforming healthcare. And they remember what bad judgement you've had on the Iraq War and other matters of urgent international importance. Finally, Hillary, they see through your new friendly, "warm" personality to the power-hungry liar underneath.

Posted by: MarthaP1 | December 20, 2007 3:28 AM | Report abuse

Bill Clinton thinks his wife is 'the single most qualified person for president in America,' isn't he by virtue of this saying:

1. there are no black men or women in the entire country more qualified than his white, very wealthy wife.

2. there are no Hispanic men or women in the entire country who are smarter than a woman who flunked her first attempt to pass the bar exam.

3. there are no Asian men or women who are more qualified than a woman who last year made a joke about Ghandi having worked at a gas station.

4. there are no lesbian or gay people in the entire country more qualified than a woman who says she wants equal rights for all, but cuts them off with a 'civil union' cop-out.

5. there are no disabled persons in the entire country more qualified than Hillary.

Get the idea--the very demographic these two use to propel their 'careers' are never a part of their lilly white upper class political machines or cabinets.

EXACTLY why this conservative (who would vote for Condi in a heartbeat) made America's only politically confrontative music CD-one that takes on Hillary, Congress, and the whole Ward Churchill crowd. One-of-a-kind stuff @

Posted by: Truscott1 | December 20, 2007 1:35 AM | Report abuse

An American expatriate, I don't have a big stake in this upcoming election. However, anyone who loves the U.S. will want to have a major change to enable the 'States' to regain the respect of the world. Either Barack or Edwards can do the job IF you also ensure the necessary support for major change in the Congress. If the Democratic President doesn't have a GOOD democratic Congress it will be the same-o hypocrisy of the past 20+ years. If you like Hilary Clinton; read any good analysis of the Clinton years.

Posted by: vernon_nb | December 20, 2007 1:17 AM | Report abuse

Edwards is clearly a winner. He has always been a leader on policy while the others have followed. I think when you are a Senator, you can lose your own instincts. Kucinich is a lone wolf in this regard. I have a feeling John lost some of his inner guts while he was a senator. Much peer pressure. He sure has been doing his independent studies and homework in the last 4 years. I am impressed with him much more than I was 4 years ago and loved his "Four Trials" book. He is an extremely hard worker and thoughtful man and hope he can bring this country back to where it should be. I like Obama and Hillary too, just think they won't fight as hard as John will to make the United States Rise again.

Posted by: blake_san | December 20, 2007 12:13 AM | Report abuse

I just hope the people of Iowa have the sense to know who is best. Hillary R. Clinton. She has the knowledge and experience to Handle the problems that Bush and Cheny have run from or ah-ah their way through.. The v.p would just blow it away.. smirking ..I am really concerned about My country and what we have in Washington is next to nothing. May we wake up and not put another Republican in the White House... They need and attitude adjustment and run out of town.....

Posted by: cajungirl332001 | December 20, 2007 12:09 AM | Report abuse

I think Hillary may win Iowa afterall. I think the middle of the road voters are starting to move into her corner in Iowa. I think Obama knows he's short on experience. And as much as he tries to say one election against Alan Keyes, (that was only 3 weeks long), and 7 yrs as a State Senator, is equal to the experience Bill Clinton had for 10 yrs as Governor, and 7 yrs as Attorney General. I think most smart people know that's not going to cut it in a General, and as such, they're slowly moving to Hillary. Iowa and New Hampshire are smart states, they know what the Reps are going to use in a General. I also think Hillary will get a lot of press coverage the next two weeks, the press knows with a Clinton in the race, the ratings go up, whether you like her/dislike her, people watch, and they aint about to see that go down the drain.

Posted by: JeffE3 | December 20, 2007 12:06 AM | Report abuse

First of all, I should warn everyone of the spammers (hi rat) and other trolls who either work for the other campaigns or volunteer for them and are spending their time putting out free positive press for their candidate, while dissing another, like our Edwards here.
Well, good luck in trying to sway people's opinions with this stuff, but people can make up their own minds. Let me shamelessly add my own plug: Edwards is now surging and leading in the polls in Iowa, and for good reasons. Simply check out his website for more information about him, You really won't find a candidate with plans as comprehensive and right on target as this guy.

Posted by: kenshin1 | December 19, 2007 11:43 PM | Report abuse

I read and I see: Hillary's supporters use Hillary's resume to reason and argue why Hillary is the best candidate; Obamas & Edwards'supporters try reason why their candidates are the best choice by inhumanized Hillary. Talk about vicious personal attacks, Obamas' camp does the best. Peterdc spoke well:" I ask only that those who support Obama and Edwards do so with a little civility. May the best man or woman win and as Democrats we will all get behind them."

The more hateful messages you post the more doubts I have on your candidate: what kind of candidate would attract such a hateful group of followers?!

Posted by: sa_l0629 | December 19, 2007 11:38 PM | Report abuse

Do you all want to know something really funny? There is not one deserving candidate running! Why nobody else is stating this is killing me. Does anybody really care about any candidate...I mean deep down give a crap?! It is the biggest field ever and there is not one next great president out there, not a single one. When will we ever have another president who actually stands for something, actually can make change for the better, and actually gives 2 craps about the american public and not just his or herself and the party they represent? I fear that I will never see a real President again in my life and I truly hope my 1 year old son will never feel as I do yet I fear he will. This country is screwed at this point and I do not see it going anywhere but south for a very long long long time. So quit the quibbling amongst yourselves and staying so "true" to your stupid useless parties you support and for once in a long time come together as Americans and say NO to the parties and the candidates that are shoved down our throats every 4 years!

Posted by: mikeydillon5 | December 19, 2007 11:37 PM | Report abuse


I like your candidate. As the father of a daughter, I'm voting for the only women in the race, but I would be happy with a president Obama as a second choice. However, her being a woman is not the only reason I am voting for her. She has a good record as my senator in NY and her husband was a pretty decent president overall. Despite the lumping him in now with Bush somehow- the point she was making was legitimate. During the Clinton administration poverty went down significantly.
Let's be honest- on paper, Hillary's positions are as or more progressive than Barak's. The strong words and hatred for her are not about her being so different from Obama's- especially because his proposals and legislation thus far have been much more vague and less hashed out. Let's vote for the best candidate to replace and begin recovery from the Bush era, not for some unfounded antagonism and misogynistic hatred.

Posted by: nycLeon | December 19, 2007 11:09 PM | Report abuse

None of the CLINTON LOVERS answer ONE SIMPLE QUESTION. They go on and on attacking Obama or others. Here is the question. Clinton Lovers, Please answer for the benefit of bloggers here. Hillary was absolute failure on HealthCare when for 8 years she and her hubby ruled the WhiteHouse. Why trust the future of our country to someone who had all the chances and FAILED??? Will you re-hire a CEO who failed miserably ???? WAKE UP KIDS...

Posted by: briancraj | December 19, 2007 11:03 PM | Report abuse

I am happy to see no particular front runner yet. People tune out once a clear inevitable arrives.

Personally, I like all 3 of the main flag bearers. All would make a wonderful President and end the misery of the last 7 years under Bush.

Posted by: jbfalaska | December 19, 2007 10:26 PM | Report abuse

all you hateful people who write bad things about hillary are the stupid ones. She is a million times smarter than you ever will be. if you cant write anything thoughtful or intelligent, you had better go back to watching the simpson's. Hillary is the most experienced and has the intellect to lead this country.

Posted by: melodymg | December 19, 2007 10:05 PM | Report abuse

I am a little confused about those who attack Clinton for being "poll driven." In a representative democracy, wouldn't we want a president who represents the views of the people? A politician's course of action should be one of two things when making policy decisions. 1. Bow to the will of the people or 2. make their case to the electorate and change the people's minds. Are we not tired of leaders who make decision with absolutely no regard for the will of the people?

So when people say Clinton changes her views based on what the people want, my thought it "Well, she darn well should!"

Posted by: schurch1983 | December 19, 2007 8:27 PM | Report abuse

I hope the next president will do more on health coverage for the poor, give more jobs and affordable college to our kids. I believe, that one of these three Edward, Obama and Romney can do it.

Posted by: alegriasur | December 19, 2007 8:03 PM | Report abuse

Moderator (me) " John ,how can a rich white guy be the 'poverty candidate?'

Edwards: Well, if you have noticed, I quit wearing my Rolex-I wear a black plastic watch...just like Bill Clinton wore in his debates."

Moderaotr: " But you live in a palace-a huge sprawling estate that houses four people."

Edwards: " Yeah, but I need that much room to store my most recent purchase."

Moderator: " What's that?"

Edwards: " I bought every National Enquierer in existence...."

Moderator: " Good point...."

If you like my brand of humor and political commentary, try my music. I wrote 12 politically confrontative tunes and played every instrument. Hillary is NOT a fan....hear it @

Posted by: Truscott1 | December 19, 2007 7:53 PM | Report abuse

"Clinton is smart, hard-working, gutsy and tough enough to absorb all the muck that's come her way," Basu wrote. "But Obama is simply a better candidate. He's that rarest of leaders, combining roots in white Midwestern America with black Africa, and experience both organizing in barrios and editing the Harvard Law Review. He's got idealism, compassion and intellect. And he lacks the baggage Clinton comes with, including all the controversies that swirled around her husband's White House. Nor is he compromised, as she has been, by the Senate vote that got us into this quagmire in Iraq. Clinton is likable - and polarizing. But Obama is a uniter whose very life experience promises a new chapter for America."

Rebutting a key argument invoked by Clinton supporters, Basu concluded that "one person's experience is another's baggage." The country, she says, "isn't hungry for Beltway insiders."

Unlike her employer, Basu liked John Edwards's brand of economic populism. "Edwards is compelling with his passionate anti-corporate rhetoric," she wrote. "But Edwards' hard-hitting words are hard to square with his voting record, which has been wrong on so many issues, including the Iraq war, the Patriot Act, No Child Left Behind, and Permanent Normal Trade Relations with China. How could he be trusted to make the right judgments when doing so is politically risky?" - Rekha Basu, Des Moines Register

Posted by: mbrahmana | December 19, 2007 7:36 PM | Report abuse

Hillary's worst case scenario is her finishing 2nd.

If neither Obama nor Edwards comes out as the clear anti-Hillary candidate - as would happen if they finish a close 1,2 - she can continue to split the vote of their supporters and win the nomination through a series of plurality wins.

If the result in Iowa is Obama-Clinton-Edwards, Obama gets the momentum and a number of Edwards' supporters in NH and SC who don't want Hillary to win.

If it goes Edwards-Clinto-Obama it is less clear since Obama has cash and good numbers in NH and SC but it would prove that Hillary is not the inevitable candidate.

AND, why does Hillary get to take credit for her husband's administration???? Until she proves (by releasing the papers from her husband's library) what she did outside of leading the failed healthcare reform and have tea with the wives of other world leaders she must stop. She cannot run on someone else's record!!!

And, as good as the 1990's may have been, the long term impact was next to nothing because Gore didn't win. and neither did Kerry.

We can't go back to the 90s anyway, we must go forward and that means someone other than Hillary.

Posted by: matt_ahrens | December 19, 2007 7:32 PM | Report abuse

Hillary is an intelligent woman who has life long experience in helping others, activist, getting things done, potiical and legal minded. Does it surprise any of you that she may have picked up a thing or two from all of her years as First Lady? She is not the Laura Bush or Barbara Bugh type (nothing against them). Really, what was so wrong about the 90s? Must not be so much since Obama is using Clinton Advisors... huh? So he is really change? His speech patterns are like GW...he needs to get off the training years and try again. If Obama is the nominee, I will be switching parties. Any of our Democratic candidates...NOT Obama.

Posted by: Percy2008 | December 19, 2007 7:13 PM | Report abuse

Dear Sires and Dams,
It behooves us all to question whether Ms. Clinton is capable of separating herself from the 90s, and whether these 90's to which she is so inescapably entwined were really so great.

I recall that the year after Clinton left office the stock market crashed and the tech bubble exploded and the housing bubble (which just burst) began to inflate.
I remember a country so divided by hate of red vs. blue that civil discourse almost completely abated and has not (in my view) returned. I seem to remember the referendum on Democrats immediately following these allegedly illustrious 90s resulted in republican control of the house, the senate and the Presidency.

So, these are the 90's that Hillary so loudly claims were the best of times. Shall we expect the Republicans to come roaring back in once she leaves (or is removed) from office?

Madame, (and to her supporters as well) please take this opportunity to smell what you are shoveling.

A vote for Obama first, Biden Second, McCain Third, Edwards fourth, and for almost anyone opposing the Clinton Dynasty.

Posted by: Nemotoad | December 19, 2007 6:51 PM | Report abuse

For the record, I think that Laura Bush would make a better President than any of the Democrats running ; )

Posted by: JakeD | December 19, 2007 6:40 PM | Report abuse

Obama's not for the average joe. He's for rich white folks. He definitely is not for working Americans and absolutely not for black people. Look at Obama's supporters, they're upper to middle class white people, and naive college kids. Obama is the audacity of false hope, a pretender, an impostor.
And someone wrote earlier about the topic illegals. Its pretty racist to assume that the only job illegals can get are mowing lawns and cooking Mexican food.
Almost as bad as Obama taking advantage of the black vote and using his blackness to get votes from white people.

Posted by: Divante | December 19, 2007 6:39 PM | Report abuse

35 years of experience? doing what? Laura Bush has been in 70 countries, maybe we should ask her to run.

Posted by: christophefiero | December 19, 2007 6:34 PM | Report abuse


Huckabee is not "rich" like the other candidates:

Posted by: JakeD | December 19, 2007 6:31 PM | Report abuse

The "we" spoken by Hillary bothers me, but perhaps she was more involved with policy making during Bill's presidency than previously thought. However, she would then be taking issue with herself, the policy maker, because now she doesn't think NAFA was such a good idea???

During the Bush years, Bill and Hillary Clinton became very wealthy people. He owed money when he got out, and now is worth about 40 million. Not bad. Barack became a millionaire during the Bush years. The man that understand the poor, John Edwards, was in fact the most aggressive investor of them all. He really raked in the dough and lives very large as we all know. The bums in Washington that constantly speak with so much hate for the rich, so they can pretend to identify with the average joe, are in fact the rich. However many are coupon clippers and thus have enjoyed the "tax" benefit that George gave them. I do not see them giving back that tax benefit, do you? People wake up. Washington is musical chairs. It doesn't matter who is the minority, or majority, they spend like drunken sailors and live a very good life on the backs of the average joe.

Posted by: jkachmar | December 19, 2007 6:25 PM | Report abuse


Which "law-abiding CITIZENS . . . that we need to work here" are you referring to?

Posted by: JakeD | December 19, 2007 5:52 PM | Report abuse

OceanDog: that WAS a good day indeed!!!

Posted by: JakeD | December 19, 2007 5:45 PM | Report abuse

Happy Anniversary, Billary! And you wonder why folks don't want all the Clinton baggage and scandals that will resurface if you occupy the White House again... Thanks but no thanks.


Dec. 19, 1998
President Bill Clinton is impeached. The partisan warfare that had characterized national politics throughout Clinton's administration reached its climax when the House of Representatives voted to impeach the president, a Democrat, on the grounds that he had committed perjury before a grand jury (by a vote of 228-206) and obstruction of justice (221-212).

Posted by: OceanDog | December 19, 2007 5:39 PM | Report abuse

Let the white people fight, so the black man can win, hehe; my kind of politics.

Posted by: Divante | December 19, 2007 5:36 PM | Report abuse

First take some time and read the speech by John Edwards on Oct 29, 2007 at St Anselm's College Manchester, NH and then realize that John Edwards is for the working class in this country.

"If you make over $200,000 a year, or if a significant portion of your income comes from investments, rather than work, you're going to be paying more under an Edwards administration.

Tax wealth as much as work. Edwards will raise the top tax rate on long-term capital gains to 28 percent for the most fortunate taxpayers, the same rate signed into law by President Reagan. The 28 percent rate will ensure that high-income investors will pay taxes on their investment income at a similar rate to what regular families pay on their earned income.

Repeal Bush tax cuts for people making over $200,000 a year. More than half of the Bush tax cuts - $132 billion - will go to the top 1 percent of taxpayers in 2010. Edwards will repeal the Bush tax cuts for the highest-income households.

Declare War on Tax Havens: About $300 billion a year in taxes go unpaid, and about $1.5 trillion in personal assets of U.S. taxpayers are held offshore. These unpaid taxes increase the share of the tax burden shouldered by honest taxpayers. Edwards will end the abuse of foreign tax havens: low-tax countries that facilitate American corporations and wealthy individuals seeking to avoid U.S. taxes.

Close the Hedge Fund and Private Equity Loopholes: Some of the most highly paid people in America are the managers of hedge funds and private equity funds, some of whom make hundreds of millions of dollars or even billions a year. Although most of their income, like other earned income, is nothing more than payment for the work they do, they pay only the 15 percent capital gains rate rather than the ordinary income tax rate. Edwards will close this loophole and also ensure that publicly traded private equity and hedge funds pay corporate taxes.

Cap Executive Pensions: Top executives at large corporations commonly receive deferred compensation packages that allow them to put off indefinitely the payment of taxes on much of their compensation. They have in effect unlimited IRAs or 401(k)s, without the limits that apply to other workers. Edwards will limit the amount of money that can be put into these funds to $1 million a year.
Now quite frankly, what Edwards is proposing is a lot more equitable than the tax code we have now, and it will help the majority of Americans while preventing the wealthiest from getting a free ride. Getting it done won't be easy. The wealthy people that Edwards wants to raise taxes on are exactly the people that control the media. You're going to hear a lot of spin about this proposal, most of it untruthful. You're going to also hear a lot of personal attacks on John Edwards as a result of this."

San Diego

Posted by: ricswave | December 19, 2007 5:36 PM | Report abuse

What's interesting to me is that more of the media aren't talking about Edwards. CNN recently did a poll putting each of the democratic and republicans candidates together in a head-to-head national contest... Edwards was the only democratic candidate to beat ALL of the republican contenders by margins of up to 30%. Clearly, in a national contest, Edwards is the strongest candidate with the least baggage and is positioned to do the most good for America. That's the story. So, Washington Post editors... how come in a story about Hillary and Edwards, Edwards is barely mentioned?? How about some objective reporting?

Posted by: radiocboy | December 19, 2007 5:29 PM | Report abuse

You know, it's mighty funny that the CASHSTREAM MEDIA keeps talking about the FLUKE ABC Iowa poll, but they never mention the InsiderAdvantage Iowa poll from yesterday that showed Edwards leading overall, and leading big among SECOND CHOICE VOTERS.

The ABC Poll was a joke, because almost "HALF" of the sample would be "FIRST TIME" caucus goers. Half? New caucus goers? That poll was clearly PRO-OBAMA PROPAGANDA.

In the InsiderAdvantage poll:

Edwards 30%
Clinton 26%
Obama 24%

Among Highly likely caucus goers:

Obama 27%
Edwards 26%
Clinton 24%

Second choice, Edwards led Obama 42% to 29%, respectively.

But yeah, who didn't know that the media would IGNORE the poll that shows Edwards leading in Iowa?

And for the idiot who brought up the contribution of the head of InsiderAdvantage, I suppose he sees no problem with executives at Evermore Partners (which owns THE NATIONAL ENQUIRER) donating money to both Clinton and Obama, and then sliming John Edwards twice this year?

Posted by: framecop | December 19, 2007 5:29 PM | Report abuse

Edwards is a threat... to push Clinton down into third place.

Posted by: sunwolf78 | December 19, 2007 5:26 PM | Report abuse

Hillary is demonic,

Obama is moronic,

So Edwards is supersonic.

Posted by: JaxMax | December 19, 2007 5:22 PM | Report abuse

Yo, Infinity,

Who's gonna build your wall, boys
Who's gonna mow your lawn
Who's gonna cook your Mexican food
When your Mexican maid is gone

Yeah, just who is going to build your wall? Your narrow minded way of thinking hearkens back to the days of the "Know-Nothings" and ignores those that come up here to build a better life for their families and are decent, law-abiding citizens and focuses on negatives. Go away, please, or try to work out a rational solution to accomodate people that we need to work here.

Posted by: johndinhouston | December 19, 2007 5:17 PM | Report abuse

This illegal foreign national should not be in America, in the first place? Of course if the pariah business community wants to pay for hospitalisation, housing, education, food stamps and all the other free-loading payouts, dumped on the overwealmed U.S. taxpayer, then by all means allow a path to citizenship? However, this doesn't mean 'Carte blanche.' AMNESTY? As a taxpayer I do not want to pay for illegal alien welfare; compliments of the open-border lobby.
This illegal alien awarded $1.5 million dollars is a travesty of our justice system? These advocate judges and lawyers should go and see how U.S. citizens are treated, in third world nations? This compassionate land called America better wake up, or will be invited wave upon wave of more foreign aliens who will leach the blood, out of the American taxpayer. We are already paying through the nose, for the Imperial Bush "nation building."! when are we going to realise "Charity starts at home." We have our own poor and destitute, and yet daily our Public Servants (politicians) pander to millions of foreign nationals squatting here!
Already the majority of some incompetant Democrats and Republicans have amended President Bush two-tier border fence. That means it may never get built? Thanks to Kay Bailey Hutchinson R-TX) and her carefully concealed amendment, hidden in a 3,500 page appropriations document that hardly of them will read. They have played games with the American taxpayer who are squeezed for money in a war, that most foreign nations won't touch, so (as always) we get stuck with the bill. Our countries borders remain exposed to drug smugglers, a incessent stream daily of cheap slave labor and the ominious presence of disasterous jihardist terrorist who out to deliver an attack against innocent U.S.citizens.
Out of all the main contenders for the Oval Office, Sen. Obama has just over a million dollars in assets. The rest of the crowd are multi-millionaires who probably owe giant favors to the corporate cartels. We are fools to place any of them in the White House, because they are impassive to the ordinary man or women. Starting with the Iowa Caucases, we may find that citizens are not going to pay for the hired cheap help of illegal aliens anymore. They are just not going to pay for the predator employers bill, that has its own welfare system.
Remember our prisons are crammed with hundreds of thousands of illegal aliens, who you are forced to pay for? That fence between Mexico and our Nation must be built, as it is a great deterent and will impede the majority of itinerant workers looking for a taxpayer handout. If we do not send them home through self-deportation or "Attrition" we will be even more taxed, as the next human tsunami invades our land. Demand your Senators co-author "THE SAVE ACT" Use the free-faxing buffet at numbersusa.

Posted by: infinity555 | December 19, 2007 4:56 PM | Report abuse

It is time for Hillary to be finished, isn't it? Obama is more promising figure for the presidency than Edwards, and everybody sees and knows it. I hope that Obama cleanly win iowa, and this dumb Hillary would get FINALLY a grip and step down. YOU HAVE NO CHANCE, WOMAN, NOT BECAUSE YOU ARE WOMAN, BUT BECAUSE OF YOUR NUMEROUS ACTIONS AND YOUR PERSONALITY! Get a grip and get out!

Posted by: aepelbaum | December 19, 2007 4:44 PM | Report abuse

I thought the "we" referred to her and her husband, Bill Clinton -- you know, that old "two for the price of one" deal again?

Posted by: JakeD | December 19, 2007 4:38 PM | Report abuse

Clinton, Edwards, and Obama couldn't care less about the poor unless caring equals $$$ for them. Bill Clinton did donate his used underwear to the Salvation Army for a tax write-off so it appears the "Clinton team" is capable of caring.

Posted by: jmmielke | December 19, 2007 4:37 PM | Report abuse

Who is the "we" Clinton is referring to?

It's amazing that she is able to fool the public into believing something which she is not.


What did "we" do?

Posted by: dcis1 | December 19, 2007 4:35 PM | Report abuse

By the way, those of you who pile on Sen Clinton with Anne Kornblut here should consider whether your acceptance of her unprofessional work now might enable her undermining of your candidate in the general, should he be nominated.

Posted by: zukermand | December 19, 2007 4:11 PM | Report abuse

Edwards probably can't win in the general election, given the ceiling imposed by accepting government matching funds -- that's true even if this week's National Enquirer story is not.

Posted by: JakeD | December 19, 2007 4:09 PM | Report abuse

budO: that's a good one. They are really trying to pump up Edwards. They even made sure to get a poll out showing Edwards in the lead. The CEO of InsiderAdvantage just happened to have donated $2300 to the Clinton campaign.

Posted by: itsme2 | December 19, 2007 4:00 PM | Report abuse


First comes her Victory in the Primaries,



Posted by: rat-the | December 19, 2007 3:59 PM | Report abuse


The 22nd Amendment does not apply to unelected "Co-Presidents" ; )

Posted by: JakeD | December 19, 2007 3:55 PM | Report abuse


Edwards is the "most likely to win the general election"?! Care to explain how he wasn't even able to carry South Carolina for Kerry then?

Posted by: JakeD | December 19, 2007 3:54 PM | Report abuse

Since Hillary clearly feels she's already been President twice, she should accept that she's constitutionally barred from doing it again.

Posted by: Bud0 | December 19, 2007 3:52 PM | Report abuse

jade_7243, this is a cute trick you have going, here. Anne implies that all references to alleviating poverty are somehow the property of John Edwards or "taking on" same and all references to change are somehow "Obama-style", or whatever Heather fantasy she has today. Cue jade_7243, like clockwork you come along shrieking at the Clinton campaign as though Anne's spite was something other than juvenile spitballing. You're not helping.

Posted by: zukermand | December 19, 2007 3:51 PM | Report abuse

"We lifted more people out of poverty during the 1990s than at any time in our history."

Sure you did. And Laura Bush started the Iraq War.

What does she mean by "we"? The Clinton Dynasty?

Posted by: Bud0 | December 19, 2007 3:47 PM | Report abuse

"Well, we lifted more people out of poverty during the 1990s than at any time in our history." says Hillary Clinton... Well, who is 'we' ?
Is Mrs. Clinton including all of us ?
Again Clinton confuses her residency in the White House for holding the presidency during the 90's. Hillary Clinton was elected to ... what? Residency does not equal presidency . How long will we be sold this notion that you have the experience of eight years in the White House.
No thanks . No thanks to nepotism, mis-calculated War votes, and machine politics.
No thanks to having 'our candidate' fed to us.

Enough is enough.

Barack Obama for President.

Posted by: PulSamsara | December 19, 2007 3:40 PM | Report abuse

The Clinton campaign is foundering. Everyday there is a new slogan, because none of the others stick. In the past few days, she's gone from being the attack dog, to agent for positive change to soft and fuzzy Hillary to healer and poverty-stopper.

Every time, you'll notice, she gloms onto the campaign theme of one of her opponents. There was a time, just a few short weeks ago, that Hillary was talking up "hope" as a campaign theme.

Her problems rests on the fact that she is poll-driven. A message "tests" well and she is on it like a cheap, asbestos pantsuit. She talks about her 35 years of experience, but can't put up a specific instance of what she actually did -- even as First Lady.

She and Bill "bought" that "endorsement" from the Register and she's clinging to it like a life preserver. But Bill and her other surrogates can't deliver her message in any cohesive or cogent way. And the key problem there, is that she has no message.

The sad fact is that Hillary is running for President for the thrill of running, and "beating" and "fighting" Republicans. Her opponents all have signature themes and reasons larger than themselves that drive them to run. Hillary doesn't have that. Hence, she is hollow, shallow, shrill, secretive, and artificial.

Worse for Hillary is that we have all moved on from the 1990s. And the "jobs" she claims she created are in Bangalore and not Buffalo. The people she claims she "lifted out of poverty" are part of the growing permanent population of working poor who are without insurance, struggling with two or three minimum wage jobs.

It's time to take off the thick glasses that prevent you from seeing the real details of the Clinton years. We are where we are today, because of the failures of the Clintons -- on domestic and foreign policy. While they were busy beating down the vast right wing conspiracy, and covering up Bill's extra-curricular activities, important work didn't get done.

Returning either Clinton to the White House would be a giant mistake.

Posted by: jade_7243 | December 19, 2007 3:34 PM | Report abuse

Edwards should win Iowa, and the nomination.

He is the most likely to win the general election. I hope and pray that this will all come to pass. It may be the only hope for our world.

Corporate greed threatens to destroy civilization, and humanity.

Posted by: river845 | December 19, 2007 3:31 PM | Report abuse

Funny how the Obama supporters can rant and rave against the Clintons but can't take the same scrunity. I have given up on Anne's reporting since her attitude is sickening when it comes to the Clintons but what I love is when the Obama fans see vice is everything the Clintons do and virtue in everything Obama does. Howard Kurtz has an interesting piece in today's paper about the coverage of Hillary versus Obama. The media bias, which has been obvious for months, is finally being acknowledged. The danger about nominating Obama is his lack of being tested; winning an Illinois senate seat in 2004 against the Republicans says nothing about the ability to stand the onslaught than shall hit him should Democrats, in their anger at adopting mature political thought, nominate him. I prefer a candidate who is battled scared and tested, than a neophyte who inspires but lacks the fortitude to gain the White House. Call it a case of head versus heart although both of mine are squarely in Camp Clinton.

Posted by: Carlyle_R | December 19, 2007 2:45 PM | Report abuse

Hey, Joe Trippi, you guys are making progress! You got the big elephant's attention. Expect Mark Penn, Wolfson & Mc Auliffe to start the phony e-mails, question Edwards' faith and a whole lot more.

Hey Santa, I'll wait for January 3 for the following Iowa finish.

First or Second, Obama and Edwards with Clinton third, or being really optimistic, fourth.

Posted by: NoMugwump | December 19, 2007 2:41 PM | Report abuse

This is a (thinly) veiled attempt by the Clintons to pump up Edwards because they know if they lose to Obama they're finished.

If the press would do their job and report on how poorly Hillary does against the republicans, she'd be finished even sooner.

Posted by: julieds | December 19, 2007 2:31 PM | Report abuse

The bottom line is still what Clinton said in her last debate: Some people demand change, some hope for it, and she works for it.

If we could rewind the 21st century we would all be better off. The George Bush years have been a disaster for everyone except maybe the very rich.

We are hated around the world, we are at war in two nations, we refuse to recognize global warming and we have a President who is beholden to the far right.

The New York Times had an interesting story, they actually do a lot better reporting than the Washington Post, and it said that this election is partly a referendum on Bill Clinton's Presidency. They are partially right. When Ronald Reagan won he asked the question are you better off today than 4 years ago? Hillary Clinton needs to only ask are you better off today than you were 7 years ago and she will get a resounding no.

So on the part of the election that is a referendum on Bill Clinton she will win by large margins.

But this election is so much more. It is about electing someone who knows how to get things done, who has traveled the world and has a sterling reputation in Capitals around the world, who has done everything Obama claims to have done; be a community activist, a law professor, but in addition has a thirty five year history of working for children, families, and those who need government the most.

Her record in the Senate is much stronger than Obama's and she has won reelection in Republican upstate NY. Obama lucked out and hardly had a race for his Senate seat.

And in addition to all this Hillary Clinton will allow all of us to say to our daughters, inlcuding Barack Obama to his daughters, what we could only say to our sons since the founding of our country- "you can grow up to be anything you want to be including President of the United States".

I ask only that those who support Obama and Edwards do so with a little civility. May the best man or woman win and as Democrats we will all get behind them.

But do take the time to read the record, read the policy papers, see who has kept their promises and who has the best chance to win against the Republicans. I do believe that Obama will bring out record numbers of African Americans to the polls, but then Hillary will most likely bring them out as well, along with record numbers of woman who will, contrary to the system in Iowa where they need to stand up in front of their husband and children and may not be ready to do that, go into the privacy of the voting booth with a secret ballot and pull that lever for Hillary and say to themselves- It's about time!!!

The Des Moines Register said it best, Obama is inspiring but Hillary Inspires Confidence. She will do the work needed to get things done.

And to the Edwards supporters who wonder why I am only focusing on Obama, the reality is that John Edwards, who has been running for President for four years, and living in Iowa for the last two, just isn't inspiring anyone in any big way. Even if he were to win Iowa he couldn't afford to run the national campaign to win the nomination. He has stepped on his own message of aiding the poor with his working for a hedge fund, getting $400 haircuts and building a 26,000 sq ft home. All great things to do if you are a rich lawyer and not running for President. But it does make people question his judgement and these are all self-inflicted wounds that just make him not believable.

Again, if either Edwards or Obama are the nominees I will support them, but i hope the people of Iowa will be realistic and smart and send Hillary Clinton out of Iowa with a win and on to the nomination and on her way to becoming our first woman President.

As the Des Moines Register says: She will do great things for all of us.

Posted by: peterdc | December 19, 2007 2:29 PM | Report abuse

Clinton's idea of change is like George Bush idea of consitution. Only a moron will believe Clinton is for change. The only candidate that defend the influence of the lobby... Sorry Madame Clinton, i ain't buying your idea of change.

Posted by: gbuze007 | December 19, 2007 2:22 PM | Report abuse

"And like a holistic healer,"

What is that supposed to mean? I mean, besides reminding us Anne Kornblut prefers mocking Sen Clinton to reporting on her campaign.

" she has also injected a promise of Obama-style hope into her stump speeches over the last few days, promising on many fronts a "new beginning.""

What self respecting journalist even reasons this way, never mind actually writes it down for the public to read? Come on, Washington Post editors, how do you show your faces in public?

Posted by: zukermand | December 19, 2007 2:19 PM | Report abuse

Uh, Billary,

Ready for Obasama/Pretty Boy?

Can you say "Class War"?

LOL! Saddest part, both Barack Hussein and Edwards are so seperated from the poor, they don't even have a clue what being "Poor" means!

But Hey! All you stupid Have-Nots, THEY are on YOUR side!


Really! I MEAN it! Why Obsama was at his House in Martha's Vineyard saying how hard it is being a Poor Person!

He's one of YOU!

Posted by: rat-the | December 19, 2007 2:15 PM | Report abuse

The comments to this entry are closed.

RSS Feed
Subscribe to The Post

© 2010 The Washington Post Company