Who scares 'em?


From TPM:

Today's New York Times has an enormous front page story today suggesting that John Edwards' antipoverty programs were set up merely to provide a "bridge" to his 2008 Presidential campaign.

But guess what -- the Edwards campaign tells us that The Times refused the chance to speak to people who actually benefitted from his programs.

$400 haircuts (oh heah, Romney's just grows like that, and Rick Perry's, too), manufactured hit pieces about home sales? What's next, Poverty Fighting Trial Lawyers for Truth? Yup, this is the guy they're scared of.


Gordon June 22, 2007 - 5:52pm
( categories: USA: Campaign 2008 )

I think Hillary Rodham Clinton is who scares them.

I also think she'll be our next president.

ps. Living in the reddest of red states, I base this on what I hear. I've never heard a single Republican talk about John Edwards, but Hillary bashing is a constant.

I did inhale.

Don June 22, 2007 - 9:17pm

Why else would Rupert Murdoch hold fund raisers for her?

They think they can beat her, but better yet, if she's President, they know what she'll do. She'll let them continue to get richer, just not quite as quickly as before.

And "they" in this case is the insiders, not the voters.

Gordon June 22, 2007 - 9:25pm

you haven't tuned in to Hannity or Limbaugh lately.

Hannity compared a vote for Hillary Clinton to a vote for Hamas or Hezbollah

Nationally syndicated radio host Rush Limbaugh peddled gay-baiting sexual innuendo about Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-NY) from author Edward Klein's new book, The Truth About Hillary: What She Knew, When She Knew It, and How Far She'll Go to Become President (Sentinel, June 2005), on the June 7 edition of The Rush Limbaugh Show:

In my opinion the 2004 election was Kerry's until the Cheney/Edwards debate. They beat him once--they can beat him again.

I did inhale.

Don June 23, 2007 - 12:07am

They're smearing all Democratic candidates as fast as they can.

Of the majors, however, Edwards has the policy set which would make Republicans squeal the most if actually implemented.

I really doubt the vice Presidential debates made that much of a difference however it is a fair criticism if one believes Edwards didn't do a good job against Cheney. He needs to be more on the ball. On the other hand, the Edwards defense is that he found it hard to debate with the set of debate points he was given, none of which allowed him to go for the jugular. The number 2 man didn't have a lot of discretion.

As for Hilary, Republicans have a pathological primal hatred for her, and have since the 90's. I don't take any extra vitriol towards her as meaning much more than that and that they know that she wants revenge. Hilary's a tough cookie, I wouldn't want her coming after me, either, and she has reason to hate a lot of these people.

Ian Welsh June 23, 2007 - 1:35am

Probably...

creativelcro June 22, 2007 - 9:19pm
Gordon June 22, 2007 - 9:26pm

... is that the smear campaign is both strategy and opportunity, not to put too fine a point on it.

In the broader sense I agree Edwards is whom they are afraid.

Let me get my cynic hat on straight. Hillary and Obama each come with built-in assailable, highly vulnerable characteristics. Remember how low these ppl stoop and you get my obvious point.

Large swaths of the electorate will simply not vote them for reasons buried deep within their lizard brains. I suspect the thinking is that when appealed to in the right manner --read: smeared with racial or misogynistic overtones-- the RNC Rove Bots believe many more can be swayed to not vote for Obama or Hillary who otherwise might do so in a weakened, BushCo weary state of mind. Thus, the natural early target to hit the hardest would be Edwards. Reserving much ammunition, the expensive (markers and money) heavy artillery, for the last battle once he's gone.

Then we have the natural hit squads of opportunistic enmity. Certain pundits and opinion makers already have their battle axes out. Hilliary has history with a lot of these folks so she attracts their attention most, by my reading.

This is all anecdotal, you understand. I don't track smear campaigns. But if I were 'strategizing' against a field of opponents in a two stage protracted war of attrition, I would recognize that it is Edwards who would need the long term bashing because he has fewer natural enemies, and essentially all the potential of the other two to hurt long term Republican goals.

Hillary is Hillary, and simply will not get a sympathetic touch from the press, period. Tough, knowlegable, and a machine to back her up, she will still endure a long term shellacking without much organized help.

Barak is a neophyte, as likely to self-immolate as to sustain the long hard run standing upright and looking good. Hillary is currently running harder against Obama then Edwards. They see that as a good thing I'll bet.

Edwards is a populist with a message that scores. He's smart, been there before, young and handsome, and came through his last campaign with nary a scratch. He's nearly everything the Right wishes they had, except for the politics. Nail him.

Just my two cents, expensed.

ww June 26, 2007 - 5:04pm

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.