Sharp Exchange on CNN's Late Edition May Signal Change in Democrats' Tone--Gloves coming off

[flpoljunkie]

Sharp Exchange May Signal Change in Democrats' Tone

BY JOSH GERSTEIN
July 23, 2007

URL: http://www.nysun.com/article/58890

An unusually sharp exchange among the leading Democratic presidential campaigns could signal that the often courtly tone of the race thus far is about to give way to a more confrontational, negative approach. In a television interview billed as a preview of tonight's debate in South Carolina, the campaign manager for John Edwards, David Bonior, called Senator Clinton's record on health care issues "an absolute disaster."

Minutes later, an Alabama congressman speaking for Senator Obama of Illinois, Rep. Artur Davis, said rather directly that a vote for Mrs. Clinton would resurrect the disputes that tarred the presidency of her husband, President Clinton. "It's past time to take the gloves off on the Democratic side," a professor of politics at the University of Virginia, Larry Sabato, said. "It's amazing that we've made it so far without seeing more of it."

The first punch on CNN's "Late Edition" yesterday was thrown by Mr. Bonior. He interrupted a former Iowa governor representing Mrs. Clinton, Thomas Vilsack, to challenge his claim that the former first lady had "delivered" on health care by spearheading efforts to put children on government-funded insurance.

"With all due respect … the Clintons did not deliver on health care," Mr. Bonior said. "They had a very important choice to make back in '93: whether to do the North American Free Trade agreement or health care. They implemented the North American Free Trade Agreement that put literally millions of workers out of work in this country and destroyed, basically, our good trading relationships we had around the world. And then in the interim, they lost any capital they had to get health care passed. … The fact of the matter is it's been an absolute disaster on health care."

The intensity of the double-barreled attack on both trade and health care seemed to take Mr. Vilsack by surprise. The Iowa governor responded by suggesting that Mrs. Clinton's accomplishments outshined any of her rivals. "I've seen the impact and effect of the health-care work that Hillary Clinton did in terms of the children's health insurance program. That is real. That is real relief to families that matters," Mr. Vilsack said. The back-and-forth gave Mr. Davis an opening to paint his candidate as an antidote to what some call Clinton fatigue.

"The last exchange you've heard is exactly why Barack Obama's candidacy is so important. We've just spent two minutes arguing about who did what in 1993," Mr. Davis said. "Democrats will not win the election in 2008 if we are frozen in an argument about who did what in 1993, who did what between 1993 and 2001. That's a stale argument for a lot of people. As much as I admire the Clintons, people are hungering for a new discussion in this country, and they want to look forward."

more...

[Jackpine Radical]

1. I was kinda hoping, based on the headline, that

they were gonna start kicking the Administration's ass around the block. But no, they're just forming up into the usual circular firing squad again.

[Doctor_J]

13. Amen to that

if they want to win the WH and Congress next year, regardless of who the nominees are, all they have to do is turn all of their fire toward Cheney and Rove and the GOP.

[Cooley Hurd]

2. Swell...

Note to ALL candidates: Tell me why I should vote for YOU, not why I SHOULDN'T vote for someone else.

Cripes...:thumbsdown:

[wyldwolf]

3. going to be funny if Dems try to discredit 8 years of peace and prosperity

Hey, Mr. Bonior. What would you call Sen. Edwards' record on healthcare issues?

[flpoljunkie]

5. I think David Bonior did a pretty good responding to the Clinton years, if you read it.

[wyldwolf]

6. I did read it and, unfortunately for Bonior...

The entirety of Clinton's 8 years isn't summed up in the healthcare plan. I'd wager most Dems see the failure of the healthcare plan as a gallant effort railroaded by the GOP. As for NAFTA, Edwards has an odd little history on that himself:

EDWARDS: I didn't vote for NAFTA. I campaigned against NAFTA.
GEPHARDT: Well, you weren't in Congress when NAFTA came up.

Source: Democratic 2004 Presidential Primary Debate in Iowa Jan 4, 2004

[davidwparker]

10. Neither was Ross Perot in Congress, but that didn't stop him from

campaigning against it.

[wyldwolf]

15. so, what did John Edward to in regards to NAFTA?

It passed 4 years before he darkened the Senate chambers' doors.

[davidwparker]

25. John Edwards on NAFTA

Here's a speech to http://www.chbn.com/Clip.aspx?key=0DF45948880BC2BE">steel workers.

Here's a comment with a 2004 copyright of http://www.nytimes.com/videopages/2004/02/24/politics/20040224_px_EDWARDS01_VIDEO2.html">Edwards looking back to the effects of NAFTA.

I've checked Google and never have a seen an Edwards article or video be in support of NAFTA. In retrospect, the record that is available shows him against it.

[wyldwolf]

28. when did he "campaign against it?" We do know he wouldn't debate it in '98

...and in 2004 he was against canceling it.

[rinsd]

30. Like his vocal advocacy for women & his leadership on healthcare, they are figments of the campaign

[SaveElmer]

16. Trying to deflect from the fact it was Congress that failed on healthcare...nt

[SaveElmer]

14. Hey Mr. Bonior, it was Congress that failed on the healthcare plan...

Couldn't bring themselves to do the right thing...

[Ethelk2044]

21. It will not be funny, if the dems come out with the Truth. Do we have

Health care ? No. Did we lose jobs to NAFTA? Yes. Are we still losing jobs to NAFTA? Yes.

Hillary can not have it both ways. She is always trying to align herself with what Bill Clinton did when he was in office. Well, the facts speak for itself. She will have to explain why children are still without Healthcare and we are losing jobs.

[Lerkfish]

4. feh! the Clintons aren't the reason universal health care died.

I'm not a Ms. Clinton supporter at this point, but that characterization is unfair. The Clintons were facing obstructionist behaviour from Gingrich and their "contract on america" at the time.

[David__77]

7. Bonior is smart to counterpose NAFTA to health care.

It's true that those were two principal issues in 1993, and that the White House succeeded in one and not the other. While I'm not at all sure that this is due to a conscious choice on the part of the White House, it's smart politics to say so for the campaigns other than Clinton's.

[Bitwit1234]

8. Golly with all the stuff printed in newspapers and said over the TV

I thought Obama's campaign had been casting surrelous remarks about Hillary Clinton from the get go.

One thing, no matter what anybody says, Clinton has not spewed the dirt. I like Edwards, but if he starts that stuff I won't anymore. If they can't win by telling what they can do and what they are going to do they sure as hell don't deserve to be voted for. If they start the republican tatics, because that's all the republicans have then they will be just as bad.

These people have to remember WE CAN READ AND WE CAN HEAR...why do they have to tell us what other people say.

[flpoljunkie]

11. Try spell check. And, no, the Obama campaign has not been casting "scurrilous" remarks about HRC.

[Ethelk2044]

23. I Agree. However, Obama has not been saying anything about the Clintons

However, Clinton has to answer to her own mistakes. The reasons why she flip flopped on the war. Like you said we can read and we do remember. She keeps flip flopping on the war. I have not forgotten she was a spokes person for the war. Now,she is hoping we forgot what she said when the war first started. I hate NAFTA has caused jobs to be lost.

[davidwparker]

9. "put literally millions of workers out of work" - SING IT. Let's talk about

Clinton policies and there effects on this country on the long term. NAFTA/WTO and the Telcom Act are inexcusable.

Though the times while Clinton was in office were good, we can see how those policies turned out for us in the long-term.

No more of Bill Clinton.

[flpoljunkie]

12. Yes! No more Bushes, no more Clintons!

[wyldwolf]

17. Mr. Bonior, your guy couldn't be bothered to show up and debate NAFTA in 1998

4 SENATE HOPEFULS DISCUSS FOREIGN POLICY

Source: DAVID PERLMUTT, Staff Writer
On a night when all 10 candidates for U.S. Senate were invited to discuss views on foreign policy - on NAFTA, expanding global markets and committing U.S. troops - only four showed up. Noticeably missing from the forum sponsored by the Charlotte World Affairs Council were Republican incumbent Lauch Faircloth and Raleigh attorney John Edwards, considered to be one of the top Democratic challengers. Both said they had prior commitments.

http://nl.newsbank.com/nl-search/we/Archives?p_product=CO&s_site=charlotte&p_multi=CO&p_theme=realcities&p_action=search&p_maxdocs=200&p_topdoc=1&p_text_direct-0=0EB6D53A82AC3853&p_field_direct-0=document_id&p_perpage=10&p_sort=YMD_date:D&s_trackval=GooglePM

[Greeby]

18. Bonior never put the gloves on

When he was in Congress, he tried to demand Clinton lift the sanctions on Iraq, calling them "infanticide masquerading as policy"

[wyldwolf]

19. He is very anti-choice... does he call abortions "infanticide?"

[flpoljunkie]

22. Same response for you, wyldwolf, about attacking the messenger as sign of weak argument.

[wyldwolf]

24. nope, I've built a case both against him and what he says for John Edwards

:shrug:

Let's see if Edwards, who wasn't in the Senate to vote on NAFTA, who couldn't be bothered to debate the topic in '98, but claimed in 2004 he "campaigned against it," decides to make NAFTA an issue with Hillary.

Bonier is not the messenger. You are in this thread.

[flpoljunkie]

26. That's Bonior, to you.

[wyldwolf]

27. well, it is to everyone.

[flpoljunkie]

20. Attacking the messenger always a bad sign. And kudos to Bonior for speaking up about the sanctions!

[flpoljunkie]

29. Kick! CNN/Youtube Debate begins at 7PM EST.