CNN

It is time for voters to wake up! Hillary is an insider and things in D.C. would not change even if she could win the presidency! Hillary and Obama will not beat any of the Republican's running, just like Kerry. The Republican's have figured out ways using the media and campaigns to get Dems to vote for whom they want us to vote for so they can win. Example: They attack Hillary the dems rally around her.

Where are the Republican stories? Oh yes, there is one bashing Bush over Vermont. Stories:

1) 'Obama girl' may become Clinton's girl
2) Edwards hits Clinton 'nostalgia'
3) Obama sees insanity in presidential run
4) Is John Edwards 'Karl Rove's worst nightmare'?
5) Edwards to Clinton: 'No more personal attacks'
6) President Bush's forgotten state?

Is this CNN or the DNC?

Mr. Wolfson said,

"The fact is that while Democrats, including Senator Edwards and Senator Obama, acknowledge progress in Al Anbar, Senator Clinton opposed the surge from the start and believes there is no military solution to the war in Iraq,"

I wish all the candidates would make clear that the progress in Al Anbar had nothing to do with the Surge. The situation in Al Anbar had started to turn around sometime before the Surge was even suggested. It is mainly the result of the Sunni tribal leaders refusal to accept the Taliban-like policies the foreign Al Qaeda groups. Sunni tribal groups would be turning against Al Qaeda regardless of the Surge.

The reason why it's important that the candidates and especially you in the media to make this distinction is because we have already seen evidence that the Administration is preparing to pony out Al Anbar as one of the great successes of the Surge.

It is very likely that the first casualty of a U.S. pullout from Iraq will be Al Qaeda in Iraq. They will be attacked and massacred by both Shiites and secular Sunnis. Isn't that what we claim we wanted?

Posted By Joe, Pyeontaek, South Korea : August 22, 2007 10:22 pm

-Thanks fo rposting this....it was right on point...

what like the one he did referenced just above this article. hypocrite.

I think someone forgot to tell Edwards (the silly goose) her full name: Hillary "personal attacks r us" Clinton.

"Senator Edwards has a specific plan that will end this war" So does every democrat running for President:

S U R R E N D E R

They only differ in the speed they tuck and run. The surge's success will not change any of their minds.

Look, Hillary Clinton has never even attempted to hide the fact that her every utterance is and will remain 100% poll driven, of lowest risk, and therefore, entirely predictable. Every other opponent is out on a thin limb trying to be real about the issues, while Hillary and her well paid attack dogs chew on their dollar bills and belittle their position. A good campaigner maybe, but a narsisstic one.

Surprise, Surprise!!

CNN puts this post up claiming Edwards wants no more personal attacks(no in the article) and then puts one up claiming Edwards is attacking Clinton.

I wonder who CNN wants to win?

This article is so typical of the Clinton News Network. The assertion of John Edward's comments is actually "Where do you stand Hillary this is an important issue of leadership? Stop the personal attacks and answer the question?".
He is right on with those comments.
Hillary has been straddling this Iraq war issue from day one and someone needs to call her out.

She is pandering so much to appear centrist I can't tell where she stands.

The real concern for Clinton is the growing DLC / Republican-lite moniker that is growing around her.

She needs to check with her large team of handlers, advisors, pollsters etc. The three topics she should cover is: 1) What does 70% of America believe? What and what does she believe? 2)How do her varying comments can make her appear to have a consistent position in those beliefs?

For now is all guesswork...Good for John Edwards and all others who ask the Clinton campaign these simple questions regarding her Iraq position(s). The real issue is why CNN isn't asking her the same questions.

Personal attacks??? I guess that he forgot that his official attack dog (Elizabeth) made some pretty nasty remarks about Hillary Clinton and in one instance had to personally call her to apologize for her remarks. I have yet to see Hillary or Obama attack Edwards on a personal level. Disagreements on policy issues are NOT personal attacks on a candidate.

Hil's assessment that the surge has had military success in the limited areas where it's been used BUT won't have any effect on the final outcome because it' years too late & isn't being followed up by any American Diplomatic or Iraqi Political surge isright on the money. Ask any miltary guy out there. That's one characteristic of the Clintons. They aren't afraid to get info from other people smarter than them in a particular field.

The title reads "No more personal attacks" but the article has nothing to do with it. Does CNN even have editors? It's sloppy reporting like this that sends people to blogs...

"Clinton is taking heat from some of her Democratic rivals over her recent comments suggesting the president's surge policy in Iraq is "working."

"Having been there, having studied it and having seen the heroism and the accomplishments of our troops, I do not believe that we alone can impose a military solution. And I do not think the Iraqis are ready to do what they have to do for themselves yet.

Therefore, I think it is unacceptable for our troops to be caught in the crossfire of a sectarian civil war while the Iraqi government is on vacation. I think it is time the Iraqi government took responsibility for themselves and their country, because the American people and our American military cannot want freedom and stability for the Iraqis more than they want it for themselves.

As we move forward in these next months awaiting a report from General Petraeus, we have some very hard decisions to make. I'm not sure there are any good options. But one decision I know we will make is to continue to honor the service of our own American troops and to make sure that they are given the respect that they so richly have earned.

Some of us will disagree. I think the best way of honoring their service is by beginning to bring them home and making sure that when they come home that we have everything ready for them."

CNN should be taking heat for suggesting that Senator Clinton said the surge is working.

Senator Edwards is letting Joe Trippi do for his Presidential hopes, what he did for Howard Dean's.

Van

Edwards' wife is the one, who is constantly attacking Hillary or Obama saying that Eddy is not female enough or is not black enough etc. It is she, who is vicious and tasteless attacking these two viable candidates...Edwards lost twice... in 2004. Edddy's campaign manager, Trippi, failed Dean campaign in 2004 and was fired by Dean...Eddy's campaign train is runnig out of fuel... Now it is time to halt...Nobdy can change my mind. I strognly support Hillary, and I love her. And I love the fact we will make a history by electing a female President... I am a die hard fan of Clintons...Nothing can change that- not even Rove!!!!

If you dont want personal attacks, I suggest you learn to control your wife.

She will not end the war if she is elected. She will not roll back the severe encroachments on civil liberties that Bush has implemented. Rather, she will use them and expand them to suit her purposes. Hillary Clinton is so locked into the whole business of backroom politics and - check the record yourself - she's made more than her share of earmarks for her defense contractor buddies, just like her pious sounding buddies Schumer and Kennedy. At least Kennedy voted against the war, tho.

If Hillary gets elected, this country will have what it deserves. The Dems have plenty of candidates running who would do a better job. Richardson is one. Obama may well be another. Kucinich doesn't have a chance, but at least, unlike Hillary, he doesn't talk out of both sides of her mouth. For this, Hillary & Edwards want to cut him out of the debates. Sad sad sad

It would be refreshing to see this. More refreshing would be to get rid of all of these communcations directors, spokesmen, spin doctors and hear what the candidates say directly from the 'horse's mouth' so to speak.

The candidate says one thing one day and if there's ANY objection by anyone, we get the spokeman front and center recanting or remolding what was said to provide "damage control".

Twisted!

Have a good day,

Chip

Leave it to the media to try and instigate something and make something out of nothing. Either that, or it's politicians trying to regain national focus from the extreme weather, which change just as fast as a politicians oppinion.

Edwards' "specific" plan for ending the war in Iraq is outright laughable. This is the "speciifc" plan quoted directly from his website (http://johnedwards.com/issues/iraq/), all 240 words of it:

"Cap Funds: Cap funding for the troops in Iraq at 100,000 troops to stop the surge and implement an immediate drawdown of 40-50,000 combat troops. Any troops beyond that level should be redeployed immediately.
Support the Troops: Prohibit funding to deploy any new troops to Iraq that do not meet real readiness standards and that have not been properly trained and equipped, so American tax dollars are used to train and equip our troops, instead of escalating the war.
Require Authorization: Make it clear that President Bush is conducting this war without authorization. The 2002 authorization did not give President Bush the power to use U.S. troops to police a civil war. President Bush exceeded his authority long ago, and now needs to end the war and ask Congress for new authority to manage the withdrawal of the U.S. military presence and to help Iraq achieve stability.
End the War: Require a complete withdrawal of combat troops in Iraq in 12 to 18 months without leaving behind any permanent U.S. military bases in Iraq.
In addition, Edwards believes stabilizing Iraq requires a major diplomatic effort to:

Engage in direct talks with all the nations in the region, including Iran and Syria
Support a political solution to the sectarian violence inside Iraq, including through convening a multi-party peace conference.
Edwards also believes the United States must intensify its efforts to train the Iraqi security forces."

It reads like something from the "Wizzard of OZ", all you have to do is put on your ruby red shoes, click your heels and puff...ALL the troops are home in 12-18 months. You can't get anymore specific than that. Maybe somebody should ask him if he has a COMPREHENSIVE plan (including a weekly timeline, GANT Chart, etc.) for getting the troops home in 12-18 months. Lawyer politicians, ya gotta loveim.

How is the headline of this story indicative of it's content?

Edwards needs to be a little bit radical, considering he is in the back of the first tier. I doubt he will stop doing things to try to leapfrog Clinton or Obama

Senator Clinton learned from the best, her husband Bill. Speak what the listener wants to hear. They operate on the premise that Americans are dumb and forgetful. The Clintons are exactly why Aristotle was fearful of democracies - leaders would say and acquiese to anything in order to obtain power.

Unfortunately, none of the democrats are much better. By accepting issues such as abortion, homosexuality, transexuality, anti-religion sentiments, bigger taxes, and more they have doomed their party.

If Edwards really wants to be President of the United States, he will have to learn how to fight dirty like the rest of the candidates. When it comes to politics, people who won't fight dirty end up being the losers.

It's all a load of crap. Political candidates will say whatever is necessary to please the immediate audience... to get elected. Just look at the "results" we got from the campaign promises of 2006.

John Edwards as the anti-war candidate, the one with "a plan" to end the war. Doesn't pass the laugh test. No experience in foreign policy whatsoever. Wants to leave troops behind in Iraq, but won't say how many or what they would do.
I prefer Richardson-tons of experience, pledges to remove ALL troops from Iraq, already ahead of Edwards in New Hampshire in the polls.

I'm a registered Republican, and frankly am not overly fond of Hillary Clinton. That said, I (like many Americans) and completely sick of the partisanship that has for too long been part of the political establishment. Earth to Edwards: There IS progress being made...other Democrats have noted it, the media has noted it, the foot soldiers on the ground have noted it. Mrs. Clinton's statement is simple fact, and made me like her a little bit more than I had in the past. The unwarranted (and mistaken) criticism from the other Democratic candidates simply confirmed for me their identities...that of people who will do anything, and I mean anything, to get into office. Edwards is once again a long shot, and his actions not only show his desperation but also his inability to stand above partisanship even when the facts warrant it.

Someone can't acknowledge reality? Are we that divided that a Rep or Dem cant say the other sides plan is working?

"Senator Edwards has a specific plan that will end this war, but after yesterday's speech, voters have a right to be confused about what Senator Clinton's plan for Iraq is," Kofinis went on to say. "Does Senator Clinton support George Bush's surge or not? Does Senator Clinton have a specific timetable for withdrawing troops or not? Does Senator Clinton have a specific plan for ending the war in Iraq or not? The American people deserve specific answers, not more rhetoric, and surely not more personal Washington-style attacks."

yes. A great quote. I'm so sick of Hillary's back and forth on every single issue out there. I have no idea where she really stands. She says stuff like, "I'll get us out of Iraq...unless Al Queda is still there."

She tries to slip in caviats and gets this self satisfied look. I'm not convinced she's not in it for the legacy, while I am convinced that both Obama and Edwards have their heads on straight and their hearts in the right place. They need to be as brutal and straightforward as the above quote. We need definete plans and to know EXACTLY what the candidates would do. The issues are to important to have anything but.

Obama and Edwards would make a great team anyway you look at it, in any order of ticket. These guys are on fire while Hillary seems to sit on her perch.

Go get 'em, get active, listen to the issues from each candidate, and you really will start to see the key differences. Hillary is just too big business friendly.

I sure hope that all the people around these parts that come out in droves to complain when Obama gets quoted out of context on CNN.com or when the political tracker posts an article about Clinton criticizing Obama come out here to defend Clinton.

This article goes so far as to quote Clinton's remarks as simply "working" and "some areas" with no further detail? That's ludicrous, but I don't expect people who are proud of themselves for asserting that the C in CNN stands for Clinton to stand up and acknowledge that what's good for the goose is good for the gander. (Is that even an expression? Whatever.)

Lee

Personally, I'm sick of the mentality of soo many different politicians in America today, especially when it comes to decisions that effect our lives as American citizens.

Why can't you simply get a straight answer from someone in Washington? Why has everything come down to you being labelled as playing politics or trying to increase poll numbers if you just want the truth or a straight answer. Why!

I think too many citizens and politicians have forgotten a blunt fact. Americans don't vote for politicians so we can take their instructions. Politicians are elected to work for the American citizen, not the other way around. It's not your right as a politician to have certain eminities as a senator or state representative. It's a priviledge that American citizens give them to you.

When you have 1000's of families that have lost loved ones in Iraq & Afghanistan, or have been severely disabled/disfigured for life, how could someone have the audacity to say that you don't have the right to know when this nonsense will end, or give the American people a clear concrete plan for success in a war that is not ending.

Here are the facts, Bin Laden and Al Qaeda attacked the US on 9/11, not Saddam Hussein. The only reason a segment of Al Qaeda is in Iraq now is because we overthrew the Iraqi government that kept them out for soo long. But that's not who attacked us on 9/11, besides the fact that most Iraqis don't want us in their country anyway.

Iraq has now become an excuse for the US to stay in Iraq, when none of this would've occurred had we not invaded Iraq on false pretenses and information about WMD's, which don't exist in Iraq.

There's no one in Washington that believes there is a doable solution for the US in this Iraq war. The Iraq Study Group has already given recommendations and a blueprint out of this mess long ago. Yet no one calls them unpatriotic when they suggested that we cut or losses. I'm soo sick of this nonsense spoken by soo many people that think this is a Democrat or Republican issue. It's a morally and logical right or wrong, truth or lie issue.

Edwards to Clinton: "No More Personal Attacks"...

I read and reread this article, nowhere does it mention that former Senator Edwards or Senator Clinton will cease engaging in personal attacks. In fact, it appears to be another attack by former Senator Edwards on Senator Clinton.

I had high hopes this election season that the Democrats would run a positive future looking campaign; and confine their attacks to the Republicans and President Bush. Apparently that is not going to happen.

Too bad, two strong candidates from a united Democratic field would have been a guaranteed winner! When Senator Clinton wins the nomination I hope she chooses a running mate from outside the current Gang of Seven.

Blinded by Politics

How foolish

If the Surge did work in some areas, how foolish, to not recognize that fact!
Even though you know that a military solution is totally impossible to not recognize the fact as fact, how foolish!
People Blinded by their own Political View DISQUALIFY THEMSELVES!

That’s how we got into this problem in the first place!

If Peace is our goal everybody wins. We have completed our initial goals militarily but we can’t force Peace.

Following every tidal surge is the withdrawal. IF As we withdraw from a pacified neighborhood the Iraqi stand up, we are “out of there”! Homeward bound! That works for me!

“One last one for the Gipper” has got to be the last one!

Mr. Wolfson said,

"The fact is that while Democrats, including Senator Edwards and Senator Obama, acknowledge progress in Al Anbar, Senator Clinton opposed the surge from the start and believes there is no military solution to the war in Iraq,"

I wish all the candidates would make clear that the progress in Al Anbar had nothing to do with the Surge. The situation in Al Anbar had started to turn around sometime before the Surge was even suggested. It is mainly the result of the Sunni tribal leaders refusal to accept the Taliban-like policies the foreign Al Qaeda groups. Sunni tribal groups would be turning against Al Qaeda regardless of the Surge.

The reason why it's important that the candidates and especially you in the media to make this distinction is because we have already seen evidence that the Administration is preparing to pony out Al Anbar as one of the great successes of the Surge.

It is very likely that the first casualty of a U.S. pullout from Iraq will be Al Qaeda in Iraq. They will be attacked and massacred by both Shiites and secular Sunnis. Isn't that what we claim we wanted?