Edwards to Clinton: 'No more personal attacks'
Edwards campaign reacted Wednesday to critical comments from the Clinton campaign.
(CNN)–The war of words over Iraq between the campaigns of Democratic White House hopefuls Senator Hillary Clinton, and John Edwards, intensified on Wednesday.
"The issue of Iraq is one of the most important issues facing the country and the Clinton campaign knows that," said Chris Kofinis, communications director for Edwards. "The attempt to belittle these serious concerns by suggesting that this is about poll numbers is insulting to the American people and the brave men and women who are waiting for a leader to come up with a real solution to end this war," Kofinis said on Wednesday.
"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."
Clinton is taking heat from some of her Democratic rivals over her recent comments suggesting the president's surge policy in Iraq is "working."
The remarks came during an address to the Veterans of Foreign Wars convention Monday, in which the New York Democrat said the president's Iraq policy was leading to success in "some areas."
After David Bonior, campaign manager for the Edwards campaign, called Clinton's comments "another instance of a Washington politician trying to have it both ways," Howard Wolfson, Clinton's communication director charged that Bonior was distorting Clinton's position. "Senator Edwards was right on Sunday when he said that all the Democrats would end the war and that the differences between them were small," he said. "He is wrong today to distort Senator Clinton's opposition to the surge in a sad attempt to raise his flagging poll numbers."
"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," Wolfson added.
- CNN Political Desk Editor Jamie Crawford
From CNN Politics
- Trump's legal team seeks to throw out special grand jury report on 2020 election interference in Georgia
- 10 Cards Charging 0% Interest Until 2024
- American citizen held hostage for 6 years in West Africa has been freed
- Why a Trump indictment would have huge political and national implications
- Untitled
- House GOP requests Manhattan DA's testimony as they seek to discredit investigation into Trump
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?
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.
"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.
I think someone forgot to tell Edwards (the silly goose) her full name: Hillary "personal attacks r us" Clinton.
what like the one he did referenced just above this article. hypocrite.
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...
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?
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.