Feeds: 
symbol identifies content for paid subscribers only.
ATTACK!
The Edwards team's attacks on Hillary are getting very sophisticated. Now that they've decided on a weakness -- the double talk -- they're hammering all their policy differences within that framework. An example comes in the email I just got:
"And so today, I am calling on Senator Clinton to offer specific answers to five questions of most concern to voters in Iowa, New Hampshire, and all across America."
Five Questions on Iraq that Every Candidate Should Have to Answer:Question #1: Do you have a specific plan to end the war in Iraq?
Edwards: YES Senator Clinton: ?
Question #2: As president, will you withdraw all combat troops?
Edwards: YES Senator Clinton: ?
Question #3: Will you withdraw all combat troops within the first nine to ten months of your presidency?
Edwards: YES Senator Clinton: ?
Question #4: Will you conduct combat missions with troops stationed inside Iraq?
Edwards: NO Senator Clinton: ?
Question #5: Will you leave permanent military bases in Iraq?
Edwards: NO Senator Clinton: ?
Those are, of course, precisely the questions Clinton has been brilliantly able to muddle and slip through. Now that her evasions are an issue, however, the other candidates can make her non-answers exactly as dangerous as her answers.
--Ezra Klein
COMMENTS (7)
Triangulating.
Posted by: Anonymous | November 6, 2007 2:25 PM
I don't understand. #2 is the only one that, in Hillary's view, depends on how events play out. Otherwise, her answers are quite clearly yes, no, yes, and no.
Posted by: Steve | November 6, 2007 4:12 PM
I don't know about her "muddling" so "brilliantly" (if it were, wouldn't we all think we know her answers to all 5 questions?), but I'm not sure this is ultimately that helpful to Edwards - yes he has answers to all five questions. I just don't believe him. And. frankly, those 5 questions aren't the ones that bother me most, nor, indeed, do I think answers to them are simple.
Posted by: weboy | November 6, 2007 4:24 PM
No way, Steve. Her answers are No, No, No, Yes, and Yes. Remember, Hillary Clinton has never opposed a war in her public life.
Posted by: Dilan Esper | November 6, 2007 4:58 PM
I swear I could have heard former military officials state that if we decided to remove troops today, it would take about two years to remove all troops and equipment. Does anyone else know exactly how long it would take? I can't imagine it would take so few months.
Posted by: Davidson | November 7, 2007 3:45 AM
I swear I heard former military officials state that if we decided to remove troops today, it would take about two years to remove all troops and equipment. Does anyone else know exactly how long it would take? I can't imagine it would take so few months.
Posted by: Davidson | November 7, 2007 3:46 AM
Davidson, the key word in all of that is 'combat' troops. Not everyone would be coming home in the first year. There would still be American troops there for support, just not out actively engaging enemies.
Posted by: JBaker | November 7, 2007 3:55 AM