Clinton asked about Nafta

One of the more interesing moments during the debate was when Clinton was asked about Nafta:

And although in her answer she eventually seems to backtrack on her previous support of Nafta, she does so only after Blitzer asks her the follow-up question that really shouldn't be needed.

The problem with her response that many noted - besides the inconsistency of her current position with her prior support of Nafta and current support of the Peru trade agreement despite supporting a moratorium on new trade agreements if she were president - is how dismissive she was of the seriousness of the question, and seemingly of Nafta's impact. My generous guess is that she just wasn't prepared for the question. However, lets keep going and move on to another section of the debate.

The "Republican playbook"
Senator Clinton also called for an end to what she refered to as "throwing mud" and tactics from the "Republican playbook".

And I don't mind taking hits on my record on issues, but when somebody starts throwing mud, at least we can hope that it's both accurate and not right out of the Republican playbook.

Note that she doesn't say exactly what the "mud" is and what came out of the "Republican playbook". And she doesn't get asked, does she? Refering to Edwards specifically:

But for him to be throwing this mud and making these charges I think really detracts from what we're trying to do here tonight. We need to put forth a positive agenda for America...

Again, no specifics on the "mud" or on the "charges". And here's the Edwards response on the "mud throwing" thing from Face the Nation:

But her comments on a positive agenda - that certainly sounds good, doesn't it? Unfortunately, similar to the planting "accidents" that keep popping up, the message just doesn't seem to have filtered down to her campaign. Keep on reading.

Edwards and Obama respond on Nafta, trade
Not surprisingly, both the Edwards campaign and Obama campaign responded to Senator Clinton after the debate on the issue of trade. The Edwards campaign even had a conference call the very next day including union leaders that were pretty upset about the Senator's comments. David Mizner had an excellent diary on this - Edwards to Hillary: NAFTA's not Funny and they released a video response as well:

John Edwards - 1 Million Jobs Lost to NAFTA

Hard-hitting? Yes. Issue-focused? Yes. A response to her own comments and positions on Nafta and trade. And the Clinton response? Read on.

And the Clinton response
So keeping in mind Clinton's comments about throwing mud, the "Republican playbook", the importance to focus on the issues - and the issue-focused response to her from the Edwards campaign, we can aspect something similar from the Clinton campaign right? Maybe a defence of Clinton's new position on trade or a defence of her former position on Nafta? Or maybe continued criticism of Edwards own record on trade issues? Well, thats not what we got.

Here's what we got, courtesy of the Las Vegas Sun:

Clinton's campaign responded by targeting Edwards' previous consulting work for a hedge fund that owned a sub-prime lender.

"If John Edwards really cared about working people, he wouldn't have taken a $500,000 salary from a hedge fund that is foreclosing on working people around the country," said Clinton campaign spokeswoman Hilarie Grey. "Sen. Edwards should spend his time talking about how he's going to help those people instead of launching ridiculous attacks against Sen. Clinton."

So where to start on this one? If we want a perfect example of "mudslinging" and taking things from the "Republican playbook", this seems to be a textbook example, doesn't it? I guess Drudge doesn't copyright his material - or doesn't need to.

First of course, the obvious statement that Edwards doesn't care about working people. I mean, how could he, he worked at a hedge fund right? And hedge fund money is evil - so evil in fact that the Hillary campaign has taken over $980,000 in contributions from the industry, almost 4 times more than Edwards. So she must care about workers a heck of a lot less than Edwards under her own campaign's logic right? Ouch - her campaign is a lot harsher on her than I would be. No matter how much I disagree with her on policy, I would never say she just simply didn't care. And I don't think Edwards or Obama would either no matter how much they disagree with her on any policy.

And second, this of course plays into the typical Republican hypocrite argument - rich Republicans are good, rich democrats are bad. Everyone knows, you can't believe in change if you are rich right? If only FDR had less money, he could have done so much more!

And third, and probably most importantly, her campaign's response doesn't focus on the issue of Nafta or trade at all. Wonder why not? Remember this again?

And I don't mind taking hits on my record on issues

That's quite a response for someone who doesn't mind. and this:

But for him to be throwing this mud and making these charges I think really detracts from what we're trying to do here tonight. We need to put forth a positive agenda for America...

snip

... telling people what we're going to do when we get the chance to go back to the White House.

So given a clear chance to focus on the issues, to respond directly to issue-based criticism, criticism on her record and her debate responses related to Nafta and trade, the Clinton campaign dodges and avoids the issues.

And what do we get instead? Exactly what she warned us about - right-wing Republican talking points. Enough mud for a football field size wrestling match. Positive agenda? Nope.

And will the media cover this statement as much as Edwards and Obama's so-called "attacks" and "piling-on" on Clinton? Nope. Will the pundits bring this up over and over again about how this might hurt her campaign or that she risks being perceived as angry or moving away from a positive campaign?

I doubt it.