From the debate:
MR. WILLIAMS: Governor Richardson, though there was broad disagreement on this panel about you having the only negotiation experience, you did raise your qualifications earlier. Is your contention that, say, the top three front-runners in this race are less qualified than you are to be president?
GOV. RICHARDSON: No. And I'm positive -- you know what I'm hearing here, I'm hearing this holier-than-thou attitude toward Senator Clinton. That it's bothering me because it's pretty close to personal attacks that we don't need. Do we trust her? Do we -- she takes money from special interests.
[snip]
Yeah, I do think it is substantially more than my colleagues, although they have a strong record. But the important thing is that we need to stay positive. We need to have disagreements on the issues, not on whether you can trust. I trust Senator Clinton but I don't agree with her on a majority of issues.
Clearly, Governor Richardson was responding to the personal attacks on Hillary by John Edwards. Here are some highlights of John Edwards' attacks during yesterday's debate.
And I think it is crucial for Democratic voters and caucus-goers to determine who they can trust, who's honest, who's sincere, who has integrity.
And I think it's fair, in that regard, to look at what people have said. Senator Clinton says that she believes she can be the candidate for change, but she defends a broken system that's corrupt in Washington, D.C.
So Senator Clinton cannot be trusted, is not honest, is not sincere, and has no integrity. On top of that, she defends a corrupt system in Washington and therefore must be corrupt. John Edwards seems to be working from the Fox News / Rush Limbaugh / Karl Rove playbook of personal attacks.
And regarding Hillary's position on Social Security:
But apparently it's been reported that she said privately something different than that. And I think the American people, given this historic moment in our country's history, deserve a president of the United States that they know will tell them the truth, and won't say one thing one time and something different at a different time.
Again, Hillary Clinton is a liar. Never mind her position on Social Security. Even if you like what she says today, tomorrow she might say something else.
Well, I just listened to what Senator Clinton said, and she said she wanted to maximize pressure on the Bush administration. So the way to do that is to vote yes on a resolution that looks like it was written literally by the neocons? I mean, has anyone read this thing? I mean, it literally gave Bush and Cheney exactly what they wanted.
You see, Senator Clinton is a neocon in the mold of Bush and Cheney.
If you believe that combat missions should be continued in Iraq over the long term, if you believe that combat troops should remain stationed in Iraq, and if you believe there should be no actual timetable for withdrawal, then Senator Clinton's your candidate.
That was a straw man attack. Senator Clinton wants troops to remain in Iraq indefinately with no timetable for withdrawal, according to John Edwards.
And the second point I would make is, I was surprised by Senator Clinton's vote, I'll be honest about that, and then I saw an explanation of it in The New York Times for her vote, which basically said she was moving from primary mode to general election mode. I think that our responsibility as presidential candidates is to be in tell-the-truth mode all the time. We should not be saying something different in the primary than we say in the general election.
I think that's what Americans have been hearing from George Bush, and I think they're looking for something different, and voters have a choice in this election.
Again, John Edwards is saying that Hillary Clinton is a disingenuous liar like George Bush based on what the NY Times said. Could she actually have voted the way she believed on the non-binding Iran Resolution? Of course not.
And so the question I think that voters have to ask themselves is, do you believe that the candidate who's raised the most money from Washington lobbyists, Democrat or Republican; the candidate who's raised the most money from the health industry -- drug companies, health insurance companies; the candidate who's raised the most money from the defense industry, Republican or Democrat; who -- and the answer to all those questions is that's Senator Clinton -- will she be the person who brings about the change in this country? You know, I -- I believe in Santa Claus, I believe in the Tooth Fairy, but I don't think that's going to happen. I really don't.
Ouch, that's cold. Sanata Clause and the Tooth Fairy are more real than Hillary Clinton.
And I -- I think that if people want the status quo, Senator Clinton's your candidate. That's what I believe. If they want real change, then they need somebody who tells the truth about a system that doesn't work.
Again with the truth thing.
It is true that I, like Senator Obama, have taken no money from Washington lobbyists in this campaign and no money from special interest PACs, but I'm not interested in patting myself on the back or actually talking about anybody personally on this stage.
Ironic... it sounds like he's patting himself on the back, but he's actually criticizing Hillary for taking said money. But I'll let Dennis Kucinich field this one.
REP. KUCINICH: Well, I'm -- I'm glad to hear people take a stand for integrity. When people get money from New York hedge funds and then they attack another person for getting money from Washington interest groups, you know what? They're both right. So I'm not going to get in the middle of that one.
I honestly liked John Edwards in the debate when he stuck to the issues and resisted the urge to call Hillary a corrupt liar. The things he said made a lot of sense. But the attacks on Hillary make him look like a cheap politician who will do anything to get elected, even if that means smearing another candidate. He's not going to bring any voters to his side with that approach.
I watched the debate with a Hillary supporter and a Kucinich supporter, neither of whom I consider a political junkie. They know what they see on TV. And they saw a John Edwards who is hateful towards Hillary. And hate does not win elections on the Democratic side. John Edwards certainly stood out in the debate, but not for good reasons. His whole message was lost in the stream of slaps against Hillary.