John Edwards pointed out at the Las Vegas Democratic debates that Hillary Clinton is taking contributions from special interest groups (he failed to mention that she is also taking contributions from convicted felons that Bill commuted their sentences and at least known felon who was wanted by the FBI). When he did there was a lot of booing from the audience. I took this as a show of disapproval for Clinton taking the contributions; however, I heard a discussion today that said Edwards was being booed. I still believe the booing was directed toward Clinton’s contributions. She is the bad element in the conversation; surely the people were not booing Edwards for letting the people know the truth. If Clinton does not want people to know she is taking this kind of money she should not be accepting it. What do you think; was the booing against Clinton or Edwards?
2007-11-16 12:04:00 · 9 answers · asked by Dallen B 5 in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
I am sure it crowd was booing Clinton for taking the contributions. Her accepting questionable contributions from felons released by Bill in his last days in office and from a known criminal the FBI was looking for has been on television several times. People are learning they can not trust Clinton and she is ready to do what she has to to be elected. She will sell her soul to become the president. She talks about her experience; much of that has been highlighted by questionable acts and lack of integrity. She talks about the bills she has introduced but never says how many have been approved or what benefit they provide American society. The boos were defiantly directed toward Clinton for accepting the contributions!
2007-11-16 15:32:29 · answer #1 · answered by amnestiswrong 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I think the booing was directed at Clinton myself and I agree that she should not be taking money like this, it just seems with Hilary that it is all about winning at any cost, it all comes out in the end. My personal fave at the moment is Obama followed by Edwards.
2007-11-16 12:08:07 · answer #2 · answered by waltonblue 3 · 3⤊ 0⤋
More Reality TV. Stagged and canned. It simply does not work
to have audience participation as we should be left to formulate our own ideas. CNN failed miserably in my book. Save the pep rally for personal agenda. I want to hear something. Not be swayed into something. Usually a debate format is quiet. This was another load of crap.
2007-11-16 12:42:12 · answer #3 · answered by Mele Kai 6 · 3⤊ 0⤋
I think they booed Edwards because he was telling the truth about Hillary.
2007-11-16 12:07:28 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 1⤋
They were lemmings planted by the Clintons and programmed to boo anyone who was slightly critical of Frau Hillary.
2007-11-16 12:07:07 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 4⤊ 1⤋
A first grader would know it was for Edwards. He said a stupid thing and he realized it right away, but I think I may still vote for him in my states primary as I prefer his ideas for National Health Insurance than Hillary's. But in any event, whoever gets the Democratic nomination gets my vote, and I don't care if its Mickey Mouse.
2007-11-16 12:10:59 · answer #6 · answered by Mezmarelda 6 · 0⤊ 2⤋
It was for edwards he was trying to make a point but is a few months behind the curve. She gave the $$ money back and edwards knows that but he was trying to score points being back in 4th place.
2007-11-16 12:08:14 · answer #7 · answered by malter 5 · 1⤊ 2⤋
IDK, but this alone is reason to stop public participation at debates. The crowd shut Edwards and Obama down, while the commentators built Hillary up.
It was unfair and very suspicious - what a farce.
2007-11-16 13:09:16 · answer #8 · answered by wider scope 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Both
2007-11-16 12:06:19 · answer #9 · answered by John in AZ 4 · 1⤊ 2⤋