Mudslinging?! The lady doth protest too much, methinks.

In Thursday’s Democratic Debate in Las Vegas, Senator Clinton responded to challenges from her opponents that her positions were inconsistent calling them “mudslinging” and “personal attacks”.

Clinton had this exchange with former Sen. John Edwards of North Carolina, who accused her of being inconsistent on a variety of issues.

“Sen. Clinton says she will end the [Iraq] war. She also says she will continue to keep combat troops in Iraq and continue combat missions in Iraq,” Edwards said.

“She says she will turn up the heat on George Bush and the Republicans, but when the crucial vote came on stopping Bush, Cheney and the neocons on Iran, she voted with Bush and Cheney.”

“She says she will bring change to Washington, while she continues to defend a system that does not work, that is broken, that is rigged and is corrupt,” he said.

Senator Clinton Responded:

“I’ve just been personally attacked again… 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,” she said.

“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.”

I understand the definition of mudslinging to be rather narrow: Negative, often personal, frequently inaccurate, or exaggerated attacks of the opposition. 

I am a bit offended that Senator Clinton thinks we are so stupid as to not know the difference between pointing out a candidates inconsistent statements and unfounded personal attacks on a candidates character or family.

When did the act of a democratic candidate speaking the truth about an opponent’s record or inconsistencies in their statement become “Republican Talking Points?” Would someone please explain to me where the “mud” is? 

I m sorry, but the lady doth protest too much, methinks.

In American English, the phrase “the lady doth protest too much” indicates that you think the subject’s ardent denial of a proposition is meant to cover up its embarrassing truth.

Maybe Senator Clinton’s “asbestos pantsuit” just wasn’t holding up as well as she expected.

In this YouTube clip, Senator Edwards is asked about his change in position on issues and why that was no different from Clinton’s changing positions.