Hillary To Make Appearance On Five Sunday Shows Today

Comments (63)

Michael Lafferty wrote on September 23, 2007 10:01 AM:

My fervent hope is that Senator Clinton will peak early, and fade away. I can think of many reasons not to vote for her at any point in the process, but chief among them is this:

Should Senator Clinton win the Democratic Primary and the General Election, then go on to a second term, there will have 36 unbroken years of occupancy of the Presidency or Vice Presidency by members of only two families: Bush and Clinton.

8 years with George Bush Sr in the White House as Vice President

4 years with George Bush Sr in the White House as President

8 years with Bill Clinton in the White House as President

8 years with [the chimp] in the White House as President

8 years with Hillary Clinton in the White House as President

Sum them. That's 36 unbroken years with a Bush family member or Clinton family member serving as either President or Vice President. 36 unbroken years: more than a third of a century!

That outcome alone should be enough to erase her candicacy from the minds of any reasonable individual.

DonnaG wrote on September 23, 2007 10:47 AM:

Michael Lafferty, I so agree with you. The consolidated media is obviously interested in maintaining the status quo in Washington by ignoring the movement of party insiders toward replacing democracy with dynasties.

I think this media blitz of Hillary everywhere on the tv this Sunday is part of that collusion, too. And I wonder if this medi-collusion-Sunday is about affecting the decision tomorrow about union support, and/or wishing to drive up Hillary numbers at the end of the funding quarter.

The more I see the consolidated media's behavior toward Clinton, the more I am reminded of that same media's behavior toward Bush and the Iraq War. It is a turn off for thinking folks.

colonpowwow wrote on September 23, 2007 11:13 AM:

What any reasonable person takes from the first two posts here is that you two think that all of us lifelong progressive Dems who support Hillary, and may have, like me, always liked her, are hopeless idiots who are anxious to establish some sort of American Dynasty.

Please get a clue. Clinton the Second (if you prefer) is leading a fine field of Democratic candidates by double digits because we (most Democratic voters) think she's a great candidate herself, with a proven track record of electability, and a 90% plus liberal rating on all the important issues.

Some of us can even get excited about the possibility of electing the first woman president in our nation's glorious progressive history. Are we supposed to feel embarassed by this somehow?

Sorry this sad reality doesn't square with your conspiracy theories and other such sour grapes nonsense. Go out and work for the candidate(s) you prefer and spare us the sanctimonious Hillary-hate.

dcshungu wrote on September 23, 2007 11:29 AM:

The more I see the consolidated media's behavior toward Clinton, the more I am reminded of that same media's behavior toward Bush and the Iraq War. It is a turn off for thinking folks.

This is sour grapes, DonnaG. Not long ago, Obama was the kid phenom and the political wonder, who made the cover of every magazine, with headlines like "Obama Mania!"; meanwhile, Hillary was the 'polarizing' figure with high negatives and a pro-AUMF vote woes that she would have a hard time overcoming. The media/Obama schmoozing, however, was destined to be a 'quickie' or an overnight affair, as it was all hype and no substance...

After months of disciplined campaigning, with powerful appearances in the Dem debates that allowed her to be seen unplugged and unfiltered, HRC has effectively won over the voters and the media king-makers by showing why she is the more qualified candidate for the Dem nomination; meanwhile the hype about Obama's so-called 'new kind of politics' has all but disintegrated. Given this turn of events, and sensing that a Clinton win is now inevitable, the MSM is doing what it do best: To pick and anoint the victor by making the outcome seem inevitable!

Clinton's media blitz is, in fact, a shrewd move: she is using - pro bono - the very same media that has perpetuated the myth about her so-called "high negatives", to speak directly to the voters and show them that rather than 'being polarizing', she is a very capable, thoughtful, experienced and poised woman and legislator, who is the best qualified candidate of either party to be POTUS! The more the voters see and hear her, the more they believe their own lying eyes!

After this media blitz (she won't make any mistakes), watch for her poll number all over the place to move even more her way....

LaPopessa wrote on September 23, 2007 11:58 AM:

I can't figure this one out. None of my friends are planning on voting for her in the primaries (Obama & Edwards leading candidates there), none of the women I've talked to about it think she's an exciting candidate or worth voting for just because she's a woman. I have no idea where all the excitement for the same old thing is coming from.

colonpowwow wrote on September 23, 2007 12:30 PM:

LaPopessa wrote:
"I have no idea where all the excitement for the same old thing is coming from."

That's very true (the "I have no idea" part). Perhaps you are hanging around too much with the "progressiver than thou" elements of the party.

I have lots of friends that prefer Obama, Edwards, or even Kucinich, and I like them as well (okay, maybe not Edwards so much), and I will gladly vote for any of them if they secure the nomination (from Democratic voters, I presume.)

I know many, many Democratic voters who are excited about Hillary Clinton as president.

Maybe you should expand your circle of Democrats a bit. I work as a volunteer for the Democratic Party organizations in two counties. This includes working with the Democratic Women's Caucus of Monroe County. And I'd guess conservatively, that 80% of these Democratic politicians are very strong Hillary supporters.

john mccutchen wrote on September 23, 2007 12:33 PM:

She's told us why Obama's green. Wonder if she'll tell us why she's so experienced:

1. Sponsor the Great Health Care Debacle 1993 2. Co-sponsor GOP Congressional Takeover 1994-2006 3. Madame in residence - Lincoln Bedroom 4. Co-Sponsor Greatest Strategic Disaster in US History - Only took her four years to figure out Bush wasn't to be trusted 2002-2006.

Bet she doesn't

john mccutchen wrote on September 23, 2007 12:40 PM:

The NyT article summarizes Obama's strategy:

Mr. Obama has begun preparing for a much more protracted campaign, arguing that it will be in effect a hunt for delegates that could last well into the spring. To that end, he is competing in some unlikely places — New York, for example, where he is holding a rally in Washington Square Park on Thursday — because under Democratic rules, delegates are allocated to candidates based on the percentage of votes they win.

And there are some early signs that this is a sound approach. Hillary's slow movement above 40% seems to have stopped if not reversed. Here in CA for instance, the Public Policy Institute Poll confirmed others showing a marked reduction in her lead from last month's Field Poll. PPI which is every bit as reliable as Field if not as well known, also showed weakness among Independents. The race is very fluid and delegates are awarded proportionately by congressional district.

This race is likely to go into March, perhaps beyond to a convention where if Hillary is the nominee it won't be by much

colonpowwow wrote on September 23, 2007 12:41 PM:

john mccutchen -

Ooo, ouch! Did you lift this list from the Washington Times?

Yes, Hillary (or any politician with her vast political experience) will make mistakes and even major blunders from time to time. I'll bet even Saint Russell of Feingold has made some votes that you would strongly disagree with.

Thanks for the insight and the penetrating analysis of Hillary Clinton.

CT Voter wrote on September 23, 2007 12:59 PM:

Fox News played a brief snippet of Chris Wallace interviewing Clinton. In the clip, he started by mentioning that it was a year's anniversary since Bill Clinton had been on his show, talking about a rightwing conspiracy, and then he asked with a straight face something to the effect of "Why are you and your husband so polarizing and extreme" and Hillary Clinton burst out laughing. It was great. And I'm not exactly wild over Hillary.

And whoever is saying Hillary has "vast political experience" is drastically overstating her qualifications. She has experience. Not vast amounts. If you want a candidate with vast experience, vote for Dodd or Biden.

Jan wrote on September 23, 2007 1:01 PM:

I must say, I too get tired of the tired argument, "blah-blah many years of Bush-Clinton-Bush-Clinton" baloney.

Bush - bad
Bush - bad
Bush - bad, 60% of nation thinks it is going in the wrong direction
Clinton - good
Clinton - GOOD! 70% of nation thinks it is going in the RIGHT direction
Bush - bad
Bush - BAD! 70% of nation thinks nation is going in WRONG direction

Another Clinton is BAD for the country? Get a grip.

And, as far as the "monarchy" ridiculousness?
It's a democracy, kids.

If you base your vote on what someone's last name isn't, don't vote for someone who's last name you don't like.

But to consider that a valid reason, in a democracy, for voters not to vote for the candidate we believe will do the best job? Puh-leez! You're sounding like of the GOP thought police.

Coonsey wrote on September 23, 2007 1:16 PM:

I sincerely hope she shows Americans, why she cannot win the General Election. She is a CLINTON. Americans should remember number one, that she is NOT 'BILL'. They should also remember what the MEDIA was like back in the 1990's before the impeachment and afterwards.

Do they really want to go through all that AGAIN?

colonpowwow wrote on September 23, 2007 1:37 PM:

Ho, hum. Another thread on a post about some positive news hijacked by the Clinton-hating progressiver-than-thous and those of us who support her for positive reasons are forced to "defend" an excellent Democrat who is leading an equally-excellent field of Democrats.

Case in point, I'm now called on to defend my offhand observation and apparrent "overstating" of her vast political experience. By "vast political experience" I include her years as a party activist, her years on Bill's election teams, her years as Arkansas first lady, ditto on Bill's presidential election teams and on being US first lady, her efforts on behalf of leading a major healthcare initiative, fifteen years of enduring unprecedented attacks from the right wing slime machine, her two elections to the US Senate, and her heading an extremely well run and disciplined primary campaign.

Sheesh!

gailley wrote on September 23, 2007 2:26 PM:

colonpowwow -- please take another look at the candidate you support. Yes, it would have been nice to be able to have a good woman candidate running. But HRC has nothing else to offer. I think what would be better for this country is someone who has real experience, good judgment and make solid decisions that they can stand behind. HRC does not have any of the above. She is not what you are hoping her to be. And, with only 40% of Democrat voters in a national poll saying that they would vote for her how does that equate to most are behind her as you suggest in an earlier post?

Clinton the anointed; Clinton the unchosen wrote on September 23, 2007 2:31 PM:

My fervent hope is that Senator Clinton will peak early, and fade away.

Good: She's already fading in the sense of general public apathy to Clinton as the de facto, media-anointed (including TPMElection Clinton) establishment-conferred Democratic frontunner vs. a Republican field that suddently appears more interesting precisely because voters "feel" they have a choice without feeling manipulated, forced, pressured to choose the already chosen.

Bad: She's dragging everyone else down with her.

CT Voter wrote on September 23, 2007 2:33 PM:

colonpowwow: If you're going to count Senator Clinton's entire career as "vast political experience", then you ought to do the same for all the candidates, and then Clinton's "vast experience" doesn't stand out all that much.

Senator Clinton is a strong candidate. There's no need to overstate her qualifications--Many of the Democratic candidates are strong, in fact--and arguing and discussing strengths and weaknesses is healthy. It's too bad you've taken the comments so personally.

Outside the beltway wrote on September 23, 2007 2:38 PM:

anyone goin to put together a highlight real of Hillary cacklilng on every show today?

dcshungu wrote on September 23, 2007 2:47 PM:

LaPopessa wrote on September 23, 2007 11:58 AM:

I can't figure this one out. None of my friends are planning on voting for her in the primaries (Obama & Edwards leading candidates there), none of the women I've talked to about it think she's an exciting candidate or worth voting for just because she's a woman. I have no idea where all the excitement for the same old thing is coming from.

It just means that you need to get out more...really.

RaymondA wrote on September 23, 2007 2:57 PM:

Hillary seemed confident and poised this morning, but if you paid attention to what she about her Iraq vote, it's more gobbledygook and obfuscation (see below). Unfortunately, though it would have been relatively easy for her questioners to call her on it, they basically let her fillibuster. Oh, well.

As to the substance, Hillary was by Russert and Steph about her 2002 votes, and both times she did the old "it's about where we go from here, not the past" song and dance. Neither one followed up by saying, "but you are running on the argument that you are the more experienced and seasoned candidate, so how can you say, only when it suits you, that the past is not an important predictor of future judgment?"

More infuriating still is that Hillary now has a new variation on her war vote that makes her appear to be the truly "naive" one in the race. In particular, she said that "That vote was based on what I knew at the time. Had I known then how Bush would have used the authority I voted to give him, I would not have voted that way." If she really believed that Bush would not go to war within six months of her October 2002 vote, she was beyond naive. She was a blinkin' idiot. No one on either side of the debate thought there was a chance in hell that Bush would not take the country to war at the time he was asking for that authority!

On top of this, when she said she voted "yes" only to give Bush leverage at the UN, Steph (mildly) followed up with, "Well why didn't you vote for the Levin amendment. That would have required Bush to go back to Congress if the UN did not authorize the invasion." Hillary's response to this one was substantively lame, though again she "appeared" in command. She said, I learned the importance from when my husband was President to not give the UN veto power over American foreign policy; listen to the UN, yes but no veto power."

Steph let that one go, unfortunately, but it's transparent horsesh*t. The Levin amendment would not have given the UN veto power, it would have given CONGRESS -- which she was of course in -- veto power, because it allowed Bush to come back again to Congress after he made his best efforts with the UN.

Sorry, Hillary supporters. You can say her 2002 war vote is not disqualifying, and I actually would agree with you. I respected it then and still respect some who voted "yes." But she is so damn disingenuous about that vote, such a liar about it to be blunt, that for me it's her dishonesty and her refusal to truly take accountability for her role in starting that war that is the most troubling.

I've been a big Obama supporter from the beginning, and I'm starting to get upset with him for not making her war vote and her shifting and wholly unconvincing explanations of it a serious issue--one about policy, not Hillary's personality. It's not about relitigating the past; it's about what we can fairly expect in the future from her.

We learned a lot about Bush when he responded to what was by then an obvious mistake in invading Iraq by giving Bremer and Tenet medals of honor. He won't take responsibility for mistakes and either will she. That's troubling for what it says about the future; it's not about the past.

colonpowwow wrote on September 23, 2007 3:01 PM:

Okay, okay, re "vast political experience" I mean she has 30+ years of varied, that's the word, varied political experience plus two successful recent senate runs and a 20 point lead in the polls. Sorry, I stand corrected. Nothing vast to see here. Move along. Again, sheesh. Doesn't take much to get the Hillary-haters parsing like madness around these progressiver-than-thou blogs.

gailly - I submit that YOU are the one who should take another look at Hillary Clinton. I already said that I've been a supporter of hers for many years, and also that I would vote for any of the other candidates if they happen to beat her for the nomination, since I think overall, that they're all good Democratic candidates. Has Hillary made mistakes and/or "bad" votes? Name a politician that hasn't. Do I hate some of her votes? Of course I do. That said, I still think she's the best candidate for president.

AnnS wrote on September 23, 2007 3:25 PM:

It's not even October yet. Are we conceding the nomination to a candidate who refuses to commit to any timetable of withdrawal from Iraq (see Stephanopolus today), who doesn't see to find global warming much of an issue in terms of her emphasis and who who basically is rehashing issues that were important in the 1990's? We are living in perilous times. Why aren't we demanding more from all out candidates.
I am not bashing anyone. I am just bemused and puzzled at all of us.

colonpowwow wrote on September 23, 2007 3:28 PM:

While the Hillary supporters on this thread related to a positive campaign move point out that she leads an excellent field of excellent Democratic candidates, posters such as RaymondA spice their characterize of her with such respectful observations as:

"more gobbledygook and obfuscation"

"song and dance"

"she was beyond naive. She was a blinkin' idiot."

"Hillary's response to this one was substantively lame"

"transparent horsesh*t"

"she is so damn disingenuous about that vote, such a liar about it to be blunt"

"her dishonesty . . . is the most troubling."

"her shifting and wholly unconvincing explanations"

I know, I know. You don't like Hillary and think that it's probably a good move to attack someone who's run consistently ahead of your preferred candidate for many months now. I understand that those Democrats who list her as first, second, or third choice (probably about 60% of even the posters even here in progressiver-than-thou land) are all idiot sheep. Way to try and win us over to see the light, eh?

NCSteve wrote on September 23, 2007 3:28 PM:

"Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton has consolidated her early lead in the Democratic presidential contest, showing steady strength as the candidates head toward the first voting early next year."

Let's see. The first sentence in an NYT story takes HRC campaign spin and credulously turns it into the lede with no filteration. Unsourced speculation about the mood in Obama's campaign as a situation they said in June would persist until the primaries continues to persist. Hmm, who among the the NYT's political reporters could possibly have done that? Oh look, what a surprise. It's Adam Nagourny's byline.

Honestly, wtf is this supposed to mean? mean. "Consolidated?" "showing steady trength?" Isn't that just another way of saying "stuck in the polls?" No one among the top three has shown any movement in the polls for months. No one is going to until about two weeks before the Iowa Caucuses and New Hampshire primaries (have tnose been moved up to next week yet, btw?)

Is it just possible that maybe this is a just well-coordinated bullshit blitz from Hillary's people (starting with that Politico "she's inevitable so quit already" crap last week) driven by a little frustration that her numbers have plateaued and her opponents won't just step aside and acquiesce in her coronation? Naaah. Couldn't be. Not with our ever alert MSM, always ready to look behind the spin and its own CW narrative when it covers politics.

dcshungu wrote on September 23, 2007 3:30 PM:

Raymond A sez:

I've been a big Obama supporter from the beginning, and I'm starting to get upset with him for not making her war vote and her shifting and wholly unconvincing explanations of it a serious issue--one about policy, not Hillary's personality. It's not about relitigating the past; it's about what we can fairly expect in the future from her.

This screed reflects the desperation of the left wingnuts, who have unsuccessfully tried to make the case that Hillary's "yes" vote on AUMF disqualifies her from being POTUS. Listen: the average Joe Voter out there does not care about that vote (on which the majority of their Senators voted just like HRC). If Obama is to win this nomination, he's going to have to run a better campaign and outsmart HRC, which won't happen: She is too disciplined and too smart for him. Harping on the AUMF vote would make him look like a bully, and you know what happened to Rick Lazio...

People understand that Obama was not in a position to vote on the AUMF resolution and, therefore, he is in no position to criticize anyone. The only vote that counts is the one that is actually cast and not the one that one would have cast. Obama's so-called smart position on the war is unimpressive (read: unconvincing) to me as, after moving to DC as a US senator where could more substantively register his opposition to the war by trying to end it, Obama repeatedly voted to perpetuate the war...

I won't mention his lack of experience and his multiple blunders on foreign policy that sealed the correct perception in the minds of many that he is too politically green to be POTUS at this time.

Clinton the anointed; Clinton the unchosen wrote on September 23, 2007 3:53 PM:

I learned the importance from when my husband was President to not give the UN veto power over American foreign policy; listen to the UN, yes but no veto power.

Trite, dangerous blather echoing the likes of Jesse Helms or the cartoonishness of Gen. Jack D. Ripper.

If the above is accurately paraphrased, all the more reason to doubt Clinton's leadership.

Or does Clinton not grasp the meaning and intent of "united" in United Nations?

UN sanctions effectively controlled Saddam.

UN inspectors effectively dismantled Iraqi WMD.

UN legitimacy effectively defused khrushchev-Kennedy and other crises.

UN treaties effectively legitimize US intervention.

However, Clinton apparently believes the US is weak, a fraud, a bully with a pulpit though evidently without a spine.

Else she'd know the power in "superpower" isn't derived from apish, chestbeating hard power, but the power of legitimacy and consensus invested in us/US to "lead."

Bush has his bubble, HRC a bunker.

"UN veto power" would've saved thousands of US lives, sparing many thousands more from "liberation" through death, mayhem.

Do we really want more bubble-dwellers or bunker people to "stay the (current) course?"

gqmartinez wrote on September 23, 2007 4:11 PM:

The AUMF vote will not harm Clinton. This was Bush's war and not Clinton's. Most Democratic primary voters share this sentiment and trying to pretend this is Hillary's war (or Biden's or Edwards's) is going to cost you voters. You may believe this is Hillary's war, but if you try to make that case to Democratic primary voters, you're going to lose that battle badly. But hey, keep trying, its not like it hasn't been said over and over again already.

FreakyBeaky wrote on September 23, 2007 4:18 PM:

On top of this, when she said she voted "yes" only to give Bush leverage at the UN, Steph (mildly) followed up with, "Well why didn't you vote for the Levin amendment. That would have required Bush to go back to Congress if the UN did not authorize the invasion." Hillary's response to this one was substantively lame, though again she "appeared" in command. She said, I learned the importance from when my husband was President to not give the UN veto power over American foreign policy; listen to the UN, yes but no veto power."

HRC's AUMF vote is hard to swallow, and if this is accurate it is true she's dodging the question. However, it is an example of what she and her campaign do well in handling the media. Instead of answering the question that was asked, she answered a question we know will be asked in the future, namely "Will you give the UN veto power over what we do to defend this country." The answer is a flat "no". We know a) that wasn't the question, and b) it's a BS question. But compare this answer to talk of "a global test." It's an attempt to turn her badly mistaken (IMO) AUMF vote into a strengh. I don't buy it, but I'm also sure a lot of folks out there in TV land will - at least enough to blunt this inevitable right-wing attack.

Clinton the anointed; Clinton the unchosen wrote on September 23, 2007 4:35 PM:

The AUMF vote will not harm Clinton.

Do tell.

An apt summary of The Clinton creed: I'm beyond harm, I'm invincible, I'm inevitable.

Otherwise, the war is over to most Americans. We don't care, we just want out.

However, Clinton on the UN is hardly just about Iraq.

It's about leadership. It includes the next crisis. It suggests Clinton, like the current occupant, is a jingost with one-dimensional notions of American exceptionalism or its capacity for the global, common good.

But hey, keep on trying. It's not as if Dewey beat Truman.

colonpowwow wrote on September 23, 2007 4:42 PM:

Clinton the anointed; Clinton the unchosen -

Hey, I've got just the group for you! US out of the United Nations is their cornerstone issue. I don't think I have their address, but just Google The John Birch Society.

Clinton the anointed; Clinton the unchosen wrote on September 23, 2007 4:48 PM:

Hey, I've got just the group for you! US out of the United Nations is their cornerstone issue. I don't think I have their address, but just Google The John Birch Society.

Dear One Child Left Behind,

US sans UN belongs to Clinton.

Just as colonpowwow belongs to the local zoo.

colonpowwow wrote on September 23, 2007 4:56 PM:

Clinton the anointed; Clinton the unchosen

Sorry. Just tying to help out the crackpot contingent posting here and was hoping that maybe you'd send the address along with your stunning insights to the Clinton campaign. Sorry if you misunderstood my message.

Gotta go. Feeding time at the zoo and all that, you know.

Clinton the anointed; Clinton the unchosen wrote on September 23, 2007 4:59 PM:

Bon appetit.

And for your dining pleasure, this,

party-of-one wrote on September 23, 2007 5:22 PM:

colonpowwow said early in these posts:
"Please get a clue. Clinton ...is leading a fine field of Democratic candidates..." And you know this colonpowwow how? By media reports?

I do not believe Hillary has the substantial, enthusiastic support the media likes to report. I listen to a lot of people when I travel. I never hear ethuisastic support for Hillary. Mostly I hear objections to Hillary for one or more of the follwing reasons, she is: dishonest, controlled by corporations, a warmonger, a believer in the "unitary presidency," bitter and eager for partisan revenge, lacking in good judgment, lacking in any real qualification, symbolic of the belief that a woman SHOULD be president, a surrogate for Bill's third term, Bush-Cheney lite. Mostly I hear that we really need change, not a return to the Clinton era.

colonpowwow wrote on September 23, 2007 5:26 PM:

Clinton the anointed; Clinton the unchosen -

Wow! Thanks. That link was almost as interesting as and much more informative than your usual postings here. Do you have any good Hillary conspiracy theory stuff that I could read as well? I love good adventure stories too. I read them to my imaginary animal friends here at the zoo in Clinton.

colonpowwow wrote on September 23, 2007 5:32 PM:

party-of-one wrote:

And you know this colonpowwow how? By media reports?

Uh, I just strongly suspect this (that Hillary is leading for the Democratic nomination) because I get CLUES from every poll taken over the last six months or so.

Perhaps you should get one.

A poll, I mean.

CT Voter wrote on September 23, 2007 5:39 PM:

I believe "hadenough" has resurfaced....

Liberal Larry wrote on September 23, 2007 5:52 PM:

I WON'T vote for a corporate Democrat!

Michael Caine wrote on September 23, 2007 6:20 PM:

colonpowwow, your inane personal and ad hominem attacks are not helping your candidate.

Hillary's response to most questions was disingenuous. The most glaring would be her response to her disastrous Health Care initiative in 1994. Her claims to ongoing championing the cause is outright false.

Other than empty campaign rhetoric, she has done nothing and spoken out about it rarely. The only reason she is talking about it now is because she is running for the Presidency and it polls well. Even there, she has been a follower rather than a leader.

In fact the '94 Health Care initiative is an excellent analogy of both Hillary and Bill's national political life. They will propose something but as soon as it starts taking heat or starts to fail they abandon it without looking back.

john mccutchen wrote on September 23, 2007 6:28 PM:

The Hillary Clinton Experience
#1 - Sponsor Great Health Care Debacle 1993

WASHINGTON - Democrat Hillary Rodham Clinton on Sunday defended her plan for universal health care and insisted she won't repeat the mistakes that doomed her earlier effort to cover millions of people when she was first lady.

Fools say that they learn by experience. I prefer to profit by others' experience. Otto von Bismarck

Captain Nemo wrote on September 23, 2007 7:49 PM:

Hillary used the "laugh" ploy a little too much today. It was effective when she laughed at Fred Thompson's ravings about health care on Stefanopoulos' show. She handled it well, countering that Thompson does not have a health care plan of his own, and "just says no".

But the "laugh" tactic alone is not going to get her through a very long campaign, with a media that is hostile, clueless about what the voters really think, and heavily populated with airheads and windbags.

The Democratic nominee, whoever it is, will be fighting a gale-force headwind. It will be unrelenting, hostile to the Democrats, divisive, and full of distortions. The Democrats do not stand a chance if they continue their spineless ways and are divided going into the election.

colonpowwow wrote on September 23, 2007 8:33 PM:

Michael Caine -

Do I even have to point out the LOL factor in someone lecturing me about my inanity in the same sentence their criticizing my alleged ad hominem attacks?

Okay, let me reasonably debate the issues surrounding Hillary's appearance with one of the subjects of my "ad hominem" attacks, RaymondA, who characterized it thusly:

"more gobbledygook and obfuscation"

"song and dance"

"she was beyond naive. She was a blinkin' idiot."

"Hillary's response to this one was substantively lame"

"transparent horsesh*t"

"she is so damn disingenuous about that vote, such a liar about it to be blunt"

"her dishonesty . . . is the most troubling."

"her shifting and wholly unconvincing explanations"

Mr. Caine, how would you go about beginning a logical discussion on the issues that Hillary was talking about today with RaymondA? How would such an attempt be characterized? Time waster? Sisyphean?

Just wondering.

colonpowwow wrote on September 23, 2007 8:37 PM:

Of course I mean "they're" not "their."

Pet peeve of mine. Drat it all!

colonpowwow wrote on September 23, 2007 9:24 PM:

Michael Caine said:

Hillary's response to most questions was disingenuous. The most glaring would be her response to her disastrous Health Care initiative in 1994. Her claims to ongoing championing the cause is outright false.

Other than empty campaign rhetoric, she has done nothing and spoken out about it rarely. The only reason she is talking about it now is because she is running for the Presidency and it polls well. Even there, she has been a follower rather than a leader.

colonpowwow respectfully disagrees. If you Google "Hillary Clinton healthcare," you will get over 2 million hits many of them outlining the articles, radio programs where Hillary has discussed healthcare issues, and the fact that her first speech in the Senate contained a number of health care initiatives for discussion and that she stated that she would support.

How's that, Michael? Gosh, I feel so, I dunno, clean. Maybe you're on to something here!

Michael Caine wrote on September 23, 2007 9:37 PM:

You refuted my statement that all she had done is produce empty campaign rhetoric by showing her empty campaign rhetoric, colonpowwow? Then you topped it off with more insults? Not to mention your previous post.

sigh.

dcshungu wrote on September 23, 2007 9:54 PM:

we feel that it is time for a woman or a black person to be elected POTUS. But if this cannot happen then we must ask the obvious question: what does it mean to be a democracy? The other democracies have elected a woman!!! Why not America?

colonpowwow wrote on September 23, 2007 10:11 PM:

Michael Caine -

Insert weary condescention here > (sigh), Michael, you said "she has done nothing and spoken out about it rarely."

This is wrong. Although she failed to carry the day on national healthcare in 1994, she was right about it. Hillary, as first lady and as an acknowleged expert in the area, became a vocal spokesperson on behalf of the SCHIP legislation that was passed in 1997. She continued to speak out on healthcare issues through the years in the major media (again, google "Hilary Clinton healthcare"), and gave her first speech on the floor of the Senate on healthcare issues.

It may not be enough for you Michael, but to say "she has done nothing" is incorrect.

(sigh)

Coonsey wrote on September 23, 2007 10:42 PM:

What Hillary doesn't get is....Americans aren't prepared to "Fend off" attacks AGAIN, nor do they desire to go over Bill's and Her past AGAIN.

We've heard nothing but Clinton this, Clinton that, not only during his 8 years in office, but way beyond and into Bush's administration.

Enough already. No more Clinton, no more Bush's.

We need a new face and new ideas.

colonpowwow wrote on September 23, 2007 10:57 PM:

Coonsey -

We need a new face and new ideas?

How about a woman's face? New enough idea for you?

Oh, and you can call her Hillary Rodham if it makes you feel better. She's okay with that, I'll bet.

DonnaG wrote on September 23, 2007 11:14 PM:

Regarding Hillary on Meet the Press:

Three questions:
Did Hillary change her position on the Iraq War I remember her once saying something about beginning to end the war on her first day as president. But I think she told Russert that there was no guarantee of ending the war 'in her first term'.....

Did Hillary vote against condemning the move-on ad, but today on television, then state that she unequivocably does condemn that ad?

Did Hillary say on MTP that she has over 100,000 donors and that the 'vast majority' of them gave under $100.00? That seems bizarre and unlikely. From the opensecrets site, by the end of the second quarter, the lowest monetary category of donation listed for Hillary was $200-$499, which was given by 17.7% [3,697 donors] of her total individual donors.

Coonsey wrote on September 23, 2007 11:14 PM:

Don't get me wrong. I think it well past time for a woman to be in the White House as PRESIDENT. However, Hillary is not that woman. The only way she will win the General election is either by the war growing terribly worse, more lies come out of the White House, or the republicans pick a strict conservative war pusher - as their nominee.

Americans are tired of Bush and Clinton and all that goes with them - including the name of Rodham. It's not so much the name it's the HISTORY that comes with it.

RaymondA wrote on September 23, 2007 11:21 PM:

Some commenters above wondered if my paraphrase of the Hillary/Stephanopoulos interview was accurate in attributing to Hillary the old right-wing warhorse that we should not give veto power to the UN. Well, thanks to Tivo and slow motion replay, I've got it almost word for word. As you will see, she not only trotted out that warhorse but smeared her colleague Levin by suggesting that he wanted to give the UN veto power over our Iraq policy when his resolutions said, plain as day, that if the UN Security Council did not authorize an invasion, Bush could return to Congress and make the case for going in without UN support.

Hillary defenders: Please defend the substance of her position on this; don't turn it into a game about whether "Joe Sixpack" cares. That's a dodge.

Stephanopoulos ("S"): You've said your vote was not a vote for war but to demonstrate support for going to the United Nations.. But a lot of your Democratic colleagues disagreed. Senator Levin proposed an amendment that would have required President Bush to go to the UN and get a resolution and come back to Congress if that failed. If you wanted to demonstrate support for going to the UN, why didn't you vote for the Levin Amendment?"

Hillary Clinton ("HRC"): For several reasons. First, historical reasons. When my husband wanted to go and do what was necessary to end ethnic cleansing, and to stop the spread of violence in Europe, he tried to get Congressional approval and, under the Republican Congress, was unable to do so. He thought it important to put together a coalition for Bosnia and Kosovo, and he did. George, there has to be a delicate balance. I don't believe we should give veto power to the United Nations or any international group, although I favor being involved with and working with international bodies.

S: Senator Levin said the resolution would give the UN veto power.

HRC: Well, that's how I assessed it at the time. We had a disagreement at the time.

I will concede that my earlier post, right after I heard this, caused me to a bit animated. But, civilly, please defend the substance of what she said, one of you Hillary supporters. I'll check back tomorrow. It's bed time.

RaymondA wrote on September 23, 2007 11:27 PM:

D'oh. TPM, please bring back the edit key! The third-to-last line in my block quote omits a key "not." It should say:

S: Senator Levin said the resolution [he introduced] would not give the UN veto power. HRC: Well, that's how I assessed it at the time.

colonpowwow wrote on September 23, 2007 11:32 PM:

Coonsey-

Please, you're not telling me that I shouldn't vote for the one who I think is the most qualified person to lead our nation because she has the "wrong" last name.

Are you?

Really?

Jah, almighty! It's a good thing he wasn't named Abraham Bush.

kjoe wrote on September 23, 2007 11:35 PM:

I think Hillary has enough experience and other good qualities required of a serious presidential candidate. It seems silly to say otherwise. Based on her record as a New York senator, more than anything else.

I think it is a mistake to put too much stock in what happened in the nineties. Her husband was elected in 1992 in a three way race---it is not possible to know for sure what the Perot effect was. It is possible to say his easy re-election in 1996 did not do much for his party---his legacy is sparse in accomplishments, but filled with amazing personal political ability.

He gave us the execution of Ricky Rector (who has 1 third of the physical matter of his brain missing) in Arkansas as he was explaining about Gennifer with Hillary on the Dan Rather channel.

He gave us a nifty list of pardons early in 2001.

He was lucky enough to benefit from the timing of the deal made by Reagan and Bill Bradley to reduce tax rates and corporate loopholes----which his wife seems all too comfortable with.

He gave us evidence of his ability to inspire blind loyalty with a timid Al Gore and his wife regarding rape victim Juanita Broaddrick.

Hillary's biggest problem is going to come when the substance of what she says is given close scrutiny compared to Obama and Edwards. That will come soon---maybe even as soon as Wednesday night.

From what I saw today, she is really good at keeping that obfuscated. The biggest pressure is yet to come.

colonpowwow wrote on September 23, 2007 11:44 PM:

kjoe wrote:

"He gave us evidence of his ability to inspire blind loyalty with a timid Al Gore and his wife regarding rape victim Juanita Broaddrick."

Hey, I also understand that the Clintons were responsible for Vince Foster's murder and let's not forget Travelgate and Troopergate and all the missing "W's on the typewriters, I could go on and on.

kjoe wrote on September 24, 2007 12:31 AM:

You can go on and on if you want to.

You can go on and on believing Juanita Broaddrick was not a rape victim if you so desire.

SeeDee wrote on September 24, 2007 12:48 AM:

I have a problem with the feeling that the MSM has 'anointed' Hillary and Obama as front runners...this process started before and immediately following the 2006 elections when it became obvious that Americans were increasingly dis-enchanted with the Bush lies and misgovernance. It has continued un-abated thru' the present.

It is pretty obvious that the MSM, which has supported the GOP on virtually every issue (especially the disasterous Bush Middle-East policies), has concluded that a Democratic tide is building and they want to select the candidate who most closely accepts their ideas.

The appearances of Hillary on all of the major talk shows in one day should, in the interest of fair and balanced reporting, require each other candidate (Democrat and Republican) be given equal time on each venue.

The 'money' thing in our current electoral process has largely removed the possibility that a true 'grass roots' Democrat can ever win a nomination for POTUS...and that is kinda sad.

Lets see, maybe it would explain SOME things to delve into the 'OWNERSHIP' of CBS, NBC. ABC, FOX NEWS...is there any clue there as to why they give Hillary so much time NOW? Is Edwards or even Obama creeping up on the 'front-runner'?

DTM wrote on September 24, 2007 7:03 AM:

The bottomline is that many primary voters won't make up their minds until a relatively few weeks and often just a few days before they vote, and early results can have profound effects on later results. So it simply is not possible to "consolidate" anything right now, and indeed the eventual winner could easily be one of the single-digit folks right now (ala Carter or Clinton).

DTM wrote on September 24, 2007 7:15 AM:

By the way, of course a Yes vote on the Iraq war resolution will hurt any hypothetical Democratic candidate. We know that with virtual certainty because we already saw it happen: Kerry's Yes vote was used effectively to dilute his anti-war message and portray him as an unprincipled political opportunist. Of course, the GOP candidate will likely be running on a "right war, wrong execution" message, which is unlikely to be terribly popular. But anything that closes the gap, or even just confuses the gap, between the GOP candidate and Democratic candidate on this issue works to the GOP's advantage. All of which is why it baffles me that the Democrats are even thinking about repeating their mistake from 2004 and nominating someone who voted Yes on the Iraq war resolution, but I have learned that many Democrats (and to be fair, many Republicans) have an infinite capacity to repeat the same political mistakes over and over.

dcshungu wrote on September 24, 2007 7:52 AM:

By the way, of course a Yes vote on the Iraq war resolution will hurt any hypothetical Democratic candidate. We know that with virtual certainty because we already saw it happen: Kerry's Yes vote was used effectively to dilute his anti-war message and portray him as an unprincipled political opportunist.

This is where all the left wingnuts are wrong! Kerry was hurt by his "yes" vote for the war and by anything regarding the war ONLY because he waffled about it! In his own words "he was for it before he was against it"... a damning clip that was played over and over again by the GOP.

Edwards's serial mea culpas will not immunize him against this charge either. The GOP will still say about him that that "he was for it before he was against it." Although as a State Senator Obama was against the war, he was never in position to vote for or against the AUMF resolution. However, when he got to Washington, he voted repeatedly to perpetuate the war!!! That is is why HRC's refusal to apologize for a vote that she actually cast immunizes her from eventual GOP charge of flip-flopping! In fact, her position is the only principled one: Despite cries from the far left that she apologize for her vote, and the pundits' prediction that her refusal to apologize would hurt her chances for the nomination, she did not apologize; instead she vociferously condemned the conduct of the war once it became clear that GWB had screwed up royally... Make no mistake about it: This is GWB's war
and NOT HRC's or the Dems'... Got it?

anns wrote on September 24, 2007 10:23 AM:

"Left wingnuts?" I am beginning to detect a note of redbaiting creeping into this blog. If you have legitimate policy disagreements about a candidate, you are a "left wingnut???" Can the moderator remind the contributors about the stupidity of calling someone a "lefty" to shut them up. That what's right wing republicans use to do, although they sed the word "commy" when any one didagreed with them.

seanh wrote on September 24, 2007 11:21 AM:

Fox News Sunday appearance:
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,297759,00.html# (video link upper right)

CBS Face The Nation
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/09/23/ftn/main3289284.shtml (video to the left)

NBC Meet The Press
http://video.msn.com/v/us/fv/msnbc/fv.htm??g=756f9553-e767-44f9-9ce8-43e11f886461&f=00&fg=copy (ie seems to be required)

seanh wrote on September 24, 2007 11:48 AM:

that "uncontrollable" laughter Clinton breaks into on several occasions seems pretty scripted and contrived. I like her speaking about the substance of her health care issue, and her statements clarifying her position in Iraq. During Face the Nation, she explains the lingering US military security presence in Iraq under her withdraw proposals. Apparently, the lingering troops will protect American interests (embassy), stable Kurdish regions in the north and fight AQI. How in the hell we're supposed to accomplish these goals without a significant troop presence is beyond me, and she doesn't exactly explain that position.

I can understand American anxiety regarding Iran, and what a withdraw of combat troops would mean for our strategic position in the region. Would Iran invade Iraq immediately after we withdraw? I don't see how they could possibly consider a full scale invasion of Iraq even moderately beneficial. First of all, they would surely meet much of the local tribal resistance our own troops have met in the region, especially considering the historical animosity between the two nations. Secondly, there's no way Saudi Arabia (or Israel, for that matter) would allow Iran to invade and occupy Iraq. Iran knows this, and realizes aggression would mean facing plenty of opposition. Of course, it's almost a certainty that border conflicts would increase, among other Iranian methods to attain more influence over the region. There are already reports from military news publications of Iranian forces moving into official Iraqi territory (especially in the NE), harassing civilians and even kidnapping. Still, it's hard to believe that anyone seriously believes Iran would attempt a full scale invasion of Iraq. What purpose then, if not a deterrent to that great evil-nation in the desert, could our lingering forces realistically serve?

Post a comment

Name:
Email Address:
URL:
	Remember personal info?
Comments: (you may use HTML tags for style)