Hillary: I Have Better "Courage And Convictions" Than Obama
In a sign that the race is going to get exciting (and perhaps brutal) in the home stretch, Hillary Clinton is officially firing back at Barack Obama, in the wake of multiple polls showing him slightly ahead in Iowa and catching up in New Hampshire. "There's a big difference between our courage and our convictions, what we believe and what we're willing to fight for," the Washington Post quotes Hillary, saying that there is a difference "between someone who talks the talk, and somebody who's walked the walk."
"I have said for months that I would much rather be attacking Republicans, and attacking the problems of our country, because ultimately that's what I want to do as president," she added. "But I have been, for months, on the receiving end of rather consistent attacks. Well, now the fun part starts. We're into the last month, and we're going to start drawing the contrasts."
Comments (45)
Richard L. Adlof wrote on December 3, 2007 9:30 AM:No. Not really. Obama came right out and said that human rights weren't worth making his vote count or voice heard on the Mukasey appointment . . . Clinton just did not show up or discuss Reid had sniped her.
So Obama has more courage . . . To do the wrong thing for the American people.
Chris B wrote on December 3, 2007 9:39 AM:Well, at least she's dropped the "Whatever happens to the politics of hope" line. Perhaps Mark Penn realized it was tired and wasn't polling well.
To me, it seems like the Hillary campaign is doing everything it can to bring down Obama's "honesty and trust" numbers, which in some polls have been twice as high as hers.
Well, Obama's honesty and integrity are certainly legitimate subjects for discussion, since attacking Hillary on those grounds is the main charge of Edwards and Obama.
elrapierwit wrote on December 3, 2007 9:46 AM:Eric,
Here is Obama's response:
This presidential campaign isn't about attacking people for fun, it's about solving people's problems, like ending this war and creating a universal health care system. Washington insiders might think throwing mud is fun, but the American people are looking for leadership that can unite this country around a common purpose, and that's what I'll continue to offer in this campaign.
So now HRClinton who has never stood on principles but who is poll driven on issues wants us to beleive she has the courage of convictions? Please.
If Hillary has better courage and convictions why has she never stoood up and been a leader in the Senate for anything? Especially the Iraq war, where was her courage and conviction when she voted for the AUMF? Oh that's right she told us that she cast her vote with conviction FOR WAR yet she had failed to read the NIE report and now during the campaign wants us to accept her pathetic sniveling excuse of 'ifIhadknownthenwhatweknownow' as a statement of better courage and conviction than Obama who said:
This war should have never been waged and never been authorized and when Hillary was casting her vote 'with conviction' Obama gave a speech saying:
"I am not against all wars but I oppose DUMB wars. That this war would be of undetermined length with undetermined costs and undetermined consequences"
Hillary must be confusing convictions with ambitions and courage with prevaricating.
HolyRomanUmpire wrote on December 3, 2007 9:57 AM:"I have said for months that I would much rather be attacking Republicans, and attacking the problems of our country, because ultimately that's what I want to do as president. But I have been, for months, on the receiving end of rather consistent attacks. Well, now the fun part starts. We're into the last month, and we're going to start drawing the contrasts."
Wah wah wah. The whole world didn't just step aside and let me win! They've been making me answer questions and stuff! Like it's a presidential primary race or something. So unfair!
Goodness gracious. I thought only Republicans could whine this well.
waka waka wrote on December 3, 2007 10:07 AM:The only convictions Hillary has involve her "Right" to becomd the next president.
And "courage"? She does not want to go there. (But her pollster is probably making her though.)
Okay, can we put the "she voted for AUMF' away? We all know how the three frontrunners voted (or says how he would have voted if he would have managed to be there on that day for whatever reason).
I didn't, don't, and won't ever agree with her vote on this - I was angry about it. But, I'm not a one-issue voter, I'm interested in the Democrats winning the election, so on balance, I'm for Hillary Clinton, a fine progressive, liberal Democrat from a fine field of the same.
If that one vote is so important to you as to overshadow everything else a President has to deal with, then by all means vote for someone else in the primary who you prefer and then consider voting for the Democrat who wins the nomination if it's not your guy.
Sheesh! This is getting tiresome.
kefa461 wrote on December 3, 2007 10:12 AM:Since Obama and Edwards have had a free ride on the personal issues by the press and HRC it's time to get down and dirty. They've been playing dirty but can they take it like men, I think not. Now they and their folks will start to cry and whine when it gets real hot cause baby it's gonna get hot in this kitchen. Not just in Iowa but in NH and SC and on and on and on cause HRC has the money and people to battle to the ens and has been in many races and many battles. Bring it on.
NCSteve wrote on December 3, 2007 10:16 AM:Aaannd, right on shedule, here comes the lashing out and flailing I predicted yesterday in the post about her drop in Iowa and New Hampshire polling.
Yes, it is truly a shame that Senator Clinton has abandoned the politics of hope in an effort to revive her flagging campaign. Oh, wait, that's right, she's the one who says hope is naive. This cast iron pot calling the stainless steel dutch oven black must be some sort of Strength and Experience thing. That's it.
And Richard? plusgood duckspeaking of the official doublethink on how Hillary's missing the vote was morally superior to Obama's, but I believe we've already already had this fight:
http://tpmelectioncentral.com/2007/11/obama_in_iowa_when_mukasey_vote_was_scheduled.php
Truth is, you're flat out lying about what he said:
And, truth is, all four Senate candidates were screwed by Harry Reid on this one. To suggest that there's some moral difference between Hillary missing the vote because she was out campaigning and taken by surprise and Obama missing it for the same reason is just pitiful. If you have to engage in this kind of mental contortion to justify your support for your candidate, maybe its time to find a new candidate.
PFedd wrote on December 3, 2007 10:17 AM:"I would much rather be attacking Republicans"- Hilary Clinton.
Is this the uniter our country needs? The uniter she tries to say she is? No, she is using Rove politics to attack an opponents greatest strengths.
Sorry Hill, you are too late, ppl just relaize that you desperate because the poll result stress you out but this is the begining. you better careful, even your senate seat is for grab in NY in 2010. I will president to support someone else if you continue your desperate attack.
colonpowwow wrote on December 3, 2007 10:22 AM:waka waka:
Very insightful analysis of Hillary Clinton. Did you come up with that all by yourself?
Everyone in politics, and especially Senator Clinton, knows that you always run like you're 10 points behind. This BS about her and her campaign thinking she's "the anointed one" with a "Right" to be President is fabricated right and left wing extremist hateful nonsense. Please give me one example of where her campaign adopted such an attitude or pose.
And, everybody in a race and on this board pays attention to the polls. Your point?
upper left wrote on December 3, 2007 10:22 AM:Will Hillary's attack on Obama's character work?
I don't think so. Political attacks are like neurotransmitters. In order to be received, they need to match up with the receptors in the minds of the voters. In other words in order to resonate the attack has to dovetail with some pre-existing doubt in the minds of a significant number of voters.
I don't think most voters question Obama's integrity. He may not be a Boy Scout, but he has spent his whole career fighting for little people and for principled politics (as a community organizer, civil rights attorney, State Senator pushing ethics reform, etc.)
Voters may have doubts about electability and about his readiness in certain areas, but I do not believe there is widespread doubt about his character.
Attacks not only say something about the person being attacked, they also say somethin about the attacker. HRC is playing right into the meme that she is cold and mean and willing to do anything to get elected. I think she is likely to get alot of blowback and may end up finishing third in Iowa.
Tom wrote on December 3, 2007 10:23 AM:Hillary Clinton had the courage to support a war that she must certainly have known was a bad idea that would cost us lives and dollars. She supported it so she would appear tough, no matter how many kids had to die for that to happen. She has no convictions other then to see herself back in the White House. If Hillary is the nominee this guy is voting republican. I loathe HRC.
Michael A wrote on December 3, 2007 10:25 AM:Morning colonpowwow, in answer to your question on the war, nope. I won't put it away and I will raise it at every opportunity so that people won't forget. Mr. Bill brought it up last week and lied about his position, which clinton II has been doing as well.
War is war, it is not a picnic. Hundreds of thousands of innocent iraqis and americans have died. Thousands die every month. Women, children, families, people are dead or maimed. Whole families are wiped out. Homes, shools, hospitals are destroyed. It's war!!!!!
Clinton II treated it like a political picnic and didn't even read the gd NIE that said the war was based on lies!!!!!! WTF. And now she wants to bomb iran????
I think these issues are critical along with her triangulation. People want change, not more of the same old clintonian bs and the political wars of the 90's. That's why she was booed in iowa. She just wants to perpetuate the national stagnation for her own self aggrandizement.
Well, hopefully people are starting to wake up.
Obama/Webb in 08.
cw wrote on December 3, 2007 10:26 AM:How much will get accomplished when HRC gets on her "attacking Republicans" bandwagon? We've had to pay for inffective political fighting for years. I'd much rather see Obama's ablity to bring the sides together to get our real problems dealt with.
DonnaG wrote on December 3, 2007 10:28 AM:Hillary really cannot be trusted to get off script.
Here, according to the Caucus site, is the question asked her, and her response [since cleaned up a bit by the WaPo]:
"Asked if Mr. Obama had a character problem, Mrs. Clinton first said it was up for voters to determine, but then added:
“It’s beginning to look a lot like that – it really is, where we can’t get a straight answer on health care, where somebody runs on ethics and not taking money from certain people is found to have at least skirted if not violated F.E.C. rules and to use lobbyists and Pac money to do so"
Hillary just jumped the shark. Iowans, in particular, have their feet on the ground about politics, and can see right through Hillary's using a rovian ploy of trying to attack her opponent on HER OWN weaknesses.
By ignoring the internet and its offering of individual research and fact checking, Hillary must really be stuck in yesterday's world as a politician.
By her choice of attack issues [health care and money in politics], she just opened up her own old can of worms, a can of worms that had been sitting quietly on the shelf while she campaigned in a make-over image of 'strong and experienced'
From her health care failures to her untenable mandate [everyone must buy insurance and feed the insurance industry profits or risk penalties], from her paying off Vilsack's debts to her steering Hsu money to key endorsers [and even to Patty Solvis' brother], from her refusal to disclose income tax records, or her earmarks, or names of donors to the Clinton library or Clinton Initiative-to her putting SC endorsers on a $10,000 monthly salary......all this and so much more in her can of worms which she just took off the shelf and prompted all researchers to reopen......
Hillary's campaign, touted as superior, just proved to be rather amateur and self-destructive.
Speaking of destructiveness, can you imagine how destructive of the Democratic party this could be?
All that PAC money going to help down-ticket democrats [and I believe Obama's Hopefund also gave to Hillary and Hillary endorsers] is secondary to Hillary trying to play a rovian card......this is the same Hillary who, when begged, declined to let go her own extensive piles of money to help down-ticket democrats in earlier election cycles.
This is politics. Everyone goes negative sooner or later (unless you are the late, beloved Pat Moynihan who never had too.) Fair is fair. However, I did find the Kindergarten essay charge really laughable and offputting. I wanted to be a nun when I was six. Does that make me a flipflopper because I decided that chastity wasn't my cup of tea! I would prefer the "attacks" be on issues of policy. Attacking someone because of what the wrote when they were six is patently ridiculous. Someone got paid a lot of money to commit a real booboo. It diminished the
force of some of Clinton's truly substantive criticism of Obama.
Dear Colon
No we can not put it away, just like Hillary will not apologize her vote will not go away.
As a matter of fact HELL NAW!
Over 3 thousand people died and another 50K are wounded injured and maimed for life without limbs and eyes and you want to put it away...after Hillary has the audacity to assert she has 'better' courage and convictions?
Hell NAW!! She did not even have the decency to read the NIE report so that she would be INFORMED prior to voting 'with conviction'.
Hell NAW! She tried to spin this as she was voting for diplomacy and whined about how Bush conducted the war not the idiocy of going to war without an exit plan.
Hell NAW! Hillary had to vote on the most serious issue an elected official ever has to do and that is to take this nation to war and she did so for political expediecy without regard for the lives of the Americans she was casting her vote 'with conviction'
Hillary is a liar and for her to even attempt to attack anyone's character when it comes to courage and conviction is a lot of BULL!!
So, no we will NOT put her vote to go to war away. She cast it, she needs to own up to it and be held accountable for it.
That was no minor issue and she did NOT learn from her own ignorance as she turned right around this year and voted for the KYL-Lieberman amendment!
HELL NAW..that vote has a trail of blood that goes with it right to Arlington cemetery.
How dare you think it needs to be forgotten or swept under the rug. Anyone who beleives that politicians do not represent Washington but are sent to represent the citizenry to Washington cannot and willnot put this vote away as to do so is to perpetuate the idiotic notion that casting a vote for war is simply 'politically expedient'
HELL NAW.
It is not about a one vote issue it is about courage and convictions. Hillary raised the issue and reminded us all of just how she failed to have courage of conviction when it counted.
And that is just one example. Another glaring example of her lack of courage and conviction is universal healthcare. She failed to prevail in 92 with a majority Democratic congress and then after she became a Senator she decided to become the largest recipient of healtcare industry lobbyist dollars and NOW she wants to MANDATE 'universal' healthcare.
That is not courage and conviction that is capitualation to health insurance companys. She is willing to force Americans to pay for insurance rather that to force insurers to make health insurance affordable. That does not take a lot of conviction or courage it only requires her to believe that lobbyists are Americans too.
Hillary needs to shut up and sit down...all that equivocating she has done is not the type of 'character' Americans need when it comes to leadership in this country.
We do not need a President whose political ambitions take precedent over national security, health insurance for Americans and the sanctity of human life.
We need a leader who will lead based on principles not polls, convictions and not calculations.
That is not one issue it is an entire host of issues.
If you want another example look at our foreign policy. No one can even tell you where she stands on foreign policy. Even more frightening is that all her foreign policy advisiors were wrong on the war, yet she is sticking with them anyway.
Sounds like more GWBush to me..where she thinks being uncompromising demonstrates she is resolute and in actuality she is simply posturing to place her personal ambitions over the nations security.
Courage and conviction cover a lot of issues where Hillary has come up short time and time again.
DTM wrote on December 3, 2007 10:35 AM:Translation:
"John Edwards has been attacking me on credibility issues for weeks, and it has hurt my poll numbers. But my strategy is still to ignore John Edwards. So I will instead attack Obama on credibility issues, and hope it works against Obama as well as it has worked against me.
In fact, at this point I would be fine with an Obama-Clinton murder-suicide in Iowa which put Edwards on top. That is because I am calculating that Edwards doesn't have the ability to turn an Iowa win into a New Hampshire win, and I am pretty sure Obama could. So hopefully Obama will agree that playing along with my murder-suicide plan in Iowa would be 'fun.'"
colonpowwow wrote on December 3, 2007 10:37 AM:Let's see. After enduring weeks of personal attacks from Saints Barry and John - she's now firing back at their supposed "strengths" just like Coach Lombardi would have counseled. Why does that bother anybody who has ever followed a race before?
Sorry. She's still leading in the early states, in purple states, and nationally - albeit by less of a margin - as the race comes to the wire.
Iowa was always close. New Hampshire is turning into more of a race. No panic here. I still like her chances. You?
Brian wrote on December 3, 2007 10:39 AM:The Repugs and corporate military industrial media complex are quaking in their boots.
They both want Hillary as the nominee; because she is the most likely to lose the general election and even if not will be juicy fodder for the 4-8 years she and BillC re-inhabit the White House.
Now you will see the media really start to slam Obama with misquotes and falsehoods; ala Gore and Edwards.
Hillary has shown absolutely remarkable courage and conviction. People need to recognize how difficult it is to stay in a sham marriage based on political convenience for a few decades.
upper left wrote on December 3, 2007 10:42 AM:It is amazing to me how amatuer Team Hillary looks: two or three weeks ago she criticizes Edwards at the Las Vegas debate debate for mudslinging and personal attacks. She went on to say that she knew she was being attacked because she was winning. Now two or three weeks later she is slinging mud with both hands and making personal attacks. Why? Because she is now loosing. It is so transparent.
Monica Harbinger wrote on December 3, 2007 10:45 AM:It's about time that her true colors are shown. Hopefully the press (and sometimes some folks here at TNR) won't continue to give her a free pass and expose her for what she really is:
a shrill, opportunistic, poll-created political animal who doesn't have the leadership abilities or emotional IQ to be the leader of the free world.
People can't stand her and she doesn't deserve to be President. Period. It is time for change.
Jeremy wrote on December 3, 2007 10:48 AM:I've never seen anything to illustrate courage or conviction from Hillary. She says one of her strongest issues is women's rights, but she's co-sponsored legislation with Rick Santorum that would limit access to emergency contraception because she wanted to pander to religionists. That doesn't represent courage or conviction.
LJ wrote on December 3, 2007 10:48 AM:"There's a big difference between our courage and our convictions, what we believe and what we're willing to fight for," Clinton told reporters here.
Well, let's see. Hillary voted for the war "with conviction" according to her long blathering speech before voting in favor of authorizing the needless and pointless slaughter and maiming of thousands of American solidiers, not to mention hundreds of thousands of Iraqis. Obama, of course opposed the war from the start, so in that sense their convictions clearly are different.
DRinOH wrote on December 3, 2007 10:48 AM:"I have said for months that I would much rather be attacking Republicans..."
Maybe some of us are tired of attacking Republicans. In fact, maybe we'd like a candidate who has promised to extend some hospitality across the aisle and try to work with them. You know, see if we can get some shit done for the first time in 8 years...
DTM wrote on December 3, 2007 10:52 AM:colonpowwow,
I for one am not "bothered" by Clinton going negative because I am fairly confident it is going to backfire horribly.
And for what it is worth, I didn't think these were "personal attacks" when Edwards raised these credibility and ethics issues with respect to Clinton, and I don't think they are "personal attacks" now that Clinton is trying to raise the same issues with respect to Obama. Again, I just doubt that it will work in her favor.
dajafi wrote on December 3, 2007 10:55 AM:Sen. Clinton's next act of political courage will be her first.
I give her points for consistency: on everything from AUMF to the debate a few years over welfare reform reauthorization (something I followed from professional interest as a social policy analyst) to the drivers'-licenses-for-immigrants issue, she's been on every side of the question. So too for political reform ("Lobbyists are people too, but public financing for elections would be nice") and Iran ("I am not for a rush to war, but I am also not in favor of doing nothing").
As for AUMF/Iraq specifically, the issue isn't so much her vote--despicable and cowardly though it was--but why and how she cast it. There's absolutely no question in my mind that she was looking toward a future presidential run and was terrified to be cast as a "peacenik." While people like Wellstone and Bob Graham--who actually read the NIE!--took the principled stance, Clinton did the politically expedient thing.
As she always does, and always will.
I don't care about her ADA score or how the Sierra Club or NARAL or any other institution of "checklist liberalism" rates her. Clinton isn't a leader, she has no vision, and she's certainly not a progressive in any meaningful sense.
LJ wrote on December 3, 2007 10:55 AM:"between someone who talks the talk, and somebody who's walked the walk."
I think it's hilarious that she can't see the irony in her own statement here. She gave a speech claiming that she didn't want a war with Iraq and then went to the Senate floor and voted in favor of authorizing a war with Iraq.
elrapierwit wrote on December 3, 2007 11:00 AM:No, I do not like Hillary's chances. Never did. She even had the temerity to go and tell Couric..she WOULD be the nominee...that presumptious sanctimonious unrepetant coporate shill annointed as inevitable has convinced herself she is the nominee.
No, I do not like her chances and I hope this character attack on Obama is the nail in her political coffin.
I hope we look back at this moment in time as when the Hillary team imploded due to casting aspersion on Obama's character when she has a closet full of suspect and questionable actions dating back to the 90s.
More importantly I hope her words cement in folks mine that she is inDEED a fighter and cannot unite this country to govern and pass the policys we need and ensure the global respect that America needs to create international peace and security at home.
She has been an awful candidate from the jump.
And just like Edwards said she does not learn from her mistakes or she would know better than to engage in the politics of personal destruction that she accuses the GOP of doing while snarkly remarking about the 'politics of hope'
Obama has not once attacked Hillary's character, he has however contrasted their policy differences.
Hillary claims she is familiar with the kitchen but it seems she is the one that can't take the heat.
Her campaign is going down in flames and she is bound and determined to take the entire democratic field with her if she can.
After all she was in this to win it, and if she can't win...no Dem will!!
Keep showing your true colors Hill...that will unite the Democratic party against you and Obama will be the candidate Dems rally around to save the party from imploding with your venom and mean spirited character assasinations.
The Democratic pary in 08 is rallying around HOPE...not fear.... fear is sooooo 90s Hillary and we are not going back to it.
It is the new millenium and those nasty, viscious attacks are OUT...civility and statesmanship is in.
LJ wrote on December 3, 2007 11:23 AM:elrapierwit wrote:
She has been an awful candidate from the jump.
I think this is actually true. I think the media created this illusion of a flawless campaign simply because Clinton's national poll numbers (= name recognition) have been so high. I think it's been a self fulfilling prophecy. As she turns negative, I think she's going to drop like a stone. At least I hope.
Robert F. Kennedy said during his 1964 Senate campaign (for the seat currently held by Senator Clinton, by the way):
David wrote on December 3, 2007 11:38 AM:
If you win, the reporters will always write about well-oiled machines and super-planning. If you lose, they will always write about hopeless incompetence.
How is this not going to backfire? The last thing Hillary should want is to steer the debate to the issue of character. Because let's face it: Everybody likes Obama, even Hillary's supporters, and on issues of trustworthiness, he outpolls her 2-1. If this becomes a debate about courage and convictions, Hillary won't win. Obama showed courage in opposing the Iraq war before it ever began, by thinking outside the box in crafting his policy papers, etc. There isn't one single conviction of Hillary's that I remember her courageously defending. For one thing, it's hard to count what exactly her convictions are. If she lacks the courage to even express them clearly, can she be trusted to act by them? Everyone knows that Obama can and will. His problem is that even though people trust his good intentions, they're not convinced that he has enough experience to make wise policy. If Hillary must attack, that's what she should be attacking. I know what she's thinking: People like Obama, so I need to drive down his "character numbers." - But this sort of conventional smear strategy must first have a ring of plausibility before it works. Also, it could seriously backfire. Obama's "politics of hope" still leave him enough space to defend himself when his personal character is attacked, and to do it in such a way that will make Hillary look like a petty political bitch. Unfortunately for her, that assessment does have a ring of plausibility.
Dan wrote on December 3, 2007 11:48 AM:Clinton isn't firing back, because no one fired at her to begin with. Edwards and Obama were addressing real issues and the voters agree with them, not Clinton.
She voted for the war in Iraq AGAINST the advice of Bill Clinton. He was AGAINST the war from the start. How could she have ignored his advice on this issue. Could it be she doesn't trust him. Why wouldn't she trust him?
Obama is a man of integrity and principle. Clinton's feeble distortions have been debunked by most independent media. Right not the media is fanning those flames to sell, sell, sell. But the truth will win out. Senator Clinton, the Empress has no clothes.
dajafi wrote on December 3, 2007 11:54 AM:Stepping away from the fisticuffs for a minute, this is going to be interesting more for what it says about Obama--who after all is much less of a known quantity--than Clinton.
Last week, Obama did a long interview with Noam Schreiber of The New Republic. At the end of it, he said:
Now, you know what, if it turns out in this campaign that I have lost, and the reason I've lost is because I wasn't willing to do things that I think are wrong, I can live with that. I don't think that's going to happen. The one thing I won't tolerate is people trying to play that stuff on me. The one thing I hope people have become very clear about, and if not I will remind them, is I won't be a punching bag for anybody. I won't have people try to engage in unfair attacks against me. And if they come at me hard, I will come back at them harder. Alright?
One of the concerns some Democrats have had about Obama is that he isn't enough of a "fighter." Looks like he'll get his chance to confirm or refute that worry even before the first vote is cast. That's probably not a bad thing.
Anonymous wrote on December 3, 2007 12:04 PM:Yeah: Hillary's willing to fight to give George Bush permission to start wars.
votenic wrote on December 3, 2007 12:39 PM:2008 Presidential Election Weekly Poll
The Only Poll That Matters.
Results Posted Every Tuesday Eve
In the past couple of weeks, Hillary has done a remarkable job of refocusing attention on her campaign to:
1) Experience she doesn't have
2) Her support for the war
3) Her ambition
4) Fundraising.
I mean, are these really the four issues she wants to focus on right now? Heckuva job, Hillary.
colonpowwow wrote on December 3, 2007 2:12 PM:Helter wrote on December 3, 2007 1:26 PM:
"In the past couple of weeks, Hillary has done a remarkable job of refocusing attention on her campaign to:
1) Experience she doesn't have
2) Her support for the war
3) Her ambition
4) Fundraising."
1. She outpolls all contenders from both parties re experience by big numbers. I'll spare you the twenty-some paragraph resume I have on file re her experience.
2. She is on record as opposing the war and says she will end it if Bush doesn't. Obama and her votes on war issues are identical since he's gotten into the senate.
3. Only Hillary has the ambition to be President. The others just hope you will push them into office.
4. All the candidates swim in the same cesspool that is the American electoral fundraising system. Hillary is the only one honest about where her money comes from (Obama and Edwards claim no lobbyist money - that's a crock but they parse what "lobbyist money" really means oh so well).
Hillary is attacking back after taking a month of serious crap from the sainted progressiver-than-thous. I'm looking forward to watching a taste of what the GOP candidate has in store for him.
Mary, Cedar Rapids Iowa wrote on December 3, 2007 2:16 PM:
You know, I'm a strong feminist, and I supported Senator Clinton wholeheartedly. Until her ethics got in my way. Now she has the audacity to challenge others on ethics?? She HAS gone over to the dark side. Karl Rove couldn't be scripting this better if he were on the payroll; which, since she's taking election advice from Bush, he may as well be. The Republicans can't wait to run against Senator Clinton. No wonder they're giving her their playbook.
I've woken up from my trance, and decided to support the one true feminist running in this race. The one with the morals and ethics to back up their remarks with responsive action.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9ASwQGwTDII
Mary, Cedar Rapids Iowa wrote on December 3, 2007 2:16 PM:
"You know, I'm a strong feminist, and I supported Senator Clinton wholeheartedly. Until" etc.
Quoting certainly un-feminist comedian Sam Kinison, "Suuuuuure" you did. LOL
Yeah, what right does she have to bring up ethical behavior?
Hillary, I mean.
Colon, you say,
"I'll spare you the twenty-some paragraph resume I have on file re her experience."
Thank you, thank you, thank you for sparing us that list. You fooled me a few days ago with it...... I said I would check out the particulars on your list. Remember, colon, I even asked you for corresponding senate bill #'s, which request you ignored, and now I know why.
folks, colon copied the list from Dave White who posted it in an EC thread at 11:58pm on 30-3-07 [except colon left out one listing Dave White had put in which was about renaming a post office, but which sounded more glamorous]. Evidently, Dave White made his list by copying the titles of Hillary Clinton Senate Press Releases, um... verbatim. In none of those fluffy padded Press Releases is there any meat or identifying researchable material, like actual Senate bill numbers that would allow closer examination of Hillary's, er, 'resume'.
When I googled each item on Colon's list, google directed me to either the Clinton Press Release site, or to some other Senator's Press Release site, or wait for this...... to Election Central comments. This is so typical of so much that has come from Hillary Clinton's p.r. machine on her 'experience'.....lots of fluff, little substance, repeat ad naseum.
DonnaG wrote on December 3, 2007 5:02 PM:
That D' comment above is mine. Fingers got too busy too fast. Sorry.
