Tuesday, March 4th, 2008...10:01 pm
Who Is Writing These Slogans, Peter Cannon?
Jump to Comments
So, first Barack Obama uses “Yes We Can!” as a cheer at rallies. Tonight, Hillary Clinton’s chant was “Yes We Will!”
I suppose this is some way to convey her experience or something.
Oddly enough, I was at a gathering of Young Democrats when Clinton’s speech was broadcast. They had the closed captioning on. The chant ended up being transcribed as “Y 6 L.” Yeah, I dunno what to do with that either.
As of this writing, I have no earthly idea who won Texas.
I need sleep, and it ain’t even that late.
35 Comments
March 4th, 2008 at 10:23 pm
I think the person doing the closed captioning for Clinton had a few drinks beforehand (or during).
March 4th, 2008 at 11:11 pm
She apparently won Texas too.
March 5th, 2008 at 6:33 am
Wow…changes things massively. The only thing good at all that I can see about this for democrats is that there is a real election/caucus in every state. People are actually campaigning in states like Rhode Island, Vermont, and Wyoming…and…voters are coming out in those states in big numbers for the candidates.
Aside from that, I am worried that this is going to be an opportunity missed, this coming fall, for the Dems. I hope I am wrong.
March 5th, 2008 at 11:11 am
I take very serious exception to HRC’s comment that McCain is more ready to be President than Obama. That is an irresponsible statement for a Democrat to make about the other candidate for the nomination. If this is an example of what we can expect from her, she will lose a lot of support!
March 5th, 2008 at 11:11 am
Kral,
On the positive side, we can both change our voter registration back to “Independent” and we do not have to be Democrats again for four years.
If Hillary proceeeds to trash Obama for the next six weeks, screaming to the nation that he is not qualified to be president, that his campaign is based on one speech, that McCain would be a better choice, etc…then I kind of doubt that Obama would even be electable.
The voters have rewarded Hillary for dirty and negative campaigning and she will keep it up. What does she call it now? Scorched earth? In a sense, that is exactly what it is because Hillary intends to trample anything or anyone that stands in her way with complete disregard for the consequences.
Will she be electable? Who knows? I certainly won’t vote for her.
March 5th, 2008 at 11:29 am
Francine,
I wish that more people took exception to Hillary’s statement about McCain having more to offer than Obama, but the Democrats do not seem to mind her relentless trashing of her challenger. After all, he dared to challenge Hillary Clinton who waited in line behind Bill and paid her dues and now must be rewarded with what is rightfully hers.
I think the Democrats will find that Obama mobilized huge numbers of voters and I’m not sure they can count on that support being transferred to Hillary Clinton.
By the way, I have no problem with Hillary staying in the race. It is the dirty campaigning that I abhor, but I seem to be in a minority, as usual. Maybe I should move to Vermont.
March 5th, 2008 at 12:04 pm
Hi Liza and Francine:
I did not hear that comment and I agree that it is really hardcore politics.
Some thoughts:
* First, I think the states they are winning are very interesting. It is pretty clear that Hillary is winning states where the organization of democrats is clearer, more organized, and more established. I think she is winning because it is easier to come in, win the opinion makers, and those opinion makers then deliver the votes. It happened in Nev., Texas, Ohio, NJ, NY, Mass, etc.
Obama does well in states where the dems are “not so well organized”. It allows his organizational skills and his organization to triumph. There is little existing in states like Georgia, SC, MS, Colorado, that is worth much of a damn…no top down establishment that is able to deliver votes, so he wins.
A side benefit of Obama is that he is essentially building the organizational roots in these states that Dean has so badly wanted to build. A big advantage from his campaign, win or lose.
It is also the quandary he is in when he comes up in places like PA, which the media has already annoited as more important than anything else (by the way, NC has only 2 less delegates than PA…its a big delegate rich state that Obama is likely to win…I would like to see him argue over and over that IT is the real showdown, why can’t Hillary win in the south?).
Last, I think Hillary has done a masterful job of beating and beating and beating on Obama. He has responded but he needs to take the fight to her. He has the money to do it….and he should. There are worries that it would show him to be just like any politician but now there is a question as to how much of a “fighter” he is. I think he can duke it out now without looking like a hypocrite because he needs to prove that he can not only take it, but dish it out.
Last, Liza, I switched back Independent this morning.
March 5th, 2008 at 12:08 pm
Sorry, typo, NC has only about 20 less delegates than PA.
March 5th, 2008 at 1:40 pm
Clearly it was an example of press bias against her! They didn’t want the hearing-impaired to understand her speech! The closed captioning lobby hates the poor defenseless Clintons!
March 5th, 2008 at 3:03 pm
Kral,
Interesting point about Obama winning in states where the Democrats are not so well organized.
Your point about Hillary doing a “masterful job of beating and beating and beating on Obama” sounds strange to me, but politics is not my forte, obviously. A lot of people seem to agree with you, as though this relentless attack on Obama’s character and qualifications is really just a very good test to see if he is ready to be the president. I can’t see where it is a test of anything other than whether or not Obama is willing to play really dirty politics. And, if so, Hillary will be the very first to point out that he is nothing but another dirty politician and she will go into another “I am the victim here” tirade.
Obama is in a tough spot. Given that one of the things he has tried to make his campaign about is unity, how much can he gain by attacking a white woman? There is plenty of field left to plow for anyone looking to attack the Clintons, but how low can you go especially when the Clintons are always willing to take it to go even lower? I’m not sure I would try to beat a Clinton at dirty politics games. Obama needs a different approach.
Here is a short article by John Nichols that you might find interesting. Some of the comments are pretty good too.
http://www.thenation.com/blogs/campaignmatters?pid=294687
March 5th, 2008 at 3:12 pm
Thanks Liza.
I actually agree with you. I speak strategically, not morally or that I like it. I think it worked for her to go negative, but at what costs? Beat up, get his attention, get him off message, maybe force a mistake, maybe rattle him, etc. The pickle for him was how to respond. If he responds he legitimates the behavior…and DOES go off message (he should let others who are prominent do this for him…she has let surrogates do that dirty work for her afterall). On the other hand, if he doesn’t respond he risks getting labelled (eg. as unexperienced…the more she and McCain say it…the more people believe it until he damns them with response…he feeds the fury and draws more attention to it by responding too). Or…he can be himself…OR…he can let loose his own volley on HER record. Get people talking about her for a change, Rose law firm, what kind of experience she REALLY has, what is means to be experienced by being in the White House as first lady versus making policy…etc.
March 5th, 2008 at 3:31 pm
In the midst of all this Clinton bashing, I’m curious to know whether anyone else shares my concern that the McCain nomination puts to rest any hopes we might have shared for some significant new electoral gains in the inter-mountain West?
March 5th, 2008 at 3:45 pm
Kral–
Eleanor Roosevelt, LadyBird Johnson, Rosalind Carter, Nancy Reagan, Hillary Clinton. It’s true that First Ladies don’t have their fingers on the red button, but to claim they don’t have beaucoup political and policy experience. Ridiculous. An empty talking point, and most everyone knows it’s empty, too.
March 5th, 2008 at 5:28 pm
TexAZ,
First Lady projects hardly qualify as a either a political or policy experience, generally speaking. Jackie Kennedy decorated the White House and Lady Bird Johnson beautified America and Nancy Reagan had a war on drugs or whatever. Prior to Hillary, I have never heard of a first lady claiming their years in the White House to be political experience on par with a legislator or a president. It is absolutely absurd.
However, Hillary Clinton was given an opportunity to develop national healthcare under her husband President Bill Clinton and her FAILURE is legendary.
And Hillary’s experience in foreign policy? Does pandering to AIPAC for the last seven years count for anything? What else has she done other than vote to invade Iraq?
Hillary bashing can become a national pastime for all I care. Once a politician decides to take the low road and mercilessly bash a challenger, well, that politician is fair game.
Hillary is fair game forever.
March 5th, 2008 at 5:51 pm
Kral,
You’re right. There is that which is moral and ethical and then there is politics. Trying to be a moral and ethical politician must be a real challenge.
I think that Obama has to get past talking about being attacked and deal aggressively with those attacks that have the potential to do him great harm. John Nichols was spot on about NAFTA in the article that I linked to above.
However, the attacks about his “empty rhetoric” and “lack of experience” and basing his campaign on one speech, etc… are a different problem. Aside from “liar, liar, pants on fire” where do you go with that? And I think you are right that those are the attacks that should be delegated so that Obama can stay on message.
I just hope they figure out how to deal with this, because, if anything, it is just going to get worse.
March 5th, 2008 at 6:15 pm
Liza,
You clearly don’t know anything about these powerful women. There are plenty of history books you might consult. I won’t call you sexist, because I’m quite certain you’re not.
But I might point out that very prominent Obama surrogates, who know perfectly well that the Clinton’s are not racialists, did all they could to fan the flames of that particular and especially ugly media construct after New Hampshire and in South Carolina.
Negative campaigning? Politics is politics; whose underpants aren’t skid-stained?
March 5th, 2008 at 6:44 pm
Oh, and Liza, I completely agree, Hillary is fair game. After all she is running for President of the United States of America. Whoever holds that office exercises only constitutionally limited power over a giant continent, over the world’s largest economy, over most of the dominant international political and financial organizations and NGOs, and over an explosive and growing military power so great we are all quite literally absolutely unable to comprehend its destructive potential. You think Iraq is bad, you have no idea.
So I say, kick the tires. Take a test drive, the longer the better. Take every single buggy to the most critical and exacting independent mechanic. As for the dealers, trust but verify. After all, dear friend, our lives depend on our choice.
My candidate (and unlike you, Liza, I am a Democrat not a passer through), is out of the race, and I’m not giddy over each of my remaining choices. Still, I know I’d rather ride than crawl.
March 5th, 2008 at 7:28 pm
I’ve vigorously defended Lyndon Johnson on this site before, at least partly in remorse for how little I appreciated the acomplishments of the Great Society as young’un when I was totally transfixed politically by my opposition to the war in S.E. Asia. But also because I know now that with my arrogant connivance 1968 saw the end of the New Deal/New Frontier/Great Society, and thus the effective end of social democracy in America. I wanted more, and we all got worse . . . much worse.
But just for a moment let me stickup for LadyBird Johnson. Naively, Liza gives Mrs. Johnson slighting credit for a “beautified America”, as if that weren’t important. What apparently Liza doesn’t know is that the Clean Air Act and the Clean Water Act, which were enacted under Pres. Nixon, were also key components of Lady Bird’s environmental initiatives, and that they would have passed anyway in a 2nd Johnson term. Indeed, LadyBird had built such a force of environmental and aesthetic concern, that Nixon and the Congress had no choice but to defy industrial polluters and make these great advances, now under serious threat of reversal, into the law of the nation.
Liza implies that Claudia Alta Taylor was just a flower fancier or an enemy of roadside junyards, which she certainly was. What does she know about LadyBird’s keen business sense and visionary developments in the radio/TV industry which reshaped electronic communications in the South and built the fortune on which the Kennedy/Johnson ticket swept through the region?
There are great forebearers in the Democratic Party since 1932, and not one candidate we’re seeing this year — not one — is the first nor immaculate coming of anything new. That’s why we’re Democrats, and that’s why we make up a political party — what Madison called a faction. Damned right, we’re a faction, wide and diverse. Despise the party if you don’t get your narrow way? Shame on you.
March 5th, 2008 at 10:01 pm
TexAZ,
I remember you now and the discussion about LBJ. .
Despite your passionate speech about first ladies and their accomplishments, I think you missed the point. No one intends to diminish their accomplishments. What I think one needs to recognize is that being a first lady and perhaps even participating in policy development from an unelected power position and working on the project of your choice is not comparable to being an elected legislator or being the president. No one prior to Hillary has ever even suggested it.
Hillary tried to be a different kind of first lady and by 1994 it was over. She couldn’t do it.
Furthermore, since you seem to be so enamored of dirty politcs, then cheer up. You’re going to get a lot of it in the weeks to come. Quite frankly, it’s not for me. Those of you who approve of it just perpetuate the absolute worst there is of bitter partisan politics and party in-fighting.
I prefer being registered as an independent but I have to vote for Democrats or Republicans or throw my vote away. In Arizona, I have to be registered as a Democrat or a Republican to vote in a presidential primary. Your party loyalty is admirable, I’m sure, but to criticize those who do not have such loyalty is very narrowminded and unrealistic in the current political landscape.
March 5th, 2008 at 10:50 pm
Liza,
Like your idol, mentor, and acknowleged leader, you choose to avoid and evade any discussion subject to proof.
You write about First Ladies: “No one intends to diminish their accomplishments.” To the contrary, in this thread you specifically mock and diminish Mrs. Kennedy, Mrs. Johnson, Mrs. Reagan, and Mrs. Clinton. I see you leave your hands off Mrs. Roosevelt and Mrs. Carter, whom I named, but include Mrs. Kennedy, whom I did not mention but concede was merely an ornament until she married Onassis. But those Kennedy’s: swell aren’t they?
You say that no First Lady prior to Mrs. Clinton has ever suggested that a First Lady would exercise power comparable to “being and elected legislator.” Are you serious? For five years of WWII, other than President Roosevelt, Harry Hopkins, and Winston Churchill, no one in the world exercised more power than Eleanor Roosevelt except Adm. Tojo, Adolph Hitler, and Joseph Stalin. Up until the war, through the depth of the Depression, Eleanor outweighed all the others, and the permanent post-war settlement, for instance the United Nations, are not only her creations, but the enduring vision of a First Lady, also the creator of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.
Liza, you must have forgotten that from the date of Woodrow Wilson’s debilitating stroke on Oct. 2. 1919, his First Lady, Edith Bolling Wilson served virtually as president. Let us leave aside Abigail Adams and Dolly Madison; ancient history, of course, nothing to keep in mind now that politics are being born absolutely anew in Chicago; who would have guessed?
But you’re too pure to engage in real politics, and I’m too dirty to recognize the facts I see before me. Forgive me; my bad. I should know less, and watch TV more.
March 5th, 2008 at 11:04 pm
I admit that my summary of political power distribution among individuals during WWII is debateable. But my admittedly argumentative assertion is at least defensible. I’m just trying to make an obvious point in the thread; give me a rhetorical break.
I’ve often wondered whether Eleanor couldn’t have whipped Ike one-to-one. But she liked Adlai, and gave him her (very influential) support twice. Just imagine that: a woman, yet another Roosevelt (on both family sides) as POTUS in 1952.
March 5th, 2008 at 11:27 pm
Liza,
Are the names Mary Todd Lincoln and Sarah Childress Polk familiar to you?
March 6th, 2008 at 12:02 am
Liza,
A woman need not be First Lady: Have you heard of Teddy’s daughter, Alice Roosevelt Longworth? For fifty years, very few, if any, Congressman exercised her power. Of course, she was more conservative but not quite so smart as her father, who was one of our very few genuinely “progressive” presidents. Certainly she was smarter and better informed than any person running for president today, and her father, of course, was smarter than any president except Jefferson. But let’s pretend our contemporary candidates are giant moon-hangers, people the nation can’t live without.
Sheesh.
March 6th, 2008 at 10:47 am
I am enjoying the history lesson on the power of first ladies…exceptional. I still, though, do not find it to be executive level experience. Does it count to have been in the White House during the Clinton years? Sure. Does it count that she worked on children’s issues and health care? Sure. Does it count that Laura Bush has served our nation with reading programs for children? Sure.
All that aside, while it matters, it doesn’t matter enough to say that she would be a better President than Barack Obama.
My concerns with Hillary:
1. Iraq, Iraq, Iraq.
2. I read stories a few years ago in the Times about how she was “distancing” herself from a host of liberal issues that should be important. The story I read was about her stances on abortion. Bothers me a lot. Triangulation is an important Clintonian strategy, but it is one that I don’t want right now for our nation. I want someone who can take an idea, educate the people on it, sell it, and lead. I think Barack’s skills lend him to be better.
3. Recent and past polls show him doing better against McCain. I want the Dems to have the White House again. Yesterday one poll had him leading McCain by 12 and her by only 6.
4. Hillary, clearly, has higher negatives. Can she win, I think so, but will those negative galvanize the GOP…you bet. In OUR state this is simply as serious as can be. McCain is on the ticket. Couple that with Clinton the other side and we may not get the kind of votes down the ticket or splits necesssary to win legislative seats in the state and nation. We DESPERATELY need to keep CD 5, CD8 and to win possibly Renzi’s old seat and even Shaddeg’s. That aint gonna happen with Hillary on the ticket. Seriously.
5. As I said in my early post, Hillary is doing well in traditional, well organized, Democrat states. Barack would do well in those states also if the nominee. Really. No question. BUT, his grassroots support and excitement has allowed him to build organizations in states where she has done poorly and where Dems have lost over and over again. Look at the future folks. He is it. And his campaign has done more for the Democratic party in the south, mountain west, and midwest than has happened in 20-30 years.
If he puts any of these states into play or even forces McCain to campaign and spend money there, then it could be a really big win.
6. The Cabinet, the Executive branch. Under Clinton, it is far more likely for us to see the same old faces from 10 or more years ago. Change? Not sure. Experience, yes. But I would like to see a sea change of sorts and some real new faces in those appointments. I think we are more likely to see that with Barack than Hillary. The executive branch, its orders, rules, regulations are of the utmost importance to the functioning of our nation. Especially since Bush has expanded the power of the Exec. branch.
7. Last, and most important to me. He inspires people greatly. She does too..sure, but not at this level. He is bringing out young people in droves. With all the excellent talk about Hillary inspiring Hispanic voters, look at the turnout among the youth and African-Americans. Seeing them go to the polls after the civil rights struggles in our nation is so inspiring.
He inspires me.
Last, will I vote for Hillary? Sure. I would love to see the first woman President and, over McCain, I would vote for her. Enthusiastically, and after her campaign, hardly. I wont donate…at least as much…etc.
March 6th, 2008 at 11:13 am
Gee, TexAZ, you spent all night writing to me. I am flattered by all of this attention.
You are absolutely wrong that I intended to diminish the accomplishments of any of the first ladies. And I kind of think your argument would be better if you at least stayed within the last three or four decades so that the social and political context is remotely similar to the current time. Even so, most of your points are best supported by Eleanor Roosevelt, but she was an exceptional woman in an exceptional historical time. Despite her intelligence, skill, and popularity, it is very doubtful she could have defeated Ike in white male dominated post WWII America. Such were the times.
As for the others, we will have to agree to disagree. Hillary took a shot at a different kind of legacy, but she failed, and her first lady experience is not on par with elected legislators or presidents and I have a feeling that John McCain will express the same opinion if and when the time comes.
If Bill Clinton ends up being the first spouse, he will try to run the country.
Was your candidate John Edwards?
March 6th, 2008 at 12:30 pm
Kral, I enjoyed the history lesson too. History buffs seem all too rare these days.
Good points in your last post. Before Iowa, I thought that Hillary’s only major negative was foreign policy, but that is huge. At this point, I just can’t get past her dirty politicking and for my own sanity, I’m going to have to quit reading about it and keep sending money to Obama.
For an African American man to be elected to the presidency is a fragile concept. But because this man is so extraordinary, he has minimized the race barrier and like you say, Kral, he is the future.
When Hillary ridicules him and tears him down, it literally hurts me. I can tell you the exact moment I started to really despise her. She cannot compete with Obama’s oratory skills so she accuses him of “empty rhetoric” to diminish the importance of being able to inspire people with words. And she took her shot at Martin Luther King.
Well, I was there in the Deep South for the entire civil rights era and I know what the words of MLK meant to people. I understand the power of words really, really well. I love Obama’s inspirational speeches. I love when he reminds me of MLK just enough to take me back.
Hillary is clueless when she criticizes Obama’s speeches. Absolutely, totally clueless. Of course, in 1964, she was campaigning for Goldwater.
March 6th, 2008 at 5:12 pm
Dear Liza,
I appreciate what you said about the south and MLKs speeches. I am far too young to have been around to participate and to actually hear him. The reason that I say this is that I once sat down to listen to some of his speeches…recorded ones…and I was blown away. Like so many born in the late 60s and went to school in the 70s, I learned that he was inspiring, what a leader his was, the crux of the things he had said. I had never heard him say it though. When I did, I learned what it meant to be a leader, to have courage, and the ability to believe in what you say and persuade.
When I hear Obama’s speeches, I feel the same way as I did when I heard those speeches…although obviously in an entirely different, yet not unimportant, time and context.
March 6th, 2008 at 10:49 pm
Have to say I have not seen that Senator Obama has done anything extraordinary. His father on the other hand was an AMAZING guy. To go from his roots to where he did was pretty fantastic and not at all easy. Senator Obama has some good points. But I do not see how he has coattails, I do not see how he is going to translate a loss into a positive like a certain other former Presidential candidate and to be honest, he really has not set me on fire with his legislation.
Senator Clinton has been fairly uncool towards him but she has nothing on the Republicans who I bet would use racism as a cudgel against him, use his foreign born father against him, and basically try to tear him to pieces. His stumbles prior to the vote Tuesday and his stumbles after have not shown that he is able to be, for lack of a better term, mean when he needs to be. Yeah it is one thing to use the inspiring words but sometimes you got to draw a line in the sand and fight back. To mix metaphors I guess.
*shrugs* Oh well, I already voted in this primary and I am enjoying the chance for a brokered convention for once in my life.
Yay!
March 6th, 2008 at 10:57 pm
Another thing that Hillary has over Barack is supreme hypocrisy. I just read a slew of news reports that someone from Clinton’s campaign also had contacted the Canadian government indicating that they should take her anti-NAFTA talk with a grain of salt. So she/her campaign was slamming Obama for having done the same thing that she/her campaign had done!!!
March 6th, 2008 at 11:53 pm
I recently read Obama’s autobiographical “Dreams of My Father”. His father was definitely an amazing man. What made Obama’s well-written book so interesting is its honesty, realness compared to most autobiographies.
Re the previous coattails remark–Does anyone seriously think that Hillary Clinton’s coattails are going to be anything but radioactive, given her already high unfavorable ratings with the public? Given how low she has sunk in how she is going after Obama, even though she is pointedly praising McCain now, I expect that [if she wins the nomination] she’ll go after McCain with a vengeance when the Republicans start throwing the kitchen sink and the garbage disposal at her. If she wins the nomination, the slugfest will be so nasty, there will be no hope of bringing the country together to try to deal with our big problems.
She says that she and John McCain offer experience and Obama offers a [only] 2002 speech, basically providing video/audio for the Republicans to use against Obama [if he wins the nomination] indicating that “even Hillary Clinton thinks that McCain is more qualified than Barack Obama to be president”.
Prior to this past week, I had viewed her as very knowledgeable, focused, and well organized, calculating, and arrogant, but with all she has said/done this past week in her campaign to hurt Obama, I would also add “slimily dishonest” to this list.
March 7th, 2008 at 1:38 pm
Nicely said. I hope the people of Pennsylvania think so too.
March 8th, 2008 at 1:37 am
I was wrong re Hillary Clinton/Clinton campaign and her campaign reassuring the Canadian government re her stance on NAFTA. The Canadian government is now saying that solely Barack Obama’s representative tried to reassure them regarding his stance on NAFTA–see below. [It’ll be interesting to see what comes out of their investigation re this.]
Clinton’s Campaign Did Not Brief Canadians on Trade, CP Reports
By Theophilos Argitis
March 7 (Bloomberg) — Senator Hillary Clinton’s campaign never briefed the Canadian government on trade issues, following reports an aide to the Democratic presidential candidate sought to allay Canadian concerns over plans to renegotiate the North American Free Trade Agreement, Canadian Press reported.
Canadian Press, citing an unidentified source, reported March 5 that Ian Brodie, chief of staff to Prime Minister Stephen Harper, described a meeting in which a Clinton aide said her position on Nafta can be taken with a “grain of salt.”
The Canadian Press reported today that no such briefing took place, citing an unidentified spokeswoman for Harper.
March 8th, 2008 at 8:36 am
Check out this article. It is a good example of what we are talking about here.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2008/03/08/wuspols108.xml
This is the first paragraph:
“”Hillary Clinton had no direct role in bringing peace to Northern Ireland and is a “wee bit silly” for exaggerating the part she played, according to Lord Trimble of Lisnagarvey, the Nobel Peace Prize winner and former First Minister of the province.”"
March 8th, 2008 at 11:54 am
Kral, you might find this an interesting piece by Bob Herbert called “Confronting the Kitchen Sink.”
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/08/opinion/08herbert.html?_r=1&hp&oref=slogin
I tend to agree with Mr. Herbert. Now that Hillary has turned the campaign into the smear fest that she is very comfortable with, Obama has little hope of beating her at her game.
With the fifth anniversary of the US invasion of Iraq coming up on March 19, I think that Obama needs to give the mother of all speeches. This would do two things:
1. Put Hillary back to square one with her desperate plea to the American public to consider him a plagiarizing gasbag. Being able to communicate with eloquence and passion is an important leadership skill that Hillary does not have. When she speaks, it is a lecture and most people would rather ram a sock down her throat than listen to her.
2. Most importantly, a fifth anniversary speech would bring Iraq to the front and center of this campaign which is where it belongs.
March 9th, 2008 at 12:42 am
Go to the link below–fact check on both Obama and Clinton, but most of it is devoted to Clinton’s assertions of significant foreign policy/national security experience.
http://thepage.time.com/clinton-and-obama-fact-checks-of-rivals-saturday-comments/
Such pretensions would be ripped to shreds by the Republicans in the fall.
Leave a Reply