Clinton attacks vulnerabilities, and her rival -- sort of
PENACOOK – The Clinton campaign appears to be debating whether or not to really go after Barack Obama, but Hillary Clinton did make a few tentative steps in that direction today.
At a high school gym here, in the middle criticizing President Bush’s education policy, Clinton went on a tangent that seemed to have nothing at all to do with No Child Left Behind and quite a bit to do with the man who handily beat her in the Iowa caucuses.
“It’s hard to remember how in 2000 [Bush] said he would be a uniter, not a divider,” Clinton said. “He was going to bring people together and end partisanship, he was going to have people working together. That he didn’t need a lot of experience because of his intuition, he understood people, he was going to go meet with world leaders, look into their eyes and their souls and solve our problems! Remember that?”
She also complained that voters have been getting calls with “misinformation” about her vote to label the Iranian Revolutionary Guard a terrorist organization, a vote of which Obama has been critical.
“Let’s not and politicize and fantasize and make up and exaggerate,” Clinton said.
And Clinton argued that Obama’s health care plan, which does not promise to cover every American, “cedes to the Republicans the argument that we can’t do this.”
In addition to the Obama problem, the campaign also went after a couple of Clinton’s other vulnerabilities today. There’s been anger in New Hampshire for months that Clinton often avoids taking questions. But in Penacook yesterday she took questions for essentially the entire event, which at an hour and 50 minutes was double her average.
After an hour and 15 minutes, voters started screaming out, and the crowd was noticeably thin by the time she finished.
There were very few people between the ages of 15 and 35 in attendance, and that’s another huge problem, since Obama crushed her with young voters in Iowa.
So Clinton took a handful of young people on her bus with her between events in order to hold an-on-the-road roundtable. Chelsea Clinton was unusually talkative.
Then Clinton took questions in a bagel shop near the University of New Hampshire at Durham. And the campaign yesterday launched a new web page, hillaryclinton.com/ask, aimed at Facebook users.
This blogger might want to review your comment before posting it.
Send your comments to masspolitics@globe.com
The nations greatest state motto is "Live Free of Die !"
These are not crazy people's words... they are about Passion for Freedom.
-LIVE FREE or DIE ! -
Maybe I'm wrong... but I don't believe that the folks who first struck those words had in mind promoting a person based on who they're related too. I believe that they had quite the opposite in mind.
America is a Democracy - Not a Monarchy.
Barack Obama for President of the UNITED States of America.
Hey Miss Clinton My Name Is Vivian correa From Boston Mass And I read You
Book it was very good You are My Jiro and as a lady Iknow you can do it you go
you small and have the knowlege of the white House aready think of the thing
that you would do that you did not had the time to finesh but you can think abuot it
now so this way you were not fell trappe buy all this men ok good Luck i have feath
and throes on you Iknow you going to make with all my throest bless and the best of luck from my and my family the president of the U.S.A. of 2008 less celebrate We making history In America you are the free woman Land Bless Bless Bless you Hilary your be history
You showed your TRUE COLORS last night on the debates. YOu admitted
your hurt and showed vulnerability, humanity, and strength in fron of the
viewers of America. THAT TOOK GREATNESS and you have continued
to show that GREATNESS in this campaign as a Woman and a candidate.
YOU ARE AWESOME and we love you here in California.
TAKE IT TO THE WHITE HOUSE!
Lillian Freeman
The media made Hillary the front runner before anybody voted in the primary. Now the media is making this nomination process “Change versus Experience”. We buy into this media game without asking ourselves what really do these candidates stand for, what have they accomplished, and where do they want to see us go.
In my rational way of looking at things and perhaps in my reality world, this contest is about change and the agents of change.
On the one hand, we have change, idealistic and theoretical, driven by empty words (false hope) and strong emotions but only temporary because it cannot stand the test of time. A change that will require four years on the job training to clean the mess of the current administration. A change that will take a second term in office before the agents can even begin implementing their ideas which has been lost in this discussion perhaps because they really don’t have one.
On the other hand, we have change that can be put into effect right away. A change based on logical and rational thoughts and grounded on experience. A change that does not require on the job training. A change that can stand the test of time. A change you can feel, hear, see, smell, taste, and touch.
President Bush was an outsider, an agent of change. He was elected 8 years ago with the help of the Supreme Court and re-elected 4 years ago. Exit polls showed that he was well liked, most people consider him to be their next door neighbor, he was the type they could hang out with, etc. With only the concept of change and no experience on foreign affairs amongst others, he surrounded himself with the best experienced advisers money can buy. What do we have today in return? A broken system: FBI/CIA abuses, Iraq war, Effects of Hurricane Katrina, Economic woes, Recession, etc.
I know Obama and Edwards are not President Bush. I am sure they have different set of ideas and values. But I think it will be wrong to put the future of our country in the hands of someone without the first hand experience involved in the concept of change especially in today’s global dynamics of powers.
The media made Hillary the front runner before anybody voted in the primary. Now the media is making this nomination process “Change versus Experience”. We buy into this media game without asking ourselves what really do these candidates stand for, what have they accomplished, and where do they want to see us go.
In my rational way of looking at things and perhaps in my reality world, this contest is about change and the agents of change.
On the one hand, we have change, idealistic and theoretical, driven by empty words (false hope) and strong emotions but only temporary because it cannot stand the test of time. A change that will require four years on the job training to clean the mess of the current administration. A change that will take a second term in office before the agents can even begin implementing their ideas which has been lost in this discussion perhaps because they really don’t have one.
On the other hand, we have change that can be put into effect right away. A change based on logical and rational thoughts and grounded on experience. A change that does not require on the job training. A change that can stand the test of time. A change you can feel, hear, see, smell, taste, and touch.
President Bush was an outsider, an agent of change. He was elected 8 years ago with the help of the Supreme Court and re-elected 4 years ago. Exit polls showed that he was well liked, most people consider him to be their next door neighbor, he was the type they could hang out with, etc. With only the concept of change and no experience on foreign affairs amongst others, he surrounded himself with the best experienced advisers money can buy. What do we have today in return? A broken system: FBI/CIA abuses, Iraq war, Effects of Hurricane Katrina, Economic woes, Recession, etc.
I know Obama and Edwards are not President Bush. I am sure they have different set of ideas and values. But I think it will be wrong to put the future of our country in the hands of someone without the first hand experience involved in the concept of change especially in today’s global dynamics of powers.