Network News

X My Profile
View More Activity

Fresh Doubts About Clinton in N.H.

By Alec MacGillis

CONCORD, N.H. -- Jim Splaine, a veteran Democrat in the New Hampshire legislature and author of the 1976 law that helped solidify the state's first-in-the-nation primary status, is worried. He is a strong supporter of Hillary Clinton and he does not like what he is seeing of her campaign in New Hampshire, where several polls have shown her large lead over Barack Obama closing to a tie in recent weeks.

In particular, Splaine is concerned about the gap between the Hillary Clinton he got to know when she campaigned in New Hampshire with her husband in 1991 and 1992 -- when she helped drive him to a strong second place that resuscitated his scandal-dogged campaign -- and the Hillary Clinton he has observed in the state this past year.

"What I've seen these past few months isn't the Hillary Clinton I remember from her campaign visits here in 1991, when I first met her, or her several visits since and prior to this year," Splaine wrote last week in a lengthy posting on the blog Blue Hampshire. "Where has the 'conversation' gone that she said she wanted to start with her announcement last January? It seems as if she is talking 'to' or 'at' us, even 'down' to us. She needs to talk 'with' us -- in fact, one of the strengths of the NH Primary is that candidates indeed have that chance, to get away from the podiums and look us in the eye, face-to-face, not talking over our heads."

Fond memories of the 1992 campaign, and the subsequent close relationship that the Clintons maintained with New Hampshire voters, figure to play a role in the Jan. 8 primary. But as Splaine's posting suggests, for some New Hampshire Democrats the memory of the scrappy, no-holds-barred campaign waged by Bill Clinton in late 1991 and 1992 -- when he famously pledged to voters that he would stick by them "until the last dog dies" if they stuck by him -- only serves to highlight the relative caution and message-controlled rigor of Clinton's campaign this year.

"I am concerned that her campaign still has continued to emphasize 'experience' rather than 'ideas,' and the 'past' rather than the 'future.' And her advertising in my judgment is crammed full of rhetoric, with no clear message other than this stuff about a President needing to be ready to 'lead from day one.' What's that mean? She can do better," Splaine continued in his post. "I just think something's wrong with her campaign right now. I've been involved at one level or another in every NH Primary since 1960, when I distributed flyers as a little pup for John F. Kennedy, and I've seen and participated in lots of good, and poor, campaigns -- as well as good campaigns that just fell apart because of some poor tactical choices during the closing weeks. It happens."

There was little sign that the Clinton campaign had absorbed Splaine's advice prior to her appearances in the state on Saturday, where she stuck firmly to the experience mantra and, most notably, made little attempt to try to conjure a longstanding connection with the state's voters. At a middle school gym in Plaistow, she started off her speech by saying that she hoped to "begin meeting people" at the event, and it was not until the very end of the hour that she mentioned her past relationship with the state. Throughout the hour, she spoke with obvious authority but also did not appear to be tailoring her approach particularly to the audience -- she spoke very slowly and clearly, as if aiming to reach the least politically engaged people in the crowd, an interesting tack to take in a state known for its sophisticated primary voters.

This contrasts somewhat with the approach that Joe Grandmaison recalls watching Bill Clinton take in 1992 in the final weeks before the primary. Grandmaison, a former state Democratic Party chairman and gubernatorial nominee, recalls Clinton thinking aloud to him about the huge crowd he had drawn at a Nashua event the night before and how he had decided that the crowd broke into thirds: one third people who had come to see him as rubber-neckers, because of the notoriety of the draft-dodging and marital infidelity allegations against him; one third committed supporters; and one third voters who were considering supporting him. Clinton told Grandmaison that he had decided not to worry about the first two groups and instead target the third.

Grandmaison, who ran the U.S. Trade and Development Agency under Clinton, said that the state's bond with the Clintons was only strengthened by the prosperity the state enjoyed during his tenure. But this dynamic comes with a twist that may also work against Hillary Clinton this year: voters here credit the Clintons for the strong economy of the 1990s, but the state's resurgence also drew thousands of new voters to the state who lack memories of the 1992 Clinton comeback, or memories of how rough things were in the state before Bill Clinton took power. Most importantly, perhaps, many of those new voters fit the demographic that polls show to lean more to Obama -- highly educated, higher-earning professionals.

This has left the Clinton campaign here in the unlikely position of still talking about the need to introduce Clinton to New Hampshire voters -- 16 years after her first intense immersion in the state, and with only three weeks left to go before the primary. Splaine, for one, hopes it can be done.

"I again encourage Hillary Clinton to reinvent her campaign and show us who she really is and not just what her consultants and handlers from Washington media firms want us to think she is. I urge her to listen to more of her experienced New Hampshire campaign advisors," he wrote last week. "And I ask her to present her ideas in her own words, without the buzz phrases that might rate "80%" on the electronically-generated curve in some focus group session"

He concludes, "'Let Hillary Be Hillary' should be her personal motto during the next three-plus weeks in Iowa and New Hampshire. THAT WAY, she'll win this thing. Otherwise, I'm worried that we will lose the opportunity to have a great President elected in 2008. Show your courage, we've seen that before. Be yourself. Just yourself. We'll like what we see...Challenge us. Talk with us about America's possibilities and our opportunities. Give us your vision. I think we'll like you even more for that. And you'll become President."

By Web Politics Editor  |  December 17, 2007; 1:06 PM ET
 
Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   Del.icio.us   StumbleUpon   Technorati   Google Buzz   Previous: Turning Out the Youth
Next: Celebrating the Birth of Christ with Huckabee

Comments

The latest polls according to the Clinton camp says that people are going to vote for change. Is it coincidence then that Bill has starte touting Hillary as the change agent. With Hillary's experience and as a change agent she should have something that she can say, she brought about a change. The only change I see Hillary making is in surrogates. She has a dozen or more surrogates lined up like pawns. She uses one to plant questions, then fires him, then uses another to send abusive emails, then fires him, then asks another to talk about Obama's kindergarten essay, then gets rid of him, the next one comes up and says how Obama is a drug dealer, then fires him, now it is Bob Kerrey's turn to say Obama has a muslim past. Now if this is the change agent Bill is talking about, our country is better off without this kind of change. We are better off without Hillary or Bill in office.

Posted by: Mark.Pickler | December 18, 2007 1:13 PM | Report abuse

I am a registered Independent. I come from a household where my father is a Republican and my mom a Democrat. We all plan on voting for the "inexperienced" Senator Obama. With the current kind of experience in the White House we have seen America lose its prestige and respect around the world, we have seen the dollar on a continued decline (even against the Canadian dollar), we have been mired in wars that are bleeding us of blood and treasure, gas prices are on the rise, our economy is on a downward turn, and the worst of all injustices? I was watching the BBC some days ago and the Europeans are now looking for cheap labor......in the United States. I have never seen my dad, a hardcore Republican so disappointed in his party. For what its worth we try not to remind him that he voted for Bush..twice..but atleast he wised up.

Democrat, Independent, Republican Family for Senator Barack Obama

Obama in '08

Posted by: discipulus04 | December 18, 2007 12:15 PM | Report abuse

rahaha,

you said "Obama looks like a chimp, and republicans will use this againts him".

I hope it didn't take you all day to come up with this profound thought! What exactly are you trying to say?

Posted by: SteelWheel1 | December 18, 2007 10:00 AM | Report abuse

Hillary has managed to run her campaign with a few catch phrases and has completely avoided talking issues.
catch phrase #1: cowboy diplomacy
catch phrase #2: right wing conspiracy
Now we can go back and review the videos on youtube. You will not find a single video where she answers a legitimate question. She does answer them if it was something like "do you like pearls or diamonds?" or "do you want fries with that?

Posted by: Janet.McCormick | December 18, 2007 3:08 AM | Report abuse

Sure wish Hillary would allow access to all those records from when she and Bill were in The White House. Tim Russert got it right during that first debate when he asked Hillary why journalists weren't being allowed access to documents. She got PO'ed at him because he made it look like she's hiding something -- which is exactly what she is doing! So Hillary, tell us again, when are you going to give access to your's and Bill's White House records? We're waiting .... tick ... tick ... tick .........

Posted by: GMHeller | December 17, 2007 10:43 PM | Report abuse

SteelWheel1,
I believe that a lot of the current mess could have been avoided if Bill had concentrated on the terrorist issues more than his escapades with Monica. A better part of his second term was wasted fighting allegations and going through the impeachment process. I did not say anything about the current administration, not beause I feel anything positive about Bush, but because Bubba dropped the ball. The Clinton administration concentrated on trying to solve problems in Kosovo. But the real threat for the US was not Kosovo.

Posted by: ChunkyMonkey1 | December 17, 2007 10:26 PM | Report abuse

Polls, opinion and endorsements of the political and other type pale in comparison to having real money to back a candidate throughout the entire campaign. Those that have contributed to a candidate up-front will continue to do so and at present, Clinton has her share of big investors with deep pockets, even if the mom-and-pop contributors don't come through.

For a log of financial endorsements by large contributors for all candidates, see:

reconpresseusa-financial endorsement log

http://www.geocities.com/desertrecon/monaco.html

Posted by: reconpresseusa | December 17, 2007 10:22 PM | Report abuse

Bill in the 90s debating Bush:
"experience counts but its not everything" - perfect endorsement of Obama!
"insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result" - exactly, that's why we *don't* want HRC in the White House--the more things change the more they remain the same!
"we've got to have courage to change" - exactly, no Bush-Clinton dynasties

Fast forward to today and the Billary robotic machine team flip flops on this entire argument and bashes Obama for supposedly lacking experience and offering change in D.C.

[paste this link or search the title in youtube, it's worth the laugh!]
We need new experience in Washington http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eMlrSG1xb5k

Posted by: OceanDog | December 17, 2007 10:20 PM | Report abuse

how dare any of you question queen hillary's divine right to protect us from ourselves? oh, and by the way, people love her just as much as they do her husband because of her charm and warmth...

Posted by: fred100012003 | December 17, 2007 9:52 PM | Report abuse

Any similarity between Mr MacGillis' fact-free hit piece and actual journalism would be accidental.

Posted by: zukermand | December 17, 2007 9:37 PM | Report abuse

bsimon,
You are right on the money about Hillary. I know a few girls who are so eager to get married, they plan for months and months for the wedding. If you ask them what their plans are for the married days following the wedding they have no clue. Their only goal is getting married. Hillary's planning is the same way. Hillary said it herself that she is running to win. She has not planned or communicated with anybody anything about how she wants to change this country once she is in office. Her talk about the healthcare plan is just to erase the sore feeling of failure she has about her failed attempt during the 90s. None of Hillarys supporters worry about the country either. All they care about is do we have a woman as a president. Hillary is running a woman centric campaign knowing that more than half the voting population are women. She hasn't said anything about what plans she has for the women of this country either. All she cares about is herself getting into the white house.

Posted by: ChunkyMonkey1 | December 17, 2007 9:18 PM | Report abuse

*****Question of the day:

If Bill Clinton thinks his wife is 'the single most qualified person for president in America,' isn't he by virtue of this saying:

1. there are no black men or women in the entire country more qualified than his white, very wealty wife.

2. there are o Hspanic men or women in the entire country who are smarter than a woman who flunked her first attempt to pass the bar exam.

3. there are no Asian men or women who are more qualified than a woman who last year made a joke about Ghandi having worked at a gas station.

4. there are no lesbian or gay people in the entire country more qualified than a woman who says she wants equal rights for all, but cuts them off with a 'civil union' cop-out.

5. there are no disabled persons in the entire country more qualified than Hillary.

Get the idea--the very demographic these two use to propel their 'careers' are never a part of their lilly white upper class plitical machines or cabinets.

EXACTLY why this conservative (who would vote for Condi in a heartbeat) made America's only politically confrontative music CD-one that takes on Hillary, Congress, and the whole Ward Churchill crowd. One-of-a-kind stuff @

www.conservativemusiconline.com

Posted by: Truscott1 | December 17, 2007 9:12 PM | Report abuse

the fat lady is still in her dressing room preparing for her solo...

Posted by: glenknowles | December 17, 2007 9:11 PM | Report abuse

Obama looks like a chimp, and republicans will use this againts him. Discuss amongst yourselves.

Posted by: rahaha | December 17, 2007 8:43 PM | Report abuse

Bill has seized the reigns of power. Assuming he is returned to the white house, will he once again have interns on his executive staff?

Posted by: rahaha | December 17, 2007 8:42 PM | Report abuse

The Bill factor for Hillary:

I always wondered what is in this election for Bubba. He is a person who does not show what his real thought process is to anybody. Not even to Hillary. My sense is that Bill would be a winner if Hillary loses the game. Here are the reasons.

1. If Hillary becomes president and if her presidency goes down in history as the better one of the Clintons, Bill has lost. This thought definitely will cause Bill to derail her nomination at the right time. It has to be done in a subtle way so that it appears as if something else is the cause. Bill's comment to Charlie Rose about why it would be a miracle for Hillary to win Iowa is a subtle hint of his thought process.

2. If Bill gets into the white house as the first husband, he will have the role similar to the husband of the queen of England. What's his name again? Will Bill be asked to walk alongside the spouses of the heads of state of other countries or will he walk alongside the heads of states? Will he be asked to sit on the lawn and sip tea with the spouse of the foreign dignitaries, while Hillary discusses war strategies in her office with heads of states. Whatever they decide, it is not going to an easy 4 years for Bill.

Bill will do everything possible to derail Hillary's election process. The recent tumults in her campaign are no accidents. There is a sense of chaos only because Bill is pulling one way while the Hillcamp is pulling in a different direction.

Bill does not want Obama to win. Not that he is looking forward for Hillary to win either. So he is going to subconsciously push the crowd towards Edwards.

Posted by: ChunkyMonkey1 | December 17, 2007 8:40 PM | Report abuse

Just a thought. You might find it interesting.

http://www.thehillaryiknow.com/

Posted by: BecJensen1 | December 17, 2007 8:03 PM | Report abuse

Just a thought. You might find it interesting.

http://www.thehillaryiknow.com/

Posted by: BecJensen1 | December 17, 2007 8:03 PM | Report abuse

As the Democrats' fate becomes more and more inevitable, the Obama and Edwards factions become more and more in denial!

It makes the Obama and Edwards factions feel better (sweet grapes, sweetcakes!) to think that Hillary won't be crowned Empress of the Democrats in Denver, as Obama and Edwards bend their knees to kiss her ample behind!

Posted by: DaTourist | December 17, 2007 7:53 PM | Report abuse

Democrats are beginning to feel like Ol' Bill when Hillary sat on his face after the Lewinsky Affair!

It's insufferable, but Ol' Bill dared not utter a squeak of protest!

Posted by: DaTourist | December 17, 2007 7:48 PM | Report abuse

This country, in my opinion, does NOT need Hillary as its president. I hope she gets trounced in every state.

Posted by: ArmyVet | December 17, 2007 7:45 PM | Report abuse

" She needs to talk 'with' us -- in fact, one of the strengths of the NH Primary is that candidates indeed have that chance, to get away from the podiums and look us in the eye, face-to-face, not talking over our heads."

She can't look the peoples in the face. She knows they will see that she betrayed them. The only problem with Hillary's campaign is her record. It's because of this she has no compelling argument to lead this nation. It's because of this that her only means of defense against Obama is to appeal to the racist, unreasonable or corrupt elements of the American psyche and that's just not enough people to carry the Democratic nomination.

Posted by: JimmieFromDayton | December 17, 2007 7:45 PM | Report abuse

As the Clinton Octopus encloses the Democrats in a smothering and multi-tentacled embrace, unaligned and moderate New Hampshire voters will follow the lead of Senator Lieberman (this year's Zell Miller!) and bolt to McCain!

Posted by: DaTourist | December 17, 2007 7:45 PM | Report abuse

For all of those who hate or dislike Senator Clinton the fact remains that she is the best qualified individual to lead this nation.

I often read or hear comments from those who are highly critical of Senator Clinton. Well, if anyone here thinks Richard 'Tricky Dick, I am not a crook' Nixon had a more engaging personality or that george w. bush 'we don't torture' has more integrity than Senator Clinton then they ought to have their head examined. Many think reagan was likable with an easygoing manner or that george w. bush is easily approachable as an ordinary kind of guy. Well, a focus on a 'good' personality which these former presidents supposedly had/have establishes such a trait does not a good president make. This sort of argument is clearly simplistic.

My point here is that Senator Clinton has what it takes personality wise and in terms of morals than those 'presidents.' More importantly Senator Clinton has the intellect to hold the executive office.

Senator Clinton was the first candidate to address the health care crisis years ago. Many disliked her proposed health care plan and that is fair criticism. But no other candidate was prescient enough to even consider this issue of great importance. So here we are years later. America needs someone who has the ability to recognize that a foundation must be established for this nation's future. Senator Clinton is that individual.

Do I think Senator Clinton is perfect? No, no one is perfect. But Senator Clinton is undoubtedly the one candidate best suited to lead the United States and restore its credibility.

Attacks on Senator Clinton's personality are simply vicious and unjustified. Such conduct is far more revealing about the poster and the flaws in their character than any criticisms which they direct towards Senator Clinton.

Posted by: brwntrt | December 17, 2007 7:44 PM | Report abuse

I've watched 12 Presidents come & go(some not soon enough)and am damn well tired of being offered the "lesser of two evils" choices. I despair at the future of a Nation that puts a liar, a hypocrite, a corrupt person(s) in office.....such as Bush/Cheney. 2008 may be the last year we get a shot at putting descriptions like honor, dignity, good judgment, character(not personality, CHARACTER) back into the
political discourse. OBAMA is a man of conscience, TRUE compassion, an ability to bring sanity to our domestic and foreign affairs. He consistently outpolls Hillary on the issue of Trust. Why would anybody vote for someone not Trustworthy? She would lose in a general election...not because of gender but because her judgment is poor and she doesn't know how to acknowledge a mistake. Sound familiar??
The United States is at a huge crossroads...do we continue with discussions of the viability of torture? Illegal surveillance? More medically uninsured? Pre-emptive war strikes? Dead women and children, "collateral damage"? Our children and grandchildren are NOT
safer.....fear is dominating our social & political discourse....it needs to STOP.
Obama can help us to make the necessary changes...Hillary can not. It is NOT mysogeny(?) to realize that Hillary is the WRONG woman at the WRONG time.

Posted by: hayes5391 | December 17, 2007 7:42 PM | Report abuse

Here's why Hillary should not be the Democratic Party's nominee: She's weak on media consolidation (it should be stopped); she takes money and favors from Rupert Murdoch, the right-wing media czar; she triangulates expediently between left and right; she's cozy with the big insurance companies and her so-called medical plan shows it; she was wrong on Iraq and won't admit it (Obama was right, so was Kucinich, Edwards was wrong but admits his mistake); Hillary is in the pocket of the Israeli lobby, equivocates on Iran, hires Kenneth Pollack (the Iraq War hawk) as her foreign policy adviser. She is utterly incapable of leading the nation in the great renovation, repair and reconstruction effort needed to fix what Bush has broken.

Posted by: emainland | December 17, 2007 7:42 PM | Report abuse

She is so toast. The fact that Bill has to re-engage now only makes her look that much more desperate.

There's nothing there but controlled and calculated politico-speak. No conviction no substance.

Posted by: MilesLong | December 17, 2007 7:28 PM | Report abuse

She is so toast. The fact that Bill has to re-engage now only makes her look that much more desperate.

There's nothing there but controlled and calculated politico-speak. No conviction no substance.

Posted by: MilesLong | December 17, 2007 7:27 PM | Report abuse

HILLARY-ON-THE-COUCH: The question has been asked; Why don't more women warm to her candidacy? I think the answer can be found in her biography where she relates how her father encouraged her to compete as an equal with the boys.

And so from Watergate attorney to Arkansas 1st Lady ["I could have stayed home and baked cookies"] to office in the West Wing, Hillary has prevailed where others [Vince Foster/Al Gore] have fallen out. So maybe she doesn't see other women as being her equal professionally.

But women on average have smaller brains. And when Hillary tried to cackle-down Obama in the Iowa debate she stepped into a (possibly fatal) counter-punch. It was the political equivalent of Howard Dean's
"Yeeee-Haaaa!" four years ago?

Earlier this year, after an all-night Senate session, Hillary came onto the floor in a low-cut dress. In the spirit of Lady Liberty, it must have been inspiring.


Posted by: 4to125characters | December 17, 2007 6:38 PM | Report abuse

the momentum is back with HRC. Obambi peaked too soon.

Posted by: chrisspanos | December 17, 2007 6:33 PM | Report abuse

Watch out for Borat Obama, he not only has the Audacity of Hope, he also has the Sassiness of Melanin!

Posted by: GeneWells | December 17, 2007 6:24 PM | Report abuse

The general election of 2008 is not only to elect the next President of the United States. More importantly, it is a decision that Americans will make as to the direction this nation will take into the future. It is probably one of the most important decisions, we as a free society, will make as to whether we remain a Republic with solid democratic principles, or will we choose to take the course down the slippery slope toward becoming a Socialstic State?

Now, I know that the voters of New Hampshire, as are most liberal voters along the eastern seaboard, sophisticated in their political scrutiny of potential national leaders, but, what I do not understand is how they, like so many liberals around the country, have fallen prey to the Socialistic agenda that people like Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama espouse. Have none of the left-wing liberals and some Republicans ever read and studied the agenda of Karl Marx and the communist manifesto of 1848?

Our founding fathers did not intend for the nation to become dependent upon a huge, centralized government, (politbureau). We, the people, were to be free in the puruit of private enterprise and not to be coddled by a federal government that would take care of all our needs from cradle to grave.

New Hampshire's motto, "Live Free or Die."
For this nation to survive, we, the people must control our own destinies and those we elect to go to Congress to represent us, answer to us, the people. We are the "masters of our own house" and it must remain that way if we are to remain free thinkers, free doers, free investors in the enterprise system and to remain a free people in realizing our God-given rights of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

What I would ask the citizens of New Hampshire to do is to read the inaugural adress of President John F. Kennedy in January, 1961. After reading it, ask yourselves if this great leader's vision of America sounds anything like what we are hearing today from the candidates, Clinton, Obama and Edwards.

Those who support the candidacy of Clinton, Obama and Edwards could only interpret the vision of John F. Kennedy as being a "nation builder", "war-hawk" and "international interventionist" However, the truth is, Kennedy was both a social and fiscal conservative and I know in my heart that President Kennedy would be saddened today to see what has happened to his Democratic Party.

New Hampshire, don't fall this socialistic agenda and save yourselves and help to save the rest of us from "extinguishing the glow from that fire that would surely light the world".



Posted by: LarkinGMead | December 17, 2007 6:22 PM | Report abuse

The polls the last couple of weeks:

Fox: Clinton +9
Concord Monitor: Obama +1
Rasmussen: Obama +3
Suffolk: Clinton +7

You know what's happening? Christmas. The more people don't pick up their phones, the less random the sample becomes. The less random the sample becomes, the less representative it is. Don't make too, too much out of polling in December. You're going to get yourself really embarrassed.

Posted by: mmeyerdc | December 17, 2007 6:17 PM | Report abuse

How do the Democrats disembrace the Clinton Succubus?

Too late! It's fate! Too late!

In the meantime, Obama and Edwards pucker up to kiss Hillary's maximus glutei at the podium in Denver!

Posted by: DaTourist | December 17, 2007 6:16 PM | Report abuse

Panic! Panic! Panic!

As the Clinton Octopus engulfs the Democrats in its tentacles, the Democrats realize (too late! too late! too late!) they're being devoured!

Posted by: DaTourist | December 17, 2007 6:12 PM | Report abuse

What is Ms. Clinton's presidential "experience" during the Clinton years? Her sole claims on presidential "experience" are a disastrous health care plan and a botched Attorney General selection that nearly caused the wholesale collapse of President Clinton's first term. If that's presidential experience, I'll take Senator Obama's real-life experience working with regular folks in the Southside Chicago any day. Ms. Clinton also needs to immediately cease her dirty trick campaign in trying to slander Senator Obama.

Posted by: tclark313 | December 17, 2007 6:01 PM | Report abuse

Hillary Clinton is an enigma painstakingly hidden behind a hermetically sealed and thick-as-cardboard front - a grotesquely painted mask produced by a committee of manipulating "experts."

I fell for that trick once when I voted for Bush II, similar package out front, different packager hidden behind (i.e., Rove not Penn).

No more pigs-in-a-poke for me, though.

Ever.

Posted by: miraclestudies | December 17, 2007 5:55 PM | Report abuse

When the Clintons moved to DC for Bill's 1st term, they sent their daughter, Chelsea, to Sidwell Friends, a very expensive, hard to get into private school. This was also when Hillary was promoting socialized medicine. So she wanted to force every single person in this country into government run medicine while she would not even allow the government to teach her child to read and write. Hmmm.

No one can fault her for wanting her child to have a good education. Had she sent her daughter to DC public schools (Jimmy Carter did), because Chelsea's father was the president, and the scrutiny, her schooling would have received, she no doubt would have gotten a very good education. More importantly her 20 or 25 classmates, who most likely would have been poor / minority students would also have gotten a good education, one they probably would not have gotten otherwise. Using the public schools would have shown some leadership, rather than pulling a limousine liberal move and using private schools.

The Clintons agnenda is only about the Clintons. Had Bill resigned rather that go through impeachment there might not have been a 911. Who was minding the store while he was defending his perjury for his affair with Monica. Guess it depends what the meaning of the word is is.

Posted by: Reader2 | December 17, 2007 5:54 PM | Report abuse

By stressing experience, Clinton is actually campaigning for Joe Biden. How she can claim "experience" while running against a man whose resume towers over her is proof of the farce of the Clinton candidacy.

Most excellent piece which further reveals the Empress has few clothes, most of which are her husband's hand-me-downs.

Posted by: GordonsGirl | December 17, 2007 5:52 PM | Report abuse

Want political experience...Guess who has the least and it is not who you think it is...
Years of Political experience (As an elected Official)
Joe Biden 1973-present (34 years)
Chris Dodd 1975-present (32 years)
Bill Richardson 1983-2001, 2003-present (23 years)
Dennis Kucinch 1970-present (out of office for several terms 23 years)
Mike Gravel 1965-1981 (16 years)
Barack Obama 1997-present (10 years)
Hillary Clinton 2001-present (6 years)
John Edwards 1999-2005 (6 years)
Source: http://www.wqad.com/Global/story.asp?S=5971782

Posted by: TennGurl | December 17, 2007 5:41 PM | Report abuse

Posted by: dewanitum | December 17, 2007 5:40 PM | Report abuse

Hillary Clinton has served honorably as the Senator of New York. She has taken the job seriously, worked across party lines, and earned the support of many New Yorkers from all walks of life. Instead of bashing a serious public servant who works to better the lives of her constituents, I'd rather hear a more rigorous discussion of the pro and cons of different possible presidents. Hillary clearly is qualified to be president. When we look at her honestly, then we can decide whether or not she deserves our vote.

Posted by: konyka | December 17, 2007 5:27 PM | Report abuse

i don't think that anyone doubts that hillary is smart enough to be president. she has more experience than most of the other guys, romney, edwards, obama. but her real calling card is that she is the wife of bill clinton, nothing wrong about that, after all, bush was mainly the son of his father george hw. fair enough. however where hillary is falling down, i think, is her increasingly greater reliance on bill to campaign for her. as i recall, george sr did not do all that much stumping for his son, altho he could have. this makes hillary look weak as if she has to hide behind bill, and now chelsea has gotten into the act. way too much of a soap opera. this nomination has been hers to lose . . . and she just might do that.

Posted by: nobleone | December 17, 2007 5:24 PM | Report abuse

gaya3ri, when you learn how to spell "lose", I'll take your comments seriously.

This just in, the Dems could run Jesus as their candidate, and they still wouldn't carry the Neo-Confederacy. Who cares. Let them secede again.

With the Southwest trending Blue, thanks to the GOP's rabid, xenophobic anti-immigrant hysteria, the Dems can win without carrying a single John Wilkes Booth state.

And Obama is just the one to do it.

Hillary has done exactly three things over the past two decades...(1)Stay married to a Libertine. (2) Preside over a secretive, failed health care program (3)Be instrumental in choosing one of the worst Attorney Generals before Alberto G., namely Janet Reno.

Reno, who brought the daycare witch-hunt hysteria with her from Florida, and ruined innocent lives from Little Rascals in North Carolina to McMartin in Manhattan beach, CA.

If that wasn't enough, she gassed and incinerated the women and children of Waco in order "to save the children".

Yeah, that Hillary has some experience.

Posted by: filmex | December 17, 2007 5:24 PM | Report abuse

Trust me- The democrats will screw it up. They will pick Obama and he will loose all states. Here is a perfect ad against Obama that the RNC will run - "Enemy #1 Osama and Enemy #2 S. Hussein - Now Obama Hussein wants to lead the country." How many of the southern or any other states will the democrats win. Wake up guys. There is no way Obama can win.

Posted by: gaya3ri | December 17, 2007 5:03 PM | Report abuse

What is wrong with the Democrats? We need to win this election - too much is at stake (supreme court, war, health care, economy, jobs. Hillary Clinton has a 50% negative national rating in every poll I've seen. We did this the last time with Kerry when we should have nominated Edwards. We have a freaking death wish! Any of the other Democrats - Biden, Edwards, Obama, Dodd or Richardson has a better chance of winning. For once, can we just do the smart thing. Pick someone who can win. It's sure not Hillary.

Posted by: msdillo | December 17, 2007 5:01 PM | Report abuse

Dems are their own worst enemies. With rare excetption, every four year, they form a circular firing squad...and nominate someone who is eminently unelectable. That Dems would even consider HRC as someone who can be elected prez shows the circular firing squad is already in formation. If they are stupid enough to nominate her, they deserve their landslide loss.

Posted by: checkered1 | December 17, 2007 4:55 PM | Report abuse

Defending Hillary is hard. When the author wishes Hillary would "give us a vision" again, he speaks for those who can't come up with their own, aparently only asking for the minimum from our elected officials.
It is on us to give the candidate OUR vision.
The politics of "getting a little of this" (economic stability) while "losing a lot of that" (job security, regulation of corporations, media responsibilty) is the Clinton manner of doing business.
I ask in all sincerity, is this what the author has in mind for 2009?
The Clinton NAFTA was a failure.

Posted by: hrayovac | December 17, 2007 4:50 PM | Report abuse

Hillary and the Jezebel Factor:

Hillary is perceived as evil by a significant percentage of voters, which will reduce her actual vote to less than polled results.

This "Jezebel Factor" (named after the wicked Queen in the Bible 2 Kings Chapter 9) will cost her 7-11% of her stated poll numbers in areas with over 50% weekly religious attendance.

The Media are bewildered with this result, finding the very concept of "evil" baffling.But the light is beginning to shine thru.

For example, in Saturdays WashPo, Broder and Balz reported on a focus group in Iowa that raised concerns that Hillary was "evil".

This article was the first to recognize and publish Hillary's "Jezebel Factor" problem, although Broder and Balz did not recognize or appreciate its cause, they merely noted the effect.

The Jezebel Factor will be more prominent in Iowa than the more pagan NH.

The Jezebel Factor will be brutal in the Bible Belt, less of a hindrance in the NorthEast.

Posted by: JaxMax | December 17, 2007 4:44 PM | Report abuse

Senator Clinton continues to use words like "fight" (as did Gore and now Edwards). Who are they fighting? Evil Rebulicans? Evil, big corporations (perhaps the ones in my 401(k))? Perhaps my employer?

This divisive populism may be attractive to a certain segment of society, but I for one am a bit tired of the extreme divisiveness here in DC (with the current President no exception).

Obama is really the only Democrat who has expressed a different tone, suggesting building bridges to accomplish goals. I'm wary of his inexperience, but it's refreshing that he has stayed away from the standard Democratic rhetoric.

Posted by: RambleOn | December 17, 2007 4:44 PM | Report abuse

ChunkyMonkey1,
I was on board with you until you said "Bill's lack of experience and lack of balls to go after Bin Laden, the first time Bin Laden attacked the WTC is to be blamed" and all the nonsense that followed turn me off from your post.

Using your logic, will President Bush be responsible for not staying after Bin Laden once he had Bin Laden cornered in Afghanistan but instead launched a war in a country where Bin Ladin nor any of his Al Queda operatives exist?

Posted by: SteelWheel1 | December 17, 2007 4:43 PM | Report abuse

Hilary keeps campaigning on experience, but WHAT EXPERIENCE DOES SHE HAVE? Being 1st Lady hardly qualifies for experience... that's like saying, "my husband was a brain surgeon for many years and I often watched him perfrom surgery."

She is part of the "establishment" and is crooked at a 3 dollar bill.

GO OBAMA!!!

Posted by: winoohno | December 17, 2007 4:42 PM | Report abuse

Hillary is claiming the position President because she is of the opinion that it is her turn. She is also highly impressed with her self and shows this during the various debates. She stands and lets the boys ruin their cloths during the in fighting. I have the feeling that she has seen too much of the in fighting and can get by with here personality

Posted by: coatesmoe | December 17, 2007 4:40 PM | Report abuse

Come on, a front-page story "Fresh Doubts About Clinton in N.H." - but none of the other positive news stories about the campaign that occurred at the weekend? I am really starting to get annoyed by the systematic bias (especially against Clinton), not so much in your coverage but in the choice of political news items to be placed on the home page. As a political junkie I of course have to check the Post, but I really hope you can inject a little more balance in the headlines you decide to place on the frontpage.

Posted by: calprez | December 17, 2007 4:33 PM | Report abuse

dyinglikeflies,
I think your bias that favors Senator Clinton for president is preventing you from listening to her with a critical ear.

Just this morning, I watched Senator Clinton being interviewed by David Gregory on the Today show and not once did she answer the question that was asked. She kept repeating the same old tired campaign speech we all have heard many times over. And this is the problem! She has nothing new to say and the things she is saying no longer resonating.

This is an election for change! One of the posters on this blogg said it best "You only have experience as president after holding the job of president". So, Senator Clinton, like Senator Obama and many other past and present president contenders do not have any presidential experience. They may have potential but what in life really prepares one for the job of Leader of the free world?

So I'm not buying any of this "Ready on day one" stuff. Ready for what is my question but I'm sure all I'll get is the stump message. Senator Clinton doesn't have a clue as to what is waiting for the next president. And I'm sure we can all agree that W. has left a HUGE PILE OF CRAP for his successor.

Every new president has expressed a sense of being overwhelm by the office of the presidency. And this is normal and to be expected. This is why I just laugh every time Mitt & Rudy get started on their "kicking some Islamic Facist butt" rhetoric. Do they really think they're going to be able to get enough of their heads and hands around the Military Industrial Complex to fight a third simultaneous war within 100 days of taking office? I think not!

Posted by: SteelWheel1 | December 17, 2007 4:33 PM | Report abuse

Hillary, when she talks about experience, says "our experience" and not "my experience". It is like saying "myself and Bill Gates together" have billions. So far Hillary has not mentioned any one experience by name to point out how she got that experience or what she learned or contributed to that experience. The Clintons after the many visits to answering to grand jurys have figured out that vagueness is the way to go. For attacking other candidates they employ surrogates. Bill is campaigning as if he is in the run for the presidency. He is as currupt as any politician can get. Bill's lack of experience and lack of balls to go after Bin Laden, the first time Bin Laden attacked the WTC is to be blamed for all the mess that has follwed our country ever since. If you use a black light to view the stains on the walls and furniture in the oval office, you will see Bubba's sperm splattered all over there. We can't have another Monica scandal in the white house. Like a child molester, Bill is trying very hard to get back to his old habits. He craves for those white house interns. We don't want the horrors of the 90s repeated again in the white house.

Posted by: ChunkyMonkey1 | December 17, 2007 4:32 PM | Report abuse

How can Hillary run based on her "experience"?

When her experience consists of

voting for Iraq war--the gigantic foreign policy failure. in addition to that her senate record is thin and timid

- her only official responsibility in her husband's administration is the failure of health insurance reform

- she did travel extensively as a first lady, caused a great deal of complaints from Republican party, thinking she used too much taxpayers' money for "personal" travel

In addition, Hillary's campaign tactic is the most off-putting part--planting questions, spreading rumors about Obama.

Why enlists all the celebrity heavyweights to advocate for her. We voters want a candidate to make his/her own case. General Clark, Robert Kennedy Junior, Madeleine Albright etc. become surrogats because they have their own career advancement in mind. Does this sound like Washington establishment help each other to stay in power?

Another ex-president with better taste would have stayed above the fray, let the election run its own course.

Ex-president Clinton is almost everywhere. He rewrote his stand on Iraq war when necessary. He re-defined his relationship with his wife when necessary. He shamelessly distorted Obama's record when Hillary's poll went donw.

All this reminds me of Bush's tactic. Bush's entire political career was based on dishonest tactics (spreading rumors about McCain and the ex-Texan governor, etc.). No wonder his administration is the most dishonest and secretive one.

After eight year of Bush nightmare, we don't want to repeat the pattern of

Bush, Clinton, Clinton, Bush, Bush, Clintons and Clintons.

Posted by: wenmay2002 | December 17, 2007 4:29 PM | Report abuse

I thought this article was actually pretty unbiased, though the title could have said something less vague like "Rep. Splaine Raises Doubts About Clinton in NH." I'm not sure where you're getting this idea that the media is biased against Clinton. Anything by ABC or CNN (amongst many others) is incredibly biased in Hillary's favor. Shocking considering their parent companies (Walt Disney and Time Warner respectively) have given hundreds of thousands of dollars to her campaigns. They clearly have a stake in a Clinton win, and they do everything in their power to offer slanted news.
opensecrets.org

Posted by: historyisyourfriend | December 17, 2007 4:26 PM | Report abuse


Without the Clinton name and without the benefit of Bill's supporters, I doubt her supposed record and experience stand on their own. The oft quoted "I've been fighting for children and families all my life" is long on aspiration and short on specifics. Her health care reform was a catastrophe and harmed democrats and health care reform for years. She's capable, but too cautious and far too calculated.

Posted by: gringo.encantador | December 17, 2007 4:16 PM | Report abuse

If you really want to know why Clinton's support is dropping, go take a gander at the posts by her supporters. A few minutes read of posts by the old guard Bolsheviks of the 60's feminist movement ought to frighten the h*ll out of voters. It does me and I'm a Democrat. I've never voted for a Republican in my life, but right now I'm trying to decide which of them is the more palatable. And, note to DNC, if you nominate Clinton, I'm voting a straight Republican ticket.

Posted by: mibrooks27 | December 17, 2007 4:14 PM | Report abuse

I've been reading the comments and have been enlightened by them. I just want to add that I believe change is necessary fact of life. I think back to the civil rights movement and how the vision of MLK Jr., his ideas, changed the way we interact with people. I am not making this a race issue, but I am thinking of the political climate during that time and wondered, if we went on the experience of say BTW or WEB Dubois, would we have changed. Thank you MLK Jr. for having the intestinal fortitude to see what the future can be and not what we used to be.

So if Hillary wants to be President and not Presidential,then her vision cant be skewed because she continues to look at the rearview mirror while driving, she must drive, so she will not miss what lies ahead.

Signed.. not yet committed to anyone

Posted by: KeepTalking | December 17, 2007 4:14 PM | Report abuse

This is an excellent article, because it goes to the heart of what many Americans long for these days. To talk with each other, not at each other.

I left America for Mexico years ago after deciding that most people don't know and don't want to know their neighbors anymore, and our politics reflects it. It doesn't seem to matter whether you are a Republican, Democrat, other party, or no party.

I'm not sure whether Obama is really that much different from Clinton in this regard, but he appears to be. Maybe he will have his heart corrupted by his handlers too, just as she has.

I ran a small congressional campaign in Indiana in 1991, and we ran on a NO PAC platform. It was almost unknown to oppose the monied interests then, and we lost big time to Tim Roemer, who went on to defeat the Republican incumbent, John Hiler.

The fellow I represented, Dan "Bull" Durham, was much younger than me, but I liked his freshness and intellect. His family was Republican, but he ran as a conservative Democrat.

I have been watching American national politics from afar for a while, and I only hope that whoever takes the reins of the next presidency will have the decency of listening to his neighbors and his own heart before he allows other people to handle him.

Posted by: expat2MEX | December 17, 2007 4:10 PM | Report abuse

Democratic Congress and Senate are selling out to big corporations as well. Read sen DOD will filibuster his own side

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2007/12/17/dodd-prepares-to-filibust_n_77136.html

Posted by: dewanitum | December 17, 2007 4:09 PM | Report abuse

Hillary is a LIAR who loses it on women voters:
....www.youtube.com/watch?v=dasUm65vrFA...
Funded by an citien's group, Hillary's "maccacca" moment youtube piece above is being sent out to every Dem Supervoter in Iowa and New Hampshire over the Holidays..Clinton IS in trouble in both Iowa and New Hampshire and the Democrats WILL LOSE with her on the ticket..

The Press doesn't do diddly to report on it, but Underneath it all, Obama is an astroturfed Clinton sparring partner, given the Illinois Sen spot , A Keynote ot the Democratic national Convention. He has served to ward off the once potential "insider" challenge by Al Gore as well as deflating any excitement for "Prarie Populism" that was being held out by Edwards...

This vid .......
...www.youtube.com/watch?v=0bZuyyAlOzM......
illustrates how the use of a Hyped-as-"exciting" Strawman candidacy by Obama services Hilary to mollify Democratic Activists, Issue Groups and minority constituencies as well as allows her to "earn her stripes" -- pro wrestling style,-- and insulate Hillary from Charges of being "annointed" or a "Queen" seeking the Presidency.

Another piece on Obama, The Daleys, Chicago Politics and the Clinton political strategy will follow..

The Press has NO IDEA how thin her support is among ideological New Dealers...People with some money and and resolve, and willing to spend it to leave the Clinton's back in the LAST century...Perhaps they'll find the missing disposable income for America's Working Families back there among their promises with NAFTA....


Posted by: fugeddabowdid | December 17, 2007 4:08 PM | Report abuse


The Clinton's Campaign's latest attempts to create doubts about Obama's character (3rd grade essays and youthful drug use)insults our intelligence and exposes how ruthless they can be. Have they conveniently forgotten the more questionable and far more recent questions that plague the Clintons: Whitewater, James McDougal, Vince Foster's suicide, windfall trading profits, perjury as a sitting president, etc. Character issues are the last place the Clinton campaign should be looking for advantage.

Obama's experience is a fair question. The problem is that Hillary's actual relevant experience is rather scant.

We've had enough of Karl Rove and his methods of division. I hope the voters reject these cynical methods and tactics and the Clinton campaign for employing them. It's time for something new.

Posted by: gringo.encantador | December 17, 2007 4:08 PM | Report abuse

Obama has a lot more political experience than Abraham Lincoln did when he was running.

Posted by: LeePefley | December 17, 2007 4:07 PM | Report abuse

Do we know if Obama did drugs after high school? We only know what he told us in his book which he would naturally give us a slanted view.

Obama has been getting a free ride. We need to know his experience.

Posted by: Jcarn53 | December 17, 2007 4:05 PM | Report abuse

Thats Bush trying for secrecy and HRC is no different, she will keep hiding everything as well. Why doesn't HRC hook up with Bush and assume his experience as well. Than she will have double the experience she does now.


http://www.huffingtonpost.com/huff-wires/20071217/white-house-secrecy/

Posted by: dewanitum | December 17, 2007 4:02 PM | Report abuse

All the denigration of Clinton in these many "observation" columns reek of insincerity and agenda. She outperformed everyone else in the debates, certainly including Obama. She has a reasonably long resume at this point, enough to make her a viable candidate on her own, without the "Clinton" brand name. She holds positions which line up with what the majority of the electorate will support both on economic and security issues. You don't want to vote for her, fine, but enough with the spinning about her lacking qualification and vision- she has no less of either than Obama, obviously, and seemingly much more. Perhaps Biden would be a better candidate, but next up on qualification and stature is clearly Clinton.

Posted by: dyinglikeflies | December 17, 2007 4:01 PM | Report abuse

I like it when people pull out selective polls to show how strong Clinton is. For example, the comparable CNN poll has Clinton beating Giuliani by 6% but Obama beats Giuliani by 7%. So, Obama has a better chance of beating Giuliani than Clinton does.

Clinton was beating Obama by double digits in Iowa and New Hampshire and South Carolina. When people started to pay attention, those leads disappeared. The national polls, and places like CA, etc. on Feb 5 will start to change depending on what happens in those early states.

Also, who cares what MI and FL polls say. Those states are not participating in deciding the nominee.

Posted by: DanFromTX | December 17, 2007 3:56 PM | Report abuse

Funny piece on HRC

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/andy-borowitz/clinton-says-being-marrie_b_76992.html


Have you guys notice the traitor Lieberman supporting Republican McCain. That guy will support anybody who is far war. He is the one supporting Iraq war, he is the one touting for war with Iran. He must be Israeli agent, somebody should investigate him, he keeps getting us in trouble. It seems to me he puts Israeli interests over U.S.A interest. Would really like to hear what you guys think of him.

Posted by: dewanitum | December 17, 2007 3:54 PM | Report abuse

MediaMatters.Org helps me sort out the media's skewed coverage of Hillary Clinton's campaign. Jamison Foser quotes the Wapo's Ann Kornblut in late October:
"I have to say we in the media are spoiling for a fight. Usually we are biased in favor of a good tussle at about this point. ... I wouldn't be surprised if somewhere between now and January 3, now that we know that's when the Iowa caucuses are going to be, to see some kind of reverse, some kind of Obama surge or an Edwards surge. Something that is going to knock Hillary down a few pegs. Whether it's a media creation, or something that actually happens on the ground. I would be shocked if there were nothing like that."

Soon after those words were spoken, the callow Obama and Edwards attacked Hillary at the Philadelphia debate, and Kornblut and colleagues haven't let up since, inflating every non-issue they can dig up to take Hillary Clinton down - that's the media's creation.

There's something corrupt about all this and the above article seems to fit the pattern of denigrating Clinton at every turn. One wonders whatever happened to the notion of ethics in journalism.

Regardles, Hillary Clinton is holding her own and that's because she's so obviously the best qualified candidate.

Posted by: ichief | December 17, 2007 3:50 PM | Report abuse

"Jim Splaine, a veteran Democrat in the New Hampshire legislature" is spot on - the Mark Penn changes to "run as an incumbent " were poorly thought out. Once Hillary regains her voice she'll be fine. But the writer of this report - and the writers of the other Washington Post reports, seem to be trying to spin against Hillary and for Obama - which makes me wonder? The Washington Post long ago stopped being a liberal outlet, becoming the less conservative version of the Washington Times - but just as corporate controlled - favoring the rich and corporate world. To have the Post now dumping on Hillary every day (this story was actually mild) is an eye-opener as to how the corporate world views Obama.

Posted by: papau | December 17, 2007 3:47 PM | Report abuse

We can only hope that Clinton's team is reading these comments. I grow to trust her less and less every time I listen to the same tired statements. Unless she can offer something new and inspiring, get out of the way. I'm all for a woman (or a black) for president. However, I'm too intelligent for this crap. "Where's the beef?"

Posted by: David | December 17, 2007 3:43 PM | Report abuse

peterdc,
you may want read these post a little closer. The posts thus far are even-handed assessments of how Senator Clinton is coming across to the bloggers on this subject. Just wait a little while the real Clinton haters like, kingofzouk, will be out. Then you'll really get a dose of some Clinton hating postings.

Posted by: SteelWheel1 | December 17, 2007 3:43 PM | Report abuse

Hillary is a LIAR who loses it on women voters:
....www.youtube.com/watch?v=dasUm65vrFA...
Funded by an citien's group, Hillary's "maccacca" moment youtube piece above is being sent out to every Dem Supervoter in Iowa and New Hampshire over the Holidays..Clinton IS in trouble in both Iowa and New Hampshire and the Democrats WILL LOSE with her on the ticket..

The Press doesn't do diddly to report on it, but Underneath it all, Obama is an astroturfed Clinton sparring partner, given the Illinois Sen spot , A Keynote ot the Democratic national Convention. He has served to ward off the once potential "insider" challenge by Al Gore as well as deflating any excitement for "Prarie Populism" that was being held out by Edwards...

This vid .......
...www.youtube.com/watch?v=0bZuyyAlOzM......
illustrates how the use of a Hyped-as-"exciting" Strawman candidacy by Obama services Hilary to mollify Democratic Activists, Issue Groups and minority constituencies as well as allows her to "earn her stripes" -- pro wrestling style,-- and insulate Hillary from Charges of being "annointed" or a "Queen" seeking the Presidency.

Another piece on Obama, The Daleys, Chicago Politics and the Clinton political strategy will follow..

The Press has NO IDEA how thin her support is among ideological New Dealers...People with some money and and resolve, and willing to spend it to leave the Clinton's back in the LAST century...Perhaps they'll find the missing disposable income for America's Working Families back there among their promises with NAFTA....


Posted by: fugeddabowdid | December 17, 2007 3:41 PM | Report abuse

I can't support Senator Clinton's campaign because she lacks the character and temperament for the presidency. When she was asked about her insensitive firing of the travel office staff when her husband assumed the presidency, she matter-of-factly noted that the President's office owned such authority - completely missing the point. She demonstrates a track record of demonizing opponents and tending towards absolutes in her judgments of people. It's not her focus on intellect over salesmanship, image over message that hurts her campaign. It's the nagging sense that Americans have about her harshness and absoluteness that weigh her down. The only reason that the Bush campaign's rumor-mongering to malign John McCain's character worked was because voters sensed an element of truth. Same with John Kerry. In the case of the Clinton campaign, these doubts about character and temperament persist from past experience and only a little nudge from Senator Obama.

Posted by: tds15 | December 17, 2007 3:41 PM | Report abuse

Alec Macgillis fis right into the Washington Post Obama preference paper. This trail piece is laughable.

I can find just as many- actually even more people in NH to tell me how great Hillary is. She is still leading in the polls. And it would be great if the Washington Post could become a little balanced in their reporting.

All this kind of piece does is bring out the Hillary haters to the blog. Makes for boring reading.

Has anyone seen the new Quinnipac poll today about Hillary beating Guiliani by 21% in NY. Could we discuss the Florida poll where Hillary has a huge lead over Obama and in California as well.

I think that the press is running out of nasty things to say and this writer is symptomatic of that.

It's a shame that when the Post increases their price again it will be to pay for this drival.

Posted by: peterdc | December 17, 2007 3:33 PM | Report abuse

djudge1,
your post made me chuckle because you are so right! I don't believe in unearned entitlements but there has got to be some kind of compensation for Hillary for what Bill has put here through. And this is coming from a person who loves President Bill Clinton.

Is getting elected to U.S Senator of NY on the strength of President Bill Clinton's accomplishment enough compensation ????

Posted by: SteelWheel1 | December 17, 2007 3:28 PM | Report abuse

The Democratic primaries, as well as the general election, seem to hinge on the question of whether voters think that taking a chance on a vision of the future is better than the purported safety of a replay of the past. Although I can't attribute the quote to a particular author, one should keep in mind the aphorism "When your past looks brighter than your future, the end is near." To me, given the general poll numbers that two thirds of Americans are dissatisfied with the direction of the country, it seems particularly self-destructive for the Clinton campaign to tout past experience (questionable though that claim may be for Senator Clinton) as the reason for someone to vote for her. While some people may look backwards at the Bill Clinton years with nostalgia, many aspects of his administration lead to the policies of the current administration, if only as enablers - NAFTA, corporate influence, and redefining the meaning of "is" (i.e., questioning the definition of truth) come to mind. If Senator Clinton really wants to win the Democratic nomination, she should campaign on how she will change the status quo, not how she will return to one.

Posted by: sbrandt | December 17, 2007 3:27 PM | Report abuse

In my above posting it suppose to say "I mean HRC and Clinton combine are having difficulty in keeping Obama down.Clintons think HRC has the residual right to be the president"


Posted by: dewanitum | December 17, 2007 3:25 PM | Report abuse

Hillary's in a tough spot, needing to call for 'change,' and yet running on 'experience.'

This dichotomy effectively nullifies her voice.

"I will change things with the past" has little ring to it.

Bill ran on "it's time for a change." Hillary seems to be running on the "I really really want to be President" platform. If she had a voice, it's been lost in her desire to be the right thing. We can't know someone who knows not their self.

Posted by: robertell | December 17, 2007 3:23 PM | Report abuse

Hilary's in a tough spot, needing to call for 'change,' and yet running on 'experience.'

This dichotomy effectively nullifies her voice.

"I will change thing with the past" has little ring to it.

Bill ran on "it's time for a change." Hilary seems to be running on "I really really ant to be President." If she had a voice, it's been lost in her desire o be the right thing.

Posted by: robertell | December 17, 2007 3:22 PM | Report abuse

I agree with everybody, HRC doesn't have any substance to run on. The only thing she keeps harping on is experience, that won't get you far. Did anybody watch Bill Clinton with Charlie Rose, man he has become such a loser. His whole interview was about putting Barack Obama down. I am HRC and Clinton combine are having difficulty in keeping Obama down.Clintons think HRC has the residual right to be the president. I hope people don't fall for their lies.

Posted by: dewanitum | December 17, 2007 3:21 PM | Report abuse

bsimon,
that is an excellent analogy! Senator Clinton does come across as someone who is so enamored by the prospect of HER being president that she has totally skip pass the needs and wants of the very people who will determine whether or not she is worthy of being president.

Posted by: SteelWheel1 | December 17, 2007 3:19 PM | Report abuse

I am a die hard Republican who leans towards supporting Obama. Why? He offers hope to those of us totally dismayed by the other candidates. Experience is wonderful, but only the person who has been the President has experience. Everyday is a new one, we need someone like this man to guide the Nation and ensure our safety. The Clintons and their mob will only steal what they did not take during the first go around. Wake-up, she is not ready for the presidency. She gives the distinct impression that it is a position she earned supporting that lunk. Look to greener pastures, I am.

Posted by: djudge1 | December 17, 2007 3:19 PM | Report abuse

Mr. Splaine, people change. Especially people in politics. Point being, perhaps she IS showing her true self -- as someone not too imaginative in policy, nor nervy in leadership, nor warm with the human touch. Agreed: she has a weak staff and weak message. But Michael Dukakis' one contribution to the public dialogue was the greek saying that when it comes to campaigns, "the fish rots from the head down."

Posted by: r2onlinenow | December 17, 2007 3:17 PM | Report abuse

I really like Hillary and am sorry if she is not coming across as warm and relaxed as she was when Bill ran. This probably comes from something she learned while he was President which is that every think you say can and will be held against you, not just in court, but everywhere.
What about her do I like? Experience. What did she do when Bill was president that would help ? Among many other things, she helped him locate good cabinet members for appointment. As a result, many women were appointed. She also spent a year or more working on providing a universal health care plan for the country. You may say that it wasn't very good, especially too complicated, but she has learned from that experience. No other candidate has worked so hard to bring us universal health care and knows the pitfalls as well.
Hillary perhaps isn't as relaxed and chatty as Obama, but she has an enormous network of friends in politics and knows who to call when there is a problem. And she is not so foolish as to threaten to bomb one of our allies, namely Pakistan, as Barak did. His middle name may be Hussein, but he can't get along in the Mid-East by threatening our allies there.

Posted by: bghgh | December 17, 2007 3:16 PM | Report abuse

If Hillary could just answer a question with an answer that addresses the question asked!

All this bopping and weaving like she is doing some kind of political ropa-dope is unattractive, encourages distrust, and it is just plain old. The voters, both Republicans and Democrats, have said many times they do not like this in the political candidates. But yet, she continues to do it. Which leads me to believe she is as arrogant as people say she is.

Posted by: SteelWheel1 | December 17, 2007 3:14 PM | Report abuse

vwcat writes
"I never supported Clinton and do not like her but, I think my real problem is the feeling is that there is just smoke and mirrors and little else about her."

I'm neutral on her, personally, but don't find her presidential at all. I once compared her to a young couple planning the perfect wedding that doesn't know what to do with one another once they're married. So much time, effort & energy goes into planning the day, that they forget what follows. I think this is still an appropriate metaphor for Sen Clinton's campaign for President. She's been so intent - since running for the Senate in 2000 - on her political future, that it seems like she's forgotten about anything beyond the next election.

We can do better.

Posted by: bsimon | December 17, 2007 3:12 PM | Report abuse

i've been doing some work on the Obama campaign in NH (i live a literal stone's throw from the NH border) and the word is: the Clinton campaign has been riding the inevitability bus for too long and not getting off to talk with the people. the Obama campaign has been bringing in people from the surrounding states on weekends to help canvas. we've been told not to expect to see anyone form the Clinton campaign canvassing (they don't seem to be doing any). i see people out on the streets in Portsmouth, NH braving cold, rain and snow waving Obama signs on street corners. i see some huge Hillary signs, but people up here don't vote for candidates with the biggest signs (size only matters to photographers and their lenses ;). i hear alot of people here say she's not getting any kind of message across.

i say let her continue to think she can ride Bill's coat tails into the White House. sounds like victory for Obama.

Posted by: SkinsFanInMaine | December 17, 2007 3:12 PM | Report abuse

The Clinton campaign is floundering because she lacks the ability to inspire voters. In every state that Obama has be focused on, people respond positively as they get to know him. Hillary's running on the past and Obama is running on the future. It doesn't take a genius to figure out who people will respond to and work for.

Posted by: phil | December 17, 2007 3:11 PM | Report abuse

This is spot on. She's really been too methodical and calculating lately - a lot like Al Gore.

What happened to the "lets chat" video sessions? What happened to going out to fairs and picnics talking to the people, without a pre-planned speach?

Hillary really needs to realize that she has to seem like her campaign is not some machine that expects to churn out a victory.

Also, as someone said - she's not Bill. She really lacks his personal appeal.

Quite frankly, he'd beat anyone running right now - including his wife if her last name was still Rodham.

Posted by: samuelmcdonald | December 17, 2007 3:08 PM | Report abuse

hillary is A GUARANTEED LOSER IN THE GENERAL ELECTION for EXACTLY the reasons worried over by her supporters.

She is opaque...

She parses words like the political lawyer she is...

She is imperial in her approach...

She operates from FEAR of swift boating - not strngth.

Remember the healthcare debacle she tried to keep secret, presided over, and FAILED TO DELIVER?

THAT is what a hillary presidency would look like.

Posted by: onestring | December 17, 2007 3:08 PM | Report abuse

bsimon, you are right about Hillary not knowing what her message is or why she is running. I suspect it's because her running is about her, her wanting to win - just as that was Bush's reason. Run to win. No vision or message. Just because she wants to be president.
Like her campaign built on inevitability, running just to win because, is also a very shaky and shallow thing.
I believe this is why she has encountered so many problems now. No foundation. Just ambition. She cannot respond to the rough patches and needs Bill to try to save her as there is nothing to use to carry her through the rough patch.
You need vision and a reason other than because.
I never supported Clinton and do not like her but, I think my real problem is the feeling is that there is just smoke and mirrors and little else about her.

Posted by: vwcat | December 17, 2007 2:47 PM | Report abuse

The comments from Jim Splaine restate the generally problem with Sen Clinton's candidacy. That being, what the heck does she stand for? She seems to talk more about wht the Bush administration has done wrong, more than about what the next administration should do to fix those problems. I have no idea what her signature issue, or 'theme' is. Obama has the 'bridge the red-blue divide' thing; Edwards has the 'two Americas' deal; Biden brings practical solutions to the table. What's Sen Clinton's 'thing'? I certainly don't know, and I suspect she doesn't know herself.

Posted by: bsimon | December 17, 2007 2:12 PM | Report abuse

One message board poster commented that desperation has its own unique scent--and that that was the smell coming from Team Hillary. All the poll-driven answers from her which lack genuine warmth and sincerity are only adding fuel to the fire that her campaign is indeed desperate.

It also doesn't help when Hillary gives a speech in Iowa where she suggests one possible solution to us solving global warming is to come together like we did in the movie "Independence Day."

Scotty--please beam her up.

Posted by: jerichozwilson | December 17, 2007 2:07 PM | Report abuse

When are people going to WISE UP and realize

Hillary and Bill ARE NOT THE SAME PERSON.

Hillary does not have the charisma BIll did.

Hillary does not have the support BIll did.

Hillary does not have the freshness BIll did.

Hillary does not have the ability to win that BIll did.

Hillary cannot claim the mantle of change as BIll did.

Hillary does not have the judgement BIll did.

and most importantly

Hillary does not have the EXPERIENCE BIll does or did.

BILL was the president, not Hillary.

And if Hillary was so active and supposedly did SO much during Bill's administration, why didn't we hear about any of it until she started running for president?

Posted by: julieds | December 17, 2007 1:54 PM | Report abuse

New Hampshire went to Bush in 2000 and John Kerry's 2004 win probably owes more to Kerry's regional appeal than to Bill Clinton.

Posted by: Malia2 | December 17, 2007 1:50 PM | Report abuse

You have to admit- it is not easy to run on your "experience" (claiming to be ready on day 1) and maintain the facade that you want a "conversation" about what should be done- her two positions are close to mutually contradictory. They can be reconciled, but only carefully, and subtly- hardly easy in a primary campaign.

Posted by: jhherring | December 17, 2007 1:22 PM | Report abuse

The comments to this entry are closed.

 
 
RSS Feed
Subscribe to The Post

© 2010 The Washington Post Company