Network News

X My Profile
View More Activity

Hillary in Her Element

The video said it all.

Prior to Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-N.Y.) taking the stage at an EMILY's List luncheon today, two huge screens in the room showed a video clip of swearing-in ceremonies throughout history. Cut to a woman in red with a haircut closely resembling Clinton's current coif raising her right to take the oath of office as a narrator intones: "This time, for the very first time in American history, the words will be spoken 'Madame President.'"

Cue Clinton who entered to a polite if not overwhelming reception. (In truth, the room was surprisingly quiet throughout the lunch program which included speeches by Democratic Sens. Amy Klobuchar of Minnesota and Claire McCaskill of Missouri and EMILY's List president Ellen Malcolm.)

Clinton called her run for president an attempt to break the "hardest and highest of glass ceilings" and once again used the now-familiar line when asked whether a woman can be elected to the nation's highest office: "We'' never know until we try."

As she did in Selma over the weekend, Clinton mentioned her prime Democratic competitor -- Sen. Barack Obama (Ill.) -- by name. She said the presence of herself, Obama, who would be the first black president, and Gov. Bill Richardson (N.M.), who would be the first Hispanic president in the field, represents "the changes that EMILY's List and so many of you have fought for."

Clinton's remarks came as she unveiled her "Women for Hillary" effort, which is aimed at organizing women throughout the country behind her candidacy. The campaign also announced the support of New Hampshire House Majority Leader Mary Jane Wallner, who praised the New York Senator's "wisdom and experience." Clinton also plans to reintroduce her Paycheck Fairness Act aimed at ensuring equality in pay between men and women.

As we've mentioned too many times to count in The Fix, Clinton's gender in a Democratic primary is a major advantage. According to figures provided by Clinton's campaign, 54 percent of the general electorate will be female. That number could near 60 percent in a Democratic primary.

If Clinton wins even half of those votes, she will sit in a very strong position to win the nomination.

As she closed her brief remarks, Clinton offered her own thoughts on the video used to introduce her.

"That video that Ellen [Malcolm] sprang on me might be true," Clinton said. "I liked the color of the outfit and the hair looked great. Now all we have to do is win."

By Chris Cillizza  |  March 6, 2007; 4:03 PM ET
Categories:  Eye on 2008  
Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   Del.icio.us   StumbleUpon   Technorati   Google Buzz   Previous: Wag the Blog: Can Rudy Win?
Next: Wag the Blog: The Readers on Rudy

Comments

US President Tim Kalemkarian, US Senate Tim Kalemkarian, US House Tim Kalemkarian: best major candidate.

Posted by: anonymous | March 16, 2007 11:53 PM | Report abuse

Clinton receives significantly higher support among women than men (49 percent to 29 percent)

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/12/13/AR2006121301593.html

that's hardly an unusual one. If you doubt it I suggest you do more research on polls. Took a quick google search. Chris isn't lying you know.

Posted by: thomas | March 8, 2007 5:04 AM | Report abuse

"Then term-limited out of office the people of New York chose Giuliana's Republican choice for mayor, Bloomberg."

Tarheel, maybe you don't know that Rudy tried to "delay" the Mayoral election so he could continue to govern in the wake of 09/11. Democracy prevailed and the public's right to an election was preserved.

Or, that Mayor Bloomberg is Republican in name only. He was a Democrat who switched parties because it would be easier for him to be elected as a Republican. And it worked.

Posted by: Nor'Easter | March 7, 2007 6:29 PM | Report abuse

and as for you karen....great, nobody suggests that every woman will vote for hillary. Now if you are a democrat and hillary wins the nomination you either fall in line or you don't. Most likely you fall in line because she is a better candidate than kerry was in '04 or that gore was back in 2000. Democrats fell into line then and they will in 2008 no matter who the candidate is.

Posted by: thomas | March 7, 2007 4:35 PM | Report abuse

blarg I will get back to you when I have a bit of time.

again, you make the crucial mistake thinking that bloggers are a representative part of the democratic party or indeed of liberals in general. Crucial mistake, crucial error. When will people learn?

again, women wont vote for hillary because she is a woman, they are just more likely to vote for her, what the reasons are exactly I don't know, but that's the truth.

and you stated the new york senate election. Clinton was not as popular with men as she was with women and Schumer was basically equally popular with both.

Posted by: thomas | March 7, 2007 4:33 PM | Report abuse

I am a woman and I won't vote for her. By the way I have a D by my name also

Posted by: Kathy | March 7, 2007 3:53 PM | Report abuse

Hey, peter dc, if you're going to make the argument that Hillary is more qualified to be president than Obama and Edwards (a point I agree with) then you have to continue that thinking to its conclusion:

Bill Richardson, Joe Biden, and Chris Dodd are all more qualified to be president that Hillary Clinton.

Clinton has a little over one term in the senate now to go along with being first lady (a position close to the politics but with no actual responsibility).

Richardson, on the other hand, has 7 terms in Congress, has served as UN ambassador, secretary of energy, and has been the chief executive in New Mexico for the last several years. He's even been nominated for the Nobel Peace Prize 4 times.

If you're going to make your argument that Clinton is more deserving than Obama and Edwards based on experience then Richardson is WAY more qualified than Clinton.

Posted by: Artie | March 7, 2007 12:39 PM | Report abuse

All she has going for her is the money and who the hell are these people giving her all that money? They must be Republicans who remember how much destruction her husband wreaked on the Democratic Party in the 90's.

Posted by: Min | March 7, 2007 12:04 PM | Report abuse

These most anti- Hillary remarks are interesting. Wrong and say more about the writer than Hillary- but interesting non the less. Karen who will vote for Brownback over Clinton- well so will Laura Bush- who cares!

Those who talk about a fake southern accent- well Hillary lived in the South-remeber Arkasas- for many years- guess some of the you'alls rubbed off.

As to being a favorite among women- I recently heard a woman complain about the glass ceiling she faced at work and then in the next thought said she wouldn't vote for Hillary because of her Tammy Wynette remark years ago- when I called her on it and said maybe that is why women hit a glass ceiling because they aren't willing to support each other it at least made her think.

Obama is a great guy- he is forming his positions as he goes along. Read his first book and then his second and you can see a little revisionist history as he pondered running for President. I think maybe after he gets some experience and has done something- he may make a great President. Edwards is a nice guy- but again what has he done but win some big law suits. He ran for Senate- won- then realized he couldn't win a second term so he spent the last two years of his first term running for President and hasn't stopped since. He talks nice but really hasn't done anything. Some nice volunteer work but that doesn't qualify you to be President.

Hillary on the other hand has been involved in issues and government since she got out of College and yes that was before Obama was out of grade school. She was on a Senate Committee staff, partner in a law firm, credited with reforming education in Arkansas, spent 8 years as first lady and meeting and working with leaders around the United States and the world, then got elected to six years in the Senate and re-elected aqain last year. Has the respect of Senators on both sides of the isle, and is often credited with being even smarter tha her husband the former President.

Clearly those are credentials that are more relevent than any that Obama or Edwards have. And if you want to know what her platform is- or where she has been on the issues for thirty five years- just read her book which she wrote after leaving the White House as First Lady. These are positions she holds and has fought for- not ones being made up for this election.

I think that anyone underestimating Hillary Clinton's chance of winning the nomination or the election are making a big mistake. And she doenst need to be loved by everyone to do that. All the Karen's of the United States can vote for Brownback and Hillary will still win.

Many of us realize we have a real chance to make history in 2008- and make it with someone that has the intelligence and drive to change how our nation is viewed in the world. She has the ba--s to be a tough leader and the courage of a woman to be soft and gentle when that is what is needed.

I was glad to see the polls showing that 74% see her as the potential President and feel she can win and the recent announcement that the woman who is majority leader of the New Hampshire Senate is supporting her will be only the first of many woman leaders who will jump on the Hillary bandwagon. There will be some who won't by I wouldnt be surprised if Hillary does even better than Bill Clinton did in 1996 when he won 54% of the woman's vote and that will enough to make her President Hillary Clinton

Posted by: peter dc | March 7, 2007 11:58 AM | Report abuse

Did Hillary fake a southern accent at her speech here?

WHERE IS THE REPORTING ON THAT?

Posted by: Ryan | March 7, 2007 11:25 AM | Report abuse

Thomas, can you give some references for these polls? When I go to liberal websites, people don't like Hillary. They think she's too conservative and not likeable. Hillary is the most conservative of the Democratic candidates, so it's not surprising that liberals would prefer another candidate.

While you're at it, include a reference for the poll that says women support Hillary because she's a woman. Because the data that I've seen indicates otherwise:
http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2006/pages/results/states/NY/S/01/index.html
http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2004/pages/results/states/NY/S/01/index.html

The first link is to the 2006 Senate results in New York. Hillary won with 67% total and 73% of the female vote. But in 2004, Chuck Schumer won with 71% total and 73% of the female vote. So an equal proportion of women voted for the Democratic candidate each year! New York women didn't vote for Hillary because she was a woman; they voted for her because she was a Democrat.

Posted by: Blarg | March 7, 2007 9:26 AM | Report abuse

here we go again the typical anti clinton diatribe.

let's look at a few of the more unintelligent statements around.

It's very easy to say that women will vote for Hillary, but is there any evidence to back it up?

how about the polls? Does nobody look at the current polls? does nobody look at the results of hte new york senate election? Women are more likely to support her, that's a simple fact as of this point in time.

and hten there was....

Well, Chris, you are wrong! I personally know several women including myself who not only would not vote for Hillary Clinton in a primary but would never vote for her under any circumstances

yeah, chris is wrong because a snap poll of karen's friends says they wouldn't vote for hillary. wonderful, a representative sample htat makes.

then there was...

Liberals are the segment of the Democratic Party least likely to support Hillary. She's more conservative than Bill; she doesn't even oppose the war in Iraq! Look on liberal sites and you'll see a lot of criticism of Hillary.

what one needs to bear in mind is that funnily enough dailykos is not a typical segment of even liberal democrats. Self described liberals give hillary clinton high marks in the polls. Look at them! Do none of the self proclaimed experts here ever look at them? Adn then they criticise chris because they don't read them!

I am sick and tired of some liberal democrats criticising hillary for everything she does and then going gaga over Obama and Edwards without ever thinking that...'oh gee, they are pandering to elements of the liberal base.'

get a grip people,t he sooner that you realise that you are all not representative of the ordinary democrat the sooner you wills ee reality.

oh and also perhaps someone can answer this question of mine again...

does dailykos believe that people who are anti gun control can still be liberals? Because if that's the case then dailykos is doing what it accuses hillary of doing. selling out certain elements for popularity.

Posted by: thomas | March 7, 2007 9:00 AM | Report abuse

Tarheel, Giuliani was re-elected in 1997. So by referring to the election results, you're using 10-year-old numbers. Here's a link to an article about a February poll of New York State voters:

http://www.newyorkbusiness.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070204/FREE/70205023&SearchID=73271237191027

According to the poll results, in a 1-on-1 matchup, Hillary is beating Giuliani by 20%. Obama beats him by 11%. New Yorkers just don't seem to want Rudy to be president.

Posted by: Blarg | March 6, 2007 11:33 PM | Report abuse

Major score for OBAMA: South Carolina's Legislative Black Caucus has invited Senator OBAMA to be the keynote speaker at the group's big fundraiser next month.

The Caucus Chairman, Rep. Leon Howard, said the vote was unanimous. Several weeks ago, Clinton spokesperson said Sen. Clinton had also been invited to speak.

Howard said she was NOT invited to speak, but Clinton could attend if she wanted to BUY a ticket. Is this an example of what Mr. Geffen was referring to when he said the Clintons lie with such ease, it is troubling???? Go tell mama, this Democratic woman and her friends are for Obama!

Posted by: GER | March 6, 2007 10:58 PM | Report abuse

I'd flip Chris's analysis around. With progressives never being with her and black voters moving to Obama, Clinton is running out of people to vote for her in the primaries. So, at this point, she very likely needs overwhelming support from moderate white female Democrats, because otherwise she probably can't win the nomination.

I also expect Obama to go after those voters, particularly once he consolidates his gains in other areas. And although this is anecdotal, twice recently I have had pretty conservative, not just moderate, women express to me that Obama is a Democrat they could tolerate or even support. So I am not entirely sure Clinton can count on moderate white women favoring her over Obama, which would leave her with pretty much nothing to work with.

Posted by: DTM | March 6, 2007 9:27 PM | Report abuse

Chris, Where do you get your facts that women would support a woman candidate? If that is conventional wisdom, then CW needs a reality check.

Neither I nor my gal friends would vote for someone solely on their sex, it's really rather a condescending, and insulting, point of view. And most don't support Hillary.

Your first clue re female support should have been her "polite but not overwhelming" reception at the EMILY's List event, even after a cued video lead-in.

There have been a couple of female contenders for president.... Shirley Chisolm for the Dems (she got 150 delegates) and Elizabeth Dole for the GOP. I don't remember why Dole pulled out, but perhaps it was because she was so contrived.... like Hillary. (sorry lylepink)

http://whathappenedtomycountry.blogspot.com

Posted by: Truth Hunter | March 6, 2007 9:27 PM | Report abuse

Please stop with the New Yorkers hate Rudy posts. Is it true? Let's check the facts. He won his first mayoral election with 49 percent of the vote and was the first Republican mayor since Lindsey in 1965. For his second term his reelection total was 59 percent and he was only the second Republican to be reelected mayor since Fiorello LaGuardia in 1941. Then term-limited out of office the people of New York chose Giuliana's Republican choice for mayor, Bloomberg. This in a city with an 8 to 1 registration advantage for Democrats. I would guess he should be taken seriously. And apparently somebody in New York City liked him enough to vote for him, twice, and in much greater numbers the second time, after they got to know him.

Posted by: tarheel | March 6, 2007 9:08 PM | Report abuse

It comes to this, then:

HRC has too much baggage to be considered anything but an underdog.

Obama is a fresh face and certainly has charmed the pants off of the Dems, but lacks gravitas and experience.

Gore isn't getting in, he's way too fat. Nothing against fat people, but if he were running, he'd have slimmed way down by now.

Dodd, Biden? Come on, get real.

Rudy wins in a cakewalk. And yes, NY IS in play - they would love to vote for one of their own. If you think NYC doesn't like him, you haven't been there since 9/11.

Posted by: JD | March 6, 2007 8:50 PM | Report abuse

For uncensored news please bookmark:

www.cheisanidiot.com

Posted by: JD | March 6, 2007 8:45 PM | Report abuse

The Hillary scandals that will make devastating campaign ads are the Clinton pardons which financially benefited her senate campaign, her brothers, and the Clinton library. Just to recap for those of you who missed the article.

Boston Globe, 2/28. Senator Hillary Clinton's brother Tony is battling an order to repay more than $100,000 he received from a couple pardoned by President Clinton. Tony Rodham, who acknowledged approaching the president about a pardon for the couple, is the second of Hillary Clinton's brothers to receive money from people who were eventually pardoned by President Clinton. Hugh Rodham received $400,000 from two people, one of whom was pardoned and one whose sentence was commuted.

In addition to the people who paid her brothers, those receiving pardons included commodities trader Marc Rich, a fugitive who was prosecuted for tax evasion by then-US Attorney Rudolph Giuliani and fled to Switzerland. Before Rich received the pardon in January 2001, his former wife, Denise Rich, contributed $70,000 to a fund supporting Hillary Clinton's Senate bid, and also made a large contribution to the Clinton presidential library.

"It is a legitimate campaign issue," said Stephen Gillers, professor of legal ethics at New York University School of Law. He said that Hillary Clinton should answer questions about her brothers' and her own involvement in the pardons because "the stench of the Marc Rich pardon still stinks and it has never been adequately explained."

How to explain receiving hundreds of thousands of dollars from pardoned criminals? She can't. Bill could walk away from it because he was leaving office and did not have to face the electorate again. But Hillary did't think far enough ahead, to now. Its not a mistake she makes often, but its one that could sink her candidacy.

Posted by: tarheel | March 6, 2007 8:45 PM | Report abuse

My little stud muffin Chris, if you keep writing these gushing stories about me, folks may start talking.So behave or I'll put the whip away.

Posted by: HRC | March 6, 2007 8:26 PM | Report abuse

vwcat, where did you see that poll? i'd like to take a look at it.

Posted by: meuphys | March 6, 2007 7:36 PM | Report abuse

Hillary needs to become comfortable in all locations and scenarios, not just at uber-liberal feminist events.
www.political-buzz.com

Posted by: matt | March 6, 2007 7:33 PM | Report abuse

Chris o Chris,

I keep telling you to get out of the salon's and spend more time in a saloon. Hilary's support is certainly strong with this group but that does not win a primary or an election. The female vote trends a bit higher for female candidates but not always and not as predictable as you make it sound. Hil needs to address the real issues that are out there in the primaries and this is where she will run into trouble. She is drifted too far to the right and is far to calculating for her to have any advantage on the issues. I also want to state for the record that she does not really have any great experience as she so states over and over again compared to Obama and maybe Edwards.

We will lose with her and in 08 there is no reason to...

Chris...instead of that fake hair on your head just shave it, Kojak.

Posted by: William Pond | March 6, 2007 7:28 PM | Report abuse

This proud dem. woman agrees with proud to be gop in his remarks about Clinton following Obama around like a puppy. Where he goes and what he does she has to copy.
And now NH has a new poll showing Obama is tied with Clinton.
No, Hillary is not inevitable and does not have the lock.
I say by summer Obama will overtake her.

Posted by: vwcat | March 6, 2007 7:25 PM | Report abuse

roo -"Just in case you actually did not understand her connotation"

I understand very well her sad attempt at using everyone else's platform as her own. Why doesn't she start talking about issues and ideas and forget the tired rhetoric.

Assinine is her image in Selma on Sunday.. feigning a southern accent and "black" cadence.

Time for you and tigger to go back to the Hundred-acre Wood or whatever liberal utopia you came from. You won't have to worry about which candidate to support back there.

Posted by: proudtobeGOP | March 6, 2007 7:22 PM | Report abuse

Question about Mary Six-Pack --
Even my mother instinctively knows Hillary is over. When Hillary's name comes up she just shakes her head with an apologetic expression on her face (for any Hillary supporters who might be around and whose feelings might be hurt). And my mother is really out of touch with political ins and outs of just about everything. But she has voted every time, primary and general, for the last umpteen years, almost always Democrat.

Posted by: Golgi | March 6, 2007 7:09 PM | Report abuse

Loudon,
Abortion is not going to be recriminalized. Even in South Dakota, abortion is not going to be recriminalized.

Feminism is about opportunity. Hillary Clinton is about nobody but Clintons and Bushes having the opportunity to be president.

Posted by: Karen | March 6, 2007 6:56 PM | Report abuse

I love the way kingofzouk always wears pant suits. It makes me twitch.

Posted by: William | March 6, 2007 6:52 PM | Report abuse

Unqualified credit to Pres. Bush for significantly increasing aid to African countries to fight AIDS.

Also, unqualified credit to former Pres. Clinton for getting the Clinton Foundation to do fight AIDS worldwide.

Proof of the old saying, "Even blind squirrels find acorns sometimes."

Posted by: Nor'Easter | March 6, 2007 6:50 PM | Report abuse

For uncensored news please bookmark:

otherside123.blogspot.com
www.wsws.org
www.takingaimradio.info
www.onlinejournal.com

http://news.independent.co.uk/uk/legal/article2332003.ece

Show evidence that Diana was murdered, Fayed told

By Robert Verkaik, Law Editor
06 March 2007

The Prince of Wales and the Duke of Edinburgh must give evidence at the inquests into the deaths of Diana, Princess of Wales and Dodi Fayed, the High Court in London was told yesterday.

Both members of the Royal Family were described as "relevant witnesses" in respect to the circumstances that led to the couple's deaths, now being investigated by the retired senior judge, Baroness Butler-Sloss.

Michael Mansfield QC, acting for Mohamed Al Fayed, told Lady Butler-Sloss that Prince Charles had already been interviewed by police but only a summary of that interview had ever been provided to the Harrods owner.

If the police officers had taken full notes then the jury at the full inquest, which begins in May, should be shown them, argued Mr Mansfield.

Prince Philip's evidence would also be of vital importance, he said. "The Duke of Edinburgh was responsible for letters sent to Princess Diana, but he has refused to be interviewed. We would like to know whether we can go beyond that."

Mr Mansfield suggested that Mr Fayed should be told the reasons the Duke had given for his refusal.

Lady Butler-Sloss said that, if evidence were produced of a plot, she would allow the jury to consider Mr Fayed's claims about the Princess's death but she added: "If there is no evidence to support them, I shall not present them to the jury because it would be my duty not to do so."

She said she had not been given "a shred of evidence" about any of the serious allegations Mr Fayed has made about the Princess's death.

But Mr Mansfield told her: "You have it already."

Mr Mansfield made clear that both the Prince of Wales and the Duke of Edinburgh were "witnesses of relevance" Mr Fayed wanted to see give evidence.

When challenged to support any allegations against members of the Royal Family, the barrister said Mr Fayed had co-operated fully with Lord Stevens's investigation and had provided them with the evidence which the former judge had been given.

He told her: "A starting point which will undoubtedly come to light during the inquest is Princess Diana's premonitions or fears." He added: "Mohamed Fayed gave a statement to the police about this and what he had been told by Princess Diana during the summer months, about her concerns, her fears and so on. He has already provided that."

Mr Mansfield added that Mr Fayed was aware that the Princess had confided in her butler, Paul Burrell.

Mr Mansfield said there had been a lot of publicity over a letter Diana wrote to Mr Burrell.

"We say it is extremely important because the original does not appear to have been seen - certainly it has not been seen by us."

The only thing that had been seen was an edited copy that had appeared in the newspapers.

"We would want to see the original of that letter," said Mr Mansfield.

Lady Butler-Sloss said one French doctor, whom she would not identify, had been approached but had indicated he would be prepared to talk to her on the phone - "but not to give evidence". She said: "This is a serious matter, but these are French citizens with their own rights.

"I don't have power to require anyone to attend from France."

She also accepted that members of the paparazzi who were present on the night of the crash "might not be terribly anxious to give evidence".

Posted by: che | March 6, 2007 6:48 PM | Report abuse

"Clintonian prosperity in the 90s"

Do you really think we'll have another huge internet bubble to overflow the federal coffers if Hillary is elected?

It was a house of cards then; what will it be the next time? The Clinton's sold us a bridge back then, what's the phishing scheme now?

Posted by: Truth B Told | March 6, 2007 6:47 PM | Report abuse

"To the liberals out there, I ask: What are you thinking?"

I'm thinking that I don't support Hillary Clinton for president. That's what most other liberals are thinking too. Liberals are the segment of the Democratic Party least likely to support Hillary. She's more conservative than Bill; she doesn't even oppose the war in Iraq! Look on liberal sites and you'll see a lot of criticism of Hillary.

By the way, Giuliani won't put New York in play. He's very unpopular in New York City, among the people who he actually governed.

Posted by: Blarg | March 6, 2007 6:45 PM | Report abuse

Will women vote for Hillary because she's a woman? Those women on here who responded are not typical of the average voter, female or male.

The question applies to Mary Six-Pack. Will Mary vote for Sen Clinton because Clinton's a woman, more than any other reason; or as a tie-breaker reason?

Posted by: Nor'Easter | March 6, 2007 6:33 PM | Report abuse

bush II liberal -- as usual LOL at the clown

Posted by: Anonymous | March 6, 2007 6:06 PM | Report abuse

Assignment for the day:

Pro-Giuliani conservatives to the starting line: commence office whisper campaign that Giuliani is "quaking in his boots that Hillary is the nominee, that the Mayor fears it will dredge up his controversial tenure in New York ...."

The left will buy it. Wholesale. To them, it plays right into their themes about his supposed deficits in a believable way.

CUT TO: (Yes, I am in L.A.)

ONE YEAR LATER ...

A Giluiliani commercial that edits him arresting a Milken-like figure at the stock exchange to stats about the city's lower crime rate and his stable leadership on the 11th ...

And a possibly toothless rebuttal about Hillary ... oh, I don't know ... and Clintonian prosperity in the 90s ... with ... who knows ... maybe a Fleetwood Mac song.

Posted by: Charles Coulter - Los Angeles | March 6, 2007 6:05 PM | Report abuse

And NY in play along with CA. Looks like a foregone conclusion to me.

dole lost because we was just too old school, the kind all the pundits wish they had around to make fun of. but bush II and rudy are liberal Rs and will do (did) very nicely in the general by stealing issues from Libs, the counter clinton I. thier only hope is if they can keep up this drumbeat, as they did last fall, and drown out the reasoning ability of marginal voters. Just keep repeating Rudy can't win, the crazy right won't vote, don't waste your vote, repeat over and over and over.

Posted by: kingofzouk | March 6, 2007 6:02 PM | Report abuse

The prospect of a President Hillary is bleak. Talk about monarchy: Bush, Clinton, Bush, Clinton ... Are we in England? you closet monarchists.

To the liberals out there, I ask: What are you thinking? This woman is closer to the second coming of George W. Bush - another candidate I wouldn't have chosen first from his class.

Like Hillary, W. had a boatload of name cache, a thin resume, the support of Rupert Murdoch (as Hill does) and a talent for coat-tail riding - until we get to future fluff articles about Hill and husband and the policy divide between them. (One can almost see the Time Cover now ... "Running Mates: Is Hillary in a Bubble?")

At the end of the day, she could beat the GOP under-card - maybe. However, with the right campaign, and the Democratic tendency for never-ever-ever mounting the right campaign, for completely misreading the public, even a Brownback could flank slightly left on the War, confuse the messaging "compassion" style, color her "angry", whisper about monarchy and beat her by a single state.

I know that sounds like farfetched science fiction to most of you, but check out his spin on Iraq, pair him with a superstar VP and roll the dice on The Queen.

Hillary is so beatable, the air around her is frothy. I could see her steal a nail-biter from a poorly messaged McCain - if she runs a perfect campaign, and Big Bill guts him on Iraq, but, again, when have Democrats run a perfect campaign?

And as for this she can win Florida nonsense ... Please, her husband only won it once and then over a stale Dole.

Talk about bad contrasts. Dole was such a bad choice to run against Clinton, it hearkens back to the grand Democratic style of finding the ultimate bad choice, getting Spielberg to shoot a video and forcing half-hearted smiles til November.

To the conservatives out there, I say: Martial your resources, allow the opposition its queen and run Giuliani - the result: Pennsylvania in the GOP column.

Posted by: Charles Coulter - Los Angeles | March 6, 2007 5:56 PM | Report abuse

It's just to hide my cankles.

Posted by: HRC | March 6, 2007 5:54 PM | Report abuse

I know one american who cares about AIDS in Africa - george Bush. he has spent more money on this than anyone ever by a huge amount. you can look it up. don't hear many people giving him credit for this though. Too bad. not a good way to encourage behavior in your adversaries.
As a thought experiment can any of you rabid libs tell me something good Bush did or is anything he touches evil by your own defintion? Perhaps you should rethink your values if you can't find one thing.

I'll start: I love the way hillary always wears pant suits. It makes me forget she is the first woman to run for President. what do you mean she's not the first?

Posted by: kingofzouk | March 6, 2007 5:43 PM | Report abuse

kingofzouk--It actually just sounds like many Americans could not care less about AIDS in Africa.

proudtobeGOP--"Gee...According to Hillary, all those who fought for their own rights were actually fighting for her campaign, they just didn't know it."

Way to be asinine about reading a statement. Just in case you actually did not understand her connotation, she meant that all the work that the folks had done to promote equality and stuff had enabled her to be where she is today.

It also may surprise you but often people fight for OTHER PEOPLE's rights too, not just their own. You know, because it is the humane thing to do.

Not that I like Hillary or anything, intellectual dishonesty just happens to be right around the bottom of my list of desirable personality traits.

Posted by: roo | March 6, 2007 5:29 PM | Report abuse

Dems don't do math:
regarding bono - "The campaign's retail giant partners, including Gap, Apple and Motorola, reportedly spent $130 million in promoting Red Products, but figures released yesterday showed only $23 million had been raised by the project, launched a year ago in a blaze of publicity. "

this sounds like Air america. and the US economy if it ever gets to that.

Posted by: kingofzouk | March 6, 2007 5:18 PM | Report abuse

Chris,

What's the typical percentage of black (African-American) voters in Democratic presidential primaries?

Posted by: NoVA Dem | March 6, 2007 5:11 PM | Report abuse

Now that she's 'in her element' maybe she'll stop following Obama around like a puppy.

He announces his candidacy months before it was traditional to do so...she follows and announces hers.

He stars at a Hollywood fund raiser...she runs out there to plan one of her own.

He visits Selma, Alabama to celebrate the 42nd anniversary of the famous March...she trudges along after him and brings Bill too.

Clearly, Obama has the initiative in the battle for first place in the Democratic field. Hillary looks reactive, almost panicky.

Its hard to tell who is the rookie and who is the supposed veteran.

Sunday, Obama laid claim to the heritage of Selma and the civil rights movement.

Hillary tried to do the same, claiming that it was the Voting Rights Act that permitted women to enter politics. (apparently overlooking the 19th Amendment and confusing Susan B. Anthony with Martin Luther King Jr.)

Today, She said the presence of herself, Obama, .. and Gov. Bill Richardson .. represents "the changes that EMILY's List and so many of you have fought for."

Gee...According to Hillary, all those who fought for their own rights were actually fighting for her campaign, they just didn't know it.


Posted by: proudtobeGOP | March 6, 2007 5:00 PM | Report abuse

So Karen, you'd vote for the most conservative GOP candidate in the race -- a man who thinks you should be barefoot and pregnant -- because you think Hillary Clinton is too pushy?

And you probably call yourself an independent, right?

Posted by: Loudoun Voter | March 6, 2007 4:53 PM | Report abuse

Well, Chris, you are wrong! I personally know several women including myself who not only would not vote for Hillary Clinton in a primary but would never vote for her under any circumstances, even against Sam Brownback. She's not a feminist. She pushes women out of the way the same as she pushes men. Most of the New Yorkers who wanted to run for that Senate seat and got pushed out of the way for Hillary Clinton in 2000 were women.

Posted by: Karen | March 6, 2007 4:43 PM | Report abuse

Agree with you Blarg. I'm female but no more or less likely to vote for a woman. If all other things were equal, yes. But they never are. I vote for whomever best exemplifies my values. And that really isn't Hillary at the moment.

Posted by: drindl | March 6, 2007 4:41 PM | Report abuse

Are there any polls or studies showing that female voters are more likely to vote for female candidates? It's very easy to say that women will vote for Hillary, but is there any evidence to back it up?

I doubt it. Women make up more than half of the country, and more than half of voters are women. And yet there are relatively few successful female politicians. If being a woman is a big plus during a campaign, why aren't there more female governors and senators?

Posted by: Blarg | March 6, 2007 4:22 PM | Report abuse

For uncensored news please bookmark:

otherside123.blogspot.com
www.wsws.org
www.takingaimradio.info
www.onlinejournal.com

Support Senator Webb's bill to rein in the President on Iran

Senator Jim Webb introduced a bill that requires the President to get approval from Congress before taking military in Iran. Call your senators and ask them to support Sen. Webb's bill.

http://www.moveon.org/

Posted by: che | March 6, 2007 4:19 PM | Report abuse


For uncensored news please bookmark:

otherside123.blogspot.com
www.wsws.org
www.takingaimradio.info
www.onlinejournal.com

http://www.mercurynews.com/mld/mercurynews/news/politics/16843001.htm

White House panel OKs surveillance plans
WARRANTLESS EAVESDROPPING, FINANCIAL MONITORING UPHOLD RIGHTS, IT SAYS

By Hope Yen
Associated Press

WASHINGTON - A White House privacy board is giving its stamp of approval to two of the Bush administration's surveillance programs -- electronic eavesdropping and financial tracking -- and says they do not violate citizens' civil liberties.

Democrats newly in charge of Congress quickly criticized the findings, which they said were questionable given some of the board members' close ties with the Bush administration.

``Their current findings and any additional conclusions they reach will be taken with a grain of salt until they become fully independent,'' said Rep. Bennie Thompson, D-Miss., who chairs the House Homeland Security Committee.

Work in secrecy

After operating mostly in secret for a year, the five-member Privacy and Civil Liberties Board is preparing to release its first report to Congress next week.

The report finds that the National Security Agency's warrantless-eavesdropping program and the Treasury Department's monitoring of international banking transactions have sufficient privacy protections, three board members told the Associated Press in telephone interviews.

The programs have multiple layers of review before sensitive information is accessed, they said.

``We looked at the program, we visited NSA and met with the top people all the way down to those doing the hands-on work,'' said Carol Dinkins, a Houston attorney and former Reagan administration assistant attorney general who chairs the board.

``The program is structured and implemented in a way that is properly protective and attentive to civil liberties,'' she said.

Some board members were troubled by the Homeland Security Department's error-ridden no-fly lists, which critics say use subjective or inconclusive data to flag suspect travelers.

Anti-terror screening

One area the board will focus on in its report is the computerized anti-terrorism screening system recently announced by DHS and used for years without travelers' knowledge to assign risk assessments to millions of Americans who fly abroad.

``That's a place where there's a lot of opportunity for improvement,'' Dinkins said.

Lanny Davis, a former Clinton White House counsel and the lone Democrat on the panel, described the board's first report to Congress as modest. He said most of the work in the past year was spent being briefed on the administration's surveillance programs.

``We felt reassured regarding the checks-and-balance concerns,'' Davis said. He said that after several classified briefings, members were impressed by the multiple layers of review, which included audit trails to track whoever has access to the data.

Still, Davis said he anticipated the board will continue to monitor the program as needed.

The board's initial findings come as Congress is moving forward on measures to give the board more authority and make it more independent of the president. Created in late 2004, the panel was established as a compromise between Congress and the White House after a recommendation by the Sept. 11 commission.

Posted by: che | March 6, 2007 4:14 PM | Report abuse

The comments to this entry are closed.

 
 
RSS Feed
Subscribe to The Post

© 2010 The Washington Post Company