Network News

X My Profile
View More Activity

Clinton Embarks on High-Tech Listening Tour

The wait is over.

After more than two years of intense speculation about her future political plans, Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton today took the first formal steps toward a run for the White House.

Like Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.) before her, Clinton chose a to announce her plans in a video statement posted on her HillaryClinton.com Web site (watch it below).

After watching the video a few times, here's The Fix's take on the debut of Clinton's candidacy:

From the start of the video, Clinton emphasizes that she wants to take part in a discussion with the American people. "I'm not just starting a campaign though, I'm beginning a conversation with you, with America," she says. "Because we all need to be part of the discussion if we are all going to be part of the solution."

To that end, Clinton says she plans to hold "online video chats" beginning Monday to create a dialogue with the American people.

Sound familiar? It should. It's the same blueprint Clinton used in 2000 when she was preparing to run for the New York Senate seat being vacated by Sen. Daniel Patrick Moynihan (D).

In the early stages of that race, Clinton embarked on a statewide listening tour ostensibly designed to give her an opportunity to hear from the people of the Empire State about their problems and their dreams. That listening tour also served to humanize Clinton to New York voters, to show them that she was more than just the former first lady.

Fast forward to today. Clinton's biggest challenge is not increasing the number of people who know about her but rather ensuring that she defines herself to potential voters in the coming months before her Democratic primary opponents do it for her.

For most Americans, she is a one-dimensional figure -- a face on their television screens, a symbol of all that is right (or wrong, depending on your perspective) with politics and Washington. The more Clinton can humanize herself -- to show that she is a mother, a wife and a daughter -- the better the chance she has at winning the nomination. She's already started to re-frame her image; in the video she refers to herself as coming from a "middle class family in the middle of America."

Watch the planned live online video chats in the coming week. They will show us how Clinton seeks to offer a more textured and nuanced version of herself. At their best, these chats should function as a re-introduction for Clinton to the public. The more times viewers say to themselves, "I didn't know that about her," the better for her campaign.

The Post's Dan Balz has the news here on Clinton's announcement. We'll have much more on Clinton's announcement in tomorrow's Post as well as on The Fix starting Monday. Stay tuned.

Watch the video Clinton posted on her Web site:

Courtesy HillaryClinton.com

By washingtonpost.com Editors  |  January 20, 2007; 11:04 AM ET
Categories:  Eye on 2008  
Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   Del.icio.us   StumbleUpon   Technorati   Google Buzz   Previous: The Line: Senate Dems Hold Early Advantage
Next: Post-ABC Poll: Clinton, Giuliani Lead Primary Fields

Comments

fqor wgvij xusoz esauvkwm jhgylopq fpagdcu elcsj http://www.jplbhai.imklo.com

Posted by: depbtsvmu yazqo | February 15, 2007 2:36 PM | Report abuse

oqusry vsgc pwnky flpgtyim ydkqtxf bwfdtaunq jlackgivn

Posted by: gixhbktq puyewjsl | February 15, 2007 2:36 PM | Report abuse

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

Posted by: anonymous | January 31, 2007 6:34 PM | Report abuse

Hello, visit my home page:
=buy wood alcohol

Posted by: Bill | January 30, 2007 1:17 AM | Report abuse

Chris, why doesn't the msm notice how Hillary is not such a formidable lead.
Everything she has done in the past few months smacks not only of playing catch up but, of "me too" to Obama. He releases his book and wow! she re-released her 10 year old book.
She shot a web video to announce the DAY AFTER Obama announced.

The other thing they should be doing when they get over their collective orgasm over Hillary is check her senate record
6 years and has not produced ONE major Peice of major legislation. 6 years!!!!!!
In 2 Obama has been extreemly busy rolling out legislation of his own or with someone else.
What the hell has she been doing for 6 years and why is no one asking this?????

Posted by: Anonymous | January 22, 2007 6:32 PM | Report abuse

I voted for Bubba in 1992 because the alternatives were a deranged billionaire with econ illiterate, protectionist views that fortunately self-destructed by his own whackiness and insanity, and Bush Sr, a nice fellow, whose VP could not spell potato.

So I had no choice but to vote for the ethically challenged, but econ literate and intelligent Bubba.

IF Hillary convinces me that she will be as MODERATE and ECON LITERATE as Bubba, and her opponent is an econ illiterate (which neither McCain nor Giuliani are), I could consider voting for her too. But I seriously doubt it.

However, Obama, while much more likeable and ethical fellow than Hillary, is an econ extremist, not econ literate, and I doubt I will risk the future of the Stellar US Economy by entrusting it to his amateur and ideological leftie hands.

"Hillary is intelligent" is a MYTH. Just because she is unattractive, that does not mean she is smart.

As the Clinton's own classmates at Yale Law: They are on record, years ago, that while Bill barely studied, he routinely got As, as did Hillary, who, however, burned the midnight oil to do so.

There is nothing wring with not being very smart, BTW. I do not care how my own students get A's, by intelligence, as Bill did, or by hard work, as Rodham did, as long as they do not CHEAT, and LEARN the material.

Hillary is not half as smart as Bill.

More importantly, Politically, she is not one tenth as smart.

She is disciplined and will have 100s of millions of $ donations from guilty-feeling do gooder billionaires, but that alone is not a suffcient condition for her to win in 2008.

In fact, you can be sure that

1. Hillary WILL get the Dem nomination. the rest 12 dwarf males in the field are ugly losers for the most part, and Obama is a JOKE.

2. Hillary will LOSE the Nov 2008 election in a landslide, and not only that, she will drag down to the bottom every other democrat, resulting in a HUGE Disaster, and converting BOTH the house and the Senate to a significant REP majority (the inverse coattail effect)

Posted by: Thor (the smart one, not the | January 21, 2007 3:15 PM | Report abuse

I voted for Bubba in 1992 because the alternatives were a deranged billionaire with econ illiterate, protectionist views that fortunately self-destructed by his own whackiness and insanity, and Bush Sr, a nice fellow, whose VP could not spell potato.

So I had no choice but to vote for the ethically challenged, but econ literate and intelligent Bubba.

IF Hillary convinces me that she will be as MODERATE and ECON LITERATE as Bubba, and her opponent is an econ illiterate (which neither McCain nor Giuliani are), I could consider voting for her too. But I seriously doubt it.

However, Obama, while much more likeable and ethical fellow than Hillary, is an econ extremist, not econ literate, and I doubt I will risk the future of the Stellar US Economy by entrusting it to his amateur and ideological leftie hands.

"Hillary is intelligent" is a MYTH. Just because she is unattractive, that does not mean she is smart.

As the Clinton's own classmates at Yale Law: They are on record, years ago, that while Bill barely studied, he routinely got As, as did Hillary, who, however, burned the midnight oil to do so.

There is nothing wring with not being very smart, BTW. I do not care how my own students get A's, by intelligence, as Bill did, or by hard work, as Rodham did, as long as they do not CHEAT, and LEARN the material.

Hillary is not half as smart as Bill.

More importantly, Politically, she is not one tenth as smart.

She is disciplined and will have 100s of millions of $ donations from guilty-feeling do gooder billionaires, but that alone is not a suffcient condition for her to win in 2008.

In fact, you can be sure that

1. Hillary WILL get the Dem nomination. the rest 12 dwarf males in the field are ugly losers for the most part, and Obama is a JOKE.

2. Hillary will LOSE the Nov 2008 election in a landslide, and not only that, she will drag down to the bottom every other democrat, resulting in a HUGE Disaster, and converting BOTH the house and the Senate to a significant REP majority (the inverse coattail effect)

Posted by: Thor (the smart one, not the | January 21, 2007 3:14 PM | Report abuse

Hillary wants to engage in a converwation with Americans. Conversation by TY whatever the device is a one way street. the power to manipulate censor, and self promote is awways to the advantage of the broarcaster.
It is a profound vanity to suggest that you can engage a nation in a conversation in any case- I mean she's no Oscar Wilde with dripping goldust of epithets at every turn.
To suggest that she can engage with middle america is even more rich ; a privalaged lady who has spent 8 years in the White House- what could she know of life in the offices of Baltimore , the streets of Chicago , or of the underclass soldiers heading to Iraq.
JFK was the last president to enagage with americans - and to a lesser exytent Clinton.
They both managed despite their evident personal charisma to lead the counrtry into war , the former to the extent that he imperiled world peace ; the latter in a less heeded war which cost less and didnt engage the public imagination.
Mr Barrak may be the person required to shed americans from their indolence , their naval gazing .
Hillary
No Way !

Posted by: donmacnamara | January 21, 2007 12:56 PM | Report abuse

It is amazing to me that these people, obviously Republicans, have the guts to critize anyone. Our country is going to hell under their party and their leadership. This party fueled with hatred is now turning on and spewing their venom on anyone who runs against them. What we need is someone who can stand up and shine a light on this evil group and keep it shining on their evil deeds until they all run for cover. Hillary Rodham Clinton, if she has the sand to do this; she has our vote!God help us.

Posted by: J &G | January 21, 2007 12:02 PM | Report abuse

On Milbank's column:

1) it is a column, not a news item

2) anybody who's seen the "Saint Hilary" stuff that her flacks have been putting out non-stop for the past two years, knows Milbank's observations fit perfectly.

Posted by: Duh! | January 21, 2007 11:44 AM | Report abuse

So, with two first class veteran well
seasoned Democratic Party Presidential
Candidates like Sen John Edwards and Sen
Hillary Clinton in the 2008 Presidential
Race,why do we even need a phony arrogant
inexperienced loser like Barack Obama,with
his own admitted cocaine use and his ties
to Chicago crime figures and crooked shady
personal real estate deals in the race,when
that alone makes Obama the biggest loser
since Windsurfer John Kerry!

Posted by: Sherry Kay | January 21, 2007 10:11 AM | Report abuse

So, with two first class veteran well
seasoned Democratic Party Presidential
Candidates like Sen John Edwards and Sen
Hillary Clinton in the 2008 Presidential
Race,why do we even need a phony arrogant
inexperienced loser like Barack Obama,with
his own admitted cocaine use and his ties
to Chicago crime figures and crooked shady
personal real estate deals in the race,when
that alone makes Obama the biggest loser
since Windsurfer John Kerry!

Posted by: Sherry Kay | January 21, 2007 10:11 AM | Report abuse

So now with both Sen. Hillary Clinton &
Former Sen. John Edwards in the 2008
Presidential Race,and who are top level
well experienced Democrat Candidates,that
must make some people,including myself,
wonder why the Hell we would need that
arrogant,inexperienced and possible cocaine
addict,with ties to crimnals,total loser
Barack Obama, and who would be stupid enough to vote for a loser like Obams?
And,especially so when a Clinton & Edwards
or Edwards & Clinton would be a shoe in!

Posted by: Sherry Kay | January 21, 2007 10:05 AM | Report abuse

So now with both Sen. Hillary Clinton &
Former Sen. John Edwards in the 2008
Presidential Race,and who are top level
well experienced Democrat Candidates,that
must make some people,including myself,
wonder why the Hell we would need that
arrogant,inexperienced and possible cocaine
addict,with ties to crimnals,total loser
Barack Obama, and who would be stupid enough to vote for a loser like Obams?
And,especially so when a Clinton & Edwards
or Edwards & Clinton would be a shoe in!

Posted by: Sherry Kay | January 21, 2007 10:04 AM | Report abuse

I forgot to add this appeal to our Democrat friends...

Choose Edwards, choose Obama, choose another worthy Democrat ... choose anybody but Hillary!

Please read Barbara Olson's book "THE FINAL DAYS -- The Last, Desperate Abuses of Power by the Clinton White House" for the unvarnished truth about Hill and Bill Clinton. The truth will set you free! (Barbara Olson was killed on September 11, 2001 in the plane that crashed into the Pentagon. Her book was published posthumously.)

HILL NO! SHE'S GOT TO GO! TM

www.hillnoshesgottogo.com

Posted by: hillnoshesgottogo | January 20, 2007 11:59 PM | Report abuse

Hillary Clinton

Hillary's here...
Hillary's there...
Hillary Clinton's everywhere!

Hail to the Chieftess and her First Mate
May God have mercy on our Ship-of-State
Pray God will give us a cleaned up slate!

Give no headlines of indiscretions
Give no more words of feigned intentions
Reveal yourself and your predilections!

We're all ears and we're all eyes
Watching and waiting as you spew forth your lies
Believe me, Mrs. Clinton, you're no surprise!

A Poem
by
Dayna Meserve
Naples, FL

HILL NO! SHE'S GOT TO GO! TM

www.hillnoshesgottogo.com

H R C
A presidential wannabe!
Yes? No? Maybe so...
HILL NO! SHE'S GOT TO GO! TM

www.hillnoshesgottogo.com

Posted by: hillnoshesgottogo | January 20, 2007 11:25 PM | Report abuse

Billary, Now hear This: NO BOMBO ERUPTIONS!

Posted by: Vic Anderson | January 20, 2007 10:47 PM | Report abuse

Darn Hillary. Just a month and a half after I quit throwing dollars to the Republicans. due to their electoral ineptness in the recent elections, now I'll be forced to resume but increase those gifts. You've cost me money by your decision to run even before you got a chance to raise my taxes!

Posted by: neoconmike | January 20, 2007 9:29 PM | Report abuse

Suspicious.Stupid!!!!!!!!

Posted by: Granny | January 20, 2007 8:00 PM | Report abuse

look out the window behind her. does that look like January to you?

Posted by: suspicious | January 20, 2007 7:26 PM | Report abuse

Geez. The right-wing is screaming bloody murder that a woman might become president. It is amazing to me all the evil they attribute to this wonderful, educated and brave woman.
Of course, she is ahead. Who would vote for waffler John McCain or wife cheater Rudy Guilliani?
But they have done their worst to Hillary over the years and she has handled it all with intelligence, dignity, and bravery.
I will enjoy watching all those woman-haters scream between now and the election. Germany has a female president, with less experience than Hillary and it is doing great. I can't wait for the inaugeration of Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton.
And no, this is not Bill's doing. This is Hillary's doing. Like it or not, Hillary is extremely well qualified in her own right.

Posted by: Southern Girl | January 20, 2007 7:07 PM | Report abuse

All the loud mouths hate Hillary. ( Limbaugh, etc). The rest of us lover her and will vote for her. Why? She is brilliant and tough beyond any of the males I have ever seen in the presidency. She has my vote! But I expect a lot of squealing from the Republican males who thought they owned everything worth while in the US. You go Hill!

Posted by: Southern Girl | January 20, 2007 6:58 PM | Report abuse

All the loud mouths hate Hillary. ( Limbaugh, etc). The rest of us lover her and will vote for her. Why? She is brilliant and tough beyond any of the males I have ever seen in the presidency. She has my vote! But I expect a lot of squealing from the Republican males who thought they owned everything worth while in the US. You go Hill!

Posted by: Southern Girl | January 20, 2007 6:58 PM | Report abuse

'As if anyone needed more proof that the political media can and will say anything about the Clintons, no matter how baseless, insulting, or far-fetched, The Washington Post's Dana Milbank came through with a handy reminder.

In his January 17 "Washington Sketch" column, Milbank wrote about the postponement of a press conference scheduled for the day before in which Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-NY), Rep. John McHugh (R-NY), and Sen. Evan Bayh (D-IN) were scheduled to discuss Iraq. The press conference was delayed for a day because McHugh fell ill during the trio's trip to Iraq and stayed behind in Germany to recover.

Milbank, however, suggested that the delay occurred so Clinton could avoid speaking on the day that Sen. Barack Obama (D-IL) announced the formation of a presidential exploratory committee. Milbank also mocked a Clinton spokesperson's explanation for the delay in announcing the new press conference, writing: "And we lost the phone number. And the dog ate my homework. And I think I hear my mom calling."

As if it wasn't bad enough that Milbank suggested that the press conference was delayed because of Obama's announcement when Milbank knew the delay was because of McHugh's illness, Milbank's "dog ate my homework" snark wasn't even original.

On January 16, Time.com Washington editor Ana Marie Cox wrote in response to Clinton's office's explanation for the postponement: "Also, the dog ate their Iraq report." The next day, after the press conference occurred, Cox added:

The only small bit of unplanned levity was Rep. McHugh's confirmation that his "illness" yesterday was, in fact, exhaustion due to "dehydration," otherwise known as "Lohanitis." They're not even really trying to make this sound credible, are they?'

Not to be outdone, New York Times reporter Anne Kornblut suggested -- without bothering with such niceties as evidence -- that Clinton went so far as to fake a cell-phone conversation in order to avoid questions about Obama:

Brushing past reporters in the Senate, Mrs. Clinton -- conspicuously talking into her cell phone; whether there was anyone on the other end of the line, or not, could not be confirmed -- went into the chamber to vote, then posed for an all-ladies photograph with Diane Sawyer and female senators.

That's where we are: The New York Times, The Washington Post, and Time, in a desperate race to the bottom, simply making things up about a leading potential presidential candidate in order to mock her.

As Bob Somerby explains, crediting Atrios (our own Duncan Black) for the insight: "Under 'the Clinton rules of journalism,' you can say any goddamn thing you want -- as long as you say it about the Clintons. This [sic] rules have already begun to affect the way Campaign 08 is covered."

Indeed, the "Clinton rules of journalism" aren't just for the Clintons.

Not when ABC runs segments asking, "Just who the hell is Barack Obama? And why, in these dangerous times, should he be entrusted with the most powerful job on Earth?"

Not when Fox News host John Gibson devotes a segment to pointing out that Obama "is -- get this -- a cigarette smoker. The point is: What else do we not know about Barack Obama?"

Not when John Solomon, formerly of the Associated Press and now at The Washington Post, offers the latest in a continuing series of shoddy hatchet jobs on prominent Democrats. (More on that below.)

Simply put, you can say any damn thing you want about progressives.

Glenn Beck can publicly fantasize about killing Michael Moore and call Katrina survivors "scumbags" -- and be given a television show by CNN. (He was also recently hired to be a regular commentator on ABC's Good Morning America.)

Ann Coulter can publicly suggest assassinating a sitting president and say she wishes The New York Times building had been blown up -- and end up on the cover of Time.

Rush Limbaugh can call a teenage girl a dog, suggest a sitting president and first lady are responsible for the murder of their close friend, and generally behave like an all-around jerk -- and get hired by Disney-owned ESPN.'

Posted by: your 'librul' media at work... | January 20, 2007 5:06 PM | Report abuse

Indeed interesting that Hillary has some 41 percent. One factor is the Clinton name and Bill should be credited for that. Hopefully Bill will be in good shape 2 years from now. If not it will cost her votes.

Posted by: Fred | January 20, 2007 5:05 PM | Report abuse

Good for you Hillary! It's so good to see two engaging candidates in the Democratic primary, for once.

Gotta tell you - right now I am an Obama supporter because I think he'd do the best job of any of the candidates at heading our executive branch. But if you believe you deserve my vote more than he does, show us how and why!!!

America deserves a great race from you two! Let the best candidate win, and give us an example of democracy at its best!

Posted by: Golgi | January 20, 2007 5:03 PM | Report abuse

Its all about the richest cliches - building bridges ; a new deal ; a contract with the people
What about the substance - the inequalities in society ;crime wellfare education - and lets leave the lephant in the room unmolested - the battle for the white houdse should not be throughh Bagdad.
Hillary was pro war ; That is her past and probabaly most enduring statement. Just remember it .
Pro this awfullness that we cant seem to honourably extricate ourselves from; but how could we - we went in dishonourably
And Clinton was a devotee of the war ; sending soldiers to war when neither she nor her husband ever had to serve or endure.
Again some honour there. Let her go to bagdad and lets hear her live webcasts from the soldiers and the Iraqui people .
Lets broaden this farcical conversation , and bring in Kermit the frog , and Donald duck , and Miss Piggy . lets have a live podcast from the playboy mansion with those interesting girls from middle America.

Posted by: donmacnamara | January 20, 2007 5:02 PM | Report abuse


'The basic concept of the president's plan is that employer-provided health insurance, now treated as a fringe benefit exempt from taxation, would no longer be entirely tax-free. Workers could be taxed if their coverage exceeded limits set by the government.'

So now, the government will be telling you how much insurance you're allowed to have? Whatever happened to so-called 'free enterprise'? What next, are they going to tell me how big my house can be?

Posted by: whata joke | January 20, 2007 4:48 PM | Report abuse

'President Bush intends to use the State of the Union address on Tuesday to tackle the rising cost of health care with a one-two punch: tax breaks to help low-income people buy health insurance and tax increases for workers whose health plans cost more than the national average.'

"I will propose a tax reform designed to help make basic private insurance more affordable,"

Oh, he's going to punish people with good health insurance -- and of course those who live in more expensive states -- by raising their taxes? I'm sorry, i thought republicans didn't raise taxes. But of course this will only be on the middle class and the working poor, not the wealthy, so that's okay then.

The key too, is 'basic insurance'. their idea is that everyone should have a very basic plan, that covers almost nothing and that you should have to pay for most stuff out of your own pocket, and that somehow, this make rates more 'competititve'. What it will do is make most people simply not get medical care, becuse even the most simple procedures cost thousands. It's not a solution, it's another harebrained voodoo economic proposal by people who have always had more money than they ever knew what to do with.

Posted by: Anonymous | January 20, 2007 4:46 PM | Report abuse

Thor, your comment that Hillary is not as smart as Bill because she got A's at Yale Law School only after she studied is ridiculous. As a law student, I will respect anybody who manages to get A's, studying or not. Having to work doesn't mean you are "not smart." In fact, I think many people have noted her diligent work ethic and respect it. Add to this the fact that getting into the nation's top law school in the 1970s as a woman was no mean feat.

Posted by: freeDom | January 20, 2007 3:49 PM | Report abuse

Very exciting - she will be an excellent candidate and could very well be elected President in 2008. All the naysayers should remember how they all said she could not be elected in NY in 2000. But she was - in a landslide, despite 40 Million spent against her. Then she was re-elected in a bigger landslide.

Posted by: csh | January 20, 2007 3:31 PM | Report abuse

'There are two major political parties in the United States -- the Republican and the Democratic -- but you wouldn't know that from many of today's supposedly "objective" journalists. No, like GOP speakers and rightwing talk radio hosts, more and more "reporters" talk about the Democrat Party, considered an epithet (and not a kindly one). CBS's Scott Pelley irked more than a few people in his 60 Minutes interview with President Bush by his regular references to the "Democrat Party," and I've heard similar references on NPR, among others.

Media Matters has been all over this issue, with examples from the New York Times, Chicago Tribune, AP, CNN and CBS among others, and continues to track them. Why does it matter? Words mean something -- and that's not just the editor-within obsessing about style guides. Media Matters cites Hendrik Hertzberg's essay in The New Yorker:

There's no great mystery about the motives behind this deliberate misnaming. "Democrat Party" is a slur, or intended to be--a handy way to express contempt. Aesthetic judgments are subjective, of course, but "Democrat Party" is jarring verging on ugly. It fairly screams "rat." At a slightly higher level of sophistication, it's an attempt to deny the enemy the positive connotations of its chosen appellation.

Hertzberg says that Sen. Joe McCarthy "made it [the 'Democrat' party] a regular part of his arsenal of insults," but the usage was pushed in the 1990s by Newt Gingrich and Frank Luntz, whom he quotes:

"Those two letters actually do matter," Luntz said the other day. He added that he recently finished writing a book--it's entitled Words That Work--and has been diligently going through the galley proofs taking out the hundreds of "ic"s that his copy editor, one of those partisan Dems, had stuck in.

President George W. Bush, unlike his GOP predecessors GHW Bush and Ronald Reagan, uses the party slur exclusively. And while some MSM journos follow suit, a few such as Washington Post blogger Dan Froomkin, object, pointing out that "Bush's alleged commitment to bipartisanship would probably be easier to swallow if he referred to the opposition party by its proper name."

Posted by: Anonymous | January 20, 2007 3:31 PM | Report abuse

' Ken Mehlman, the departing chairman of the Republican National Committee, warned on Thursday that his party would suffer even more devastating losses in 2008 than it did in 2006 if it did not reach out to minorities and address voter concerns about ethics.

In his farewell speech after two years as chairman, Mr. Mehlman said that the 2006 elections, in which Republicans lost control of both houses of Congress, was not a fluke that could be attributed to the calendar, a few scandal-tainted candidates and the tough going in Iraq.

"Each of these factors combined to create an environment that was unfavorable for Republicans," said Mr. Mehlman, one of the chief architects of President Bush's two national election victories. "But, folks, these factors cannot be an excuse."

He said that if Republican officials shrugged off the repudiation of the party in the 2006 elections they would lose the White House in 2008 and remain in the minority in Congress indefinitely.

Posted by: the horse's mouth | January 20, 2007 3:29 PM | Report abuse

Greg Djerejian deconstructs the incoherence and series of internal inconsistences in which Kagan's "surge" plan is grounded. What Djerejian really demonstrates is that treating 'Kagan's surge as some sort of "plan" to win the war is to give it far more credit than it deserves. None of the details or even "substance" of the plan matter. Its only real objective is to provide an excuse for continuing the war ("hey, we found a great new plan to succeed! You owe us a chance to try it") and, more importantly, to ensure that we continue to increase, rather than contract, our military presence in the Middle East. As long as that is achieved, nothing else matters, which is what accounts for Kagan's embrace of multiple contradicatory premises.'

Posted by: Anonymous | January 20, 2007 3:26 PM | Report abuse


'Senator John D. Rockefeller IV, the West Virginia Democrat who took control of the committee this month, said that the administration was building a case against Tehran even as American intelligence agencies still know little about either Iran's internal dynamics or its intentions in the Middle East.

"To be quite honest, I'm a little concerned that it's Iraq again," Senator Rockefeller said during an interview in his office. "This whole concept of moving against Iran is bizarre."

Mr. Rockefeller said he believed President Bush was getting poor advice from advisers who argue that an uncompromising stance toward the government in Tehran will serve American interests.

"I don't think that policy makers in this administration particularly understand Iran," he said.

The comments of Mr. Rockefeller reflect the mounting concerns being voiced by other influential Democrats, including the Senate majority leader, Harry Reid of Nevada, and Senator Joseph R. Biden Jr. of Delaware, about the Bush administration's approach to Iran. The Democrats have warned that the administration is moving toward a confrontation with Iran when the United States has neither the military resources nor the support among American allies and members of Congress to carry out such a move.

Because Mr. Rockefeller is one of a handful of lawmakers with access to the most classified intelligence about the threat from Iran, his views carry particular weight. He has also historically been more tempered in his criticism of the White House on national security issues than some of his Democratic colleagues.

Mr. Rockefeller was biting in his criticism of how President Bush has dealt with the threat of Islamic radicalism since the Sept. 11 attacks, saying he believed that the campaign against international terrorism was "still a mystery" to the president.

"I don't think he understands the world," Mr. Rockefeller said. "I don't think he's particularly curious about the world. I don't think he reads like he says he does."

Last week, the Intelligence Committee heard testimony from John D. Negroponte, the director of national intelligence, that an emboldened Iran was casting a shadow across the Middle East and could decide to send Hezbollah operatives on missions to hit American targets.'

That's exactly what will happen if we DO hit Iran. He has it a little backwards. The Straits of Hormuz will be closed and gas will be $20 a gallon. It will destroy the economy -- we're already so in debt we're lving on borrowed time -- and money. From China. Who are now shooting down orbiting satellites. We're about to get into it with them, too.

Iran, The New Boogyman. Wonder when they'll start talkng about WMD, mushroom clouds, dirty bombs, etc? Crank up the paranoia machine, the boy is crying wolf again.

And with what army are we going to invade anything?

Betcha 100-1 the state of the union will be all about Iran, and how they're, you know, the biggest threat to the universe.

Posted by: drindl | January 20, 2007 3:13 PM | Report abuse

Thor, I think many people use the computers at work, so this site will buzz on Monday. Also, other people are busy getting ready for the football playoffs for the Super Bowl. Which is the perfect sport to define the GOP vs the Dems for 2008, it is political Super Bowl.

To whomever, .....So Bush would not be where he is now without being the son of Daddy Bush? Wow, that is a good argument for the Hillary people, since she would not be where she is without her husband. So which Dynasty is better? It is up to the people to decide with their votes.

Remember this FACT, Gov Bush of Texas had competition. NO one handed him the nominatin.
There were 11 Republicans who entered the 1999 race, including John Kasich of Ohio and Gary Bauer. Kasich dropped out before the August Straw poll in Ames, Iowa. By January 2000, many voters only had 3 choices on their ballots, Bush, McCain and Alan Keyes.

Today, Bill Schneider of CNN just said there are 14 GOP names and 12 Democrats.
The Zogby poll of December 2006 shows the Republicans are:
Rudy 28%
McCain 28%
Condi 12%
Newt 8%
Romney 4%
Thompson 2%
Brownback 2%
Huckabee 2%
Hunter 2%
*******
Zogby added Jim Gilmore in January and he got 2%
but no mention of Tom Tancredo or George Pataki. Where is their support? And who are the other 2 Republicans to make up the 14 names considered by Bill Schneider?

Here is a huge FACT,
the Marist poll of Nov. 27 to Dec. 3, 2006 shows 45% of the people WANT Condi Rice to run.
Quinnipiac shows she has 56% LIKEABLE rating and the same people rate Condi as the most powerful woman in America, at 45%.
Hillary is seen as powerful by 29% and Nancy Pelosi by 23%.
Quinnipiac also shows the people say Condi is qualified to run at 50%.

Gallup in November shows Rudy at 28%
McCain at 26%
and Condi at 13%.
Newt at 7%.

AP/AOL of October 2006 shows Condi in a tie with Rudy and McCain, each getting 1 vote out of every 10.

Right now Secretary of State Condi is at Camp David meeting with President Bush to give a full report about her Shuttle Diplomacy and all of the Arab leaders she met in the past week. Look for her words in part of the State of the Union speech on Tuesday.

Condi has not been campaigning, YET she is favored by Republican voters and conservative voters to run and they are keeping her name in the 2008 race.

Gallup also shows that if Condi Rice was selected as the presidential candidate, she is rated at 68% acceptable. NOW THAT IS ALL NEWS FOR DEBATE.

Posted by: Tina | January 20, 2007 3:11 PM | Report abuse

Neither H. Clinton nor Obama can win. Obama has zero experience, and too many people in the middle will never support H. Clinton because they hate her.

The only credible nominee would be Gore.

Otherwise, it's four more years of Republican Party.

Posted by: Sandy | January 20, 2007 3:05 PM | Report abuse

'A segment on global warming on the January 17 edition of Fox News' Your World featured on-screen graphics that read: "Global Warming?" and "Nation in a Deep Freeze: What Global Warming?" Host Neil Cavuto began the segment by noting freezing temperatures in Texas, Arizona, and California and asking if these temperatures were "[p]roof that all this hype over global warming could be just that -- hype?"'

Posted by: can anyne really be this stupid? | January 20, 2007 3:03 PM | Report abuse


'"Hillary is intelligent" is a MYTH. Just because she is unattractive, that does not mean she is smart.'

yeah, thor, you a republican? sure sound like one. so you wouldn't be voting for her anyway. so smart women are ugly, huh? i guess they scare you.

i saw brownback announced today. i don't think anyone else noticed or cared. here's more that lying scumbag abu gonzales:

'Feingold's first question - "do you know of any one in the country who opposed eavesdropping on terrorists?"
Gonzales: "Sure - if you look at blogs today, there is a lot of concern about all types of eavesdropping, who don't want us eavesdropping at all.

Feingold: Do you know anyone in government who ever took that position?

Gonzales: No, but that is not what I said.

Feingold: It is a disgrace and disservice to your office and the President to have accused people on this Committee of opposing eavesdropping on terrorists.

Gonzales: I didn't have you in mind or anyone on the Committee when I referred to people who oppose eavesdropping on terrorists. Perish the thought.

Feingold: Oh, well it's nice that you didn't have us "in your mind" when making those accusations, but given that you and the President were running around the country accusing people of opposing eavesdropping on terrorists in the middle of an election, the fact that you didn't have Congressional Democrats in "mind" isn't significant. Your intent was to make people think that anyone who opposed the "TSP" did not want to eavesdrop on terrorists, even though that was false. No Democrats oppose eavesdropping on terrorists.

Gonzales: I wasn't referring to Democrats.'

'Perish the thought' he says. what a condescending, pretentious little moron.

Posted by: drndl | January 20, 2007 2:53 PM | Report abuse

Bush for president would not get ONE vote if he was not George Bush, son of president.

Bush has ZERO executive experience. Wait until his opponents (Dem and Rep) tear his apart. His small time crook past as the owner of a baseball team and its infamous records may have been dormant as long as he was not running, but will sure not remain so now!

If Bush is nominated,it will be the best gift the Dem Party ever got. Not only will he lose, by a wide margin, but he will take BOTH House and Senate to the bottom with him, restoring Dem rule everywhere in Wash DC and nationwide.

Posted by: Thor is an idiot | January 20, 2007 2:42 PM | Report abuse

Rhodam for president would not get ONE vote if she was not Hillary CLINTON, former FIRST LADY of a popular and intelligent and (luck helping) successful president.

Rhodam has ZERO executive experience. Wait until her opponents (Dem and Rep) tear her apart. Her small time crook past at the Rose Law Firm and its infamous records may have been dormant as long as she was not running, but will sure not remain so now!

If Rhodam is nominated,it will be the best gift the Rep Party ever got. Not only will she lose, by a wide margin, but she will take BOTH House and Senate to the bottom with her, restoring Rep rule everywhere in Wash DC and nationwide.

Posted by: Thor | January 20, 2007 1:53 PM | Report abuse

Senator Clinton is a respected, competent public official who would make a solid President. The credibility and experience she brings to the table certainly overshadows that brought by our current President in 2000. She would be a center-left leader who would correct the bearings of this country after the last 12-14 years of short-sighted and divisive Republican leadership. I want competence, period, and Senator Clinton has it.

Posted by: Jeff | January 20, 2007 1:48 PM | Report abuse

I also looked at the NY Times first, and, unlike the case of the obscure Governor of Iowa, where the NYT allowed its readers to post their opinions, just like the Wash Post is doing today, they have not so far done so in the case of Hillary, obviously scared as hell that her candidacy (and her arrogant but content-free remarks about "being in to win" or sth, as if it was up to her and not up to the American Voter)would provoke an overwhelmingly negative reaction by the voters.

Posted by: Thor | January 20, 2007 1:29 PM | Report abuse

It was interesting to note the difference in position on the NYTimes site homepage given to Barack Obama's announcement and Hillary Clinton's...Mrs Clinton received full page "top of the fold" positioning and Mr. Obama was below the fold buried in the other days news...very curious...I unfortunately didn't see how the WaPo positioned it...maybe a bit more neutrally?

Posted by: Cate L | January 20, 2007 1:15 PM | Report abuse

The Presidential list keeps on growing for 08! We have Democratic choices to make! Let the games to begin!

Posted by: RAH | January 20, 2007 12:52 PM | Report abuse

Hillary Clinton for President in 2008? Spare me and America. Hillary is a guaranteed recipe for defeat in the tradition of the Dem's presidential death wishes of Al Gore and John Kerry who both squandered sure win shots at the White House.

A liberal, elitist opportunist who has spent the last six years trying to dress herself up as a centrist/moderate, Hillary is fooling no one. Polls have shown that 48% of Americans will not vote for her under any circumstances.

Unlike Gore and Kerry who could have won - should have won - but who ran a couple of the worst presidential campaigns in the last 100 years, Hillary's candidacy is dead on arrival.

2008 is once again the Dem's race for the White House to lose. Hillary's nomination will ensure the loss.

Posted by: IMHO | January 20, 2007 12:52 PM | Report abuse

I am quite conservative and would never vote for her, but I admire her as a politican. She is very bright, hard-working, ambitious, and always seems to be where she needs to be on any given issue. Republicans and Democrats would do well not to underestimate her.

Posted by: joetro | January 20, 2007 12:48 PM | Report abuse

"Hillary is intelligent" is a MYTH. Just because she is unattractive, that does not mean she is smart.

As the Clinton's own classmates at Yale Law: They are on record, years ago, that while Bill barely studied, he routinely got As, as did Hillary, who, however, burned the midnight oil to do so.

Hillary is not half as smart as Bill. And Politically, she is not one tenth as smart. She is disciplined and will have 100s of millions of $ donations from guilty-feeling do gooder billionaires, but that alone is not a suffcient condition for her to win in 2008.

Posted by: Thor | January 20, 2007 12:21 PM | Report abuse

I must say I am surprised at the very low traffic here, I expected to be flooded by 10,000 posts already, but instead there are only SEVEN (at this point)??? Even the so-called "Doctor", Amateurologist (rather than meteorologist) Cullen of the weather channel has had 1,000s of posts on her site, 98% of them castigating her suggestion to revoke the licences of her colleagues that dare question her extreme views on global warming.

ANyway, back to Hillary "Rodham"'s candidacy.

I voted for Bubba in 1992 because the alternatives were a deranged billionaire with econ illiterate, protectionist views that fortunately self-desructed by his own whackiness and insanity, and Bush Sr, a nice fellow, whose VP could not spell potato. So I had no choice but to vote for the ethically challenged, but econ literate and intelligent Bubba.

IF Hillary convinces me that she will be as MODERATE and ECON LITERATE as Bubba, and her opponent is an econ illiterate (which neither McCain nor Giuliani are), I could consider voting for her too. But I seriously doubt it.

However, Obama, while much more likeable and ethical fellow than Hillary, is an econ extremist, not econ literate, and I doubt I will risk the future of the Stellar US Economy by entrusting it to his amateur and ideological leftie hands.

Posted by: Thor | January 20, 2007 12:16 PM | Report abuse

I welcome her to the race and to the national dialogue. She is intelligent, progressive and competant. And I was elated by her comment that she "know[s] how Washington Republicans think, how they operate, and how to beat them." I believe her. I've always considered the Clintons as a kind of two-headed mythical beast that eats the words of its detractors and grows stronger for having been attacked. Let's never forget that at the very moment the Senate was voting to impeach her husband, Hillary was having a meeting with Harold Ickes to plan her run for the Senate. I want that kind of spirit spearheading the '08 campaign. You go girl.

Posted by: ed shea | January 20, 2007 12:02 PM | Report abuse

731 days and counting.

Posted by: Nor'Easter | January 20, 2007 12:01 PM | Report abuse

She is what America needs as a president. She has the ability, confidence and personality to convice American people. Hillary can get us the respect in the entire world we have lost with Bush presidency. Finally, i feel she can handle domestic problems better than any other candidates. Also her presidency will be good for environment, middle class people and everybody of us...

Posted by: johnalva | January 20, 2007 11:47 AM | Report abuse

I am officially sick of the presidential campaigns already. I may not vote for anyone who has declared at this point. I think they should be doing the people's business not running for office a month and a half after the last election. Now today Hillary announced running? I may vote for that person who waits until May or June of '08 after the rest of this crowd has burnt themselves out flying around the country stacking up the cash.

Posted by: lochnessmonster | January 20, 2007 11:47 AM | Report abuse

She's officially in. God help us all.

Posted by: Angela | January 20, 2007 11:37 AM | Report abuse

I think the Clinton Obama buzz needs to end. I don't view either as generally electable. They appeal to some people very greatly, I think that is good, because the Democrats have long suffered in the last two elections from blah candidates. Of the two I'd say Obama is more electable as he doesn't have as much baggage to public knows about. But in the end I don't think a one term senator easy to elect even if race doesn't become an issue.

He would make an excellent vice presidential candidate. That goes for Clinton too actually. It's too bad the political process doesn't have more cooperation. Perhaps Clinton/Obama could spend their political capital getting capital for someone truly electable.

Upon just skimming the contents of wikipedia on the formerly blogged top 5 candidates I'd say Richardson looks the most qualified on paper.

Posted by: Brian | January 20, 2007 11:23 AM | Report abuse

She talks about listening, but has never even read a blog before. Go to the "blog" on her website. Its nothing more than a standard feedback form.

Her announcement might be the worst timed of all so far.

Posted by: Will C | January 20, 2007 10:32 AM | Report abuse

The comments to this entry are closed.

 
 
RSS Feed
Subscribe to The Post

© 2010 The Washington Post Company