I don't approve of staging a question but getting a question asked while campaigning is not the same thing as staging a whole pretend press conference IMHO.
Quote:
But the source of the question was no coincidence—at this event “they wanted a question from a college student,” Gallo-Chasanoff said. She also noted that staffers prompted Clinton to call on her and another who had been approached before the event, although Clinton used her discretion to select questions and called on people who had not been prepped before hand. Some of the questions asked were confusing and clearly off-message. ...
Besides the one question it sounds like everyone else's was random.
Hillary Clinton effectively batted back attacks from her Democratic rivals in last night's CNN debate, but laid the seeds for future Republican attacks on her trade positions, which to be charitable appear evasive and tricky. She's an effective debater, but in large part because she so clearly manages to avoid answering specific questions about her views.
Asked if she agreed with Ross Perot that the 1993 NAFTA free trade agreement her husband pushed through Congress was a mistake, she immediately commenced evasive maneuvers. "All I can remember from that is a bunch of charts." When pressed, she would only say: "NAFTA was a mistake to the extent that it did not deliver on what we hoped it would."
Mrs. Clinton is clearly trying to have it both ways. On the one hand, she waffles on NAFTA and calls for a "timeout" on any new trade agreements. But she also doesn't want to explicitly repudiate her husband's free trade record. As the Los Angeles Times reported last month: "Appearing before free-trade supporters, she has praised the landmark North American Free Trade Agreement, which is loathed by many unions. But speaking to a union audience as a presidential candidate, Clinton said NAFTA hurt workers."
One of the biggest problems for Mrs. Clinton is Mrs. Clinton, who effusively praised NAFTA in her best-selling 2003 memoir, writing that "a free trade zone in North America -- the largest free trade zone in the world -- would expand U.S. exports, create jobs and ensure that our economy was reaping the benefits, not the burdens of globalization."
Is it any wonder that former Senator Bill Bradley, a 2000 Democratic presidential candidate, openly questions if Democrats are being given enough information about what a Hillary Clinton presidency would be like? "We don't know what Hilary would do," he says, "because she hasn't gotten down to the three or four things that she'd do."
We need more debates like this where she doesn't answer ANYTHING and we need her opponents to [c]all her on her evasiveness.
Unfortunately, however, the Mainstream Media seems to have coronated her already and, as a result, I'm not sure they are adequately covering all of her gaffes, non-answers, etc., arising out of the debates.
Hillary sure rose to the challenge of answering the hard questions and issues of the day like "does she like diamonds or pearls?"
And yes, it was another planted question. This time by CNN. Funny how these things only ever seem to benefit Hillary Clinton.
Sort of makes you pessimistic about the whole process. Whether it's Jeff Gannon tossing Bush some b.s. softball question or Wolf Blitzer putting some college girl up to it for the benefit of Hillary, it's the same deception, the same bullshit, the same self-preservation of the establishment elite by a media that seems to be in collusion with this sort of manipulation of the political process.
Unless the people rise up en masse and say ENOUGH, partisanship be damned, ABSOLUTELY NOTHING is going to change, despite the country's best wishes.
Looking at the debate transcript it seems the diamond & pearls question was the only light question. It was a silly question but took up very little time. What other questions do you feel were like that Whomod?
One thing about this debate was that the other top candidates (Edwards & Obama) performed rather poorly IMHO. The debate started out talking about Hillary & how she's percieved as triangulating issues and they fumbled while she put them on the defense.
Funny. Last night on CNN I saw a clip of an exchange between Hillary and Obama and I (and, apparently the host of the show I was watching) thought Obama cleaned her clock.
Funny. Last night on CNN I saw a clip of an exchange between Hillary and Obama and I (and, apparently the host of the show I was watching) thought Obama cleaned her clock.
Most analysis I've seen pretty much acknowledges that Hillary won it. Obama even tripped up on a question about immigration that he was critical of Hillary on. What part did he "clean her clock" btw? Here's the transcript if you care to point those parts out... NYTimes
Funny. Last night on CNN I saw a clip of an exchange between Hillary and Obama and I (and, apparently the host of the show I was watching) thought Obama cleaned her clock.
Hardball had progressive radio giants Mark Green and Ed Schultz on to talk about Hillary’s big win at the debate in Las Vegas Thursday night and apparently Schultz didn’t get the memo.
Quote:
Schultz: “I think all this postmortem of this debate about how wonderful Hillary is a bridge too far. I think it’s a sad day when a candidate has to start saying well its mud-slinging if you point out what my voting record is.” … “CNN, and especially Wolf, I think they were bending over for Hillary big-time last night.”
Ed also went on to make several other good points too that went against what’s become conventional wisdom regarding who “won” the debate. I’m not saying Hillary did poorly, because it surely was an improvement over her last debate in Philly and clearly she owned the audience all night who were quick to come to her defense to boo Edwards and Obama when each tried to attack her record, but she had a lot of help from CNN too. Not only was the network completely unfair in the amount of time they gave to most of the other candidates, they also were caught planting a softball question from the audience specifically for her to end the night that they had to admit to and then they followed that by having James Carville and David Gergen featured on their post-debate show, both of whom had previously held positions in her husband’s administration and Carville is currently listed as an “informal advisor” to her campaign. That’s quite a coup for any campaign to pull off and should be cause for anyone to re-evaluate the entire evening. Quite frankly, if Hillary won the debate, then any record of the win deserves an asterisk beside it.
Yeah, arguably, Hillary won the debate but based on all the points raised above, it seems as if the media wants to make sure that's what happens. As I said, whether Jeff Gannon does it or CNN does it, I don't want ANY amount of time spent trying to dishonestly make life easier and make the candidate look better than they'd look otherwise thru softball questions that ABSOLUTELY NO ONE CARES ABOUT, that don't answer any issues facing anyone, and is manipulatively designed to show that Clinton has humour.
Hillary may well be the Democratic candidate, and i'll support her as the lesser evil when the time comes, but until then, is it too much to ask for that these debates give the American public a FAIR opportunity to decide based on the issues and not based on how good an evader you are or how well the media help you out?
Having Carville on the post debate was lame on CNN's part but he's pretty well known as a Clinton person. Gergen has also worked for two Republican Presidents so I guess I don't think it was a problem having him on.
The media in general however had no problem being critical of Hillary after the previous debate when she didn't win that one. She's in the lead so when she makes a mistake in a debate, it's a headline. Is it really fair to generalize the same media as somehow conspiring together to get Hillary elected?
Lame is the word for it. I thought James Carville completely discredited himself after the '06 election when he was in a petulant fit on TV over the fact that Howard Dean ignored him and his DLC Republican-Lite election losing strategies and actually won an election and raised record cash using Dean's 50 State strategy, and not only won, but won in a landslide no less for like the first time in almost a decade.
Quote:
The Plank: After the Republicans have admitted to a thumping, why is it that the only one complaining on the Democratic side is James Carville, who today in addition to trashing Howard Dean, praised the RNC, the outfit that brought us the racist ad that defeated Harold Ford, James' supposed candidate for Chair?
Perhaps he's not aware that under Dean in this midterm election the DNC has raised record cash — all hard dollars — including three times as much from major donors, eight times as much online and made a $30 million investment in the '06 cycle, three times as much as the DNC put into the last midterm. Not to mention we made an $8m overhaul of our voter file which was successfully used in 47 states and through the 50 state strategy invested in states like Pennsylvania, Kansas, Indiana and Montana where we had critical victories on Tuesday.
In fact, it’s painfully obvious that he's done nothing for Democrats for a long time — and it’s high time we put an end the notion that James Carville is an ally of — or should ever be considered a legitimate spokesman for — the Democratic Party. He talks a good game, but let’s not forget his support for Scooter Libby or the phone call he made to Matalin the day after the 2004 presidential election, alerting her to John Kerry’s decision to contest the provisional ballots in Ohio which ultimately resulted in a call to Cheney and a heads up to Republican Secretary of State for Ohio, Kenneth Blackwell…and we know how that turned out.
Sort of makes you wonder about him and his real agenda.
So now we gt him and his bunch back, riding the coattails of Hillary Clinton. Since I'm guessing Rahm Emmanuel and his weasley spineless persona will never be a viable candidate. This is why i so dislike Clinton. She is the epitome of the DLC. A consumate politician who will ride all the way to the election on trying to play all the angles, say all the right things, take the most safe and ultimately meaningless route. No visionary, all politician. And as the DLC track record shows, ALL LOSER.
I was re-reading Kennedy's "New Frontier" speech the other day and came across this:
Originally Posted By: John F. Kennedy New Frontier Speech
For courage , not complacency, is our need today; leadership, not salesmanship. And the only valid test of leadership is the ability to lead, and lead vigorously. A tired nation...
There may be those who wish to hear more -- more promises to this group or that, more harsh rhetoric about the men in the Kremlin as a substitute for policy, more assurances of a golden future, where taxes are always low and the subsidies are always high. But my promises are in the platform that you have adopted. Our ends will not be won by rhetoric, and we can have faith in the future only if we have faith in ourselves.
Hillary is all salesmanship, no leadership. But honestly, so are most of the other candidates. And fuck, we're all so tired of another politician, especially a Democrat who after '06 still thinks victory lies in the DLC formula of trying to be weasley timid Republican-Lite.
Well I don't think Hillary is all salemanship & no leadership. Her plan for universal health care that she rolled out a couple of months ago is a good example of her being more than what her critics paint her as.
There was something about this debate going in that bothered me too. Drudge came out before it claiming that Hillary's people told Blitzer to go easy on her. (he heard it from an anymous top Clinton aid!) Blitzer himself said nobody from her campaign talked to him. Even so Mathews from Hardball ran with it right along with Limbaugh & the other RNC media people.
FOXNews Slips Picture Of Hillary Clinton Into Unrelated Anti-Immigration Story
fOX sure seems to have these sorts of 'mistakes' on a fairly regular basis.
(Lincoln Chafee is a Republican BTW)
(breaking headline, not the 4 indictments of course. 1) Obstruction of Justice (misleading the Grand Jury). 2) False Statement (lying to the FBI by saying Tim Russert told him about Plame). 4) Perjury (lying under oath re: Russert) 5) Perjury (lying under oath about conversations with other reporters)....)
ah, but what can one eally expect from a propaganda network....
The frontrunning Democratic presidential candidate wrote the Army secretary on Wednesday to call for an end to the Pentagon's "outrageous" repayment policy, according to a press release received by RAW STORY.
"I write to request the immediate reversal of an Army policy that requires repayment of enlistment bonuses by medically discharged wounded soldiers. According to recent media reports, the Army is directing wounded soldiers who have been medically discharged to repay their enlistment bonuses because they are unable to complete their term of enlistment," Sen. Clinton (D-NY) wrote Secretary of the Army Pete Geren. "This policy is outrageous and should be reversed immediately."
Clinton continued, "Soldiers who have enlisted in the Army have made a commitment to serve our nation. With our nation at war in Iraq and Afghanistan, we should honor those who make that commitment. By agreeing to serve and then suffering wounds during their service, these soldiers have earned their bonuses. To ask soldiers who are being medically discharged to return their bonuses dishonors their service and undermines the Army's stated commitment to soldiers and their families."
Clinton referred to other woes experienced by veterans in the recent past, ever since the 2003 invasion of Iraq.
"Since the beginning of the war in Iraq, wounded soldiers have faced numerous bureaucratic hurdles that have resulted in treatment that does not measure up to their service and sacrifice," Clinton wrote. "Whether it is the disgraceful treatment as outpatients at Walter Reed Army Medical center or the pay problems experienced by wounded soldiers, many wounded soldiers have been treated with indifference and neglect."
Clinton continued, "As a Senator on the Armed Services Committee, I have continuously raised the problems faced by wounded soldiers to Army leadership at hearings, meetings, through correspondence and by offering legislation. At each point, I have been assured by the Army and Defense Department leadership that they are working to improve the treatment of wounded soldiers. In light of this history, it shocks the conscience that the Army could demand that wounded soldiers return their enlistment bonuses."
"Therefore, I again request a reversal of the flawed policy of requiring wounded soldiers to repay their enlistment bonuses," Clinton added. "I also request any data that reflects the total number of medically discharged wounded soldiers who have been affected by this enlistment bonus repayment policy to date and the total amount of enlistment bonus repayment money collected to date."
Clinton vowed, "If the Administration does not reverse this misguided policy, Congress should pass legislation to set this right."
The press release further noted that "Senator Clinton announced that she will introduce legislation that requires the military services to continue to pay certain bonuses to a member of the Armed Forces who is medically retired or separated due to a combat-related injury. The legislation would amend Title 37 of the United States Code to guarantee full payment for various incentive payments for wounded servicemembers."
Columnist Steve Chapman is on the campaign trail, wondering exactly what experience Hillary is boasting about.
In her speech here Monday, Clinton said that "there is one job we can't afford on-the-job training for: That is the job of our next president. That could be the costliest job training in history." She went on: "We need a president who understands the magnitude and complexity of the challenges we face and has the strength and experience to address them from day one..."
By stressing this issue, Clinton inadvertently raises the question of whether her experience really measures up to the claims. On the campaign trail, she brags that she has "35 years of experience"—which suggests that she expects to get credit not only for her time as first lady of the United States but also for her time as first lady of Arkansas, not to mention her time practicing law in Little Rock.
What Clinton doesn't mention is that she has just under eight years of experience in elective office—one more than John Edwards and four fewer than Obama. Being first lady no doubt has some value as preparation for the Oval Office, but no one would suggest that Laura Bush should run for president.
Well, in Hillary's defense, you can't really expect right wingers to go around asserting that Hillary wore the pants or made policy in the White House (as they've done in the past) and then get upset when she actually takes credit for it.
Hillary spent alot of time in the White House being attacked because she didn't follow the traditional role of First Lady that Laura Bush follows. That's not knocking Laura Bush btw but just recognizing that they're were very different First Ladies. If Hillary had been more like Laura she probably wouldn't have been able to win a senate seat but she also wouldn't have been worth targetting by the GOP either as much either.
Like her or hate her, Hillary Clinton's people know how to fight back. It's a lesson that Democrats should take to heart and replicate.
I'm still not convinced that Hillary is proactive enough on issues that matter to her, on things she actually believes in rather than things her pollster has come up with, but when they're attacked they know how to fight back. I don't think Obama's people have that same knowledge. As for Edwards, Obama and Clinton are so focused on beating up each other that Edwards has gotten somewhat of a free pass (well, from everyone except the New York Times).
The Obama campaign though does end up sounding like a bunch of idiot douches in the piece. With this Novak thing and the whole Social Security stump Obama likes to repeat, he really does look like a tool for the Republicans.
Whatever public sympathy Hillary Clinton had built up during the tense hostage situation at her New Hampshire campaign office appeared to dissipate Saturday, as she was met with a round of boos during an address over the phone to an Iowa political event.
At the Heartland Presidential Candidates Forum in Des Moines, community activists lustily booed the Democratic frontrunner after she declined to commit to passing comprehensive immigration reform in her first 100 days in office.
Clinton showed up in person, along with the six other candidates, for an evening forum before African-American and Hispanic activists.
In the early forum, Clinton said reform would be a "high priority" for her, but that didn't satisfy a crowd looking for legislation that would move illegal immigrants swiftly on a path to legalization.
A couple of activist booing her is nothing new for her or other candidates. I do find it significant that she's closing the gap in Iowa where Obama had been up 4 points, now it's 3.
A couple of activist booing her is nothing new for her or other candidates. I do find it significant that she's closing the gap in Iowa where Obama had been up 4 points, now it's 3.
I think the point of significance was that it happened so soon after the hostage incident, meaning that she didn't get a very large bounce of goodwill, despite what we've acknowledged was a decent handling of the affair.
And, as you know, polls typically have a sampling error built in of more than one point. Therefore, you can't honestly say she's "closing the gap" simply because in one poll Obama is ahead by four points and, in another, three points.
But thanks for once again proving my point that you will try and spin everything her way, no matter what.
A couple of activist booing her is nothing new for her or other candidates. I do find it significant that she's closing the gap in Iowa where Obama had been up 4 points, now it's 3.
I think the point of significance was that it happened so soon after the hostage incident, meaning that she didn't get a very large bounce of goodwill, despite what we've acknowledged was a decent handling of the affair.
And, as you know, polls typically have a sampling error built in of more than one point. Therefore, you can't honestly say she's "closing the gap" simply because in one poll Obama is ahead by four points and, in another, three points.
...
If the protestors were set out to send a message why would Clinton's handling of the hostage situation change what they were going to do? I guess it seems to be a rather poor basis to conclude that she didn't get much bounce. Polls can be tricky & unreliable but at least they have a much better random sample then say a group of protestors. It also only took a couple of points for Obama for the media and yourself to pronounce it a surge. That was also in the margin of error I believe.
Originally Posted By: the G-man
But thanks for once again proving my point that you will try and spin everything her way, no matter what.
I responded to this on the hostage thread page 3.
Originally Posted By: Matter-eater Man
Originally Posted By: the G-man
Originally Posted By: Matter-eater Man
I like how Clinton handled this.
I don't disagree.
However, with all due respect, Clinton could take a dump on your breakfast cereal and you'd say that you liked how she handled it, whereas if Rudy Guiliani or Fred Thompson had said the exact same thing as Hillary said here, you'd find a reason to attack it.
Not true. When the story about Clinton planting a question came out at that town hall meeting I said I thought it was wrong. When she performed poorly in that second to last debate I didn't claim she won it. Just two things that happened fairly recent. Granted I obviously like her but I'm also clearly not the rubber stamp you exagerate me to be.
You ever consider that it's your bias at work when you discount other people's opinion like this?
If the protestors were set out to send a message why would Clinton's handling of the hostage situation change what they were going to do?
If she had gotten a significant bounce of goodwill, one might expect the protesters to cut her some slack for a while, or at least not boo (which is generally considered overly rude even in politics).
For example, for a while after 9/11 even his political foes and the talk show comedians (Leno, Letterman, etc.) tended to lay off President Bush for a while after 9/11. That was a significant bounce of good will.
As for the poll issue, I could be wrong, but her lead in Iowa went from double digits to single digits to even (I think) at one point Obama being in the lead. If so, that was a significant surge on his part, whereas, a one-point shift back in either direction, given a poll's margin of error, isn't.
While I thought her handling of the hostage situation was good it's not an incident comparable to 9/11. While being a positive for her campaign it isn't going to create any significant type of bounce by itself.
As for Iowa polls, I said it before that 5 months ago (more like 6 now) she wasn't doing well. She improved her standing alot & even now it's all within the margin of error with Iowa. This from a state they had thought they would have to write off as a loss to begin with.
While I thought her handling of the hostage situation was good it's not an incident comparable to 9/11. While being a positive for her campaign it isn't going to create any significant type of bounce by itself.
Which is basically all I (and the article I cited) was saying in the first place: that it looks like there wasn't much of a bounce from this.
Which is basically all I (and the article I cited) was saying in the first place: that it looks like there wasn't much of a bounce from this.
The article doesn't talk about if there wasn't much of a bounce but starts out talking about good will dissapating. The writer based it on a group of out of town activists booing Clinton. I doubt you would accept such a broad generalization about Rudy on something like that. If I'm wrong let me know & I can start posting articles everytime he gets booed. You do remember that he's got quite a few firefighters & ground zero workers unhappy with how he handled 9/11
You see: this is exactly what I mean about your slavish devotion to Clinton and (as a correllary) your irrational hatred for Rudy.
I gave Clinton credit for her behavior during the hostage situation, but then noted that it seemingly hadn't translated to a bounce or additional good will. Hardly an attack on her, simply an observation. Furthermore, you don't seem to particulary disagree, having noted yourself "[the hostage crisis] isn't going to create any significant type of bounce by itself."
Despite this seeming agreement, you have to keep trying to bolster your candidate in ways that don't make sense (your bizarre reading of polling data) and now, go on the attack against Guiliani for something that has nothing to do with him.
You see: this is exactly what I mean about your slavish devotion to Clinton and (as a correllary) your irrational hatred for Rudy.
I gave Clinton credit for her behavior during the hostage situation, but then noted that it seemingly hadn't translated to a bounce or additional good will. Hardly an attack on her, simply an observation. Furthermore, you don't seem to particulary disagree, having noted yourself "[the hostage crisis] isn't going to create any significant type of bounce by itself."
Despite this seeming agreement, you have to keep trying to bolster your candidate in ways that don't make sense (your bizarre reading of polling data) and now, go on the attack against Guiliani for something that has nothing to do with him.
I've posted a couple times examples of me not being slavishly devoted to Clinton. It kind of says it all that you can't even acknowledge that & have to go with the "hating Rudy" thing. You got so nuts about Hillary that you used the front page here at the RKMB to call her a child abuser at one point
I've posted a couple times examples of me not being slavishly devoted to Clinton. It kind of says it all that you can't even acknowledge that ...
As an example of what you consider being critical of Hillary, you've brought up your "criticism" of her campaign staging a question.
First off, that's not the same as being critical of her.
Second, your "criticism" was so tepid and defensive (and incorporated yet another attack on a Republican [Bush]) that it hardly counts as anything but a defense:
Originally Posted By: Matter-eater Man
I don't approve of staging a question but getting a question asked while campaigning is not the same thing as staging a whole pretend press conference IMHO....Besides the one question it sounds like everyone else's was random.
I've posted a couple times examples of me not being slavishly devoted to Clinton. It kind of says it all that you can't even acknowledge that ...
As an example of what you consider being critical of Hillary, you've brought up your "criticism" of her campaign staging a question.
First off, that's not the same as being critical of her.
Second, your "criticism" was so tepid and defensive (and incorporated yet another attack on a Republican [Bush]) that it hardly counts as anything but a defense:
Originally Posted By: Matter-eater Man
I don't approve of staging a question but getting a question asked while campaigning is not the same thing as staging a whole pretend press conference IMHO....Besides the one question it sounds like everyone else's was random.
My "attack" on Bush was in response to your original post. You asked what the difference was between Clinton's question & Bush's. If you feel the whole room of pretend reporters asking the Fema guy questions is exactly the same thing as Clinton asking a college student to ask a question is the same thing, we don't agree. As for it not being critical of Hillary, I didn't try passing the buck off onto her aides.
What Clinton doesn't mention is that she has just under eight years of experience in elective office—one more than John Edwards and four fewer than Obama. Being first lady no doubt has some value as preparation for the Oval Office, but no one would suggest that Laura Bush should run for president.[/list]
laura bush worked as a librarian before she met her husband, also she isn't really involved in policy, she's more about side projects. hillary clinton was a lawyer who had a whole career alongside Bill in the law. she was involved heavily in the policy of the Governor and President. so it is valid experience.
...The Clinton campaign trumpeted new AP-Pew polls that show her leading in Iowa with 31 percent, compared to 26 percent for Barack Obama and 19 percent for John Edwards, and in New Hampshire with 38 percent, compared to 19 percent for Obama and 15 percent for Edwards.
Point of information: the idea that Barack Hussein Obama, having come from behind to tie (or suprass) Mrs. Clinton in Iowa, is having a "surge" is not something that I came up with. Many mainstream news organizations, including the Boston Globe, US News and World Report, Fox and Time are saying the same thing.
In addition, I would submit that even Clinton herself must be worried that Obama is surging, given some of the strange attacks she's making against him, even going so far as to attack his record in, of all places, elementary school:
In third grade, Senator Obama wrote an essay titled 'I Want To Be a President.' His third grade teacher: Fermina Katarina Sinaga "asked her class to write an essay titled 'My dream: What I want to be in the future.' Senator Obama wrote 'I want to be a President,' she said." [The Los Angeles Times, 3/15/07]
In kindergarten, Senator Obama wrote an essay titled 'I Want to Become President.' "Iis Darmawan, 63, Senator Obama's kindergarten teacher, remembers him as an exceptionally tall and curly haired child who quickly picked up the local language and had sharp math skills. He wrote an essay titled, 'I Want To Become President,' the teacher said."
(Wow. Attacking someone for their work in Kindergarten. Talk about "Swift Boating.")
Point of information: the idea that Barack Hussein Obama, having come from behind to tie (or suprass) Mrs. Clinton in Iowa, is having a "surge" is not something that I came up with. Many mainstream news organizations, including the Boston Globe, US News and World Report, Fox and Time are saying the same thing.
In addition, I would submit that even Clinton herself must be worried that Obama is surging, given some of the strange attacks she's making against him, even going so far as to attack his record in, of all places, elementary school:
In third grade, Senator Obama wrote an essay titled 'I Want To Be a President.' His third grade teacher: Fermina Katarina Sinaga "asked her class to write an essay titled 'My dream: What I want to be in the future.' Senator Obama wrote 'I want to be a President,' she said." [The Los Angeles Times, 3/15/07]
In kindergarten, Senator Obama wrote an essay titled 'I Want to Become President.' "Iis Darmawan, 63, Senator Obama's kindergarten teacher, remembers him as an exceptionally tall and curly haired child who quickly picked up the local language and had sharp math skills. He wrote an essay titled, 'I Want To Become President,' the teacher said."
(Wow. Attacking someone for their work in Kindergarten. Talk about "Swift Boating.")
G-man of course is presenting the attack in a dishonest way. Clinton wasn't attacking Obama for his work in Kindergarten but his claim that he never planned to be President. G-man only included the last part of Clinton pointing out that Obama had been planning to be President right along.
Quote:
Twice in One Day: Senator Obama Tries Rewriting History, Again Claims He Hasn't Been Planning White House Run
At an event in Boston this evening, Senator Obama claimed for the second time today that he is "not running to fulfill some long held plans" to be elected President, contradicting statements his friends, family, staff and teachers have all made about him.
"Senator Obama's relatives and friends say he has been talking about running for President for at least the last fifteen years. So who's not telling the truth, them or him?" Clinton spokesman Phil Singer said.
In Boston this evening, Senator Obama said: "I'm not running to fulfill some long held plans or because I think it's open to me." In Iowa earlier today, he said: Senator Obama said: "I have not been planning to run for President for however number of years some of the other candidates have been planning for."
But that's not what Senator Obama's teachers, family, classmates or staff say:
Immediately after joining the Senate, Senator Obama started planning run for President. "'The first order of business for Senator Obama's team was charting a course for his first two years in the Senate. The game plan was to send Senator Obama into the 2007-2008 election cycle in the strongest form possible'...The final act of the plan was turning up the talk about a potential Presidential bid, which was greatly aided by his positive press and suggestions by pundits that he run for President." [U.S. News and World Report, 6/19/07 ]
His law school classmates say that Senator Obama has been planning Presidential run for 'more than a decade.' [A]ccording to those who know him, he has been talking about the presidency for more than a decade. "It was clear to me from the day I met him that he was thinking about politics," says Harvard Law School classmate Christine Spurell. [Washington Post, 8/12/07 ]
15 years ago, Senator Obama told his brother-in-law he was planning to run for President. Craig [Robinson] pulled him aside [in 1992] and asked about his plans. "He said, 'I think I'd like to teach at some point in time, and maybe run for public office,' recalls Robinson, who assumed Senator Obama meant he'd like to run for city alderman. "He said no -- at some point he'd like to run for the U.S. Senate. And then he said, 'Possibly even run for President at some point.' And I was like, 'Okay, but don't say that to my Aunt Gracie.' I was protecting him from saying something that might embarrass him." [Washington Post, 8/12/07 ] ...
Point of information: the idea that Barack Hussein Obama, having come from behind to tie (or [surpass]) Mrs. Clinton in Iowa, is having a "surge" is not something that I came up with.
I've seen this projected as a likely possibility for many weeks now. It was Tony Blankley on McLaughlin Group who I first saw raise the idea about 2 months ago, saying that Obama is much better positioned against Hillary Clinton than Kerry was against Howard Dean in 2004, and even with Kerry's lesser showing, he wound up with the nomination.
Originally Posted By: G-man
In addition, I would submit that even Clinton herself must be worried that Obama is surging, given some of the strange attacks she's making against him, even going so far as to attack his record in, of all places, elementary school
(Wow. Attacking someone for their work in Kindergarten. Talk about "Swift Boating.")
Yes, that is remarkably petty.
Since it probably won't remain on Hillary Clinton's website to incriminate her for long, I thought I'd paste it here:
Originally Posted By: HillaryClinton.com/news
PRESS RELEASE 12/2/2007
Twice in One Day: Senator Obama Tries Rewriting History, Again Claims He Hasn't Been Planning White House Run
At an event in Boston this evening, Senator Obama claimed for the second time today that he is "not running to fulfill some long held plans" to be elected President, contradicting statements his friends, family, staff and teachers have all made about him.
"Senator Obama's relatives and friends say he has been talking about running for President for at least the last fifteen years. So who's not telling the truth, them or him?" Clinton spokesman Phil Singer said.
In Boston this evening, Senator Obama said: "I'm not running to fulfill some long held plans or because I think it's open to me." In Iowa earlier today, Senator Obama said: "I have not been planning to run for President for however number of years some of the other candidates have been planning for."
But that's not what Senator Obama's teachers, family, classmates or staff say:
Immediately after joining the Senate, Senator Obama started planning run for President. "'The first order of business for Senator Obama's team was charting a course for his first two years in the Senate. The game plan was to send Senator Obama into the 2007-2008 election cycle in the strongest form possible'...The final act of the plan was turning up the talk about a potential Presidential bid, which was greatly aided by his positive press and suggestions by pundits that he run for President." [U.S. News and World Report, 6/19/07 ]
His law school classmates say that Senator Obama has been planning Presidential run for 'more than a decade.' [A]ccording to those who know him, he has been talking about the presidency for more than a decade. "It was clear to me from the day I met him that he was thinking about politics," says Harvard Law School classmate Christine Spurell. [Washington Post, 8/12/07 ]
15 years ago, Senator Obama told his brother-in-law he was planning to run for President. Craig [Robinson] pulled him aside [in 1992] and asked about his plans. "He said, 'I think I'd like to teach at some point in time, and maybe run for public office,' recalls Robinson, who assumed Senator Obama meant he'd like to run for city alderman. "He said no -- at some point he'd like to run for the U.S. Senate. And then he said, 'Possibly even run for President at some point.' And I was like, 'Okay, but don't say that to my Aunt Gracie.' I was protecting him from saying something that might embarrass him." [Washington Post, 8/12/07 ]
In third grade, Senator Obama wrote an essay titled 'I Want To Be a President.' His third grade teacher: Fermina Katarina Sinaga "asked her class to write an essay titled 'My dream: What I want to be in the future.' Senator Obama wrote 'I want to be a President,' she said." [The Los Angeles Times, 3/15/07]
In kindergarten, Senator Obama wrote an essay titled 'I Want to Become President.' "Iis Darmawan, 63, Senator Obama's kindergarten teacher, remembers him as an exceptionally tall and curly haired child who quickly picked up the local language and had sharp math skills. He wrote an essay titled, 'I Want To Become President,' the teacher said." [AP, 1/25/07 ]
Obama did nothing morally or criminally wrong in voicing his ambitions at various points in his life. It's not like she's exposing Obama for, oh, say, his involvement in abusing government power to prop up a failing savings and loan to protect his Whitewater land investment. Or rifle through Vince Foster's files at the very time his body was found, and then withold those files from investigators for years. Or have a hand in pulling FBI files on Republicans to try and intimidate/blackmail these Republicans into silence in Filegate. Or march as Senator in a gay parade in San Francisco, with men wearing black leather thongs, and other gays in the parade dressed to mock Catholic priests and nuns. While Hillary simultaneously boycotted a Catholic parade in New York City because the parade would not include homosexual groups in the parade.
Yep, Hillary sure has exposed Obama's deep dark secret. It's a good thing Obama has nothing to expose that she's done wrong...
