The Hill 'n Bill Show

by hwc, Mon Sep 03, 2007 at 01:25:15 AM EST

Disclaimer: Week 4 of the partisan candidate diaries. I am not associated with any of the campaigns, just a long-time observer of Democratic presidential politics and the father of a college daughter.

Well, as I was hanging out in downtown Portsmouth, NH tonight thinking about what I could write about in this week's diary, it suddenly dawned on me: Oh, yeah, I'm standing about 10 feet from the stage at the Hill `n Bill Show, maybe some of the MyDD folk would like to hear about a political rally!

For those not familiar with the area, Portsmouth is a 250 year old seaport town, very old brick buildings along a harbor. Restaurants, parks, brick sidewalks. Nice place. Less than half hour from my house, so when I read that Hill n' Bill were kicking off the fall campaign in the town square, I knew it was my chance.

My wife and I arrived about 3:30 in the afternoon. Absolutely gorgeous day. Bright sunshine. 75 degrees, no humidity. Ah, summer in New England. The crowds were already forming so we hopped in line. Thank god we did. By the time the gates opened at 6:00 pm, the line stretched around four sides of an entire city block, five or six wide. The actual cordoned off rally site (in the middle of  a blocked off street) held maybe a couple thousand, but we heard estimates as high as 20,000 people. Traffic was basically blocked off throughout downtown Portsmouth as the crowds were much bigger outside the stage area than inside - stretching up and down the streets.

The gates opened at 6:00 pm and we dashed up to stand right in front of the stage. The media platform had a clear camera shot of the stage, backed up by grandstands with American flags, in front of classic New England church steeple at sunset. Probably something we'll see in a campaign ad one of these days.

The preliminary speakers included Steve Marchand, Mayor of Portsmouth and place-holder opponent of John Sununu in the upcoming Senate race (until Jeanne Shaheen announces) and newly elected Democrat Congresswoman Carol Shea-Porter.

About 7:00 pm, the main even started with Hill and Bill introduced by Speaker of the NH House, Teri Norelli. As you can see, Bill and Hill were dressed in festive bright summer colors:

Bill spoke for about 10 or 15 minutes. Started with a story about a photo taken of him in Portsmouth in the winter of 1992, when people were writing his political obituary. Gloomy photo of him walking totally alone, frown on his face, bundled up on a snowy, cold night. Beaten like a drum before he became the Comeback Kid. Talked about how he has a painting done from that photo hanging in his Harlem office to remind him to keep pluggin' away. Went on to talk about how wonderful all the Democratic candidates are, but Hillary is the best combination of CHANGE + EXPERIENCE - which conveniently appeared on the stage banners in case he forgot! Talked quite a bit about electability, saying it was pure bunk. He talked of polls across America, the excitement for Hillary around the world, winning over Republicans in upstate NY, and so on and so forth. As usual, Bill pretty much charmed the audience out of its knickers:

Speaking of the crowd, there were a lot of women, but not as heavily female as an American Idol concert - a man could suffocate from estrogen and screaming girls at one of those! There were a lot of men in attendance today. Husbands, boyfriends, fathers. Best crowd watching flash: A woman in a Smith College t-shirt pushing a kid in a stroller, both holding homemade HILLARY FOR PRESIDENT signs. Also saw Adam Nagourney of the NY TIMES hunched over his cellphone.

Bill introduced Hillary, who spoke for a little over 30 minutes. A new stump speech. I'll link to the news articles that detail the new stuff. Very powerful, forward-looking speech incorporating the best of her standard speech (the "invisible" section is really powerful in person). Referenced FDR and the the New Deal and LBJ and the Voting Rights Act in the context of hard work within the system to achieve concensus for progressive change. Another new section talked about the mothers bringing their daughters to meet Hillary and the 90 year old women who tell her they were born when women couldn't vote and intend to live long enough to see a woman in the Oval Office. She reved up the crowd with a new "call `n response" section. "When people say we can't achieve universal health care, you tell them YES, WE CAN" followed by a series of getting the crowd to scream "YES, WE CAN" to a series of challenges, ending with "what about electing a female President?" YES, WE CAN!

Hillary spoke until about 8:00 pm and then Bill and Hillary spent 45 minutes shaking hands and autographing along the entire fenced perimeter around the stage - Bill starting on one end and Hillary the other. I got my copy of Bill's autobiography signed by President Clinton - who was having a ball, shaking hands and kissing babies. Hillary stopped and talked with every person, listening to stories, smiling, posing for pictures taken by her assistant. Very charming.  Anyone who says Hillary Clinton is not personable has no idea. The amazing thing, to me, is how these politicians can enjoy this stuff. This was their second rally of the day, with a stop at a county fair to see a 1000 pound pumpkin in between. Nothing like good ol' fashioned retail politics!

These are two photos my wife took as they were working the line in front of us, catching both Clintons with the kinds of expressions that could only happen when pressing the flesh in a crowd. Sorry Hill 'n Bill!

Here are links to the the AP story and the NY TIMES article:

http://apnews.myway.com//article/2007090 3/D8RDL8EG0.html

http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2007/ 09/02/clinton-offers-up-new-stump-speech /

"Some people think you should have to choose between change and experience," Mrs. Clinton said at one point. "Well, with me, you don't have to choose - I have spent my entire life fighting for change."

"From my time in the White House and in the Senate, I learned you bring change by working in the system established by the Constitution," she continued a moment later, citing legislative achievements like Social Security and Medicare under the two Roosevelt and Johnson administrations. "They got big things done because they knew it wasn't just about the dream, it's about the results."

"I want to work within the system," she said, in what advisers said was a thinly veiled criticism of Senator Edwards's anti-establishment message in particular. "You can't pretend the system doesn't exist."

"You have to know when to stick to your principles and fight, and know when to make principled compromises," she added.


Update [2007-9-4 12:42:42 by hwc]: Live streaming video of the nearly identical Concord, NH rally earlier in the day is now up at the CSPAN website: Hill 'n Bill Show Rally video




Tags: Election 2008, President, Hillary Clinton, Bill Clinton, Democrats (all tags)

Display:
Permalink :: 140 Comments :: Post a Comment


Re: The Hill 'n Bill Show (2.00 / 2)

Do people want to vote for Hillary because they think it will be another chance to vote for Bill?

I'm getting farther and farther away from Hillary Clinton.  She would be an above average president but nothing special.  

She's still a center-right candidate.  How about we elect someone on this side of the political spectrum?


by Reece on Mon Sep 03, 2007 at 01:30:31 AM EST

Re: The Hill 'n Bill Show (1.00 / 1)

You already had your turn: Jimmy Carter. LOL. Thanks, but no thanks.


Hillary: We will finally have a president who doesn't mind pulling over and asking for directions. Am I right, ladies?
by areyouready on Mon Sep 03, 2007 at 01:34:08 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: The Hill 'n Bill Show (2.00 / 2)

You are the reason Democrats lose.


by Reece on Mon Sep 03, 2007 at 01:40:26 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: The Hill 'n Bill Show (none / 0)

Well put, Reece

And areyouready, in addition to Jimmy Carter, going back further we have nominated these lefties and done quite well with them:
1932 Franklin D Roosevelt
1936 Franklin D Roosevelt
1940 Franklin D Roosevelt
1945 Franklin D Roosevelt
1960 John F Kennedy


by ArkansasLib on Mon Sep 03, 2007 at 09:41:00 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: The Hill 'n Bill Show (2.00 / 2)

Nonsense on the "center-right candidate" bit.  That is absolutely wrong.  I suspect you know this, but state it anyway as if it were fact.  


by georgep on Mon Sep 03, 2007 at 02:10:54 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Bill Clinton's economic policy (2.00 / 1)

was certainly not left of center. I see no evidence Hillary's would be any different.


Join the Iowa progressive community at Bleeding Heartland.
by desmoinesdem on Mon Sep 03, 2007 at 02:16:23 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Bill Clinton's economic policy (2.00 / 1)

Again, nonsense.  Tons of evidence.  I am quite surprised someone as astute as yourself has not bothered to see the evidence (i.e. rhetoric, voting record, bills written and co-sponsored, S-CHIP creation, etc.)  


by georgep on Mon Sep 03, 2007 at 02:22:50 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Bill Clinton's economic policy (2.00 / 1)

George it's all relative.

Don't you think that only covering children and not all of society with universal health care would be viewed as a rabidly right-wing policy in 95% of European countries?

Well, that's actually how a lot of people see it in this country because it's just morally wrong that people are not covered.

So actually, in terms of the total world-wide political spectrum, Bill Clinton very much had right-of-center policies because that's what he felt he had to do to stay in power.


by adamterando on Mon Sep 03, 2007 at 02:38:54 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Bill Clinton's economic policy (2.00 / 2)

Universal Healthcare will only happen under a Democrat.  Bush and all the Republican Candidates have decided to privatize all healthcare, including employer based coverage.  All 300 Million Americans would have to find their own healthcare without the government mandating that Insurance Companies cover them.

You may think big issues like Social Security and Medicare fell out the sky just because a President like Roosevelt or Johnson said it needs to be done. But the fact is it takes working with Congress Dem and Repubs, all parties involved and having the American people and the media take part in the debate. Its not sexy but then change isn't sexy--its damn hard when both sides are entrenched and standing firm. And yes, it take diplomacy, parish the thought. Hillary said she will bring all sides to the table--The Unions who in the 90's didn't think they needed to be on board, The Insurance Companies who would need the Government's help in order to insure more people, The Pharmaceutical Companies who will sell more Drugs if we have Universal Coverage than they do now, hospitals whose beds with paying patients are empty while their emergency rooms are full.  Also, now on board are Doctors and Nurses.  

There has been a big change since the 90's.  More people are without healthcare than ever before and corporations find they simply cannot cover everyone.  I'm sure they will want a seat at the table too, because they need to compete on trade issues with Countries who have Universal Coverage.  With all these groups together trying to reach a common goal and a President Clinton to sit with them and guide them IT WILL HAPPEN.    


by changehorses08 on Mon Sep 03, 2007 at 03:06:19 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Bill Clinton's economic policy (2.00 / 2)

Actually social security and medicare happened because we had presidents and congresses that believed that there are areas of social policy that are best left to government and the private market should stay the hell away.

Does Hillary have the courage to express such sentiments? Does she even believe this to be true. She may, but I've seen no evidence that she's willing to articulate such a position.


by adamterando on Mon Sep 03, 2007 at 03:43:24 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Bill Clinton's economic policy (none / 0)

The President proposes and Congress disposes. Hillary says she is committed to Universal Healthcare.  Has Bush said that?  Have any of the Republican Candidates said that?  She says she will bring all sides together and hash out the best plan.  That is what its going to take.  All interested parties coming together.  We got Social Security during Roosevelt's tenure because Roosevelt had won in a landslide.  He had an all Democratic Govt.  Johnson also won in a landslide in 1964 and he signed the Medicare Bill which went into effect in 1966. Also with a Democratic Congress.  She is going to finalize her Universal Healthcare bill in the next 2 weeks.  Stay tuned.  Then you will be able to criticize it.  


by changehorses08 on Tue Sep 04, 2007 at 03:00:12 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Bill Clinton's economic policy (2.00 / 2)

Her record is to the left of Edwards and Obama.  We aren't electing Bill.  Want to try some facts next time?


DON'T COUNT THE VOTES, DON'T COUNT THE VOTES.... Obama and the Obamaettes... spring 2008
by TeresaINPennsylvania on Mon Sep 03, 2007 at 10:15:32 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Bill Clinton's economic policy (2.00 / 1)

Her record is to the left of Edwards and Obama.

You get the award for most ridiculous comment this Labor Day weekend. Clinton's Progressive Punch rating is one point higher than Obama's not really significant.

Edwards...

Well he's not in Congress so no PP rating but I think most folks in the blogosphere would rate him as far more progressive than HIllary 'I take lobbyist money' Clinton.

This is a nice looking dog and pony show but really. NAFTA, don't ask don't tell, 'My good friend Rupert Murdoch' and Gore's defeat in 2000? Not campaigning for Lamont? Thanks Bill and HIlary but no thanks.

Hillary needs to stay in the Senate where the damage she can do is limited.


by Pericles on Mon Sep 03, 2007 at 10:48:08 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Bill Clinton's economic policy (2.00 / 3)

Honestly, what are you talking about?  We HAVE a Senate record to look at for Edwards.  He WAS a member of Congress, after all.  There is a record that comes with that.  

And, what about the statement "Hillary is to the left of Obama" is wrong?  You even confirmed it in your post.  "Not really significant" does not address the illogical point made that Clinton is "right-of-center" when indeed she is slightly more progressive than Obama.   Also, govtrack.us shows that when it comes to THEIR OWN BILLS and others' bills co-sponsorships, Clinton is as far left as it comes, the 5th most liberal member of Congress, whereas Obama gravitates much more towards the "chewy center," the safe haven for presidential ambitions.  

http://www.govtrack.us/congress/person.x pd?id=300022

Clinton is a radical Democrat according to GovTrack's own analysis of bill sponsorship.


by georgep on Mon Sep 03, 2007 at 11:38:13 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Bill Clinton's economic policy (none / 0)

Apples and oranges George.

What do you think Edwards's senate record would be if he were in Congress now?


by adamterando on Mon Sep 03, 2007 at 02:40:24 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Bill Clinton's economic policy (none / 0)

Why isn't Edwards in Congress right now, working on these issues he says he cares so much about?


by changehorses08 on Mon Sep 03, 2007 at 03:08:09 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Bill Clinton's economic policy (none / 0)

You need to do some more research before you lob criticisms that show that you have no idea what you're talking about.

Edwards is not in Congress because he decided not to run for reelection in 2004 when he was running for vice president because he (and everyone else) thought that would give the Democrats the best chance to hang on to his senate seat.


by adamterando on Mon Sep 03, 2007 at 03:45:47 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Bill Clinton's economic policy (none / 0)

John Edwards is not in Congress because he gave up his Senate Seat to run for the VP job. Thats fine I get it.  I have no problem with Edwards except he is now holier than anyone else because he is not in the Senate.  He now wants to run as an outsider and feels he should be able to criticize those who chose to keep their Senate positions.  Its going to be difficult for President Edwards to call himself an outsider when he needs to work within the system.  It seems to be cool this year to say you want to bring about change and that you are an outsider, however in Edwards case its not true.  He co-sponsored the bill to allow Bush to attack Iraq.  If Edwards is the nominee I will vote for him but I am very disappointed in his campaign.  He is using his wife as his attack dog.  


by changehorses08 on Tue Sep 04, 2007 at 02:47:07 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Bill Clinton's economic policy (none / 0)

Oh and Edwards has a 97% afl-cio score which is something like 6 points higher than Clinton.

So, even if we are using the lame Congressional record comparison, Edwards still comes out on top.


by adamterando on Mon Sep 03, 2007 at 02:41:22 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Bill Clinton's economic policy (none / 0)


nope, that was his score one year which is 5 points higher than Clinton's lowest ever.  Most other years her lowest what much higher including years when it was 100 percent. In any case her over all record is more liberal than Edwards. When he had a chance he voted like a conservative.  So his talk is cheap.
DON'T COUNT THE VOTES, DON'T COUNT THE VOTES.... Obama and the Obamaettes... spring 2008
by TeresaINPennsylvania on Mon Sep 03, 2007 at 04:48:49 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Bill Clinton's economic policy (none / 0)

Nope. That's average score.


by adamterando on Mon Sep 03, 2007 at 05:29:21 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Bill Clinton's economic policy (none / 0)

Lifetime voting record, in his six years, Edwards voted with the AFL-CIO 49 times and against them 3 times. Or right and wrong as they call it. Clinton, in her almost eight years, has voted with them 75 times and against them 6 times.

They both have superb records on union issues.


by basement angel on Tue Sep 04, 2007 at 04:00:24 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Bill Clinton's economic policy (none / 0)

Why is Mark Penn a senior advisor on Clinton's staff?

Jes askin' ya know?

You guys have a real grasp of the numbers but Hillary supporters refuse to listen to what she says and what she doesn't say.

Given the fact that Bill was a disaster for the progressive movement in this nation it escapes me how anyone can imagine Hillary would be good for same.

Maybe I just don't have a good enough imagination, eh?

They say one picture is worth a thousand words....

Here is mine....


by Pericles on Thu Sep 06, 2007 at 09:46:52 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Bill Clinton's economic policy (2.00 / 1)

Here's a "fact" for ya sweet cheeks: "NAFTA". Clinton = Free Trader versus Fair Trader.

Clinton is STILL sucking from the Corporatocracy trough too ... wanna challenge that claim by wasting both of our time asking for the "facts", or do YOU wanna be honest with yourself and accept the already widely accepted?

Hillary = Bush-Lite, middle-of-the-roader which for ME, is someone too political to pick a side and join the fray. Rather than lead, they wet their finger and hoist it into the air to check the wind direction. You want her, she's all yours.


by BloggerRadio on Mon Sep 03, 2007 at 10:59:13 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Bill Clinton's economic policy (2.00 / 2)

Swell.  You singed up and started blogging here a mere four days ago to call a female blogger "sweet cheeks"?   Very convincing.  


by georgep on Mon Sep 03, 2007 at 12:23:11 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Bill Clinton's economic policy (none / 0)

have a zero for the sweet Cheeks crap.
Here's the facts:  Her voting record is much more liberal than Edwards'. You can post all the Limbaugh talking points you want, that won't change a thing.
DON'T COUNT THE VOTES, DON'T COUNT THE VOTES.... Obama and the Obamaettes... spring 2008
by TeresaINPennsylvania on Mon Sep 03, 2007 at 04:52:40 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: The Hill 'n Bill Show (1.60 / 5)

People do not support Hillary because they think they're supporting Bill by doing so.  That's just silly and you know it.  We support Hillary because we like her.  Because she's a fighter.  Because she cares about us.  Because she's right on the issues that are important to us.  The same reasons you support whatever candidate you support.  Bill Clinton isn't going to be the president - Hillary is.  She'll be the one who we hold accountable for her mistakes and she's the one who'll get the credit for the successes. It's her policies and personality that we support.  Sure I like Bill, but I am able to tell the difference between Bill and Hillary.

Hillary Clinton is not a "center-right" candidate.  This tired old chestnut has been disproved time and time again. Lori did an excellent job of destroying this myth in her diary - I'll point you towards that.


"It pays to be obvious, especially if you have a reputation for subtlety". Salvor Hardin
by Denny Crane on Mon Sep 03, 2007 at 02:18:38 AM EST
[ Parent ]

off-topic (none / 0)

I do not understand your tag line. Is that a music lyric I don't recognize? I am just curious. I seriously have no idea what that means.


Join the Iowa progressive community at Bleeding Heartland.
by desmoinesdem on Mon Sep 03, 2007 at 02:29:31 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: off-topic (none / 0)

The tag line is a bit of nonsense from a TV show, Stargate SG-1.  They were going for some profound Buddhist-type meaning, and what they got was absurdity.  It makes me laugh.


"It pays to be obvious, especially if you have a reputation for subtlety". Salvor Hardin
by Denny Crane on Mon Sep 03, 2007 at 12:11:27 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: The Hill 'n Bill Show (2.00 / 1)

This Yellow-Dog Democrat has an issue that is important to me, and I suspect MANY DEMS. "NAFTA" and "Free-Trade" versus "Fair-Trade." The last name "Clinton" does not fair well with LABOR on that issue, and I really don't care what someone else may have written in some diary you wanna point folks to in order to "address" the issues rather than discussing them. If you must lean on that diary, perhaps it's because YOU don't understand the facts well enough to write about them yourself.

Where was Hillary when Ned Lamont was campaigning?

Why did Hillary vote to authorize Bush to cluster-%#*! our world, and then arrogantly and obstinately refuse to accept responsibility for her M-I-S-T-A-K-E, hmmm?

Why is Hillary still sucking-up to the Corporatocracy, and drinking form their trough?

News Flash: This race for nomination ain't over 'til the fat-lady sings, and you and your backup singer Hillary don't speak for all DEMS.


by BloggerRadio on Mon Sep 03, 2007 at 11:14:55 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: The Hill 'n Bill Show (2.00 / 3)

"Where was Hillary when Ned Lamont was campaigning?"

Pahleeze.  Many of the well-known Hillary detractors tried to convince us that Hillary was not wanted anywhere, that she was shunned and avoided (i.e. Webb.)  Now we are treated to the OPPOSITE spectacle, namely that Clinton should have done more for Lamont?  What happened?  I thought Democrats high and low did not want her campaigning for them, so as not to hurt their chances?

Maybe a bit cohesiveness in argumentation would help.  This spinning from one extreme to another seems detrimental to make a point that actually sticks, has "teeth."


by georgep on Mon Sep 03, 2007 at 11:57:38 AM EST
[ Parent ]

in CT she could have helped him (none / 0)

The Clintons are well-liked in CT, as shown by Lieberman's intense need for Bill to save his faltering campaign. It would have helped Ned to have Bill and Hillary slap down Joe's independent bid.

That does not contradict the fact that in many states, Hillary's presence on the campaign trail would not help our candidates.


Join the Iowa progressive community at Bleeding Heartland.
by desmoinesdem on Mon Sep 03, 2007 at 12:00:40 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: in CT she could have helped him (2.00 / 1)

Yes it does.  The "arguments" don't wash and are used simultaneously as if they bear a resemblance to reality.  Just like your false point that Clinton is a right-of-center politician, which is absolutely false (provably so.)   You must be confusing her with Edwards, who indeed has a very centrist/moderate voting history and even opposed unions and right-to-work laws in his own state.  

Remember:  RECORD over RHETORIC.


by georgep on Mon Sep 03, 2007 at 12:17:51 PM EST
[ Parent ]

we don't need the help in solid blue states (none / 0)

like CT in a presidential year. We do need a presidential candidate who will not hurt our down-ticket candidates in the red and purple states, though.


Join the Iowa progressive community at Bleeding Heartland.
by desmoinesdem on Mon Sep 03, 2007 at 05:08:32 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: in CT she could have helped him (none / 0)

Do you think Lieberman is caucusing with the Dems out of the goodness of his heart? He's doing it because that was the only way he could get Clinton to campaign for him and have some credibility. Lieberman was going to win because the Republicans weren't funding or supporting their candidate. The Republicans threw their weight behind and Joe and Joe was going to win. Bill went up and campaigned for him in return for an agreement to caucus with the Dems.

Geeezzzz....


by basement angel on Tue Sep 04, 2007 at 04:05:07 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: The Hill 'n Bill Show (2.00 / 2)

govtrack's ideometer for Hillary Clinton:

Quite obviously not right-of-center by any means.  In fact, the opposite.  Govtrack considers Clinton a radical Democrat due to her actual bill writing/sponsorship and co-sponsorship record.  


by georgep on Mon Sep 03, 2007 at 12:05:52 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: The Hill 'n Bill Show (none / 0)

Hmm..someone is abusing their troll rating powers, methinks.


"It pays to be obvious, especially if you have a reputation for subtlety". Salvor Hardin
by Denny Crane on Mon Sep 03, 2007 at 12:13:35 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: The Hill 'n Bill Show (2.00 / 1)

Exactly Denny--Hillary is going to try harder because she is a woman.  She has alot to prove and I believe she will be a great President.

This morning I read that Bush is saying when he leaves office he wants the next president to stay in Iraq.  He says he wants to go out and make alot of money making speeches and open a Fantastic Freedom Museum (complete with a roller coaster? lol)I don't know why Hill would want the job of cleaning house after Bush leaves but the fact that she does means she can.  There are actually some people who want to leave this world a better place then they found it.  Hillary Clinton is one of them.  YOU GO GIRL!


by changehorses08 on Mon Sep 03, 2007 at 03:15:43 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Sidebar to the The Hill 'n Bill Show (none / 0)

    http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articl es/2007/09/02/candidates_spending_millio ns_for_advice/?page=1
    http://www.publicampaign.org/
    Clean Elections
    http://www.publicampaign.org/clean-facts
    How Clean Elections Work

    Excerpt:

September 2, 2007

WASHINGTON - Bill Clinton began his quest for the White House with just five clerical staff to supplement volunteers in the early fall of 1991. His $26,543 in expenditures for the first three months included $342.88 for telephone installation, $1,263.34 for office supplies, and $418.09 for the ingredients to make cookies for his announcement celebration.

Sixteen years later, at a similar stage of the campaign, his wife, Hillary Clinton, has already paid more than $1.3 million to 10 different types of professional political operatives to advise her on everything from media strategy to trip planning and Internet use. Her campaign, which has spent $17.8 million overall, hired more than 350 people during the first half of this year, making it a bigger employer than 96 percent of US businesses, according to the US Census Bureau.
In just a few election cycles, running for president of the United States has undergone a profound - and costly - change.

Campaigns that once began as ideological missions driven by candidates and volunteers have been subsumed by a permanent class of professionals whose job is to keep the campaign on a carefully crafted script.


by dearreader on Mon Sep 03, 2007 at 02:52:26 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: The Hill 'n Bill Show (none / 0)

it's "further and further" away.  just so you know.


McCain is defining Obama, and Obama is neither defining himself, nor McCain. This is awful.
by jgarcia on Mon Sep 03, 2007 at 01:03:00 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: The Hill 'n Bill Show (none / 0)

From what I hear from her speech, Hillary sounds more and more like the establishment candidate. In fact, from the clips I heard, she was pretty much defending the status quo that prevailed during the Clinton years and now through the horrendous Bush's years.  America needs change, and Hillary AINT it.


Can you say with a straight face that Hillary has been a strong leader in the Senate?
by AnthonyMason2k6 on Mon Sep 03, 2007 at 07:43:42 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: The Hill 'n Bill Show (1.00 / 2)

wow, you're really lucky! I believe NH will get her back even if she stumbles a bit in Iowa.

She's definitely setting the new narrative for the final push: Make Big Change Happen!
http://www.mydd.com/story/2007/9/2/16519 /30256


Hillary: We will finally have a president who doesn't mind pulling over and asking for directions. Am I right, ladies?
by areyouready on Mon Sep 03, 2007 at 01:33:06 AM EST

Re: The Hill 'n Bill Show (none / 0)

"Make big change happen!"...by shifting the title between de-facto royal families!

Again, laughable.


by ElitistJohn on Mon Sep 03, 2007 at 10:33:41 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: The Hill 'n Bill Show (2.00 / 2)

well done personal account of Hillary's visit. whatever back and forth we have look at the energy dem crowds have. Tommorow's Obama rally in Manchester will be quite a show as well. I'd like to see Rudy, FREd and Mitt hit the streets like this, can't wait to see the enthusiasm!


Obama! because 51% isn't enough!
by nevadadem on Mon Sep 03, 2007 at 01:37:25 AM EST

Re: The Hill 'n Bill Show (2.00 / 2)

New Hampshire Democrats are really jazzed. The positive energy in the crowd waiting in line all afternoon was fantastic.

Lots of good vibes. Very knowledgeable crowd. Talked with one mother with a youngin' in a stroller with her husband and the grandparents. She had been to see all the candidates, including a house-party with John Edwards and 20 people. She'd kicked the tires on all the candidates and was settling in for Hillary.

Talked to another middle aged man as we were both getting our STOP SUNUNU buttons. Talked about politics, about how Reagan wasn't a bad President for a Republican and so forth. Good old centrist Democrat. He and his partner had decided on Hillary after deciding that Obama just wasn't ready.

Attack politics are not going to work in New Hampshire. The energy is too positive; voters don't want to hear Democrats trash Democrats.


by hwc on Mon Sep 03, 2007 at 01:48:58 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: The Hill 'n Bill Show (none / 0)

do you have the feeling women will come out in droves for Hillary in the end?


Hillary: We will finally have a president who doesn't mind pulling over and asking for directions. Am I right, ladies?
by areyouready on Mon Sep 03, 2007 at 01:52:34 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: The Hill 'n Bill Show (2.00 / 1)

Yes. Absolutely. Electing the first female President is the number one dynamic in this election. All the old white dude pundits are missing the story. "There's something happening here and you don't know what it is, do you Mr. Jones?"

If I were a single guy, I'd start hanging out at Hillary rallies. Women of all ages, from teenagers to grandmas.

But, it's not just women. Fathers of daughters feel the same kind of desire to see the first female President, too.


by hwc on Mon Sep 03, 2007 at 01:59:04 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: The Hill 'n Bill Show (none / 0)

I also feel that's sth missing among pundits. The results will shock them pretty much like Bush's victory from evangelical voters.


Hillary: We will finally have a president who doesn't mind pulling over and asking for directions. Am I right, ladies?
by areyouready on Mon Sep 03, 2007 at 02:03:25 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: The Hill 'n Bill Show (none / 0)

I might just do that if she's the nominee.......In the general though she is going to need alot of votes from women who have not warmed up to her as frankly she is going to do very badly among non-democratic men. I know it's anecdotal but every non-politcal friend I have can't stand her or Bush but they like Obama. I see your point about women voters but where is the groundswell? why haven't hundreds of thousands of women given to her campaign?


Obama! because 51% isn't enough!
by nevadadem on Mon Sep 03, 2007 at 02:11:17 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: The Hill 'n Bill Show (none / 0)

"Giving" in a presidential campaign is not the panacea some may think it is.   Consider that over 50 Million people voted for Kerry and Gore, also Bush.  How many "givers" did they have?   Exactly.   Most people lead regular lives with regular jobs.  Unlike college students who stumble across political signup tables and donation tables they don't usually find the need to go out of their way to "give" to a campaign.  They will give their vote and they will go to rallies (like this NH one) but many don't know or don't care to find out how exactly they can leave a $10 or $30 donation for their favorite candidate.   Of course, many do, but don't confuse them not "giving" money in larger numbers with not supporting strongly and intending to vote for.  


by georgep on Mon Sep 03, 2007 at 02:19:24 AM EST
[ Parent ]

I think turning out new women voters (none / 0)

is the only way Hillary could win Iowa. She consistently does the best in the polls that project the largest turnout of people who don't normally caucus.

As I have said before, if Hillary manages to turn out tens of thousands of supporters who have never caucused before, she deserves to win.

I have tried to get new voters to the caucus (and I am still working on some who I know are favorable toward Edwards), but getting people to show up for a caucus is a lot harder than it seems.


Join the Iowa progressive community at Bleeding Heartland.
by desmoinesdem on Mon Sep 03, 2007 at 02:33:20 AM EST
[ Parent ]

good point (none / 0)

same with Obama.... he needs not only to turn out massive amounts of younger voters he needs them to beg thier parents and family members to show up too.  This race is coming down to who gets thier supporters out in Iowa and whether the indies in NH overwhelmingly break to Obama if that happens and SC black voters see a president in Barack I think Obama is our winner. If not we get Hillary.


Obama! because 51% isn't enough!
by nevadadem on Mon Sep 03, 2007 at 02:48:56 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I think turning out new women voters (2.00 / 1)

There is some very good digging into the Iowa polls here:

http://www.pollster.com/blogs/more_on_ar g_and_iowa.php

Turns out that using past caucus participation may not be the best screen for this year's caucus goers. For example, 44% of the caucus voters in 2004 had never caucuses before.

Some of the polls are screening up to 92% of their respondents as past caucus goers.

The blog entry cites a discussion with the ARG pollster. He said that ARG's polls are showing two clear trends in Iowa:

Our results in Iowa show that John Edwards has a slight lead over Hillary Clinton among those voters saying they have attended a caucus in the past. Hillary Clinton has a greater lead among those saying this will be their first caucus. Hillary Clinton also has very strong support among women who say they usually do not vote/participate in primary/caucus races - this is true in Iowa and the other early states

BTW, ARG uses a very tight screen for their Iowa polls. They throw out every respondent who says they are "probably" going to caucus. Their poll numbers include ONLY respondents who say that they are "definitely" going to caucus. All of their polls this year have been close to the 45% first time caucus and 55% repeat caucus split that was seen in 2004. They are capturing a strong showing of women who are "definitely" going to caucus for the first time and vote for Clinton.


by hwc on Mon Sep 03, 2007 at 03:04:59 AM EST
[ Parent ]

well, if you come to my neighborhood (2.00 / 1)

I can point out the houses of people who told me in 2004 they were planning to caucus, but didn't show up. A lot of people say they are planning to, because they know voting is the "right" thing to do, but they latch onto any excuse not to leave the house for more than an hour on a cold weeknight in January.

If Hillary can get thousands of women to caucus for the first time, the Democratic Party will likely benefit from that in Iowa.


Join the Iowa progressive community at Bleeding Heartland.
by desmoinesdem on Mon Sep 03, 2007 at 12:03:59 PM EST
[ Parent ]

I agree (none / 0)

If she's able to turn out hundreds of thousands of "new" women voters who never caucused/voted before , then she deserve to be the democratic nominee.

My guess is she'll probably raise turn outs among women by a few points but not enough to guarantee her a victory in Iowa.

Caucusing is not the same as voting in a primary.

Also, i want to point out that I'm hearing from volunteers who works for Obama in Iowa that they've been getting a lot of 'republicans' to sign supporter-cards and a lot of them feels that whoever wins the democratic nomination will eventually win the general election because of this country very bad mood toward the republican party , so they feel that the only way to stop hillary is by caucusing for Obama.

This dynamic had been proven true by a recent Iowa republican poll where Obama was the choice of 7% of republicans who were questioned.

I would love to see another pollster analyze those numbers just to see whether there's really some smoke coming through those numbers.

If Obama can get 3% of the 7% to caucus for him , he'll be in good shape.

I will diary this later this week.

Anyway , if Obama is able to double the amount of student votes Dean got + some anti-Hillary republicans to caucus for him , i think he wins big.


by JaeHood on Mon Sep 03, 2007 at 03:44:12 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I think turning out new women voters (2.00 / 1)

desmoinesdem,

I've mentioned before (but too lazy right now to dig up the link) that the head of ARG was interviewed by Tucker back around February. Even at that time, he indicated that his firm found evidence of a bump for Clinton in new women voters who'd never caucused before but were pledging to do so this year.

I've often wondered if this accounts for the discrepency b/t ARG (consistently more favorable results for Clinton) vs the other pollsters.


by dblhelix on Mon Sep 03, 2007 at 06:59:21 AM EST
[ Parent ]

right, I'll believe it when I see them (none / 0)

there on caucus night.

The caucus is a big time commitment, which interferes with dinner, bath time/bedtime for kids, personal time for women who have worked all day, and a job for women who work nights.

A lot of people will tell a pollster they definitely will vote this time, even though they never have before. I will believe those claims when I see the record high turnout in January.

But like I said upthread, if Hillary really can mobilize thousands of new women voters, I'm all for that and I will congratulate her.


Join the Iowa progressive community at Bleeding Heartland.
by desmoinesdem on Mon Sep 03, 2007 at 05:12:18 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I think turning out new women voters (none / 0)

There are still many weeks before IA.  Anything could happen and the polls could go in any direction.  But with the campaign the Clintons have been running I would not be a bit surprised to see her pull ahead there.


DON'T COUNT THE VOTES, DON'T COUNT THE VOTES.... Obama and the Obamaettes... spring 2008
by TeresaINPennsylvania on Mon Sep 03, 2007 at 10:49:56 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: The Hill 'n Bill Show (none / 0)

If that's so, then electing the first Black President of the United States is FAR FAR FAR FAR more important, and significant  than electing the first white female president.


Can you say with a straight face that Hillary has been a strong leader in the Senate?
by AnthonyMason2k6 on Mon Sep 03, 2007 at 07:49:30 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: The Hill 'n Bill Show (none / 0)

Obama will have to get alot of indies to win the state over Bill dnd Hillary. Your experience is of course different then mine, all I hear is people at Obama rallies say they've switched from Hillary!


Obama! because 51% isn't enough!
by nevadadem on Mon Sep 03, 2007 at 01:57:05 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: The Hill 'n Bill Show (2.00 / 1)

you are hearing what you want to hear because the polls certainly are not backing you up.


DON'T COUNT THE VOTES, DON'T COUNT THE VOTES.... Obama and the Obamaettes... spring 2008
by TeresaINPennsylvania on Mon Sep 03, 2007 at 10:52:15 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: The Hill 'n Bill Show (none / 0)

HWC--I enjoyed your post regarding the New Hampshire event you attended--with Hill and Bill.  I like that the people of New Hampshire have all this positive energy.  I went to see Hillary in Las Vegas a couple of times and there is that same kind of positive energy here as well.
I believe that Hillary will win because she is so enthusiastic and people come away feeling good. Positive wins over negative every time.  
by changehorses08 on Mon Sep 03, 2007 at 03:22:14 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: The Hill 'n Bill Show (none / 0)

It is on C-span now!!!

http://www.c-span.org/watch/cs_cspan_wm. asp?Cat=TV&Code=CS


Hillary: We will finally have a president who doesn't mind pulling over and asking for directions. Am I right, ladies?
by areyouready on Mon Sep 03, 2007 at 02:01:16 AM EST

Re: The Hill 'n Bill Show (none / 0)

areyouready -- That was the best comment of all.  We will finally have a president that doesn't mind pulling over and asking for directions.


by changehorses08 on Mon Sep 03, 2007 at 03:23:26 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: The Hill 'n Bill Show (2.00 / 2)

Awesome report.  I knew there was a reason I rec'd you when Jerome asked me.   :-)

That last pic of Bill Clinton reminds me of an ad-hoc rally Bill Clinton put together right after his NH 2nd placing in 1992 in downtown Tampa (on a railroad platform that has been since bulldozed and turned into an office complex.)  About 400 came out to see him, he was an hour late, but he spent at least half an hour after the stump speech pressing flesh, signing autographs, etc.  He was as close in front of me as he was in that pic of yours, though 15 years younger (him and me!)   You could sense that there was something very special, very presidential, about the guy.   Here we are 15 yrs. later....

It seems like the energy of the crowd in NH was amazing.   People are ready to go after the GOP with a strong nominee rather sooner than later.   I agree that they don't seem to want to hear a lot of trashing anymore at this point.   Whoever hasn't made a clear case FOR themselves better start right away or it will be too late to make that case.    


by georgep on Mon Sep 03, 2007 at 02:07:55 AM EST

I enjoy first-person accounts from rallies (2.00 / 1)

I agree with you that I can't imagine how these candidates deal with the hand-shaking, crowd-mingling routine day after day. They do seem to enjoy it, though.

I can't remember where I read this--it was one of my favorite stories from the 1992 campaign. I can't even remember if it was from the primaries or the general. Bill Clinton was working a crowd for hours, probably shook hundreds of hands. He got back to his campaign van and proceeded to eat an entire apple pie with his bare hands, without washing his hands first. His staff were aghast, but he wasn't worried.

Whenever I read an account like yours supporting Hillary, I always want to believe that she would actually do something about the causes I care about. But I am not buying it until I see it happen. If she were serious about taking on the interests blocking change, she wouldn't be supported by some of the worst elements of the current Washington establishment.


Join the Iowa progressive community at Bleeding Heartland.
by desmoinesdem on Mon Sep 03, 2007 at 02:14:56 AM EST

Re: I enjoy first-person accounts from rallies (none / 0)

I will say this, if Hillary is the nominee the more they have Bill out there the better. Alot of the support she gets is of the it's like Bill's 3rd term variety. Anyone who is that put off by the prospect of Bill being instramental in the whitehouse is not voting for her anyway. It was the big mistake Gore made, yes he had to show that his personal life was not like Clinton's but for the life of me I don't see what votes he would have lost if Bill had gone from city to city campaigning on his behalf. Voters that were holding Gore responsable for Clinton's actions were long to begin with.


Obama! because 51% isn't enough!
by nevadadem on Mon Sep 03, 2007 at 02:26:30 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I enjoy first-person accounts from rallies (none / 0)

long gone to begin with


Obama! because 51% isn't enough!
by nevadadem on Mon Sep 03, 2007 at 02:27:20 AM EST
[ Parent ]

I think Gore played it right (none / 0)

Clinton would have hurt him in several states he won narrowly.

But I think you are right that at this point, putting Bill out there in the general would not hurt Hillary. Her negatives have always been higher than his for the last 15 years.

A lot of time has passed, and the abject failure of the Bush administration means that Bill Clinton looks better by comparison.

I also agree with you that a lot of Hillary's support comes from people who want to see Bill back in the White House and figure she'd be about the same. That's the number two reason I hear people say they are supporting her (number one being that they want to see a woman president).


Join the Iowa progressive community at Bleeding Heartland.
by desmoinesdem on Mon Sep 03, 2007 at 02:36:25 AM EST
[ Parent ]

wrong (none / 0)

for someone as full of shit as you are about the DLC, you sure bought up their talking points.  First of all VPs running for Pres do not campaign with their bosses, ever.  So no matter what Gore would not have dragged Clinton's ass around on the campaign trail.  It would have looked like he was running for VP again.
he mentioned Bill at every stop.  he talked about their work together extensively. Polls showed that he would have hurt himself by campaigning with Clinton. Do you think his campaign didn't know that?  So what you think and feel is not important. The reality is that Gore won because he did the right thing.  What he was not prepared for was that bush would have the nerve to commit fraud and his brother and the supreme would back him up.
DON'T COUNT THE VOTES, DON'T COUNT THE VOTES.... Obama and the Obamaettes... spring 2008
by TeresaINPennsylvania on Mon Sep 03, 2007 at 11:12:35 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I enjoy first-person accounts from rallies (2.00 / 2)

Whenever I read an account like yours supporting Hillary, I always want to believe that she would actually do something about the causes I care about. But I am not buying it until I see it happen. If she were serious about taking on the interests blocking change, she wouldn't be supported by some of the worst elements of the current Washington establishment.

That's a little simplistic for me. Those worst of the worst establishment types that you're talking about (and I have no idea specifically what you mean) may or may not be supporting Hillary, but even if they are, the real questions is why.  It seems very likely to me that any candidate these "establishment" people support is the candidate they think has the best chance to win.  That doesn't mean they like her/him, or support the policies of the candidate - they just want to be thought of as on the winning side.

The more important point here is whether or not these supporters get anything of substance for their support.  Do you really believe that Hillary Clinton (or any other Dem) is going to invite the oil industry into the White House to help write policy the way Bushies did if they support her?


"It pays to be obvious, especially if you have a reputation for subtlety". Salvor Hardin
by Denny Crane on Mon Sep 03, 2007 at 02:28:15 AM EST
[ Parent ]

not as much as the Bushies (none / 0)

but I do believe that Hillary will craft health care policy with more deference to the insurance and drug companies than other Democrats would (less than any Republican would, obviously).

And I do think that Hillary would be less aggressive in tackling environmental issues than any of the other Democrats would be. So no, the oil companies would not be writing her policies, but they'd still probably be better off with her in the White House than with Edwards, Obama, Dodd or Richardson.

I take your point that a lot of these people just want to be on the winning side. But I also think they know that Hillary is likely to do less harm to their interests than others in the field--otherwise they would be putting their money on a "stop Hillary" candidate.


Join the Iowa progressive community at Bleeding Heartland.
by desmoinesdem on Mon Sep 03, 2007 at 02:39:09 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: not as much as the Bushies (2.00 / 1)

the repubs all want Hillary for 3 reasons...

1. She gives them some hope of winning the the whitehouse again even thoughthier candidates are so bad it's hard for any observer to see any Dem not picking up a couple of % more than Kerry got.

2. Thier is virtually no doubt that the GOP will do much better in down ballot races with Hillary at the top our ticket. We still will probably pick up seats but Hillary will be the worst for "coattails" purposes becuase she will reve up the GOP base like no other.

3. She will be by far the most conservative on issues and the most hawkish Iraq, but yet she is so polarizing she gives the best hope for a GOP resurgance in 2010 and 2012. Hillary to them is the best in a terrable situation, for me she is the worst in a great situation for our party.


Obama! because 51% isn't enough!
by nevadadem on Mon Sep 03, 2007 at 03:01:18 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I enjoy first-person accounts from rallies (none / 0)

get off the blogs you are too influenced by gossip and innuendo. Don't believe in half the gossip you have heard or that anyone is totally clean.  You are just fooling yourself.


DON'T COUNT THE VOTES, DON'T COUNT THE VOTES.... Obama and the Obamaettes... spring 2008
by TeresaINPennsylvania on Mon Sep 03, 2007 at 11:00:15 AM EST
[ Parent ]

one thing I learned in 2003/2004 (none / 0)

was that I should have paid less attention to the media saying Dean was inevitable and more attention to what real, live Democratic voters were telling me (undecided voters had ruled out Dean).

So thanks for your advice, but I don't think I'll be taking it.


Join the Iowa progressive community at Bleeding Heartland.
by desmoinesdem on Mon Sep 03, 2007 at 12:06:41 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I enjoy first-person accounts from rallies (none / 0)

You sound like a potential believer.  Please remember this -- people decide on change when the status quo becomes too difficult to bear. We have just about reached that point.  Its not enough to vote for a person, you have to nudge them and give them all the help they need to get what you want done.  But In Hillary we have someone who is listening.  With Hill and a Dem Veto Proof Congress -- can't miss.


by changehorses08 on Mon Sep 03, 2007 at 03:30:43 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Nice pictures. (none / 0)

I like the profile shot of the Clintons together.


Obama's Pop. Vote LEAD = 600K | Clinton & McCain = WAR Authorizers
by NeuvoLiberal on Mon Sep 03, 2007 at 02:19:04 AM EST

Re: Nice pictures. (2.00 / 2)

Thanks. It took a ton of those to finally get one where Bill took a step forward so Hillary wasn't blocking him from my angle. We were packed in like sardines, so there was no moving around for a better angle.

Bill had on white jeans with his pink shirt and was wearing cowboy boots.


by hwc on Mon Sep 03, 2007 at 03:14:17 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Nice pictures. (none / 0)

That was my favorite too.  I am going to save that one.


by changehorses08 on Mon Sep 03, 2007 at 03:31:23 PM EST
[ Parent ]

crowd estimate (none / 0)

I read somewhere that the crowd estimate was more around 4,000 instead of the 20,000 that hwr claims or thinks.

4,000 is very good for a presidential candidate but with Bill Clinton tagging alone , this numbers sound very low , special on a beautiful sunday.

Obama's rally is tomorrow at 10.30 which means not too many folks will be able to attend since people works on monday and Obama doesn't have someone like Bill tagging along.

I would expect Obama to get about 2,000 to show up at his rally tomorrow.


by JaeHood on Mon Sep 03, 2007 at 03:06:44 AM EST

Re: crowd estimate (2.00 / 1)

It is Labor day, which almost every business honors.  So, low turnout for Obama would have nothing to do with it being on a Monday in this case.  

Turnout was definitely not LOW, as you would have it in your post.  It never is when lines snake around four blocks.


by georgep on Mon Sep 03, 2007 at 03:14:42 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: crowd estimate (none / 0)

you are correct about labor day, but getting into a pissing match with Obama people on crowd sizes is not a good idea. In fact Obama has been trying to keep his crowds DOWN in most events becuase you lose some of the personal touch.


Obama! because 51% isn't enough!
by nevadadem on Mon Sep 03, 2007 at 03:23:27 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: crowd estimate (2.00 / 1)

It is jaehood who was trying to get into a pissing match about crowd sizes.   Not too smart, because the tide has turned.  I think some of the excitement for Obama has waned, at least for now.  


by georgep on Mon Sep 03, 2007 at 04:07:03 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Don't You Hate That (none / 0)

It totally bugs me and it happens all the time.  I mean all the time.

This Jaehood person starts in on crowd sizes, all you do is respond, and another Obama supporter then shows up to blame you for making an issue out of crowd sizes.


by Edgar08 on Mon Sep 03, 2007 at 06:27:18 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: crowd estimate (2.00 / 1)

4500 was the estimate for the Concord rally at noon -- the one just shown on C-SPAN.

I have no idea in Portsmouth, really. The actual cordoned off rally site held several thousand. Whether that was 2 or 4 thousand, I don't know. But, less than a quarter of the people there could get into the actual cordoned off rally site. People walking around said the crowd stretched up and down the street outside the rally site to the point where traffic on the major cross streets was blocked. By about 5:30, a half hour before the gates opened, you couldn't move anywhere around the rally site.

Portsmouth is only about an hour north of Boston, as opposed to Concord which is two hours up in central NH.


by hwc on Mon Sep 03, 2007 at 03:22:01 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: crowd estimate (none / 0)

Hillary should win New Hampshire with a comfortable margin , Iowa is a tougher nut to crack . New Hampshire has always been Hillary's firewall , She has basically locked up that state in terms of endorsement , organization , volunteers and support .

The change VS. experience dynamic is not as pronounced in NH as it is in Iowa . Its more of experience that is working in NH.

Women are running things in NH and that should help her as well , of course the closeness to her homestate and Boston as well. New England has always shown support for the Clinton's , it will be tough for Obama.


Educated in a small town Taught to fear Jesus in a small town Used to daydream in that small town Another born romantic that's me.
by lori on Mon Sep 03, 2007 at 03:40:05 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: crowd estimate (none / 0)

you'd better hope the indie voters don't all go to Obama, they are not being reflected in the polls and they break extremely late.


Obama! because 51% isn't enough!
by nevadadem on Mon Sep 03, 2007 at 03:47:26 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: crowd estimate (2.00 / 2)

Registered independents are most certainly being included in all of the New Hampshire polling. The "screen" in the polling is whether the voter intends to vote in the Republican or Democratic primary. The Democratic numbers include large percentages of independents -- 20% or so from memory...it's too late to go digging around in polling crosstabs to give you an exact number.

About 40% of NH voters are registered Independents...although, of course, many of those are Republicans or Democrats for all intents and purposes.


by hwc on Mon Sep 03, 2007 at 03:57:47 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: crowd estimate, in concorde 4500.. (none / 0)

20,000 in portsmouth....I know 'cos different outfits, day/evening


by pate on Mon Sep 03, 2007 at 12:36:29 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Not My Candidate, but... (2.00 / 1)

...I enjoyed your reportage and some very offbeat photos.


Let the change begin!!!!!
by demwords on Mon Sep 03, 2007 at 03:12:15 AM EST

Re: The Hill 'n Bill Show (2.00 / 1)

Thanks hwc, you definitely captured the excitement of the crowd and the candidate with your words and pictures.  


by Kingstongirl on Mon Sep 03, 2007 at 06:34:04 AM EST

Re: The Hill 'n Bill Show (2.00 / 1)

These pictures are great!  Thanks for sharing them and your take on the event.  


by bookgrl on Mon Sep 03, 2007 at 07:28:50 AM EST

Re: The Hill 'n Bill Show (1.50 / 2)

Those pictures remind me of someone trying their best to remain relevant.

The Clintons didn't do nearly as much as they could have to try to get John Kerry elected, and then when Kerry made the joke about Bush getting us stuck in Iraq, the Clinton camp (Hill and Harold Ford) piled on Kerry, saying they thought his comments [about the troops] were inappropriate.

In the end, most Americans will see those pictures as someone trying to remain relevant after their time has passed.


by OE on Mon Sep 03, 2007 at 07:49:36 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: The Hill 'n Bill Show (none / 0)

I predict you will have changed your user name by next October rather than have to eat crow all over the internet.


DON'T COUNT THE VOTES, DON'T COUNT THE VOTES.... Obama and the Obamaettes... spring 2008
by TeresaINPennsylvania on Mon Sep 03, 2007 at 11:34:31 AM EST
[ Parent ]

but do you dispute OE's point (none / 0)

that the Clintons piled on when Kerry made a mistake, helping the Republicans and their media machine?

Every Democratic politician and every progressive ideal can be thrown under the bus if doing that will help the Clintons.


Join the Iowa progressive community at Bleeding Heartland.
by desmoinesdem on Mon Sep 03, 2007 at 12:08:50 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: but do you dispute OE's point no (none / 0)

I am glad they did because KERRY"S STUPIDITY with his mouth could have cost us big...


by pate on Mon Sep 03, 2007 at 12:41:19 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: but do you dispute OE's point no (none / 0)

Not more than nominating Hillary Clinton could, which you still fail to realize.

John Edwards was a better GE candidate than Hillary Clinton is.

The only thing that would have made him 50 times better than SHillary would be if his last name was "Kennedy" instead of Kerry, because all SHIll has going for her is the Clinton last name.


by OE on Mon Sep 03, 2007 at 02:09:49 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: but do you dispute OE's point no (none / 0)

Let's do a little experiment.

Hillary Clinton is running.  Same woman, same so-called "experience," same Senate career from NY.

Only difference, her name's Hillary Cline.

How many of he current supporters are still voting for her, then?


by OE on Mon Sep 03, 2007 at 02:13:10 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: but do you dispute OE's point no (2.00 / 2)

This would be a silly experiment, because in every walk of life, you can find people who were equally gifted, but end up in very different places.  Why is it that in a company, one person may become the CEO and the other just management, even though they may have gone to the same schools and had the same possibilities. Whether she is Hillary Cline or Clinton it took this woman to do what hasn't been done before, which is be the frontrunner for the Presidency of the United States.  Looking at the field of Democratic, why is she unqualified to be amongst these men?  If experience were the only criteria for being President or running, then Dodd, Biden and even Richardson should be ahead.  Instead the top three are Clinton, Obama and Edwards, all with similar experience.  That's where the intangibles come into play, where those who have the ability to command the stage, inspire and excite the voters come out ahead.  


by Kingstongirl on Mon Sep 03, 2007 at 03:27:26 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: but do you dispute OE's point no (none / 0)

Not more than nominating Hillary Clinton could, which you still fail to realize.

John "KERRY" was a better GE candidate than Hillary Clinton is.

The only thing that would have made him 50 times better than SHillary would be if his last name was "Kennedy" instead of Kerry, because all SHIll has going for her is the Clinton last name.


by OE on Mon Sep 03, 2007 at 02:20:47 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: but do you dispute OE's point no (none / 0)

Must you consistently prove that you are not made for this stuff?  The poster moniker OE has "burnout" written all over it.   We have seen more "haters" come and go here than you can shake a stick at, OE.  Hope at least you'll stick around for the conclusion of this particular "drama."


by georgep on Mon Sep 03, 2007 at 03:01:58 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: The Hill 'n Bill Show (none / 0)

Well, the meme-stream media is more than happy pushing the "Hill-Bill" show.

I'm still waiting to see CNN, CBS, and NBC say something about John Edwards receiving two huge endorsements this morning, from the United Steelworkers, and the Mine Workers...the Steelworkers for sheer number, and the mine workers for symbolic reasons.

So far, I have only seen ABC interview John Edwards about those endorsements.  I haven't even seen the other shows mention it in their " today's news stories" segments.

This is why I maintain that John Edwards will not receive a bump if he wins Iowa, because the media won't allow him to.

They "cannot" make John Edwards look like a winner, and the USW talking about John Edwards being the strongest general election candidate is not something the media is going to repeat.


by OE on Mon Sep 03, 2007 at 07:45:41 AM EST

Re: The Hill 'n Bill Show (2.00 / 1)

The main-stream media did not make a big deal about Clinton receiving two huge union endorsements, either.  It is cool to get union endorsements, but it is just not that big a thing for the media to report on.   I am sure other union endorsments Clinton (or any of the others) collects won't get a lot of media play either.  I am sure she'll get the Teacher's Union's endorsement (3 Mill. members) but it won't be reported on much.  That is more stuff that the respective union announces in their newsletters to their members.  

The real question is whether Obama picks up a single union endorsement this entire season.  And, can he win without labor giving him any love at all?  


by georgep on Mon Sep 03, 2007 at 09:44:05 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: The Hill 'n Bill Show (none / 0)

You must be BLIND.

They made a huge endorsement about Clinton receiving those two endorsements, claiming that it was a HUGE BLOW TO JOHN EDWARDS.

Yes, that's what they said...ON TELEVISION.

Apparently, you missed it.  

Clearly you are loving Clinton too much to see the coverage is tilted in her favor.

You don't even have many links on Google News about these endorsements from John Edwards, and no, it's not because it's "labor day," either.

The only people who are assured to be working today is the news industry.

Wake up.


by OE on Mon Sep 03, 2007 at 10:43:03 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: The Hill 'n Bill Show (2.00 / 1)

I don't watch much TV, but there are precious few links on Google about Clinton's "whizbang" endorsements.  I think you let your enthusiasm get the better of you with this attempt at a major distinction.   I agree that there is a bit more coverage for Obama and Clinton, #2 and #1.  But that is natural and expected.  The more people are excited about you, the more media coverage there is.  Edwards problem is that he lags very far behind.  Of course, some of it has been of their own doing.  Edwards poverty tour would not have been overshadowed so much had there been coordination between John Edwards and his wife about when her headline-making statement should occur.   A few days after Edwards wrapping up his poverty tour with a major speech would have probably helped some.    

Now, if Edwards can make inroads, that will change and his media coverage will increase diametrically.   I recently diaried a possible development in that direction (Rasmussen had suddenly shown Edwards and Obama even at 18%,) so if he can replace Obama as the #2, he will get more media coverage.    


by georgep on Mon Sep 03, 2007 at 11:17:34 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: The Hill 'n Bill Show (none / 0)

Since he or she is based it on TV at  least in part and you don't watch tv, you are unable to fairly come to such a judgement. and by the way most Americans unfortunately still get their news from tv.


by bruh21 on Mon Sep 03, 2007 at 12:08:29 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: The Hill 'n Bill Show (2.00 / 1)

I addressed his point about google links, which I checked for either politician's endorsements before I commented:

Edwards:

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q =edwards+union+endorsement

Clinton:

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&s a=X&oi=spell&resnum=0&ct=res ult&cd=1&q=clinton+union+endorse ment&spell=1

I don't see any difference in coverage, in fact, when going beyond page 1 you will notice that there is more coverage for Edwards and union endorsements.  


by georgep on Mon Sep 03, 2007 at 12:33:13 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: The Hill 'n Bill Show (none / 0)

I can't speak about the google links. I know its up on yahoo. I was referencing only the tv portion, and if you weren't discussiing that, then we really have no disagreement.


by bruh21 on Mon Sep 03, 2007 at 12:44:46 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: The Hill 'n Bill Show (2.00 / 2)

I'm another father with daughters who supports Hillary.  Quite a few fathers with daughters here.  I like that.  My neighbor two doors down - same thing - he's 49 and has three daughters, one just entering college.

This is a fantastic diary hwc.  Many thanks.  Great photos too.  Thanks for sharing them.  


by samueldem on Mon Sep 03, 2007 at 09:56:50 AM EST

Huma Abedin (2.00 / 1)

I forgot to mention getting to see Hillary's "bodyperson" Huma Aberdin in person. I've seen her on CSPAN work a crowd line with the candidate like a machine, but it was amazing to watch her in action. She moves along in front of the candidate, taking items to be autographed, grabbing people's cameras to take group photos of Clinton standing with them. All the while, whispering to Clinton, "we've got to keep moving", whenever Hillary stops to talk for too long. I had a chance to tell her I admire her work from C-SPAN. Keep an eye out for her whenever you see Clinton in a crowd -- tall, gorgeous woman with long dark hair who looks like a Secret Service agent.

http://www.observer.com/node/37040


by hwc on Mon Sep 03, 2007 at 10:20:25 AM EST

Re: The Hill 'n Bill Show (none / 0)

HUMA!!!


by samueldem on Mon Sep 03, 2007 at 10:29:50 AM EST

Nice Pictures. (2.00 / 1)

and interesting analysis of southerners in your last blockbuster of a diary.

Scares the hell out of 'em. At every gas pump. Looking for a candidate who can throw a desperation hail mary pass and beat the powerhouse Hillary at the buzzer. Now, I don't know 'bout ya'll fellas, but it does my heart proud to think of those little Chrishun Coalition Jesus freak bigots all over South Carolina living in abject terror of the mighty Democrats and Hillary Clinton. It's about damn time.

BTW, I was in South Carolina a couple months ago. Stopped at a gas station that was a combination general store, fishing supply, gun shop, fireworks outlet. What was the graffiti on the men's room stall? Nope, not a "For a good time, call [phone number of a Republican Senator]". The graffiti was "George Bush: Incompentence (sp), Corruption, and a God Damn Never-ending War".

http://www.mydd.com/story/2007/8/31/1710 4/9629

Now that you are on the front page, I'm looking forward to reading more of your in depth analysis.


Dare to be free.
by misscee on Mon Sep 03, 2007 at 10:32:11 AM EST

Re: The Hill 'n Bill Show (2.00 / 1)

Nice post, hwc!


by BigBoyBlue on Mon Sep 03, 2007 at 10:57:45 AM EST

Re: The Hill 'n Bill Show (none / 0)

Very nice diary.  Enjoyed the photos.

Am I weird because I wouldn't recognize Adam Nagourney though?  Heh.


"Another problem we have...is that in election years we behave somewhat as primitive peoples do at the time of the full moon." --Harry Truman
by Steve M on Mon Sep 03, 2007 at 11:15:05 AM EST

Re: The Hill 'n Bill Show (2.00 / 2)

What?  Adam Nagourney?  You must be a low-info voter then.   :-)

Truthfully, I can't put a picture behind him, either.   Let me search for one, so we are reminded what the guy looks like for next time Clinton comes through town.  


by georgep on Mon Sep 03, 2007 at 11:20:16 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: The Hill 'n Bill Show (none / 0)

Ah, yeah, that's him:


by georgep on Mon Sep 03, 2007 at 11:21:54 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Obama's charm (none / 0)

George, you missed my point on this.

I responded fully here.


by horizonr on Mon Sep 03, 2007 at 11:37:24 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Obama's charm (2.00 / 2)

You are entitled to your personal opinion.  I disagree with it, but that is all part of the process.  


by georgep on Mon Sep 03, 2007 at 11:49:36 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Obama's charm (none / 0)

It's very easy to simply dismiss as "personal opinion" any serious viewpoint
with which you don't want to -- or should I say can't? -- engage.

I made a very specific argument about "charm" as a gift and skill and weapon
and tactic of political suasion. You countered with a comment based on the
superficial "charming," which has nothing to do with what I was talking
about. You don't have the option of disagreeing on the basis of your
own misunderstanding/spin.

The truth is, if you had an answer to this, you'd provide it.

Care to try again? If not, I'll notch that as a win for me.


by horizonr on Mon Sep 03, 2007 at 12:46:00 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Obama's charm (none / 0)

Scratch that -- a win for Obama.


by horizonr on Mon Sep 03, 2007 at 12:47:41 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Obama's charm (2.00 / 2)

No, you should have properly said "Scratch ALL of that..."

:-)


by georgep on Mon Sep 03, 2007 at 01:06:22 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Obama's charm (2.00 / 1)

Why would I want to refute your personal opinion?  I disagree with it in every single facet of your post, but it highly subjective, so one can't "argue" about charm with anyone.  I personally don't feel the "charm" at all, Obama seems very ordinary to me.  He also gets a very high unfavorable rating (he scores even worse than Clinton on Rasmussen, which is amazing, given his freshness and supposed "charm" across all ideologies.)   Even Democrats view him more unfavorably than Clinton and he gets a lot less "strong" or "solid" support.   Add it all up, and the charm you so starry-eyed convinced yourself of is for many of us non-existent.   But, that is personal opinion on your part, which can't really be argued.

Whatever you want to "chalk it off" as is up to you.  It amounts to just about a hill of beans and less than a quarter you can buy yourself a cup of coffee with (Starbucks excluded, of course.)


by georgep on Mon Sep 03, 2007 at 01:04:35 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Obama's charm (none / 0)

You persistently fail to understand what I mean by charm.

I'm not talking about likeability. I'm not talking about favorability ratings.

I'm talking about a political operating system for building and sustaining a
progressive majority and creating lasting change.

Your colleague hwc argued, in essence, that Clinton will get things done by
force. I argue that force is not leadership; that force will just perpetuate
resentment and division; and that charm -- charm as a weapon and tactic
for getting opponents to believe and understand that your agenda is their
agenda -- takes greater intelligence, more subtlety, and is far more effective.

Again: Obama knows how to charm. Clinton doesn't.

by horizonr on Mon Sep 03, 2007 at 02:30:38 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Obama's charm (2.00 / 1)

To me (and many others) he has been anything but charming.  He dropped down from the #2 spot with me exactly because of a lack of charm, tact, understanding of what it means to be a Democrat.    You have built some picture in your own mind that has no resemblance to reality.  That is why Obama leads in not a single state, is, despite his money, the least "adored."  Every poll shows us that the "intensity" of support is very low for Obama.  His support is the most "soft" and most likely to fall away, peel off.  

He is a decent politician, but I expected something very special, and was disappointed at what I have seen in debates, policy speeches, etc.   The "special" is actually the tag to be put on Clinton, which is probably the biggest surprise all season for many.  


by georgep on Mon Sep 03, 2007 at 02:45:44 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Obama's charm (none / 0)

Yessiree. Refusing to apologize for her war vote; embracing lobbyists;
new reports of another criminal fund-raiser....

Pretty "special," alright.

Have fun with that.


by horizonr on Mon Sep 03, 2007 at 03:21:15 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: The Hill 'n Bill Show (none / 0)

Seriously?

I guess writing about politics for a living will do this to a guy.


"Another problem we have...is that in election years we behave somewhat as primitive peoples do at the time of the full moon." --Harry Truman
by Steve M on Mon Sep 03, 2007 at 01:05:04 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: The Hill 'n Bill Show (2.00 / 1)

Yeah.  That, and fathering two daughters.   :-)


by georgep on Mon Sep 03, 2007 at 01:07:53 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: The Hill 'n Bill Show (2.00 / 1)

I wouldn't recognize Nagourney except that I've seen him on the Charlie Rose Show. He's pretty distinctive looking.

What a life, travelling around to these campaign rallies. It's gruelling to go to one of them, let alone dozens in a row, hearing the same stump speeches. It is easy to understand how the pundits turn quickly jaded.

Frankly, I found it difficult to really pay attention to the speeches because the scene is pretty overwhelming. C-SPAN replays are better for digesting the actual speeches.

The Concord speeches C-SPAN ran last night (and will be on their website soon) are virtually identical to what I heard in Portsmouth. Even the Speaker of the NH House and the President of the NH Senate gave the same introductory speech in the two locations. Interesting to see how "on message" a disciplined  campaign can be.


by hwc on Mon Sep 03, 2007 at 11:23:48 AM EST

local tv (none / 0)

http://www.boston.com/partners/worldnow/ necn.html?catID=80780&clipid=1718209 &autoStart=true&mute=false&c ontinuous=true

Video clips...


Hillary: We will finally have a president who doesn't mind pulling over and asking for directions. Am I right, ladies?
by areyouready on Mon Sep 03, 2007 at 11:52:51 AM EST

Those pictures just aren't quite (2.00 / 1)

big enough. Could you increase their size a bit?


by okamichan13 on Mon Sep 03, 2007 at 12:03:34 PM EST

Nicely Done (2.00 / 1)

You did a good job of getting a positive message out about our candidate without the need to bash other candidates.  I appreciate your efforts here.


"It pays to be obvious, especially if you have a reputation for subtlety". Salvor Hardin
by Denny Crane on Mon Sep 03, 2007 at 12:19:31 PM EST

Good report! (2.00 / 1)

Wouldn't it be good if people could simply read a report like this and drop their electioneering long enough to just take it in as being informative! I'm not a Hillary supporter but I appreciate the report. I appreciate reports from the campaign on any of the candidates.
The flat meanness and ill will I see generated in this primary season on this an other forums leaves me discouraged about the state of progressive politics, and the narrow-minded state of so many who claim to be the future for this country.
by cmpnwtr on Mon Sep 03, 2007 at 12:27:19 PM EST

Re: The Hill 'n Bill Show (2.00 / 2)

Wow- I am so jealous that you were there and got to see her and not only that but at what could be one of the defining moments in her historic campaign.  You are so lucky- a great diary and you're a wonderful supporter of Hillary's- thanks for all you do.


by reasonwarrior on Mon Sep 03, 2007 at 01:44:24 PM EST

Re: The Hill 'n Bill Show (none / 0)

If you get a chance, go to a rally now. IMO, the Clinton "thing" in the general election is going to be insane. Right now, the concept of the first female President is still a bit abstract. By this time next year, it's going to be very real and very exciting. The general election campaign is going to be nuts as people want to be a part of history and a media event.


by hwc on Mon Sep 03, 2007 at 04:34:10 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: The Hill 'n Bill Show (none / 0)

Those bottom two pictures are just scary looking.  Given the fact that much of politics is perception, using photos like the last two in a pro-candidate diary is probably a mistake.  The first few are much much better, the last two make both of them look fucking crazy.


by yitbos96bb on Mon Sep 03, 2007 at 02:41:13 PM EST

Re: The Hill 'n Bill Show (none / 0)

Sorry you didn't enjoy the last two. For all of us who have watched the rope line ritual on C-SPAN, I thought people would enjoy seeing the jostling up close and personal.

It's not like you really have the opportunity to wait for the perfect pose in that situation. It's insane with people pushing from behind to reach in, the Secret Service, stuff being shoved forward to sign. You put your camera up, push the button and take your chances. Most of the photos you get are either blurry or have hands waving across the frame. Those shots were both taken from literally a foot or two away. Bill was leaning in between my wife and I who were standing next to each other.

What I found interesting was how much Senator Clinton stopped to talk. She spent a good minute in conversation with the guy next to me who had some story about health care or something. In the sea of people, Clinton paused and was asking him questions. All the while, her bodyperson Huma was taking each camera and taking a photo from inside the ropes of Clinton standing with each group. Hillary autographed everything handed to her. Books, posters, scarfs, clothing, etc. This stuff about her not being personable is nonsense. I honestly don't know how these politicians do it. I think they really have to love interacting with the public and feed off the energy like a drug.

Bill was only signing books. His "body person" took each book and noted who it should be inscribed to. The books disappeared inside the building behind the stage After the rally, Clinton went inside, signed them, and the body person brought them back out.


by hwc on Mon Sep 03, 2007 at 04:23:27 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: The Hill 'n Bill Show (2.00 / 1)

Thanks for the vivid account of Hillary's Portsmouth rally. Your account was much more immediate and high definition than the other boring MSM accounts. Would be nice if Hillary supporters in Iowa and other towns in New Hampshire are inspired to do something similar. The photos are great, even the slightly wackier looking ones--everyone's photographed badly at some point in their lives. The last two images are just fun and spontaneous.


by superetendar on Mon Sep 03, 2007 at 04:05:21 PM EST

Re: The Hill 'n Bill Show (none / 0)

Thanks. I can't do what the MSM media can, which is give an account of their speeches. It's like trying to remember the set list at a rock concert. You don't want to spend the effort to remember those kinds of details at the expense of taking in the moment.

I watched the C-SPAN broadcast of the Concord rally last night. TV is better for disecting and analyzing the stump speeches.

It was obvious that Clinton was unveiling a new stump speech. I've heard enough of them to know that this one had some very different elements.


by hwc on Mon Sep 03, 2007 at 04:27:40 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: The Hill 'n Bill Show (none / 0)

You are right about this stump speech being different.  Having established herself as the experienced candidate, she had to tackle Edwards and Obama's contention that her experience meant old and reflected the past.  Obama is all about seeking change through bi/post partisan unity.  Edwards says he will fight for change.  Hillary basically says, although she's been talking about experience, she's all about change.  Her argument is that whether we do it through compromise or a fight, she is the only one with the experience to actually accomplish change.  She's telling the voters that she isn't here to redo the 90s, but that those years, along with her experience in the Senate  taught her how to fight and win.  I think people really forget the hard lessons she learned.  I think that even though there was a Democratic Congress in 92, the didn't really respect the Clintons, who they saw as these hicks from Arkansas.  The Dem Congress had been in control for about 40 years, and were used to doing what the hell they wanted to do.  I think Don't Ask Don't Tell is an example of Bill having to compromise not just with Republicans, but his own caucus, with people like Murtha, who is very much pro-Pentagon.  I think her having learned her lesson from the good and the bad that came from the first stint in the White House, she has no illusions about what she needs to do to get ahead.  That's one of the main reasons I support HIllary, becasue she actually knows what it's like to be in the White House, while Obama and Edwards can only imagine and speculate about their Presidency.


by Kingstongirl on Mon Sep 03, 2007 at 08:39:02 PM EST
[ Parent ]

What Stunning Photos (none / 0)

Esepcially that first one!  You must have been right up close - I so envy you for that! ;o)


Donate to Hillary Now!
by alegre on Tue Sep 04, 2007 at 04:06:31 PM EST


You are not logged in.

In order to post a comment, you must be logged in. If you have a member account, please log in to comment.

If not, you can make an account right here. It's quick and free.

Login
Username:

Password: