Hillary Clinton in Los Angeles

Please Support the MyDD Fundraiser Today

Between her rally in San Diego yesterday and then the one here in Los Angeles today, Clinton seems to be sending one very distinct message: Southern California is Clinton country. Gotta tell you, it sure felt like it today. As I drove onto the campus of Cal State Los Angeles in East LA, I was followed by what looked like a neverending stream of cars. Once on campus, as I approached the gym where the rally was being held I found a ridiculously long line, again, seemingly neverending (see video below.) I've not seen anything like this at any Clinton event I've been to, these are the kinds of crowds Barack Obama gets, not Hillary Clinton.

The event was pretty long, spanning a few hours and featuring an impressive string of speakers including actors Christine Lahti, Amber Tamblyn, America Ferrera and Bradley Whitford in addition to many elected officials including several members of California's congressional delegation (Maxine Waters, Hilda Solis, Brad Sherman, Diane Watson...) as well as CA Assembly Speaker Fabian Nunez, State Comptroller John Chung, Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa and Oakland Mayor Ron Dellums.

Just as I was in Nevada, I was really struck today by the diversity of the crowd both age but especially gender-wise. I suspect the crowd was more female than male but not by much. And the excitement in that room was, as cliche as it sounds, electric. People like to chalk Clinton's popularity in the polls up to her name recognition and her status as the "establishment" candidate but, as I've said before, her opponents underestimate the passion people have for her at their peril. Here's another video that will give you a sense of the crowd's excitement inside the gym today.

Unions were out in force for Hillary today, AFSCME members in their trademark green shirts and signs and United Farm Workers in red, chanting Si Se Puede at various times before and during the event. In fact, all throughout the event the crowd, which was largely hispanic but my no means predominantly so, would continue the chant, alternating between "Si Se Puede," "Yes We Can" and then, and this seemed to spring up spontaneously from the crowd, "Yes She Can!"

Message-wise, the most intriguing thing from my perspective was the concerted effort to distinguish Hillary from Barack. One common thread throughout many of the speeches was that this election "isn't a choice between experience and change, you need the experience to make change happen." Another repeated refrain was "Hillary doesn't just talk about change..." implying, of course, that that's all Obama does.

Another point of distinction was Maxine Waters's repetition of her line in the spin room the other night: "My constituents have trouble keeping their homes and feeding their kids. They wake up every morning with all the hope in the world that things will get better; they don't need anymore hope, what they need is help!" That got a big response and of course used another one of Obama's signature rhetorical flourishes to distinguish between their two models of the presidency: inspirer in chief vs. helper in chief.

On a more substantive level, we now see why it was that the Clinton campaign, as I've heard reported often, wanted Edwards to drop out so it could become a two-person race: so she could be the candidate of universal healthcare. The mere fact that Barack's plan is not a mandate that requires everyone to buy-in allows Clinton to state, as she did today: "My opponent will not commit to universal healthcare." She went on: "I don't think we should elect a Democrat who does not stand up proudly for universal healthcare." She's not only branding herself as the candidate of universal healthcare, she wants to go into the November election branding the Democratic Party as the party of universal healthcare. Her rhetoric on the topic at times also echoed Edwards, such as when she said "health care is not just an issue to me, it's a cause; it's the central passion of my public life."

But Clinton's final argument to California, and I expect she'll be making the same case in all February 5th states and beyond, was encapsulated in the following lines:

We need a doer, we need a fighter and we need a champion once again. [...]

I'm not asking you to take a leap of faith, I'm asking you to hire me to do the hardest job in the world.

It was no accident that the song that played over the loudspeaker as Clinton left the stage to shake hands was "Taking Care of Business" by Bachman Turner Overdrive.

Update [2008-2-2 19:11:31 by Todd Beeton]:Just wanted to add that LA County Supervisor Gloria Molina, who was one of today's speakers, estimated the crowd at 10,000 people, not sure if that's been corroborated by an independent source.



Display:


Re: Hillary Clinton in Los Angeles (none / 0)

When did the Clintons purchase this site?


by Todd Bennett on Sat Feb 02, 2008 at 06:47:39 PM EST

Re: Hillary Clinton in Los Angeles (2.00 / 2)

Todd, the real question is: when did DKos go anti Clinton.


by moi moi on Sat Feb 02, 2008 at 06:53:40 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Hillary Clinton in Los Angeles (none / 0)

The same time I did, when I started to use my head.


by Todd Bennett on Sat Feb 02, 2008 at 07:00:58 PM EST
[ Parent ]

head (2.00 / 3)

So, go use your head there. Who's stopping you?


by freemansfarm on Sat Feb 02, 2008 at 07:09:38 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Hillary Clinton in Los Angeles (2.00 / 1)

Daily Kos has always been anti-Clinton, at least in terms of the directions of its membership in the recent past. Hillary hit the bottom on every poll ever posted on the blog.


Click on Peace, Propaganda, & The Promised Land and learn the truth about the I/P conflict.
by shergald on Sat Feb 02, 2008 at 07:22:24 PM EST
[ Parent ]

dailykos was never anti-Clinton (none / 0)

DailyKos was pro-Edwards, pro-Obama, pro-Feingold and pro-Warner.

Was dkos anti-Biden, anti-Dodd, anti-Kucinich?

Markos certainly has his opinions of Kucinich and Biden, but he's never trashed Hillary in the same way.

What is interesting to me is that Jerome's site -- not necessarily Jerome himself -- has become a gathering place for those who are pro-Hillary. Both Jerome and Markos have had plenty of negative things to say about the Clinton DNC, it's inability to build the Party, etc.

I guess what I'm trying to say is that the Clintons can hardly claim to be "gate crashers."


by Dmitri in San Diego on Sat Feb 02, 2008 at 08:35:08 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: dailykos was never anti-Clinton (2.00 / 2)

Wrong. It's been anti Clinton for months, if not longer. Markos may not be, but the site is, and virulently so.

"What is interesting to me is that Jerome's site -- not necessarily Jerome himself -- has become a gathering place for those who are pro-Hillary."

And what's wrong with that? Can't one place in the so-called left blogosphere be pro-Hillary? It's not like the poor little Obama-bots have no where else to go.

"I guess what I'm trying to say is that the Clintons can hardly claim to be 'gate crashers.'"

Actually, the way Hillary is treated in the MSM and the way she, and her supporters, are treated on DK and other web sites, I, as a proud HRC supporter, do feel kinda like a "gate crasher." It's like me and my candidate have spoiled the little tea party that had been prepared for Mr. Transcendent and his acolytes.


by freemansfarm on Sat Feb 02, 2008 at 09:41:33 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: dailykos was never anti-Clinton (none / 0)

I have no judgment of mydd being a gathering place for Clinton advocates.

The Clintons are among Party insiders who dwell behind the gates Jerome and Markos want to crash. That's why it is interesting -- or ironic -- to me.


by Dmitri in San Diego on Sat Feb 02, 2008 at 09:50:21 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: dailykos was never anti-Clinton (2.00 / 1)

I have news for you, Markos is already inside the gates. And so is Obama. I know the "outsider" position is the coveted one (at least when one is one is on line), but let's not deny reality here.


by freemansfarm on Sat Feb 02, 2008 at 10:03:47 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: dailykos was never anti-Clinton (none / 0)

The far left wing boggers and the MSM have treated Hillary unfairly.  The MSM won't dare challenge Obama for fear or being called racist.  But they are so against Hillary--they could barely report the results of the florida primary--it pained them to do so.  Fortunately, the center-left will carry HRC to the nomination and victory in november--at which point the so-called "change agents" backing Obama--like long time senate fixtures Kerry, Kennedy, leahy, etc--will become even more useless.

It is nice to see hillary getting a great turnout--she is competent and inspiring to the mass voters who make up the bulk of the democratic party--if not the left wing bloggers. The eldery, working women, blue collar union workersn and the latino community are supporting her in big numbers.


by Canaanite on Sat Feb 02, 2008 at 11:42:49 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Not exactly... (none / 0)

The MSM wants Obama because having invested so much in puffinghim up they feel they own him.

They think that they can then pull the rug out and deliver another victory for their masters.

It will be tough this time since the nation is completely fed up with the Republicans, but who knows, lets give it a wing.

Maybe they will can get us to vote for a guy who embraces another 100 years of war. Think of the profits!


by MediaFreeze on Sun Feb 03, 2008 at 01:33:46 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Hillary Clinton in Los Angeles (none / 0)

Jimmy Carter's book is offensive and I'm sure you're not helping the HRC campaign by constantly making pro-Hillary statements and linking the book cover.  I believe in Palestinian homeland but to equate what's going on there to apartheid is offensive and inaccurate


by nycvoter on Sun Feb 03, 2008 at 09:04:44 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Hillary Clinton in Los Angeles (none / 0)

Thats a very good question.  


by Toddwell on Sat Feb 02, 2008 at 06:56:27 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Hillary Clinton in Los Angeles (2.00 / 3)

After Obama purchased the MSM and Kos.


by Actright on Sat Feb 02, 2008 at 06:57:44 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Hillary Clinton in Los Angeles (2.00 / 1)

ROTFLMAO!


by WMCB on Sat Feb 02, 2008 at 06:59:44 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Hillary Clinton in Los Angeles (none / 0)

What does that mean?


by Shazone on Sat Feb 02, 2008 at 07:33:37 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Hillary Clinton in Los Angeles (none / 0)

Rolling on the floor laughing my ass off. It was funny.  :-)


by WMCB on Sat Feb 02, 2008 at 07:44:24 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Got it. (none / 0)


by Shazone on Sat Feb 02, 2008 at 08:46:26 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Wow! (2.00 / 2)

Everyday we are subjected to the Obama-cheerleading, content free diaries of Kid Oakland, Populista, etc. Today alone, there have  been two seperate diaries about some crappy video that a bunch of D list celebrities put out parrtoting the Great One's typical bullshit, empty-rhetoric bloviations abougt nothing at all. And, as I recall, you had no complaints about any of that.

But one short post about a Clinton rally elicits this kind of snotty response from you. Let me tell you something, Mr. Todd Bennett, there are plenty of sites on the internet where it is all Obama-mania all the time. A very good example of one would be one with an Orange and White color scheme and an average age (and IQ) of its membership at around 12. Maybe, if you don't like the fact that Clinton supporters are allowed to post here, you should go there and join their "one million strong" circular firing squad and mutual congratulation society.


by freemansfarm on Sat Feb 02, 2008 at 07:08:37 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Wow! (none / 0)

The front pagers have become cheerleaders or Clinton.  Go on, vote for Progressive killing triangulation.  In another hundred years or so, you might find another "Great One" if you are too stupid now to pass up our best shot in decades.  When the Republicans celebrate a Clinton victory, and no that is not a typo, you will come to find that the glee of the Republicans will be because she will be controlled and bought and sold from the beginning.  Sure she will beat McCain.  Though the Republicans win either way.


by Todd Bennett on Sat Feb 02, 2008 at 07:24:59 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Blah blah blah (2.00 / 2)

Again, if you don't like the frontpagers, go to Kos where all of them are Obama-bots. As for your churlish, childish, sour-grapes, school yard analysis, I couldn't care less what you have to say. I have been a Democrat all of my life, and so has Hillary.

For 8 years now, all I have heard on the blogosphere is that we have to forget about patsy bi-partisanship and become fighters. That was what the Dean and Lamont phenomena were all about. Now that we have a chance to kick some GOP butt with a straight up partisan street fighter like Hillary, you want us to make nice with them with Mr. Inclusion, Unity, and Hope. Screw that.

As for the Republicans celebrating a Hillary victory, you are living in a dream world. They HATE her. They loathe her. She is their bete noire. They have a million horrible nicknames for her (Hitlery, Hildabeast, Shrillery, and so on).

You either don't know what you are talking about or are blinded by rage because your Messiah is losing. I don't need or want a "nhealer." I don't need or want a Messiah. I don't worship an "awesome" God or any God at all, and I sure as shit don't worship a fast talking, empty suited, cheap rhetoric peddling, flim flam man like Obama.

And lots of Democrats agree with me. TS if you don't like it.


by freemansfarm on Sat Feb 02, 2008 at 07:43:55 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Hillary won't fight for Democratic values (none / 0)

She is too busy accepting money from Rupert Murdoch and lobbyists from the health care, oil and banking industries, because "lobbyists are people too."

I think the Clinton voodoo is working itself on you, my friend.


by Dmitri in San Diego on Sat Feb 02, 2008 at 09:59:43 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Yaddi yaddi yaddi (none / 0)

And Barrack "Wall Street-Maytag-Harpo Productions" Obama gets no money from corporations and lobbyists? Dream on my Obama-bot friend.

There's no distinction to be made there, despite all the drivel about "people power" and a "new kind of politics" that spews forth from the true believers over at the Children's Crusade.


by freemansfarm on Sat Feb 02, 2008 at 10:09:40 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Hillary won't fight for Democratic values (none / 0)

Murdoch's NY Post endorsed Obama. Obama takes more pharma and hospital money, and is barely behind in oil and banking.

Sorry, your guy is bought and paid for, that is why the Kristols, Brooks and Wills prefer him.


by souvarine on Sat Feb 02, 2008 at 10:21:02 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Wow! (none / 0)

Give me a break.  You accuse her of triangulation, when she is saying flat out she will FIGHT for Democratic values,  while Obama's supporters are arguing how we have to appeal to the right and be "incrementalist" on healthcare.

Hillary knows that the country is ready to do this thing and get it done, shift the country into the DEMOCRATIC camp.  Edwards knew it as well.  


by WMCB on Sat Feb 02, 2008 at 07:49:20 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Wow! (none / 0)

Some of us simply have not drunk off the same Kool-aid cistern some of you have.  I for one don't think at all that we have "the great one of the last hundred years" before us in Obama.  While he is obviously a good candidate with certain appeal, he has a lot of downsides.  It is true that all candidates have downsides.  It is up to each of us to decide which upsides and downsides outweigh the others.  To many of us that makes Hillary the far better choice.  Others think differently.  Nothing wrong with that.  Just accept that others feel differently than you do.  

The other stuff you are talking about here seems like a bunch of Obama-talking-points nonsense.   "Bought by the Republicans"?  

Perhaps once this thing is over (and, say, Clinton does indeed win the nomination, as she is favored to do) you can come off this weird slash-and-burn kick and dispense of the intense dislike you have apparently developed.  Most reading here probably don't know, but I am well aware of your "journey" from a die-hard Clinton supporter who could not stand Obama (and bashed him very strongly) to a di-hard Obama supporter, then discarding him in favor of Edwards, and now back to being the biggest Obama fan again.  I guess it will be like flicking a switch to have you right back in the Clinton camp once this thing is over, and Clinton wins.  Just a strange way of getting there, Todd.


by georgep on Sat Feb 02, 2008 at 10:24:07 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Heh (2.00 / 2)

And people wonder why Obama supporters are called cultists.


by Big Tent Democrat on Sat Feb 02, 2008 at 07:19:48 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Hillary Clinton in Los Angeles (none / 0)

VERY disappointing to see you go into this tired routine, Todd.   I thought better of you.

Funny that you did not say anything in Todd's Obama rally reports, which are very positive.   Double-standard here?


by georgep on Sat Feb 02, 2008 at 10:11:00 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Hillary Clinton in Los Angeles (2.00 / 1)

Wow!


by Actright on Sat Feb 02, 2008 at 06:51:44 PM EST

Re: Hillary Clinton in Los Angeles (none / 0)

Wow? A crowd of "10,000 people" is meager by Obama standards. This is warm sunny Saturday southern California when most people are not working.


Click on Peace, Propaganda, & The Promised Land and learn the truth about the I/P conflict.
by shergald on Sat Feb 02, 2008 at 07:24:57 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Hillary Clinton in Los Angeles (2.00 / 2)

As someone who actually lives in SoCal and as someone who used to hate driving to LA, I find it egrigiously petty of you to claim that 10,000 people went through parking-hell on a 60 degree day (cold by our standards) to stand in an endless line to hear Hillary because they didn't have to work today. Get over yourself.


While I could sit in church and pray all I want, I wouldn't be fulfilling God's will unless I went out and did the Lord's work ~ Barack Obama
by bowiegeek on Sat Feb 02, 2008 at 07:32:25 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Hillary Clinton in Los Angeles (2.00 / 1)

Um, people camped out overnight.  Musta been slackers, huh?  Couldn't be passion or commitment or anything like that, because Obama has copyrighted all those emotions.

The arrogance is astounding.


by WMCB on Sat Feb 02, 2008 at 07:51:26 PM EST
[ Parent ]

crowd (2.00 / 1)

The only place Obama can't draw a crowd is in a voting booth.


by freemansfarm on Sat Feb 02, 2008 at 07:53:54 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Hillary Clinton in Los Angeles (2.00 / 1)

Very cool post. I always thought Clinton would do really well in California. The Clinton's have spent a lot of time there. And Californian's have deep trouble with the mortgage crisis. They know Clinton will help them out.


by moi moi on Sat Feb 02, 2008 at 06:52:50 PM EST

I can't wait for your (none / 0)

comparisons to this rally to the Oprah/Caroline Kennedy/Michelle Obama rally tomorrow.

Should be interesting!


by puma on Sat Feb 02, 2008 at 06:56:26 PM EST

Re: I can't wait for your (none / 0)

I'm sure Ophrah's rally will be much bigger. After all, while Clinton has spent her life as a corporate lawyer serving on the WalMart board and turning her back on Democratic ideals, Oprah has worked for the betterment of society (well, except maybe for the years she spent helping George W. Bush get elected).


by hwc on Sat Feb 02, 2008 at 07:04:53 PM EST
[ Parent ]

LOL (none / 0)

Hillary could make a fortune as a corporate lawyer or lobbyist or whatever, but chose to be a Senator instead. Oprah HAS made a fortune. She has done nothing at all to help anyone but herself, except the usual crap that billionaires do of giving a few pennies to some worthy cause as long as the cameras are rolling and her name is put on the front door. EG her phony "school" in South Africa.


by freemansfarm on Sat Feb 02, 2008 at 07:13:40 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Thanks for the post (2.00 / 2)

News from the ground always trumps the media spin.


by Coldblue on Sat Feb 02, 2008 at 06:59:36 PM EST

As I said in my diary (none / 0)

"Since John Edwards left the race I have waited to see who would grab his torch and combine it with theirs the best. So far I have to say that it is Hillary Clinton that is doing that the best."

She seems to be sounding like him more and more.
http://www.mydd.com/story/2008/2/2/18321 /43415


Washington Woman

Progressive Blue

by kevin22262 on Sat Feb 02, 2008 at 07:00:22 PM EST

Re: Hillary Clinton in Los Angeles (none / 0)

People like to chalk Clinton's popularity in the polls up to her name recognition and her status as the "establishment" candidate but, as I've said before, her opponents underestimate the passion people have for her at their peril.

Clinton is anything but the establishment candidate. Heck, the leadership of the Democratic Party has all but excommunicated Hillary and her husband from the party.

Hillary is the insurgent candidate running against the entrenched beltway interests of the Democratic Party.


by hwc on Sat Feb 02, 2008 at 07:01:57 PM EST

Re: Hillary Clinton in Los Angeles (2.00 / 1)

Bill, Hillary, McAuliffe, Al From, Bruce Reed and others believed so much in grassroots Party politics that they gutted the Party and relied instead on Wall Street and big media money to buy ads and hundreds of insider "consultants" drooling over the prospect of canning Dean and getting back to business as usual, limousines and all. Mark Penn will be restored. Something to cheer about for sure.


Visit my blog Democracy for New Mexico
by barbwire on Sat Feb 02, 2008 at 07:15:56 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Hillary Clinton in Los Angeles (none / 0)

Yeah. The DNC is running like a Swiss watch. They are down to just $500k in the bank, but I'm sure political brains like John Kerry and Bill Bradley can pump that up before November.


by hwc on Sat Feb 02, 2008 at 07:36:48 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Hillary Clinton in Los Angeles (none / 0)

I doubt Penn will be restored, but Axelrod will likely go back to consulting for Exelon.


by WMCB on Sat Feb 02, 2008 at 07:55:15 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Hillary Clinton in Los Angeles (2.00 / 2)

I watched it on CSpan, and one of the things that often strikes me about Clinton's crowds is that they often look a lot like America -  a true diversity of whites, blacks, latinos, asians, native americans, you name it.  


by WMCB on Sat Feb 02, 2008 at 07:03:08 PM EST

Re: Hillary Clinton in Los Angeles (none / 0)

Did Teddy go? I hear they luv them some Kennedy in Idaho!


by hwc on Sat Feb 02, 2008 at 07:06:18 PM EST

Obama's themes. . . (none / 0)

. . .in Idaho were guns, God, and Mormonism.

All things to all people all the time. . . .


by freemansfarm on Sat Feb 02, 2008 at 07:51:32 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Hillary Clinton in Los Angeles (2.00 / 1)

Thanks for diary. You did a great job conveying the excitement of the event and I appreciate all the details about the crowd's diversity and the strong union support.

It's great to hear Clinton defining herself as the candidate of universal health care. That's a winning message for the Democratic party.


by LakersFan on Sat Feb 02, 2008 at 07:06:39 PM EST

Re: Hillary Clinton in Los Angeles (2.00 / 1)

Universal Health Care is not only a winning message, but it's an essential front and center message if the next President is going to enter office with the political mandate to pursue it...whether it is a Republican Presidency, a Democratic Presidency, or a Clinton Presidency.


by hwc on Sat Feb 02, 2008 at 07:15:30 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Hillary Clinton in Los Angeles (2.00 / 1)

Great on the ground report.  Thanks!


by markjay on Sat Feb 02, 2008 at 07:08:30 PM EST

Re: Hillary Clinton in Los Angeles (2.00 / 1)

I heard on CN that people camped out overnight to get into this  event, and there were a couple thousand who couldn't get in that she went to speak to afterwards. .  


by WMCB on Sat Feb 02, 2008 at 07:10:05 PM EST

Wow! (none / 0)

That's amazing!


by puma on Sat Feb 02, 2008 at 07:12:30 PM EST

Re: Hillary Clinton in Los Angeles (2.00 / 1)

Good writing, Mr. Beeton. You had me experiencing that rally as if I was there. Thank you for posting this, and GO HRC!


by cc on Sat Feb 02, 2008 at 07:15:25 PM EST

Hillary is spending a lot (none / 0)

of time in California. I am sure she is going to do very well here.

I suspect that Hillary NEVER expected that she would have had to work so hard for the Democratic nomination as she has had to do.

Who would have thought that a junior Senator from Illinois, Obama, would give her a run for her money...LOL!


by puma on Sat Feb 02, 2008 at 07:19:19 PM EST

Hillary has the name recognition (none / 0)

NOT Obama.  People are just learning who Obama is but they know Hillary.

Thus for Obama to give her a run for her money for this nomination is amazing.

Who would have thought that a year ago?  Not me.


by puma on Sat Feb 02, 2008 at 07:32:44 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Hillary has the name recognition (none / 0)

"Hillary has the name recognition
NOT Obama.  People are just learning who Obama is but they know Hillary."

That is very weak.  Obama's name recognition is at 96% now, same as Hillary's.   I know the deal is that EVERYTHING Hillary achieves is only because of her name recognition, however shallow that talking point truly is.  And, of course, the tendency to gloss over and deny that Obama's name recognition at this point is complete and all-encompassing.    

As I said, very weak.


by georgep on Sat Feb 02, 2008 at 11:18:23 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Hillary is spending a lot (2.00 / 2)

That is so right gladiatorstail, if she wins it will be inspite of the the Dem establishment and the media.  She is way smarter and whenever they are side by side it shows she has breadth and depth on almost all of the issues.  I have just about stopped watching the media circus and reading the blog circus around Obama.  If he wins the nomination, I'll  vote for him, but it will only be because he has a (D) after his name and not because of any type of inspiration.


by Kingstongirl on Sat Feb 02, 2008 at 08:07:57 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Hillary is spending a lot (none / 0)

I'm glad the Clinton spin has made it to the masses so quickly. Have we all blocked out 2007? Did we go through a political black hole after Iowa? Everyone does realize that Clinton was painted as "inevitable" by the media in November? I know, I thought Obama was finished, everyone did. I know Bill has been telling people all week the Obama is the establishment candidate, but can we all just settle down and look at them side by side:
Obama:
Junior Senator who was unknown (as not even people HERE knew who he was let alone the everyday voter) five years ago. Who had no name recognition and was way down in every single poll, maybe even a poll of his own family, two months ago (two months!). Does he get a lot of MSM hype? Hell yeah he does. But even MSNBC can't make him an establishment candidate. MSNBC / Democratic Party.

Clinton:
Sleeping with the former President of the United States.

Can we slow down and remember what has been happening for the entire campaign (and not be spun).

Clinton won the experience argument. She did so handily.
Obama won the change argument. So much so that a few other candidates decided to piggy back on it.

I wish we could go back in time and make Obama the establishment candidate. He wouldn't have to campaign so hard.


by rabbitsrans on Sat Feb 02, 2008 at 08:20:24 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Hillary is spending a lot (none / 0)

I could have made a joke about how she wasn't anymore...

It is sad. I like Hillary, I hope she is the next President and would have probably supported her if Obama did not decide to run. I think a Clinton/Obama ticket would win overwhelmingly. I just wish her supporters didn't freak out when the new guy started to pick up momentum.


by rabbitsrans on Sat Feb 02, 2008 at 08:30:33 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Hillary is spending a lot (none / 0)

I don't know why Obama's run should change your mind away from Hillary.  I just don't get it, I've met him in person, I've heard him speak and while I'm excited by his potential, it's just that potential that is not backed up by experience and when we can have someone like Hillary as our nominee why would we look any further.  I'll vote for Obama if he wins but only because he is a Democrat and not because he inspired me by what I think he can accomplish.  We have to keep in mind that we need to make this an 8 year Presidency and while they both are capable of mistakes, we need the first year to be on fire and can't afford the time I believe it will take him to get his bearings.


by nycvoter on Sun Feb 03, 2008 at 09:23:37 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Hillary Clinton in Los Angeles (none / 0)

Great write up.  I really respect Edwards but I have to say, I really am starting to resent the credit everyone wants to give him for Hillary's poisition on UHC.  Hillary has a record on this cause that extends two decades.  When she says it's not just an issue but a cause for her, she means it.  It's really unfair to undermine her commitment by giving Edwards credit for her position.


formerly bookgirl
by masslib1 on Sat Feb 02, 2008 at 07:21:09 PM EST

Re: Hillary Clinton in Los Angeles (none / 0)

I think there are a lot of things Clinton supporters are starting to resent.


by hwc on Sat Feb 02, 2008 at 07:25:14 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Hillary Clinton in Los Angeles (none / 0)

This is a big one for me.  She's always discounted as having co-opted some position from one of the other candidates, when she is the only one who has ever faught for UHC on the national stage.  I think blogger's should really reflect on their tendency to do that.


formerly bookgirl
by masslib1 on Sat Feb 02, 2008 at 07:56:23 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Hillary Clinton in Los Angeles (none / 0)

I think the words "reflection" and "liberal blogger" are mutually exclusive.


by hwc on Sat Feb 02, 2008 at 07:59:06 PM EST
[ Parent ]

give away credit (none / 0)

The surest way to get anything done in DC is to give away credit. One of the mistakes Hillary made in 1994 was in not buying in Moynihan by giving him credit for a plan he had nothing to do with. She is running for president, she can afford to give Edwards credit. Then as president she can give credit to some overweening Senator like Barack Obama.


by souvarine on Sat Feb 02, 2008 at 09:47:15 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: give away credit (none / 0)

I'm not talking about HER giving credit to anyone.  I'm talking about the tendency of front page bloggers and other media figures to do so.  It's just not right.  And, I ask that Todd reflect on his tendency to do this.


formerly bookgirl
by masslib1 on Sat Feb 02, 2008 at 10:50:17 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Hillary Clinton in Los Angeles (none / 0)

here, here


by nycvoter on Sun Feb 03, 2008 at 09:24:39 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Hillary Clinton in Los Angeles (none / 0)

The NY TIMES downplayed Clinton's rally, reporting that it was just 5000 people. I don't think the networks even have reporters travelling with Clinton anymore.


by hwc on Sat Feb 02, 2008 at 07:23:28 PM EST

Re: Hillary Clinton in Los Angeles (none / 0)

It was electric.  Hillary's camp is big.  I was there; I would estimate the crowd at 5,000.  But there was overflow outside, so it could have been closed to 10,000.  The line was long, and I got there a half-hour before the rally was supposed to start.

Blacks, whites, Hispanics, poor, upper-class, middle-class, gays, lesbians, transvestites: it was off the hook!  Hillary's following is broad.


I proudly support Barack Obama for President!
by Zeitgeist9000 on Sat Feb 02, 2008 at 07:25:22 PM EST

Re: Hillary Clinton in Los Angeles (none / 0)

I left out Asians!  Sorry Asians!  In fact, some Asians were the most vocal supporters....


I proudly support Barack Obama for President!
by Zeitgeist9000 on Sat Feb 02, 2008 at 07:29:35 PM EST
[ Parent ]

I am still blown away (none / 0)

just how hard Hillary has had to work for the Democratic nomination.  She has the name recognition, the establishment, the machine, etc and yet she is still having to work her tush off to beat Obama.

Who would have thought that a year ago.  Not me.


by puma on Sat Feb 02, 2008 at 07:30:52 PM EST

Re: I am still blown away (2.00 / 1)

It's pretty tough to run as an outsider against the Democratic Party powerbrokers and the beltway media crowd. Ron Paul has more beltway insider support than Hillary Clinton does.


by hwc on Sat Feb 02, 2008 at 07:33:47 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I am still blown away (none / 0)

when she wraps up the nomination I am sure you would still be left wondering.


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 Sat Feb 02, 2008 at 07:34:00 PM EST
[ Parent ]

His own private Idaho (none / 0)

More like 10,000, actually. And, with all chance of winning any of the allegedly contested large States on Tuesday, Obama is going to delegate poor (18) States like Idaho in a desperate attempt to control the spin on Tuesday night. He is hoping that his shills in the media will be able to build a case for his performance based on the number of "states" that he wins, even as he gets crushed in the delegate count.


by freemansfarm on Sat Feb 02, 2008 at 07:31:32 PM EST

Re: His own private Idaho (none / 0)

It doesn't matter how many states Obama wins. Since cable news simply won't mention any that he loses (like Florida), he is guaranteed to win them all on the election night broadcasts. It's a great scheme.


by hwc on Sat Feb 02, 2008 at 07:39:31 PM EST
[ Parent ]

you got that right (none / 0)

That, or they'll say "he didn't contest those states," so they don't count. Or, "well, in October he was 30 points down in the polls in that State, and look, he only lost by 10 points, that's a win because he beat expectations." The only problem with this nonsense is that, sooner or later, the race will be over and Hillary will have enough delegates to win. I wonder what the Obama-bot apologists will say then?


by freemansfarm on Sat Feb 02, 2008 at 07:48:48 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: you got that right (2.00 / 1)

The only problem with this nonsense is that, sooner or later, the race will be over and Hillary will have enough delegates to win.

Or she won't.

And Democrats will have found themselves nominating a "movement" candidate who couldn't carry crucial big states like Florida, Michigan, New York, or California and lacks the experience to be taken seriously in a general election.


by hwc on Sat Feb 02, 2008 at 07:54:41 PM EST
[ Parent ]

confidence (none / 0)

I'm confident that she will, but I certainly see your point.


by freemansfarm on Sat Feb 02, 2008 at 07:57:54 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: His own private Idaho (none / 0)

The press is reporting Obama drew 15,000 in Boise.  Considering that Idaho is 1/3rd the population of Los Angeles, and there are even fewer Democrats, I think what Obama did was amazing.  In Denver, Obama drew 13,000 in a state that Hillary CLinton is contesting, and were all of 12,000 people caucused in 2004.  Obama has been drawing similar sized crowds in Phoenix, Albuquerque, and Minneapolis.  Oh, did I mention that the polls in California are tighening?


by tlsmith on Sat Feb 02, 2008 at 11:40:55 PM EST
[ Parent ]

crowds (none / 0)

10,000 was was I read, and even that was in a puff piece. In any event, on the day before the NH primary, all I heard about was the "huge" crowds the Golden Child was drawing. Go on a college campus, bus in his supporters--instant Obama crowd. Whatever, audience size for the Great Man's bloviations will not win the election for him.

As for the California polls, Zogby is a joke (rated last by his peers and dismissed by all knowledgable analysts) and the Field poll is an 8 day tracking poll which includes the height of the now-receding Obama bump, and it still shows Hillary up by 2! If Mr. Unity had any chance in CA, don't you think he'd be there instead of setting attendance records in Albequerque? Nice try, but no sale.


by freemansfarm on Sun Feb 03, 2008 at 09:02:55 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: crowds (none / 0)

he's got the meadowlands tomorrow at 12:00 and is inviting everyone to come.  I expect he thinks he can get a huge crowd there.  I'm not sure what it seats but it's got to be tens of thousands.


by nycvoter on Sun Feb 03, 2008 at 09:18:27 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Hillary in Tucson (none / 0)

I went to the two-hour town hall held at 4 PM in Tucson and couldn't get in - the line was like a snake all over the U of A campus (the venue held "several thousand).  

I was sad not to get in - but happy at the turn-out for an event that only got schedule about 40 hours ago.


by Shazone on Sat Feb 02, 2008 at 07:32:03 PM EST

Re: Hillary in Tucson (2.00 / 1)

Be sure to watch her national town hall on Monday at 9pm est on the hallmark channel.  You can submit a question via text message, email or youtube video on her website.


formerly bookgirl
by masslib1 on Sat Feb 02, 2008 at 07:52:38 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Hillary in Tucson (2.00 / 1)

I love how Hillary advertised the town hall on CNN during the debate, knowing full well that CNN and the other network news outlets won't even mention her 22 state town hall...mostly the result of edict from the corporate headquarters.


by hwc on Sat Feb 02, 2008 at 07:57:01 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Hillary in Tucson (none / 0)

I just went to the Hallmark Channel website to see if I could figure out what channel it is in NY, there's no mention of it and on the schedule at 9:00 tomorrow is something else, how do we find it?  Also, they are only inviting undecideds, I don't know what the location is but I would think she could have filled Madison Square Garden with NYC and area supporters. So a question, what's up with all these events that Hillary supporter can't get into.  She was in NJ about a week ago and people on the internet said they couldn't get in, my sister-in-law went and she couldn't get in.  I keep hearing about them not getting in.  


by nycvoter on Sun Feb 03, 2008 at 09:28:56 PM EST
[ Parent ]

very impressive for her (none / 0)

I'd even say re-assuring, in the sense that it is good to know she can also attract a huge number of supporters.


John McCain is a Bush ally on Social Security.
by John DE on Sat Feb 02, 2008 at 07:34:30 PM EST

Re: Hillary Clinton in Los Angeles (none / 0)

I think what is missing in this battle for biggest crowds is to realize that Clinton is supposed to generate crowds of 10k. She has always been the presumed Democrat nominee. So when she goes into a blue district this late in the nomination process with this much media coverage it assumed that she gets crowds this large. What Sen. Obama has been doing is generating 10k crowds leading an insurgent campaign. To be 20 points down in almost every poll taken in November and still be able to go around the country in every kind of district to build crowd sizes to where they are now is astonishing (and something all Democrats should be proud of). The story is not Obama crowds > Clinton crowds or Clinton crowds > Obama crowds. The story is the fact that Obama can challenge the nomination with this force. A comment that a few other posters have made...


by rabbitsrans on Sat Feb 02, 2008 at 07:44:16 PM EST

Re: Hillary Clinton in Los Angeles (none / 0)

The message that there are thousands of people who are passionate about Hillary and that her support is not composed of soulless corporate shills is a comment that few posters in several on-line precincts have made.


by InigoMontoya on Sat Feb 02, 2008 at 07:50:39 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Hillary Clinton in Los Angeles (none / 0)

Okay, well the reason that you "here" about the Oprah rally and don't "here" about the Clinton SoCal rally is because Oprah campaigning in California has a level of news and analyses. It is important to note that:
  • Obama is leaving California to stump elsewhere.
  • The Obama campaign is bringing in Oprah (who hasn't been used since early South Carolina) and Caroline Kennedy to appeal to California women.
Both reasons for it to be mentioned in the NYT, ABC, CNN, or wherever you "here" stuff. So I think that is why you "kow" when she will be appearing.
I wouldn't go around calling Obama the establishment; considering Obama has been desperately trying to convince people that he is established enough to be President, while Clinton is hoping to persuade otherwise.
To call a Clinton campaign "insurgent" is laughable.

by rabbitsrans on Sat Feb 02, 2008 at 08:01:56 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Hillary Clinton in Los Angeles (2.00 / 1)

You know, rabbitsrans, for having just started posting here a few hours ago you sure are coming on pretty thick with your strange "grammar as a weapon" shtick.  What, are you trying to tell the world the poster is devoid of adequate IQ and clearly below your level because he misspelled the word HEAR?

Par for the course for Obama posters, I suppose, but you may want to build up a few days' worth of posting history here before acting in this extreme manner.  

BTW,  I HERE that Obama may lose big on Tuesday.  What is it you HERE?


by georgep on Sat Feb 02, 2008 at 11:08:25 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Hillary Clinton in Los Angeles (none / 0)

pretty much the same... although who knows what will happen.


by rabbitsrans on Sat Feb 02, 2008 at 11:24:16 PM EST
[ Parent ]

really? (2.00 / 1)

"She [Hillary] has always been the presumed Democrat nominee."

Really? "Always?" Including after the Golden Boy won in Iowa? Including after Mr. Perfect won in South Carolina and got the "coveted" endorsement of Ted Kennedy and all the little Kennedys? It seems to me that, during those time periods, the New Messiah was "the presumed Democrat [sic] nominee," at least to hear the media and other "experts" tell it.

"To be 20 points down in almost every poll taken in November and still be able to go around the country in every kind of district to build crowd sizes to where they are now is astonishing. . ."

Again, really? Why is it of any consequence whatsoever what the polls showed in November, before most ordinary people even began to pay attention? The Transcendent Healer can draw crowds because he gives good value: he'll repay your attendance with a soaring, beautifully crafted and delivered, uplifting speech. It is only when you get home and think about it that you'll realize that "The One" didn't actually say anything of substance.


by freemansfarm on Sat Feb 02, 2008 at 08:32:17 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: really? (none / 0)

It is pretty amazing that Sen. Obama has been able to make up so much ground in so little time. Now thats something that has been established!

Yes, she was next in line. She was inevitable. She was presumed. There was the time between Iowa and New Hampshire that Obama got a lot of experts thinking that he could pull out an upset. But the polls showed that his bump was never big enough to overtake her.

Why in threads related to polls and predictions do Clinton supporters talk about how far ahead she is, but in others they talk about how she has to overcome from everything that is in her way?

I support Sen. Obama and I am not blinded enough by bias to realize that he is going to come out of Tuesday well behind. He needs to pull off a miracle in California and hope he can take New York City. I also think that he will have plenty of time to make up the ground if doesn't keep making the same mistakes.

Florida was a good example (and so will a few states on Tuesday). A state where he couldn't campaign and it showed. Clinton doesn't need to campaign in states that Obama doesn't go to, thats reason enough to show she was the presumed nominee.


by rabbitsrans on Sat Feb 02, 2008 at 08:42:47 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Amazing! (2.00 / 1)

I see nothing "amazing" about it. He is a flashy orator, and he presented an attractive alternative for the Clinton-hating MSM and pseudo leftist blogoshere. The so-called "experts" in the MSM and on ignorant, mob-rule, websites like Daily Kos painted him as the likely winner after Iowa and after South Carolina. As one of his supporters, you don't get to go back in time and erase all that noise because it is inconvenient now that you want to reclaim the mantle of "underdog" for him.

Clinton supporters talk about how she is ahead in the polls, and they talk about how the MSM and the crappy, easily fooled, intellectually limited websites, and tired, disgusting and misogynist old politicians stand in her way. There is no contradiction there. The voters love her; the chattering classes hate her. For example: Hillary clearly won the most recent debate. Every one with an ounce of integrity, perspicactiy and honesty said so. Everyone without a dog in the fight said so. But the good old boys on MSNBC couldn't bring themselves to say. Keith Olberman, hero to the ignorant, said that Obama had won because he was "funnier." Maybe Olberman thought he was watching "The Gong Show," rather than a presidential debate.


by freemansfarm on Sat Feb 02, 2008 at 09:01:03 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Amazing! (none / 0)

Olbmermann should check his flagging ratings. MSNBC and CNN ratings were in the sewer in January, not insignificantly because Hillary supporters have been forced to go to the remote control. So Fox is getting all the Republican viewers and roughly half of the Democratic viewers.

MSNBC didn't even show the Democratic Florida results in their graphic.


by hwc on Sat Feb 02, 2008 at 09:20:28 PM EST
[ Parent ]

MSNBC is a joke (2.00 / 1)

"MSNBC didn't even show the Democratic Florida results in their graphic."

You're right. And that bimbo Nora O'Donnel was apparently instructed not to use any variation of the word "win" in association with Hillary massive, double digit, crushing triumph over the Overrated One in Florida. She kept saying that Hillary had "gotten more votes than the other candidates." Well, duh, Blue Eyes, that means she won.

No surprise there, in Nevada these cretins didn't even show Hillary's victory speech, although they showed Romney's speech in Nevada and his speech when he got off the plane wherever it was he went after. In New Hampshire, they were blindsided, and although obviously disappointed that JFK Junior (that fat, disgusting misogynist pig Chris Matthews actually referred to Barrack and Michelle as the "attractive" heir apparents to Camelot) lost, they hadn't had time to prepare any minimizing or belittling spin. After Nevada, though, these dirtbags took their lead off the fax that Precious' campaign sent them: we won the delegates, the Clintons "cheated," and so on. The actual, verifiable fact that Hillary had cleaned little Golden Child's clock was hardly mentioned.


by freemansfarm on Sat Feb 02, 2008 at 09:36:01 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Amazing! (none / 0)

I have always thought Obama was the underdog, I wish he wasn't.

I have no idea what your political leanings are, or really anything about you or your opinions, I just hope what you are saying is consistent with how you have and will always feel. It is fine to disagree with the Kennedys and members of the MSM and certain blogs and MoveOn and The Nation and other people and things over who they have supported. But to think that a Democrat would say that those individuals do not know what they are doing or that they are not as smart as Clinton supporters is silly.


by rabbitsrans on Sat Feb 02, 2008 at 09:26:59 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Amazing! (none / 0)

You gave it away with the Nation, who endorsed Nader over Gore in 2000. Between them and the MSM you've identified a significant obstacle to Democrats.


by souvarine on Sat Feb 02, 2008 at 09:54:27 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Whatever (2.00 / 2)

I am the bad guy because I disagree with the Kennedys, the Nation, MoveOn, and Daily Kos? I don't think so. Go on Daily Kos and try to make the case for Hillary. You will be shouted down by a bunch of out-for-blood, Lord of the Flies, mobocracy, know-nothing teeny boppers. Obama is "da bomb" because he is "cute," he fills them with "hope," and he promises "healing." Well, as Maxine Waters said, I already have all the hope I need, thanks anyway Mr. Messiah. As for "healing," if I were physically sick I would go to a medical doctor, if I were mentally or emotionally sick I would go to a therapist or counselor, if I were spirtually sick I would go to a clergy man or woman or other person that I thought was in touch with the deeper currents in life. But I don't need or want a "healer" as my president. I need and want a good, straight-forward, no BS, no frills fighting liberal like Hillary to battle for what's right. If Mr. Perfect wanted to be a "healer," maybe he should have gone to medical school instead of law school.

As for Ted Kennedy, nobody has paid attention to this drunken, bloated pig for decades. He tried to unseat a sitting Democratic president, and, when defeated, didn't have the grace or party loyalty to whole heartedly endorse him against arch scumbag Ronald Reagan. The Nation likewise jumped the shark years, if not decades, ago. And MoveOn was a joke from the start.

In any event, I thought we are now in the age of a "new kind of politics," where everyone, even someone as insignificant as me, has the right to make up his or her own mind and make a difference. What do I care what tired, power-brokering, old-style politicians, phony magazines, or bullshit online organizations say?

I'm for Hillary, and if Ted, Caroline Schlossberg, and Ethel Kennedy don't like it, they can lump it!


by freemansfarm on Sat Feb 02, 2008 at 09:58:24 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Amazing! (none / 0)

You have to look at what rank-and-file DEMOCRATS desire.  Why do YOU think Hillary Clinton is favored to win the nomination over Obama?  

Pushed by the MSM?  Don't make me laugh.  They are in the tank for Obama with syrupy fawn pieces.  

Party establishment?  Nope. You yourself bring up Kennedy, but there are many more: Daschle, McCaskill, et al.

Money?  Nope.  Obama has more of it.

So, WHAT is it?   DEMOCRATIC VOTERS.  Pure and simple.  They have decided that they don't really want the media and Democratic establishment types and who has the most ads out and Independents telling them who they must vote for.   You are witnessing democracy in action here.  

Throw in everything and the kitchen sink (hey, add Gore and Edwards endorsements on top, why not?) and you STILL have Hillary strong, probably strong enough to win the nomination.  It is incredible at this point how she perseveres with those obstacles in her way.


by georgep on Sat Feb 02, 2008 at 10:48:51 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: really? (none / 0)

I had thought that it was ridiculous that people said that Obama didn't have enough name recognition in Florida to make a good enough showing.  But on second thought, I know in my heart that people have to hear Senator Clinton on her own (not attacked by reporters) to really understand the depth and extent of her knowledge and experience. So I get why people might need to get to know Obama better, but they need to get to know her better too, because of the media's painting her unfairly as polarizing and all the other junk.  So I chalk it up as even


by nycvoter on Sun Feb 03, 2008 at 09:39:05 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Hillary Clinton in Los Angeles (none / 0)

Todd, thanks for a great recap of Hillary's rally in LA.  I really enjoyed reading it and watching the videos.  

Hillary is fighting against so many barriers right now and she just keeps on going.  I believe she will beat "The Great Swami Obama Of The Empty Suit" and I look forward to him returning to the Senate; just as I look forward to Senator Ted Kennedy skulking in embarrassment every time he is in proximity to President Hillary Clinton.


The Facts: Please Read
by Regan on Sat Feb 02, 2008 at 08:20:03 PM EST

Re: Hillary Clinton in Los Angeles (none / 0)

I just want to remark. I have watched this site for awhile but this is my first post. I have to say I am amazed at the diversity of discourse on this site. There are some excellent analyses and then an immense amount of partisan garbage.

I support Obama, but I am certainly not an Obama-bot. My rationale is simple. The clintons in my esteem hollowed out the meaning of the Democratic party in the 1990's. Like Tony Blair they followed a "third way" politics which effectively moved to the center on core economic issues while holding the line on social issues. This I believe is a fact. The two greatest examples are of course all of the supra-national economic bodies the Clintons supported: WTO, NAFTA, FTAA, MAI etc. And the atrocious and sad welfare to work vote.

I believe the core issue in the political body is economic. While I support all of the range of social issues, I believe the central question is how we distribute and share wealth. Hillary, like her husband has taken stands which make it clear she would follow the same line on economic issues. Sure she is talking the Edwards talk now, and she does have a wonderful record on Health Care, but she is economically conservative. This is illustrated in her stance (or lack thereof) on Bush's tax cuts, her stance on lobbying and her stance on the WTO and other multilateral trade agreements.

Yes Obama is running a centrist campaign but what do you expect. He is a black man and must tailor his message to what can be heard by the nation. I know he has a more leftist record on economic issues throughout his career than Hillary, and ultimately to me that is what matters most.  Tell me where will HIllary be if in 2 years after her election the Republicans took back the house and senate. She would sell out the real economic values of the democratic party in order to win re-election. This is the effective hollowing out of the left which allows the republicans to become more right wing and it allows the discourse on what is possible to shrink and not in the favor of those that want to end poverty in the richest nation on earth.


by twolf on Sat Feb 02, 2008 at 08:32:06 PM EST

Economics (2.00 / 2)

Give me one reason on this Earth to think that Barrack "Chicago School of Economics" Obama will be any more to the left on bread and butter issues than Clinton.


by freemansfarm on Sat Feb 02, 2008 at 08:41:45 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Hillary Clinton in Los Angeles (2.00 / 1)

You could not be more wrong on a few major items, which also serve to illustrate the main difference between the two candidates:

On Bush's tax cuts:  Hillary is on record and has re-iterated this strongly on the stump over and over again that she will REPEAL Bush's tax cuts immediately.  She has called those tax cuts virtually every name in the book and blasts the tax cuts for the wealthy as the culprit for many problems we are experiencing.   So, I have to ask where you have been for the last year if you errantly and comically believe that she has not made a stance on the tax cuts, when that is indeed THE most talked about issue (and in very negative terms) from Hillary.

Now, on the other hand, Obama, your chosen candidate, has decided to give the GOP a major wink-wink-nod-nod and has decided to merely SUNSET Bush's tax cuts.  To SUNSET Bush's tax cuts means to let them just run their course and simply not renew when they come up for renewal.  Yes, it is the less combative pose, but it is UTTERLY WRONG.   Sunsetting the tax cuts means they will be in effect until 2012.   2012.  The travesty here, and the conundrum, is that Obama has specifically earmarked monies generated from the tax revenues these cuts had removed from the tax rolls for various programs, most of all his rather meek health care proposal.   Since the money WON'T be coming in until 2012, how does Obama intend to pay for these programs until then?  Or does he not intend to tackle them until 2012 because of this lack of funding?

REPEAL vs. SUNSETTING.   A difference of 3 years' worth of funding.  Obama gets to keep his hand from getting too down and dirty (as surely REPEALING the tax cuts will be a battle in Congress) but at what cost?

Then this:

"Yes Obama is running a centrist campaign but what do you expect. He is a black man and must tailor his message to what can be heard by the nation."

Shocking. &nbs