UPDATE: Hillary Clinton, Copycat (of Barack Obama)

Last Wednesday, Hillary Clinton held a rally / fund-raiser in a Washington, DC, parking lot. The event,
billed "Club 44," targeted 18-to-24-year-old women. By all accounts, the turnout was decidedly more
middle-aged. As the Washington Post put it, the crowd included "a few youngsters in the moon bounce,
a few older folks on the stage, and the rest in the big, soft James Taylor middle."

When Clinton's campaign posted video highlights of the event as its home page main feature at the end
of last week, the headline, in giant block capital letters, was "READY FOR CHANGE." That headline was
up until today.

Hmmm. Which other Democratic candidate had a national canvass on Saturday called "Walk for Change"?
You know, the canvass that had been branded and promoted with that title on his own Web site for the
last two months? The one with 10,000 volunteers across 1,000 events? Was that...Barack Obama?

Now, the well-worn rhetoric of "change" has been used for generations in campaigns for everything
from the village council to the White House. Obama doesn't have a corner on that market.

But no 2008 candidate has more strongly branded and positioned himself as the candidate of change --
including the mantra that "it's time for a change" -- than Barack Obama.

And Hillary Clinton's use of "change" on this particular weekend was a pretty shameless, transparent
move to step on Obama's line.

Today, the Club 44 video is still Clinton's home page feature, but there's a new photo -- a shot from
behind Clinton, looking out at the crowd -- and a new headline: "WATCH: 8,000 STRONG."

Again, the Obama subtext is clear. The petulant headline, with its crowd shot, impatiently whines:
"Me too, me too!! People like me too!! You're not the only one that can get crowds!! I can get
crowds!! Me too!! Me too!!"

Is Hillary Clinton literally stomping up and down and pouting, her fists clenched and her eyes
in a furious squint? Probably not. But she might as well be.

For two years, my wife worked for a New York Democratic consultant who now supports Obama
but who raised $250K for Clinton's Senate races and bundled $1M for John Kerry in 2004. So my
wife knows a thing or two about campaign messaging.

When I mentioned Clinton's rip-offs of Obama, her response was immediate: When a candidate starts
being transparently reactive, stealing another candidates' messages, and not being themselves -- and
when they start doing it this early in a campaign -- they're on their way out.

UPDATE Of course, Hillary Clinton can use the word "change." As I said, "the well-worn rhetoric of
'change' has been used for generations in campaigns for everything from the village council to the
White House. Obama doesn't have a corner on that market."

The point is not "change" as such. The point is that Clinton had nothing better to say or do with her
Web site this past weekend than to score a cheaply timed shot at Obama's "Walk for Change" by
mimicking the line with her own "Ready for Change" -- and that when reports then start coming
in of 10,000 volunteers at Obama's event, Clinton changed her headline to "8,000 Strong."

This is not an accident. It's part of a continuing pattern in which both Clintons have for weeks been
trying to blur the lines between Clinton and Obama in particular. We saw this most recently in the
last debate, where Clinton hammered the idea that all the Democratic candidates are basically the
same -- the same on Iraq, the same on healthcare, etc., etc.

By telling voters that "there's nothing to look at over there" -- Obama, Edwards, etc. -- Clinton
hopes to distract voters from her actual leadership record, preserve her current poll margins,
and ride the "experience" myth all the way to the White House.

But Clinton also knows that she has a couple of vulnerabilities:

(1) Obama is perceived as the candidate of change. She is not.

(2) Obama has proven his ability to draw and excite large crowds. She has not.

Clinton's Web site maneuvers -- "Ready for Change"; "8,000 Strong" -- signal a subtle but
determined effort to coopt these two aspects of Obama's brand, which she needs.

Of course, Clinton's saying these things doesn't make them so. But the fact that Clinton feels the
need to say them at all hints at desperation. And it strongly suggests that it is Obama -- not Clinton --
who is defining the terms of this race right now.

Tags: 2008, Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton, president (all tags)

Comments

87 Comments

Re: Hillary Clinton, Copycat (of Barack Obama)

Wow.  A hit-diary on the use of the term "change" in a political campaign?    When Clinton had a main event that attracted a massive crowd of 8,000 women, many of who never voted in their life, to get them involved in politics, a boon to the Democratic party?  

Obama's CHANGE rhetoric is good, but a lot of it is merely just that: Rhetoric.  He has no claim on the term.  In fact, once the varnish is removed and the candidate is assessed, there is less CHANGE than one would assume.   In fact, the way he has been trying to curry favor with Republicans we would probably see less REAL CHANGE when it all comes down to nuts and bolts,  than with any other candidate.  

by georgep 2007-06-13 03:01PM | 0 recs
Re: Hillary Clinton, Copycat (of Barack Obama)

How dare she use the word change! Wasn't she aware of the unofficial blogger's rule that only Barack Obama can say "change?"

by bowiegeek 2007-06-13 03:24PM | 0 recs
The issue is timing

As I said:

...the well-worn rhetoric of "change" has been used for generations in campaigns for everything
from the village council to the White House. Obama doesn't have a corner on that market.

But nobody here believes it was an accident that Clinton rolled out the headline on the very weekend
of Obama's "Walk for Change," which he'd been promoting for two months.

by horizonr 2007-06-13 04:05PM | 0 recs
Re: The issue is timing

I really don't. Electing a Democrat for president after having a Republican in the White House is by definition change.

by bowiegeek 2007-06-13 05:23PM | 0 recs
LOL!!

I do agree to a point.  Hillary Clinton's only change is her sex, nothing else.  There were 8,000 ppl there and they were "suppose" pay $20 each, but the crowd got to big that only about a 1/4 paid.  

To the diarist.  Everyone tries various slogans.  And to keep it honest, any democrat will be a CHANGE vs. what we have had to deal with the past 6-1/2 years.  But if you want real change, it won't be Clinton.  Because a Bush or Clinton has been on the presidential ballot since 1980, and that is a fact.  It will be up to the public, who will be the nominee and eventually the next president.  But if Clinton is the nom, do not be surprised at the GOP using the "change message" and using the "since 1980 message, and stating or "trying to" that they are a new GOP.

Gee, everyone is about CHANGE....

by icebergslim 2007-06-13 03:31PM | 0 recs
The issue is timing

As I said:

...the well-worn rhetoric of "change" has been used for generations in campaigns for everything
from the village council to the White House. Obama doesn't have a corner on that market.

But nobody here thinks it's an accident that Clinton rolled out the headline on the very weekend
of Obama's "Walk for Change," which he'd been promoting for two months.

by horizonr 2007-06-13 04:08PM | 0 recs
Re: LOL!!

Hillary Clinton's only change is her sex, nothing else.

That's childish and rude.

by bowiegeek 2007-06-13 05:25PM | 0 recs
Re: LOL!!

Well, she is a woman and not a man, right?  Unless, another woman has been president.

by icebergslim 2007-06-13 05:45PM | 0 recs
Re: LOL!!

Okay, then the best phrasing would have been (although I adamantly disagree with your point):

"The only change Hillary offers to the White House is her sex."

Your last one is really ambiguous.

by bowiegeek 2007-06-13 05:52PM | 0 recs
Not my point...

...as you know.

And every photo and news article about the event confirms that it
did not attract "8,000 women, many of who never voted in their life."

According to The New Republic, "at least one-third of the crowd appeared
to be of the male persuasion."

The New York Times noted that "[t]he fund-raiser...aimed at reaching
younger women voters...drew a vastly grayer crowd" and that "the event's
'Council of Champions' included many of the 'famous for Washington' set and
none of the target 'under-30' set. Actually, most were in the 'way over 30' set."
Billie Jean King. Geraldine Ferraro. Madeleine Albright. Barbara Mikulski.

The Washington Post wondered:

...where were all the young women?

When Ellen Malcolm, the 60-year-old head of Emily's List, solicited cheers
from the "30 or under" crowd, she got a smattering of applause. When she
tested for the "over 30," she got far better results.

Seems unlikely that this event brought many new women or new voters into the process.

by horizonr 2007-06-13 03:56PM | 0 recs
I admire your valor,

but this diary is about nothing.  Yes, Obama is a change, everyone knows it.  But to write about Hillary using the same terminology, adds up to nothing.  Any new voter, at any means, who vote democratic is a good thing.  JMHO

by icebergslim 2007-06-13 04:06PM | 0 recs
It's not about "change" as such
It's about Clinton's cheaply timed shot at Obama with "Ready for Change" on the very weekend of his "Walk for Change." It's precisely about her using something as vacuous as "change" to score this shot -- i.e., that she had nothing better to say or do. And then changing the headline with another desperate grasp at Obama's big crowd mojo. The issue is not "change." The issue is emptiness and desperation.
by horizonr 2007-06-13 04:28PM | 0 recs
You're missing the point.

It is not that Obama has a patent on the term or anything but that it was an obvious attempt to blur the differences in their crowd turnout and campaign messaging.

Clinton started with let's have a conversation for the first half of her campaign while Obama was talking about change.  The conversation crap went out the window when voters realize that Hillary does not listen.  Hillary's ultimate strategy is to blur with Obama then she wins on name ID alone.

No differences in Iraq.

Minimal differences in fundraising.

Minimal differences in women and black support.

Minimal differences in crowd size.

Minimal differences in current voting record.

Keep this perception going all the way to the end and then you win based on the fact that your last name is Clinton and his is Obama.

I clearly think there are differences between the two but I am uncertain as to if low info voters are discerning them with all of Hillary's blurring techniques.

by lovingj 2007-06-13 04:34PM | 0 recs
Re: You're missing the point.

I get it.  Just like in the debates when she says "we all are on the same page with Iraq", when of course they are NOT.  Edwards and Obama need to cut that from her.  Because everyone is vastly different.

by icebergslim 2007-06-13 04:37PM | 0 recs
Agreed.

I believe that Obama understands that now is the time to highlight the differences between the two and I can assure you that I along with other supporters will start actively promoting this in blogs and videos.

by lovingj 2007-06-13 04:43PM | 0 recs
Exactly

lovingj got what I was saying.

I clarify the point in my update.

by horizonr 2007-06-13 05:36PM | 0 recs
Exactly
My update clarifies this. Thanks for your comment.
by horizonr 2007-06-13 05:34PM | 0 recs
Re: You're missing the point.

But what you call "blur" is actually true.  There ARE

No differences in Iraq.   True.

Minimal differences in fundraising.   True.

Minimal differences in women and black support.  

Well, Clinton clearly has a major edge in women support, so if you want to paint it "minimal differences," that would be false.   But, as for black support, generally Clinton has the edge, but it is not huge.  

Minimal differences in crowd size.

She can easily get 8,000 or 10,000 people to events if she wanted to go that route.  She has gotten those crowds.  However, in states like Iowa, New Hampshire, Nevada, South Carolina, you REALLY don't want to do the crowd thing.  People like to feel that they are part of a special group that has the ear of the candidate in a townhall setting of 500, maybe 1,000 people in those states.  It is called "retail campaigning" and most of the smaller states' voters prefer that.

Minimal differences in current voting record.

Absolutely true.   Progressive punch has the goods on the voting records:

http://www.progressivepunch.org/members. jsp?search=selectName&member=NYI& ;chamber=Senate&zip=&x=23&y= 14

http://www.progressivepunch.org/members. jsp?search=selectName&member=ILIII&a mp;chamber=Senate&zip=&x=20& y=10

 

by georgep 2007-06-13 06:28PM | 0 recs
Re: You're missing the point.
No differences in Iraq.

Except for October 2002.

Except for Obama writing his own Iraq legislation in January 2007
and Clinton -- later -- just getting her name tacked on to somebody
else's legislation at the last minute to make herself look good.

Minimal differences in fundraising.

We'll see about that on July 15.

Minimal differences in crowd size. She can easily get 8,000 or
10,000 people to events if she wanted to....

If she could "easily get" 8,000, she wouldn't have to toot her horn
so damned loud about the one time she got it.

And spin as you may, 8,000 is not 15,000 and 20,000 and more --
which Obama has pulled over and over.

by horizonr 2007-06-13 08:31PM | 0 recs
Re: You're missing the point.

I noticed you glossed over your flub with the "minimal difference in the women support.   That was quite the knee slapper, considering that she is well ahead of the competition because she cleans Obama's and Clinton's clock in the "women" department.

   BTW, isn't "Women for Obama" stolen from Clinton's earlier women outreach?  

by georgep 2007-06-13 10:34PM | 0 recs
Re: You're missing the point.

It should have read "cleans Obama's and Edwards' clock"

by georgep 2007-06-13 11:03PM | 0 recs
Not a gloss at all

I just happen to agree with you that, in the long run, there will be
minimal difference in the support Obama and Clinton get from women.

Obviously, Clinton is going to be the default choice for many women voters
right now. Surprise. But as many polling organizations continue to remind us,
much of this support comes from low-info women, so it is far too soon to make
the generic statement that Clinton cleans anyone's clock with women.

by horizonr 2007-06-14 06:25AM | 0 recs
Re: Hillary Clinton, Copycat (of Barack Obama)

Agreed, Obama would have to govern as a centrist. He'd constantly need to be proving himself to corporate America. With Hillary she will take on one tough issue and go to the mat for it.

by Rt hon McAdder esq KBE 2007-06-13 08:27PM | 0 recs
Re: Hillary Clinton, Copycat (of Barack Obama)

Even Obama supporters on here stated just that.  Basically, the tenor was that Obama can't be too bold and too daring if he were president, would have to be extra cautious, because how would it look if the first time a black man became president the economy went sour because of  something he did.  It would then take decades before another black person would be considered for the presidency again.  

I think it is a BS sentiment, but may be unfortunately what Obama is all about (my read from what I see) when it comes to how he would actually govern.  

by georgep 2007-06-13 10:39PM | 0 recs
Re: Hillary Clinton, Copycat (of Barack Obama)

And, she had to use bells and wistles to get them... Obama could walk out on a D.C. street corner and get a crowd of 25,000

by gb1437a 2007-06-13 09:43PM | 0 recs
Good point
by horizonr 2007-06-13 09:47PM | 0 recs
i need a good laugh

Thanks, Obama supporters.

by carolinezhang 2007-06-13 03:04PM | 0 recs
Re: i need a good laugh

One Obama supporter writes a dumb diary so the rest of us are all in the bag with him/her due to candidate association.  Thanks.  Generalizing is great.  I appreciate it.  Who else should we generalize while we're at it?  

by JeremiahTheMessiah 2007-06-13 03:43PM | 0 recs
Re: i need a good laugh

I'm writing this because when dPandrews starts writing S___ I don't jump out and generalize all the Clinton supporters saying they are idiots/ignorant/etc...  I call him out on his bs.  That's it.  

Go ahead, say I'm overreacting about a silly joke if you want, but you said "Obama supporters" not "horizonr", again, putting us all in the same bag, generalizing all of us when one person decided to write a dumb diary.  

by JeremiahTheMessiah 2007-06-13 03:48PM | 0 recs
Re: i need a good laugh

I actually agree with you here.  Good for you that you can see a "dumb" diary when you see it. :-)

I think it would be fair to say "most Obama supporters on here" or "some of you Obama supporters," just not "all."   :=)  

by georgep 2007-06-13 05:43PM | 0 recs
Re: i need a good laugh

Outside of horizonr there is one other Obama supporter that is pro-this diary.  Unless you're reading things I'm missing, that isn't most.  

by JeremiahTheMessiah 2007-06-13 05:45PM | 0 recs
Re: i need a good laugh

I was talking in general terms, daily basis stuff, across the diaries.  

by georgep 2007-06-13 06:30PM | 0 recs
Please read the update...
...as well as lovingj's various comments.
by horizonr 2007-06-13 05:46PM | 0 recs
Agree and Disagree with this:

"But no 2008 candidate has more strongly branded and positioned himself as the candidate of change --
including the mantra that "it's time for a change" -- than Barack Obama."

Obama is trying to position himself as the "change" candidate, but his policy proposals aren't transformative enough for this country IMO.

by Sarah Lane 2007-06-13 03:09PM | 0 recs
Re: Hillary Clinton, Copycat (of Barack Obama)

You wasted your time writing this? What a loser!! Obama hasn't trademarked the word change, people have been using that in their campaign for as long as I can remember. I think you may have topped Sean Hannity for Most Pitiful Clinton Attack.

by bsavage 2007-06-13 03:23PM | 0 recs
Not my point

As I said:

...the well-worn rhetoric of "change" has been used for generations in campaigns for everything
from the village council to the White House. Obama doesn't have a corner on that market.

But nobody here thinks it's an accident that Clinton rolled out the headline on the very weekend
of Obama's "Walk for Change," which he'd been promoting for two months.

by horizonr 2007-06-13 04:13PM | 0 recs
Michelle Obama

Michelle Obama "rolled out" her "Women For Obama" campaign long after Hillary coined the term "Women For Hillary".

Oh gee, how could I forget Elizabeth Edwards who did the same thing by rolling out "Women For Edwards" just two days after Michelle Obama copied Hillary.

I did not see any Clinton supporters opening a diary about this.  

Get a life.

by samueldem 2007-06-13 06:00PM | 0 recs
Re: Michelle Obama

Are you serious?  I remember when Clinton had her "Women for Hillary" thing, but are you actually saying that the Obama and Edwards camps copycatted this and have "Women for Obama" and "Women for Edwards" now?    Amazing.  They must be desperate, or something.    :-)

by georgep 2007-06-13 06:32PM | 0 recs
Re: Michelle Obama

Oh yes.  As soon as "Women For Hillary" was announced and the outreach really began by Hillary's campaign, Michelle Obama's "page" appeared on Obama's website.  "Women For Obama".

A couple of days later, same thing on the John Edwards site - "Women For Edwards" and Elizabeth then gave an interview where she stated that the ONLY candidate who would actually work on behalf of women was her husband.

Desperate indeed.  And trying to hone in on Hillary's women!

:)

by samueldem 2007-06-14 03:37AM | 0 recs
Re: Not my point

A Place Called Hope...Audacity of Hope.

Audacity of Banality.

by Rt hon McAdder esq KBE 2007-06-13 08:29PM | 0 recs
Damn, YIKES,

this here is cold:

As the Washington Post put it, the crowd included "a few youngsters in the moon bounce, a few older folks on the stage, and the rest in the big, soft James Taylor middle."

by icebergslim 2007-06-13 03:24PM | 0 recs
Re: Hillary Clinton, Copycat (of Barack Obama)

lol

by bowiegeek 2007-06-13 03:25PM | 0 recs
Re: Hillary Clinton, Copycat (of Barack Obama)

That's rich: no candidate can use the word "change" except Barack Obama. Any candidate that does is copying Obama and is "on their way out." Does that include John Edwards "Party for Change" events? Unbelievable.

by domma 2007-06-13 03:28PM | 0 recs
Forget "change"
It's about copying messages. It's about desperation.
by horizonr 2007-06-13 04:14PM | 0 recs
Re: Forget "change"

That is ONE thing I can agree with you here.  This is all about desperation.   Massive desperation.  

by georgep 2007-06-13 05:44PM | 0 recs
No

It is about Hillary Clinton's ongoing blurring campaign, which manipulates
the low-info voters that provide much of her support.

Please read my update, as well as lovingj's various comments.

by horizonr 2007-06-13 05:50PM | 0 recs
Re: No

Great. You just insinuated that Hillary Clinton is duping so-called low info voters. Very classy.

by bowiegeek 2007-06-13 05:54PM | 0 recs
Re: No

She is doing a lot better with people who don't have college degrees.  Are you going to argue a poll that just came out yesterday?

by JeremiahTheMessiah 2007-06-13 05:59PM | 0 recs
Re: No

There's a big difference between saying (emphasis mine)

Hillary Clinton's ongoing blurring campaign, which manipulates
the low-info voters
that provide much of her support.

and

She is doing a lot better with people who don't have college degrees.

One is insulting both of Clinton and of people who don't have college degrees (implying that people sans college degree are stupid and easily duped); and one is a statement of fact.

by bowiegeek 2007-06-13 06:05PM | 0 recs
Re: No

Hillary's campaign has called this voting block the "Women with needs" group.  I think that is much more insulting, personally.  

Do you think the more you learn and know, the more easily you will be able to understand issues that affect you and others?  I think so.  So it would make sense that they would be lower-info voters.  

Secondly, I agree with him.  Hillary has been hawkish on some of these issues so she can meld in with the rest of the mainstream Democratic candidates.  That would make it harder to pick who to vote for, wouldn't it?  If you have three candidates that look the same?  Has she released her Health Care plan yet?  Point in Case.  

by JeremiahTheMessiah 2007-06-13 06:13PM | 0 recs
Re: No

Do you think the more you learn and know, the more easily you will be able to understand issues that affect you and others?  I think so.  So it would make sense that they would be lower-info voters.  

No, I don't think that. Every person regardless of his educational background has a sense of what he or she wants in a candidate on the issues he or she values. A college degree has nothing whatever to do with it. As far as I'm concerned it's just another trivial metric.

Hillary has been hawkish on some of these issues so she can meld in with the rest of the mainstream Democratic candidates.  That would make it harder to pick who to vote for, wouldn't it?  If you have three candidates that look the same?

Huh?

Has she released her Health Care plan yet?

She is being slow and deliberative about her plan. She's released part 1 on cutting longterm healthcare costs equal in size to the entirety Obama's plan and has more to go. Case in point. She's the one being smart about healthcare. She has every reason to be since she's the only one of the candidates who's even tried before.

by bowiegeek 2007-06-13 06:43PM | 0 recs
I'm not insinuating it
I'm saying it.
by horizonr 2007-06-13 06:08PM | 0 recs
Re: I'm not insinuating it

Well there you go. All the more reason why this diary is invalid. You can't pry yourself away from character assaults long enough to make any sense.

by bowiegeek 2007-06-13 06:14PM | 0 recs
It's not a "character assault"
to observe that, when Hillary Clinton blurs the lines between herself
and other candidates, she benefits the most from the support of voters
who don't -- or can't -- pick apart the distinctions.
by horizonr 2007-06-13 07:04PM | 0 recs
Re: It's not a "character assault"

You can regurgitate Arianna Huffington's talking points all you want. You have proven yourself incapable here of making any discernible point. If I were you, I'd just drop the whole thing and work on your next attack piece.

by bowiegeek 2007-06-13 07:15PM | 0 recs
Read the diary and the update
The point is there. Either you can't discern it -- or you won't.
by horizonr 2007-06-13 08:08PM | 0 recs
Re: Read the diary and the update

Nah, you're just trolling.

by bowiegeek 2007-06-13 09:14PM | 0 recs
Suit yourself
by horizonr 2007-06-13 09:26PM | 0 recs
Re: Suit yourself

bowie is right.  Even die-hard Obama supporters have told you that you are going overboard here.   You tried to save things with some sort of update and "read what lovingj said," as if that means anything.

This is just another cheesy hit piece without any substance.   You'll be called out everytime you "create" one of these beauties.  

by georgep 2007-06-13 10:45PM | 0 recs
Actually

If you read all the comments, you'll see that a number of Obama supporters
have now moderated their original statements, to the effect that "Oh, now I get it."

That is my fault for having presumed too much of my audience. I assumed -- wrongly --
that Clinton's habitual blurring was a strong enough meme that readers would make
that connection without my having to spell it out in the diary.

The point of the update was to clarify that point.

by horizonr 2007-06-14 06:36AM | 0 recs
Re: Actually

"That is my fault for having presumed too much of my audience."

This point should just stand all by itself.  But I'll take a crack at it anyway:  

It is arrogant beyond belief to make a statement like that.  Get over yourself already.  

by georgep 2007-06-14 09:21AM | 0 recs
Whatever
by horizonr 2007-06-14 02:38PM | 0 recs
Re: Forget "change"

Obama stole the Hope Schtick.

by Rt hon McAdder esq KBE 2007-06-13 08:31PM | 0 recs
desperation?

I have news for you horizonr, if there is one candidate who is not desperate it is Hillary Clinton.  

Nice try.

by samueldem 2007-06-13 06:02PM | 0 recs
I get my news elsewhere, thanks
by horizonr 2007-06-13 06:10PM | 0 recs
Hillary Clinton Copies Nobody

horizonr's real problem is that Hillary drew a crowd of 8000 and had numerous powerful and influential women on stage speaking on her behalf.

Hillary's been talking about change for a very long time, as ALL the candidates have been doing.

Dumb diary.  

by samueldem 2007-06-13 03:32PM | 0 recs
Forget "change"
It's about a cheaply timed shot at Obama. It's about her having nothing else to say. It's about desperation.
by horizonr 2007-06-13 04:17PM | 0 recs
Re: Forget "change"

OK, I am an Obama supporter, but you are really writing in desperation, when you don't need to.  Maybe you should do some, "time out" from mydd and these other political blogs.

by icebergslim 2007-06-13 04:20PM | 0 recs
Re: Forget "change"

agreed time or vacation. This has been useful to see how the candidates may spar. Lets be friends again. Bush is still in office.

by Rt hon McAdder esq KBE 2007-06-13 08:32PM | 0 recs
Hillary, have you no shame?

OH NO!!!!!!!!!

Hillary also used the word CHANGE in Iowa!

http://www.hillaryclinton.com/video/33.a spx

by samueldem 2007-06-13 03:42PM | 0 recs
Re: Hillary Clinton, Copycat (of Barack Obama)

If you have to come up with something this petty to attack her with, she must really be doing better than expected.

by reasonwarrior 2007-06-13 03:42PM | 0 recs
The most insidious things...

...are the hardest to detect.

That's what makes them insidious.

by horizonr 2007-06-13 09:30PM | 0 recs
Re: The most insidious things...

or it makes the "viewer" merely paranoid.

by georgep 2007-06-13 10:46PM | 0 recs
You're entitled to your "view"
by horizonr 2007-06-14 06:37AM | 0 recs
SUE HILLARY CLINTON NOW!!

She used the word CHANGE in San Diego too!!

http://www.hillaryclinton.com/video/26.a spx

by samueldem 2007-06-13 03:49PM | 0 recs
Re: Hillary Clinton, Copycat (of Barack Obama)

I'm sorry I'm a Obama supporter too but this is the silliest and most pointless diary ever.

by Populista 2007-06-13 04:34PM | 0 recs
Please read my update...

...as well as lovingj's various comments.

Hopefully, this will clarify matters.

by horizonr 2007-06-13 05:39PM | 0 recs
Wow the attacks from

Obama supporters is tough.  I feel you horizonr.

I understand your point and realize that you trying uncover a clever tactic that Hillary has been engaging in since Obama announced on February 15th.  BLUR THE LINES AND DIFFERENCES.

I do not think your diary is silly and I feel that it was a clever stealth tactic by the Hillary campaign.

I do know that Obama does not own the word 'change' but I defy someone to show me another campaign trying to keep a similar message and pace.

by lovingj 2007-06-13 04:40PM | 0 recs
"Change"

The most popular word in the dictionary every two years.  More popular every worth.  Obama is just like every other pol ... milkin' it.

by dpANDREWS 2007-06-13 05:17PM | 0 recs
Many thanks
for all your comments. You appear to be the only one who got what
I was saying. I added an update which, I hope, will clarify the point.
by horizonr 2007-06-13 05:41PM | 0 recs
Re: Wow the attacks from

I do know that Obama does not own the word 'change' but I defy someone to show me another campaign trying to keep a similar message and pace.

Just yesterday John Edwards sent an email with a subject line "Party for Change." Today, David Bonior sent an email inviting Washingtonians to a fundraiser "Small Change for Big Change."

by domma 2007-06-13 06:31PM | 0 recs
Hillary is like Old Man River

She keeps rollin' on.

Obama is like Little Jack Horner.  He is still hangin' out over in the corner.

by dpANDREWS 2007-06-13 05:15PM | 0 recs
ok

I came down a little harsh when I said this was a dumb diary.  It was just poorly written.  There is the FACT that Hillary is trying to look like Obama and the rest position wise... She has been hawkish to a large extent when it comes to Iraq and Health Care.  The list goes on.  I think the diary was poorly written because it didn't focus where focus was deserved, and hit the less relevant sections too much.  

by JeremiahTheMessiah 2007-06-13 06:02PM | 0 recs
Re: ok

The sentiment of the diarist is not expressed correctly, and yes, this diary is poorly written.  It comes off as a "whining diary", instead of a factual diary, with facts to back it up.  I usually do not care for opinion pieces, unless it can be backed up with fact.  And since everyone has honed in on the work "change" and this is a common word, that is used in every campaign I can remember.  I mean, if someone is running for office what is the first thing they are shouting about, "change".  Albeit, I do believe the diarist meant well, I finally got what was written, the whole piece was just delivered poorly.

by icebergslim 2007-06-13 06:29PM | 0 recs
Re: ok

don't worry, all the Hollywood big wigs have maxed out.

by icebergslim 2007-06-13 06:56PM | 0 recs
Re: UPDATE: Hillary Clinton, Copycat (of Barack Ob

i was at a hillary event over a month ago, and they used the word change a lot. This is just another hit piece, and a weak one at that.

hmmm you think anyone in the democratic field isnt going to use the word CHANGE regarding the white house when a vast majority of people want CHANGE from dick and bush?

by sepulvedaj3 2007-06-13 06:33PM | 0 recs
Not good

What I am reading this morning about the Obama/Rezko matter.  Seems some "letters" were revealed and then Obama's spokesperson admitted that - yes, Obama wrote the letters.

NY Times.  AP.  MSNBC.  FOX.  

Not good.  I hope Obama clears this messy matter up, once and for all.

by samueldem 2007-06-14 03:48AM | 0 recs

Diaries

Advertise Blogads