Clinton: Change "You Can Count On"
Last night’s debate was not a fluke.
Hillary Clinton is wagering the success of her campaign in New Hampshire, and possibly her entire candidacy, on her ability to destroy the reputations of Barack Obama and John Edwards as change-makers.
After building them up as making a “tremendous contribution to this campaign” and offering “service to our country,” in a Nashua high school just now, she fervently went about the business of knocking them down.
“But there are differences and differences are important,” said Clinton, surrounded by packed bleachers and American flags. “It is important for you to have the facts.”
These, as Clinton sees it, are the facts and how they undercut her rivals’ claims as change agents.
Targeting Obama, she said, “If you give a speech saying you are going to vote against the Patriot Act and you don’t, that’s not change," to big applause. "If you say you are going to prevent members of Congress from having lunch with lobbyists sitting down, but they can still have lunch standing up, that’s not change.” And this: “If you gave a speech—and a very good speech—against the war in Iraq in 2002 and then by 2004 you're saying you're not sure how you would have voted, and by 2005 six and seven you've voted for $300 billion for the war you said you're against, that's not change.”
And she did not forget about Edwards, especially after he returned to the role of Clinton-baiter in last night’s debate. “If you say that you passed the Patients’ Bill of Rights and forget to add that it never got passed into law, that’s not change,” Clinton said. She said, “If you ran against the special interests like the oil companies” and other big businesses, “but you voted for Dick Cheney’s energy bill, that’s not change.”
Before launching into a lengthy question and answer period, Clinton made her New Hampshire message absolutely clear: “I want to give you a president who will give you change you can count on."
1. Does all change have an ingredient of Hope?
2. In pursuit of change how much time and energy can be spent portraying the competition as unable to change?
3. If after touting 35 years of change the message is that still more change is needed what in those 35 years didn't get changed?
If you look at the Iowa post debate picture you will see Bill and Magdalen surrounding Hillary. There is nothing better than the pictire shows what kind of " change" we will see if Hillary gets elected.
If I worked for change in poverty and in racism in this country for thirty-five years, does that mean there's no more need for working more? What nonsense our Anonymous frined spouts. Anything at all to denigrate Senator Clinton, just anything at all, it seems. As to "Magdalen" standing with Mrs. Clinton--I suppose Viktor means Madeleine Albright--I'm very proud of what Secretary Albright did in office, and it means something to me that she sees Mrs. Clinton as the best choice for President. I like all the Democratic candidates, and I like John McCain too. This compulsion on every blog on the internet to demonize and savage Senator Clinton, instead of promoting one's own choice, is hurtful not just to the Democratic party but to the nation. And most of it, like those posts here so often, are little more than snideness and bile. Grow up.
HILLARY IS RIGHT, THEY TRIED TO DESTROY HER IN IOWA, SO NOW IT IS HER TURN TO PROVIDE FACTS ABOUT OBAMA AND EDWARDS. WHAT IS GOOD FOR THE GOOSE IS GOOD FOR THE GANDER. SHE IS CREDIBLE, HAS HONESTY, INTEGRITY, CHARACTER AND LOTS OF KNOWLEDGE TO TAKE OUR COUNTRY AND GIVE IT BACK TO US. GO HILLARY, PRESIDENT OF USA IN '08.
When Hillary is down she attacks and distorts the truth while Barack Obama deflects and sticks to the issues. He is a class act. Obama08
Doc5467 - I hear you loud and clear. It is no shocker that self-loathing liberals (as opposed to the progressives that Hillary represents) would try to cut down someone as committed to public service as Hillary because she is not on the far left of the spectrum. Just read the blogs - it is full of the same people that help keep this party divided.
In addition to the deserved scrutiny that must be forthcoming on Mr. Obama's record, I would also like to see all of Mr. Obama's "present" votes in the IL legislature brought to light. "Present" is not a platform, nor is it a very powerful stance for anything - be it change or the status quo. He criticizes Hillary for voting to recognize the Rev. Guard in Iran as a terrorist group (which there is no doubt they ARE), but himself did not bother to show for the vote. His excuse? That he was campaigning. And Hillary was not? I guess some things he wont try to "change," like actually doing his job.
If Barack gets nominated, the best we can hope for is Jimmy Carter Part 2. The worst is a GOP White House. In either case, if he stands for the Dems in Nov., over the next four years I will invoke the same mantra I have used for the past seven years: "I didn't vote for him."
Ok, if change is the buzz word - how can you be about change if you dress like Jack and talk like Bill.
Of course, we need change, that's what we're about. I call it progressive politics. But for real change you have to know what you're doing. Plus, I'd love having Sec. Albright by my side. Here's someone who knows what it takes to get to where we want to be. Didn't she make it into North Korea. Now that's something to brag about.
Besides, imagine sitting across the table from Putin. Would a pretty face, a smile and platitudes about hope change that steely mind? Read what Time has to say about that.
I find the media is doing it again....promoting one candidate over the other and not asking the tough questions of all the candidates...that is what got G.W. appointed and then elected. The media was taken in by G.W., seen as a "nice" guy because he joked around with the media on the campaign trail. Now, this year, they have all been taken in again. When are you all going to start doing your jobs and ask all of the candidates tough questions? Change is such a phony mantra. It is obvious that whomever is elected will bring about change, which after 8 years of Bush, it is long overdue. A first woman president would be a huge change and one which is long overdue! As Democrats we can not afford to have another Republican president. You had better make sure that the Democratic nominee will be someone that can be elected in the entire U.S., not just in a small state like Iowa or in a northeastern small state such as N.H. We have too much at stake to let the media and the political pundits choose our next President. Wake up America and do your homework...find out all of the details about every candidate so you know exactly what you're voting for. If you think the Republicans are simply not going to attack the Democratic nominee, you've forgotten what Bush did to McCain the last time around.
Some thought that Mrs. Clinton was going to roll over and play dead. She is a fighter for the middle class, and she has much to, offer this country. I have no problem with Mr. Obama but I thin he needs more experience.
The world is much more dangerous now than when JFK became President he had more experience than Obama. Mrs. Clinton has been criticised for saying, "She was in it to win." You have to win before you govern. She is a capable credible candidate.
The race is not over. There are many more states between now and next November.
This is one of the more dim-witted critiques of Clinton I've ever seen so I'll assume the questions are sincere.
1. Yes, all change has an ingredient of hope, but the president's job is to make our hopes reality. We all hope for a more just society and a better future. Since Hillary has a long record of creating positive change, it's obvious that she has always been hopeful and listened to the hopes and dreams of the people. But she hasn't just listened, and she hasn't just articulated, she's implemented changes to help realize those hopes.
2. Hillary Clinton has spent a year telling people about the changes she intends to implement and how she would go about implementing them. In the last two months her opponents have tried to characterize her significant accomplishments as trivial. Since politicians are excellent at stirring up people's hopes and then letting them down, it is fair to look at their records to see if they have a record of actually being able to deliver on their promises.
3. This is specious question. A lifetime dedicated to improving the world should not be dismissed because the world continues to need improvement. If in three years as Senator Obama has flipped flopped on every major position, from funding the war in Iraq, to his views on healthcare policy, what evidence is there that he really is an agent of change rather than just a talker?
I used to like Obama. But recently his rhetoric has sickened me. By downplaying her experience as that of a glorified housewife, he has used insidious sexism to knock down Hillary's many accomplishments without building a case that he has a track record of creating a record of change. All he's touted is his 2002 speech on Iraq, i.e. that he's a good talker. It's about time we look at his record. He said he wouldn't vote to fund the war, but he voted to fund the war every time it came up in the Senate until he started running for president. Why should we trust anything he says?
Now that Obama has become the front-runner the sceptics are crawling out of the carpet.When you look long and hard enough at anyone even a virtue begins to look like its ugly sister(eg. eloquence becomes he is "only" a good talker).People have said that Obama's played it safe and easy, well so has Clinton. Unfortunately, politics is a career, the road to oblivion paved with altruists.They're both good at politics. Otherwise they wouldn't be where they are.
Putting anyone in the White House is a roll of the dice.Given that, many people seem to know what to expect from another Clinton administration, but are not all that certain that such an approach(technincally sound, pragmatic,MOR to the max, uninspiring)is called for at the moment.Obama seems to know that not all is well in the land,that some of our problems are practical, and that others are spiritual and emotional.Very few doubt his intelligence, and many believe that he is, quite simply, a good man, and for some that is enough.
Just because Obama is a good man is not enough, clearly Hillary is the best candidate.
Obama and Edward's are cool is cool but do we need cool?
Hillary will be our next president.
For those who wish to see a Dem elected to the White House with a tide of down-ticket Dems, AND win a genuine, sincere, and critically-needed progressive agenda, then vote for Barack. In every time-tested poll, Obama bests Clinton against every GOP candidate. His wide appeal is now obvious, a political tidal wave of a passion not seen in this country in 40 years. Issue by issue, he tops Hillary as a friend toward peace, a global liberal (not neo-liberal), and advocate for fair treatment toward labor and the middle class. I am proud to say he has my vote.
“I want to give you a president who will give you change you can count on."
This is why America is turning against Hillary and moving towards Obama. Hillary wants to "give" us things, as if she indeed holds the power to give and withhold various benefits and we're waiting for her to make good things happen for us. This was clearly shown in her Christmas ad which had her sitting in front of a stack of neatly wrapped gifts asking where she put "universal pre-K"...whatever that means. The truly sad part is that she might actually believe she knows exactly what's best for each and every one of us and can deliver on all of it.
Bill Clinton yesterday questioned how Barack Obama could be the "Agent of Change" when he has voted lock-step with Hillary Clinton. He's right! Both voted for the Patriot Act; Both voted for funding for a war they claim they want to end; Both say they won't bring the troops home right away (what are they waiting for?).
So, I ask you, who is the real "agent of change?"
RON PAUL!
He is the ONLY candidate who has ALWAYS stated that he would bring the troops home. He is the ONLY candidate who did not vote for the Patriot Act! He is the ONLY candidate who does not believe in huge oil subsidies for the oil companies!
Oh, and he is also the only Republican that Fox News doesn't like!
If you want change, as you say you do, then you have to VOTE for REAL change....not just a slogan of change.
David Sanchez, you're going to kick yourself for posting that after you look at drudgereport.com
Hillery says she is for change and has been for the past 35 years. Well I am concerned about the next 8 years in nwhat she will channge; more than that I am concerned about how she will effect those changes. If her past assertions and performance are any indication she will lead us farther into the nanny state. She believes in big government; that is government that knows better than you what you want and need and they will provide it for you. Listen to what she has said through-out this campaign. She has a lot of ideas and plans to make things better but she never says how she will pay for them- if she did she knows we would scream. She wants more of our money to pay for her iaeds.
Is it actually possible that the voters in our country are so gullible?
Dan- what have you done to involve yourself in the political/social and economic outcome of any issue in this country? Of course our politicians "give" us what they think we need- because the average American is surely not out there trying to make it happen on their own.
David Sanchez- What are they waiting for to bring the troops home? They are waiting for a political situation that will uphold some semblance of order. Do you have any idea how long it takes to bring military units home? Obama would like to pander to the sentiment of the average American by saying "I would bring them home immediately". That is wreckless, ill-conceived and ultimately dangerous to our troops. I am preparing to send my husband over there for the third time. Do I want him to leave? No. But I would rather endure this for the next several years to give the Iraqi government a fighting chance than to leave an unstable country that will serve as a major safe haven to future terrorist operations thus requiring our troops to go back AGAIN (as the Bush dynasty has given us) and have to start all over, effectively ensuring another 4000 American soldiers deaths. Clinton gets that. She is the only one with an actual re-deployment plan. Edwards doesnt even want to listen to the advice of his military leaders (which is what got us into Iraq in the first place). One of two things is going on with Obama: 1. He has no concept of what is involved in a large scale re-deployment or 2. he does know that you cant just bring them home tomorrow, but knows that wont get him elected, so he will just tell you that and then blame it on someone else once he is called to deliver what he promised.
Dreams are great. But in reality- you have to have a plan.
The mistake that Clinton is making is assuming that those who vote are anywhere near as knowledgeable as she is. From reading posts here and elsewhere, she is clearly mistaken.
Additionally- the fact that Obama voted for war funding does not concern me. That he would say that he would not vote for it does bother me. It is another example of how he does not have the experience necessary. That war funding pays to keep the American soldiers safe- you know, things like bullets. You dont force a withdrawal by hamstringing the soldier. Of course he voted for it= otherwise the blood of the soldiers would have been on his hands- which he should have recognized before making the ridiculous claim that he would not vote for it.