- ‹ previous
- 3043 of 7916
- next ›
Hillary Clinton Tosses the Script
As Hillary Clinton looks to become the second Comeback Kid in her immediate family, her campaign is trying a new approach. She kicked off her New Hampshire campaign by sticking to the stump speech that she relied on in Iowa, but that's changed. Perhaps sensing that her stump speech was, in effect, third-rate, Clinton delivered very brief remarks at the beginning of her campaign appearances today and spent most of the time taking questions from New Hampshire voters.
At Merrimack Valley High School in the town of Penacook this morning, Clinton spoke for roughly ten minutes before turning to the very substantial crowd for questions. Her remarks did have a point, however: three times in those ten minutes, she managed to say that she was the only candidate ready to lead "from day one" or "from the first day." The speakers that came before her also used the phrases three times, in equally brief comments. Perhaps the Clinton camp took a hard look at the strategy from Iowa—emphasize biography, emphasize the '90s, emphasize work ethic—and determined that only the "day one" sound bite was worth keeping.
And it's just as well. At both the Penacook appearance and a later one in Durham, Clinton was masterful in the question and answer sessions. The questions were easy; examples included "What are the top two reasons to vote for you?" and "I've been frustrated by the deceptively named No Child Left Behind. What will you do about it?" Clinton provided very long answers—an answer ostensibly on social security touched on middle class incomes, health care, energy, and the Republican war on science, and lasted over 10 minutes—that included smart tangents and acknowledgments of important sub-issues. For example, when asked a question about rising health care costs by a woman who claimed to be the caretaker of both her parents and her children, Clinton pointed out that "the most difficult time of day for families is often three to six" and that "you can get more help from the government putting parents in nursing homes than you can for keeping them in your own home." In another discussion, she pointed out dental hygiene's connections to heart health and infections all over the body. If other candidates have an appreciation of the issues that is this in-depth, they don't show it on the campaign trail.
And that may be the point of the new all-questions strategy. It allows Clinton to display the breadth and depth of her knowledge. Her ability to make reference to past battles and former achievements underscores her experience even if it isn't a central focus.
And the crowds loved it. An elderly woman leaving the Penacook event at the high school said, "If the election were today, she'd have my vote." After the Durham event, a man named Sam Quinn said, "I thought she was pretty together and well-organized. She seemed to have an answer for every question." Quinn said he was likely to vote for Clinton. The Durham crowd applauded enthusiastically after each of Clinton's responses.
But there are two problems. It was never Hillary Clinton's campaign events that turned people off. At Obama and Edwards events in Iowa, voters explained their opposition to Clinton by pointing to her vote with the White House to classify the Iranian Revolutionary Guard as a terrorist organization; or the fact that her campaign had gone negative (the attack on Obama's kindergarten essay and the insinuations of drug-dealing were frequently cited); or the fact that she had embraced Rupert Murdoch after the media magnate spent years tearing into her family. Whatever the reason, it almost always had to do with her past actions or the behavior of her campaign. There's no performance Clinton can put on at these question and answer events that is going to counter that.
The other problem is that this new strategy includes no new message that will inspire people. It introduces no new ideas or principles that undecided voters can identify with from afar. They have to come to her events to see how impressive she is. And even if Hillary Clinton converts every single person at these question and answer sessions, the most people she can reach is 1,000 to 1,500 per day. With election day on Tuesday of next week, she's going to have to do better than that.
Photos: Top, Hillary Clinton supporters before her event this morning in Penacook; second, the Merrimack Valley High School gym at 9:00 am; third, the same gym roughly an hour later; bottom, Clinton speaking at the event.
Digg
Reddit
Twitter
Facebook
Buzz Up!
StumbleUpon
MySpace
LinkedIn
Delicious
Furl
Google
Yahoo
Marx condemned the sexual freedom advocated by Fourier and Saint-Simon as a relapse into a "bestial" state of "universal prostitution". Engels condemned homosexuality among men of ancient Greece in two separate passages of The Origin of the Family, Private Property, and the State, describing it as "morally deteriorated", "abominable", "loathsome" and "degrading". Marx apparently shared Engels' views, writing that "the relation of man to woman is the most natural relation of human being to human being" and describing the author of a text promoting sexual freedoms as "that queer prick" ("Schwanzschwulen"). According to the socialist writers Hekma, Oosterhuis and Steakley, Marx and Engels saw any form of sexuality outside of a monogamous heterosexual marriage as a kind of degeneracy fostered by capitalism, which could be cured by socialism. According to Engels, "natural moral principles" would flourish in the socialist future, when (heterosexual) "monogamy, instead of declining, finally becomes a reality ? for the man as well, and homosexuality would simply disappear.
August Bebel's Woman under Socialism (1879), the "single work dealing with sexuality most widely read by rank-and-file members of the SPD," was even more explicit in warning socialists of the dangers of same-sex love. Bebel attributed "this crime against nature" in both men and women to sexual indulgence and excess, describing it as an upper-class, metropolitan and foreign vice. Vote Obama.
Marx condemned the sexual freedom advocated by Fourier and Saint-Simon as a relapse into a "bestial" state of "universal prostitution". Engels condemned homosexuality among men of ancient Greece in two separate passages of The Origin of the Family, Private Property, and the State, describing it as "morally deteriorated", "abominable", "loathsome" and "degrading". Marx apparently shared Engels' views, writing that "the relation of man to woman is the most natural relation of human being to human being" and describing the author of a text promoting sexual freedoms as "that queer prick" ("Schwanzschwulen"). According to the socialist writers Hekma, Oosterhuis and Steakley, Marx and Engels saw any form of sexuality outside of a monogamous heterosexual marriage as a kind of degeneracy fostered by capitalism, which could be cured by socialism. According to Engels, "natural moral principles" would flourish in the socialist future, when (heterosexual) "monogamy, instead of declining, finally becomes a reality ? for the man as well, and homosexuality would simply disappear.
August Bebel's Woman under Socialism (1879), the "single work dealing with sexuality most widely read by rank-and-file members of the SPD," was even more explicit in warning socialists of the dangers of same-sex love. Bebel attributed "this crime against nature" in both men and women to sexual indulgence and excess, describing it as an upper-class, metropolitan and foreign vice. Vote Obama.
I have read this before, literally, word for word.
Anyway, my question would be, why are the Democrats allowing the GOP to fight these wars under emergency supplementals that allows the GOP to rake the democrats over the coals every few months for not supporting the troops when this is certainly a political ploy to do just that.
Ok, Q&A is good, first question, why was she so reluctant to take a position on the war? Why all the waffling? If you wanna sit in the chair, well, going to war is a pretty big decision, as decisions go, why was she for the war before she was against it? That question goes to the rest of the IHOP Pandidates, there.
Second question, what's up with our federal finances?
Does Congress have this little assembly line, and they all stand next to the conveyor with a 'yes' stamp
for the next piece of spending that gets sent down the pike, there?
Third question, how about that immigration stuff, what's your real position, under your administration what sort of policy would you try to introduce or support/oppose etc?
Fourth question, energy, would you support a national teach-in on alternative energy production, as well as giving talks on things like sustainable farming, water conservation, development, and other eco-groovy topics?
Fifth question, kind of goes
along with the fourth, what's
your position on the middle
east, how many more years will our military wander the desert so that companies like Halliburton can drill oil wells there?
That's 5 for starters...
Healthcare Crisis in Politics
CEO and founder of RxPop.com says, "U.S. citizens are offered a health care system that is not only disgustfully inadequate and inefficient, but a complete and total moral ignominy. If the U.S. cannot adopt a more economical and stabilized health care system, citizens should be able to turn to Canada for help. Denying them this right could cost them their lives and that is unacceptable!"
Over 46.6 million Americans are uninsured, with 15.9 percent of Americans lacking health coverage.
Census data show that 46.6 million Americans were uninsured in 2005, an increase of 1.3 million from the number of uninsured in 2004 (45.3 million). The percentage who are uninsured rose from 15.6 percent in 2004 to 15.9 percent in 2005. The number of children who are uninsured rose from 7.9 million in 2004 to 8.3 million in 2005.
My fellow Americans, wake up! It's time for drastic change in U.S. Health Care Policy.
To watch videos of countless U.S. politicians speaking out on the Healthcare Crisis visit:
http://www.rxpop.com/politics.asp
GREAT DEBATE. HILLARY CLINTON THE CLEAR WINNER, AND REMEMBER, WE MUST NOT HAVE A REPLAY OF YEAR "2000".
Great debate last night. Hillary Clinton came across strong, in control, showing excellent leadership, and sense of direction. She spoke in specifics, presenting details of her proposed plans to help bring this nation back to at least a sense of normalcy from where we have been taken by George Bush and his disastrous gang of "hoodlums" who hijacked our government for their own political purposes of self-interest.
Barack Obama came across again as the "empty suit" candidate with those "feel good" phrases even as he referenced a hero of mine, Abraham Lincoln. That's great. Thank you. Let's bring back Abraham Lincoln. Excuse me please, but I want to really talk about "today", and I think Abraham Lincoln would agree if he were here with us.
CONTINUING, WE MUST REMEMBER NOT TO LET THIS BE YEAR "2000" ALL OVER AGAIN.
We all remember year "2000"......with candidate George Bush and his great "feel good" down home rhetoric of "we need a change in Washington", as he was campaigning against the better qualified candidate Al Gore. We all know the disastrous results, and what has happened the last seven years. Well, the American people won't be that gullible this time. Barack Obama is a gifted orator, outstanding script, brilliant feel good rhetoric, great baritone voice for his delivery, but the rhetoric is all "feel good". Paul Krugman writes in the New York Times with his article on December 17th in his piece titled "Big Table Fantasies", that Mr. Obama is "naive". I agree. Hillary Clinton has a plan, with as many specifics as possible at this time, that will work to make the changes we need in our Executive Branch, with her as President from day #1, and we have to start then, immediately, if not sooner. From Iowa, there are 49 more states, and Hillary Clinton will be campaigning aggressively in each. I hope and believe all Americans will see that she is the best person to lead our Executive Department forward as President, and not someone who is just well meaning, and who only gives us "feel good rhetoric", and who quite frankly would be better suited as a Talk Show Host or Game Show Host on Network T.V. Thank you.
From: Common Sense - Bruce
I wish to understand your change in attitude toward the Illegal Iraq Invasion & Occupation.
You first voted to invade Iraq when there was no credible Intelligence justifying this decision, only information provided by the Bush administration that has since turned out to be lies.
Recently you stated that you feel our decision was WRONG and we need to get out of Iraq, but you fail to identify the original Bush administration's justifications were all lies. Without this labeling of the Bush administration's lies, you fail to recognize the obvious and deal with it as an IMPEACHABLE situation. Also, without the call for a complete impartial investigation into these Bush administration's lies, you fail to identify the Bush administration's Invasion and now the occupation as ILLEGAL. When you do this, I will reconsider voting for you!
I agree that Obama is the "empty suit" and simply spouts, stutters his rhetoric of "change." I don't seem to read anything, anywhere that suggests, what I see, as a sort of replay of 1980. I believe Bush Sr. knew he couldn't win and used Reagan to get him into office. Once inside he knew he could call the shots and obviously did. Is anyone else out there getting the same feeling that this will produce an Obama/Hillary ticket?
I am interested in embracing what is unique about being gay. The more I can recognize how I was made to feel ashamed for being gay . I believe staying in the closet and creating a false identity is not the answer. I grew up in a heterosexual Texas family in which I was reared as if were heterosexual and was constantly brain washed that heterosexuality was the only reality. Any expression of my Gay Self would result in receiving violent treatments from my father a texas ranger. This violent homophobic society was too scary for me to express my genuine Gay Self. I need help i just don't no what to do.
Marx condemned the sexual freedom advocated by Fourier and Saint-Simon as a relapse into a "bestial" state of "universal prostitution". Engels condemned homosexuality among men of ancient Greece in two separate passages of The Origin of the Family, Private Property, and the State, describing it as "morally deteriorated", "abominable", "loathsome" and "degrading". Marx apparently shared Engels' views, writing that "the relation of man to woman is the most natural relation of human being to human being" and describing the author of a text promoting sexual freedoms as "that queer prick" ("Schwanzschwulen"). According to the socialist writers Hekma, Oosterhuis and Steakley, Marx and Engels saw any form of sexuality outside of a monogamous heterosexual marriage as a kind of degeneracy fostered by capitalism, which could be cured by socialism. According to Engels, "natural moral principles" would flourish in the socialist future, when (heterosexual) "monogamy, instead of declining, finally becomes a reality for the man as well, and homosexuality would simply disappear.
August Bebel's Woman under Socialism (1879), the "single work dealing with sexuality most widely read by rank-and-file members of the SPD," was even more explicit in warning socialists of the dangers of same-sex love. Bebel attributed "this crime against nature" in both men and women to sexual indulgence and excess, describing it as an upper-class, metropolitan and foreign vice. Vote Obama.
It's nice to see an accurate description of Hillary's campaign without all the snarky commentary the national media can't resist adding, so thanks for that, MoJo. But here's the key line from this posting: "They have to come to her events to see how impressive she is." If (if!) the political media were covering her campaign instead of analyzing her campaign strategy, if they were calling her Hillary Clinton instead of "the Clintons", if they were describing her successful campaign events as frequently as they are Obama's, then she wouldn't have to get every single NH Dem to come to one to learn that she's impressive. Even in IA and NH, more people vote based on what they hear in the news than what they learn at in-person events. But the news about the race (and poor Edwards, by the way, who can't seem to get arrested anymore) is so partial and distorted, voters don't have the information they need to decide among the candidates. I wonder how some of these political reporters sleep at night.
出会い
出会い系
募金
高知 不動産
広島 不動産
ソニー損保