From The Archives -- A Hillary Clinton 2007 Campaign Speech
A few words of introduction are necessary today. I spent most of the day dealing with email (cleaning out my mailbox and fishing for quotes for tomorrow's article), so instead of a fresh column today, I'm re-running a speech from Hillary Clinton from November of 2007.
There are a few reasons why it is worthwhile to re-run this particular column. At the time, I was going on vacation and needed to fill two weeks of space on the blog. So I got the idea of running a campaign speech from each of the Democratic candidates. I contacted all eight candidates' campaigns and asked them for a campaign speech transcript I could run. I got seven speeches, and one position paper from Dennis Kucinich (whose campaign said he always spoke without notes, therefore they had no prepared speeches available). I ran them in the order I received them back: Chris Dodd, Joe Biden, John Edwards, Barack Obama, Bill Richardson, Hillary Clinton, Dennis Kucinich, and Mike Gravel.
At the time, I promised each campaign that the transcript would run on its own, with no editorial commentary by me. Instead I posted an introduction to the whole "Candidate Speech Series" which explained what I was doing (and which was subsequently updated with links to all of the speeches, in case anyone's interested in the others). In it, I explained what motivated me:
This is due to the fact that reporters who follow candidates along the campaign trail get extremely bored hearing what is basically the same speech being given over and over again by whatever candidate they're following. Because they're so bored with the candidate's "stump speech," they figure everyone in America is just as bored by the same speech -- so they live in perpetual anticipation of some sort of gaffe from the candidate which they can then report as "breaking news" in order to score a juicy scoop for themselves.
Time was, I pointed out, the news media would just print the text of the politician's speech, and let the public decide what to think of it. That was what I intended to do. But, while putting the whole thing together, I discovered something kind of shocking:
I must say that what surprised me most about the process of compiling these speeches is that I appear to be the only journalist making this attempt. Time after time, I was struck by the campaigns' astonishment (even from the frontrunners) at anyone asking for a simple speech transcript. What this told me was the fact that nobody else -- nobody in the entire universe of media requests -- is asking for the same thing. If this were a common request of the press offices of these campaigns, then they would have at their fingertips a standard response to such a request, and a standard speech transcript to offer up. What I actually found was -- time and time again -- a press office who viewed such a request as an aberration in the standard media atmosphere of the campaign. This should be a signal that the mainstream media is not even interested in what the actual candidates have to say, and is a sad commentary on the entire mediaverse.
Of course, now that Hillary's running again, her 2007 speech serves as a sort of benchmark or baseline for her upcoming campaign. Now, I wouldn't hold Clinton to campaign promises she made eight years ago, since she didn't ultimately win the White House. That would be unfair to ask of any politician. But I do think it'll be interesting, as the 2016 campaign moves forward, to be able to compare where Hillary Clinton is now on the issues with where she was back then.
So, once again as a public service, I present a Hillary Clinton stump speech from her last campaign for president.
This column originally ran on November 21, 2007. Oh, and one technical note: the links to the "Hillary 2008" website likely don't work anymore.
Hillary Clinton
http://www.hillaryclinton.com/
Remarks at the Iowa Jefferson-Jackson Dinner
Des Moines, Iowa
11/10/07
Thank you. Thank you. Thank you so much. Thank you Iowa Democrats. Thank you all. Thank you. What a night. What a great, great night. Thank you all. There's no better place to be than right here in Iowa with the great elected officials that you have: your governor, your lieutenant governor, your congressional delegation, our wonderful friend, Senator Tom Harkin and his wife Ruth. Isn't it a special treat to have the Speaker of the House, Madam Speaker here tonight?
You know, on January 20th, 2009, someone will stand on the steps of the Capitol and raise his or her hand to take the oath of office as the 44th President of the United States of America. And we are here tonight to make sure that that next president is a Democrat. Because, we know, after seven years of George W. Bush, seven years of incompetence, cronyism, and corruption, seven years of a government of the few by the few and for the few. We, as a nation cannot afford any other choice.
We have to have a Democratic president because we have big challenges to meet. We have a war to end. We have an economy to revive. We have a 47 million Americans to insure. We have an energy crisis to solve. We have a homeland to protect, we have alliances to rebuild and we have a world to lead. So, we are ready for change.
But, you know what? Change, change is just a word if you do not have the strength and experience to make it happen. We must nominate a nominee who has been tested, and elect a president who is ready to lead on day one.
I know what it is going to take to win. I know it's going to take all of us and millions more and a candidate who will work and fight every single day for the next year and then will go into the White House determined to bring about that change that we care so much about. Fortunately, I have a little experience standing up and fighting for what I believe is right and what I think America needs and how we can get there together.
I have spent 35 years making a difference and fighting for what I believe matters to people. As a young lawyer, I went to work for the Children's Defense Fund, fighting for abused and neglected kids, fighting for kids in the foster care system, fighting for kids with disabilities, kids without health care, kids without educational opportunities. In Arkansas, I helped to expand health care into rural areas and to reform the school system so that every child would have a chance to succeed.
As president, I will continue those fights. Continue so that we leave no person and no child out of America's promise. As first lady, I fought my heart out for health care, and, well we might not have been successful that time, but I am so proud that I played a part helping to create the Children's Health Insurance Program and to insure 6 million children. When I'm president, we are going to finish the job and provide quality affordable health care for every single American man, woman, and child.
And, as Senator, I have continued to fight for family farmers and for workers. To fight for soldiers to get the body armor they needed, and for first responders to get the health care they required after 9/11. I have fought against the privatizing of Social Security and against the failed policies of George W. Bush at home and around the world. And, when I am President, I will work to reverse the damage of the eight years of George Bush and I will restore the pride and progress in America that should be our birthright. That is who America is. We want to be proud again. We want to be progressive again and we will, when I am president.
Now, there are some who will say that they do not know where I stand. Well, I think you know better than that. I stand where I have stood for 35 years. I stand with you and with your children, and with every American who needs a fighter in their corner for a better life. Now, I know how easy it is in a campaign to get distracted; to focus on who is up and who is down, and who says what about whom. But, that is not what this election is about.
This election is about those Iowans and those Americans who feel invisible in their own country; who feel invisible to their own president. This election is about the woman I met in LeClair. She and her husband both work really hard, but they had to sell half the family farm to pay their medical expenses. This election is about a veteran I met in Sioux Center, who bravely fought in Iraq and came home and had to keep fighting to get the health care that he needed. This election is about the mother from Greenville, whose daughter got sick and they did not have insurance, and she died. And on her death certificate, they could not even put a cause of death, because nobody had ever made a diagnosis. She was just 18-years old. There should not be any invisible Americans and when I am president, there will not be. We will have a president again, who gets up every day, worries about, thinks about, and fights for every single one of us. That's what America deserves, and that is what my candidacy offers.
Now, we are getting closer to the Iowa caucuses. They are going to be earlier than ever before. I know as the campaign goes on, that it's going to get a little hotter out there. But that is fine with me. Because, you know, as Harry Truman said, if you can't stand the heat, get out of the kitchen. I'll tell you what, I feel really comfortable in the kitchen.
So, we have to ask ourselves, what is this election going to be focused on? Well, I will tell you what I want to do. I am not interested in attacking my opponents. I am interested in attacking the problems of America, and I believe we should be turning up the heat on the Republicans; they deserve all the heat we can give them.
You know, you listen to the Republicans who are running this year, they see eight more years of George Bush. They see a nine trillion dollar debt and say let's spend trillions more. They see that we had one rush to war and then say, wait, wait, why not have one more? Well, I think we are going to tell them, in the course of this campaign, that they do not have any more time. America is done with the Republicans and their failed policies and their refusal to give America back the future that we deserve. But we Democrats, we have to decide what we are for. We Democrats believe that the middle class is the backbone of our country and the guarantor of the American dream. So, when the Republicans stand by and watch rising gas prices and rising health care costs and increases in college tuition and falling housing prices, and struggling families, and they have turned China into our banker, what are we going to do?
Turn up the heat!
And we Democrats, we believe that every child has a God-given potential that we want to help unlock. So, when the Republicans cut Head Start, and refuse to fix No Child Left Behind? What do we do?
Turn up the heat!
And when we Democrats fight for universal health care and the Republicans veto health care for children and then let the insurance companies and the drug companies undermine health care for the rest of us, what do we do?
Turn up the heat!
And we Democrats, we believe in labor rights and women's rights and gay rights, and civil rights.
And we believe in a Department of Labor that is actually pro-labor, and a Department of Justice that delivers justice. So, when the Republicans tried to turn the clock back on women's rights, when they tried to stomp out labor unions, when they try to undermine civil rights, what do we do?
Turn up the heat!
And we Democrats, we believe in protecting the environment and we believe in solving the energy crisis. So, when the Republicans turn over our energy policy to the oil companies and deny global warming, what do we do?
Turn up the heat!
And we Democrats, we believe in a government that works for all Americans again. We actually believe in appointing qualified people to do the jobs in the United States Government. So, when the Republicans stock the government with their cronies, when they give no-bid contracts to Halliburton and legal immunity to Blackwater, what do we do?
Turn up the heat!
And we Democrats, we believe in the power of science and innovation. We know it can lift up lives and grow the economy, so when President Bush declares a war on science, when he bans stem cell research, when he tries to turn Washington into an evidence-free zone and put ideology in front of facts. What do we do?
Turn up the heat!
And finally, we believe that our country is both great and good. And as president, I will end the war in Iraq, end the era of cowboy diplomacy and restore America's standing and leadership in the world.
So, when the Republicans engage in fear-mongering and saber-rattling and talk about World War III, what do we do to them?
Turn up the heat!
Well, that is what it's going to take. We are going to turn up the heat on the Republicans and we are going to turn America around. But, we cannot do it if we are not united and together; not only Democrats, but Independents, and even Republicans who reject this radical experiment in extremism. I know we can win this election and I know we don't have a choice. I am proud to have the support of so many Democrats and Democratic leaders from across America. And I am especially proud to have the support of so many Democratic leaders from the so-called red states to know that I can win. Leaders like the governor Beebe of Arkansas and Senator Bayh of Indiana and Governor Ted Strickland of Ohio, who is here with me tonight. Because, Democrats know, when we win Ohio, we win the White House.
I am so grateful to all of the Iowans who are supporting me and I absolutely appreciate everything you have done for me and for all of the candidates throughout the campaign. I ask all of you to join my campaign. I ask you to go and stand for me in the caucus on January 3. If you will stand for me for a night, I will stand and fight for you every day in this campaign and every day in the White House. Because together, we are going to restore America's leadership, rebuild a strong and prosperous middle-class, reform the government and reclaim the future for our children. Let's do it, Iowa Democrats. Let's make sure that we turn up the heat and turn America around. Thank you and God bless you.
[Technical Note: Unlike many of the speeches provided for this series, this one was a transcript of exactly what Senator Clinton said. Because of this, and in the interests of fairness to the other candidates, I have removed the "[Applause]" indicators from the text of the transcript. I have not removed any of Senator Clinton's words at all -- the only thing removed was the "[Applause]" indicators. If you would like to see a transcript of the speech with these intact, it can be found on the Clinton campaign website.]
-- Chris Weigant
Follow Chris on Twitter: @ChrisWeigant
Just keep in mind one thing...
There is a reason... There are a MULTITUDE of reasons that Hillary lost the primary in 2008....
Many MANY of those reasons are still valid today....
I'm just sayin'...
Michale
There is a reason... There are a MULTITUDE of reasons that Hillary lost the primary in 2008....
agreed. however, the biggest reason hillary lost the primary in 2008 is no longer an obstacle - namely, the nation was irrevocably, perhaps irrationally, infatuated with a young senator from illinois named barack obama. among democrats, that factor has turned in her favor on two counts:
1. obama supporters saw hillary take the high road, swallow her pride and serve beneath him in his administration.
2. obama detractors regret their choice of nominee, and think that many of obama's mistakes would not have been made if hillary had been nominated - making them doubly determined not to pass on hillary a second time.
among republicans, there's no doubt salivation at the prospect of tearing hillary a new one and going hard after all her faults and foibles in a general election battle. but i think after all the obama attacks of 2008, a large portion of the electorate already knows all there is to know on that count. people can be reminded of those issues, but those attacks don't really sting as much the seventh and eighth time around as they did when they were fresh.
JL
or to be more succinct, the roadmap to beat hillary in a campaign isn't to harp on her negatives, it's to get the electorate excited about somebody else. she'd have a much tougher time against rubio than any of the other republicans in the field, which is one reason i see a high likelihood of a jeb-marco ticket on the GOP side.
JL
JL...
agreed. however, the biggest reason hillary lost the primary in 2008 is no longer an obstacle
Yes..
ONE of the reasons Hillary lost is no longer relevant..
But ALL the reasons, sans that one, are still an issue...
Put another way...
All the reasons that Obama-bots gave to vote against Hillary are STILL valid reasons...
Her negatives...
Her baggage....
Her war votes...
Her coziness with Wall Street...
Add to all THOSE reasons are a plethora of NEW reasons..
Her choice to run a secret email server so she would have TOTAL control over her emails..
Her Foundation's dealings with some of the worst of the worst this planet has to offer....
Let me lay it out this way...
Hillary simply CANNOT win without Independents...
Agreed???
Do you see her actions and her coronation endearing to Independents???
I don't...
or to be more succinct, the roadmap to beat hillary in a campaign isn't to harp on her negatives,
I disagree...
Harping on Hillary's negatives WILL get the electorate excited about someone else...
ANYONE else....
Michale
Harping on Hillary's negatives WILL get the electorate excited about someone else...
ANYONE else....
Disagree. The "anyone but" meme didn't work against dubya and it won't work against hillary.
All the reasons that Obama-bots gave to vote against Hillary are STILL valid reasons...
you're operating under the faulty assumption that obama voters will choose their candidate based on "reasons" - or anything remotely resembling "reason." Most voters in general don't seem to work that way.
JL
you're operating under the faulty assumption that obama voters will choose their candidate based on "reasons" - or anything remotely resembling "reason." Most voters in general don't seem to work that way.
So they stay home...
Either way, their vote is cast... Like it was in 2014...
Michale
So Michale started in with the big new Clinton Scandel meme and I looked it up and saw a bunch of the usual right wing outlets trumpeting it (Breitbart anyone?), then found this: http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2015/04/22/the-clintons-still-aren-t-corrupt.html
And I'd say Tomasky pretty much makes the point I made last night: lots of people (including Ken Starr with an essentially unlimited budget) -- who practically spit when pronouncing the Clinton's names -- turned over every possible stone desperate to find examples of true corruption or lawbreaking. These are people who wanted to find something -- anything -- they would have triumphantly trumpeted ANYTHING, but found nothing.
We know that doesn't matter to the koolaid drinkers but the rest of us have been there, done that, and I don't think it will work anymore. The righties will try it with all their might and there will be media outlets that should know better who will participate and all they will do is further compromise their own reputations. It will be tiresome and boring and minimally effective. The thing is, the 30% of the public that hate all-things-Democrat are unreachable. They will be the ones who take this seriously. Dems will worry for awhile, then the stories will start to come out showing there's no "there there" and after a few rounds of that, WE won't bother paying attention to any further repub accusations.
Then it will come down to the folks who pay minimal attention to politics -- who will get them excited and motivated to come out and vote? I don't see it with the repub clown car. Michale may think Hillary isn't charismatic but I like her and I know lots of other people who do. We'll see what happens but if I were you Michale I wouldn't put your faith in repub-fake-scandals to defeat her. Nor would I underestimate her intelligence or ability to learn.
Why do you keep bringing up Ken Starr??
Ken Starr has absolutely NOTHING to do with the here and now...
My guess is you are concentrating on old news because the new scandals is just too much to handle..
WHY is Hillary championing women's rights, yet takes millions from countries that brutalize women???
Forget Ken Starr and what happened 20+ years ago...
Address the here and now...
IF you can...
Michale
Michale may think Hillary isn't charismatic but I like her and I know lots of other people who do. </I.
If you think that Hillary has political charisma, then you are the ONLY one who does...
Michale
If Hillary had political charisma, she wouldn't have to populate her "listening" tour with Dem operatives and script the entire episodes...
The simple fact that she has to go to such lengths PROVE she is floundering..
But hay... I can't fault you for drinking the Koolaid...
Just keep in mind that it's 18 months until the election. And her coronation will not protect her from REAL Americans..
Eventually she is going to HAVE to deal with Joe and Jane Sixpack...
And THEN you will be shown that I and all the other Independents are dead on right about her...
Take away the Clinton name and Hillary is nothing but a mean-spirited old lady....
Michale
Paula,
"I like her and I know lots of other people who do."
I'm not a fan of hers and I won't vote for her, but women will. This woman I know, who voted for Bush, McCain, and Rmoney has already decided that's she's voting Hillary.
Over the years, the GOP has done a great job of demonizing government, politicians, and Washington. Of course, that ultimately sticks to them as well. Voters are not going to believe that she's dirty and whatever wacko bird the Billionaire Boys Club nominates is clean. They already believe that all of them are corrupt.
John: Of course, that ultimately sticks to them as well. Voters are not going to believe that she's dirty and whatever wacko bird the Billionaire Boys Club nominates is clean.
Yep.
Michale: I bring up Ken Starr because he was part and parcel of the original "Destroy the Clintons" effort and much of the nonsense you parrot either references the original failed non-scandals or attempt to create similar new non-scandals. But people who paid attention have already been down this alley and we're bored with it, tired of it and simply tune it out.
Meanwhile, to call her a "mean-spirited old lady" is simple nastiness -- which is what you get reduced to because you got nothin' else.
Michale: I bring up Ken Starr because he was part and parcel of the original "Destroy the Clintons" effort and much of the nonsense you parrot either references the original failed non-scandals or attempt to create similar new non-scandals. But people who paid attention have already been down this alley and we're bored with it, tired of it and simply tune it out.
No, you bring up Ken Starr because you DO have a valid case of sorts over that..
But Ken Starr is old OLD news and has no relevance or bearing on today's issues..
Meanwhile, to call her a "mean-spirited old lady" is simple nastiness -- which is what you get reduced to because you got nothin' else.
You mean like when ya'all call Republicans terrorists and arsonists and criminals and hostage takers??
You mean like that?? :D
Michale
Meanwhile, to call her a "mean-spirited old lady" is simple nastiness -- which is what you get reduced to because you got nothin' else.
I noticed you didn't dispute that point..
That, without the Clinton name, Hillary (with all her attached baggage) wouldn't have a chance in hell of being elected county dog catcher...
:D
Michale
Let me put it this way, people...
Hillary lost the primary in 2008 because she had tons of attached baggage...
Barack Obama had little to no baggage...
In 2016, Hillary has even MORE baggage....
There is scant to no evidence that her likely GOP challenger will have any baggage whatsoever...
History will repeat itself..
Whoever has the most baggage loses.. :D
Michale
[RE: Obama voters]
So they stay home...
Either way, their vote is cast... Like it was in 2014...
I don't think a mid-term election is a valid reference point. Democrats and young people always turn out much more during presidential elections than midterms. further, you didn't refute either of my points - obama voters will be enthused for hillary, regardless of whether they later stayed true to obama or found him wanting.
your point about new scandals supplanting the old is valid, but i'm not convinced most voters will draw any distinction.
JL
Cash Flowed to Clinton Foundation as Russians Pressed for Control of Uranium Company
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/04/24/us/cash-flowed-to-clinton-foundation-as-russians-pressed-for-control-of-uranium-company.html?_r=1
Ya know, people..
EVENTUALLY the "nothing to see here" drone of Clintonistas is going to become COMICALLY obvious....
Michale
I don't think a mid-term election is a valid reference point. Democrats and young people always turn out much more during presidential elections than midterms.
Unless they are discouraged by the lack of a quality candidate...
obama voters will be enthused for hillary, regardless of whether they later stayed true to obama or found him wanting.
That has yet to be seen...
your point about new scandals supplanting the old is valid, but i'm not convinced most voters will draw any distinction.
The young people you previously mentioned weren't around or were small children during Clinton's previous scandals...
So, for them, these will be all new scandals.. And the integrity/trustworthiness will be a BIG issue amongst those same young people...
While they may not be so outraged as to vote GOP, the likelyhood that they will be so disillusioned and stay home is very high..
Hence 2014 Part Duex....
Michale
http://nypost.com/2015/04/23/majority-of-voters-think-hillary-is-untrustworthy-poll/
Pretty much says it all....
Michale
New York Post is a rightwing rag.
The national condition of the Democratic Party outside the presidential realm is terrible. Since 2009, Democrats are down 60 seats in the House and 14 seats in the Senate. Republicans held 22 governor’s mansions in 2009; now they hold 31. Democrats have an astounding 910 fewer state legislators than they did when Barack Obama took office. The GOP has majorities in 67 of the 99 state legislative bodies in the United States, more than at any time since the 1920s.
https://www.commentarymagazine.com/2015/04/23/the-clinton-cash-allegations-are-a-test-of-the-democratic-partys-health/
No matter how ya'all want to bury yer heads in the sand and ignore the facts, the issues are clear...
Hillary's baggage + a decimated Dem Party = bad BAD news in 2016...
Michale
New York Post is a rightwing rag.
Agreed... But the poll numbers come from Quinnpac...
So..... :D
Michale
Agreed... But the poll numbers come from Quinnpac...
And 61% of Independents find Hillary untrustworthy...
And Hillary CANNOT win without a majority of Independents...
Michale
Paula,
"New York Post is a rightwing rag"
True enough, but they didn't cherry-pick. They reported that, despite HilRod's "un-trustworthiness", the very same poll respondents chose her over every Republican.
Pretty much says it all about America's perception of the GOP.
True enough, but they didn't cherry-pick. They reported that, despite HilRod's "un-trustworthiness", the very same poll respondents chose her over every Republican.
"The Devil you know is better than the Devil you don't."
-Old Military Proverb
Michale
Pretty much says it all about America's perception of the GOP.
And yet, Americans just gave the GOP a record setting majority across city, county, state and federal lines...
Pretty much says it all about America's perception of the GOP.
I'm just sayin'... :D
Michale
Pooh Pooh it all ya want, but this is what's what..
Hillary Clinton has a trust problem with the American people..
Or, more accurately, the American people have a trust problem with Hillary Clinton..
These trust issues are 40 years in the making...
And Hillary expects that she can win over the people in 18 months???
I'll believe it when I see it...
Michale
http://www.politico.com/story/2015/04/hillary-clinton-new-york-city-donor-kick-off-117281.html
Clinton's donors are worried...
That means that Clinton SHOULD be worried too...
Michale
http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/unraveling-liberal-common-cause-demands-clinton-foundation-hillary-audit/article/2563565
You see, it's not only GOP groups that are slamming Hillary's foundation...
Michale
Michale (29):
http://www.nationalmemo.com/fashionable-bashing-new-york-columnist-knows-little-but-talks-big/
"Nevertheless, parroting a series of recent accusations against the Clintons, Chait condemns the couple as “disorganized and greedy.” Much of what he repeats in his column is so easily debunked, however, that what he reveals is not their lack of character but his own weak journalism."
Paula,
"Nevertheless, parroting a series of recent accusations against the Clintons, Chait condemns the couple as “disorganized and greedy.” Much of what he repeats in his column is so easily debunked, however, that what he reveals is not their lack of character but his own weak journalism."
Have you heard the saying, "Where there is smoke there is fire"???
The Clintons are billowing smoke on a galactic scale..
And yet, you maintain there is absolutely NO fire whatsoever...
If it was just Republicans who were saying "maybe there is something here" then you would have a point..
But, as the links and the reports clearly prove, it is LEFT Wingers and PROGRESSIVE Groups who are also questioning...
They are ALL wrong???
Ideological loyalty is one thing...
But when does it cross the line to BLIND loyalty??
Michale
I mean, seriously...
Think back to the Bush years...
Bush blew his noise and the Left Wingers went ape-shit crazy...
Are you seriously trying to sit there and say that, with ALL of the allegations against the Clintons, there is absolutely NOTHING to any of it???
Every tidbit of impropriety is absolutely false and the Clintons are pure as the driven snow???
THAT is your claim???
Michale
Michale (31)
Have you heard the saying, "Where there is smoke there is fire"???
Why yes, Michale, I have heard that famous saying. So have numerous rightwing operatives who reason thusly: "lots of rubes out there implicitly believe there's no smoke without a fire. Therefore, all we have to do is create a lot of smoke -- no fire necessary. Wonderfully effective way to damage reputations based on nothing except baseless accusations!
Benghazi is a perfect example. (As is everything that Ken Starr investigated to death.) And you are a perfect carrier which is why it's not possible to take you seriously on these issues.
Now, here's a "there's smoke because there's a fire story": http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/fred-pagan-cochran-drugs
A staffer for Sen. Thad Cochran (R-MS) allegedly told law enforcement officials that he imported drugs from China with plans to exchange them for sexual favors.
If you feel some loyalty to this guy you can start to follow this story, see what the guy pleads, etc. Maybe it's some kind of evil set-up. Or maybe the guy is a drug dealer. You can see what facts emerge and make your judgement from there.
But when Ken Starr and the Benghazi whores spend literally millions of taxpayer dollars on witch hunts against the Clinton's and others, and continually fail to find squat, you really should start to ask yourself what's actually going on. Is it possible you're being played?
(Yes, yes, yes.)
Ahhh...
I see now..
So, when there is smoke on a REPUBLICAN, there is always fire...
But when there is smoke on a galactic scale on a Democrat, there is no fire...
Gotcha.. {{wink wink}}
Ya notice something??
You NEVER have addressed ANY of the allegations against Clinton...
"Gee!! I wonder why that is!!"
-Kevin Spacey, THE NEGOTIATOR
:D
Michale
Why yes, Michale, I have heard that famous saying. So have numerous rightwing operatives who reason thusly: "lots of rubes out there implicitly believe there's no smoke without a fire. Therefore, all we have to do is create a lot of smoke -- no fire necessary. Wonderfully effective way to damage reputations based on nothing except baseless accusations!
That's all and good..
Except for one thing....
It's the New York Times who are putting out these reports...
Hardly the bastion of "right wing operative" you like to make things out to be...
And Liberal Groups like COMMON CAUSE are also calling for an audit of Clinton and her piggy bank foundation..
But, by all means, continue to ignore the facts.. Continue to blindly follow Clinton with no regard to how utterly contemptible and untrustworthy she really is..
It will just make the victory that much sweeter.. Much like it was in the aftermath of the Great Nuclear Shellacking Of 2014...
I was right then, if you will recall..
Michale
Paula,
Something has struck me in the days since Secretary Clinton announced her candidacy for the presidency of the United States ...
"If you don't like what's being said, change the conversation."
There is a simple way out for Hillary when it comes to avoiding and eliminating a lot of the extraneous noise out there that is beginning to surround and to threaten her campaign.
She needs to start talking specifics about her ideas for positive change - on domestic and international issues. She must have some ideas and there is no time like the present to be putting out policy papers on the critical issues of the day.
Elizabeth (36)
Yes. I think she's starting to do some of that. I read a story yesterday (have been trying to find the link again) of the difference between local coverage and national coverage. A local paper, I think it was in Iowa, was covering her actual statements and ideas on issues, in contrast to the national coverage which is typically about anything/everything else. I also read she's putting some of her war chest to work on building up the party infrastructure on the ground in some areas -- something desperately needed. And, as I think I mentioned earlier/elsewhere, she's sitting down in meetings with locals, mostly sans press, with the intent of "hearing".
She will need to do those things because I very much doubt most major media will change their coverage regardless of what she does or says. They really don't concern themselves with content or substance. They are mostly about superficials and horse race. But we'll see.
Paula,
I think she's starting to do some of that.
Well, she's going to have to start doing a lot more of that if she wants to change the national media conversation. It's easy to blame the media and much more difficult to expound upon an up-wing policy narrative and enlightened strategy for moving the country forward.
Of course, as Hillary begins to unveil her plan for the nation's future, she may find her path to the Democratic nomination more challenged than imagined. Oh, wait ...
Hillary can talk policy til she's blue in the face and national media can continue to cover psuedo-scandals, her wardrobe, her haircut and her chances versus whatever repub gets the nod. It's easy to blame the media because the media so routinely fails us. They fail us all the tijme. The Progressive Caucus released a very positive progressive budget recently and the major media paid no attention whatsoever. They don't like policy. They like generalities and they like their narratives and they like their gotchas. There will be exceptions here and there and there will be occasional snatches of meaningful conversation. But depth of coverage will be provided by few, and those who are interested will have to track it down most of the time.
Paula,
I try not to waste my time blasting the media for the depth and breadth of its ineptitude and incompetence.
Let me know when Hillary starts talking policy until she's blue in the face ... :)
You know it's all about the dream
The ends justify the means
Now thank god for the media for saving the day
Putting it all into perspective in a responsible way
With more celebrity news
Typical bullshit views
I think we're losing this fight
Sponsored by Bud Light
Offspring
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oObL3Ajmr2Y
There you go.