When it comes to the Anit-War crowd, One thing they agree on, though, is mistrust of Hillary Clinton. Everett Fell, a former sportswriter from New Jersey who moved to Iowa as an organizer for AAEI, reflects a common view when he says, “I like all the other candidates, but I have a problem with Hillary.” “At least in Iowa, the peace community is thoroughly disillusioned with her,” says Jeremy Jansen, a young organizer from Wisconsin who moved to Iowa as part of AAEI’s Iraq campaign. On November 8 nine war protesters, led by Kathy Kelly of Voices for Creative Nonviolence, occupied Clinton’s campaign office in Des Moines for more than seven hours, placing Support the Troops, End the War signs out front and, once inside, reading the names of dead American soldiers and Iraqi civilians. It’s telling that they initially chose to target Clinton, along with the office of Rudy Giuliani. “We did this because Hillary voted for the war in Iraq and refuses to apologize for it, because her rhetoric…is not only imprecise but also contradicts her public comments that she won’t withdraw all the troops before 2013, because she voted for pro-war with Iran measures…and for her general hawkish foreign policy stances,” wrote David Goodner, a senior at the University of Iowa and a member of its antiwar committee. “She floats so quickly, vacillates so often, that I don’t think people have any confidence that she will expedite the end of the war,” says Ed Fallon, a former state representative and candidate for governor who has endorsed Edwards.
Hillary doesn’t like being compared to Richard Nixon, but when it comes to dirty tricks, she’s a good, maybe better than Dick.
. . . . .. Dick Morris, a Republican strategist who formerly advised President Bill Clinton, said the debate appearance by the general was a Nixon-style “dirty trick” orchestrated by Sen. Clinton.
“You know, listen, let’s put the blame where it’s due — this is a dirty trick by the Hillary Clinton campaign,” said Morris. The former consultant also said he believed Clinton was behind the recent story, broken by Politico, that Rudy Giuliani obscured security expenses to disguise an extra-marital affair during his tenure as New York mayor.
Will Hillary point her finger and say, “I never told that gay General Kerr to call CNN with that question”? At least this takes the focus off Hillary for a few days, and now with the writers strike, no more Democratic debates until the Iowa caucus. Could they have planned it any better?
Hillary honcho Howard Wolfson has stated, “Keith Kerr is not a campaign employee and was not acting on behalf of the campaign.”Chris Matthews, a guest during the segment at the time, was unimpressed.CHRIS MATTHEWS: Well “employee” could be a weasel word, too. I mean, he’s not being paid? Well that’s not the question that was asked.Note also what Wolfson didn’t say. He didn’t claim the Clinton campaign was unaware of what Kerr was up to, nor did he say that the campaign hadn’t encouraged him to do this. “Not acting on behalf of the campaign” is a meaningless non-denial denial.
Editor’s Note (Ken Shepherd 08:18): It should be noted that CNN’s Anderson Cooper quipped in a recent interview with Townhall’s Mary Katharine Ham that “campaign operatives are people too,” justifying political hacks posing questions at debate forums.
This fits in with Novak’s reference to “Agents” of Hillary Clinton.
The following artile, “Good Bill vs. Bad Bill” by RON FOURNIER, Associated Press Writer Wed Nov 28, 11:09 AM ET, is excellent, and begs the question, “Just WHO does Bill Clinton think is running for president? Bill or Hillary? Bill believes that getting Hillary elected will in effect give him eight more years in the White House. This will make up for the fact that he was “Impeached” by the US House of Representatives. But I have a tip for Bill, if elected, Hillary isn’t going to let him stay in the White House. DES MOINES, Iowa – As only he can do, Bill Clinton packed campaign venues across eastern Iowa and awed Democratic voters with a compelling case for his wife’s candidacy. He was unscripted, in-depth and generous. He also was long-winded, misleading and self-absorbed.“Good Bill” and “Bad Bill” (his nickname among some aides) returned to the public arena Tuesday as Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton brandished her double-edged sword of a husband to fend off rivals in the Jan. 3 caucus fight.“Ladies and gentlemen,” Clinton told 400 Iowans at the start of his three-city swing, “I have had a great couple of days out working for Hillary.”In the next 10 minutes, he used the word “I” a total of 94 times and mentioned “Hillary” just seven times in an address that was as much about his legacy as it was about his wife’s candidacy. He told the crowd where he bought coffee that morning and where he ate breakfast. He detailed his Thanksgiving Day guest list, and menu. He defended his record as president, rewriting history along the way.And he explained why his endorsement of a certain senator from New York should matter to people. “I know what it takes to be president,” he said, “and because of the life I’ve led since I’ve left office.” I, me and my. Oh, my. Late in his 50-minute address, Clinton told the crowd that wealthy people like he and his wife should pay more taxes in times of war. “Even though I approved of Afghanistan and opposed Iraq from the beginning, I still resent that I was not asked or given the opportunity to support those soldiers,” he said. In truth, Clinton did not oppose the Iraq war from the start — at least not publicly.If the former president secretly opposed the war but did not want to speak against a sitting president (as some of his aides now claim), what moral authority does he have now? And did he share his objections with his wife? She started out as a hawkish Democrat but is now appealing to anti-war voters.The former president also put his own spin on the history of free-trade agreements under his watch, blaming President Bush for turning the accords into job-drainers. “Say want you want about my trade deals,” he said, “but I enforced them.”Sen. Clinton benefited from her husband’s verbal sleight of hand when he told a long story about a man who credited the former first lady for playing “an independent role in the Irish peace process.” While that may technically be true (Hillary Clinton did travel to Ireland and played host to the region’s political players), an “independent role” is not the same as a “critical role,” and Clinton didn’t bother to explain the distinction.You might be wondering — so what? Clinton won two presidential elections (and five terms as Arkansas governor) despite his “Slick Willy” reputation and habit of self-aggrandizement. He’s not on the ballot next year. His wife is. And she benefits from his popularity and rhetorical skills. Clinton‘s stump speeches have always been remarkably accessible despite their length and complexity. One reason is that, while he talks without notes, Clinton’s remarks are organized like a neat classroom outline. For example, on Tuesday he had four big reasons why Democrats should back her: • She has the best policy plans; • She works well with Republicans; • She’s a problem solver; • And she has the best range of experience. For each of those reasons, he had a half dozen or so facts, anecdotes or arguments to support them — and each of those categories had several bullet points of their own. Clinton navigated this mental outline with the same rhetorical crutches he used in Arkansas and Washington. He would mention something in passing and promise to get back to it (“I’ll say more about that in a minute”), and he always did. He would “show” people what he meant rather than just “tell” them (“I’ll give you just one example,” he said before giving two or three). He gave any impatient crowd members hope that the speech would soon end (“And, finally, let me say … ,” he said at least twice before launching into another topic). What he left the crowds with was the assurance that his wife understands their plight. For a man who convinced so many voters that he felt their pain, this may be his most powerful calling card Clinton can leave to Iowa crowds and his wife. “You need somebody who is strong, competent and has good vision, and never forgets what it’s like to be you,” Clinton said. And, no, he wasn’t talking about himself.
Hillary is quoted as saying, “As we do bring our troops home, we cannot lose sight of our very real strategic national interests in this region”. If, in the future, Iraq becomes a breeding ground for exporting terrorists, as it appears it already is … that is a great worry for our country.
So, Hillary believes Iraq is now a breeding ground for exporting terrorists and that causes us to have very real strategic national interests in the region. Where does Hillary believe the terrorists will be exported to, the USA, or some European country?
Hillary is quoted as saying, “So as we redeploy our troops from Iraq, I will not let down my guard against terrorism. I will devote the resources we need to fight it and fight it smartly. I will order specialized units to engage in narrow and targeted operations against al Qaeda and other terrorist organizations in the region.”
Hillary will redeploy our troops, but does not say where. If she means Afghanistan, check a map, it’s not in the “region”. She will order specialized units to engage al Qaeda and other terrorist organizations in the region. Where, Iran, Syria, Saudi Arabia, where? Why not Iraq where al Qaeda is still operating?
Hillary has publicly challenged the president to promise to bring all American troops out of Iraq, and this contradicts a remark she made to Ted Koppel in which Hillary is quoted as saying, if she were elected president, and then re-elected four years later, she would still expect U.S. troops to be in Iraq at the end of her second term. That’s almost 10 years, is beginning to sound a lot like LBJ.
This conflicts with numerous statements by Hillary that she will bring the troops home in her first year in office.
In an interview with the New York Times Hillary stated, “ there is a ‘remaining military as well as political mission’ in Iraq, and, if elected president, she would keep a reduced military force there to fight Al Qaeda, deter Iranian aggression, protect the Kurds and possibly support the Iraqi military.”
Again, another conflicting statement from Hillary on Iraq.
When asked how many troops she would leave in Iraq, Hillary replied by, “saying she would draw on the advice of military officers.”
i.e., she doesn’t have a clue.
In the MSNBC Democratic candidates’ debate on September 26, Hillary made statements that implied that even by 2012, a full four years after next November’s presidential election, there may be a continued need for American troops in Iraq and that, if elected, she would give White House blessing to that presence.
Another conflicting statement. Depends on the meaning of “may”.
“I will immediately move to begin bringing our troops home when I am inaugurated. It is my goal to have all troops out by the end of my first term,” Hillary stated.
This conflicts with her statements to have all troops out by the end of her first year in office.
She went on to said, “ there may be a continuing counterterrorism mission, which, if it still exists, will be aimed at al Qaeda in Iraq. It may require combat, Special Operations Forces or some other form of that, but the vast majority of our combat troops should be out.”
Still more conflicting statements. Just what is Hillary position on troops in Iraq, and will anyone force her to give a specific answer?
Mark Penn: Buckling Under the Pressure of an Unfavorable Poll
All is fair in love and war, the centuries–old proverb states. Politics is not included, but given the way the game is played in modern–day America, maybe it should be. That’s the sense I had again this morning watching Mark Penn, the chief political strategist for Democrat Hillary Clinton, denigrate our latest Zogby Interactive survey simply because it showed his client in a bad light (Link to Latest Poll Number). Penn made the contention on the MSNBC morning news program hosted by Joe Scarborough (Link to Video)
Penn mischaracterized this latest online Zogby poll as our first interactive survey ever – a bizarre contention, since we have been developing and perfecting our Internet polling methodology for nearly a decade (Zogby Intreractive Methodology), and since Penn’s company has been quietly requesting the results of such polls from Zogby for years. We always comply as part of our pledge to give public Zogby polling results to any and every candidate and campaign that asks for them. What is interesting is that no other campaign has made as many requests for Zogby polling data over the years than Penn has made on behalf of Clinton.
Because Mark Penn is a quality pollster himself, we chalk up his contention that our poll is “meaningless” as a knee–jerk reaction by a campaign under pressure coming down the stretch. Several other polls – Zogby surveys and others – have shown her national lead and her leads in early–voting states like Iowa and New Hampshire have shrunk. This is not unusual. These presidential contests usually tighten as the primaries and caucuses approach.
Director of Communications
Is This Hillary’s “Linda Tripp, I’m One of You” Moment?
November 26, 2007 2:38 PM
ABC News’s Eloise Harper, Sarah Amos and Sunlen Miller report: Sen. Hillary Clinton’s Democratic rivals are taking issue with her characterization of herself as the “face of America” during her husband’s presidency.
It all started last week when Clinton’s chief surrogate in Iowa, former Governor Tom Vilsack, said Clinton was the “face of the Administration on foreign affairs,” under former President Bill Clinton.
Vilsack discussed Clinton’s foreign policy experience on a news program, after a week of back-and-forth jabs between Clinton and Obama on several issues including foreign policy. Clinton had chided Obama for saying that he had gained foreign policy experience living abroad in Indonesia when he was ten years old, arguing that she was the one with the foreign policy experience after spending eight years in the White House as First Lady.
Speaking to reporters Sunday in Perry, Iowa, Clinton, D-N.Y., defended the characterization, saying, “There are lots of ways in which what I did that was the face of America when I was there when I was representing not just my husband but the country.”