Yeah, right. Clinton is running to change back to Democratic triangulation and capitulation, just like we are seeing in the House and Senate with regard to Iraq and the warrantless wiretapping bill. Why isn't she saying anything about the Petraeus whitewash?

She is like the D.C. pundits who keep losing the elections for Democrats. She doesn't draw the right conclusions from losing, that we have to stand up for our principles and fight back. After she managed to turn a very positive environment into a losing battle on healthcare, she just disappeared.

In office, she won't stand up to the GOP on wiretapping, Gitmo, or any tough issues. She might reach the low-hanging fruit competently, but any of the leading Dems can do that. We want and deserve better this time, and we should demand no less.

I was saying that Edwards and Obama have to get Hillary to start putting money into ads as soon as possible. This is probably a good sign for Hillary detractors, though I still believe she's done fewer Iowa ads than Obama.

If Clinton wins this round, I think it'll be pretty much over unless something dramatic happens like Gore jumping in.

For the record, Bob doesn't seem to remember the 1990s Clinton health care battle correctly. The GOP a la Kristol worked to kill the health care legislation for purely political reasons having nothing at all to do with Hillary. Killing that legislation was specifically to hurt the first Clinton presidency.

Also, the fluidity in the poll numbers and the soft level of support for all three leading candidates suggests that many Iowa voters won't make up their minds until closer to the end of the race. We will see what happens to the numbers in December.

The race in Iowa is likely going to depend on who takes the best argument to the voters and closes well and who has the best paid media.

I hope the voters of Iowa and NH aren't dumb enough to think either Hillary or Obama intend to change anything but name on the door if elected President. Neither of them has any plans or makes any proposal to substantively effect any change that would be meaningful to any average American citizen. They are both just blowing rhetorical smoke up the ass of anyone gullible enough to buy into the message. Both of them have pursued the center relentlessly from the moment they announced their candidacies and that should tell everyone all they need to know about the two of them.

Change to Hillary and Obama is nothing more than changing who is President. They prefer themselves. If either is elected they will proudly proclaim that the change has arrived and it is them. After that, it will be one capitulation and compromise after another leaving the average American no better off than he/she was before.

Change to these two doesn't mean change like what voters want and now they are emphasizing it because they know it resonates with voters.

What does change mean to these two anyway? We know it doesn't mean changing the health care system to provide national health insurance like every other decent civilized country has. It doesn't mean doing the things we know we need to do to assist the poor in escaping poverty. It doesn't mean improving America's substandard education system. It doesn't mean dramatically departing from our system of welfare for oil, gas, and coal companies and doing what we must do to reverse global warming. It doesn't mean building a mass transportation system so that Americans have an alternative to the automobile to get around our great cities. All it means is changing the faces at the top and that's no change at all.

ALERT:

HR 811 - The Rush Holt Act has been altered to enshrine the use of the easily compromisible electronic voting machine systems into national election law.

It has not yet come to vote before the House. CALL or Fax, do not write or e-mail, CALL your Representive to demand and urge the he/she protect America's most important common - the right for the people to be heard - our right to vote by voting against this bill.

Repeat: H.R. 811 will destroy freedom, not protect it.

Tell you Congressperson to vote "No"!

Does anyone beleive Hillary has strength, experience and courage to bring change. She has not once in her entire life demonstrated she is a leader. she failed miserably when given the leadership role on universal health care. That is proof positive she is politically stone deaf.

Leadership to Hillary means leading in the polls. It does not mean courage, strength or conviction. Leadership to Hillary means power. Having the corrupted lobbyist monie power to keep the status quo. Leadership to Hillary means more of the same when it comes to foreign policy.

She and her girlfriend agreed years ago according to the latest NYTime article that even if there was a revolution they would NEVER participate. So even back in 1968 when social change was sweeping the country...Hillary lacked the courage of conviction to lead on any issue that demanded change.

Hillary failed to even change the First Lady role while claiming Eleanor Roosevelt for a model.

If Hillary knew how to use her FirstLady experience for change we would have a universal health care plan because she would have championed the healthcare industry for Americans while being a US Senator instead of getting in bed with the insurers.

If Hillary knew how to use her FirstLady experience for change we would have been told that Bush was telling a pack of lies rather than her voting for the war she would have been on the Sunday Morning News show telling Americans it was a DUMB war of undetermined length, undetermined reasons and undetermined costs.

If Hillary knew how to use her FirstLady experience for change we would have been told about the massive trade imbalance and outsourcing of American jobs as Hillary would have been speaking to unions and laborers around the country fighting for Americans to have a living wage that supports an American standard of living. Instead of becaoming the Senate Chair of the India caucus and supporting outsourcing of American jobs and voting for more H1-B visas for immmigrants to take our jobs.

The only change Hillary will lead is the wishes of the massive lobbyist influence that she represents because as she told us they are Americans too.

If you want to know the changes Hillary will provide and the causes she will champion and the convictions she will uphold...follow the lobbyist money. That is who she will be representing. That is who she leads for.

Not us, not working class America..just the lobbyists.

Hillary has been trying to talk about "change" via her "experience" message, arguing that you can't bring about change without experience.

I would say that Hillary's Senate career is all about her 'experience in avoiding change'. Eleven fluff bills to name post offices et al, gravy for NY state, and 9/11 aftermath tweaking. Oh, yes extending benefits to family caretakers......

Obama, whom Hillary likes to say has lesser 'federal' experience, actually has already brought about D.C. change in ethics and sunshine laws.

So, to be truthful, I think Hillary's 'experience' shows she already represents status quo, while intention and follow through on those intentions, as demonstrated by Obama represents change.

Too bad Hillary Clinton cannot trade her record for Obama's record like she tries to trade her words for his words.

Shillary

Yes, it is pretty pathetic how much Hillary is a shill isn't it.

It's not Edwards...it is whatEVER the poll says is leading...if it's change...Hillary is for change...it is experience ...Hillary has the most...if it is an individual..then Hillary is going to copy their ad MUSIC for the association effect. ...If it is the war...Hillary is going to say her voting record is the same as theirs.

All of which tells you the type of convictions and leadership Hillary possesses.

Can you image how far back in the polls Hillary would be if the press actually gave fair and balanced coverage of the candidates?

If Hillary had to actually debate issues instead of standing there as these ask the candidate forums?

If Hillary's records in the WH were released to the public?

Her candidacy is only competitive because she gets a free pass and claims everyone else is attacking her.

All these primaries moving up benefits her and no one else.

Iowans caucus in 150 days...I just hope they have the ability to see through Hillary's shill.

elrapierwit,

If only everybody was smart like you...

Right on schedule. A poll comes out saying voters want change more than they want experience and, presto, Hillary is out with a commercial saying "Me! I'm the change agent! Me! And 'Strength and Experience' too!"

She's not Bush, but, I swear, its like the people in her campaign read "The Way to Win" last year and thought they were having an epiphany.

@LJ

The Clinton ad says:

"...we will be energy independent..."

Does anybody really believe that? The United States will become "energy independent" during Clinton's terms as president? No dependence on foreign oil by 2017?

These lines were the first to leap out at me. I thought, "She's got to know better. That's a cynical lie." Damn.

Can you put that link up again please

Senator clinton has to explain why people should expect change from her NOW while she has been in washington for so many years and change has not happened.

I agree with gmike that we need to be united -- please let's focus on the issues and hear some good ideas. At this point, I would be delighted with either candidate!! So let's hear what we can do as a nation to start to solve some of these pesky problems!!!

Hillary knows a lot about change. She does it every time the polls do. Hillary is not comfortable leading. She cannnot take a bold, new position and persuade a majority to follow her, because at least 50 percent will be against anything and everything she proposes.

Hillary seems far more comfortable playing the poor victim of evil men: mean Obama and Edwards, lying George, lying Ken Starr, lying Bill, and all those lying Hillary haters in the vast right wing conspiracy attack machine. Hillary has realized that being a frequent victim is not an appealing quality for a president and leader of the world.

"bluecheese wrote on September 5, 2007 6:22 PM:
Can you put that link up again please"

Which one? The Brennan Law Center link that exposes obama for the snake oil salesmen he is? OK:

Brennan Law Center:

For Immediate Release
Thursday, February 22, 2007

Report from NYU’s Brennan Center Finds Illinois Campaign Finance Laws Worst in the Midwest

Illinois has chosen to forgo almost any regulation of campaign money in the hope that full disclosure will create enough incentive for politicians and special interests to avoid ethical impropriety. Unfortunately, the disclosure system is so riddled with loopholes that tens of thousands of dollars can move from lobbyists to politicians without attracting any public notice...
http://www.brennancenter.org/press_detail.asp?key=100&subkey=47964

Since liked that so much here is another:

In fact, at least five of Obama's disclosed bundlers have registered in the past with the Senate Office of Public Records. Three of them hadn't filed the normal paperwork indicating termination of their lobbying contracts, though Alan Solomont, Tom Reed and Scott Harris all told they Hill they had stopped lobbying.

The article went on to point out that some fundraisers for Obama are corporate officers of companies that hire lobbyists. At least 10 other major bundlers work for companies that have lobbied the federal government, including Bill Kennard of the Carlyle Group.

And late last week, the Los Angeles Times noted that Obama has taken in more than $1.4 million from firms with partners registered to lobby the federal government.
http://citizen.typepad.com/watchdog_blog/2007/08/they-talk-big-b.html

Disgusting isn't it. How dumb does obama think you are?

Bush-Clinton-Clinton-Bush-Bush-Clinton = Change