Mel Martinez Resigning From RNC Position
Poll: Thompson Falling In Texas »Hillary Talks About The Economy In New Ad
Hillary Clinton's new ad, set to air in both Iowa and New Hampshire, features Hillary Clinton talking about the economy at a town hall meeting — and comparing the economy to certain other contentious issues:
"We have to change course on the economy, just as we have to change course in Iraq and on health care," says Clinton. "The Bush economy is like a trapdoor. Too many families are one pink slip, one missed mortgage payment, one medical diagnosis away from falling through and losing everything."
Advertisement
what, no story on the LA TIMES today about more Hillary funny money?
http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-donors19oct19,0,3148425.story?page=3&coll=la-home-nation
October 19, 2007 2:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
stop crying over 'funny money'
do we want to WIN THE ELECTION or not?
i'm sick and tired of republicans ruining the country from stem cell/science all the way to the environment.
Bush took plenty of funny money from everyone.. oil companies, tobacco, etc. and he stole 2 elections on top of that.
would you rather not cheat like hell and lose and have Romney as the next president?
October 19, 2007 2:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
Actually, I'd rather not deal with simplistic false dichotomies demanding that I choose between different flavors of evil. After the last eight years, I've had my fill of that.
October 19, 2007 2:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
@demwinger
I'm not investing any sweat defending HIllary on scandals , it's really obvious, if dems want to roll the dice and pass on 2 sure things and mobilize the wingers go for it
October 19, 2007 3:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
It's probably a good sign for Edwards and Obama that Hillary is having to put out another ad. Or she could be trying to solidify the lead that recent Iowa polls suggest.
October 19, 2007 3:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
I am not voting for the lesser of two evils this time around! We have a real chance in this election to have a President who will work for the good of the people and the country. Go Obama!
October 19, 2007 3:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
I wonder how Greencards for campaign donations to Hillary will play in Iowa and NH?
http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/politics/la-na-donors19oct19,0,5668647.story?coll=la-home-center
October 19, 2007 3:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
Don't worry demwinger, the left wing of the party will once again ensure a Republican president, couldn't tell them with Nader and won't this time either. Liberals like Republican presidents, that is why they will continue to work as hard as they can to elect them.
So Obama is the candidate and gets clobbered, a wipe out or Hillary is the candidate and they stay home, either way: Guiliani or Romney moves into the White House.
October 19, 2007 3:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
dcshungu:
Please tell me you are kidding.
would you rather not cheat like hell and lose and have Romney as the next president?
Better to cheat and win, than play by the rules and lose, eh?
I hope to goodness you are in the minority amongst HRC supporters. I can't take another 4-8 years of that mentality.
October 19, 2007 3:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
I DON'T want Bush-Lite's K Street economy! If she wins America loses.
October 19, 2007 6:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
Election Central - All Brunhilde all the time
EC's Hill shills surely get a cut of Hillary's Chinese tenement rents
October 19, 2007 6:29 PM | Reply | Permalink
Nice ad, BTW.
October 19, 2007 10:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
I read the article in the LA Times. I'm not sure what you're trying to get at.
Hit pieces are those ones that ASK a bunch of questions to get people to make accusations...
but the "questions" are never really answered.
You've already made accusations here "based on the article" that were just questions the article asked, without ever proving any of what they were implying.
How convenient for Clinton Haters, who like to come on blogs and refer to Senator Clinton with petty little bully-boy nicknames and then accuse her of a laundry list of their own bullshit.
(1) If Clinton took illegal campaign contributions, she should give them back. Bush, Republicans, other Democrats do that ALL THE TIME. No one is blaming the candidate -- Bush, Republicans, other Democrats -- of doing something illegal. But the Clinton Haters on this site are doing that to Hillary Clinton.
So, #1, the article does NOT accuse Clinton of doing anything either wrong OR illegal. So, again, how many times are you going to post the link, in an attempt to imply that Clinton did something wrong or illegal? (I'm not sure there's even a criminal charge in the article itself.)
Let's be honest here. The entire article contends only PERHAPS (just hinted at, never proven) that her DONORS did something wrong or illegal.
(2) Here's what the donor looks like when THE CANDIDATE him- or herself is in trouble:
Jack Abramoff.
When Jack Abramoff donated to candidates, he expected favors.
Via a court of LAW, we have PROOF (Imagine that!) that a bunch of powerful Republican donors were bribing a bunch of powerful Republican Congressmen.
Now,I don't know of any Democrat, nevermind Hillary Clinton, who has been put in jail for accepting bribes from Jack Abramoff.
In fact, all the people who took DONATIONS from Jack Abramoff didn't accept BRIBES.
Therefore, THEY did nothing wrong.
Can you see the difference here?
The Representatives and Senators who are going to jail over illegal campaign donations are all Republicans going to jail over Jack Abramoff.
And more are coming in time for 2008.
Can you let us know if Senator Clinton goes to court and then goes to jail for accepting bribes?
Otherwise, your entire LA article is about accepting DONATIONS. There is not one hint of an accusation in the article that Clinton accepted any bribes.
In fact, the thesis is nearly the complete opposite... Are these people rich enough to donate to someone's campaign?
So, again I ask, how many times will you post the link to this article, trying to get people to believe Clinton did something illegal?
Like the typical hit piece, it uses the Fox Noise ploy and asked questions:
"Could it be that Senator Clinton herself KNEW that these donors, in OUR OPINION, should not have been able to afford to send her a $500 contribution??!!??!!??"
That's the gist of the article.
Again, what's the point of the Clinton Haters posting the link over and over and over again? Does it say she engaged in criminal activity? Or do you just like calling her petty little childish bully-boy nicknames?
As far as "cheating" to win an election, I'm not sure that's what the poster actually was advising.
Hillary Clinton is playing by the exact same fundraising rules as George W. Bush. Romney is loaning his campaign MILLIONS of dollars in order to be viable.
Why would you cut off our legs because you don't like the current campaign laws?
If Hillary breaks the law, prove it and send her to jail like Duke Cunningham.
If she doesn't know every single one of her donors personally, let her take the money in at their word (You do have to sign a statement to that effect when you contribute).
And let her give it to charity if the donation is not on the up-and-up.
Why change the rules for our candidates, and let Romney use them to potentially buy the election under the same rules?
All that said...
The ad just doesn't do it for me.
It's beautiful, but...?
It doesn't move the dialogue, as far as I'm concerned. I think ads should provide a pop.
Just my opinion.
October 20, 2007 8:24 AM | Reply | Permalink
Jan says "How convenient for Clinton Haters"... her definition of Clinton haters seems to be anyone who wants better for the nation and is tired of the Bush-Cliinton-Bush-Clinton corporate-driven status quo. Opposing Clinton does not mean hating her. We live in a Democracy. For me or against me politics is the standard of the Bush-Clinton era. Time to put it behind us.
I think Hillary is dishonest. Her only obvious qualification is that she is Bill's wife, and has held a seat in a do-nothing Senate while she organized her presidential campaaign. Her major contribution to the nation was a vote enabling George Bush to invate Iraq, in which she demonstrated horrible judgment, unworthy of a serious presidential contender. And she did it again on her Iran vote. Her campagin has repeatedly engaged in unethical, sleazy and apparently illegal fundraising. Bill and Hillary have demonstrated personal and professional morals and ethics that I do not admire and do not want to see back in the White House and the headlines. Our nation cannot afford that kind of distraction again. And finally, Hillary is an intensly divisive figure in the nation. Many of her supporters are ithcing for a fight and a chance to get even with evil Republicans. It's the cycle of revenge and type of mindset that crippled Northern Ireland, the Balkans, Israeli-Palestenian relations. It leaves both sides open to exploitation, in the USA by corporate profiteering at the expense of everyone.
We need a leader with vision and the skills to inspire more than a fraction of the nation. Hillary is a divider.
These are not statements of hate. These are judgments based on observations and analysis over many years. We need change. Not Hillary. I don't hate her, I just don't want her in the White House.
October 20, 2007 10:16 AM | Reply | Permalink
New general election poll from Missouri has Clinton up big!
October 20, 2007 1:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
Daniel, there's fogginess in that crystal ball. Missouri will simply not be a romp for Hillary. I suspect she won't survive the Missouri primary.
"Clinton up big" in Missouri is absolute and complete BS.
October 20, 2007 4:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
party-of-one says:
". . . her definition of Clinton haters seems to be anyone who wants better for the nation and is tired of the Bush-Cliinton-Bush-Clinton corporate-driven status quo."
My definition of "Clinton-hater" is "read any one of party-of-one's, or stlounick's typical rants about her on this board.
I keep forgetting that Obama's and Edwards's, and the other Dem candidates' money all comes from poor kids' piggybanks that they empty and send to not-Hillary so that not-Hillary can help them realize their personal, heartfelt, dewy-eyed American dream.
And if one of the anybody-but-Hillarys happens to become the frontrunner after the first few primaries and the votes are counted, there's no way that they would soil their purity by accepting the buttloads of corporate money that is now being donated to the Evil One - nosireebob!
Grow up!
I
October 20, 2007 5:42 PM | Reply | Permalink
colon, I haven't ranted lately but I'll do my best to meet your expectations.
Hillary voted in 2002 for this war and, by her own statements, "trusted" the leader of the "vast right wing conspiracy"--that's Bush just so you don't have questions. The NIE was left unread. It may not be an important issue to the voting public--but it is an important one to me. It's a deal-breaker. That simple. And I would remind you that the majority of Congressional Democrats agreed with my view of things. Hillary and the other candidates who voted "yea" in 2002 were in the minority--and they were WRONG. Period. Bad judgement.
Hillary told me herself what I could go with my desire to want an explanation from her--find another candidate. I have. If you don't like that, blame Hillary.
I also disagree with Hillary about the lobbying. I think just saying, "yep I take lobbyist money and I keep my hands clean" is something I can't agree with. Put up the rules, regulations and laws to break the lobbyist stranglehold in Washington. Period.
Now, is that a rant, colon? If so, you and I have really different definitions of a rant.
October 21, 2007 10:45 AM | Reply | Permalink
stlounick
No, that wasn't a rant. I stand corrected.
Have you found a voter who would commit to voting Clinton yet in your five-day-per-week canvassing that you have been conducting for some time now?**
LOL
**I wouldn't call such a claim by you a rant either. I think there's another term for it. In Espanol, I think the expression is "El Toro Poop!"
October 21, 2007 9:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
colonpowwow---I voted for Bill twice, and I will vote for Hillary if necessary next Novemeber.
I don't want her nominated. It means---like Bill---much less chance for a democratic senate and congress.
One simple, overwhelming incident from 1992 trumps all others for me---I will never have any respect for Bill or Hillary---just a recognition of the lesser of evils factor.
While Bill and Hillary were on 60 minutes explaining about Gennifer and not being Tammy Wynette, a black man in arkansas named Ricky Rector was executed. 33 percent of his brain matter had been physically blown out by gunfire. He was guilty of shooting a policeman about 1981 or so.
They are filthy people. And that is from someone willing to vote for them.
October 21, 2007 11:00 PM | Reply | Permalink