She is playing the fear card? Is rove working on her campaign? I don't want to see four more years of this garbage. Is she going to recommend raising the threat level to orange next? WTF.

Yup, the nation sure is at war. A war HRC voted to authorize without bothering to read the pesky NIE. More of the same folks!

Oh, she has the steady hand alright - as long as she runs the controls. Meanwhile, the same Bush B.S. will continue in this country while she is obsessed with the "control" of it. If you're voting for Hillary your're not voting for any type of real change. Don't fool yourself. More of the same.

While I'm sure the Hillary supporters are very happy with this ad, I'm guessing the Obama camp is pretty happy with it as well. Its message is that Hillary is the right person to lead through good and bad, but it's also the perfect setup for Obama's message to vote not your fears, but your hopes.

Yep and we all thought Adams and Bush 43 were fascist . . .

Obama is little substance, all hype. The key to his success: a freshness, a lack of record to run on, the constant repetition of simple feel-good platitudes that lull listeners into a sense of trust and induce in them a yearning to believe. No wonder Barack Obama is so popular among denizens of Hollywood like Oprah: they certainly have an eye for those who can create an image, can generate a buzz that compels others to suspend their disbelief, and who can induce a trance-like stargazing. But the fact is that Barack Obama does have a record to run on and it is a record that should be of concern to those who support America's middle class and America's troops.

In a colorblind society where merit should hold ultimate sway, OBAMA isn't even qualified to be assistant majority whip. He's missed a 1/3 of his votes during the 2005-2006 session, and he hasn't held a hearing as member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. His policies are also awful for the nation. He believes in granting drivers licenses to illegals, he wants to ease burdens on employers when it comes to checking the status of workers, he wants to raise taxes on the middle class by trillions of dollars by eliminating the cap on social security contributions, he fails to protect our troops from the iranian revolutionary guard and then attacks his opponents for doing so EVEN WHEN HE MISSED THE VOTE, he was the only person to vote "present" instead of yes or no on bills banning adult shops near schools, and sealing court records of victims of sexual assault.

as I wrote, I think the study is flawed in the sense that we don't really know what they mean by "negative." but that said, it seems pretty conclusive on the point that more negative *assessments* were made of Hillary's policy proposals, character, and politics.

If Hillary is nominated I will never vote for her, I am tired of democrats behaving like republicans and expecting people to blindly follow them, Hillary Iraq war early support and her association with defense industry is one example. Shame on you all democrats who will be voting for her. Count out my vote, whichever third party candidate will get my vote if either Edwars, Obama, Biden one of them is not nominated.
I have great faith in the poeple of IA that they will show America that no matter how a candidate spins polls or how the establishment pushes her they have the final say, by voting Hillary 3rd or 4th. And please stop mentioning the ARG last poll showing her 15points ahead anyone with experience in polling methodology knows the poll was an outlier, unless Edwards or Obama has so screwed up so bad there was no way to explain such drastic change in voters choices which has been all the way showing a tie.

Oh boy. Here come the phony attacks from Hillary's haters. Skhan, we see right through your Rovian bullshit. Obama has only missed a few more votes than Hillary. This is exactly the same crap they pulled on Kerry and Edwards:
http://www.johnfkerrysucks.com/kerry_missed_votes.html

But I suppose acting like Karl Rove is the "fun part" for Hillary's haters.

I can't believe you even went after Obama for being pro-immigrant. I think that it is the duty of progressives to stand up for the downtrodden, not push them to the margins of society with nativist demagoguery. Look at what is happening in this country. Wake up:
http://news.independent.co.uk/world/americas/article3263500.ece

Jeremy - exactly. Despite what Josh Marshall and others say, Obama has not lacked for journalists and opposition campaigns pouring over every bit of information they can dig up from his past. The problem for them is every "gotcha" Obama seems to have already revealed himself. Beyond those, there is little left for the media to work with. Even the questionnaire "discrepancy" issue fell remarkably flat. First, the supposed differences in positions are subtle, at best. When you have Romney in the race, it's hard to make much of a case out about the difference between, for example, "no death penalty" and "only in the cases of terrorism and brutal murder."

I've even seen people use Huckabee as an example of what will happen when the press REALLY goes after someone. In fact, what Huckabee shows is how incredibly easy it is for journalists to find negative information on most politicians -- very little digging was required for some of the most explosive stuff on Huckabee. But what can they find on Obama? Practically nothing. Even his still-living relatives (on his side and his wife's) are remarkably controversy-free. I can't remember the last president we could say that about -- certainly it would be before my lifetime, which started with the Carter presidency.

Skhan,

Shame on your for repeating Hillary's talking points to smear Barack. The most absurd argument you made was that Barack failed to provide support to our troops against Iranian revolution guard, are you crazy? I was in Iraq with 3rd infantry division as an infantryman, if there is anyone who fail to provide security for our troops was Hillary when she voted to authorize the war. I lost good friends because of your candidate Hillary who authorized this war.
And what is with your crazy "colorblind society quote?" I am getting tired of Hillary supporters using racism to further their own agenda, what kind of progressive are you? If republicans do it, it's a bad but Hillary supporters can be racists and it's ok. Now I can see your true colors! Edwards or Biden has never used this garbage, shame on you and don't please pretend to be open minded, you are as racists as or even worse than some conservatives.

Another excellent post jeanba. Thank you for serving our country. Hopefully someone will get elected that recognizes your sacrafice and does the right thing and gets our troops out of the iraqi quagmire as quickly as possible.

''I am Hillary Clinton and I approve of this message.''??!!

What message?? It was all images.

Its morning in America all over again. Cannot the Clintonistas think of anything new?

We do not need Hillary the fascist. Please, dear god, if you cannot give us an honorable candidate, at least give us a human one.

"Every time Hillary supporters lower themselves with language...."

In the last week, on this site, Senator Clinton has been called lesbo, clinton II, Billary, Mrs. Bill, Hillary the fascist, and Bush-lite.

I will continue to refer to Hussein by his given middle name until Mrs. Clinton is spoken of with respect, or until Hussein drops out, which ever comes first.

And it's not race-baiting. You have no idea what color or religion I am. I'm responding in kind and pointing out how the Republicans would make swiss cheese out of Hussein.

Ok clinton II lover bluepuppy, what's the problem with clinton II? Clinton II seems non-controversial enough. You have bush I and bush II, clinton I and possibly clinton II. By the way, I find calling clinton II hillary more disrespectful than calling her clinton II. It shows no respect for the office that she is seeking and no respect for her.

On obama, you want to be a child and call him hussein, knock yourself out. who cares, it is his name, just like clinton II's name is mrs. hillary rodham clinton, or mrs. bill. I repeatedly got slammed for calling her mrs. bill, so I stopped in order to avoid the unwarranted claim that somehow mrs. bill was sexist. Now, she is just clinton II.

"I'm responding in kind and pointing out how the Republicans would make swiss cheese out of Hussein."

BluePuppy,

Actually, you might be a republican (you sound like them) because I have not seen any republican using such bigotry language as you have been doing on this blog. Do you really think you can bring people in your camp to vote for your candidate using such ignorant language? You have been doing a disarvice for Hillary instead of helping advance her campaign. Please can anyone explain to me why we see more of this garbage from Hillary supporters not Biden, Edwards, Obama, or Dodd?

Jeanba, because its in the talking points for clinton II people. That's the clinton II game plan, which is just like the republican game plan. If you don't blindly follow their fearless leader, you are un-american, a pinko, commie, naderite, left-wing, lunatic, obamadingdong, hillary-hater, etc. I can't think of all the silly names directed at non-clinton II lovers. I really wish that she was running in the republican primary, she would win the nomination hands down and then we could deal with her prior to the general election and get a true dem in the white house.

I guess she's not trying to attract the blind vote, as there's not spoken message, only sappy music. It always amazes me when someone makes a video that does not engage both sight & sound.

Is Hilary a fascist? I do not use the term lightly. Fascism reflects a form of statism that puts the interests of industry (and specifically the "captains" of industry) ahead of the interests of individuals and (at least in the minds of those who grew up among the baby boomers) it reflects police state behavior.

With respect to the first, Hilary is the clear favorite of the Corporate Elite among Democratic candidates and perhaps among all candidates. Why? Because, when push comes to shove, she has exhibited a clear preference for their interests. Criterion 1 is met.

With respect to criterion 2, Hilary was an early supporter of the immoral Iraq war and has never acknowledged her error. She now objects to it, but only out of political expediency. She has made nearly identical errors with respect to Iran. She is a clear champion of militarism. Does she support civil liberties here at home? Her record is poor on this, only Dodd has an exemplary record among Senators. Still, no one who has seen her hedging and political expediency can consider his or her civil liberties safe. Having been in NYC subways with soldiers holding automatic weapons after 911, I know what a police state feels like. I want someone who is committed to going the other direction. Hilary cannot be trusted. I call her a fascist because I believe she would willing impose a police state. Criterion 2 is met.

I did not use the term lightly.

I'm not a Hillary fan, but I must admit that this is a powerful and effective ad, filled with emotionally compelling images and music. I don't want Hillary to get the nomination, but if she does, I want her to win. Ads like this will help her or any other Democrat. I think too much is being read into the "nation at war" line.

BeJebus,

While I'm no fan of Sen. Clinton and under no foreseeable circumstances will I vote for her, I think it's a step too far to call her "a clear champion of militarism."

Joe Lieberman, for instance, is a clear champion of militarism; he's not met a war he didn't support, at least in his adult life. So too are most of the Republicans in public life, including the ones who strike me as relatively sane.

Clinton is a different creature: the cowed Democrat who thinks that voting for war is always good politics. John Kerry was in this crew as well, and his personal horrors in wartime presumably inoculate him from your charge. The problem is that Democrats who lack the courage of their convictions--almost all of them, really, aside from heroes like Wellstone and Feingold and Webb--vote for war as a default action, not out of belief in force as a policy tool but out of fear that some Karl Rove type will paint them as "weak."

You and I might define "weak" as "willing to expend others' lives and the public treasury for a dubious if not immoral cause." And we might conclude that this sort of spinelessness is ultimately far more harmful than helpful to one's political prospects. But such is not the counsel of the people who dominate The Party of Lesser Evil.

At any rate, I deem Sen. Clinton a corporatist (and a fairly disgusting one), an opportunist and an endlessly dishonest triangulator--but not a militarist in the sickening vein of Giuliani, Duncan Hunter or even McCain.

brewmn,

You certainly expressed a well reasoned, mature view point. It is logical that you support Hillary. If she doesn't win, will you hold your breath until the election is over?

Glad I got your attention. Regardless of how we may disagree with our candidates of choice, name-calling is not appropriate. The amount of hate against Hillary on this site has been amazing to me, articulary since she likely to be our nominee. I will call him Obama unless or until the insults against the fine, beautiful,and compassionate Mrs. Clinton resume.

OK - READ CAREFULLY.

The Democrats have been demoralized in the last two elections by demoralizing, Rovian tricks and dirty politics.

Naturally, they want WIN and WIN BIG in 2008.

And to that extent, I say now is the time to employ every strength and strategy, every resource, everything they have to WIN.

JUST WIN. And I don't mean win a 51/49 election. That's paltry.

WIN BIG.

Nominate the person with the best vision, the sharpest political skills who has the creative ability to surround him or herself with the most talented, intelligent men and women to form an administration that will GET THINGS DONE.

WHO IS THAT PERSON?

Before I answer that, let me ask you - who will the republicans run?

NOT GUILIANI - too much of a loose cannon, too many skeletons, and not enough of a true republican to suit their taste.

NOT RON PAUL - need I say more?

NOT MIKE HUCKABEE - political suicide. Americans are sick of church and state joined at the hip, and he's the hippest.

MITT ROMNEY - He's a RINO, the biggest flip-flopper who would have the biggest target on his back in the general. He's the former governor of the only state in the union that allows GAY marriage. That does not bode well in states like Texas, OK, and South Carolina. Evangelicals, no matter what they say, are still wary of Mormons (I don't say it's right, I say it's reality.)

They will hold their nose and run an old war horse like John McCain. McCain will pull a John Kerry of 2004 and come out of the gate on top in Iowa.

SO - who will he run with, and who can beat that ticket?

The answer is - any of the top three democrats, but John Edwards is really the one who is battle tested. He's got teeth now he didn't have before, and he's not afraid to use them.

He's also been on the ticket as a VP nominee, so he's vetted nationally.

Hillary could also win, she's got the money, the name recognition, and a chance to make history.

Obama - possible, yes, he runs a good primary. But can he run a good general election?

I like him very much. He's an amazing, telegenic presence, but he's skating on a thin record, and I think the republican attack machine would trounce him.

SO, my two cents.

We are not at war. The war was over 4 years ago. We are occupying Iraq. It is not a war. It is an occupation. Please try to remember.

Dajafi,
You may see Hillary as a cowed triangulating militarist, thus not quite qualified as a fascist. I do not. I see her as a willing, even enthusiastic one. No doubt sine of the Republicans threaten our civil liberties more, but not that much more.

While I am very concerned about social policies, I worry more, at present, about the deterioration of our civil liberties. Hillary might be willing to move on social policies that happen to help her corporatist overlords (universal health care, for example). I see her as next behind the Mayor himself as most interested in expanding presidential power and abolishing civil liberties that get in her way.

This is a truly spectacular ad!
Well done, Senator Clinton.
---

re: jeanba wrote on December 26, 2007 5:00 PM: "If Hillary is nominated I will never vote for her,"

Why in the world, jeanba, do you think anyone cares who you are NOT going to vote for?!!?
I just don't understand people who post who they're not going to vote for.

I am NEVER going to vote for Barack Obama, John Edwards, Joe Biden, Chris Dodd, Bill Richardson, or Dennis Kucinich.

Does anyone reading this care who I'm never going to vote for?

Hillary is a dedicated, loyal acolyte of the whole authoritarian, corporatist, globalist, militarist regime which has ruled the country since 1968--if not longer. She will loyally. studiously, effectively and carefully protect her true constituency: the BIG MONEY. It's all she knows; you can read it off Clenis' sycophancy at the knees of Daddy Bush.

What is needed is an ad with unsanitized images from the war reminding citizens of what she voted FOR..

jeanba,
OK. I will not vote for Huckabee, Guliani, McCain, Romney, Thompson or Paul.
Interesting much?

Make sure you read today's NY Times analysis of her non-experience in foreign affairs as president's spouse.

To make experience arguments when she's running against Biden, Dodd, and Richardson is so obnoxious.

BeJebus,

Sadly, what we differ over here is a distinction without a difference.

I think the country is headed for a cliff. Our Lady of Perpetual Triangulation--and her ever-angrier zombies here--might or might not slow down our path toward that cliff. But I am absolutely certain she won't reverse it. Check this out:

...then awaits eight years of the most progressive politics our cost of empire allows.

Why, in the name of all that's good, do we "need" an empire? And the bloody hell is wrong with you Hillbots that you evidently don't see either a moral or a practical problem with the fact that we essentially have one?

Finally, do you think it possible that a nation can be an empire abroad but remain a republic at home?

(Though I guess if you're into royal families anyway, this isn't so much a concern as a point of attraction.)

There's little that regularly depresses me about this country as coming on here and reading the substance-free rantings of the KlintonKult.

DemAC,

Is the difference between a "real" and "bullshit" article the same as a "real" and "fake" poll? How do I tell them apart? Is any article that is unflattering of Clinton automatically "bullshit," or can there be a "real" article that has a negative analysis of Clinton?

Neither you nor Ms. Marsh (who is, for the purposes of this discussion, not an objective observer anyway) pointed out any factual errors in the piece but I would certainly be interested in those if you can present any. Alternatively, are you able to source any information backing up your or her claims?

Joe Wilson is all fine and good, but apparently were some problems with his analysis as well.

If I want a foreign policy advantage, I'll vote for Richardson over any of the "Big Three."

demac, hope your not crying in your martini after iowa. I would rather have anyone other than clinton II as would most thinking people. Clinton II should be running in the republican primary. That's the party of personality cults, not the dems. I'm just not into that personality cult thing.

By the way, if she does get the nomination, my bet is she loses the the general election and she will cost the dems the senate. Is that what you want demac?

Anybody but clinton II in 08.

Michael A,
Same old, same old: Clinton supporters are not “thinking people”, if Clinton’s our nominee we will lose the Senate (why do you not throw in the House as well?) and Clinton’s a republican anyhow.

Gee, don’t you Hillary haters ever get awed by your own brilliance, your logic and your fine reality based arguments?

Michael A,
So you want me to provide you with info, which you are too lazy to go find yourself, so you can then distort it to trash Hillary Clinton? You’re some piece of work, aren’t you Michael A?

I’ll be a nice guy however and point you to Americans for Democratic Action. They regularly collect and measure voting records in the Senate, which I assume is what you’re looking for.

As you will find Hillary Clinton has voted on legislation in the US Senate for seven years now, and her lifetime voting on all issues is rated the 11th most progressive in the Senate by the ADA. You will also find, for example, that on labor issues that are most vital to corporations Hillary Clinton votes 100% for workers and union issues, directly opposing entrenched corporate interests.

You will also find that Hillary Clinton’s lifetime voting record in the Senate on specific progressive issues gets a score of over 95% according to ADA.

Good luck with your political education.

Michael A,
The ADA is a “crock”??? As compared to your own up-to-date blowing from right out of your ass or what?

If you want to wade through every US Senate vote yourself instead of letting intelligent progressive people select the important ones for you, you’re more than welcome: knock yourself out.

A "steady hand" - that won't make a move until all of the options have been poll-tested. Truly nauseating. I'm moving to Canada if she's the nominee. I really can't stomach listening to her incessant triangulation and "tough talk" for the next 11 months.

I'll come back after she's squandered the general election to whatever buffoon the GOP puts up.

anyone else notice the essential whiteness of the ad. she voted for the war; she cosponsored a flag burning amendment. Either she was serious about these two measures or she was doing "winkingly". If she was serious, how can she be supported. If she was doing it "winkingly" how can we ever know when she's not "winking"? Expedience is not experience.