« McCain: No Plans To Resign From The Senate "Right Now" | Home | Poll: Hillary Holds Big Leads In Ohio And Pennsylvania »
Hillary Ad: She's A Voice For Our Troops
Hillary Clinton has a new ad running in Texas, touting her work to secure health benefits on behalf of National Guard veterans:
Given her losses this past weekend and in the Potomac, plus expected defeats in Wisconsin and Hawaii, Hillary has made the March 4 contests in Ohio and Texas, where she currently leads in the polls, into her new firewalls. Whether she can win big enough victories to undo Barack Obama's overall lead remains to be seen.
(Via Ben Smith)
Advertisement
Are they really firewalls when she's behind now? It would seem like you would need to be winning in order to have a firewall to stop/slow down your challengers.
February 14, 2008 9:51 AM | Reply | Permalink
Over the Hillz.
February 14, 2008 9:59 AM | Reply | Permalink
It's effective. I don't like it, but it probably does the trick.
February 14, 2008 10:00 AM | Reply | Permalink
Loving the West Wing music. She is channeling Martin Sheen, yo. Drama seems to be the theme of her campaign anyway, so this seems appropriate.
February 14, 2008 10:07 AM | Reply | Permalink
I wish she would have exercised that voice to oppose the war in the first place after she read the stupid NIE. Also, it would have saved money on health benefits as they wouldn't be getting horribly wounded in this outrageous war. That was the time to use that voice, not now.
February 14, 2008 10:17 AM | Reply | Permalink
Hillary recently claimed that Red State wins should not mean much, since they will not vote for a Democrat in November.
Texas and Ohio are Red States, so why is Hillary now claiming that if she wins in those two Red States that would make her a winner in November.
Can you say Hillery Doublespeak, Boys and Girls?
February 14, 2008 10:30 AM | Reply | Permalink
Well, Texas is probably a lost cause for Dems at the moment, but if OH is an unwinnable "Red State" we're in bad trouble.
February 14, 2008 12:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
being a "voice for the troops" means keeping them out of combat as much as possible, not giving them better healthcare once they come back from the war that she voted for and thus helped enable. how on Earth can she get away with trying to push this message?
she talks about copying "right-wing talking points", when she herself is copying right wing ideological stances. we're "for the troops", and we show it by putting them into a totally unnecessarily and unpredictably costly war. what bullshit.
i think that the fact she's receiving practically no money FROM members of the Armed Forces themselves says it all.
February 14, 2008 10:30 AM | Reply | Permalink
Yep, and she is getting tons of cash from military contractors and manufacturers. Hmmm, so the people making big bucks off the war are giving her oodles of cash and the people getting maimed and killed want nothing to do with her. Sounds like a typical republican to me.
February 14, 2008 10:55 AM | Reply | Permalink
Hillery has been a voice for the troops
just as much as she was voice for
Union Workers at Wal-Mart.
February 14, 2008 10:35 AM | Reply | Permalink
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/02/13/AR2008021303635.html
so Greg Sargent, why isn't this story getting time at TPM? aren't we vehemently against pork spending when Ted Stevens runs off with it?
"Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton helped secure more than $340 million worth of home-state projects in last year's spending bills, placing her among the top 10 Senate recipients of what are commonly known as earmarks, according to a new study by a nonpartisan budget watchdog group."
February 14, 2008 11:00 AM | Reply | Permalink
And obama had how many earmarks that were publically disclosed for all to see? Deminimus.
She really is politically tone deaf. Earmarks work for local elections, not national. She was going to slaughter her opponent in NY, so why play this game, especially if you are planning on running for president. Really, really bad judgement, like the woodstock museum earmark. No common sense and bad judgement.
February 14, 2008 11:38 AM | Reply | Permalink
I am tired of this stupid, Moronic, assinine critizism of Hillary's work at Walmart!
LIAM: 25 years ago - no woman - could do much of anything. You damned jack ass men had all the control! That she even got to the Board of Walmart - was an accomplishment of epic proportions.
You damned men have held women in "their place" and contributed nothing on this planet for thousands of years but war and crime and misery. How dare you critizise Hillary!
Now -LIAM - shut up and go crawl back under your rock.
February 14, 2008 11:51 AM | Reply | Permalink
Hillary vote for the Iraq War. Get a clue you demented lunatic.
February 14, 2008 12:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
The Wall Street Journal provides a snapshot of life inside Hillaryland: "But the campaign has something of a shellshocked feel, as staffers privately chew over a blowup last week where internal frictions flared into the open. Clinton campaign operatives say it happened as top Clinton advisers gathered in Arlington, Va., campaign headquarters to preview a TV commercial. ‘Your ad doesn't work,’ strategist Mark Penn yelled at ad-maker Mandy Grunwald. ‘The execution is all wrong,’ he said, according to the operatives. ‘Oh, it's always the ad, never the message,’ Ms. Grunwald fired back, say the operatives. The clash got so heated that political director Guy Cecil left the room, saying, ‘I'm out of here.’”
February 14, 2008 11:58 AM | Reply | Permalink
We are no closer to safe today than we were the day she voted for George Bush's War, but she takes comfort in the fact that others have forced the unjust treatment of our troops in to the forefront of American discourse,and she didn't fail to support our troops at that moment. Leadership is caring about what is right before anybody asks you to.
February 14, 2008 12:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
A quick search of http://thomas.loc.gov/ for legislation introduced by Obama and Clinton revelas that while Clinton may have introduced more Armed Forces bills in the Senate (2007), she did so with far fewer cosponsors.
Cosponsor numbers for Clinton: 0, 2, 8, 2, 7, 2, 3, 0, 1, 16.
For Obama: 15, 34, 4, 11, 10, 12, 8.
Clinton may be a more frequent supporter, but Obama is clearly the one with more likely success. I assume more cosponsors = more coalition = more success.
February 14, 2008 12:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
You are an idiot. It wasn't the war that was wrong, it was the handling of it. How conveniently you forget about the children in Sadam's prisons. How easy is for you to ignore the rapes, the crimes, the torture in Sadams Iraq. We were RIGHT to take him down. Bush had no plan. That is why it is a mess. But you - the stupid ass that you are - blame Hillary. How convenient. I pity your mother that she produced such at moronic idiot.
February 14, 2008 2:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
AtomicBetty,
Dictators all over the world have been involved in similar atrocities. Do you think America should patrol the entire world? I didn't hear Bush rally the nation to take up arms in Kenya or Sudan or North Korea.
Of course, we would like to end injustice wherever it exists. Unfortunately, our resources are not unlimited.
February 14, 2008 2:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
My post that the war was not wrong - that if was badly handled was meant for LEAM. I am tired of the Hillary bashing. My point is that not everyone thinks her vote was wrong. My point is that it is not her fault that Iraq is a mess.
February 14, 2008 3:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
This is shameful a voice for our troops. Ok then with the amount of reports comming out about the lead up and the outright lies of this war. You voted for this war without any conviction as to say no to it. I guess after this is all over we shall see you at Walter Reed Hospital every weekend.
February 14, 2008 11:11 PM | Reply | Permalink