I haven’t paid real close attention to presidential campaign rhetoric, but one of the talking points I recall Senator Hillary Clinton using–repeatedly–at the last debate was that we should elect her because she would “fight” for us voters. In fact, she said it so often it seemed as if this was the only reason we should vote for her. She’s fought Bush and she will keep fighting.
Well, Senator, if this is your way of showing us how you confront adversity, you’re doing it wrong:
After a tour, the candidate [Clinton] took questions from the crowd.
She called on a young woman. “As a young person,” said the well-spoken Muriel Gallo-Chasanoff, “I’m worried about the long-term effects of global warming. How does your plan combat climate change?”
“Well, you should be worried,” Clinton replied. “You know, I find as I travel around Iowa that it’s usually young people that ask me about global warming.”
There’s a good reason for that, too. The question was a plant, totally rigged in advance, like a late-night infomercial. Just before the public forum a Clinton staffer had chosen the young woman, a student at Grinnell College, and asked her to ask that specific question.
Arranging for staged punches isn’t exactly the hallmark of a champion fighter.
I’m not totally unsympathetic to campaigns wanting to focus their message on campaign events. And if I was a candidate I’d probably grow weary of fielding lame questions at such events. But if the Clinton campaign felt they had to set something up, couldn’t they have at least generated an interesting question? That wasn’t even as creative as a fake FEMA press conference.
What’s up with all the “fighter” talk, anyway? I think this is the Clinton campaign’s cleaver way of trying to mask her high negative numbers. People don’t like her because she is so effective in combating Republican ideology, the excuse goes.
That would be nice if it were true. Unfortunately, I think there’s much more to her unfavorable numbers than that. And this kind of story only perpetuates the notion that Clinton isn’t a straight shooter.
Crucial topic! Thanx!
I don’t see how this comes as a surprise to anyone.
She’s a liar just like her husband was and more of a Republican than anything else. Just her associations with the likes of Rupert Murdoch and Citigroup, and the absolutely indisputable fact that the Clinton’s are close friends with the Bush family is all anyone with a single Troy Ounce of brains needs to know to oppose her.
Electing Hillary in the primary will be the end of the progressive movement within the Democratic party.
Look, we know we’re not well liked at Ablogination, even amongst other Dems. But the fact is that you can count the number of times we’ve been wrong about anything on one hand with fingers to spare.
Hillary Clinton and the DLC are on board with the Right Wing agenda and that’s a fact.
Follow the money, follow the bedfellows, and the truth will be found. A vote for a Clinton is a vote for the Right Wing.
Hillary cannot defeat the Repig challenger and that’s exactly why the media promotes her. If she does in a fluke, their agenda will remain intact. A Hillary nomination is a win/win for the Right.
Don’t be fooled, Democratic voters. We’re being force-fed Clinton and Obama for a reason. Think about it.
This will be the most significant primary vote in a very long time. Don’t blow it.
I don’t know about Hillary being the end of the “progressive movement,” but she has gotten too cute in straddling the fence and doesn’t seem to commit to many things.
I agree that with her high negatives, she is vulnerable in the general election.