Quote: L.A. mayor endorses Clinton campaign By Duke Helfand and Steve Hymon, Times Staff Writers 6:30 PM PDT, May 30, 2007
Saying Hillary Rodham Clinton was a leader who offered a new path, Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa today formally endorsed the New York senator and former first lady in her race to become president of the United States.
Villaraigosa will also serve as one of the four national chairs of Clinton's campaign for the Democratic nomination for president, it was announced.
At a televised news conference from the UCLA campus in Westwood, Villaraigosa praised Clinton's approach to domestic issues, particularly education, and her pledge to help end the war in Iraq. The pair earlier toured the preschool at UCLA's Krieger Center.
The 2008 election represents an important opportunity for the country to change direction from the years of President Bush, the mayor said.
"We will choose whether to perpetuate the disastrous policies of the last six years that brought us war and division, debt and diminished expectations," he said. Or voters can choose "a new course and a brighter path."
The mayor's announcement had been expected, but it could help Clinton in her race for the Democratic nomination. Polls show her running ahead of her chief challenger, Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.), nationally and in California.
Running against the Iraq war, Democrats wrested control of Congress from the Republicans and are expected to continue that strategy in 2008. Villaraigosa praised Clinton's current stand against the war. As a senator, she had voted to authorize the invasion.
"Hillary Clinton has a plan to end the war in Iraq," Villaraigosa said. "No candidate in the race for president" is better positioned "to accomplish this mission and restore American prestige around the world."
Villaraigosa cited Hillary Clinton's eight years as a key advisor in the administration of her embattled husband, President Bill Clinton.
"We should not lose sight of the fact that there's only one candidate for the presidency of the United States that has literally been there," the mayor said. ...
Since the morning of Sept. 11, 2001, Hillary Clinton had labored to establish her national-security credentials. The day after the attacks, she vowed that any country that chose to harbor terrorists and “those who in any way aid or comfort them whatsoever will now face the wrath of our country.” Such tough comments reflected the mood of the country — and also dovetailed with her efforts to win over moderate voters. Clinton knew she could never advance her career — or win the presidency, especially — if she didn’t prove that she was tough enough to be commander in chief.
on the sensitive issue of collaboration between Al Qaeda and Iraq, Senator Clinton found herself adopting the same argument that was being aggressively pushed by the administration. Bush, Vice President Dick Cheney and other administration officials had repeated their claim frequently, and by early October 2002, two out of three Americans believed that Saddam Hussein was connected to the Sept. 11 attacks.
I guess, using the logic that democrats use towards Bush, we can look forward to seeing bumber stickers on Volvos that say "Hillary LIED"
At tonight's Democrat candidate debate, Hillary had this to say about the War on Terror:
As a senator from New York, "I have seen first hand the terrible damage that can be inflicted on our country by a small band of terrorists," Clinton said.
Still, she said, "I believe we are safer than we were."
Obviously, if we are safer now then we were on 9/11, then the credit would have to go the government in power between 2001 and the present.
And, whose adminstration would that be? President Bush.
Therefore, Hillary is admitting that the President's War on Terror has made us safer.
Outside stood anti-war protesters, a flag-draped coffin and more than 100 guests in dinner attire, all waiting for Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton. . . . Mainstream Democrats mixed with liberal activists in the street outside the home of developer Eleni Tsakopoulos-Kounalakis. . . .
She was . . . upset with anti-war activist Stephen Pearcy, partly because he had disrupted her reception and partly because she sees herself--and [Mrs.] Clinton--as opponents of the Iraq war. "I don't understand why in the world he would disrupt something like our event because, frankly, it is simply appalling that he and his friends are not going after the people in this (Bush) administration who have caused this war," Tsakopoulos-Kounalakis said Monday. " . . . That man has got the wrong people, us and her, and he should be ashamed of himself. He should be absolutely ashamed." . . .
"I think a lot of people were somewhat irritated by these protesters," [guest Jim] Moose said. "On the other hand, I think people have the right to protest. I'm not outraged by these people expressing their free-speech rights, but I think these protesters are missing the boat. . . . They could have found someone more politically conservative to protest than major Democratic candidates."
Don't these moonbats understand that they're supposed to be political pawns who serve the Democrats? They have some nerve to protest them instead. Some people just don't know their place!
Don't these moonbats understand that they're supposed to be political pawns who serve the Democrats? They have some nerve to protest them instead. Some people just don't know their place!
Your confusing them with your party.
The way both political extremes hate Hillary just tells me she's the right one to be President.
Besides the 9/11 firefighters who does Rudy have following him around protesting while he campaigns? He might have some of the religous right opposed to him but I get the impression that as long as he looks like the best bet to win whoever the Dem ends up being, he'll get their support.
Hillary's presidential campaign has tapped Rep. Alcee Hastings, a Florida Democrat, as a "national campaign co-chair":
Rep. Hastings said, "When we elect the next President Clinton, this country will be a much better place for the African-American community, Floridians and all Americans." . . .
"I am delighted that Debbie and Alcee will take on leadership roles in my campaign," [Mrs.] Clinton said. "With their help, we will bring our message of change throughout Florida and across the country."
Hastings got appointed to the federal bench by Jimmy Carter in 1979. In less than two years, he got indicted for soliciting a bribe in an FBI sting. In 1983, he won an acquittal, but a subsequent House investigation found that he had committed perjury in that trial. The House Judiciary Committee authorized a whopping seventeen counts for impeachment against Hastings in 1988. . . .
Now Hillary has embraced Hastings, and indeed has made the former perjurer and corrupt judge as her campaign's national representative. She says that with Hastings' help, her "message of change" will get rolled across the country. The message is that the Clinton campaign has its own idea about the culture of corruption--they want to pursue it.
Yeah, that Hillary...but at least she attends graduations.
Quote: Anonymous: From the New York Times review of your book: "(Bernstein) argues that the couple were 'treated more harshly, and often pursued with different standards and more relentlessly -- during virtually the whole of their occupancy of the White House -- than any president and his wife of the 20th century.' He contends that many of the 'underlying assumptions' of the assertions that fueled the investigation into their lives 'were often contextually misleading, exaggerated in significance, and sometimes factually off-base.' "
Are these quotes accurate? If so, who was doing the pursuing, misleading, exaggerating and "off-basing"? If true, this topic might make an excellent book. Have you considered this?
Carl Bernstein: The quotes are accurate; both the press and the excesses of the Clintons' enemies and an out-of-control special prosecutor were responsible. The original New York Times story that began the so-called "Whitewater" investigations was hardly worthy of the subsequent attention and inflation it was accorded, especially in the coverage of the Times, The Washington Post and the Wall Street Journal. ...
Over at the New Republic, they note a comment at a recent Hillary rally:
Ellen Malcolm, however, displayed a considerably heavier touch, at one point gushing about how great it was to watch the recent Democratic debate where, smack dab in the middle of "all these white men in their dark suits and power ties" stood Hillary.
Wow, the lighting at the debate must have been terrible if Barack Obama and Bill Richardson looked like white guys.
Clinton regains double digit lead in Gallup poll RAW STORY Published: Monday June 18, 2007 Democratic presidential hopeful Sen. Hillary Clinton (D-NY) has regained a double-digit lead over Sen. Barack Obama (D-IL) in a new USA TODAY/Gallup Poll two weeks after the survey found the rivals more or less tied.
Among the Republican field, Fred Thompson -- who hasn't even announced his intent to run -- has passed onetime leader Sen. John McCain (R-AZ).
According to USA Today, Thompson "is costing Giuliani most: A third of Thompson's supporters say they would otherwise back the former mayor." ...
Depends who Bloomberg ends up drawing votes from. I haven't really examined his record but he seems popular with the Dems in NY. It could be a case where Hillary could lose a couple of states she would have won otherwise.
Hillary Rodham Clinton's chief strategist is accused of illegal eavesdropping in a civil lawsuit that alleges he and his polling firm monitored the personal e-mails of a former associate who started a rival company.
Mitchell Markel claims the firm monitored messages sent from his personal BlackBerry after he had resigned.
MEM likes to say we should judge candidates by the actions of their associates. I'm not sure I agree. However, given his strong belief in doing so, I thought he'd want to know about this so he can denouce Hillary.
It just seems that you constantly find republicans "guilty by association." Therefore, if you are not a hypocrite, I assume you will denounce Hillary here.
Yes, you once again proved you'll post anything if it looks anti-Hillary. It's just nice to note that you don't feel this is anything Hillary should be judged on.
But Can Hillary Win? By Susan Estrich Once upon a time, not so long ago, there were two frontrunners in the race for the presidency. On the Democratic side, it was Hillary Rodham Clinton; "the rock star and the rest" was the title of one memorable National Journal assessment of the race. On the Republican side, it was John McCain. We Democrats were actually pretty worried about McCain. He was old, but he didn't seem it; what he seemed was experienced, independent, his own man, the one candidate in the Republican field who had the advantage of having gone through the process before. It seemed sufficiently inevitable that old Bush hands, who didn't actually like him, were clamoring to get on board the train before it left the station. Now, they're facing layoffs. Most of the pundits have already written their McCain obituaries, which in this business have a self-fulfilling quality to them. Everyone has a theory of what went wrong, and the sad part is, when you fall as fast as he has, they're all probably right. He lost his identity, chose the wrong issues to be loyal to Bush on, looked his age on the trail, acted more like a panda bear than the driver of the Straight Talk Express, tried to run a Bush campaign when he wasn't Bush, raised too little money and burned through it too fast.
The bottom line, according to the latest reports, is that he's down to $2 million, and you know, if you've ever been there, that the real number has to be even lower. One of the oldest tricks in the money primary game, especially when you're in trouble, is to record every last dime that comes in before the quarter ends, and put off every bill that can go unpaid one more day to make it look like you have more money than you do. So if they say they have $2 million, you know they have less; and the less you have, the harder it is to raise more. The low hanging fruit has long been picked, and the smart money doesn't go to the guy who's falling down the well. McCain's story is the old one about the frontrunner's curse, the double-edged sword of high expectations, the "anything can change in a minute" nature of politics, and the "nobody knows anything" reality of punditry. And then there's Hillary, the other frontrunner. True, Barack Obama, the other rock star who entered the race after initial expectations had been set, has outdone her in dollars and donors, but the reality is that the two of them are operating in a zone beyond everyone else, Democrat or Republican. Barack may have more, but Hillary has plenty. And notwithstanding his financial success, he's yet to catch her in any polls, national or state. She is still the top choice in every national survey; where she lags, as in Iowa, it is not to Obama, but to John Edwards, who has practically lived there in recent years and almost won last time. She has dominated the debates, demonstrated mastery on the issues, deftly deployed her husband, shown a sense of humor and warmth that some doubted she had (as in the Sopranos video), and withstood the slingshots of former friends (for instance David Geffen) and foes. No one has questioned her ability or her toughness, her stamina or her style. I've hardly read a word about her hair or her clothes. For all the talk about Obama, and he certainly deserves it given his impressive opening and even more impressive financial success, most observers are still waiting for the second date. But if Hillary hasn't fallen apart the way her Republican counterpart, Mr. McCain, has, she continues to be dogged by the one question that we've been hearing, literally, for years: Can she win? The chink in her armor relates not to Democratic primary voters, at least not in the first instance, not to the insiders who have been paying attention to date, but to those who haven't. According to one recent national poll, 52 percent of American voters say they wouldn't vote for Hillary; if that number holds, she couldn't win in a two-person race; and so-- the argument goes-- will Democratic primary voters, desperate as they are to win this time, be willing to nominate someone whose longer term prospects are so doubtful? There are a number of answers to that argument. First of all, there are some people who don't like anyone. If even 3 percent of that 52 percent would also not vote for the eventual Republican candidate –- and both Romney and Giuliani had high negatives, albeit not quite as high as Hillary –- then it becomes, as it is for many voters in November, not a question of who you like, but who you dislike least. It doesn't matter if you're voting for your favorite or for the lesser of two evils: It still counts for one vote. Second, 52 percent can cost you the presidency in a two-person race, but there is every reason to believe that, this year, there may well be three candidates, in which case a strong base of support could count for more than a high negative. Recent polls also show would-be candidate Mike Bloomberg, the recently Republican mayor of New York, drawing more support from the former Republican mayor of New York Rudy Giuliani than he does from Hillary; in a contest between two white male Republican New York City mayors and a female Senator, my money's on the girl. Third, strategic voting –- that is, voting for the candidate who can win, rather than the one you like -- holds a mixed record among primary voters. Many voters still vote for their favorite, regardless of what the pundits tell them about electability. And when they don't, the results don't always work out the way they're supposed to. Certainly, a big part of John Kerry's support in 2004 came from those who calculated that as a Vietnam Vet, he was the strongest candidate to nominate in wartime. Don't ask them today what they think of that calculation. Fourth, and most important, the election is not tomorrow. It is well over a year away. If you look at Hillary's track record in New York, what is crystal clear is her ability to change voters' minds, including traditionally moderate and even Republican voters in the reddest part of the state. When Hillary announced her candidacy for the Senate nearly 10 years ago, she was coming out of a terrible period in the White House. Her husband had been fighting impeachment, and even women who should have been, and are today, her strongest base of support, were visibly angry with her for standing by her man instead of leaving him in the dust. Her negatives in New York topped 60 percent on a good day. And what happened? Over the course of a long campaign, people got to know her. The real person who they saw in that much-covered campaign turned out to be a lot more attractive than the caricature they'd been carrying in their heads. When the votes were finally counted, she won in a walk. After six years in office, Republicans were hard pressed to find anyone even to run against her, and the much-vaunted anti-Hillary machine never gained any traction at all. Whatever their faults, and there are many, presidential campaigns, by the time they end, tend to be stunningly transparent. You get to know who the candidate is, for better or for worse. Media advisers can do only so much. Spinners can twist things only so many times. There are moments, often painful ones, believe me, where the candidate is on his own, calling the shots, and his, or her, colors show. The real Hillary Clinton is much loved by her friends, much respected by her fiercely loyal staff, a woman who is far warmer, funnier, and more human than the caricature that still dominates her public image. And it will be the real Hillary Clinton who voters see by the time November 2008 rolls around, as it was in New York in the last two elections. By then, the question may well be not whether she can win, but as it was in New York, whether anyone can beat her.
Susan Estrich is the Robert Kingsley Professor of Law and Political Science at the University of Southern California. She was Professor of Law at Harvard Law School and the first woman President of the Harvard Law Review. She is a columnist for Creators Syndicate and has written for USA Today and the Los Angeles Times.
Estrich's books include “The Case for Hillary Clinton,” “How to Get Into Law School,” “Sex & Power,” “Real Rape,” “Getting Away with Murder: How Politics Is Destroying the Criminal Justice System” and "Making the Case for Yourself: A Diet Book for Smart Women.”
She served as campaign manager for Michael Dukakis' presidential bid
The girl's hot and the song isn't completely unlistenable but I don't get it.
Is it a joke?
Is her point that Hillary's a closeted lesbian?
Seriously. What's the message? I enjoy analyzing political propaganda from either side [since its instructive for my future as PJP's campaign manager] but I just don't grok what this video is trying to say.
The Pentagon told Democratic presidential front-runner Hillary Rodham Clinton that her questions about how the U.S. plans to eventually withdraw from Iraq boosts enemy propaganda.
In a stinging rebuke to a member of the Senate Armed Services Committee, Undersecretary of Defense Eric Edelman responded to questions Clinton raised in May in which she urged the Pentagon to start planning now for the withdrawal of American forces.
"Premature and public discussion of the withdrawal of U.S. forces from Iraq reinforces enemy propaganda that the United States will abandon its allies in Iraq, much as we are perceived to have done in Vietnam, Lebanon and Somalia," Edelman wrote.
He added that "such talk understandably unnerves the very same Iraqi allies we are asking to assume enormous personal risks."
Strange. I don't recall you searching for political motivations in the statements of former ambassadors when the ambassador's name is Joe Wilson and the party affiliation is Democrat.
maybe you both should take a good look at the government and yourselves and realize that these people would throw you under a bus the first chance they got.
The Pentagon told Democratic presidential front-runner Hillary Rodham Clinton that her questions about how the U.S. plans to eventually withdraw from Iraq boosts enemy propaganda.
In a stinging rebuke to a member of the Senate Armed Services Committee, Undersecretary of Defense Eric Edelman responded to questions Clinton raised in May in which she urged the Pentagon to start planning now for the withdrawal of American forces.
"Premature and public discussion of the withdrawal of U.S. forces from Iraq reinforces enemy propaganda that the United States will abandon its allies in Iraq, much as we are perceived to have done in Vietnam, Lebanon and Somalia," Edelman wrote.
He added that "such talk understandably unnerves the very same Iraqi allies we are asking to assume enormous personal risks."
Originally Posted By: Matter-eater Man
Heh, the Pentagon in this case turns out to be one Eric Edelman, a former U.S. ambassador and one-time aide to Vice President Dick Cheney.
Sure, just accuse the guy of partisanship, MEM, and ignore that Edelman makes a very clear and logical point.
Calling for surrender and retreat of U.S. forces emboldens Al Qaida in Iraq, and unnerves those who are our pro-democracy allies in Iraq. And the examples he gave of U.S. retreat leaving innocent people to be slaughtered, as demonstrated in past examples in Vietnam, Lebanon and Somalia are also logical and clear. Precisely how are these points "partisan"", MEM ?
If Democrats were suggesting a more supportive U.S. role, or pressing for Iraqi democratic military forces to be more self-reliant, I'd say Democrats were giving constructive pressure toward victory. But they're not. They're calling for complete withdrawal, and abandonment. Hillary among them.
Looking back at the Democrats' many destructive actions against our nation's morale, against our troops, and against victory in Iraq over the last 6 years, what would Democats need to do for you to finally say Democrats are aiding the enemy ?
It seems to me that no matter how divisive and destructive, you and other Democrats label it as "supporting our troops".
