Does PG&E Want To Screw San Francisco? Opposes Clean Energy

Does PG&E wanto to screw San Francisco? If you consider that the utility doesn't back using clean energy sources and has not met State of California guidelines for renewable energy, it sure seems so. You can change that with the passage of Proposition H - "Yes on H." It's the first initiative of its kind; tell your friends around America about it and have them call friends in San Francisco and tell them to vote "Yes On H".

Ross Mirikarimi - SF Supervisor - "Yes On H"; San Francisco

At a party fundraiser for San Francisco "Yes On H", I sat down with San Francisco Supervisor Ross Mirikarimi to talk about SF Proposition H and how it will benefit San Francisco.

SF Prop H Will Bring A Plan To Use "Clean Energy" By 2040.

http://www.sfcleanenergy.com - PG&E tells people that voting "Yes on H" will cause San Francisco to buy the PG&E grid. THAT'S BULL! All voting "Yes" on Proposition H will do is set San Francisco on a long term plan for the use of clean energy sources by the year 2040; it's not even 2010. What's PG&E scared of?

read more | digg story

Julian Davis Talks About "Yes On H" The SF Clean Energy Act

Julian Davis is the Chair of the "Yes on H" San Francisco Clean Energy campaign. He sat down to talk with me about the measure, which is on the San Francisco Ballot. The website is http://www.sfcleanenergy.com

"YES ON H" - San Francisco's Quest For Clean Energy November 4th

On November 4th a very important vote is coming to San Francisco. It's called "Yes on H" and if it passes, this is what it will do:

Specifically, the Act directs the City to analyze, identify and pursue strategies that:

Maximize greenhouse reductions from the electricity sector at the minimum cost including the following clean energy mandates: by 2012 ensure at least 107 megawatts; by 2017 ensure 51%; and by 2030 ensure 75%. The SFPUC shall ensure that 100% or the greatest amount technologically feasible or practicable are met through clean energy by 2040. Nuclear is prohibited from being included in the definition of clean energy.

Investigate ways to improve electric service and reduce costs to customers, including through measures such as Community Choice Aggregation.

Establish an Independent Ratepayer Advocate to represent the interests of ratepayers and ensure affordable and reliable service.

Develop a Green Jobs plan providing workforce development for clean energy, construction and operations in PUC jurisdiction. Any PG&E employees who become City employees as a result of this Act will not suffer any reduction of compensation or seniority.

Evaluate the financial and environmental benefits of locally controlled electricity services, including renewable energy and energy efficiency. This includes a cost-benefit analysis of municipalizing the electric system, as well as shorter-term measures such as Community Choice Aggregation.

Seems like a no-brainer, and it is. One problem is that SF Mayor Gavin Newsom's not behind it, and no one seems to have a good reason why, including Mayor Newsom. Not a good idea for someone running for Governor of California.

Planned Parenthood is More Than Just Abortions

A lot of time, thought and effort went into this post. So please read it.




The most annoying thing will be that before even reading this post some people are going to automatically go into the mind state that the only thing Planned Parenthood does is use tax payer's money to pay for abortions. Please continue reading, because there is a lot more to it.

How fitting, after doing a post about how the teen pregnancy rate has lowered there is now a big issue with what will happen to Planned Parenthood if the Government Shutdown occurs.

On CBS News there was a tagline that said: Defund Abortion Providers.
Really? That is not all Planned Parenthood is.

CBS reports that 75 percent of Planned Parenthood clients are living close to the poverty line. The lack of funding or cutting the program all together could lead to terrible things; people need to NOT just associate Planned Parenthood with abortions:

"Planned Parenthood provides a wide array of medical services including reproductive health care, cancer screenings, and STD testing at more than 800 locations across the country. They are also the country's largest abortion provider."

Yes. It is the country's largest abortion provider and federal government funding abortion is not something that every Pro-Choice person agrees with; so put aside the fact that Planned Parenthood is mostly known for abortions and yes, the funding for Planned Parenthood indeed does go to abortions.

CBS continues to talk about those on the right who are opposed to government funding Planned Parenthood. What it should be saying is that there are a lot of Conservatives who are Pro-Life and think that all Planned Parenthood does is take tax-payer's money and have them pay for abortions. No, that's not it.

The CBS report emphasizes on that:

Republican lawmakers have questioned government funding of Planned Parenthood, saying the government shouldn't be in the business of supporting abortion - even indirectly. Planned Parenting receives government support, though the funds are used for purposes other than abortions.

As the article goes on it continues to talk about abortion:

"For all the controversy, abortion remains a common procedure in the U.S. A long-term decline in the abortion rate stalled between 2005 and 2008, according to the Guttmacher Institute. In 2008, 1.21 million abortions were performed, with about 40 percent of unintended pregnancies now being terminated by abortion.

"Abortion yields 37 percent of all Planned Parenthood revenues by conservative estimates," Sen. Kelly Ayotte (R-N.H.) said in an interview, according to a written statement released by her office. "

This is so redundant.
Could people please realize that there's a lot more than abortions going on.
STD checks, pelvic exams, etc.

Money is brought up once again:

An agency statement says 3 percent of their services are devoted to abortion. They didn't break out the revenue. They also claim to prevent more than half-a-million unintended pregnancies each year by distributing contraceptives. They estimate their efforts prevent 290,000 abortions each year.

Yes this blog post is using the CBS report, because the report from CBS was the most informative out of all the sources reporting on this.

And now we have this:

"Ayotte said he was also worried about a recent "sting" operation by the antiabortion group Live Action, in which men posing as pimps were videotaped interacting with Planned Parenthood workers.

"I'm troubled by what's come out in the videos that have shown that they were essentially looking the other way on sex-trafficking," Ayotte wrote.

Planned Parenthood isn't taking the criticism lying down."

Well, here's what Planned Parenthood has to say. This is the most important piece of this entire post:

"Reasonable people could have agreed on funding the government weeks ago, but a small group of extremists has been allowed to hold the government hostage to their narrow political agenda - one that has no place in the budget process," Planned Parenthood president Cecile Richards said in a written statement. "It is truly unacceptable that a small group with an extreme political agenda is forcing a shutdown of the United States government over a dangerous proposal that would bar women from getting the lifesaving health care they need - breast exams, Pap tests, HIV tests and more."


Since this is a blog post and not an article objectivity doesn't need to be an issue; because it is going to be annoying how many skim this post and just think oh well all they do is abortions and take money. Negative, negative, negative.

Go for it, complain it should be a state by state thing and not a federal thing, but guess what? Until states do it themselves the Feds NEED to. If each state was doing this then the Federal Government shut down wouldn't be such a big deal. So many conservatives say they believe things should be "up to the state." Well guess what, the states haven't done it yet, and in regards to the other shut downs I think that it would be better to have the clean water act that the federal government has to contribute and fund rather than having nothing at all. Yes, leave it to the states, but until the states do anything people are getting screwed.

And the people who are screwed might need to go to Planned Parenthood and get that checked out.

--Nikky Raney

Hillary Clinton Still Being Bashed For Poor Drexel Debate Performance

Being the supposed front runner has the one disadvantage of having everything you do or say analyzed and taken-apart. And in this digital world, the results of that work are spread far and wide rapidly. Senator Clinton's poor performance in this debate -- so bad that it may have cost her the nomination. I say may, because she's got another chance on November 15th with CNN.

NBC went on the attack, which places CNN in a bind. If they're too nice to Clinton, they could be seen as favoring her, rather than being good journalists.


Hillary Gets Poor Grades at Drexel Debate - ABC News

October 31, 2007 9:49 AM

For the first section of last night's Democratic debate -- during the entire section on that arcane Kyl-Lieberman amendment on Iran -- frontrunner Sen. Hillary Clinton, D-NY, held her own just fine, I thought, and her reluctance to engage in the tit-for-tat bickering served her well.

But then something must have happened during that first commercial break.

Because when we came back, she seemed obfuscatory and less than forthright.

Take the question on whether or not she would allow the National Archives to open up more records of her husband's presidency -- a pertinent one given her declaration that her eight years as First Lady constitutes "experience," not to mention her husband's request that the National Archives keep their communications sealed until 2012.

"The Archives is moving as rapidly as the Archives moves," she said. 'There's about 20 million pieces of paper there. And they are move, and they are releasing as they do their process. And I am fully in favor of that."

She was pressed on her husbands request that any communication between the two of them not be made available to the public until 2012. "Would you lift that ban?" she was asked by moderator Tim Russert.

"Well, that's not my decision to make, and I don't believe that any president or first lady ever has. But, certainly, we're move as quickly as our circumstances and the processes of the
National Archives permits."

Said Sen. Barack Obama, D-Illinois: "We have just gone through one of the most secretive administrations in our history. And not releasing, I think, these records at the same time, Hillary, that you're making the claim that this is the basis for your experience, I think, is a problem."

It went on like that.

Russert flatly accused her of being duplicitous on Social Security, saying to him and at an AARP-hosted debate that she would not increasing Social Security taxes, then telling a teacher -- and being overheard by an AP reporter -- that she would consider it. "Why do you have one public position and one private position?" Russert asked.

Clinton denied she did, saying -- when pressed on her private conversation with a teacher -- that "everybody knows what the possibilities are, Tim. Everybody knows that. But I do not advocate it. I do not support it."

Then came questions about the tax reform proposal offered by one of her biggest supporters, Rep. Charles Rangel, D-NY, chair of the House Ways and Means Committee. Campaigning with Rangel and his wife, former President Bill Clinton on Saturday said, "Charlie Rangel wants me to pay more taxes so you can pay less and I think that's a good idea."

Is that Sen. Clinton's view?

Clinton declared herself a "great admirer of Chairman Rangel." Then she said "I don't know all the details of what Charlie is recommending, but I certainly agree with the goal."

Then she sounded as if she was quite familiar with the details of what Rangel is recommending.

Then she said "I don't agree with all the details, but he's on the right track to say we've got to do something about" the Alternative Minimum Tax.

Her worst moment came at the end of the debate, (watch it HERE) when asked about a comment she gave to a New Hampshire newspaper that New York Gov. Eliot Spitzer's controversial proposal to give driver's licenses to illegal immigrants "makes a lot of sense."

"What Governor Spitzer is trying to do is fill the vacuum left by the failure of this administration to bring about comprehensive immigration reform," she said. "We know in New York we have several million at any one time who are in New York illegally. They are undocumented workers. They are driving on our roads. The possibility of them having an accident that harms themselves or others is just a matter of the odds. It's probability. So what Governor Spitzer is trying to do is to fill the vacuum."

Then Sen. Chris Dodd, D-Conn., took issue with Spitzer's proposal.

Clinton then interjected -- "Well, I just want to add, I did not say that it should be done, but I certainly recognize why Governor Spitzer is trying to do…"

If you paid attention you might have felt hundreds of thousands of Americans go: HUH?

"No, no, no," Dodd said. "You said -- you said yes, you thought it made sense to do it."

"No, I didn't, Chris," said Clinton.

"Senator Clinton, I just want to make sure of what I heard," said Russert. "Do you, the New York senator, Hillary Clinton, support the New York governor's plan to give illegal immigrants a driver's license?
You told the New Hampshire paper that it made a lot of sense. Do you support his plan?"

Clinton got defensive. "You know, Tim, this is where everybody plays 'gotcha.' It makes a lot of sense. What is the governor supposed to do? He is dealing with a serious problems. We have failed. And George Bush has failed. Do I think this is the best thing for any governor to do? No. But do I understand the sense of real desperation, trying to get a handle on this? Remember, in New York, we want to know who's in New York. We want people to come out of the shadows. He's making an honest effort to do it. We should have passed immigration reform."

It fed into the meme that Obama and former Sen. John Edwards, D-NC, had been pushing all night -- that Clinton is calculating and less than honest.

So they, too, pounced.

"Unless I missed something, Senator Clinton said two different things in the course of about two minutes just a few minutes ago," Edwards said. "And I think this is a real issue for the country. I mean, America is looking for a president who will say the same thing, who will be consistent, who will be straight with them. Because what we've had for seven years is double-talk from Bush and from Cheney, and I think America deserves us to be straight."

Added Obama: "Well, I was confused on Senator Clinton's answer. I can't tell whether she was for it or against it. And I do think that is important. One of the things that we have to do in this country is
to be honest about the challenges that we face."

Clinton is still the frontrunner, and has a commanding lead. But it was shaky performance, with the grand finale of the debate being a devastating punch delivered by … Clinton herself.

Thoughts?

-- jpt

October 31, 2007 | Permalink | User Comments (86)

TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/t/trackback/433071/22916048

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Hillary Gets Poor Grades at Drexel Debate:

User Comments

Here here James!

Posted by: southern_bell | Oct 31, 2007 7:08:35 PM

Smith, you wrote: "I'd rather a president, or whomever for that matter, change their stance and say "I was wrong", rather than let their pride override their better judgement." You want to impose your own ideals and judgment upon President Bush. But see that is where you have no clue.

President Bush strongly believes -- a true heartfelt conviction -- that the key to peace in the Middle East, and hopefully to the overall War on Terror, is two-fold: (1) Thriving democracies in Afghanistan and Iraq being role models for their neighbors. That eventually the populace of their neighbors will demand democracies in their own countries; (2) The two-state solution to the Palestinian-Israeli conflict. Therefore, he will not waver from his conviction.

Now it is possible that democracy will never take hold in the Middle East. And if that is the case, then there will NEVER be peace in the Middle East. But President Bush will not give up on the Middle East. That is why he is so adamant in wanting to win the war in Iraq both from a military and a political standpoint.

A recent poll indicates that 19% of Democrats actually believe that the world would be a better place if the United States were to lose the War in Iraq; and another 20% of Democrats don't know whether the world would be better off or not. Overall, 11% of Americans believe the world would be better off if we lost the war; while 73% disagree. That's because many of you just do not believe that the terrorists are serious about wanting to end Western Civilization and destroying the United States. And you certainly refuse to believe that we ARE fighting al Qaeda in Iraq. But letting al Qaeda have a military victory in Iraq WILL OPEN the gates of Armageddon. And when that happens, losing nearly 3,000 citizens on 9/11 and losing 3,842+ members of the U. S. Armed Forces in Iraq the past 4 1/2 years, will pale in comparison.

Posted by: James Danley | Oct 31, 2007 6:24:44 PM

Millie - I'm sorry if you lost someone in the war but that doesn't make Bush a murderer.

all wars are absurd.

Posted by: southern_bell | Oct 31, 2007 5:45:10 PM

How about we issue the illegal immigrants driver licenses and when they come to pick them up deport them? You know, since they are, you know, illegal and all...

Posted by: southern_bell | Oct 31, 2007 5:22:39 PM

Jim Bob,

If your son or daugther had been killed in Iraq in this absurd war that only Bush and his cronies support, you would not hesitate to call the president a murderer. You do not need to do a lot of homework to verify this fact!! I can only ask, how can he sleep at night????

Posted by: Millie | Oct 31, 2007 5:18:15 PM

Alex - When you said, "A President - a leader - should not just do what the masses want, otherwise they'd just be a follower and not a leader." I disagree. A leader NEEDS to take into consideration what the people want. Isn't that what our country is based on? Politicians are supposed to represent their constituents' wishes. I'd rather a president, or whomever for that matter, change their stance and say "I was wrong", rather than let their pride override their better judgement. I also understand why candidates will ride the fence on some issues. It's so that they can appeal to more than just one group of people. I understand that we also need someone firm in their beliefs, but when everyone picks on every single word you say, it's hard not to waffle from time to time. Give it a rest, will ya! (And go ahead, pick on my posting too. I know you want to.)

Posted by: Smith | Oct 31, 2007 4:56:20 PM

Spock,

If you think Bush is interested in the welfare of America, please consider the close relationship between King George and the Saudi Royalty and the Bin Laden family. He is interested in the wealthy and the elite, not the US, not the US Constitution, not the US soldier, only the US military because his family makes money when the military uses ordinance. Go ahead and Google "Bush and bin Laden".

Posted by: BooMan | Oct 31, 2007 4:45:43 PM

correction - can not be that dumb

Posted by: spock | Oct 31, 2007 4:29:31 PM

Brenda - Jeff seems ideologically blinded by his hatred for Bush, See Pres Bush ran for the People of the US, not Foreign countries. Who cares if they like us or not.

Kerry did it, Gore did it, I just do not understand why they run for President here if France likes them.

President Bush can be that dumb he beat the Libs twice with the second time a record number of the popular vote, more then even Reagan.

Posted by: spock | Oct 31, 2007 4:28:21 PM

Hey Jake
I got to hand it to you, in one Blog your called a Hilary supporter, and then in this blog your called a Hilary Basher!

Got to wonder!

Posted by: spock | Oct 31, 2007 4:20:36 PM

UGOCHUKWU - Kerry served Honorable, um you forget the question purple hearts, the radio speeches in France, I guess thats honorable for you libs.

Gore? Are you kidding, anybody who Blames the US first can get a Noble Peace Prize! what in the world does his Propaganda Global Warming got to do with Peace, and it shows since they skipped giving it to that woman who saved thousands from the Nazis

Lets see your Clinton/Soros attack on a General who is a Hero

STOP READING LIBERAL PROPAGANDA!!

Posted by: spock | Oct 31, 2007 4:13:38 PM

UGOCHUKWU, I don't like Sen. Hillary Clinton. Not because she is a woman, but because she is a socialist (if not a communist). Back in May, Sen. Clinton said that what the Bush administration touts as an "ownership society" really is an "on your own" society that has widened the gap between rich and poor. She also said: "It's time for a new beginning, for an end to government of the few, by the few and for the few, time to reject the idea of an "on your own" society and to replace it with shared responsibility for shared prosperity. I prefer a "we're all in it together" society."

CONNECT THE DOTS! First she said that an "ownership society" is really an "on your own" society. Then she says it's time to reject an "on your own" society. Thus she says we should reject an "ownership society" and "replace it shared responsibility for shared prosperity." That is Marxist!

Posted by: James Danley | Oct 31, 2007 4:08:00 PM

This is hopeful and perhaps constructive criticism for I do not want to block or interfere with any one candidate at this time. I had been a “key” individual and for the public within the shadows of the U.S. government since the lost of the space shuttle Columbia, and then I became more to the forefront with my concerns over the safety issues within NASA and became a whistle blower, courtroom activist, jailed without trial, lost of family. I am a person who chose to go to Vietnam with the HAWK unit as a marine in 1965 and later became a computer scientist and if people talked with me between the years of 1986 to yesterday they would think of me as a rebel because they had not yet realized they had been so badly mislead and in a fog of marketing of professionals. Today I am very hopeful that our candidates are on both sides genuinely preparing their platform for the best interest of the United States and not for their personal agenda. I am in ill health, and have been since Vietnam, otherwise I would been much more active as a human within our social fabric, our national security is still weak, our environmental protection is much weaker, the national farmers associations will have critical problems, our health system are unfair and in disarray, the national school system is in a “Clear and Present” danger (from all classes and from birth many family‘s are disconnected with their children), etc, etc,. Currently our enemy is genuine and with terrorism, but very soon with the crisis of global environmental losses in food and resources there will be border conflicts, and foreign wars. I am very concerned over the recovery of the United States at this time in our evolutionary period, and who takes command of the U.S. Government. The world cannot function well without a functioning government within the United States, and I believe most of the world governments realize that to be true. I have combated terrorism in South Vietnam and their the street orphans constantly helped me in avoiding contact with the enemy when I was alone and vulnerable, I was under orders not to engage the enemy and not to be captured , but I was also constantly present amongst the civilians. Now decades later I am again in a deep and critical matter that requires attention by national leaders and they choose to abandon me, persecute me, and after it is determined that I am correct, they remain further in distance and only one comes forward with a recent hand shake. The next leader of this nation has a task of recovery of reuniting of rebuilding, and so far I have not seen that spirited platform appear within any of the parties. I hope my reflections and statements are of some use. Note: I use to sing and talk to my children from the day they were born, and I would talk to them about the clothing they wore, or at cafeterias I would let them pick their food even at the early age of 6 months, we had a ongoing open and friendly relationship.

Posted by: Williamwfh | Oct 31, 2007 4:04:10 PM

It is heartening to know that after all the ridicule President Reagan took from democrats for the movie, Bedtime for Bonzo, the frontrunner would only poll 46-48% against “any republican” prior to the debate and most likely only 43% against Bonzo after this debate.

Posted by: flyover | Oct 31, 2007 3:48:20 PM

ABC PULLED MY POST! Is it because I pointed out your bias?

Posted by: jim | Oct 31, 2007 3:46:15 PM

I want to ask if Jake Tapper is favors
one party 'cause every time I check on the comments,it is full of Mrs Clinton
bashers.I posted a comment at one time and went back to check but was not there
any more.I do observe that he has always
posted more of unfavorable comments about the Clinton and nobody else. WHAT IS GOING ON?

Posted by: UGOCHUKWU | Oct 31, 2007 3:45:17 PM

Why didn't she just say "sooner, rather than later," when she meant "never." It worked for the "most ethical administration" before.

Posted by: taxplan | Oct 31, 2007 3:28:54 PM

SHAME,SHAME,SHAME,there we go again folks,the right hate mongers have already started and it is not the general election yet. What are you guys
afraid of on Hillary Clinton? is 'cause
she is a woman? is it cause she is Bill's wife,is it cause you hate mongers
do not like women being in charge? what
is it cause it bugs me why some people
are so narrow minded. You guys last time
I checked went after AL Gore on many
issues like global warming ten years ago
and now he is a nobel peace prize winner
You guys went after John Kerry,a man who
served, I repeat served his country in
Vietnam,you went after former Georgia
senator Maxclelan,a disable vet who lost
both leggs and one ,calling him a liberal 'cause of his stands with the
Irag war. Where are your taugths. This
time you guys are going after her,fool
me once and the country but this time
It is not going to work. Brenda and others bashing,you out of touch right
winggers, get a life 'cause she is going
to be the next president of the united
states.

Posted by: UGOCHUKWU | Oct 31, 2007 3:27:16 PM

If Hilary were a male, this stupid sniping would disappear, and she would be considered according to her merits. Get over it, and I'm sorry... but I wanted so much to believe Obama would take the high road, but he's like a kid poking a dog with a stick. He has much less substance than I would have hoped.

BUT all of these issues are complicated. People are allowed to consider and change their minds - Geez, it shows that they THINK about things - this goes for all the candidates. We now have an administration that NEVER corrects it's views, and it' s HORRIBLE. Let's see what these folk have to offer, not who's the best at sniping.

Posted by: kcareymac | Oct 31, 2007 3:24:03 PM

This seems to be a classic example of the "good Hillary/bad Hillary" personae which, like Dr. Jekyll/Mr. Hyde, the junior senator from New York often manifests. When Sen. Clinton doesn't respond to the political attacks and the baiting, she seems competent and presidential; when she triangulates her position and tries to be everything to everybody, she seems indecisive and calculating. The other candidates smelled her blood in the water and began to attack, most deservedly, when she seemingly expressed support for Gov. Spitzer without supporting him. It's obvious she's a follower of Lewis Carroll, but shouldn't be: "A word means exactly what I want it to mean, neither more nor less."

Posted by: chuck | Oct 31, 2007 3:21:13 PM

So everyone on all the campaigns are reading everything we (the real people) are saying and all their opionions will change tomorrow. Love this country, can't wait to read the news.

Posted by: ME | Oct 31, 2007 3:21:06 PM

I HEARD A COUPLE OF COMMENTS EARLIER SAYING THAT OBAMA AND CLINTON ANSWERED THE SAME REGARDING THE QUESTION OF ISSUING ILLEGAL IMMIGRANT'S IDS TO DRIVE. OBAMA SAID THIS"I think that it is the right idea, and I disagree with Chris because there is a public safety concern. We can make sure that drivers who are illegal come out of the shadows, that they can be tracked, that they are properly trained, and that will make our roads safer.

That doesn't negate the need for us to reform illegal immigration.

UNLESS YOU WERE OUTSIDE TAKING A BREATHERLIZER TEST, WHAT DID THEY NOT UNDERSTAND REGARDING OBAMA'S ANSWER?

HERE IS SENATOR CLINTONS ANSWER:
Russert: Senator Clinton, I just want to make sure of what I heard. Do you, the New York senator, Hillary Clinton, support the New York governor's plan to give illegal immigrants a driver's license?

You told the New Hampshire paper that it made a lot of sense. Do you support his plan?

Clinton: You know, Tim, this is where everybody plays "gotcha." It makes a lot of sense. What is the governor supposed to do? He is dealing with a serious problems. We have failed. And George Bush has failed. Do I think this is the best thing for any governor to do? No. But do I understand the sense of real desperation, trying to get a handle on this? Remember, in New York, we want to know who's in New York. We want people to come out of the shadows.

I WAS JUST AS CONFUSED AS OBAMA!



Posted by: James | Oct 31, 2007 3:17:06 PM

Apparently Hillary supporters are blindsided by the fact that its Bill they really want. Let's face it..after last night's debate, its apparent the woman is an idiot with little integrity. The woman cannot answer a question without blaming someone else thinking that's the answer to the question. Too evasive and non-committal to any issue. Bad for the country not to have answers for issues in our country during a campaign.

Posted by: cbeargal | Oct 31, 2007 3:16:42 PM

I would like someone to win that has actually RAN something. Perhaps been a Governer. Even Rudy with Mayor experience is a little better than a Senator. They are all under qualified to run this country. It would be good to have run a state, money, laws etc.
so they at least have a clue. I believe a vote for Hillary is a vote for Bill. He will be President she will be his puppet.

Posted by: ME | Oct 31, 2007 3:02:24 PM

STEVEN: What the h*ll was that? First, there is a key next to the "A" key on your keyboard...it's called the caps lock key. Push it once. Secondly, are you literate? There were more sentence fragments, run on sentences and spelling mistakes than I have even seen in one location at one time! I tried to read your posting and honestly I don't know what side you are on or what you were trying to say for that matter! YIKES!

Posted by: Julio | Oct 31, 2007 3:01:12 PM

This nation DOES NOT need any more family rule. If Clinton is elected it will have been decades that we have been under the leadership of only 2 families! I thought we broke away from this $%@&* long ago!

Posted by: RW | Oct 31, 2007 2:57:41 PM

The bottom line? As much as I'd like to vote for a woman, I just don't trust Hillary and I don't think she could win the general election. She should put personal ambition aside and do what's best for the party by withdrawing from the race.

Posted by: Bob | Oct 31, 2007 2:54:07 PM

Hey I do not mind them attacking President Bush! It shows their lack of respect for the office, and in doing that shows they do not deserve to take the office. And Also they show ignorance because the last time I read President Bush unfortunately can not run again.

They out right lie, which anybody with a unbrainwashed brian can find out for themselves,

1 - Cancer Death Rates that they said were up, there was a report that cancer Death rates have gone down

2 - Social Security under Clinton was to survive to 2055 but under Bush it went to 2042, well half lie again under Clinton it was to run out in 2037, Pres Bush went up to 2042

3 - Bush Lied - Well where were the facts???

Posted by: spock | Oct 31, 2007 2:53:10 PM

Interesting that when pushed to give a clear "yes" or "no" answer she still waffled all around--even later.
If she felt her answer was not clear then she would have insisted on clearing up the issue but she did not. That indicates that she really did not want to clear up the matter--probably as has been pointed out -- because she is afraid of alienating people who diagree with her.
The other candidates and possibly her final Republican opponent will be hitting her hard with continued references like "There you go again without explaining yourself". If she does not come up with a defensive tact to dela with it then it wil be BYE BYE Hillary.

Posted by: John | Oct 31, 2007 2:49:23 PM

They were all eating crow last night about campaign contributions as well. I looked at guys like Dodd and Kucinich, and I have more respect for them now, since they stick to their principals and true to their issues. What is everyone's opinion about Al Gore getting into the race? Does he have time? The true desire?

Posted by: Alex | Oct 31, 2007 2:45:20 PM

They are all weather vanes. Their people read what everyone is saying and jump on the lastest band wagon. So far like I said before, what are they going to do for US? So far nothing. We can bash Bush til we are blue in the face but the point is to replace him, move forward. What are these candidates going to do to make it better? That is what I want to hear. Not what has been done wrong what is going to be done right. Then stick to what they say. That is what I want. But hey I'm an American and it doesn't seem to matter what I want. I am beginning to feel like the minority in this country.

Posted by: ME | Oct 31, 2007 2:39:53 PM

Look at New York. You have all the Rangels, Sharptons, Clintons, Spitzers, etc. Then people want to know why we in the South still want to seceed.

Posted by: Alex | Oct 31, 2007 2:36:43 PM

Like I heard someone say: Hillary is a weather vane and not a compass. She will go any way the popular wind is blowing. A President - a leader - should not just do what the masses want, otherwise they'd just be a follower and not a leader.

Posted by: Mark | Oct 31, 2007 2:32:15 PM

Clinton had Vince Foster killed? Riiiiiiiight. But nonetheless, Hillary is not a good choice for the Democratic nominee. She, like McCain, is too power-hungry. She should remain a strong Senatorial Democrat and let someone much more qualified - like Al Gore - run for President.

Posted by: Mike F | Oct 31, 2007 2:32:14 PM

Hillay appears to say whatever will cover the widest swath of opinion. You want to hear yes? Well, thar ya go! But with a qualifier, for those who wanted to hear "no". Got it all covered that way. Defiantly against something? Well so is she, in principle anyway, leave the "in practice" part to her, for she's far more wiley than the commoners, and you'll just have to understand she would've done what you wanted, only she's smarter than you and had to do it her way ultimately. Got that? Good. I was being sarcastic, by the way.

Posted by: Jim | Oct 31, 2007 2:28:35 PM

It was funny and revealing of her lack of character, watching her waffle all last night blame everything on Bush and Cheney. Governor Spitzer will give illegals a drivers license and hillary is blaming it on Bush. Yet she and her fellow Senators are ultimately the body that fail to create effective immigrant legislation. Last night she even sidestepped a qustion about tax increases, and blamed it on Haliburton. Hillary Bush is a fake. Spitzer looks like he wears eyeliner...blame that on Bush as well.

Posted by: New Yorker | Oct 31, 2007 2:28:22 PM

The ONE and ONLY reason I would vote for Hillary is to get BILL back in office. She's just there for show and everyone knows its true.

Posted by: JT | Oct 31, 2007 2:27:33 PM

EDWARDS ATTACK THE WOMAN A CHAUVENSITIC EDWARDS DITN GET HIGH SCORE-HE LOST. ALSO HILLARY DONT WANT TO BE IN THE BAG- THEN LATER IT BITE HER- TIM RUSSERT VERY BULL AND TRICKY GUY- HILLARY WAS SMART LAST NIGHT- ONLY THE CLINTON CAN GET BACK IN SHAPE IN OUR AMERICA JUST LIKE BEFORE; AMERICA IS GREAT-AMERICA WS GREAT UNDER THE CLINTON RMEMBER THAT TO ALL YOU AMERICAN PEOPLE OR AMERICAN PEOPLE RMEBER THE GOOD TIMES. WE HAVE GOOD ALMOST EVERYTHING AND WE HAVE SURPLUS REPUBLICAN PARTY BANKRUPT THE COUNTRY UNDER THE BSUH ADM, AND MESSY BUSH ACT LIKE HE HAS A NETAL PROBLEM AS KUSINICH ARGUMENT OR COMMNET. EDWARDS A LOSWR LIAR GEMINI BORN GUY- HE DONT GO NOWHERE. CHAUVENSITIC GUY SHOUD NOT ATTACK AWOMAN/ EVBEN REPUBLICAN- THEYR MOTHERS AND AUNT AND REALTIVES ARE WOMEN. HILLARY SI NON-INCUMBERNT CANDIATE AND WELL EXPREIENCE.55 YEARS IN CHCILDREN ADVOCATE /WOMNE AND WOEMN RIGHTS AND ETC. SHES GOOD WE NED A LADY LIKE HER- WISH ALL AMERICAN PEOPLE CAN SEE THROUGH ALL HER GOOD THINGS SHE DID DURING HER HHUSBAND TERMS. GOD BLESS YOU HILLARY UR THE EBST IN MY OPINION.
UR CARING LADY OTHER NOT GOOD. JUST TLAK NO SUSBTANCE.

Posted by: STEVEN | Oct 31, 2007 2:26:02 PM

Clinton had Vince Foster killed after she had an affair with him. This doesn't even top the list of the crooked things they have done. The Clintons are such scoundrels.

Posted by: Marlena | Oct 31, 2007 2:12:33 PM

Just a note: having an editor go through your article(s), or at the very least, proof-reading them before they're available for public viewing can go a long way.

Posted by: Rodney | Oct 31, 2007 2:05:35 PM

Brenda - Well so far Bush has only delivered the worst case scenario. Lies, deception, arrogance, stupidity, etc, etc, etc... It hard to get any worse than Bush/Cheney.

Posted by: Jeff | Oct 31, 2007 1:35:35 PM

Wow doesn't that qualify all politicians? Not just Bush. How about Mr. Clinton? Some just aren't caught yet and others don't make the news.

Posted by: ME | Oct 31, 2007 1:53:58 PM

She made many mistakes last night. She troubles me greatly.

Posted by: Dennis | Oct 31, 2007 1:53:48 PM

This article has some grammatical mistakes. Consider running it through spellcheck again.

Posted by: michael | Oct 31, 2007 1:50:21 PM

Doesn't matter unless she flip-flops on Israel ( and she won't do that. She is more ambitious than ethical).

Then they will flush her.

Posted by: Rob | Oct 31, 2007 1:48:02 PM

Given the fact that no one on this board is privy to more that 5% of the intelligence information presented to the President on a daily basis, please explain how you can determine Bush's level of intelligence. Anyone who has spoken with him will tell you he is an extraordinarily intelligent person. Yes, maybe he struggles speaking in public, but this is not an indication of his intelligence...unless you feel that you can judge a person's entire character and intelligence level by the few times a year you see him on TV... But enough about Bush, this article isn't about him.

Posted by: Brenda | Oct 31, 2007 1:47:02 PM

Jeff: This article has nothing to do with Bush. In case you don't know, he didn't debate last night. You constantly bashing Bush every opportunity you get shows who you really are...a liberal democrat with no other agenda but "hate-Bush". Let's focus on the issues at hand instead of using this as a platform to launch your agenda.

Posted by: Brenda | Oct 31, 2007 1:42:35 PM

I say we ammend the constitution and put BUSH/CHENEY in for four more years.

Posted by: jim bob | Oct 31, 2007 1:41:17 PM

Jeff: Typical liberal comment...change the subject by making a "hate-Bush" comment. 1) Bush has nothing to do with Hillary's flip-flopping. 2) Bush has remained constant in his stance (whether you agree with him or not) for seven years...he hasn't changed his values for political gain. 3) Even if you think Bush is the "village idiot", that's no reason to elect Hillary...stupidest arguement I ever heard (transparent attempt to use this article to promote your liberal "hate-Bush" agenda). 4) The reason people around the world don't think Hillary is an idiot is simply because they don't know her yet. I would venture to guess that many around the world think she's a fool for turning a blind eye to her husband's sexcapades for the past 20 years. Any femanist should think she's an idiot with no values...

Posted by: Brenda | Oct 31, 2007 1:39:45 PM

SteveW, I agree. Last night won't dissuade her voters, most of whom are, as you indicate, lukewarm to begin with. Her supporters also a progressive bunch, and she managed to stay on message with respect to progressive causes (immigration reform, alt min repeal) albeit flimsily. I think.

Posted by: cordelia525 | Oct 31, 2007 1:36:21 PM

Brenda - Well so far Bush has only delivered the worst case scenario. Lies, deception, arrogance, stupidity, etc, etc, etc... It hard to get any worse than Bush/Cheney.

Posted by: Jeff | Oct 31, 2007 1:35:35 PM

Hillary has no plans. Anything she is telling you now is nothing more than a political promise. I live in NY and when she campaigned for Senator she promised the world...so far she has delivered nothing, and I do mean "nothing". And she can't blame it on being stopped by republicans either because this state is vastly democratic, both in population and leadership. She's a power-monger who will say anything to gain more power...she doesn't give a rat's #$%^& about the people who elect her.

Posted by: Brenda | Oct 31, 2007 1:32:17 PM

Brenda - Kind-of like all the misinformed people that voted for Bush. It too late to erase all damage he has done to the US. Atleast one thing that H. Clinton has is people around the world don't think she is the village idiot.

Posted by: Jeff | Oct 31, 2007 1:30:48 PM

ME, the problem is that the political game has turned so nasty that the qualified people for president are not about to subject their familis to it. I dont blame them. Hillary is just an example of what is left over, it's sad.

Posted by: jim bob | Oct 31, 2007 1:28:50 PM

ME, the problem is that the political game has turned so nasty that the qualified people for president are not about to subject their familis to it. I dont blame them. Hillary is just an example of what is left over, it's sad.

Posted by: jim bob | Oct 31, 2007 1:28:43 PM

Millie: Calling the President a murderer is a pretty serious claim...I hope you done all your homework and you're not just jumping on the liberal "hate-Bush" band-wagon. As for Ku-sin-ich, I think he showed his true colors last night. People may not like Bush, but I think his comments were uncalled for and showed who he really is. But I don't expect anything less from a liberal...

Posted by: Brenda | Oct 31, 2007 1:28:36 PM

WE want to know WHO is in New York! WE want to know WHO is everywhere. Hillary is part of the WE! Beware of the WE! WE have plans.

Posted by: GM | Oct 31, 2007 1:24:53 PM

SteveW: That was very well put. The driver's license issue is crystal clear to me...illegals tend to favor liberals because they, by-and-large, support amnisty. Who are they going to vote for? You are correct though, she only has a handful of core supporters. Right now, she is completely beholden to the far left to sustain the support of organizations like MoveOn.org and the Democracy Alliance (aka George Soros and his money). For this reason she only has the extreme far left as her base. Once she gets the nomination, watch how fast she runs back to the middle. My fear is that her support will grow among moderates and then if she is elected, she will show who she really is, a socialist...but by that time, it will be too late.

Posted by: Brenda | Oct 31, 2007 1:24:48 PM

I am a 100% Obama suporter and think he did a terrific job last night bringing up important issues without insulting anyone. However, regarding the question asked of Kucinich, as a science teacher I must clarify that a UFO is an unidentified flying object and many people have seen them. It is just an object that does not look like an airplane or other identifiable craft. It may be a meteor, or even a piece of space debris entering the atmosphere. It does not have to be aliens! As to Bush being mentally ill, I can see no other rational explanation to all the bullying, arrogance, and plain murder he has committed.

Posted by: Millie | Oct 31, 2007 1:20:04 PM

If "illegal alian" = "undocumented worker" then does "drug dealer" = "unlicensed pharmacist"?

Posted by: Brenda | Oct 31, 2007 1:12:08 PM

I haven't seen but a few outright Hillary supporters on this blog, which is the only one I post on. Even when I go to blogs with 'liberal' or 'progressive' in the blog title, I see less than wholehearted support for Hillary-corp, as if she's the lesser of eight evils, and they want the 90's back. They don't care that she won't answer a direct question until her handlers have a day or so to do some polling and spin out a position. Many of her few strong supporters, though, like what she REALLY believes. She said last night that we should have passed the Immigration Reform Bill--it failed because a huge majority of Americans oppose blanket amnesty--but her few core supporters want that. She flip-flopped badly on the New York drivers license for illegals question--because she knows that a huge majority of New Yorkers are against it. But her few core supporters want drivers licenses for illegals, because once they have drivers licenses, they can VOTE...illegally, of course, but to Hillary supporters, a vote is a vote. She said last night that she would pare down the military by BILLIONS of dollars, yet she conceded that she would have to continue the war against terrorism for YEARS!!! That, of course, doesn't make practical sense, but her few core supporters want those drastic military cuts that the majority of Americans don't want. Her performance last night was not good--that is true. It was not good because she got caught a few times saying what she really thinks....and once the rest of America knows what she REALLY believes, it's over for her. Really.

Posted by: SteveW | Oct 31, 2007 1:11:04 PM

Her answer on the driver's license issue was stupid. How is giving an illegal a driver's license going to "bring about comprehensive immigration reform"? This was just an opportunity to take a shot at Bush. She then said that the possibility of them having an accident and harming someone is great. So...how is giving them a driver's license going to help? They will still be driving on the same roads with the same vehicles. All this does is makes the government issued driver's license a non-valid form of identification because anyone can get one. Brilliant idea!

Posted by: Brenda | Oct 31, 2007 1:09:34 PM

I am just so sick of all of this so soon. The reality is not a one of these people will do this country any good. They have not YET said what they will do for this country. Too busy bashing each other. Try that first and I may listen. If elections were today I would not vote. It doesn't matter who we get our government is a joke. They do not work together they try to upstage each other. Sad for this country. Hilary has been in NYS for a few years and all she has done for us is promote her book and her election. Do we still have to pay her?

Posted by: ME | Oct 31, 2007 1:04:04 PM

The question on UFO's was irrelevant.We all have seen strange things-especially when it comes to the political system. I have more tust in the UFO's and I haven't seen one.

Posted by: D. Kerns | Oct 31, 2007 1:02:38 PM

Jerry, if you call getting called to the carpet for talking out both sides of her mouth for political gain "ganging up on Hillary" so be it, but if people are ignorant enough to elect someone who is obviously only out for herself and power, then we deserve what we get...a socialist who wants to tax us to the gills and turn us into a anti-capitalism, socialist country. BTW, anyone will get Bush out of office in '08...it's the end of his 2nd term...

Posted by: Brenda | Oct 31, 2007 1:01:08 PM

I think they should have pushed her for a yes or no answer. I was a Clinton supporter in the beginning when she announced her candidacy, but after reading up on her position and watching her in debates, I am honestly not sure where she stands on many things for precisely the reason demonstrated in this debate; she answers questions on issues based on the political value of the answer and not based on what she actually thinks. That is unacceptable in every way. I think both Obama and Edwards are far better choices at this point. Although I have to say that the best overall candidate from either party remains the Republican, Dr. Ron Paul. All the other GOP candidates are garbage though.

Posted by: Tom G | Oct 31, 2007 1:00:41 PM

Step One: Triangulate - take all sides of a position.

Step Two: If step one fails, blame Bush (even though Congress stalled his comprehensive immigration proposal).

The most telling sentence from Hillary was "You know, Tim, this is where everybody plays 'gotcha.'" Well, as President and a leader, you have to make decisions so get used to 'gotcha'.

Posted by: Kevin | Oct 31, 2007 12:59:23 PM

Did you noticed at last night's Democratic debate that Hillary have set
aside that hyena's laugh (cuckle) despite the attacks thrown at her ? Remember how she tried to parry Tim and George's tough question with it on their shows with the prolonged cuckle ? Where was her vaunted counter punch as she bragged of decking her attackers ? I don't know if this debate will change the dynamic of the campaign, but certainly it affirms that Hillary is a very pliable candidate that in Tech hardware lingo, she is classified as a programmable chip. So, I therefore categorized the debate as a Hillary Reset. What do you think ?

Posted by: wilson | Oct 31, 2007 12:57:25 PM

Ok, according to the state of New York you must have a drivers license and valid insurance to drive in the State of New York. If illegal immigrants are driving now without a license and insurance and risking the consequences, what is a 2nd law stating the same thing going to do to stop them?

If Hillary is such an "intuitive thinker", why didn't she think of that?

Let's face it, having Hillary in office would be no different than GWB or her husband Billy. Yet another administration based on lies and only thinking about themselves.

Posted by: Michael | Oct 31, 2007 12:55:04 PM

Sorry...Hillary is the front-runner and I'm not willing to turn my country over to a flip-flopping socialist while you people hem and haw trying to make up your minds who to vote for. If you don't want to hear the truth, read something else!

Posted by: Brenda | Oct 31, 2007 12:53:01 PM

Its obvious the other candidates are getting desperate and the media wants to create some conflict so its lets gang up on Hillary time. Stiop trying to dissect every word she says into several possible meanings and get on with getting BUSH out of office. She's the only one capable of doing that at this time.

Posted by: Jerry | Oct 31, 2007 12:52:51 PM

For God's sake, everyone. WHY are you STILL picking on Hillary? Give those of us who haven't made up our minds who to vote for a chance to evaluate her and the other candidates rationally. So until we do, just SHUT UP, stop muddying her name, and let us decide in peace!!

Posted by: Veronica | Oct 31, 2007 12:46:00 PM

I was looking forward to having a women president. What we are going to get is just another politician, is as simple as that. I used to respect Hillary Clinton, but lately as I pay more attention to what she says and does that respect is gone. Calling NY State ILLEGAL Aliens, undocumented immigrants is just a playing with words. They are not entitle to driver licenses, 3/4 of her constituent's do not agree with this plan. Does she listen to them? No!

Voting yes to declare the Iranian Revolutionary Guard a terrorist organization, just what Bush needs to declare war with Iran. Did she not learn from the mistake that the Iraq war has turned out to be.

Shame on her, Congress and look for nothing to change in the White House.

Posted by: A Soldier's Mom | Oct 31, 2007 12:43:05 PM

I was a democrat / Hillary supporter until earlier this year when I took a step back, disregarded all the bias and "republican hate" I was being fed and looked at the facts and what was best for our country. The results were amazing. I was blinded to the truth for so long by all the propaganda the liberal media and democrat party was feeding me. Holy crap! I can see how people can't see the truth amid the limited information that is out there, but I would encourage people to think about the level of character a president should have. Bush may not be perfect, but he has stuck to his convictions and hasn't waivered. The Clinton machine is an agenda driven organization. There is no concern for the American people, just power. Open your eyes people!

Posted by: Brenda | Oct 31, 2007 12:37:56 PM

Interesting that you don't mention that Obama also said that he could see issuing the driver's license as an issue of 'public safety' and also declined to endorse, or attack the govenor's plan. I like Hillary and Obama and they both answered the same on this issue, but, Hillary gets all the criticism. Our fine media at work.

Posted by: k | Oct 31, 2007 12:31:23 PM

What came to the surface last night is just the tip of the iceberg. She has no values, she has no principles. All she is concerned about is being popular so if that means changing her stance on key issues depending on who she's talking to, she has no problem with that. Frankly, I don't think anyone can lead a nation without values. A compass, not a weathervane will lead you forward. PS...she also has no qualifications to be president regardless of what she lies, uh I mean tells you.

Posted by: Brenda | Oct 31, 2007 12:29:20 PM

I only caught a portion of the debate last night. I found Sen. Biden's and Sen. Dodd's comments about them fearing Pakistan more than Iran very interesting. YET neither one of them -- at least during the time that I was watching -- attacked Sen. Obama for his comment from several weeks ago saying he would be willing to invade Pakistan.

Now as for issuing driver's licenses to illegal aliens, it is a huge mistake. That actually makes that individual "legal" -- at least at the state level. And then the individual is free to drive LEGALLY anywhere in the country.

Posted by: James Danley | Oct 31, 2007 12:16:32 PM

Senator Clinton is finally being confronted about her trying to preach to the croud saying what she thinks a specific group wants to hear. Not the truth on the issues that most americans want to hear. She wants to attack Bush and that is the basis of her campaign . The only problem with that is everyone agrees with her position on Bush.

Posted by: John McMichael | Oct 31, 2007 12:13:28 PM

Hillary is not the best candidate and it is not a matter of male of female. Mrs Clinton like her husband will say anything as long it gets her in power.
Why she did not ran for Senate for her own State? because she knew she will have been a sure looser period. I will never waste my vote on her.

Posted by: Franco | Oct 31, 2007 12:10:43 PM

Oh poor Tim Russert. There will be hell to pay for him now. The Clintons don't mess around. Better put up an electric security fence Tim, like Juanita Brodderick had to do.

Posted by: JRB | Oct 31, 2007 12:05:10 PM

Hillary kick off your shoes get in the kitchen and cook us something.........

Posted by: Roostercruiser843 | Oct 31, 2007 12:01:06 PM

Well, for me, I didn't go "huh" when you quoted Hillary's comments about giving illegal taxi drivers licenses and suggested it was a contradiction. (?!)

All she said is that she understood why the governor WOULD do it (i.e., to counter a flaw in the current system).

This is typical of intuitive thinkers -- they can follow various arguments and even articulate them to others, all without it being any sort of endorsement.

She was simply explaining the governor's reasoning, but she was not necessarily endorsing his solution at this time. If she had been endorsing it, she would have explicitly said so.

Shame on the others for capitalizing on this "mistake" in how she expressed herself. It's one reason I hate election season... people are more concerned with ripping holes in each other's comments rather than working together to accomplish a task.

Posted by: Jennifer | Oct 31, 2007 12:00:58 PM

Hillary showed America the true Hillary-a person with very little principles who will say and do anything for power--thoughts of Machivelli, Stalin and Lenin come to mind. She will destroy the dems if they persist in promoting her. They have good people in Biden and Obama but are obsessed with calculating Clinton and it ain't gonna fly folks.

Posted by: rockychance | Oct 31, 2007 11:53:32 AM

I think that they are trying to twist what Hillary said...the Governor is trying to do something to make sure that everyone driving in New York State is license, and insurance, is it the best plan, maybe not, but he is coming up with a plan to make the roads safer. I think she clearly stated that the Federal Government should have been doing something about the illegal immigrants, not State by State, I understood her and would vote for her and I think she would make the best President, and any one of the other men running should be proud that she is on their team and work with her not against her.

Posted by: Anita Kramer | Oct 31, 2007 11:49:15 AM

I think that driver's licenses should be considered as licenses to drive. Does that make sense? I mean, state-issued driver's licenses should not necessarily be used by the federal government to control borders. Maybe I'm just old fashioned.

Posted by: reyonthehill | Oct 31, 2007 11:20:19 AM

Gotcha Hillary! The perils of being the frontrunner.

Posted by: megan | Oct 31, 2007 11:20:01 AM

Ahh! the Gotcha point! I think Obama finally got teeth, good for him, even thou I would never vote for any of the socialists I am glad to see them standing up to Clinton.

Hilary has always flipped-flopped, worse then Kerry has ever done!

Thou you got put something up about Kuninch calling Bush mentally ill, but in the same time saying he saw little green men (UFO's)

Posted by: spock | Oct 31, 2007 9:58:48 AM

Hillary Clinton's Pakistan Mistake On CNN and ABC - Politico.com

Senator Clinton has often accused Senator Barack Obama of being a foreign policy lightweight, even as her own record shows little experience of real value. It's important to know the subject one is talking about, or not adress it as if they do, if they are not sure of what they're saying.

Senator Clinton does not know that President Musharraf's not on the ballot or running for president in Pakistan. But with that, she says he is, and now looks like a foreign policy lightweight. Here's Ben Smith's report from Politico.com


Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton was praised in the wake of the assassination of former Pakistani Prime Minister Benazir Bhutto for demonstrating her command of the players and the issues at stake in Pakistan, even as another candidate, former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee, was criticized for stumbling over details.

But in two confident television appearances, on CNN and ABC, Clinton made an elementary error about Pakistani politics: She described President Pervez Musharraf as a "candidate" who would be "on the ballot."

In fact, Musharraf was reelected to the presidency in October. The upcoming elections are for parliament, and while Musharraf's party will be facing off against opposition parties, the president himself is not a candidate.

"He will NOT be on the ballot," said a Pakistan scholar at Columbia University, Philip Oldenburg, in an e-mail. "These are parliamentary elections, where the contests are for a seat in the national assembly.
The prime ministerial candidate typically fights for victory in a local constituency, as well as lead[ing] the party in a national campaign."

I must add that Clinton also said: "He could be the only person on the ballot. I don't think that's a real election," she told ABC's George Stephanopolous December 30.

And this is the transscript from Senator Clinton's appearance on the CNN "The Situation Room"

Document15
Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton
CNN's The Situation Room
Dec. 28, 2007
(transcript produced by the Clinton presidential campaign)
Wolf Blitzer: There are conflicting reports coming in from the Pakistani government right
now about the cause of death, who may have been responsible; perhaps al Qaeda, maybe
not. The bottom line: do you trust the Pakistani government right now to conduct a fair and
full investigation so that all of us around the world will know who killed this woman and how
she was killed?
Hillary Clinton: I don't think the Pakistani government at this time under President
Musharraf has any credibility at all. They have disbanded an independent judiciary, they
have oppressed a free press. Therefore, I’m calling for a full, independent, international
investigation, perhaps along the lines of what the United Nations has been doing with
respect to the assassination of Prime Minister Hariri in Lebanon. I think it is critically
important that we get answers and really those are due first and foremost to the people of
Pakistan, not only those who were supportive of Benazir Bhutto and her party, but every
Pakistani because we cannot expect to move toward stability without some reckoning as to
who was responsible for this assassination.
Therefore, I call on President Musharraf and the Pakistani government to realize that this is
in the interests of Pakistan to understand whether or not it was al Qaeda or some other
offshoot extremist group that is attempting to further destabilize and even overthrow the
Pakistani government, or whether it came from within, either explicitly or implicitly, the
security forces or the military in Pakistan. The thing I’ve not been able to understand, Wolf - I
have met with President Musharraf, I obviously knew Benazir Bhutto and admired her
leadership – is that President Musharraf, in every meeting I have had with him, the elites in
Pakistan who still wield tremendous power plus the leadership of the military act as though
they can destabilize Pakistan and retain their positions; their positions of privilege, their
positions of authority. That is not the way it will work. I am really calling on them to recognize
that the world deserves the answer; the Bhutto family deserves the answer, but this is in the
best interest of the Pakistani people and the state of Pakistan.
Blitzer: Senator, just to be precise; you want a United Nations international tribunal, or
commission of inquiry, whatever you want to call it, along the lines of the investigation into
the assassination of Rafik Hariri?
HRC: There are other institutions that are international that have credibility, like INTERPOL
and others. It doesn’t have to be the exact model of the Hariri investigation but it needs to be
international, it needs to be independent, it needs to have credibility and nothing that would
happen inside of Pakistan would. I’m reluctant to say it should be an American investigation
where we send our law enforcement personnel, because I’m not sure that would have
credibility for a different reason. So that’s why I’m calling for an independent international
investigation.
Blitzer: This is a damning indictment of President Pervez Musharraf. Some are calling on
him to step down, do you believe he should step down?
Clinton: What I believe is that he should meet certain conditions and quickly. We should
immediately move to free and fair elections. Obviously, it’s going to take some time for
Benazir Bhutto’s party to choose a successor. Nawaz Sharif has said that he won’t
participate at this time. I believe again some kind of international support for free and fair
- 2 -
elections in a timely manner would be incredibly important. If President Musharraf wishes to
stand for election, then he should abide by the same rules that every other candidate will
have to follow. We also want to see a resumption of the move toward an independent
judiciary. I think that was a terrible mistake. This is an odd situation, Wolf. The people in the
streets are wearing suits and ties, they are lawyers, they are professionals, they are the
middle class of Pakistan, which really offers the very best hope for a stable, democratic
country and that is in America’s interest, but more importantly, it is in the interest of the
Pakistani people.
Blitzer: I think I understood what you were implying when you said a U.S. investigation
probably wouldn’t have credibility for different reasons but explain to our viewers out there
why you’re suggesting a U.S. investigation into the death of Benazir Bhutto probably wouldn’t
have credibility either.
Clinton: I think it would politicize it at a time when what we want to do is, as much as
possible, support the continuing move toward democracy. We need, frankly, an international
tribunal to look into this where there can be a broad base of experts who are not aligned with
any one country. Obviously I would certainly offer our expertise through the FBI and others to
assist that tribunal. But I think it would be much better for it to be independent and impartial
and be seen as that. Part of what our challenge here is, is to convince the Pakistani people
themselves and particularly the business elite, the feudal elite, the military elite that they are
going down a very dangerous path. That this path leads to their losing their positions, their
authority, their obvious leadership now. Therefore we need to help them understand what is
in their interest and that of course includes President Musharraf.
Blitzer: Over the years, since 9/11, the United States has provided the Pakistani military with
some $10 billion. Will you as a United States Senator continue to vote for funding of these
billions of dollars going to the Pakistani military?
Clinton: No, and I’m very pleased that finally the Congress began to put some conditions on
the aid. I do not think that we should be giving the Musharraf government a blank check and
that’s exactly what the Bush Administration has done. Even after Musharraf cracked down on
the judiciary and the press and the pro-democracy movement in Pakistan, President Bush
was saying he was a reliable ally. Well, I don’t think he’s a reliable ally when he undermines
democracy and when he has failed to reign in the Al Qaeda Islamist elements in his own
country.
So I think we do need to condition aid. I would do it differently. I would say, look, we want to
know very specifically what accountability you’re going to offer to us for the military aid that
we believe should be going in the fight against Al Qaeda and the Taliban. The Department of
Defense is equally unaccountable with the money that passes through them.
I’d like to see more of our aid shifted toward building civil society. I’ve been calling for this. I
have legislation that is bi-partisan, Education for All that is particularly aimed -- I’ve talked to
President Musharraf about the necessity for us to raise the literacy rate, to reach out with
health care and education that would help the Pakistani people to really concentrate on civil
society.
We should be working with these rather heroic lawyers and others who are in the streets
demanding democracy instead of giving the Bush blank check to President Musharraf and
the military.
Blitzer: But aren’t you afraid, Senator, that as imperfect and as flawed as President
- 3 -
Musharraf is, there’s a possibility whoever comes to replace him in this large Muslim country
with a nuclear arsenal already, heavy al Qaeda presence, a resurgent Taliban - that the
alternative could be even worse from the U.S. perspective?
Clinton: Of course. We all fear that and that’s why we need to take remedial action
immediately. When I came back from my last meeting with President Musharraf in January of
this year, I called the White House, I asked that they appoint an American envoy, a
presidential envoy. I suggested that a retired military leader who could relate to President
Musharraf on a one-to-one basis and could shuttle back and forth between President
Musharraf and President Karzai because there were a lot of tensions.
And also perhaps serve as a kind of support to President Musharraf, military man to military
man, about what it takes to really move toward democracy that President Musharraf in every
conversation I’ve ever had with him has given lip-service to. But I don’t think the Bush
Administration has frankly asked enough of President Musharraf, has provided the right kind
ofassistance, has given the support needed.
We have this difficult problem in the military. We have a lot of the senior leadership that we
have relationships with, we don’t have those relationships for a lot of reasons with the junior
leadership. I just think we have given a blank check under President Bush to President
Musharraf and the results are frankly not in the interests of the United States, they are not in
the interest of Pakistan and they are certainly not in the interest of the region. We should
begin to try to have an ongoing process that includes India and Afghanistan. A lot of what
you see happening in Pakistan is driven by the very strong concern coming out of the
Pakistani government toward Afghanistan, toward India.
We have really had a hands-off approach. We have said, okay, fine, you be our partner in
going after Al Qaeda, we’ll turn a blind eye to everything else. That has undermined our
position. I believe Pakistan is in a weaker position to combat terrorism today then they were
after 9/11, in large measure because of the failed policies of George Bush.
Blitzer: I interviewed your rival, Barack Obama, for Democratic presidential nomination last
night and he had some implied criticism of you saying some of your past decisions do not
necessarily warrant your stepping up and becoming the next president of the United States.
Listen to this:
Obama: I think it’s important for the American people to look at the judgments they’ve made
in the past. The experienced hands in Washington have not made particularly good
judgments when it comes to dealing with these problems. That’s part of the reason we are
now in this circumstance.
Blitzer: Now I think he was referring to your vote giving the President authority to go to war
against Saddam Hussein’s Iraq and your more recent vote to declare the Iranian
Revolutionary Guard a terrorist organization. In effect, he says that gave a blank check to the
President to go to war against Iran. You want to respond to Senator Obama?
Clinton: First, Wolf, I really regret that anybody would try to politicize this tragedy. I
personally knew Benazir Bhutto. She was Prime Minister when I visited Pakistan on behalf of
our government. I stayed in touch with her over the years. I don’t think politics should be
playing a role in how our country responds, both on the personal level to the tragedy of this
assassination.
But furthermore, Pakistan has been unstable for a long time. Benazir Bhutto’s father was
- 4 -
deposed and killed. Obviously, we know that President Musharraf came to power in a military
coup. So the instability in Pakistan has long pre-dated any of the recent events. Therefore, I
think you need to have an historic understanding. You need to look at Pakistan as a country
that still today - the best information that we have - wants to have a better standard of living,
wants to have a democracy and the United States should be doing more to promote that. I
regret that President Bush’s policies have failed to create that kind of environment. I hope it’s
not too late. I really do. And that’s why I’m calling on the President now to begin to make
some of the changes. If he has a good relationship with President Musharraf, which he
claims to have, then let’s have an envoy. Let’s have this international investigation. Let’s do
what we know will work to try to stabilize Pakistan at this time.
Blitzer: What about the specific criticism of your foreign policy judgment that we heard from
Senator Obama, we heard earlier in the day from his chief strategist, David Axelrod. What
about that, that implied criticism that some of your decisions on these national security,
foreign policy issues raise questions about whether or not you should be president?
Clinton: I just regret that both of them would be politicizing this tragedy and especially at a
time when do we need to figure out a way forward. That’s what I’m focused on. I’m focused
on extending my sympathy to Benazir Bhutto’s family. I’m focused on doing everything I can
as a Senator, as someone with a platform running for president, to try to be both positive and
effective in helping to set a course. We have a year to go with President Bush as our
president. A year is a long time. We know the threats that could be posed with a nuclear
armed country like Pakistan becoming more and more unstable.
I have found that President Musharraf is someone that needs, in my opinion, to have a very
consistent message and then frankly the help that would come with helping him and those
who are in leadership positions understanding that this is not just about the United States -
obviously, we have a very important national security interest. This is about what happens to
Pakistan. President Musharraf could become as important to the future of Pakistan if he
changed course and began to act in a way that would create more confidence to have these
free and fair elections, to restore an independent judiciary, to take the shackles off the press,
to say that he trusted the Pakistani people. That’s what I’m hoping will happen over the next
weeks.
Blitzer: We’ve got to leave it there. We’re out of time, Senator. Thanks very much for
spending a few moments with us.
Clinton: Good to talk to you, Wolf.

Clinton ABC Transscript See this link: Time.com

H. CLINTON: Good to be here.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
STEPHANOPOULOS: … that’s where we began.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
STEPHANOPOULOS: You know, Peggy Noonan accepts the premise of
your question this morning in The Wall Street Journal, but she goes on
to say that’s exactly the reason not to pick you. She says, “Mrs.
Clinton is the most dramatically polarizing, the most instinctively
distrusted political figure of my lifetime. Yes, I include Nixon.”
CLINTON: (LAUGHTER) Oh, George, I mean, I’m not surprised. Are
you?
Obviously, I’m running a campaign to try to keep focused on the
big issues that the country faces. And I think that people in Iowa
and around the country are resonating to that.
STEPHANOPOULOS: But…
CLINTON: But obviously, there are people who disagree with me.
They disagree with me ideologically, philosophically, on a partisan
basis. That’s not a surprise to me or to you.
And for those who now think they’re against me, I look to New
York, where a lot of people ended up voting for me who never thought
they would.
STEPHANOPOULOS: But even our polling here in Iowa shows that
this issue of trust is a hurdle for you with Democrats.
CLINTON: Well, that’s not what I see. You know, I trust my
touch and my feel more than I trust, with all due respect, the
commentary that goes on. And whoever becomes the Democratic nominee
will face a very high negative, because we know that’s what the
Republicans are better at, including the person that you quoted from,
than anybody else.
STEPHANOPOULOS: On this issue of experience, Senator Dodd took
off on you yesterday. He said your experience as first lady was
basically not relevant. You were sitting on the sidelines.
And he said, “That’s not experience, that’s witnessing
experience.” How do you respond to Senator Dodd?
CLINTON: Well, I’m a big fan of his. I consider…
STEPHANOPOULOS: Despite that?
CLINTON: Oh, sure. Look, it’s a campaign. We’re getting down
to the very end. I’ve been around long enough to know that people who
are friends before and will be friends afterwards are obviously trying
to make a political point.
But I think the reality and the evidence is far different. You
know, I was intimately involved in so much that went on in the White
House, here at home and around the world.
You know, just in the last few weeks, the new leaders of the
Northern Ireland government, Dr. Ian Paisley and Martin McGuinness,
made a special effort to see me. Why? Because I helped in that
process, not just standing by and witnessing, but actually getting my
hands into it, creating opportunities for people on both sides of the
sectarian divide to come together.
When I went to Beijing, I wasn’t a witness. I was a spokesperson
and proud to be for the proposition that women’s rights are human
rights. And that cascaded across the world.
I was entrusted with a lot of missions in both paving the way and
dealing with very specific challenges our country faced. And I
believe since I’ve been in the Senate, especially serving on the Armed
Services Committee, I’ve deepened and broadened my experience.
STEPHANOPOULOS: How about in the White House? The New York
Times wrote this week that you did not attend National Security
Council meetings, you did not receive the president’s daily briefing,
didn’t have a security clearance. And that calls your experience in
the White House into question.
CLINTON: Well, I just disagree with that. You know, I can
imagine what the stories would have been had I attended a National
Security Council meeting. You were there. I think you can vouch for
that.
But I had direct access to all of the decision-makers. I was
briefed on a range of issues, often provided classified information.
And often when I traveled on behalf of our country. I traveled with
representatives from the DOD, the CIA, the State Department. I think
that my experience is unique, having been eight years in the White
House, having, yes, been part of making history, and also been part of
learning how to best present our country’s case. And now, seven years
on the other end of Pennsylvania Avenue.
STEPHANOPOULOS: President Clinton has said, has suggested that
you urged him to intervene in Rwanda in 1994.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
B. CLINTON: If I had moved then, we might have saved as many as
a third of those lives, and I think she clearly would have done that.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
STEPHANOPOULOS: Is that true?
CLINTON: It is. It is true. And, you know, I believe that our
government failed. We obviously didn’t have a lot of good options.
It moved very quickly. It was a difficult, terrible genocide to try
to get our arms around and to do something to try to stem or prevent.
It didn’t happen, and that is something that the president has
apologized for, and I think that for me, it was one of the most
poignant and difficult experiences, when I met with Rwandan refugees
in Kampala, Uganda, shortly after the genocide ended, and I personally
apologized to women whose arms had been hacked off, who had seen their
husbands and their children murdered before their very eyes and were
at the bottom of piles of bodies.
And then when I was able to go to Rwanda and be part of
expressing our deep regrets, because we didn’t speak out adequately
enough, and we certainly didn’t take action.
STEPHANOPOULOS: You called President Pervez Musharraf of
Pakistan an unreliable ally. Should he step down?
CLINTON: I’m not calling for him to step down. I’m calling for
him, number one, to agree with an independent investigation of Benazir
Bhutto’s death. I am calling on him to hold free and fair elections
with independent monitors. I believe that it will take a little time
to get that ready, because Benazir’s party will have to choose a
successor leader…
STEPHANOPOULOS: So we don’t need the elections on the 8th?
CLINTON: Well, I think it will be very difficult to have a real
election. You know, Nawaz Sharif has said he’s not going to compete.
The PPP is in disarray with Benazir’s assassination. He could be the
only person on the ballot. I don’t think that’s a real election.
STEPHANOPOULOS: Are we getting to the point, as the United
States faced back in 1979, when we stood behind a leader who doesn’t
have the trust of his people, for too long?
CLINTON: Well, that’s very possible. We don’t know. We know
that there is a very strong, pro-democracy, anti-Musharraf movement.
You know, when you have people demonstrating in the streets who
are wearing coats and ties, you know, those are the people we should
be standing with, the civil society, the middle class of Pakistan,
that at this point, if Musharraf were to step down, who would take his
place? How would that ever be worked out? This is not a country that
has a history of peaceful succession.
This is an opportunity for President Musharraf to step up and
actually fulfill many of the words and promises that he’s made to me
and to many others over the course of a number of years.
STEPHANOPOULOS: On the issue of experience, Barack Obama’s taken
to quoting Bill Clinton, 1992.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
OBAMA: You can have the right kind of experience and the wrong
kind of experience. And mine is rooted in the real lives of real
people and it will bring real results if we just have the courage to
change. And I believe deeply in those words, but you know what,
they’re not mine. They were Bill Clinton’s in 1992.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
STEPHANOPOULOS: Is Barack Obama as qualified for the White House
now as Bill Clinton was then?
CLINTON: Well, you know, by the time Bill ran, he was the senior
most serving governor in America, and he’d had tough elections every
two years, and then two more after that.
But I’m running on my own qualifications and experience.
STEPHANOPOULOS: So the answer is no?
CLINTON: Well, I am going to let voters make that decision,
because ultimately, voters are trying to weigh each and every one of
us.
What people know about me is that I’ve been vetted and I’ve been
tested. I’ve been on the receiving end of a lot of Republican
incoming fire for 16 years, and I have, much to their dismay, survived
and thrived. I don’t think that…
STEPHANOPOULOS: And he hasn’t yet.
CLINTON: I think I’m talking about what I’ve been through, and I
don’t think there’s much doubt that I’m ready to go the distance.
CLINTON: You know, I have all of this support from officeholders
in so-called red states. Now, they might like me personally, but
they’re not on suicide missions. They have assessed the field, and
they have concluded, as Governor Strickland has said, I am the person
who can win Ohio. I am the person best ready to run a winning
campaign and to be the best president for America.
STEPHANOPOULOS: You want to be judged on your own terms, and of
course you will be in the end, but President Clinton does play a big
role in this campaign and a big part of your appeal here, right?
CLINTON: Right. Right.
STEPHANOPOULOS: So, has he had a hard time, in your view,
adjusting to the role of surrogate?
CLINTON: Not really. I think he’s been actually more excited
about it than he thought he would have been. I think that you know he
loves being out with people.
He loves making a case. And he’s been a tremendous asset in this
campaign.
STEPHANOPOULOS: And a lot of people wonder what kind of role he
will play in the White House. You’ve spoken about his role as a
roving ambassador.
Take us inside the White House. Something happens like the
assassination of Benazir Bhutto the other day. President Bush had a
teleconference with his national security team. Would President
Clinton be on that call in your White House?
CLINTON: Probably not. I think he would play the role that
spouses have always played for presidents, which is a very important
role. And I know that firsthand. But I also know from his…
STEPHANOPOULOS: So, no National Security Council meetings.
CLINTON: No. That wouldn’t be appropriate. He will not have a
formal official role. But just as presidents rely on wives, husbands,
fathers, friends of long years, he will be my close confidant and
adviser, as I was with him.
I doubt that there will be an important issue that I won’t talk
to him about. I don’t think there was an important issue that he
didn’t talk to me about. I don’t talk about everything we talked
about, because obviously I don’t think that’s appropriate.
But I expect to rely on him in a personal way, and I expect to
ask him to take on some very important assignments.
STEPHANOPOULOS: You had an office in the West Wing. Will he?
CLINTON: If he wants one. I don’t know he’ll want one.
(LAUGHTER)
STEPHANOPOULOS: (inaudible) No, I asked him about that a few
months ago. He said he’ll go wherever you want him to go.
CLINTON: Oh, well…
STEPHANOPOULOS: Even in the basement.
CLINTON: … well, you know, this is kind of — it’s kind of
getting ahead of ourselves. We haven’t even had the first people show
up at the caucuses in Iowa.
I’m going to rely on him. I would expect that people in my
administration will turn to him and rely on him, as we do with many
people who have experience.
I happen to think using former presidents makes a lot of sense.
So, I expect to ask him to do many things for our country.
STEPHANOPOULOS: Both Barack Obama and John Edwards this week –
you’re talking about experience. They’re talking about change.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
EDWARDS: To get real change, we need a president who will stand
up against the big corporations and powerful interests in Washington.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
OBAMA: You can’t at once argue that you’re the master of a
broken system in Washington, and then offer yourself as the person to
change it.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
STEPHANOPOULOS: And they both say that someone so intimately
involved with a broken system, as they put it, can’t bring change.
CLINTON: Well, I don’t think there is this distinction between
change and experience. I know that’s what they’ve tried to make this
campaign about. It is not an either-or choice.
That’s a false choice for the people of America. I believe I
have the experience to bring change. I think you can look at my
record in the Senate and all of the bipartisan accomplishments that
I’ve been able to achieve, working across the aisle.
I know how to find common ground. I know how to stand my ground.
And I think it does take some experience to know how to bring about
change in our system.
STEPHANOPOULOS: But John Edwards says…
CLINTON: You know, some people think you can bring change by
demanding it. And some people think you can bring change…
STEPHANOPOULOS: That’s John Edwards, right?
CLINTON: … by hoping for it.
STEPHANOPOULOS: That’s Barack Obama, right?
CLINTON: I think you bring change by working really hard for it.
And that’s what I’ve done my entire life.
STEPHANOPOULOS: And that is the frame you’ve set up. But their
point is, you know, you take money from the system as it is right now.
You take money from lobbyists. You’ve heard that argument all through
this campaign.
And because you’re so wedded to it, it’s just not possible.
CLINTON: Well, I think those are artificial distinctions. You
know, they take money from people who employ lobbyists, who are
married to lobbyists, who are the children of lobbyists.
We need public financing. You know, we need a total overhaul of
how we fund our campaigns. I’m in total agreement with that.
But I think it would be hard to find anybody who has incurred the
wrath of the special interests more than I have: the drug companies,
the health-insurance companies, the oil companies. You just go down
the list.
I don’t think they waste their time or effort targeting someone
that they think is already in agreement with them. They know I mean
what I say. They know I have a track record of bringing success.
STEPHANOPOULOS: We’re in the Quad Cities here. The Quad City
Times this morning, “Five Days Left, Caucus Races Tight, Edwards,
Obama 29-29, Clinton 28.”
You are world famous here. Biggest organization in the
Democratic Party. Why is it so close here?
CLINTON: Oh, it’s supposed to be close. I mean, this is a great
contest. We don’t have any heir apparent in the Democratic Party.
I’m out there fighting for every single caucus-goer. I’m out making
my case to everybody that I can reach.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
UNKNOWN: Go get ‘em. Go get ‘em.
CLINTON: Well, with your help.
UNKNOWN: Bring America back.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
CLINTON: I think this is what elections are supposed to be
about. Caucuses are, you know, a different breed, but it still is how
you persuade people to come out on a cold night and actually stand up
in public and declare their allegiance to you as a candidate.
CLINTON: But I feel very encouraged by what I see in the crowds
and the kind of reports that I’m getting about the support that I have
around the state.
STEPHANOPOULOS: David Yepsen writes, in the Des Moines Register,
“There’s no third-place ticket out of Iowa for a Democrat this year.”
He calls third place “a dead zone.” Is he right?
CLINTON: I think, because it’s so close — you know, when I
started here, I was in single digits. I mean, nobody expected me to
be doing as well as I’m doing in Iowa.
I was running against one opponent who has been campaigning here
for four years, another opponent from a neighboring state. So I
believe that this campaign will be bunched up. I think that the
history out of Iowa is that a lot of people live to fight another day.
STEPHANOPOULOS: So you may not win?
CLINTON: I’m not expecting anything. I’m just working as hard
as I can to make the best case, in these closing days, and to try to
get the folks who say they’re for me to actually be able to turn out.
STEPHANOPOULOS: If you don’t win here, how do you recover
CLINTON: I don’t think it’s a question of recovery. I have a
campaign that is posed and ready for the long term. We are competing
everywhere through February 5. We have staff in many states. We have
built organizations in many states.
You know, George, you and I went through an experience, in 1992,
where Bill Clinton didn’t win anything until Georgia. He came in
second time and time again, in a much less, you know volatile and…
STEPHANOPOULOS: much less compressed, also.
CLINTON: … much less compressed environment.
So, from my perspective, you get up every day and you get out
there and you make your case, and you reach as many people as
possible. That’s what I intend to do. So I’m in it for the long run.
It’s not a very long run. It will be over by February 5.
STEPHANOPOULOS: Senator, thanks very much.
CLINTON: Thanks. Great to see you.
STEPHANOPOULOS: Senator Hillary Clinton, for the Democrats.