Their smorgasbord has a plethora of related articles. Look for images like the two below on the right sidebar, towards the top. The "related" content varies depending on what page you’re visiting, so what’s displayed below may not exactly match, but you get the gist I’m sure.
Hillary Clinton is as evasive on her nastygram strategy — except when she literally uses it — as she is on most other issues of the campaign. When asked about her earlier attacks on Barack Obama, her response was “stay tuned.” Early this morning when I discussed her “vetted” slam against Barack Obama, I asked, “what is the half-life of a Hillary Clinton apology and promise?” The significance of my question became only greater after learning about Sen. Clinton’s stay-tuned response on her nastygram strategy.
Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton on Friday would not rule out running campaign advertisements that criticized her opponents by name, telling journalists to “stay tuned” to what her campaign had planned.
…snip…
In response to a question about whether she would reject running any advertisements that were considered comparative or negative toward one of her rivals, she said: “I think contrasts are legitimate. My goodness, there are big differences between me and say, Senator Obama, on health care. I think that is a legitimate issue in this campaign. He has a health plan that doesn’t’t cover every American. My plan does.
Apparently “yes” and “no” are no longer part of Sen. Clinton’s lexicon. She gives a brief, indirect response that strongly implies “no,” and without hesitation turns to the topic of health care. She did not answer the question. One could possibly consider a different posit, but Hillary removes that or any other possibility in a follow up comment. Clinton says, “It is a defining contrast, so if you call that negative, I don’t know what’s left to politics.”
It is indeed a contrast. In that single sentence, Hillary Clinton, told us everything we need to know about her intentions for the future and confirmed the most negative aspects of her past — polarization. Clinton confirmed she does not have the knowledge nor intends to deal with conflict in any way other than negatively, and via attacks. One can hardly argue against the overwhelming consideration that her remarks more than portends how she will handle conflict in her responsibilities as President. For the President of the United States, conflict is omnipresent, and that will not change.
One could easily go back many years to illustrate how negativity and polarization have progressively increased, and fostering and promoting that environment has been at best a detriment to our government and the people. Moreover, negativity and polarization have all bur ruined the national discourse. (Yes, I know and recognize the definition of ruin.)
Since our memories tend to be short and the current administration provides probably the best example in American history of how not to manage conflict, or manage anything period, it is more than appropriate to put the Bush administration at the center of the questions that must be asked.
Before answering any question, the “like” factor must be abandoned. “I just like him” has been the predominant factor in the successful election of most presidents in modern political history. That is not to say intangibles should not be considered. Indeed they must, but they must be understood and be substantiative. For example, leadership. That’s incredibly important and many of the characteristics that enable people to like others are prerequisites for leadership, but a likable person is not necessarily a leader.
The obvious and most important question is, what is in the best interest of our country and what does the country need? Tough question. And certainly one that can only be answered by asking more questions. Should the contentious, arrogant, negative (which includes fear), conflicting nature of the Bush administration be carried forward a single day longer than absolutely necessary?
Should America put a person in office whose strategies, policies, and character (proven over time), are firmly defined by and executed on the principles of resolving conflict with conflict? Where does resolving conflict with conflict bear the slightest bit of logic?
Should any person be elected that intentionally obfuscates who they are, what they stand for and what will they do? It is hard for anyone to say what they will do, much less have it eventually proven to be right. But to not have a plan or an answer demonstrates lack of leadership and proper forethought. Worse still is to have a predetermined plan or agenda and not tell the public. First, why keep it secret and second how is one suppose to judge a candidate’s proposals or strategies if they aren’t forthcoming with them? Did America get a compassionate conservative in 2000?
Hillary Clinton is dodging the simplest of questions and is demonstrating a total lack of leadership. If Clinton was a leader, when asked if she would not go negative she would have said yes, without hesitation. Issues can be debated or highlighted without slinging mud. Instead, Clinton chose a group-think approach to the question, and was still non-committal if not downright threatening with her incredulous and obfuscating “stay tuned” answer.
She did say she would enter into an agreement with her rivals not to go negative, but she emphasized that she would do so only if “everyone” agreed to such a pact. Asked directly whether she planned health care advertisements naming Mr. Obama, she said, “I don’t know what we’re going to do — you’ll have to stay tuned.”
In responding to questions on the drug-use remarks that led to the resignation of Mr. Shaheen, a campaign co-chairman from New Hampshire, Mrs. Clinton did not refer to him by name. She sidestepped a question about whether Iowa voters should consider Mr. Obama’s indiscretions, saying only that it was not an issue in her campaign and that she had told Mr. Obama that when she apologized to him.
In my opinion, there are four Democratic candidates that offer and demonstrate truthfulness, conviction, transparency, principles, good judgment, and leadership. Experience is a touchy thing. As Obama has said, Dick Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld had a lot of experience.
Based on current polls, only two of the four stand a chance winning and possess what I perceive to be the stated prerequisites– Barack Obama and John Edwards. (Don’t read anything into the order stated.)
Chris Dodd has demonstrated conviction and leadership at points in time.
Joe Biden has a ton of experience and the type of intellect to apply that experience appropriately. Biden is candid, maybe too much so at times, and has been specific in his answers. But, he is not a rock star, therefore no media coverage. Among all the candidates, he seems to be the darkhorse’s darkhorse.
Richardson has made too many campaign mistakes (e.g. being gay is a choice), is not quick enough on his feet, and begins everything he says with the word I.
My view of Hillary Clinton as a potential president has bottomed out. The mudslinging, playing dodge ball, and firmly adopting conflict as a key element in her entire strategy is in stark contrast to what I believe the nation needs. It desperately needs a big Band-Aid and pressure-bandages at various points. No more self-inflicted wounds. The conflicts that surround us everywhere must be rectified. In Congress, in Iraq, at social gatherings, on television, in religion, with what was our allies. The list is endless at this point.
There is no rule that says Hillary Clinton is the rightful heir to the throne. There are other options. Good options.
What is the half-life of a Hillary Clinton apology and promise? 30 seconds?
In Johnston, IA today, indirectly slamming Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton said she had been "vetted" and "voters should take that into account."
Just two days ago, Hillary Clinton’s campaign viciously attacked Barack Obama for adolescent drug abuse, which was very costly to Clinton. Outrage was expressed across the spectrum. Mrs. Clinton gave a lengthy in-person apology to Obama and fired Bill Shaheen, a Clinton campaign official, for making the remarks. So much for that.
Transcript:
I have said for months in this campaign. I am vetted. I am tested. The Republicans will go after whomever we nominate.
I’ve been dealing with their incoming fire for 16 years and I’m still here, and I think that voters should take that into account
With less than three weeks remaining before the caucuses Barack Obama and Mike Huckabee hold nine-point leads in Iowa according to the latest Research 2000 poll (pdf).
On the Democratic side, Barack Obama had 33 percent. Hillary Clinton and John Edwards are tied for second with 24 percent each.
Five percent said they were undecided. I wonder if those five percent realize they may decide who will be the next president. If they all pick Edwards or Clinton, then that would put whichever candidate in a statistical tie with Obama, but that’s a ridiculous notion because all undecided caucuses goers are not going to select one person. Still, I suspect if there was any way the top three Dems could find out who is in the undecided category, they could get anything they wanted - just name it.
For example, Bill and Hillary Clinton recently gave $100,000 to build a new library in Marlboro County, SC, which will probably fund most, if not all of the structure costs considering the demographics of the county. Population - 28,081. Only 33-35 percent of the population are literate. Incredibly sad, but also ironic. (I can’t link to a reference for all info quoted but county government sources have previously confirmed the information).
Who seriously doubts that providing $100,000 for a new library in an economic environment such as Marlboro County will get votes? I’m not criticizing the Clinton’s, instead I applaud them. But it will get votes. I believe Marlboro County is only second to Anson County, NC for being the poorest county in the nation.
Green indicates the leader in a given poll.
IOWA DEMOCRATIC
Pollster
Date
Clinton
Edwards
Obama
Richardson
Research 2000
12/13
24
24
33
9
Ramussen
12/10/07
29
22
26
7
Strategic Vision (R)
12/10/07
25
24
33
4
Newsweek
12/6/07
29
18
35
9
McClatchy-MSNBC
12/6/07
27
21
25
9
GSG (D-Edwards)
12/5/07
27
24
22
9
Strategic Vision (R)
12/2/07
25
25
32
3
Zogby
12/1/07
27
21
24
8
Other Democratic presidential candidates: Sen. Joe Biden, D-DE., with 3 percent and Sen. Christopher Dodd, D-CT., and Rep. Dennis Kucinich, D-OH, with 1 percent each.
Moving to the other side of the aisle, Mike Huckabee had 31 percent and Mitt Romney had 22 percent.
IOWA REPUBLICAN
Pollster
Date
Giuliani
Huckabee
McCain
Romney
Thompson
Research 2000
12/13
9
31
7
22
9
Diageo/Hotline
12/13
12
36
5
23
8
Ramussen
12/10
8
39
6
23
8
Strategic
12/10
10
30
5
25
13
Newsweek
12/6
9
39
6
17
10
McClatchy
12/6
5
32
7
20
11
Strategic
12/2
13
27
6
24
11
Zogby
12/1
12
25
5
26
14
ARG
11/29
9
27
9
28
14
Ron Paul R-TX had 7 percent in the latest poll.
No much doubt in on the Terrorepublican side. It’s all Huckabee.
You are currently browsing the The Political Chase weblog archives for the day Saturday, December 15th, 2007.
