A great plan Hillary!.......

Only one problem........

What are the details of your plan?.......

Just like a Clinton........

Full of ideas.........
but no foundation...........

Details now!!!!!!!!!!

Meanwhile a new poll from VIRGINIA out this morning shows Clinton very competitive against Rudy GIuliani and THompson, and also has Warner leading the Senate race</a>. Details here: http://www.campaigndiaries.com/2007/10/morning-polls-so-much-for-giulianis.html

They were Rove before anyone in DC or NY knew who Rove was.

I sometimes think that the Clinton campaing takes the american public or american democrats as fools. Shouldn't they(the campaign) be about raising the level of debate and not contributing to lowering it??  Point out policy differences is NOT abadoning the politics of hope. If Mrs. Clinton truly thinks she is the best candidate to be POTUS, why isn't she welcoming the debate?

She better be careful not to alienate the supporters of other candidates just in case she is the nominee.

I believe what the Clinton campaign is referring to is, this notion put forward by both Obama and Edwards, that Clinton is not being honest. Both have basically called her a liar. In my book these sort of personal attacks do not lend themselves to an intelligent dialogue of the differences in their positions. Mrs. Clinton has stayed above the fray and avoided such name calling of her democratic rivals. And because she has done so has come off looking like the most presidential of the bunch.

Another tactics of changing tonight debate. I don't expect Tim Russert and Brian Williams to buy this gabbage coming out of Clinton's campaign.

Politics of hope doesn't mean we shouldn't engage in debate about the critical issues of our time. No more Kumbaya on critical issues

They don't want people to challenge her on the critical issues. I can't believe this crap. This is extremely bogus. If media buy this, shame on you.

Wow, Mark Penn IS NUTS!  Well, at the very least, he's not honest, but that's his job--to spin.  Hillary defining the "politics of hope?"  The world just got a little darker.

The "politics of hope" does not mean launching attacks on one candidate, but that is not what either Edwards or Obama are doing.  There are following the politics of hope, which does mean laying out a vision for the American people and talking about the change we need?  And it even means questioning a rival's integrity in an open, honest debate--not that Hillary would know anything about that.

Mark Penn should spend some more time penning memos on the policies Senator Clinton has spent the last few months detailing, rather than attacking the opponents:

- Her plan for ending the war in Iraq.
*Could her plan be any less clear/more muddled?

- A health care plan that provides coverage for all Americans and that builds on the present system.
*How is she going to achieve anything with a polarized Congress, largely of her making?

- A middle class economic plan that rebuilds the road to the middle class by making our economy work for all of us, not just some of us.
*Well, that just means raise taxes for everybody.  Maybe she should articulate why, not just offer a sound bite and empty promises.

- How she would use aggressive diplomacy to avert war and deal with Iran.
*Maybe she could start by not laying out the groundwork for a future attack on Iran.

This is really getting old.  The candidates have a right to point out how they differ from one another without it being labeled a personal attack. Just because Senator Clinton is the supposed front runner, does not mean that she should be held exempt or immune from criticism.  She and her advisors need to grow up and stop being so sensitive. What is the old saying " If you can't stand the heat get out of the kitchen?"  I think the temperature is only just  starting to warm up.

Do we really need another political spin master in the Whitehouse? I have had enough of that from the current administration. We need a president that will listen to all ideas regardless of party lines and one that welcomes debate and criticism. What worries me most about Clinton is that she has the same trait as Bush. Just like Bush, she has a hard time saying I was wrong or mistaken.

<<I believe what the Clinton campaign is referring to is, this notion put forward by both Obama and Edwards, that Clinton is not being honest. Both have basically called her a liar. In my book these sort of personal attacks do not lend themselves to an intelligent dialogue of the differences in their positions. Mrs. Clinton has stayed above the fray and avoided such name calling of her democratic rivals. And because she has done so has come off looking like the most presidential of the bunch. >>

So, disagreeing with her positions on subjects and pointing out where she's changed her position is calling her a liar? Wow. You Clinton people are hellbent on not being called out on the policies of the day and what you stand for. I guess that's probably because she doesn't stand for anything at all different than what we have today.

Let's play a game, Mark. Compare and contrast these two statements:

Statement 1:
"The implied thesis of Mark Penn's memo--that other candidates are abandoning a position they took recently and engaging in negative campaigning--is not supported by its contents; in particular the memo fails to point out any evidence supporting the thesis and in fact instead discusses unrelated positions he suggests his own candidate takes."

Statement 2:
"Mark Penn is a moron, and this memo clearly supports that."

Mark, one of these is an "attack" and a "negative comment." The other is, while it might be considered "negative" in the sense that it is critical, is not.

One of these is representative of the statements Hillary's campaign engages in, the other isn't. Can you guess which is which?

More of the same won't get her elected. I am tired of Politician that can level with us. No more crap. We want details on the agenda that matters to the America people.

'Is it going to be off-limits for her to criticize another campaign or “point out differences”?'
 

 she already has, so I guess not. if she were nominated maybe the republican candidate won't mention anything negative about clinton.

 maybe she should just start crying during the debate tonight and say all the big mean men are picking on her.

 if you want to be a corrupt politician and surround yourself with criminals like hillary, best get some thick skin, this is just another attempt by her handlers to keep her obvious shortcomings off the tv, I hope the other candidates hold her feet to the fire not out of meanness but to reveal who and what hillary is before it is too late.

Mark Penn should try a new approach.  That, don't criticize me or you're a no good dirty dawg accusation sounds suspicously like Bush claiming that criticisms of his policy are unpatriotic.  If the Clintonistas don't like the Bush-lite label, then they better stop acting the ol'brush cutter.  I'm just waiting for Hillary to allege a connection between Saddam Hussein and Osama bin Laden; that would justify her votes on Iraq - her concern about nuc-ular weapons causing WWIII will come out the next week.
Obama '08

Daniel Elliot: "I believe what the Clinton campaign is referring to is, this notion put forward by both Obama and Edwards, that Clinton is not being honest. Both have basically called her a liar."

If the shoe fits ...  If Clinton lies or hides her policies, wouldn't Edwards and Obama be obligated to call her out?  If she frequently gets caught in scandals, wouldn't they be fair to call her crooked?.  If people either love her or hate her, shouldn't they point out that she is decisive?  That seems fair to me, that seems like the right thing to do.

gawd, i loathe hillary clinto. i think rove and penn are related--maybe 8th cousins?

What about when Clinto referred to Obama as naive? According to Mark Penn, that, too, is considered an attack.

I've said it before and I'll say it again: if HRC is the nominee, i'll write in a candidate.

The problem for both Edwards and Obama is that they themselves have stated that they would be running a different type of campaign and would not engage in the negative polarizing politics of the past.  Now that they are finding they are trailing in the polls (and Edwards is only at 20% in Iowa where he has spent better part of 4 years) they cannot simply talk about policy differences but are engaging in what truly is negative attacks such as calling into question Hillary's honesty and why she is running.  There is a major difference between comparing stances on issues and attacking people in person.  Iowa voters usually know the differences.

Can someone please direct me to where barack said he was gonna abandon the Politics of Hope this past weekend. I don't remember seeing him say that anywhere. I do remember him saying he was gonna point out the differences between him & hillary. I can just hear her now crying, "BIll , them men said i was'nt being truthful with the American people". If she thinks it has been rough up until now, she aint seen nothing yet. You can bet the farm that tonight Tim Russert has'nt forgotten that little miscue from the last debate. He will be on hillary like " Stink on sh-t".

--NSMSNBC: Her plan for ending the war in Iraq.
*Could her plan be any less clear/more muddled?...'

NSMSNBC, BINGO !!
Hillary HAS NO PLAN !!
That's the point !!
It's time for Obama and Edwards to both hammer her on this.

(though, both have to look at THEIR plans to get us out of Iraq)
(frankly, neither Richardson or Dodd have a chance, but their stands are better than Obama/Edwards)

If the campaign is about Iraq, Hillary loses and the Republicans lose to an anti-war Democrat
Hillary is positioning herself as the 'strong' (i.e. pro-war) Democrat.
Why are Obama/Edwards not calling her on it ?

Let's face it, Hillary has run a Great campaign.
Obama and Edwards have run lousy campaigns.
Time is running out.......

Here is the defination of politics of hope if Mark Penn didn't get it.

Politics of hope give me the audacity to stick to the issues that matter to the American people. It gives me the audacity to challenge the conventional wisdom that have been wrong 100% of the time on the issues of

Social Security
Iraq
Iran
Energy
Ethics
Lobbyst.

This is what the politics of hope tells me: the politics of hope want us to challenge our government and ask the right questions. The politics of hope want me to challenge the media that failed to do their job.

No more talking point. Lets debate the issues than affect average American.

To Mike K. in Denver:
"The closer we get to the election and the more people move past celebrity and to the issues such as honesty, integrity and who can actually bring about change, I think they are going to pay very close attention to those questions," Edwards said while riding in a minivan between campaign stops.
And Obama when asked if Clinton was being honest with the America people about her plan for SS he said simply. "NO".
Hillary hasn't called into quesion anyone's honesty or integrity except those of Bush and the Republicans.

She run a great campaign by blurring the issues and using media as her spin bag. Enough of that crap.

As a citizen i demand an answer to the issues that matter to me. I'd rather cast my vote for another Republican that i know where he stand.

I can't stand another wishy washy politician. I don't like George Bush but i'll vote for him again if run against Hillary Clinton. I know what i am going to get with him.

Someone asked, in support of Obama or Edwards, if Clinton isn't allowed to go after them. Clinton NEVER does go after Obama or Edwards. Even here, she uses what they themselves said, to point out their own hypocrisy.  In other words, Edwards once said that he is not the candidate who will be attacking other Democrats.  So, why is he now attacking Democrat Hillary Clinton?
Clinton attacks the guy whose job she wants -- George W. Bush.
Obama and Edwards should try it too. It might help them look like frontrunners as well, instead of also-rans like Giuliani and Romney.

That's what the Obama team gets for showing their hand before the debate.  Now Hillary has time to prepare and slap them down during the debate.  Obama, no experience and no ability to plan ahead.

The HRC Campaign, want to say that the Obama and Edwards campaigns are attacking and abandoning HOPE when they challenge her ideas.   The HRC campaign is  trying to confuse the public with rheteric and not forthcoming in their ideas.  We want ideas not sound bites.  It is not that Hillary is such a great campaigner or debater,  as the newsmedia and pundtry corps sees her.   These people feel they are getting Bill by supporting her.   I hope they look at this as the Clintons had their time in the Whitehouse, we need to look forward to NEW ideas.  Not keep hanging onto the past.   If Hillary gets the nomination, I see more divisiveness and Red / Blue State.   The Republicans want her to win so they can keep this Red Blue going.

If Obana and Edwards  are not spreading vicious lies and pointing out how they differ with her, how is that attacking HRC.   HRC's campain plans to keep saying that and some of the voters will get confused if they don't look at this objectively.   It is another way to say look at all of these guys beating up on a woman.   I hope the voters are smarter than that.

Oh.... my... god! Hillary Clinton has one thing correct- she has plenty of experience with dodge, shift, and punch politics!  Too bad that's all she and Penn have correct.

It's absolutely absurd that the Clinton campaign is trying to spin the story so much that they're actually saying "If you disagree with me, you're being negative and need to stop!"  Yes!  Let's all just stop arguing with Hillary Clinton!  

I'm sorry, but I don't want to be a part of any "vision of America" that utilizies Rove-style spin, playing Republican war games with Iraq and Iran, following Bush's diplomacy by not talking directly to foreign leaders... I don't want to be a part of a vision of America whose vision is to be wishy-washy and dodge everything.

To End, here's a good quote from a recent LA Times article on Clinton and social security- just another example of a vision that ISN'T what America needs- we need a LEADER, not someone experienced at dodgeball.
LA Times, Oct 2007: Clinton says that Social Security is in jeopardy. But pressed in a recent debate on how to shore up the system's shaky finances, Clinton refused to offer any remedy. "I don't think I should be negotiating about what I would do as president," she said. "You know, I want to see what other people come to the table with."

The Clinton campaign believes the “politics of hope” should be about outlining how our candidate will reverse the policies of the Bush Administration and give America a new beginning for the 21st Century.

-- OK, this is not a criticism of just Hillary but her manager brought it up. It applies to all of the candidates except maybe Ron Paul.  Nowhere in this memo are any reversals of Bush policies listed.  Almost none of the candidates have addressed reversing Bush's policies.  We need a reversal and repudiation of Bush's policies of the "unitary" president, signing statements, recess appointments, undeclared war, torture, politicized justice, FISA, warrantless spying, gutted habeus corpus, secret prisons, torture, renditions, combining of church and state, Guantanamo prison, homeland security, secret watch lists, dictator directives, politicized science, no-bid political contracts, etc.

The question that Tim Russert asked democratic candidates was"Can you get ALL TROOPS out of Iraq by 2013" and of course as you know the rest is history. Obama promised that he will have all COMBAT TROOPS out by 2013" That means he will end military combat by 2013 because if there is no COMBAT then what is the meaning of war? We have troops stationed around the world, does that mean they are at war?

Obama notes that his health care plan is 95% like Edwards and Clinton. I hope he outlines that 5% because that 5% is very important. That fundamental difference is that he does not mandate individual insurance requirements because he believes it limits choices and puts too many socioeconomic limits on the ones who do not need it. Edwards and Clintons plan mandates it.

Obama believes anyone above $97,000 would need to be taxed to make up the gap for social security. Edwards believes it should be $97,000 to $250,000. All the democratic candidates do not believe in privatizing social security. What is Hillary's plan? Is it the same as Edwards plan? Is it fiscal responsibility? If so, doesn't that apply to health care and her 401k plan as well?

Jan from Nashua, you are so incredibly wrong. Hillary has in fact "attacked" Obama very recently. She called him "irresponsible and naive." I hope you didn't forget that as soon as she had the chance, she pounced.  

She is and will continue to be the George W. Bush/Karl Rove of the left.  And i'm a liberal!

What are the politics of hope? Obama needs to redefine what that means tonight before we vote for the politics of "trianglation"(Clinton)

Van:

You better run by headquarters and slap Mark Penn silly for putting out that horrid piece of crap......

To Mitchell Feldman:

I believe the correct spelling is nu-kew-ler.

Jan

Would calling Senator Obama naive not be considering a personal attack if you used Senator Clinton's definition?

All candidates can point out differences.  You won't pay at price for that.

However, cheap attacks, or shading the truth opens you up to blowback.  If Edwards or Obama use rightwing talking points to attack Clinton, or if they fabricated attacks or stretch the truth (like Obama saying he doesn't take money from lobbyist) then they are subject to the consequences.

The following is a roundtable of ideas of the GOP front runners and what they bring to the table:

Rudy brings his prostate and the remains of a 9-11 victim;
Mitt brings phony family values and his special religous underwear;
Thompson brings the latest DVD of Law & Order;
McCain brings some geritol.

Ah, yes, this is what the other side has to offer.

Jan from Nashua, NH in case you are too young to remember, Clinton called Obama «irresponsible» and «Naive». So you might wanna correct your statement that says that: «Clinton NEVER does go after Obama or Edwards». I am giving you a chance here. Take it.

Jan, Nashua, NH,

That is what i called Corronation. Obama never attack her character but point out the difference between the two of them . I don't call that attack but honesty.

Wait. Wait. Wait. So, Clinton gets a free pass to hem and haw, laugh, and do anything else to ignore the questions being asked because these other candidates said they wouldn't engage in negative campaigning????

Simply demanding answers to the questions being asked or for clarifications to answers are NOT personal attacks against Hillary. If anything, she's attacking the American people calling us stupid for thinking we're simply going to give her a pass because of who her husband is.

Demanding an answer or pointing out that her position has changed simply because her previous answer was unpopular is NOT a personal attack no matter how many different ways Hillary and Mark Penn try and spin it.

Jan: If you step out of the Hillary boots you are wearing and put your thinking cap on, then it is easy to see the contradictions in almost all of her statements. It is interesting to see that she does not allow anyone to question her. Its not the issue of OBAMA raising the questions. Remember her message to the fund raisers. "if you are not with us, we will remember that" and deal with you all. I wonder thats any sign of healthy democracy bt more of a dictatarian rule. I thought we left that practice a long time ago. She knows herself how divisive she has been. Thats why she has to fear and dont want questions to come up. It was very evident in the last debate when Tim Russert asked her questions and caught her unaware. For my part, I have turned my vote away from her to a more honest person. If she wins the ticket, I will go republican. I am disgusted to see that we can even think of putting such dubiuos candidates in the oval office. GWB did not lay the truth the way it should have been. Do I want this again??

Americans... for once use your judgement and get out the political baggage an suits that we wear. Take this country in the right direction.

I think it's time to start asking the same question James Carville and Co. asked in 1992: Is the American people stupid?

a debate is "to discuss a question by considering opposing arguements", webster's dictionary. that means you get to highlight inconsistencies of your opponents votes, position, or incomplete responses. if not it's a sound bite with no clarification or answers to those listening. that's not negativism that's a debate folks. the positive is we get a clear position from each candidate, a reason for who we support, and the politics of hope in getting our person elected. give me a debate not regurgitation of prior sound bites. i believe biden will excel in that forum as the CEO trinity getting the press is avoiding answers to keep their poll numbers up.

Oh puleeeeze!  Edwards hasn't attacked Queen Hillary - but is merely telling the Truth about her taking bribe money from lobbyists.
Hillary's campaign is reacting like Bushies - anytime you post facts about Bush - Bushies claim he's being attacked!

"We need a reversal and repudiation of Bush's policies of the "unitary" president, signing statements, recess appointments, undeclared war, torture, politicized justice, FISA, warrantless spying, gutted habeus corpus, secret prisons, torture, renditions, combining of church and state, Guantanamo prison, homeland security, secret watch lists, dictator directives, politicized science, no-bid political contracts, etc. "

Be hard for Clinton to do that seeing how she is running on her husband's record, and he did most if not all of those things.

Hillary can appear to be above the frey because the Clintons sold their $ouls to Rupert Murdoch whose network has smeared John Edwards 24/7.
Oh - and Hillary's Karl Rove (Mark Penn) is doing the covert smearing via push polling in Iowa and NH.

That's just plain evil - and we will NOT vote for Hillary.

How about putting Hillary Clinton at a townhall meetinga and see how she answers their questions? I challenge her to go to the MTV debate that Obama went to yesterday? Where is Clinton now? She is in Washington today to meet with Monsanto(Agriculture firm) to tour her RURAL AMERICA agenda. If you are a Hillary Clinton supporter, you need to ask your campaign manager about this. Don't you think?

Well Mike - if Hillary picked her nose during a debate, the pundits would still say she was just "wonderful." So - the duped who rely on the corporate media to shape their opinions of the candidates will vote for Hillary - completely unaware that the same pundits promoting her are part of the DC establi$hment.

Paul, OH: The last 6 years of GWBush has taken away every sense of reason that most Ameriacns had, don't be supprised that Jan is no exception.

Hillary learnt the art of lying from the inventor of lying himself: William Jefferson Clinton.

Dan Balz on Obama and Social Security. Barack should read this because you know John and Hillary HAVE.

"Barack Obama has spent the past few days calling out Hillary Clinton on Social Security. What has gotten much less attention is that Obama has changed his position on what to do about the government retirement system's financial problems.

When Obama appeared on ABC's "This Week" last May, he told ABC's George Stephanopoulos, "Everything should be on the table" as options for assuring the program's long-term solvency.

"Raising the retirement age?" Stephanopoulos asked.

"Everything should be on the table," Obama replied.

"Raising payroll taxes?" Stephanopoulos asked.

"Everything should be on the table," Obama said. "I think we should approach it the same way Tip O'Neill and Ronald Reagan did back in 1983. They came together. I don't want to lay out my preferences beforehand, but what I know is that Social Security is solvable. It is not as difficult a problem as we're going to have with Medicaid or Medicare."

The lone exception to his "everything is on the table" policy was any form of privatization. Obama said he would not consider the kind of proposal advanced unsuccessfully by President Bush, which would have allowed younger workers to divert some of their payroll taxes to personal or private savings accounts.

In citing the Reagan-O'Neill partnership, Obama appeared to be anxious to preserve his options, should he become president. At the same time, he was signaling that he believed a solution to the problem would require some measure of sacrifice by all parties and a blending of higher taxes and reduced benefits to assure the system's solvency.

Today he is in a different place. His new ad, which began airing in Iowa this week, cites three principles he would follow to save Social Security. One is to restate his opposition to any form of privatization. Second, he said he now would protect benefits from any proposed cuts. Third, he said, is to end the Social Security tax exemption for wealthy Americans.

In a matter of months, Obama has moved from being open to a solution that might include raising the retirement age or indexing benefits to prices rather than wages -- as Republican Fred Thompson has recommended -- to one of making the protection of benefits one of his three core principles for dealing with Social Security.

Protecting Social Security benefits represents standard and traditional policy for Democratic candidates at all levels and in that sense is not a surprising position for someone seeking the party's presidential nomination.

But it may hold particular meaning in Iowa, where older voters play an outsized role in the presidential caucuses. In 2004, for example, 68 percent of Democratic caucus-goers were over age 45, according to exit polls.

Seen in that light, Obama's decision to wall off benefits might be interpreted as a political calculation aimed at shoring up support in a state critical to his presidential aspirations and among the demographic group where he has been weak. Obama's campaign is silent on the political ramifications of his Social Security policy.

Obama's campaign advisers decline to call his current stance on benefits a change in positions. "Barack Obama does not want to cut benefits or raise the retirement age," spokesman Bill Burton said Wednesday. "He thinks the best way to address the issue of solvency is to raise the cap."

Does that contradict what Obama said last spring, when he insisted that everything should be on the table? Here is Burton's response to that exact question: "As opposed to others in the race he has been candid about the problem and in recent days has made himself even more clear in how he would address it."

By that Burton meant Clinton. On Saturday in Iowa, Obama criticized Clinton for not being forthcoming about her plans for dealing with Social Security. "I think that on issues as fundamental as how to protect Social Security, a candidate for President owes it to the American people to tell us where they stand," he said, according to the campaign. "Because you're not ready to lead if you can't tell us where you're going."

Clinton has taken a variety of positions on Social Security. She initially ruled out benefit cuts in what was calculated to show her differences with Obama's earlier position. Later she embraced the Reagan-O'Neill model of establishing a bipartisan commission and said she would not talk about specific ideas as a candidate. Then in an off-stage conversation with an Iowa voter she signaled she is open to raising the cap on payroll taxes, while still maintaining her public posture of not talking specifics.

Obama is willing to talk about those specifics -- but only up to a point. John Edwards, for example, has proposed keeping the current cap at $97,500, excluding wages between that and $200,000 and then applying the payroll tax to wages above that level. Others say simply raising the cap is the best approach. Obama will not, according to a spokesman, say which of several possible approaches he favors although in Iowa on Saturday he seemed to support the latter.

Having challenged Clinton on Social Security, Obama now owes it to voters to explain his own evolution on the issue of benefit cuts this year -- and to provide a clearer sense of just how amenable he would be as president to endorsing a bipartisan solution that ultimately would entail dealing with both benefits and with taxes. He needs to say what is now on the table and what isn't.

--Dan Balz

http://blog.washingtonpost.com/the-trail/2007/10/30/whats_on_the_table_for_obama_a.html


Van

<<I think it's time to start asking the same question James Carville and Co. asked in 1992: Is the American people stupid? >>

Sadly, this will likely be answered by 2/5/08 and whether or not Hillary is the nominee. Obviously, she and her campaign think we are.

I don't know about the rest of you, but I take it very personally when someone challenges both my intelligence and my integrity. I don't give a damn WHAT her last name is. She is not, and never will be, in the same league politically as her husband. She is more politically aligned with Dubya and Cheney than she ever was with Bill and Al Gore.

Sorry, the day she wins the nomination is the day the Republicans win the White House. I look at a couple of those guys and think they can do what Hillary can't, engage us in a discussion of how to fix all the crap that's wrong.

Perhaps, America people are stupid going by Hillary Clinton's definition.

Message (please, no HTML tags. Web addresses will be hyperlinked):