Top Leaderboard, Site wide
Left Masthead
October 26, 2016
Truthdig: Drilling Beneath the Headlines
Sign up for Truthdig's Email NewsletterLike Truthdig on FacebookFollow Truthdig on TwitterSubscribe to Truthdig's RSS Feed

AT&T, Time Warner and the Death of Privacy


Truthdig Bazaar more items

Ear to the Ground
Print this item

Clinton Under Fire

Posted on Oct 30, 2007
AP photo / Gary Kazanjian

Hillary Clinton’s campaign team is battening down the hatches in preparation for Tuesday night’s Democratic debate in Philadelphia and launching a pre-emptive strike to offset a potential pile-on from certain other presidential hopefuls who’ve been zinging her of late.  Meanwhile, Republican candidate Mitt Romney has also joined the fray.

The Politico:

Expecting rival Democrats to unload on her at tonight’s debate, aides to Hillary Clinton are trying to frame the attack with a cheeky Web feature headlined “The Politics of Hope.”

The posting is intended to focus viewers, voters and pundits on the attackers rather than the substance of the attacks, which is a standard practice of the Clinton campaign.

The feature went up this morning on, the campaign’s official news site.

Among the posting’s unusual elements are links to articles featuring attacks on Clinton. That showcases her campaign’s effort to convince Democrats that Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.) has turned his back on the new kind of politics he once had promised.

Read more

More Below the Ad


Square, Site wide

New and Improved Comments

If you have trouble leaving a comment, review this help page. Still having problems? Let us know. If you find yourself moderated, take a moment to review our comment policy.

Join the conversation

Load Comments

By DennisD, October 31, 2007 at 6:31 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Edwards was the only one who came out and said point blank that the system is corrupt and doesn’t work for the American people. Since the average American has know it for at least half a century, this is not new news, just what he intends to do to fix it I must have missed.
DK way too little air time and the UFO question although completely irrelevant probably ended his campaign.
As usual trying to get a straight answer out of Hillarious to any question was like eating soup with a fork.
O’bama, not bad, showed some balls and made some good points. The lack of experience is a huge problem to overcome.
Dodd not bad overall, a lot of experience, too bad it’s been in the corrupt government we currently have. Too much of an insider.
Biden, again a lot of experience, same problem as Dodd - it’s been in our government.
Richardson - same problem as DK not enough air time.

Ralph Nader where are you????? Ron Paul it looks like you’ve got my vote.

Report this

By The Village Idiot, October 31, 2007 at 2:49 pm Link to this comment

Hillary will be the next prez, selected because of the impression of “change” it will bring along with the novelty of an “historic” event; the first female POTUS. Whoop-dee-doo! Her record on Iraq is clear, she’s as insider and status-quo as they come in Washington, and a lot of people are going to think her election by unsecure electronic voting machines will be “progress.”
The only other thing I can see happening instead is the election becoming truly surreal, like if Steven Colbert made it to the general election. Now THAT would be one to watch! Paul/Colbert ‘08? Why not?!? Having “experience” in politics and foreign policy has clearly NOT been an asset to recent administrations, since even I could start a war and then screw it up if I were prez, and I’m an idiot.

Report this

By rowdy, October 31, 2007 at 10:18 am Link to this comment


Report this

By Howard Mandel, October 31, 2007 at 7:23 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Chris Matthews and the rest of the interviewers at last nights debate have again lowered the quality of the discussion (even though that’s hardly possible). They were less interested in discussing the issues than in playing gotcha with the candidates. This is not the general election. We do not need the MSM to whittle down the candidates for us to what they see as the electable few. They treat Hillary like the winner because the republicans want to run against her. She’s the only one that can make the election appear to be a horse race. Most of the others would win in a landslide and reporters fear that would lower their ratings.

And, Oh-My-God… Chris’s UFO question to Kucinich was clearly designed to axe him from the race. Since all the candidates believe in god in one form or another I’m sure a candidacy-killing “what weird things do you believe” question could’ve been leveled at any of them. He served that up, left no where for Kucinich to turn, then harped on it like a giddy teenage girl, even trying to catch Richardson up in it during the “post-game” analysis, because he refused to repute the beliefs of another candidate. I don’t believe in aliens, gods or any such nonsense, but Americans do. And to ridicule one candidates beliefs while giving the others a pass was shameful. It was a humiliating display.

I’m done with Matthews, Wolf and Russert. Where was Olbermann and the agents of truth-to-power journalism?

Report this

By RdV, October 31, 2007 at 7:05 am Link to this comment

The politics of hope does not mean that you do not speak out, challenge or confront the issues in an honest appeal for accountability.
  The Clinton sleaze campaign with their bottom-feeder swift-boating ploys seeks to neuter Obama by suggesting any discussion other than sweet nothings civility is character assassination- and I am not even an Obama supporter.

  That would be closer to hopeless, i.e. Nancy Pelosi.

Report this

By vet240, October 30, 2007 at 5:24 pm Link to this comment

I think it’s time for the people to rise up and demand that Candidates like Democrats Gravel or Kucinich and even Republicans like Ron Paul get more air time.

The media for too long has determined who the candidates are going to be by, you guessed it, only listening to those who can pony up the money to be heard.

Now guess who the Candidates after being elected, are going to listen to? Right again, they will listen to the big money givers.

Who are the big money givers? The multi-national corporations, the Arms manyfacturers, the Chemical manufacturers and big oil/energy.

What will you and I end up with? Smoke and blue sky BS.

Report this
Leefeller's avatar

By Leefeller, October 30, 2007 at 4:51 pm Link to this comment

If Gravel or Kucinich have an opportunity to bring up real issues, that concern the common slob on the street, maybe the pander’ers will think twice about pandering.  These so called debates should be called soft ball news speak, I really would like to see a debate as it is supposed to be, where they debate.  Of course I live in never never land.

Report this

By P. T., October 30, 2007 at 2:52 pm Link to this comment

Obama and Edwards blew it when they refused to say they would get out of Iraq if elected.  There is no reason to vote for them over Hillary Clinton.  You get more war whichever one of the three you vote for.  They all decided to pander to the Establishment.

Report this
Right 1, Site wide - BlogAds Premium
Right 2, Site wide - Blogads
Right Skyscraper, Site Wide
Right Internal Skyscraper, Site wide
Join the Liberal Blog Advertising Network

Like Truthdig on Facebook