LOGO: Truthdig: Drilling Beneath the Headlines. A Progressive Journal of News and Opinion. Editor, Robert Scheer. Publisher, Zuade Kaufman.Best Political Blog Winner, 2007 Webby Awards, People's Voice and Jury.  
 
July 6, 2008
Log in / Register

 Choose a size
Text Size

Reports
On Black Patriotism
Obama’s Leap of Faith
Happy Oil Dependence Day

Arts & Culture

Digs
Inside the Data Mine

Ear to the Ground

A/V Booth

Truthdig Bazaar
Whose Knees Are These?

Whose Knees Are These?

By Jabari Asim
$6.99

more items

 
Reports

Clinton’s Obama Blunder

Email this item Email    Print this item Print   
Posted on Dec 6, 2007

By Eugene Robinson

WASHINGTON—One assumes that Hillary Clinton and her inner circle are rethinking their new strategy of singling out Barack Obama and attacking him on issues of experience, ambition and character. Of course, the first thing a rookie reporter learns is that one should never assume anything; if people were predictable, there would be no news. So maybe the self-inflicted bloodletting will continue.

Clinton was doing fine in the role of presumptive nominee—serene of mind, generous of spirit, miles above the fray. Her authoritative voice and presidential bearing telegraphed that Obama, John Edwards and the rest of the Democratic contenders were all, essentially, just members of her supporting cast. It was only natural that they would attack her, since she was so far ahead in the polls. To respond in kind would have been beneath her.

But when those polls began to tighten—as was practically inevitable, given how big Clinton’s lead has been—the Clinton campaign made two decisions that I’m still trying to figure out. Both seem risky, if not rash, and so far neither is really working.

The first was to elevate Obama, and none of the others, to the role of co-star. Granted, this reflects the reality of the contest—Obama is the one who’s gaining on Clinton. The daily Rasmussen Reports tracking poll said Thursday that Clinton is supported by 33 percent of Democrats nationwide and Obama by 26 percent. For most of the campaign, Clinton has enjoyed double-digit leads.

But she’s still ahead by seven points, which would generally be considered a comfortable lead—less comfortable when it’s shrinking than when it’s growing, to be sure, but still a big hill for Obama to climb. And in Iowa, the state that goes first, Edwards could still win or finish second in what remains a fluid three-way contest.

Clinton’s decision to concentrate her fire on Obama threatens to turn him into the anti-Clinton. No candidate with negative ratings as high as Clinton’s has an interest in signaling to voters who don’t like her that there’s one candidate around whom they might want to rally.

Even more questionable, it seems to me, is the way the Clinton campaign has decided to go after Obama. “You decide which makes more sense,” Clinton told a crowd in Iowa, “entrust our country to someone who is ready on day one ... or to put America in the hands of someone with little national or international experience, who started running for president the day he arrived in the U.S. Senate.”

Polls show that the “experience” issue has been working very much in Clinton’s favor. As long as she focuses on her longer tenure in the Senate—and not so much on all the years she spent as Bill Clinton’s first lady in Little Rock and Washington, accepting credit for the good things he did but not blame for the bad—her experience is still a plus. If this turns out to be more of a “change” election, though, the experience factor becomes less important.

The real clunker is the charge that Obama is possessed of unseemly ambition. In what seemed almost like a “Saturday Night Live” gag, the Clinton campaign even dug up a report that Obama wrote in kindergarten titled “I Want to Be President.” This led Edwards to reveal that when he was in third grade he wanted to be a cowboy and Superman.

No one is going to believe that Hillary Clinton is unambitious, compared with Obama or anyone else. And that’s fine. Our system basically requires that major-party presidential candidates be pathologically ambitious. What normal person would suffer the indignities of a national campaign? 

The real problem is the implication that there’s something specifically wrong with Obama’s ambition—that he has no right to be where he is, challenging her for the nomination. There’s a suggestion that he’s somehow a usurper, which allows Obama supporters to charge that Clinton, without using the word, is accusing the Illinois senator of being uppity—which opens up a whole discussion about history and entitlement that I can’t imagine any Democratic front-runner would welcome.

Clinton should go after Obama on substance—his failure to propose a mandate for universal health insurance, for example—and someone should remind her that she’s still in the lead. Suggesting that the first African-American with a legitimate shot at the nomination is overreaching is not the way for Clinton to stay in the lead. 

Eugene Robinson’s e-mail address is eugenerobinson(at)washpost.com.

© 2007, Washington Post Writers Group

Email Newsletter

Get truth delivered to your inbox every week.

Previous item: Flying Coach on a Planetary Scale

Next item: A Bumpy Detour

Jump to Comments

Advertisement


Elsewhere: .

Comments

Are you a Truthdig member yet? Login now, or register with Truthdig.

By GB, December 11, 2007 at 5:31 pm #
(Unregistered commenter)

Dominick J,
The only one who can tie your hands are those you owe favors to and not a slim majority.
Actions speak louder than words.
Why did Clinton refuse to debate Jonathan Tasini in the 06 primary? I see it as the same reason she won’t address the fact that a million innocent Iraqis are dead because Bush/Cheney, through their wild PNAC scheme, wanted to take our treasury to fund the take over of the oil reserves in Iraq and Iran to aid the OPEC partners of theirs in getting the price of a barrel up to and over $100 of which Bush,Cheney and the oil companies reap billions at our expense and control the taps for world dominance.
I knew this in 2001 and so did Kucinich and some other gutsy Conressman. Now 54% of the US knows it and want Congress to impeach these guys. No word from the “front runners”. Clinton wants to keep troups in Iraq. Why? We know our reason to be their was a lie. We know it’s a phony war on terroism. We know our presence there only allows furthers hatred of the US. The only Americans benefitting from this occupation are a few politicians and their corporate sponsors. You only have your hands tied when you want people to stop asking why you’re not acting in the interest of our commonwealth.

Report this

By Dominick J., December 11, 2007 at 4:26 pm #

GB I guess you would just have to be there and sit in their shoes so to speak.  Their hands, Dems, are still tied, unfortunately.  Yes Feinstein screwed up and so did some other Dems who are now labeled RepubliCrats, Lieberman led the pack.  Yes they need to be removed and replaced with Progressive minded officials, but until then we need to work with what we’ve got and thank goodness they aren’t as bad as those Rethugs who were removed from office, and are going through the court system, and those that resigned because the ship is sinking.

GB Says: This is our respected difference.

If you say so.
Dominick

Report this

By GB, December 11, 2007 at 10:28 am #
(Unregistered commenter)

Dominick J,
I appreciate your honest thoughts for your candidate but I will still have to diagree. The reason the Rebulicans get away with their lies and destruction is because high level Democrats aren’t calling them out and voting with them where it seriously matters.
I don’t take it lightly that a million innocent Iraqis are dead. When high level Dems continue to fund it they are just as guilty to me. When high level Dems let the illegal wire taping get authorized I found them in contempt because they could stand up and say this is a fraud etc etc....
Because of that I hope Pelosi is voted out, I hope Feinstein is voted out in ‘12, I hope Hoyer gets voted out, and so on. Hopefully by progressive independents or progressive Dems. Nontheless, I will vote for those who have the guts to try and save our Democracy and not who the media thinks I should. I don’t except that that is the reason a Reb will get in simply because I won’t choose Coke over Pepsi. If the Dems think they can do nothing about Bush until ‘08 while he continues to torture and pilfir the next generation’s future then they won’t get my vote. This is our respected difference.

Report this

By Frances, December 11, 2007 at 10:13 am #
(Unregistered commenter)

For years the Republican hate mongers have viciously attacked Hillary Clinton and many people have bought into their lies.  It is a shame to hear Democrats buying it.  Hillary Clinton has gone on with her live with intelligence and grace amidst of all the slings and arrows.  She has strength and endurance.  She is the best choice to be President.  Joe Biden is also my first choice.  Democrats must stand behind our candidates and not give any more ammunition to the neocons.

Report this

By Dominick J., December 11, 2007 at 8:18 am #

GB and others interested here’s Hillarys voting record.  Pretty impressive if you ask me!
http://votesmart.org/voting_category.php?can_id=55463

Report this

By Dominick J., December 11, 2007 at 8:14 am #

Thanks for the link GB.  I did read it and I read several others also on the same subject from different sources. Funny thing, they all read the same way, some identical word for word.

Getting money from these folks doesn’t make her a bad person.  It makes her a smart person. Also I’m sorry if I implied you were making the stuff up, it’s the source & where you were getting the info from I was questioning- Huffington gets her sources from the media too.

I think somewhere in the article it said these companies have backed the GOP for decades and now they’re pumping their money into the Democrats ALL of them, oh, yes, and even some of that money went to Mitt. 

Ive looked at Clintons voting record as I have with quite a few others.  You do know she has a lot of constiuients to make happy, like they all do and they can’t always vote the way you would want them to.  I’ve been angry with the way Feinstein votes on several occasions too, but for the most part they do their very best. 

Like I said before Dennis is a great guy, but so was a couple of other Dems who once got the office but didn’t know what to do once they got there and after four years of them the vote went back to the GOP and we got stuck with some really bad people.  The baton should have passed to Gore after Bill Clinton, but we all know that didn’t happen.  And face reality, Dennis isn’t even close to being a choice, like Dodd.  Clinton is and maybe Obama has a shot at it. 

If Clinton is the Partys choice I will vote for Hillary I will be voting My concience and if Obama gets the nod, I iwll vote for him, And if another Rethuglican gets into office it won’t be Hillarys fault, or that of any Democrats, for the reason you claim, it’ll be your fault and of those who think like you, because you don’t like her, will rather pass on voting or will actually throw your vote away on some one else.

Report this

By GB, December 10, 2007 at 7:54 pm #
(Unregistered commenter)

Dominick j.
Here’s one place you can start. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2007/10/17/defense-indus try-embraces_n_68927.html
There’s more. I don’t make this stuff up and I think for myself that’s why I won’t let the media fool me into voting against my concience. You can see Clinton’s voting record for yourself. It’s a total sell out. Kucinich is true to his word and voting record. If another Republican gets into the White House, it’s because Senators like Clinton did nothing to stop the hyper crimes of the current administration.

Report this

By Dominick J., December 10, 2007 at 5:58 pm #

Well GB Can you really prove all of this or are you just reiterating what others have said, others like the rethuglicans.  Any way, we are all entitled to our opinon/s and as far as I’m concerned Hillary is the best candidate for the job.  Now if Dennis had a better showing I would be voting for him, as I’m sure a lot of others would,but so far the choices are Edwards UGH---Obama UGH---and Clinton and my vote is going to Clinton.  I surely don’t want any more years of some Fundamentalist GOP sitting in the White House listening and taking orders from the Religious Right…

Report this

By joey, December 10, 2007 at 5:36 pm #
(Unregistered commenter)

The Clintons must once and for all express what was in their hearts the night that G.W. invaded Iraq.

Report this

By GB, December 10, 2007 at 3:12 pm #
(Unregistered commenter)

Hillary Clinton had every opportunity to prove her loyalty to the American people and has failed where it really counts. She gets financial support from weapons manufacturers and shows her loyalty to them by voting for war. She votes with Bush at every lie letting him and Cheney fleece the treasury with a phony war on terror in Iraq, making the Iranian Rebublican guard labeled as a terrorist organization so they can have their oil options there, not supporting the impeachment of Cheney and Bush for their lies that have gotten 4,000 american troops killed and a million innocent Iraqi citizens killed, illegal wire tapping etc…
Kucinich is the only Democratic candidate who tells the truth and what is really going on and engages the American public as honorable.
Clinton also allows her goons to remove people when they hold signs disagreeing with her.
I would totally like to see a strong woman take hold of our Constitution and show the world what law really means and what a fake this fear mongering is coming out of the neoCONS but Pelosi and Clinton aren’t going to do it.

Report this

By Dominick J., December 10, 2007 at 2:44 pm #

Larry, Hillary had a goal and if getting to that goal was to seek the seat of a New York Senator, than by goolie she did it, that makes her working to further that goal.  She has made New Yorkers happy with her!
That makes her smart and someone to reckon with.  She’s the one I want sitting in the Oval Office representing me!

Report this

By Dominick J., December 10, 2007 at 2:39 pm #

Rage, me thinks you should research her credentials before spouting off rabid remarks.  She has an impressive reume.  And more than likely worked harder getting to where she is, using her brains more then you have ever done, had the capabilites to do or dreamed of doing!

Report this

By rage, December 10, 2007 at 12:23 pm #
(Unregistered commenter)

Shillary Clintoon has made a point of cloaking herself in the unseemly garment of inevitability via entitlement in a manner that is now starting to annoyingly work the public’s nerve. The truth is Shill has little more political experience than a few lackluster years of senate carpetbagging to her credit. NOTHING MORE!!! That she spent a life time being dragged from top office to top office on the tails of Big Dog’s ermine trimmed velvet coattails no more prepares or entitles her to the Presidency than such would guarantee the office to any of the other candidates running. Yet, anytime anyone dares to say that out loud, Shillary slaps down the victim card, accusing her detractors of playing pile-on politics.

There is just nothing fresh or adventerous about this aged onetime Goldwater babyboomer whose political independence has yet to take her beyond the comfortable reach of her husband’s legacy. She’s had every break afforded any candidate. Everything possible has been done to make her appear more presidential than her competitors, right down to turning every single Dem “debate” into the Shillary Show, where all the focus is on her. Her people pick the venues, the audiences, and the questions that make her the star she is. If the playing field were fair and level, Shill would place just ahead of maybe Mike Gravel. It’s about time her camp realizes that We the Voters elect the winners, and a Shill victory is NOT the electoral foregone conclusion they and the media would have everyone beleive.

Report this

By Frances, December 10, 2007 at 10:28 am #
(Unregistered commenter)

Hillary Clinton and Joe Biden are the best candidates we have.  If only they would speak out against the illegal alien invasion that has occurred under Bush they would win by a landslide.  Candidates have to speak constanly and thousands of words come out of their mouths so jumping on evey little silly comment is ridiculous.  There are serious problems in the world that we need to discuss.  I am astonished that some Democrats are using the same Republican years of attacks against Senator Clinton.

Report this

By Dominick J., December 9, 2007 at 11:39 am #

118597 by cyrena.
Thank you Cyrena!!  Well said and it should be reposted from time to time!!

I’m also happy he, Driving Bear, has health care he can be proud of.  I don’t and neither does my partner AND neither do thousands upon thousands of kids from working poor, to very poor along with their parents.  The health care system needs reformed to a universal one.  One for everybody in this country not just for those who can afford it!

Report this

By GB, December 9, 2007 at 10:25 am #
(Unregistered commenter)

The only Democratic candidate who would work to restore democracy and accountibility in the presidency is Dennis Kucinich.
The media is working really hard to keep him out because Dennis also would work to keep a few media companies from owning all the information in your town.
If Clinton or Obama are propped up to be the democratic primary winners I will just write in Kucinich.
Pelosi and Hoyer have had plenty of chances to prove they want to accountibility in the White House and have shown they are no different than the republican war mongers.
Clinton said she would not remove our troops from Iraq. What does that tell you?

Report this

By Margaret from Portland Oregon, December 8, 2007 at 8:08 pm #
(Unregistered commenter)

This think about a drivers licence is that you have to prove where you were born and have a social security card and the same goes for a state I.D.  but the DMV will let you register to vote but how this driver licence I assumed that you had to be a citizen because registeration to vote can be done at DMV it is difficult to understand, but I was never from another country and if this country does not go under I will stay an American, if on the other hand the country goes under I will become a citizen of Ireland, once I can prove that my grandfather was born there and that will be hard.

Hopefully this country will not go under just hope that the neocons do now win (steal) the election.

John Edward would make a good president if you believe that he will be for the average person and just take back government and give it to the people, right now only those with money can play the government game in Washington, D.C.

Report this

By Duane Campbell, December 7, 2007 at 4:36 pm #
(Unregistered commenter)

well, in addition.
Obama majored in International Relations for his B.A.  What did Hillary study?
To claim he is not prepared in this area is simply sound bite politics. An examination of the records do not support this position.
Read his most recent book, the Audacity of Hope.  it tells you a great deal about his views on foreign policy.

Report this

By driving bear, December 7, 2007 at 1:21 pm #

to #118631 by Conservative Yankee on 12/07 at 6:11 am

I think you overlook one important thing about drivers lic. The full faith and credit clause of the US constitution. Let me share a personal story. In early 2003 I was transferred from Tennessee to Utah for 7 months. So I go to the Utah DMV to get a new drivers lic. I give them my TN drivers lic and they gave me a brand new Utah lic and registered me to vote in less that an hour ( about 15 minutes once I got to the first desk of the DMV ). All I had to show was my old TN lic and my very old SS card which after 20 years in my wallet was just legible. The DMV girl just looked at SS card for about 1/2 second .
So with a DL and less than $50 I was full citizen of the state of Utah and therefore the USA .
Illegal could use do the same if the had a NY state DL.

Report this

By mlevass, December 7, 2007 at 10:00 am #

I almost forgot.  If you speak of election fraud, you must speak about ensuring proof for voting.  Driver’s licenses should be modified to show a person’s citizenship status (Citizen..Resident Alien..).  Passport, above mentioned modified license or birth certificate must be shown a time of voting.  Voting is and important privilege.  If it is important enough for a person, if their privilege to vote means so much, then that person will vote.  Either a relative may submit their ballot (with proof of relation of course) or absentee ballot may be mailed-in with a notarized copy of proof of citizenship.  This notary service would be free of charge at the local post office starting up to the day prior to the election.
Electronic stations should display a running tally of results where an observer/s would immediately confirm votes.

Report this

By mlevass, December 7, 2007 at 8:03 am #

The worst thing to happen to the Democrat Party is Soros and Moveon.org.  What has happened to the party is a disgrace.

It seems that the media were not only in love with Bill Clinton but with Hillary as well.  On a daily basis they focus on her “experience” and “accomplishments”.
Most of which come by way of her being the wife of a former president.  Unless questions are planted and responses prepared, she is not a vibrant or knowledgeable candidate.  She may be marginally in the lead but that will eventually swing as many will see her true colors. 

It is a shame that the next choice is Obama (Edwards isn’t considered...he can’t even win his home state).  Obama doesn’t have anything to bring to the table.  No experience in executive office and his legislative record is meager and myopic.

A word of advice.  2000 and 2004 are gone. It happened.  Seriously do you think things would have been better with Gore or Kerry?  Instead of acting like whining babies who cry “cheater” after getting beaten, accept the facts..make changes to improve..and come back to do the beating. 

I am not a Democrat or Republican.  I am a true Moderate Independent.

Report this

By xypher, December 7, 2007 at 6:22 am #

It disturbs me that Hillary has been chosen by the media as the candidate that will win the primary. I have voted a complete democratic ticket since I became voting age but, unless it’s John Edwards I’m voting third-party for president.

I also plan to vote third-party for all other seats due to Ms. Pelosi’s blatant kowtowing to the Bush Regime. America is broken and the Democrats are unwilling to fix it. The most pressing issue in my opinion is Election Fraud and until that is fixed the American Experiment has failed miserably.

Two stolen elections and the Bush Debacle spit in the Spirit of the Founding of the (Previously) Freest Nation in history.

Report this

By Conservative Yankee, December 7, 2007 at 6:11 am #
(Unregistered commenter)

The Driver’s license issue separates older conservatives from the younger “neocons” in that older conservatives USUALLY are opposed to mandating any document that can pass as a “national identity card” I feel betrayed by my government each time I’m asked for a driver’s license to buy a gun, or cross into Canada.  Canada does not require identification (generally) to cross the border, it is the paranoid USA which makes me present a driver’s license each time I re-enter the country of my birth (despite the fact that the border guard at Campobello and my father played cards together every Friday night for 20 years!)

In My opinion a “conservative” would believe a “driver’s license” was a driver’s license nothing more. That puts me in line with Cyrena’s position, something that almost never happens.

Report this

By Marjorie L. Swanson, December 7, 2007 at 4:14 am #

Always amazes me how people can get inside someone else’s head and know what their motives and thought processes are. Physic maybe? I also wonder why it is all right, in fact was encouraged in many corners, for Obama to attack Clinton but it’s dirty tricks when Hillary hits back. Seem like a double standard to anyone? Not that I care. I think both of them stink and hope they knock each other down and out so that the candidate I favor, John Edwards, can step into the breach. And all the whining about hits at Obama makes one wonder if his supporters think he’s got a glass jaw.

Report this

By driving bear, December 7, 2007 at 2:37 am #

reply to#118597 by cyrena on 12/07 at 1:42 am
First off the American public including the citizens in New York state are opposed to issuing drivers lic to illegal aliens , Why do you think that the NY governor dropped the plan so fast. First off unlike you the majority of the American public is smart enough to realize that by issuing DL to illegals the state is condoning if not encouraging illegal aliens to come to the USA. Also every Illegal cost the US tax payer about $19 K. The American people know this and that the democrats are pro illegal aliens so look for the democrats to lost big in 2008.

As for the GOP and health care even if you believe the wild reports put out by the far left that 47M Americans have no health care do the math. American has over 300M people now and that means that 253M+ or 5/6 of Americans do have health care and don’t want the far left and the democrats to screw it up. Many American myself included are happy with the current health care system. Also the republican plan to save American money by introducing tort ( that lawsuit) reform is the best thing that could be done to help the current health care system .
FYI junk lawsuits cost the average American family about $5K per year

Report this

By cyrena, December 7, 2007 at 1:42 am #

#118582 by driving bear

Driving bear,

Curious you would note that the health plans of Clinton and Obama are very similar. They are, (and he himself has said the same thing long ago) But, somehow, I’m not surprised that you would mention it. Just a bit late. I think we all know that. But, since you know so much about that, can you give me an idea of what the repug candidates have to offer on this same very critical issue? Or, do any of them even address it? I’m asking only because I’ve certainly not heard anything from any of them myself, but I could have missed it.

As for Clinton and the DL thing, you are not alone in your ignorance. Still, it’s another widespread and dangerous ignorance, that has folks confused and panicked about the wrong stuff. So, for the record, lets clarifiy it. Yes, there is a perceived problem with illegal immigration, and specifically from the south, since we don’t have any of those same concerns about our borders to the north.

Drivers’ Licences have NOTHING to do with that, because DRIVER’S LICENCES are NOT, (and this isn’t complicated at all) PROOF OF CITIZENSHIP. A Driver’s License is NOT sufficient documentation to allow for ANYONE to vote. Period. One needs to be REGISTERED to vote, in order to do that. And, as RESULT of a successful voter registration, the state will then issue that individual a VOTER REGISTRATION/ID card.

THAT is how we all vote. Got that DB? One must be a CITIZEN to register to vote. And one cannot vote, if one is not registered. Ergo, a DL has ZIP to do with it.

A DL is a different document, and the purpose of THAT document, is to allows the holder to legally operate a vehicle in the state where it was issued. (and most others) It does NOT verify national ‘citizenship’ nor can it be used to obtain benefits for which one is not entitled as a citizen.

It is for the purposes of legally operating a vehicle. In order to get one of these things, a person is required to pass an exam, so that they will know the ‘laws of the road’ since everybody should be on the same page with that stuff, if they’re going to drive on public roads with other people. Now of course this same process ALSO satisfies many other purposes, (whether we like it or not). It puts everybody who HAS one of these DL’s, into a GIGANTIC data base, which basically allows the gubbies to keep track of them. (as it does all of the rest of us).

Now, again. You don’t have to be a citizen to get a DL, and drive a car. You can even use your own state issued DL to drive all over Europe if you so choose, but it doesn’t allow you to VOTE in any of those European countries, or to apply for citizenship. It just allows you to DRIVE there, if they accept your license as valid for that. (most do).

To Recap: Illegal immigration and Drivers Licences and Clinton have NOTHING to do with each other. Whatever Clinton’s position may or may not be on ‘illegal immigration’ has less than nothing to do with the issuance of driver licenses. So, if you wanna just do the smear Clinton thing, there’s no doubt that you can find other venues. Just don’t try to use the drivers’ license thing, because, well…it makes you look like you don’t have a clue to what you’re talking about.

Also might be a good idea to tell your friends. This ignorance must be eradicated. It isn’t helpful.

Report this

By since1492, December 7, 2007 at 12:55 am #

From Bob Dylan:
“Politician got on her jogging shoes,
Must be running for office - got no time to lose.
Sucking the genius out of generosity.
You been rolling your eyes - you been teasing me”
Hoa binh

Report this

By driving bear, December 6, 2007 at 11:14 pm #

I think Clinton drop in the polls is a result of her shall we say less than clear position on illegal immigration remember her answer on the drivers lic question in one of the last debates. This in my opinion has cost her some support in the union section of the democratic party and some support with independent voters. As for the author claim that Clinton should go after Obama on the health care issue this would leave Clinton open to an Obama counterattack on the same issue their plans are very similar. Clinton has been trying to walk a tight rope on the illegal immigration issue and if you walk a tight rope long enough you will fall. Clinton “fell” from the illegal immigration during the MSNBC debate and the question of drivers lic fir illegals.
Her only chance is to take a clear stance hard on illegals FYI 78% of Americans support closing the border with Mexico

Report this

By Larry, December 6, 2007 at 9:54 pm #
(Unregistered commenter)

Hillary says of Obama “...who started running for president the day he arrived in the U.S. Senate.”

Hillary Clinto started running for President before she even RAN for Senator. Why else would she run for Senator of a major State that she hadn’t lived in? To help the people? No! To set herself up as a candidate for President. So she is a hyporite.

Report this

Add Your Comment

Posts by unregistered readers are moderated. Posts by members
are published immediately. Why wait? Register today!






Notify you when others comment on this article?


Are you a human?
Retype the word you see here.


Please read and abide by our comment policy.
By submitting this comment, you agree to this site's terms and conditions.

Newsletter

Get Truthdig in your inbox

Privacy Policy

 
Click here to advertise with Truthdig
 

 
Join the Liberal Blog Advertising Network
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

A Progressive Journal of News and Opinion. Editor, Robert Scheer. Publisher, Zuade Kaufman.
Copyright © 2008 Truthdig, L.L.C. All rights reserved.