Is Hillary's Third Place Finish in Iowa a Sign of Trouble for Her Campaign?

[chemisttree]

Hillary Clinton's third place showing yesterday in Iowa might not be the show stopper some have anticipated. There are reports that the campaign is in disarray and struggling but her overall political apparatus is the envy of all the candidates in the Democrat party. I think she will do much better in the coming weeks but it will be closer than she had anticipated. She still polls very high in nationwide polls and there is still time to modify her delivery, message and for her to change her focus. She appears to be doing just that by adopting Obama's message of change...

FOX News entrance polling ahead before the Democratic caucusing indicated that 52 percent of Iowa voters were more concerned with electing a candidate who could “bring about needed change” than seeking one with the “right experience.” This far outweighed what had been believed to be Clinton’s strong suit, which 20 percent of the caucus-goers said was most important to them.

The preference, along with a massive turnout of Democratic voters, resulted in the blow to the Clinton campaign, which has long been hailing the senator’s 35-year political career, including eight years as first lady, as superior credentials over her rivals for the White House.

As if already picking up on that point at the end of the evening, in a speech to supporters at the end of the evening, Clinton immediately began speaking about “change.”

“We have seen an unprecedented turnout here in Iowa. And that is good news, because today we’re sending a clear message: that we are going to have change, and that change will be a Democratic president in the White House in 2009,” she said to cheers. “I am so proud to have run with such exceptional candidates … together we have presented the case for change and have made it absolutely clear that America needs a new beginning.”

Its pretty clear that she isn't doing herself any favors by stressing her foriegn policy experience while spouting this kind of nonsense...

"If President Musharraf wishes to stand for election then he should abide by the same rules that every other candidate will have to follow."

and

"I think it will be very difficult to have a real election. You know, Nawaz Sharif (leader of the PML-N, an opposition party) has said he's not going to compete. The PPP is in disarray with Benazir's assassination. He (President Pervez Musharraf) could be the only person on the ballot. I don't think that's a real election."

There is still a good chance that she will be the Democrat nominee.

God help us if she wins the whole thing...

 

[Astronuc]

There is still a good chance that she will be the Democrat nominee.

Don't even think it! Hopefully not. I think Obama has a reasonable shot to come in first. I think folks are looking for change, and it ain't Hillary.

God help us if she wins the whole thing...

Pray for divine pre-emptive intervention.

 

[turbo]

Don't even think it! Hopefully not. I think Obama has a reasonable shot to come in first. I think folks are looking for change, and it ain't Hillary.

Pray for divine pre-emptive intervention.

Yep! Hillary is squirmier than a jellyfish on the issues, and has the highest negatives of the Dems. There is a huge bloc of people who would vote for a convicted felon still in prison before they would vote for her. What's worse is that if she is elected, she will pull in the same crowd of DC insiders that populated Bill's administration. We need real change, not new wallpaper.

 

[Cyrus]

I don't think obama will change much. I am curious what you guys think he will change?

To be clear, I don't think anyone is going to change anything anytime soon, except for maybe Ron Paul. (But he would probably be impeached before he actually changed anything).

 

[Astronuc]

I don't think obama will change much. I am curious what you guys think he will change?

At this point, I think Obama 'represents' change, i.e. it's more appearance than substance, but I'm hoping he's not tied in with the same interested parties as Hillary. Hillary is inside Washington and has been since 1992. Obama was reelected to the Illinois Senate in 1998 and 2002, officially resigning in November 2004 following his election to the U.S. Senate, so he is much less of a Washington insider than Hillary.

So let's see what substance develops over the next 10 months.

 

[Cyrus]

Yeah, but that really does not mean much. Hes not going to get us out of Iraq - realistically. And what is he going to use to get americans affordable insurance, our borrowed money to China? Hes going to have to get us out of debt. But I wouldn't really call that a 'change'.

 

[Gokul43201]

C-tree, please cite the source for the excerpts.

 

[Moridin]

Funny how we address all the male candidates with their surname, like Obama, Guiliani, Huckabee etc. but when it comes to Rodham Clinton, we are all of a sudden on first-name basis.

Rodham Clinton did some great job with some health care plan under Clinton, but because it was a 1200+ brick with no summary, it fell on the Congress floor. I'm sorry to confess, but during this election, I'm a one-issue-man.

 

[turbo]

I don't think obama will change much. I am curious what you guys think he will change?

To be clear, I don't think anyone is going to change anything anytime soon, except for maybe Ron Paul. (But he would probably be impeached before he actually changed anything).

The neo-cons are in tight with Blackwater, et al. Paul would never live to be sworn in, IMO, and Huckabee had better watch his back, too.

Obama probably would not change too much too fast, except the color of the residents of the WH. He has drawn his political advisers from that same stagnant pool of beltway bloodsuckers that all the other major candidates have tapped, and he may not have the guts to buck them. On the plus side, he is smart and articulate, and probably won't be a sock-puppet for his VP, like W.

 

[Astronuc]

The President’s Budget:
Provides $439.3 billion for the Department of Defense’s base budget—a 7-percent increase over 2006 and a 48-percent increase over 2001—to maintain a high level of military readiness, develop and procure new weapon systems to ensure U.S. battlefield superiority, and support our servicemembers and their families;

http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/fy2007/defense.html

I disagree with some of the goals, and they seem to have conveniently left out the 10's of thousands of Iraqis and Afghans killed as a result of the on-going conflicts.


On Wikipedia, some writes that "For 2007, the budget rose to US$532.8 billion," and links this to http://www.defenselink.mil/comptroller/defbudget/fy2007/ . Perhaps that includes the supplemental budget, but it's hard to tell.
http://www.defenselink.mil/comptroller/defbudget/fy2007/fy2007_greenbook.pdf

Now in 2008,

Fiscal 2008 Department of Defense Budget Released

President George W. Bush today sent to Congress his defense budget for fiscal 2008. The budget requests $481.4 billion in discretionary authority for the Department of Defense base budget, an 11.3 percent increase over the projected enacted level for fiscal 2007, for real growth of 8.6 percent; and $141.7 billion to continue the fight in the Global War on Terror (GWOT) in fiscal 2008.
. . .
Accompanying the fiscal 2008 Defense base budget and the President’s GWOT request is a request for $93.4 billion in emergency supplemental funding to cover equipment reconstitution and the cost of operations in the Global War on Terror for the remainder of fiscal 2007.

So the real Defense budget is $481.4 billion + $141.7 billion + $93.4 billion = $716.5 billion. Bush apparently used a pocket veto to kill it.

CRAWFORD, Texas (Dec 29, 2007) - President Bush on Friday used a "pocket veto" to reject a sweeping defense bill because he dislikes a provision that would expose the Iraqi government to expensive lawsuits seeking damages from the Saddam Hussein era.

In a statement, Bush said the legislation "would imperil billions of dollars of Iraqi assets at a crucial juncture in that nation's reconstruction efforts."

The president's objections were focused on a provision deep within legislation that sets defense policy for the coming year and approves $696 billion in spending, including $189 billion for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. Also in the legislation were improved veterans benefits and tighter oversight of contractors and weapons programs.
. . . .

http://www.sun-sentinel.com/services/newspaper/printedition/saturday/nationworld/sfl-flaveto1229sbdec29,0,150283.story

The next president will have to reduce government spending and increase revenues in order to stop the hemorrage. The next president will have to be clever in order to repair the disaster that Bush will level in his wake, and deal with emerging economies and forces of China, Russia, India and others.

Then there is the Middle East - which is still unresolved. Note that the Bush administration has stopped calling for democracy, ostensibly in lieu of stability long enough to extract as much money from the area as possible.

I have to wonder how many billions are going to Bush cronies, mercenaries and other interested parties. Hopefully the new president will uncover that mess.

Then there's energy security.

And health care.

And social security. One way to deal with that is simply stop paying SS benefits, and let everyone fend for themselves - or raise taxes to cover the outlays.

 

[Evo]

I happen to favor Clinton. After all she was co-President during Bill's term. No one can deny she had significant influence on Presidential decisions, she's a smart, strong woman. I see having her in office as a return to the Clinton era (minus the sexcapades) and I don't see that as too terribly bad considering the unknowns.

 

[chemisttree]

C-tree, please cite the source for the excerpts.

The first quote is from ”http://youdecide08.foxnews.com/2008/01/04/iowa-behind-her-clinton-campaign-in-a-state-of-urgency/”[/URL]. I will print the entire transcript of the question and answer.
[quote] 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 elections in a timely manner would be incredibly important.

[b]If President Musharraf wishes to stand for election, then he should abide by the same rules that every other candidate will have to follow. [/b]

We also want to see a resumption of the move toward an independent judiciary. I think that was a terrible mistake.

You know, 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 interests, but, more importantly, it is in the interests of the Pakistani people.[/quote]

The last is from an interview she gave on [PLAIN]”http://a.abcnews.com/ThisWeek/Story?id=4073183&page=2”[/URL] that aired last weekend. The entire question and answer…
[quote] 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. [b]He could be the only person on the ballot.[/b] I don't think that's a real election.[/quote]
Yes, it’s that bad. Remember during the 2000 election when [PLAIN]”http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/stories/1999/11/05/bush.popquiz/”[/URL] I don’t hear any of that on CNN aimed at the airhead Hillary!
Now, that’s just [i]funny![/i]

PS. For those of you that aren't following this, Musharaff wasn't on the ballot (he was reelected last October 6th to a 5 year term as president). The elections in question were parliamentary in nature. [b]WHAT A RIOT![/b] (sorry Evo! You have to admit that it is funny!)

 

[Astronuc]

But Hillary Clinton is not an airhead. She's smart and knowledgeable, and relatively strong personally. I just have to wonder about the rest of her administration.

Bill Clinton's foreign policy (Indolence is a word I have heard used) was a disaster, eclipsed only by Bush. Bill Clinton's domestic programs benefitted from irrational exhuberance - with which he had nothing to do.

 

[Evo]

PS. For those of you that aren't following this, Musharaff wasn't on the ballot (he was reelected last October 6th to a 5 year term as president). The elections in question were parliamentary in nature. WHAT A RIOT! (sorry Evo! You have to admit that it is funny!)

PFFFT, what has that to do with the ability to run a country? A slip up. She has a guaranteed track record of being able to run this country, IMHO. I don't think the Clinton admisistration was all that bad and I'm not opposed to seeing it return.

 

[turbo]

I happen to favor Clinton. After all she was co-President during Bill's term. No one can deny she had significant influence on Presidential decisions, she's a smart, strong woman. I see having her in office as a return to the Clinton era (minus the sexcapades) and I don't see that as too terribly bad considering the unknowns.

There are a lot of things that Obama might re-consider that Clinton would not touch. One of those is pumping money into Israel. Israel has managed to keep a choke-hold on the Palastinians thanks to US aid and military equipment. It's pretty easy to label the Palestinians as "terrorists" since they lack the resources to penetrate Israel with tanks and attack-helicopters and blast their victims with rockets and artillery, and they have to resort to unconventional warfare. It is accepted that there will be civilian casualties every time the Israelis attack the Palestinians, but there is no such allowance for the Palestinian "terrorists" when they try to defend themselves or respond to attacks.

The Palestinians are the aggrieved party from the late 40's onward and they have suffered greatly from the Zionists' persecutions. They are ready to accept a 2-state solution to this genocide, yet much of the world (led by the US) is willing to let the Zionists keep their boots on the necks of the Palestinians.

 

[Gokul43201]

You don't think she was referring to Musharraf's party when she mentioned Musharraf by name?

It is, after all, entirely true that if the PPP does not participate (I think they will), then the PML-Q (Mush) will be the only major party participating (though Sharif might change his mind and the PML-N might get back in the ring). Currently, PML-Q, PML-N, the MMA alliance and PPP control about 70% of the Assembly seats. Half the members of the MMA group have announced that they are going to boycott the elections, but they might also change their minds.

So I don't think Clinton is talking through her hat. Would anyone have understood if she said that the PML-Q might end up being the only major party in the election, because the PPP is in disarray, the MMA is broken up (and partly boycotting), and the PML-N is also boycotting?

 

[chemisttree]

A slip up? Definitely! But funny too.

 

[chemisttree]

You don't think she was referring to Musharraf's party when she mentioned Musharraf by name?

It is, after all, entirely true that if the PPP does not participate (I think they will), then the PML-Q (Mush) will be the only major party participating (though Sharif might change his mind and the PML-N might get back in the ring). Currently, PML-Q, PML-N, the MMA alliance and PPP control about 70% of the Assembly seats. Half the members of the MMA group have announced that they are going to boycott the elections, but they might also change their minds.

So I don't think Clinton is talking through her hat. Would anyone have understood if she said that the PML-Q might end up being the only major party in the election?

I bolded the important parts. It's clear she wasn't referring to his party. I also didn't know she wore hats... but if she did, I'm sure she would change it every day.

 

[Gokul43201]

I also didn't know she wore hats... but if she did, I'm sure she would change it every day.

No doubt about that!

 

[chemisttree]

Not that it's important, but Nawaz Sharif can't run for election in Pakistan because of a felony conviction. I would think that the smartest woman on the planet would know that (it's a foreign policy thingy).

I do like her impression of a southern black ("I ain't no ways taarrr'd...).

 

[Evo]

No doubt about that!

The ability to wear many hats is actually seen as a good trait.

 

[Evo]

A Presidential Candidate that is perfect and infallible is a complete fake.

Name a President that honored every single one of his campaign promises or that didn't make some kind of goof, repeatedly.

I know what to expect from Clinton, I do not know what to expect from Obama. If he's the Democratic choice, he'll get my vote, but not with the confidence I have in Clinton. That's not saying I want to vote for either of them.

 

[binzing]

The ability to wear many hats is actually seen as a good trait.

Where, exactly? In Bartholomeau Cubbins' (sp?) world?

 

[Evo]

Where, exactly? In Bartholomeau Cubbins' (sp?) world?

The term "wearing many hats" means that you are proficient at more that one thing. It is seen as a desirable trait in the Western World, not sure if the colloquialism has a meaning elsewhere.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

I don't really care for Hillary. She is about as inspirational as Bush I, but more importantly, I don't trust her. She talks out of both sides of her mouth far too easily.

That said, the only person that I would support instead of Hillary is Obama. The only Republican that would ever get my vote again is someone like Ron Paul - a revolutionary. I will never forgive them for Bush II.

 

[BobG]

I bolded the important parts. It's clear she wasn't referring to his party. I also didn't know she wore hats... but if she did, I'm sure she would change it every day.

The ability to wear many hats is actually seen as a good trait.

Where, exactly? In Bartholomeau Cubbins' (sp?) world?

The term "wearing many hats" means that you are proficient at more that one thing. It is seen as a desirable trait in the Western World, not sure if the colloquialism has a meaning elsewhere.

I have to admit that the original comment went over my head, too. My first impulse was "Well, yeah, duh! She probably changes her underwear every day, too." My second thought was of the Tom Cruise character in "Far and Away". So chemisttree thinks she's vain?

The only other way I've heard the phrase used is the way Evo used it - where wearing many hats refers to holding down a diverse range of duties.

I've never heard it used as an insult before.

 

[mheslep]

I happen to favor Clinton. After all she was co-President during Bill's term. No one can deny she had significant influence on Presidential decisions, she's a smart, strong woman. I see having her in office as a return to the Clinton era (minus the sexcapades) and I don't see that as too terribly bad considering the unknowns.

No, no, Limbaugh was the http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/daily/site_010208/content/01125106.guest.html" :

For eight years folks, from 1993 through the end of the year 2000, I was there, with Bill Clinton, every day. I advised Clinton on every key issue. I was working behind the scenes to run the country and add to his legacy. I'm not saying he listened to me, but I was there, as were you.

The influence this program exerted on Bill Clinton, should I have chosen to run for president would qualify me more than his wife, ladies and gentlemen. But when those records are released you will see how much of a factor I was in the Clinton White House and how successful I was as the real co-president.

 

[Gokul43201]

Not that it's important, but Nawaz Sharif can't run for election in Pakistan because of a felony conviction.

He personally can not run. But his party can.

 

[chemisttree]

So chemisttree thinks she's vain?

It was an oblique reference that she tries to be all things to all people.

 

[chemisttree]

No, no, Limbaugh was the http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/daily/site_010208/content/01125106.guest.html" :

Perhaps that is what Hillary meant by 'vast' right wing conspiracy. Rush was pretty heavy back then.