Fiery Clinton Fields Tough Questions at Campaign Rally
(CBS)
EUGENE, ORE. -- During a campaign stop in Oregon, Hillary Clinton fielded testier questions from the audience, more so than she has in quite a while. It was a typical campaign rally where Clinton delivered her now typical campaign speech, but twice during her remarks Clinton was heckled by a gentleman who wanted to know why Clinton voted for No Child Left Behind and the war in Iraq. Clinton remained unfazed by the man’s outbursts. But it wasn’t until the question and answer period where Clinton drew her greatest challenge.
Clinton called on a young man who when asking his question said he was a supporter of Barack Obama, and he wanted to know if Clinton or her supporters had done or said anything that would weaken Obama’s chances at winning the general election were he the nominee. Clinton said, “I think this has been by and large one of the most positive and civil campaigns I have ever been a part of.”
But her calm tone and relaxed demeanor soon became sharp and fiery. “Elections are about choices. You are supposed to present your case and you’re supposed to critique the other case. That’s what you do in an election, it is not a coronation, it is a contest, this country is worth fighting for, and I’m going to fight for it!”
Clinton went on to say that elections can be heated and a president has to be able to handle criticism. “I don’t take any of it personally,” she said. “I don’t take any of it seriously. If you can’t stand the heat don’t run for president because it’s a really hot kitchen in the White House.”
Clinton, who continued making her case to the Obama supporter drew loud cheers from the crowd when she told the man: “I wish we could believe that we could get to universal health care, that we could turn the economy around, that we could end the home foreclosure crisis merely bay asking people to do it, by bringing them together, by pointing to a higher cause and expecting them to shelve their personal, ideological, personal and partisan advantages, that is not the way the world has ever worked.”
Growing more frustrated Clinton said, “I wouldn’t be standing here. I wouldn’t be getting up at 5 a.m. and going to bed at 2 a.m. if I didn’t believe I would be the better candidate to beat John McCain.”
Clinton was later asked about her now infamous 3 a.m. phone call ad and what exactly makes her ready to answer that call when she has, as part of her record, a vote for the war in Iraq. Clinton defended her vote on the war saying voters should compare both her and Obama's records.
“I made a considered judgment, I didn’t make a speech, I made a decision and it was a decision based on my best assessment on what would be in the interest of our country at that very uncertain time.”
Clinton said that historians will judge if her decision was the right one, but she reminded voters that Obama’s voting record on the war is not very different than hers.
“When you want to compare, compare decisions so when Senator Obama came to the Senate, he and I voted exactly the same except for one vote and that happens to be the facts.”
Obama has been credited with foreseeing a troublesome war in Iraq primarily due to a speech he gave in 2002 while he was a state senator, where he spoke out against the war. Clinton said, “I started criticizing the war in Iraq before he did. So, I’m well aware that his entire campaign is premised on a speech he gave in 2002 and I give him credit for making that speech. But that was not a decision.”
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
... - 9
- next
See all 177 CommentsHRC:"I don''t take any of it seriously."
HRC:"I don''t take any of it seriously."
HRC:"I don''t take any of it seriously."
HRC:"I don''t take any of it seriously."
HRC:"I don''t take any of it seriously."
Everything from her campaign tactics to campaign financing to her false stories... its all just a big mess... and it goes on and on and on!
Where is her "JUDGEMENT" on these issues and once again, what ever happend to all of her so-called "experience"? Did Obama take it all away from her? (I''m sure that is what her supporters will be crying soon)
It seems to me that all she has been part of is "POOR JUDGEMENT". And it would also be poor judgement of those who continue to support & believe that she would, all of a sudden, change her judgement tactics in her Presidency.
I believe she should pack all of her campaign belongings and head back to Chappaqua and study "CAMPAIGNING 101" so that she may do a better job in 2012 because her style, tactics & experience is just not cutting it these days!
Yeah, that''s right, Hillary: "a considered judgement". It is this judgement (ie: let''s invade Iraq) that the public no longer trusts. I''m not sure what you call this linguistic trick (Non-Sequitar? Noam, Help?), but HIllary is simply stating that she earlier made a statement, and then repeats that same statement, somehow implying that by doing all of the above, her original decision and it''s disastrous consequences are therefore vindicated. What a WONK! She truly doesn''t seem to realize that we are not interested in the chronology of how and when she said what she said. We are interested in the SUBSTANCE of WHAT she said. And she''s basically saying nothing to explain and justify her poor judgement.
Clintons, make way for a new paradigm of reason and peace.
By LISSA MUSCATINE and MELANNE VERVEER
Published: April 1, 2008
Washington
AS staff members who traveled with the first lady, Hillary Rodham
Clinton, to Bosnia in March 1996, we have followed with more than
passing interest the extensive news coverage of her landing in Tuzla.
Video footage clearly shows that Mrs. Clinton?s assertions that she
landed ?under fire? and that the arrival ceremony was canceled were
wrong. She said so herself last week.
Yet even since she acknowledged her mistake, the commentary has
continued unabated. Reports are now being embellished (to borrow the
term du jour) to suggest that Bosnia was not really a danger zone. Her
visiting American troops on a peacekeeping mission in a hostile
environment is now being treated as if it were a trip to the beach.
During a week of nonstop coverage, few journalists went beyond the
irresistible video footage to ask what else happened on this trip and
how Mrs. Clinton might have erred in the details about the landing in
Tuzla. So here are some facts that provide context:
We flew in a C-17 cargo plane from Germany to Bosnia precisely because
it was capable of steep descents and ascents into and out of areas of
conflict. We were issued flak jackets on the plane before landing in
Tuzla and were told the tarmac ceremony might be canceled or curtailed
due to sniper fire from the surrounding hillsides. The first lady and
Chelsea Clinton were moved to the armored cockpit for the landing.
Armored vehicles were placed around the tarmac, and Apache helicopters
hovered overhead.
acting president of Bosnia during Mrs. Clinton?s visit, wrote: ?I
remember that visit quite well. Although the NATO troops were in Tuzla,
we still believed that some positions on the hills were occupied by
radical Serbs, so I was worried about the overall safety.? The planned
welcoming ceremony was shortened, he said, but it still lasted a bit
longer than expected because a nongovernment group brought along a
little girl to sing to the first lady.
Later, Mrs. Clinton flew from Tuzla to two military outposts by
helicopter, escorted by Apache gunships.
As has been reported, Mrs. Clinton?s trip to Bosnia included a U.S.O.
component with the comedian Sinbad and the singer Sheryl Crow. The
helicopters that carried them to performances at American base camps
zigzagged just above the trees to avoid potential ground fire, according
to Carey Cavanaugh, who was then a State Department official traveling
with Sinbad, and helicopters flew alongside to deal with the threat of
anti-aircraft fire or snipers. These facts explain why many of us,
including the first lady,
believed that the conditions on the ground
were precarious. We were worried about sniper fire and were prepared to
rush off the tarmac when we landed.
In their single-minded focus on the landing in Tuzla, reporters and
commentators have omitted any discussion of what Mrs. Clinton
accomplished on her trip. In addition to showing support for our troops
and for the peace accords in Bosnia, Mrs. Clinton met with Bosnian
religious leaders, women and community activists and, when she returned
to Washington, was able to give administration officials her firsthand
assessment of the nascent reconstruction effort.
After leaving Bosnia, she met with leaders of Turkey and Greece and in
those countries promoted efforts on behalf of international development
and democracy. In Istanbul, five years before 9/11, Mrs. Clinton
presciently convened representatives of some of the world?s major
religions to advance a dialogue about religious reconciliation and ways
to counter religious extremism.
The video of her arrival on the tarmac in Bosnia may be great theater
and easy fodder for commentators, but it shouldn?t be allowed to obscure
what else was happening on this important trip when the cameras weren?t
rolling.
Obama Knows His Way around a Ballot by David Jackson & Ray Long, Chicago Tribune http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/chi-070403obama-ballot,0,1843097.story?,page=1
Some say his ability to play political hardball goes back to his first campaign%u2026.His overwhelming legal onslaught signaled his impatience to gain office, even if that meant elbowing aside an elder stateswoman like Senator Alice Palmer%u2026Obama%u2019s first campaign clouds the image he has cultivated throughout his political career%u2026first entered public office not by leveling the playing field, but by clearing it%u2026
Yeah, that''s right, Hillary: "a considered judgement". It is this judgement (ie: let''s invade Iraq) that the public no longer trusts. I''m not sure what you call this linguistic trick (Non-Sequitar? Noam, Help?), but HIllary is simply stating that she earlier made a statement, and then repeats that same statement, somehow implying that by doing all of the above, her original decision and it''s disastrous consequences are therefore vindicated. What a WONK! She truly doesn''t seem to realize that we are not interested in the chronology of how and when she said what she said. We are interested in the SUBSTANCE of WHAT she said. And she''s basically saying nothing to explain and justify her poor judgement.
Clintons, make way for a new paradigm of reason and peace.
Yeah, that''s right, Hillary: "a considered judgement". It is this judgement (ie: let''s invade Iraq) that the public no longer trusts. I''m not sure what you call this linguistic trick (Non-Sequitar? Noam, Help?), but HIllary is simply stating that she earlier made a statement, and then repeats that same statement, somehow implying that by doing all of the above, her original decision and it''s disastrous consequences are therefore vindicated. What a WONK! She truly doesn''t seem to realize that we are not interested in the chronology of how and when she said what she said. We are interested in the SUBSTANCE of WHAT she said. And she''s basically saying nothing to explain and justify her poor judgement.
Clintons, make way for a new paradigm of reason and peace.
Yeah, that''s right, Hillary: "a considered judgement". It is this judgement (ie: let''s invade Iraq) that the public no longer trusts. I''m not sure what you call this linguistic trick (Non-Sequitar? Noam, Help?), but HIllary is simply stating that she earlier made a statement, and then repeats that same statement, somehow implying that by doing all of the above, her original decision and it''s disastrous consequences are therefore vindicated. What a WONK! She truly doesn''t seem to realize that we are not interested in the chronology of how and when she said what she said. We are interested in the SUBSTANCE of WHAT she said. And she''s basically saying nothing to explain and justify her poor judgement.
Clintons, make way for a new paradigm of reason and peace.
The white, race-baiting, hard-right Republican Illinois Senate Majority Leader James %u201CPate%u201D Philip was replaced by Emil Jones Jr., a gravel-voiced, dark-skinned African-American known for chain-smoking cigarettes on the Senate floor.
Jones had served in the Illinois Legislature for three decades. He represented a district on the Chicago South Side not far from Obama%u2019s. He became Obama%u2019s kingmaker.
Several months before Obama announced his U.S. Senate bid, Jones called his old friend Cliff Kelley, a former Chicago alderman who now hosts the city%u2019s most popular black call-in radio -program.
I called Kelley last week and he recollected the private conversation as follows:
%u201CHe said, %u2018Cliff, I%u2019m gonna make me a U.S. Senator.%u2019%u201D
%u201COh, you are? Who might that be?%u201D
%u201CBarack Obama.%u201D
Jones appointed Obama sponsor of virtually every high-profile piece of legislation, angering many rank-and-file state legislators who had more seniority than Obama and had spent years championing the bills.
Yeah, that''s right, Hillary: "a considered judgement". It is this judgement (ie: let''s invade Iraq) that the public no longer trusts. I''m not sure what you call this linguistic trick (Non-Sequitar? Noam, Help?), but HIllary is simply stating that she earlier made a statement, and then repeats that same statement, somehow implying that by doing all of the above, her original decision and it''s disastrous consequences are therefore vindicated. What a WONK! She truly doesn''t seem to realize that we are not interested in the chronology of how and when she said what she said. We are interested in the SUBSTANCE of WHAT she said. And she''s basically saying nothing to explain and justify her poor judgement.
Clintons, make way for a new paradigm of reason and peace.
all he did is make one speech against the war at a protest in a liberal district (i.e. it was politically advantageous for him to be against the war) and if you''re truly opposed to something you do more than make a single speech and forget about it. he did not even attend the rally in washington or any number of the protests that went on in nyc. he did not start a petition or write articles against the war or even organize protests in his district. i was in high school at the time of that vote and had 16 year old friends who did more to oppose the war then he did.
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
... - 9
- next
See all 177 Comments