NASHUA, N.H., Dec. 30, 2007
Bill Clinton Sells Hillary's Experience
Washington Post: Former President Says Wife Will "Deal With The Unexpected" Better Than Her Rivals
-
Photo
Former president Bill Clinton introduces his wife, Democratic presidential hopeful and Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton, D-N.Y., prior to her speaking to local residents during a campaign stop, Wednesday, Dec. 26, 2007, Mount Pleasant, Iowa. (AP)
-
Play CBS Video
Video
Covering The Clinton Campaign
"Only On The Web": CBS News' Fernando Suarez provides a behind-the-scenes look at reporting on Hillary Clinton's campaign, both by land and by air.
-
Video
Clinton Ad: 'Stakes'
Hillary Clinton's latest ad airing in Iowa and N.H. has no narration other than "...I approve this message." Included are images of Hurricane Katrina, foreclosure signs, and a national debt clock.
-
Photo Essay
Hillary Clinton
A look at a life and career full of firsts.
-
Photo Essay
Clinton's 8 Years
The former president's travels abroad, and triumphs and troubles at home.
Former president Bill Clinton yesterday delivered in stark terms a version of his wife's central campaign message: that her experience in Washington better prepares her to "deal with the unexpected."
Addressing more than 100 supporters at a VFW hall here Saturday, Clinton used the strongest language he has so far in the campaign to describe the threats facing the nation, making an oblique reference to the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, and saying that the "most important thing of all" in selecting a nominee is the question of who could best manage unforeseen catastrophes.
"You have to have a leader who is strong and commanding and convincing enough . . . to deal with the unexpected," he said. "There is a better than 50 percent chance that sometime in the first year or 18 months of the next presidency, something will happen that is not being discussed in this campaign. President Bush never talked about Osama bin Laden and didn't foresee Hurricane Katrina. And if you're not ready for that, then everything else you do can be undermined. You need a president that you trust to deal with something that we will not discuss in this campaign. . . . And I think, on this score, she's the best of all."
After trying out various themes and rationales for her campaign, Hillary Clinton has settled in the final week before the Iowa caucuses and New Hampshire primary on the experience plank, arguing that she is the only one of the front-running Democratic candidates prepared to lead from the first day in office, a claim her rivals have challenged by questioning the value of her tenure as first lady. Clinton advisers noted privately this week that the experience argument was bolstered by the assassination of former Pakistani prime minister Benazir Bhutto and the threat of wider unrest in that country. Clinton pressed the point during a stop in Eldridge, Iowa, telling reporters: "I'm not asking you to take me on faith. I'm not asking you to take a leap of faith."
But the campaign has apparently decided that the person best able to make this case in the bluntest terms is the former president. "Who better to explain what it takes to be president than the last two-term president the Democrats have had since FDR?" said Mark Penn, chief strategist for the Clinton campaign.
Bill Clinton has been edging closer in recent weeks to arguing that the country would be taking a chance if voters nominated someone with less experience in Washington, a dig at her main rivals, former senator John Edwards of North Carolina and Sen. Barack Obama of Illinois. Speaking in Plymouth, N.H., last week, he said that his wife would be best suited to handle the challenges of terrorism, climate change and income inequality. He hinted that if these challenges were not met, the world, or at least American democracy, might be in peril in the coming decades.
"How we meet those challenges will determine whether our grandchildren will even be here 50 years from now at a meeting like this listening to the next generation's presidential candidates," Clinton said in Plymouth. He did not elaborate on what he meant by the prospect of the audience members' grandchildren not being there in 50 years.
His comments Saturday were incorporated directly into his standard stump speech and not ad-libbed. In past weeks, he has argued that there are three reasons to nominate his wife: her vision, her plans and her record. In Nashua, he said there was a fourth reason: her ability to deal with unseen threats.
It is a type of election argument most often adopted by incumbent candidates. In President Bush's 2004 reelection campaign, Vice President Cheney invoked a particularly bold form of it, warning of the consequences of a John Kerry election for the nation's security against terrorism: "If we make the wrong choice, then the danger is that we'll get hit again -- that we'll be hit in a way that will be devastating from the standpoint of the United States."
The Edwards campaign warned recently that the Clinton campaign would try to play on voters' national security fears in the closing days before voting in Iowa and New Hampshire. "We know that Senator Clinton will spend the week touting her national security credentials in a move that echoes George Bush's 2004 campaign," said a memo written by Jonathan Prince, deputy campaign manager for Edwards. "We believe Democrats will not be fooled by efforts to play on their fears."
Hillary Clinton caused a slight stir on the trail several months ago when she argued at a house party in New Hampshire that she would be better prepared to respond to Republican tactics if there were a terrorist attack sometime during the general election campaign.
"It's a horrible prospect to ask yourself, 'What if? What if?' "Clinton told voters in Concord. "But, if certain things happen between now and the election, particularly with respect to terrorism, that will automatically give the Republicans an advantage again, no matter how badly they have mishandled it, no matter how much more dangerous they have made the world." She added that she would be the best Democratic candidate "to deal with that."
By Anne E. Kornblut and Alec MacGillis
© 2007 The Washington Post Company





- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
...
- 9
- next
See all 411 CommentsShe was First Lady, nothing more. No high level national or international meetings.
Planning the White House menu and the proper way to make and serve tea does NOT equate into the all the experience they both want you to feel she has.
"The enemy isn''t liberalism, the enemy is not conservatism, the enemy is b^llsh^t".
Columnist Lars-Erik Nelson (deceased)
"Who is the more foolish...........the fool or the fool that follows him?."
How come the MSM doesn''t showcase him?
He''s so much less polarizing.
She must have taken him to the woodshed, or maybe even to bed......
This woman has none of the seasoned experience US voters have traditionally depended upon. Never a military general in a significant war, nor governed a state, nor mayor of a significant city, nor a majority leader, nor a minority leader, nor negotiated with foreign heads of state on foreign policy issues. Not even a +decade seasoned senator with the authorship of serious legislation under her belt.
Let''s flip the rolls for a second. Let''s pretend Hillary won the presidency back in 1992 instead of Bill, and Bill was along for the ride. Now in 2008 Bill wants to be president based on HILLARY Clinton''s Record And HIS White House Experience. How many sane Americans would take that a viable experience for a MALE (and therefore, a female) presidential candidate? Couple that with her insatiable sense of entitlement and what an amazing joke.
Posted by tuckerndfw at 02:37 PM : Dec 30, 2007
I am an Independent and could never vote for Hillary, Romney, Huckabee or Paul.
The reason why I''ve eliminated Romney and Hillary from sonsideration is the same one - simultaneously speaking our of both sides of their mouths.
Paul and Huckabee, because they are flat morons.
Posted by tuckerndfw at 02:53 PM : Dec 30, 2007
You wouldn;t think so the way that Bush is steamrolling all of his garbage through the house and senate. Dammn near everything he asked for he''s recieved except for his "Amnesty For Illegal Aliens Plan".
The 2008 election should be a breeze for the Democrats, but with Hillary in the running it will be more like an uphill climb that will also affect the congressional races.
Regardless of who wins in Iowa or New Hampshire, I think February 5th (the big day) is going to be the day the nomination is decided, and it just may be a surprise for everyone - including Hillary and Obama.
Good Gawd! What a total bunch of krap!
Hillary has been fighting for women and family rights all her life.
She has stood up and faced off the WORST bastwards of this country, and lifted herself up out of the literal crucifixtion of her married life.
She knows that without corporations and capitalism the country has no economy. And that compromises have to be made for win win situations for people AND corporations.
She knows that the Iraqi war has to be ended, but she is also not naive enough to think we can just walk away without aforethought and planning. Unlike Bush when he took us into it. Remember the whole country was convinced by Cheney that the Iraq''s would be throwing flowers at us when we entered the Iraq.
She has began the fight for universal health care YEARS ago! And but for the republicans refusing to open doors for funding it, we''d already have it. And this country could have saved BILLIONS already.
Plus, she has in her support group one of the finest ex presidents in history.
Throw your stupidity and rocks all you want at the Clintons, after all you''re the idiots that elected George Bush TWICE!
Posted by bucktooth99 at 03:45 PM : Dec 30, 2007
Yes.
Posted by facts6 at 03:20 PM : Dec 30, 2007
The scary part is that she is unquestionably better than anything the republicans have to offer. If a republican wants to win the nomination, he better switch his affiliation to independent, green party, or satanist. Carrying the (R) is a death blow.
Posted by j-whitman at 03:46 PM : Dec 30, 2007
He renounced his party affiliation with the republicans a few months back and he''s now a registered Independent. He''s got my vote if he runs!!
Posted by bucktooth99 at 03:51 PM : Dec 30, 2007
No - his universal dental plan for NYC residents is designed to cure bucked tooth people.
(Just kidding!! He doesn''t have a universal dental plan - but buck toothed people do need to be cured!!)
Posted by bucktooth99 at 03:48 PM : Dec 30, 2007
Yep, all good men. JFK was a great man and he scre*wed around. My dad was a great man and he scre*wed around. I''m a pretty good guy and I used to scre*w around. It''s in the genes.
Posted by hungry1968 at 03:52 PM : Dec 30, 2007
Careful or you''ll be hearing from the BTADL (The Buck Tooth Anti-Defamation League)!
Posted by bucktooth99 at 03:45 PM : Dec 30, 2007
Yes.
SgtRDS, you are a pervert.
Posted by bucktooth99 at 03:55 PM : Dec 30, 2007
All great men had a very high *** drive. It''s part of the whole package.
Posted by bucktooth99 at 03:55 PM : Dec 30, 2007
FDR, JFK, RFK, MLK, WJC....all of them great men who had a high se*x drive.........
Fact.
Posted by tuckerndfw at 03:59 PM : Dec 30, 2007
If the Democratic ticket was Pee Wee Herman and Bozo the Clown they''d still win in a walk. There are no republicans running that can beat any of the Democrats running. The 2008 election goes to the Democrats no matter who they nominate.
Fact.
Posted by bucktooth99 at 04:01 PM : Dec 30, 2007
The big mistake he made was when he was asked about his scr*ewing around he should have told the press that it was none of their godda*mn business, because it wasn''t and isn''t. Scre*wing around was between him and his wife and it''s nobody else''s business.
Posted by facts
They Shiver because it''s cold, but they stand in it to show a resolve, and that is to change America for the better.. All you nat sayers will find out that she will be a great President.. The Mothers, and Fathers that have kids over their fighting their butts off , and nobody guarding their backs.. All those people that had to buy their loved ones Flack jackets, because the Republicans wouldn''t supply them to our soldiers.. In every war we fought, from 1776 on, we made the losers lay down their arm''s, so what does are Republican leadership do.. They tell the Iraqis they can keep their weapons, and then give them more.. I wonder just how many of our guys were shot in the back by one of those weapons.. You Republicans had your chance, and You & bush have taken us to the gutter.. We are hated all over the World, and we need a BIG change.. It''s time for a women to lead us, and Hillary has more experience then anyone on either side of this race.. My vote will go to her.
LOL
Posted by bucktooth99 at 04:05 PM : Dec 30, 2007
He still should have told him (nicely because Jim Leher is a nice guy) to mind his own da*mn business. It''s noboy''s business if the president is fooling around on his wife. It just ain''t.
Got to run to the store. back soon. Play nice.
You ARE All a bunch of LOSERS!
You can write all the bushit you want ! You`ve ruined our country long enough ! Go to FAUX News !
Posted by mcv57 at 04:06 PM : Dec 30, 2007
As long as he doesn''t actually touch the goat, what''s the problem?
:-)
LOL
Posted by UserVerfied at 04:07 PM : Dec 30, 2007
It''s a brilliant strategy actually. Use the best / most popular president of the last 27 years to campaign on her behalf is an excellent strategy.
How many republicans are asking Bush for his endorsement, or to come to one of their campaign rallies?
HAHA!! LOL!!
If he comes near them, they start throwing holy water at him and they hold up their crucifix''s like their trying to ward off the devil!!!
Too funny!! HAHA!! LOL!!
The Clinton scandals will all get to be revisited, including his alleged rapes, if Dems are stupid enough to nominate Hillary.
Posted by tuckerndfw at 04:11 PM : Dec 30, 2007
He CHOSE to make them public?
And since when is consensual *** considered "RAPE"??
It''s Richter, stupid.
Posted by SgtRDS at 03:44 PM : Dec 30, 2007
Whoever said FDR was a good president?
Posted by tuckerndfw at 04:11 PM : Dec 30, 2007
Actually no. She had filed a civil suit and it had been ordered delayed until after he was out of office.
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
...
- 9
- next
See all 411 Comments