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
-
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.
From Our Partner:
Former president Clinton's firm adherence to the closing argument that his wife is the best qualified to be president has been a cause of quiet relief to those Hillary Clinton aides who had come to worry about his occasional freelancing. It has allowed the campaign to use Clinton in the final hours as they had hoped: As a charismatic advocate for the candidate, with a booming megaphone, who can help boost turnout in Iowa on Jan. 3.
But there is another subtext, as well. Clinton is able, some supporters believe, to help neutralize the concerns among women about the authenticity of the Clinton marriage. For those women, who may in the final hours remain uncertain about supporting the former first lady, it can be helpful to see her husband onstage demonstrating their personal connection.
The former president has been making stops both with his wife and on his own. During a church service in Waterloo, Iowa, last weekend, Clinton wrapped his arm around his wife as they listened to the preacher before introducing her as someone he had admired for more than three decades. On Friday and Saturday, Clinton was on his own, first in Iowa and then in New Hampshire. He is scheduled to return to Iowa on Sunday for another two full days of events -- starting in the western part of the state, while his wife is covering the opposite end of Iowa in the east -- before the two rejoin in Des Moines for a 10 p.m. rally on New Year's Eve.
At the VFW hall in Nashua, Clinton spent much of the 45-minute speech talking about the achievements of his own administration, and took several of his characteristic detours into the depths of policy detail, on the fine points of improving energy efficiency in buildings, expanding biofuels and reducing medical paperwork. But he made sure to veer back relatively quickly to his case for Hillary Clinton, describing her work in child advocacy before 1992 and her role in expanding health care and assisting in diplomatic ventures abroad while in the White House.
"If Hillary and I had not been married since 1975 and she had asked me to come here and I had known her all these years anyway, knowing what I do about the presidency and the demands of the current moment, I would come here in heartbeat to campaign for her," he said. "Because I think she's the best qualified person seeking the candidacy I've ever had a chance to vote for, including me in 1992."
That Clinton, who took no questions, hewed so tightly to the script of his usual pitch to undecided voters was particularly notable, given that he was addressing an audience of mostly committed supporters who already knew many of the things about Hillary Clinton that he was describing. He even asked them to sign campaign supporter cards, the standard entreaty to undecided voters, even though most in the room had already done so and were even signed up to volunteer before the primary.
But several of those in attendance said the speech had served a purpose, nonetheless, reminding them just how much they admire the Clintons and how important it is that the Clintons win back the White House. "It reinforces, it really does," said Betty Maddocks, a retired nurse from Nashua who was so excited about Clinton's election in 1992 that she and her husband went to Washington for a week for the inauguration. "The world loves Bill Clinton."
In an interview Saturday, former Iowa governor Tom Vilsack, a prominent Clinton ally in the state, said there was no doubt that the former president was still helping to sway undecided voters. "I was just with him for two days, and I can't tell you how many people came up to me after his talk to say, 'I didn't realize Hillary had done so many things in her life,' " he said. "He basically persuaded them to become Hillary Clinton supporters."
Kornblut reported from Eldridge. Staff writer Peter Baker in Iowa contributed to this report.
By Anne E. Kornblut and Alec MacGillis
© 2007 The Washington Post Company
|
Best-selling author Mitch Albom on his first nonfiction work since "Tuesdays with Morrie."
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
... - 21
- next
See all 411 CommentsWho blocked the Dems from withholding war funding?
Enough said!
http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/0108/Clinton_errs_on_Pakistan_.html
To call the Democrats rubber stamps means that you are either ignorant of the truth, too pigheaded to admit that you''re wrong or that you''ve just plain decided to tell a lie. Personally I think it''s the last one.
Posted by tuckerndfw at 11:43 AM : Jan 01, 2008
This is a complete and total lie and you constantly repeating it does not make it true. You are just plain lying.
Posted by tuckerndfw at 11:24 AM : Jan 01, 2008
DELAYED!!!! Not cut off! Not stopped! DELAYED! If they cut the funding off the GOP will bring the government to a halt. You either know that and are in denial or you aren''t able to grasp that simple truth. The Democrats do NOT have the votes to stop the war. They simply do not. You can lie that they do all you want, but your lies won''t give them enough votes to do it. You just want an excuse to rant about them and you''ll do it even if you have to make up bullsh*it like this.
Your entire post is a lie from top to bottom and you either know it or are pretending you don''t. I give up. You''ve got your head so far up your as*s on this issue that you can''t see the truth right in front of you. Either that or you just plain have no idea at all on how the American government functions. Any thinking person who has a basic grasp of civics (which you seem not to) knows that the Democrats do not have enough votes in the Congress to control it. I know it. Most people know it. You just can''t seem to grasp this most simple concept either because you''re ignorant or pretending to be. Either way you''re just flat out lying when you say they control Congress. You''re just flat out lying.
You''re beginning to sound more like billysmith6 every day with the same old tired and false claims about the Democrats. The only way they could stop the GOP is to grind the government to a halt and cut off funding for everyone. Now why in the world would the fu*ck up every-one''s life just to try to prove a point against Bush? It not only would be political suicide (which is why I believe you''re pushing for it), but it would be shooting America in the foot just to spite Bush. It makes no sense. It''s not, as you falsely claim, lack of courage, it''s an abundance of intelligence. Grinding the government to a halt looks good on a bumper sticker, but everyone, Democrat and republican, would lose. Since you claim to be an intelligent person the only conclusion I can come to is that you want the Democrats to use the "nuclear option" just so you get to applaud their destruction and that you don''t actually give a da*mn about the consequences for America at all. Face it, you''re showing neocon colors.
Posted by realpatriot1 at 07:18 PM : Dec 31, 2007
I''ll second that. It appears he chose option B, pretending to be fu*cking ignorant. People want to point the finger at the Democrats, but anyone with the most basic grasp of American civics knows that the Democrats are not in control of congress because they just don''t have enough votes. So Bush vetoes everything progressive they try to do and then cynically accuse them of doing nothing. He''s lying through his teeth an so is anyone else who tries to blame the Democrats for not being able to get around the obstructionist GOP. Either that or they choose option B too, just plain fu*cking stupid.
Tucker has admitted on the site today that he''s spent the day drinking. Considering what illogical drivel he posts on a regular basis don''t expect much elementary comprehension from him.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted by SgtRDS at 07:02 PM : Dec 31, 2007
+ report abuse
Hey sarge I see you using your usual colorful language. I might remind you of the fact that the democrats with majorities in both houses of congress and control of the whitehouse in bill''s first two years did such an inept job that they lost 43 members in the house of representatives giving the republicans the majority in both houses.
Makes sense to me (NOT!!!!). . .
Posted by tuckerndfw at 06:06 PM : Dec 31, 2007
Let me explain this in very simple terms so that even a simpleton like you can understand it. The Democrats are NOT in control of the Congress, because in order for them to be in control when a person of the other party is president they have to have a 2/3 majority in order to override his veto. they do NOT have a 2/3 majority so they are NOT in control. they can (and have) try to make as many positive changes as they want to, but when the as*shole in the White House vetoes the changes they do NOT have enough votes to override the chimps'' veto. That''s know as the GOP being obstructionists so then they can lie their as*ses off by saying the Democrats aren''t doing anything when it''s they themselves who are blocking the necessary legislation.
Understand now? Or do you prefer to pretend to be so fu*cking ignorant that you don''t understand? Your choice.
Posted by tuckerndfw at 05:26 PM : Dec 31, 2007
No they haven''t. It''s the obstructionist republicans who block them from making real changes because they don''t have a veto proof majority. It''s asinine to blame the Democrats by saying that they''re in charge when they are not. Without a veto proof majority it''s still the republican/Bush as*skissers fu*cking things up, as usual.
Posted by SgtRDS
Did not your Demonratically controlled congress just last week vote to support the war with more funds?? Billions!! LOL
I hope you get her, but remember, a year after she is in office and every body is crying "well I did not vote for her" and I ask, well who did? I want to see your hand in the air! LOL
Posted by hungry1968 at 09:37 AM : Dec 31, 2007
It was the GOP rubber-stamp Congress that gave him everything he asked for and tons of extras that they wanted. Between Bush and the GOP Congressmen they raped the treasury. Some try to spread some of the blame to the Democrats, but that''s ludicrous.
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
... - 21
- next
See all 411 Comments