Clinton: Success over idealism

[Alamom]

http://www.concordmonitor.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070824/NEWS01/708240371/1043/NEWS01


Campaign 2008


Clinton: Success over idealism


By SARAH LIEBOWITZ
Monitor staff -Concord Monitor


August 24. 2007 12:16AM


Political reality will dampen the ambitions and pledges of her Democratic presidential primary opponents, Hillary Clinton said yesterday in Concord.

>
Republicans "will go after anybody we nominate. Anyone who thinks that this election will be a runaway because it's so self-evident that we have to have a Democrat I don't think understands the intensity of the campaign that they will run," Clinton said. "It is important that our nominee have no illusions about the difficulty of this race. I have none."



It's "fair to say that the tactic used effectively will be to drive up the negatives of whoever our nominee is, and it will all be fresh information. It will all be, 'Oh, you didn't know. Let us tell you. Let us paint a caricature,' " Clinton said of Republican tactics. "Whereas I have the somewhat mixed but rather fortunate blessing of already starting with those negatives. And for me, that's a plus."

>

Years of Republican attacks have left Clinton with "rhino skin that no one else has," Neal Byles, an English teacher at Winnisquam Regional High School, said after listening to Clinton.


"What matters to me is things need to be done better and more competently than they have been done for years," said longtime Democratic activist and former Concord mayor Martin Gross, who is deciding between Clinton and Obama.

"The difference I detect now between the two candidates I'm torn about is I get a sense of feeling and high aspiration from Obama," Gross said. "I want to be inspired by who I support. From her, I get a sense of competence and experience."

[William769]

1. She is correct again.

Thanks for posting.

[HeraldSquare212]

2. It would be nice

to think she has nowhere to go but up. But I'm not anxious to test the proposition.

[MannyGoldstein]

3. Why Have A Leader If They Stand For Nothing At All?

It's amazing to me that since her catastrophic defeat over HillaryCare, Clinton has never once fought a legislative battle with Republicans, let alone ever won a legislative battle - rather, she has fled from battle at all times. She certainly doesn't articulately espouse any policies that our country needs to move forward - nor has she ever done so. She voted for the largest catastrophe of the last three decades (an unprovoked attack on Iraq), and was a big cheerleader for permanent "free" trade status for China, which has obliterated jobs.

Her point that she takes a lickin' and keeps on tickin' is understood, but I want a President that leads us forward, not a Timex watch. I'm not living in the US just to see it go to pieces. Either our country shapes up, or I'm shippin' out.

[durrrty libby]

4. "competence and experience."

Everyone I knows believes this too.

[cobalt1999]

7. I like Obama and Edwards, but the reason Hillary is getting my vote is...

We've had 8 years of incompetent and disastrous leadership. At this point someone reliable and experienced is required to pull this car out of the ditch. I just don't get the comfort feeling on 1 term Edwards or 1st term Obama.

Obama may be a great choice in 8 years though.

[rudy23]

8. You really think it's the incompetence?

I think it's ideology. I think the last 6 years are going pretty much how B*sh and the top 1% want it. I want to go with someone who's ideology favors the people over corporations.

[cobalt1999]

9. This is the perfect storm.

Incompetence and bad ideology. Reagan was all about ideology, Bush is not only taking us down the wrong road, but serving and hitting things along the way.

[rudy23]

10. Yeah, there's no reason it can't be both. I'd still take an inexperienced candidate of the people

over a competent corporatist. An inexperienced candidate can still surround themselves with experienced staff and advisors. You can't substitute for the President's core ideology though, that will have more impact on the shape of our country.

Besides, I don't see where Hillary has much more experience than anyone else in the pack.

[cobalt1999]

12. I don't really see much difference between the top three

To me, it comes down to who is going to be most effective working with Congress and who can repair our relationships with other countries. All the candidate will fill the air with rhetoric, and maybe I'm just old and jaded, but I don't see any revolutionary changes among any of the potential nominees.

Who knows, maybe I'll be surprised.

[rudy23]

14. No difference between Clinton and Edwards? Seriously?

Edwards looks like he'd be much more willing to take on the system of corporate lobbyists in DC--Hillary seems to embrace it. I can't agree that there's no difference, not at all.

[KaptBunnyPants]

18. Bush is not incompetent.

This is conservatism. This is how conservatism governs. Hillary, as the most right wing of all the potential Democratic candidates excluding Biden, is the candidate which will do the least to attack conservatism, thereby ensuring that the conservative movement will be in great shape come 2012. And with the Media Consolidation Act of 2010 allowing Rupert Murdoch to become the sole owner of all US media outlets, they will be even stronger this time. And the national death spiral continues.

[emilyg]

5. K&R

[killbotfactory]

6. "success over idealism"

NAFTA, Telecommunications act, Iraq War Resolution, Welfare "reform".

I don't want that kind of success anymore.

[The Backlash Cometh]

11. neo-con hidden agendas, and corporate interest over labor interest, etc.

[HughBeaumont]

15. Yeah. Success for WHOM?

Certainly not the middle class or the working poor.

[killbotfactory]

17. I can't afford much more of that type of success

I guess the promise of some kind of universal healthcare system at the end of her second term will keep me warm at night.

[BeyondGeography]

13. Success over idealism...Hmmmm, good luck with that inspiration-free campaign, Hillary

<"What matters to me is things need to be done better and more competently than they have been done for years," said longtime Democratic activist and former Concord mayor Martin Gross, who is deciding between Clinton and Obama.

"The difference I detect now between the two candidates I'm torn about is I get a sense of feeling and high aspiration from Obama," Gross said. "I want to be inspired by who I support. From her, I get a sense of competence and experience.">

You can safely put Mayor Gross in the Obama column.

[KaptBunnyPants]

16. Well, we know we won't get any idealism from Clinton.

She won't even try to make the difficult changes that the country needs. The Clinton's make good managers, but they are lousy leaders.

[hfojvt]

19. it depends on

what the definition of 'success' is.

Nobody denies pragmatism in accomplishing goals, but to think that 'goals' themselves can be pragmatic is kinda ridiculous. It's a way of saying that Republican ideals (make money, economic growth) are just more pragmatic than Progressive ideals (make friends, personal growth).

[desi]

20. "Republicans "will go after anybody we nominate."

"It's "fair to say that the tactic used effectively will be to drive up the negatives of whoever our nominee is, and it will all be fresh information. It will all be, 'Oh, you didn't know. Let us tell you. Let us paint a caricature,' " Clinton said of Republican tactics. "Whereas I have the somewhat mixed but rather fortunate blessing of already starting with those negatives. And for me, that's a plus."

Unfortunately it's not just the republicons as more and more threads on DU have and will continue to confirm.

[eridani]

21. That's very true

It applies to all the other candidates as well, however. She is in no way distinguished from the others here.

[Alamom]

22. Reading comprehension. Very refreshing..........

Disclaimer: Only a few responses seem to be clueless.....the same few as always. :eyes:

[GeorgeGist]

23. The competence and experience ...

to defeat idealism ... again. Oh my.