Just so you know, Hillary Clinton's crowds get excited too

Maybe some of you have seen recent news reports about a certain Democratic candidate for president who so excites the campaign crowds that they scream and shout and go crazy and an unusually large number of front-row females there faint and the cameras capture it as a sign of voter enthusiasm.

Well, not by accident, the other Democratic candidate wants you to understand that crowds at her  rallies are also excited and cheering and emotional, though maybe not to the point of fainting because they're more, shall we say, mature and under control.

Anyway, just in time for the crucial primary vote in Ohio and the primary/caucus in Texas on Tuesday, now we have a new campaign video to document all that.

--Andrew Malcolm 

Comments

[victor nkopp]

obamawouldashouldacoulda,if only he had a time machine the world would be perfect,the rapper generation is trying to carjack us all with unproven hindsight

[RedLine]

bruuuuuupt.....

While I'm arguing with Obama as to who is smarter,

bruuuuupt.....

Who is more qualified,

bruuuuptt.....

Who has the true experience to lead this country,

bruuupttt.....

the Red Phone is being unanswered because I'm too busy taking out my opponents in a health care battle, and so we all die in a nooocliyar attack.

And Daisy Dies....

The End.

[blackbox]

Hilary never had any respect for the military. In the white house as first lady, she insisted that officers not wear thier uniform while in the white house. What experience?
Flying around the world in junkets, staying at the best hotels, and enjoying her careless well protected vacations. What a joke. Obama has less experience. The only candidate with any experience is Mc Cain. That will be huge problem for the democrats.

[Dave]

Wow,that is so lame.She doesn't have anywhere near the crowds Obama has.She should save her pride(of course she has more than she needs) and money and stop her unwinnable campaign ASAP.

[N.Walter]

This article does sound like a last ditch effort to get people to see Hillary as popular as her opponant Obama.

(Or maybe that's the goal of that campaign, which after all is the one responsible for making and distributing the video?)

[SimpleRep]

A certain blogger who claims that the "rapper-generation" is trying to blind us with unproven hindsight? Aaah yes, as was about 80 years ago when the "kkk-generation" was trying to blind the nation with their hindsight which we now define as ignorance. That's the beauty of America, any texture of popular culture - albeit negative- CAN have a voice and can manipulate the hindsight of the masses. Is it right? Maybe not, but they have a right and are starting to look very successful, may I add. And only time will tell if their "unproven hindsight" is indeed blinding the nation.

The players change, but the rules stay the same in the "game" called presidential campaigns. Win at all costs within the limits of public diplomacy and scrutiny and above all play the manipulation-card led by the media to its maximum.

[mariz diamsay]

Why can't the American voters--especially the white male ones, and the screaming, fainting women--see through the real Obama? It's all gloss and surface popularity, with hardly a little real substance into what he says he beleives in? Are they bewitched or something?

[jennifer potenciano]

Obama may be leading the democratic race for now, but it doesn't necessarily mean he's the better option. I think Hillary is far superior than him--by all parameters and criteria.

Agreed that he and his team are expert idea cutter of everything that Hillary comes up with against him. Agreed that he has a way with wowing--and working-- the crowds.

But since he's being hyped up as the "new JFK" (omigosh, that looks like almost a sacrilege!), then he must bring some decency and, even more important, substance--and less of the hortatory anti-Hillary ad hominems ad nauseam that befits even an ersatz JFK clone. Look at how JFK handled his debates with Nixon--and you get the picture.

Obama must do the same, flash the same intellectual brilliance that JFK showed in those debates--as well as the chivalry in rebutting the arguments of a lady like Hillary (disagree without being disagreeable), even if her beef against him are so pointed.

No, Obama, you're utterly mistaken. Hillary's red phone 3 a.m. ad doesn't "scare up votes." You yourself say it's a "legitimate question" (whom will you trust in matters as volatile as the terrorists' plying their trade on the world scene).

Hillary just means to point out that it's dangerous to entrust a blind to lead the blind, or, at the least, one-eyed jacks to lead the blind. More to the point, it's dangerous for the American voters to allow a candidate to engender an amateurish American presidency, given the mix of very serious problems hounding America--and the rest of the world today.

By his own rantings, Obama is exactly doing that, lusting after the presidency with much dilletanteish passion.

By saying that he, Obama, would readily talk and meet with the US foes anytime and anywhere, even going to the war zone, Obama, if he were president, would be treading a dangerous ground. He would be unduly exposing the American presidency to grave risks, and the US president to the threat of outright assassination by non-squeamish, ruthless, jingoistic terrorists. If Obama were president, with this silly position, he'd be dead sitting duck, a mincemeat on Day One. Even more dangerous, he'd be bringing America to the edge of the precipice, or the deep ravine.

In contrast, Hillary offers a more well-thought-out policy. She, as US President, wants America's opponents to show a modicum of proof to show that they would want to negotiate in good faith, before she even strings up any series of talks with them.

That's the kind of decision that only Hillary's intellectual brilliance, wisdom and experience can engender, in contrast to Obama's hit-or-miss tactic.

It's time the Amercian voters woke up, and see beyond Obama's populist condescension. It's time all influential sectors in America--including the blacks, white male voters and the PRESS--rallied behind this great American lader, Hillary Rodham Clinton. If they miss out on Hillary nwo, it will be a long while before another of her kind comes along.

[jennifer potenciano]

in case my earlier posting never got in, le me repeat:

Obama may be leading the democratic race for now, but it doesn't necessarily mean he's the better option. By all criteria, Hillary is far superior to Obama.

By his recent rantings, Obama is showing his quest for a dilletanteish, ersatz presidency. No, Obama, the recent red phone 3 a.m. Hillary ad doesn't "scare up votes." You yourself admit it's a "legitimate qustion" (whom will you trust in mattters such as terrorists plying their trade on the world scene).

Hillary means that it would be foolhardy for the Americna voters to let the blind lead the blind, or, at the very least, for one-eyed kack to lead the blind. More to the point, it would be very, very dangerous to let an amateurish president given to populist condescension get the chance to hold the handle on US--ad world--politics.

On the contrary, it seems likely that it would be Obama who would bring America to the edge of the precipice--or to the deep ravine even--if he ever hacked it as White House tenant, with his recent rantings.

He vowed to at once talk directly--even go the war zone--with the US opponents once he becomes president. Doesn't Obama know that he'dbe exposing the US presidency to the gravest of dangers, with the US president threatened by assassination by ruthless, non-squeamish, jingoistic terrorists? Obama would be a dead siotting duck, a mincemat on Day One, if he ever makes it in Washington.

In contrast, Hillary offers a more well-thouthg-out policy. She says she'll require of America's enemies to show a modicum of proof that they want to negotiate (for peace)
in good faith.

That's the kind of decisins that only Hillary's intellectual brilliance, convictions and solid track record can engender, opposite Obama's spotty positions and record.

It's time all influential sectors in America--including all the blacks, the white male voters, and even the PRESS--rallied behind this great American leader, Hillary Rodham Clinton, who'll be far better than Margaret Thatcher, Indira Gandhi and Golda Meir combined. If the Aermicna voters miss out on Hillary now, it will be a long while before another of her kind comes along.

[ed]

Mariz Dismay,

Obama is captivating the public as did Bill Clinton in 1992. Young, energetic, campaigned for a change and a "new" America, the difference is his last name is Obama and his skin color. People couldn't see it then and perhaps they cannot see it now. All I know is, in voting for Bill Clinton and George W. Bush, nothing has changed in people's everyday life. We still wake up wondering how to pay the bills, turn on the tube to see who and how someone died, if not a war in Iraq another war somewhere else, gas prices fluctuating and for the most part increasing, and hope we live long enough to enjoy the little we save for retirement.

These Presidents, no matter who they are, will campaign for health care for "everyone", but they themselves would not use the doctors. They talk of the homeless, but they themselves would not open their own homes for shelter. They talk of a stronger foreign policy that if the U.S. doesn't create the conflict, someone other country will. They talk of domestic policies but racial tensions cease and then created two new groups are at each others throats and one group is always blamed for lack of jobs and a dwindling economy.

So, at least once every four years, whoever people see as the " 'knight' in shining armor", know that after elected, that same knight becomes a regular soldier that everyone will gripe and wine of his/her shortcomings.

The presidential electiont is just a ritual that happens every four years. The only person who benifits is the "new" president. He/She will embrace an office which is the ultimate goal for any person hungry for power in our land. However, our government is built on "checks and balances". The senate and the house are equally responsible for the success and failures of policies both domestic and international and the commander in chief is 1/3 of those decisions.

So, have fun until November. By January, the presidential "honeymoon" is over. And half the country will find a way to bitch again.

Thank you.

[J'me Forrest]

Hillary Clinton's new ad, like the rest of her campaign, just reminds me why I now support Barack Obama.

[TDF]

From NBC's Lisa Myers and Jim Popkin
Sen. Hillary Clinton has declined to return $170,000 in campaign contributions from individuals at a company accused of widespread sexual harassment, and whose CEO is a disbarred lawyer with a criminal record, federal campaign records show.

The federal government has accused the Illinois management consulting firm, International Profit Associates, or IPA, of a brazen pattern of sexual harassment including "sexual assaults," "degrading anti-female language" and "obscene suggestions."

In a 2001 lawsuit full of lurid details, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission claims that 103 women employees at IPA were victimized for years. The civil case is ongoing, and IPA vigorously denies the allegations.

"This is by far, hands down, the worst case I've ever experienced," said Diane Smason, one of the EEOC lawyers handling the lawsuit. "Every woman there experienced sex harassment, they were part of a hostile work environment of sex harassment. And this occurred from the top down."

Sen. Clinton's spokesman, Howard Wolfson, told NBC News in a statement that the senator decided to keep the funds because the lawsuit is "ongoing" and because none of the sexual harassment allegations has been proven in court.

"With regard to the pending harassment suit, as a general matter, the campaign assesses findings of fact in deciding whether to return contributions," Wolfson said.

I guess Hillary is a real supporter of a womans rights to be protected in the workplace!!!!!