A Symphony Of "Senator Clintons"

Exclusive: a new video produced by the Clinton campaign to propell the "Politics Of Pile On" theme that's being to rebut charges that Clinton had an off-night.
.

Using reptition, the Clinton campaign wants to keep the focus on the big picture. And most newspaper headlines this morning seemed to agree, painting Clinton as a recipient of attacks or charges, and not actively, as a flubber or a calculator.

Comments

The topic of great conversation and consternation?

I thought that was President Bush and his administration. Oh,wait! Clinton is more of that same cartoon character: More secrecy, more war mongering, more power hungry, more doubletalk.

Maybe she'll just go away and we will get our country back.

Posted by JoAnnCr | October 31, 2007 4:55 PM

GOOD ONE.
i found the debate to be basically a disgust. what kind of journalists/mediators run such a trumped-up hack job? mrs. clinton was ADMIRABLE to stand up thru the constant attacks from all sides, and in front. and geez, nothing but disheartening to listen to democratic candidates tearing apart a colleague and front-runner. the republicans of america must have been LOVING IT.
carry on hillary. you continue to impress.

Posted by democrat abroad | October 31, 2007 4:55 PM

i think something is wrong with tim russert. he has a hard on for Hillary while the others get a bye. russert tried to trip her up on the last debate with his sneaky William Jefferson Clinton quote. He needs this manufactured fight to keep people watching his fat ass. He's been a jerk to Hillary all along.

Posted by gregg | October 31, 2007 5:22 PM

He shouldn't have given anyone any softballs, granted, but I don't think he was being too hard on her. She's the frontrunner, and for everything he asked her, I wanted to hear the answer.

Posted by Phoebe | October 31, 2007 6:17 PM

Asking Hillary to take a stand and tell the truth is not a "pile on." Hillary was the only truly disgusting person on that stage.

Tell me, someone, where on earth does she stand, and when, oh when, does she ever tell the truth.

Posted by Bethany | October 31, 2007 10:27 PM

I agree that the moderators are representative of the corporate press and the underlying assumptions of their questions (namely that Iran needs to be stopped from getting the bomb) were infuriating.
What kind of idiot thinks that a third world country threatens the greatest nuclear power in the world?
Hillary, that's who. She agrees with the right-wing media assumptions, but she doesn't want to be nailed on it. Sometimes I feel the media is hard on her. I understand WHY she voted for the IWR and kyle-leiberman - completely. I understand her reasoning, but I disagree with it. I can't respect it and I think it goes to the heart of why she is unfit to be president.
She's just Democratic enough to make them hate her, but plenty conservative enough for them to manipulate her.

Posted by Joe | November 1, 2007 1:58 AM

Hillary Rocks! And here we go again with the Democratic front-runner bashing... Bethany should be disgusted with herself - having bashed the Hillster blog, after blog, after blog... what is your agenda, Bethany (duh)? Can we please have some Democratic objectivity here - in this blog? Seems there's still a chance. And Joe, above post, where on earth are you coming from (bla, bla bla)? Who cares...? We need a strong, Democratic candidate that can kick republican ass in '08!

Reset your compasses - and don't attack me - just get real AND UNITE!!!

Posted by Ray B | November 1, 2007 2:59 AM

To put Hilary in the same league as W. is absurd. There has never been a worse, more dangerous, more mentally unbalanced, dry drunk than George W. Bush ever to occupy the White House. I only hope we survive until January '09.

Posted by Lescoeurs | November 1, 2007 7:15 AM

Clinton wasn't the only one on the stage to take one in the chin. Biden called out Richardson, Dodd called out Edwards, Obama flatly disagreed with Dodd on the license issue, and Russart ended Kucinich's campaign with the UFO question. The entire field used their elbows in that debate. So she was finally pressed to give a definitive answer on a few issues...so what!

I am puzzled by the assertion that everyone "piled on" the frontrunner. She's plenty capable of holding her own, isn't she? Have we already forgotten that Clinton is the one who suggested in a previous debate that her toughened, thick skin is better prepared than others to withstand the searing heat that the Republican attack machine will certainly direct on the Democratic nominee? And as for Russert targeting her, well, take a look at her appearance on the Meet the Press Candidate series and remark at the kid-glove treatment she received from Russert during that show.

It was time for the other candidates to underscore the fact that Clinton is the establishment/status quo candidate; that she is beholden to some of the most powerful special interests; and most importantly that she is the Israeli Lobby's candidate of choice. Her vote on Iran makes that last assertion abundantly clear. She has less experience than any of the other candidates as an elected official, and regardless of her position as First Lady, her husband made the decisions during that administration, not her. No question that she's bright and capable as a Senator, but her previous time in the White House does not make her uniquely qualified to be President.

I voted for her husband twice. But she lost my vote many years ago when she voted to authorize the use of force in Iraq. She made a similarly dangerous vote on Iran a few weeks ago. My choices are clear.

Posted by another democrat abroad | November 1, 2007 8:48 AM