« Papa Bear Is Here | Main | Mike Murphy, An Old Hand, Checks Out McCain »

Clinton Speaks Truth To Power, Bill O'Reilly, A Fire Marshal, And A Huge Crowd

05 Jan 2008 11:32 am

The surreal moments that preceded Hillary Clinton's town hall here might have been avoided if her campaign anticipated a turnout befitting a candidate on the rise.

500 people RSVPd for the event at the Merrimack High School here.

1000 showed up, 9:30 a.m, on a Saturday.

There was no overflow room and at least 100 folks were barred from the auditorium because a fire marshal said the room wasn't big enough.

Clinton herself was forced to play site advance -- urging, in strong words -- the fire marshal to change his mind.

"I want the fire marshal to see that there are more places for more people to come in," she said. " You come to a lot of trouble to get out this morning. We appreciate the enthusiasm. We've got a couple over here and one back there," she said, pointing to empty chairs.

Later, she asked audience members to raise their hand if they had empty seats next to them.

She then asked her daughter Chelsea to remove a barrier set up by the Secret Service in order to accommodate more people.

"Cheals, just want to take that off. People can just sit down, so people aren't up against the bar there."

The audience erupted in cheers.

"See? I am a problem solver, Clinton said. "I've been telling you that for this whole campaign," she said.

In the commotion, Clinton heard the cry of a toddler.

"I know honey. Sometimes, I feel that way too."

Clinton took her first question from a woman who said that Bill O'Reilly, who stood about 40 feet away from Clinton's left, asked her about Clinton's troop withdrawal plan from Iraq.

"Bill O'Reilly!" Clinton said, gesturing to the talk show host.

The crowd started to jeer, but Clinton raised her hand: "Oh no, no no -- he gets at least some credit for being here."

And she launched into a five minute disquisition on Iraq.

And then health care, which animated Clinton and the audience. Clinton lit into Obama's health care plan using harsher language than I've heard. "It's wrong on its approach, it's wrong on its merits," she said, "and it would cede to Republicans the argument that you can't cover everyone."

I thought Clinton's turn as director played well, but we'll see how several of the eminent
grises
in the press row -- Bob Novak, E.J. Dionne, Gwen Ifill -- interpret it.

Comments (44)

Wow! 1,500 people at 9:30 am on a Saturday. She is showing that she can take a punch and be still standing! This is what we want in a president! New Hampshire will choose Hillary on Tuesday! We need her experience and wisdom in thw WH to counter the Bush years! People are making a big mistake writing her off. The Demcrats across the country (unlike the young people who frequent these blogs) love her and are going to make her our nominee.

I feel I am in love with my country again. I really do. Yes, I am former foreigner, but I came here as an infant. Is that wrong for a former foreigner to love America?

The polls show Obama leading in NH.

http://rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/election_20082/2008_presidential_election/new_hampshire/election_2008_new_hampshire_democratic_primary

So is Hillary officially "on the rise" in New Hampshire? Or is this burst of support just a desire by NH voters to see HRC one last time before Obama puts her away...

http://www.political-buzz.com/

Bill O asked, "And she launched into a five minute disquisition on Iraq."


Hilary's ability to dive into policy detail, right off the cuff, is one of the things I love about this lady. She has an intimate knowledge of how all the levers and intertwined agencies of government work that is beyond the pale. It does not make her a rockstar, but it will make her a damn good president.

Wake UP, Democrats! We need solutions, not warm fuzzy emotions toward Republicans!

Umm, now I know who Mark is supporting. I was at that event and Hillary was good, but not speaking truth to power goood. I've always admired her policy wonkiness, something she shares with Bill. But with all her campaign slogan changes, I'm still wondering who she is. She doesn't have the ability to connect with large groups, she doesn't have Bill's ability to "feel your pain", she reminded me of Reese Witherspoon in the movie election. In addition, she is very good at tearing people down, but I still see her as a woman with no vision, or at least any vision she would trust to the American people with. I walked away feeling that maybe the reason she can't relax in public is that she doesn't trust us.

What was up with that "candidate on the rise" remark ?

Only 1,000 for Clinton? Here is the first part of "The Fix's" write up on Obama's event:

"NASHUA, N.H. -- The line snaked for at least a half mile from the entrance of Nashua North High School. The first people in it had arrived at 7:30 a.m. -- two-and-a-half hours before Barack Obama was scheduled to start speaking. One woman had driven from West Hartford, Conn. The crowd was estimated at 3,000 and looked every bit of that number.

The movement has begun."

Hillary Plummets in New Hampshire

Obama, 37%
Clinton, 27%
Edwards, 19%

http://rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/election_20082/2008_presidential_election/new_hampshire/election_2008_new_hampshire_democratic_primary

THANK YOU, IOWA

You humbled the mighty and awarded the tiny

Power to the people!

I am apparently one of the few young black males who appreciates Hillary's clear, practical, and mature approach to politics. If voters like me should abandon her, I would like to know three things from her rivals:

1) If Sen. Obama really believes that his two years in the Senate and ability to make nice speeches qualifies him to be President over someone who has spent 35 years working for political causes, including three times as many years in the Senate and 8 years as an advisor and confidante in a successful White House administration?

2) I also need to know where the beef is in the change argument: I have heard thin abstractions about hope and unity, but what concrete policies do Sens. Obama and Edwards plan to put in place to achieve this? And if the candidates haven't yet come up with specific policies to create change, isn't "change" just an empty and ultimately cynical campaign calculation?

3) Also, Hillary has spent 16 years fighting scrutiny from the GOP, and to her credit she is still standing and thriving. I would like to know whether or not the other candidates acknowledge and admire her toughness, and what in their background or breeding equips them to withstand the vicious Republican attack machine that we already know she has the skills to survive?

I'm glad to see your report on Hillary in NH. At least you give her some credit. In the last four month I've watched the newspaper bylines: Wall St J., Washington Post 80% negative on Hillary. NY Times 55% negative. Why are all these big papers (like Fox network) so negative on her campaign. If their reports were factual, Hillary's campaign would have died long ago. Instead, she leads across the country, including New Hampshire. Certainly she is the only electable Democratic front runner this year.

I applaud her, rightfully so.

The unstated part is how she would answer Kucinich's comments on Bill Moyers show last night:
(http://www.pbs.org/moyers/journal/01042008/transcript3.html)
"Think about this. I'm the only candidate in either party who's saying that with 47 million Americans uninsured, another 50 million Americans underinsured, it's time for us to go to a not-for-profit system. That would cost the for-profit system hundreds of billions of dollars. And so, you know, I'm the only voice on that. And, frankly, I think I'm the voice of the mainstream in America in asserting that. And that point was not given a chance to be expressed. As a matter of fact, the AARP-- ".

If we are going to talk about single-payer healthcare, let's cut the crap and quit wrapping the facts in verbiage. Either we get 100% healthcare (as in 'everybody' is covered) or we don't. You are either for it or against it, not with conditions that allow the insurance industry (who is contributing big time to both sides of the aisle)to maintain their supreme profitability at the cost of pain, suffering and death of the public.

And the fact that ABC will not allow him to participate in Saturday Night's debate.

I wouldn't expect Hillary Clinton or her supporters to give up the ship after one defeat, although Obama supporters on the blogs seem to think that both she and Edwards should concede immediately. One suggested that we should bow down and kiss his ring (now he's the Pope?!!!) and another, in all seriousness, suggested that he is a Bodhisattva. Should be a fascinating election if Barack Obama, a living Bodhisattva, goes up againstMike Huckabee, Christ's representative on earth. The heavens will open. Seriously though, Barack Obama makes exceptionally good speeches. However, there is a bit of excessive praise, almost a mania, to the Barack phenomenon at this point. One supporter (in a New York Times' blog) said that Obama's Iowa speech was one of the most memorable speeches of a lifetime, comparable to the Gettysburg Address. If that's the case, I challenge listeners to recite from memory any memorable line, aside from the repeated emphasis on 'hope' 'change', etc. Obama is blessed with an incredibly rich voice and a beautiful cadence and has the ability to move people using broad themes. This is one of any politician's best assets. I'm still supporting John Edwards, however. He is the only candidate who continues to speak with conviction and strength about the plight of Americans living in poverty, and is the candidate whose policies are actually much more progressive than those put forward by Obama. I would like to see us enter this race with a candidate whose healthcare plan actually covers all Americans and doesn't leave 15 million without coverage. Edwards is optimistic, but his optimism is grounded in realism. On a personal level this involves the way he and Elizabeth coped with the death of his 16 year old son, and with her cancer. On a political level, it is evident from his realization that it is going to take far more than nice thoughts about 'hope' and 'unity' to take on the corporate interests that are going to array against the progressive economic policies, healthcare legislation, and energy policy we want to see passed. It IS going to be a political battle, and it is going to take conviction and courage to win it. It is also going to take a bigger democratic majority in Congress. I still believe that with his rural, working class southern roots, Edwards is the candidate who can compete most strongly across the entire United States. We need a candidate who can reach out to "Reagan democrats." Some are saying that this is 'old politics.' If working and fighting for economic justice, better pay, truly comprehensive healthcare, speaking for the voiceless is 'old politics' then I'll stay old-fashioned. At least I know where this man stands, and I will stand with him. With his strong populist progressive message, and his background, John Edwards is doing this. I was helping manage one of his Iowa caucuses, and we had several self-identified independents, and a Republican small business owner, attend the caucus for the first time and align themselves with John Edwards' message. Don't get me wrong. I like Barack Obama. He is my senator and I worked for his election in Illinois. I can understand the passion he evokes in some of his followers. But I worked for Edwards four years ago, and there are still moments from that campaign, and from this one, that I also had feelings we were looking at another RFK for the democratic party. So Obama supporters need to understand that others (including even some Hillary backers) actually have passion and commitment to their candidate. Most important, I still feel in my gut that Edwards is the one who would have the strongest 'coattails' in the general election, and is the man whose experience and life story will make him a great President of the United States. My own feeling is that Hillary Clinton, because her principal message was her inevitability, will now be falling in the polls. I hope that supporters from the campaigns of other candidates (Biden, Dodd, Richardson, Kuchinich, perhaps even a few of Ms. Clinton's supporters themselves), will consider Mr. Edwards at this point.

DK, you said "Also, Hillary has spent 16 years fighting scrutiny from the GOP, and to her credit she is still standing and thriving."

She is obviously standing, but I don't see her thriving. 50% of the country says they would never consider voting for her. Assuming that is 100% the fault of the GOP attack machine, they certainly have left her limping, with even many democrats saying they would vote for a republican or third party choice if she is the nominee. How is that thriving? I would say it's not.

For the benefit of us dummies:

disquisition \dis-kwuh-ZISH-uhn\, noun:
A formal discourse on a subject.

éminence grise (-m-näs grz)
n. pl. éminence grises (-m-näs grz)
A powerful adviser or decision-maker who operates secretly or unofficially. Also called gray eminence

Marc,
were they by any chance serving Kool Aid at this Hillary event? And why did you have to drink the whole bowl?

LOL LOL

HRC after IA defeat said in NH something like:

IA was not a true primary. People who work did not get to vote. NH voters are true voters, etc, etc.

HRC after NH defeat next week will say something like this in SC:

NH voters are not true democrats. They are independents. We need SC voters who are true democrats to determine the next president.

As Percy Sledge lamented, "loving eyes can't ever see".

Howard Dean and and the establishment Democrats are so enamored of Mrs. Clinton, that they cannot see that her negatives far outweigh her positives.

Nepotism and name recognition candidates represent the failed past. The electorate wants genuine change, not the same old crap, in a new wrapper.

California and the NE may settle for another re-shuffle, the rest of the nation wants a whole new deck.

Who should I believe? USA Today had the following, very different assessment of the same event
.........Hillary Clinton looked around the gym at Merrimack High School in Penacook, N.H., this morning, and didn't like what she saw -- empty chairs, empty bleachers. She urged her aides to go get some of the scores of people waiting in the hallways and outside on the sidewalk.......is Marc painting a rosy picture of her event or is USA Today painting a negative picture? And this is even the FOX Channel!!

Barack Obama if he is the nominee will lose the presidential race in a land slide and will also take down the Democratic congress. He is an extreme, left-wing liberal who will be rejected outright by middle America.

If Democratic primary voters are stupid enough to nominate an untested, inexperienced, left wing, one-term senator the results would be well deserved. He will be as big a disaster to the party as McGovern.

Ok, I really want all of the Obama supporters here to tell me in a small summary, what exactly is Obama trying to change? I keep hearing him speak in all of these revolutionary terms, but it seems he's always vague on exactly what change is. I thought perhaps the answer might lie in his record, but when I researched there, I noticed that all of his votes followed the status quo, unless it was a serious issue, in which case, he either voted "present" or didn't show up at all. Yes, I'll agree, a movement has started, but what substance does it have?

Obama's people are saying 'Mission Accomplished' after Iowa. Boy, are they in for a wake-up.

Ever hear of the 'ol one-two punch? First take out Clinton, then take out Obama.

The only way Americans will elect a novice 'dream' President is if we think George Bush won the WOT. ('The surge worked, Iran backed down on nukes, Al Queada can't get past the Patriot Act.) If Bush won the WOT, then we should stick with the Republicans. If Bush hasn't won the WOT, then it's still an issue and we can't afford to elect a 'dream' President.

Of course, I understand the powerful temptation to go back to sleep.

DK - even more to the point my question to the Obama supporters is why is it that your candidate of "I can get things done" "Only I can bring the parties together" etc. etc. has not matched that rhetoric as a US Senator. The last time I checked he was still a member of that club.

He wants to be the agent of change - go for it. Start by bringing change where you already have membership. Start by getting the requisite number of Republican senators to go against their lame duck president and override the SCHIP expansion. Why has he not done that? SCHIP was supported by Republicans (even Kit Bond my senator in Mo voted for it) and yet he hasn't done one single solitary thing to get this legislation passed which is at the heart of the Democratic/progressive/liberal agenda. He can say all he wants about his healthcare plan for America but he sure hasn't done anything to help a plan that already exists.

Also Harry Reid and Nancy Peolosi have taken a tremendous amount of heat from everyone about their failure to push forward an end to the Iraq war. Where has Obama been? Why wouldn't he come to the rescue of his party? Why would he put Democrats at risk in the 2008 election if he has the pixie dust to get the parties to unite. Where is his eloquent speeches from the Senate floor against the war?

Obama is all talk and no action. He is an eloquent speaker and can move the emotion in most people. I don't want emotions, I don't want any more compromise from Democrats, I don't want the Republican agenda to be my agenda. I don't want to play nice with the people who have destroyed the middle calls, including the now impotent unions. I don't want to be in bed with anyone who has Karl Rove, Chris Matthews, Peggy Noonan, David Broder , Bob Novak and Maureen Dowd supporting their nomination. I want someone who can stand up and fight them.

And if anyone thinks that those people named above won't slice and dice Obama just as they have every Democratic for the past forty years (some of old timer baby boomers can still remember George McGovern, Mondale, Muskie, Dukakis,Carter not to mention the recent slice and dice of Gore and Kerry) and there is no reason to think that Obama can change that.

Note to Marc Ambinder:

Barack Obama won the Iowa caucus and is the odds-on favorite to become the next President of the United States. Just throwing it out there because it would not seem apparent to the neutral observer reading your blog.

Hillary Plummets in New Hampshire.

Zogby has her up by four points in New Hampshire:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/7173183.stm

"Wow! 1,500 people at 9:30 am on a Saturday. She is showing that she can take a punch and be still standing! This is what we want in a president!" -Posted by Democrats for Hillary

Oh please, like the good people of the State of New Hampshire have better things to do on a Saturday morning, than go to the candidate's debate? Accounts of that debate already differ widely. But, there can be no debate about the government boondoggle that serves as a bottomless money pit, for the Clintons political aspirations. Hillary has had more than enough time to formulate an aside for this debacle. So, why not ask her about it yourself New Hampshire? It’s your tax dollar at work - what are you waiting for: http://theseedsof9-11.com

Gail Collins in her NY Times column today:

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/05/opinion/05collins.html?_r=1&hp&oref=login

"In a small state where newcomers on the honor system can register as local voters on the spot, it could be easy to turn a mass of out-of-state college students and volunteers into what looks like an uprising of Iowa Youth."

Is she suggesting that Obama illegally or unethically pumped up the youth vote by importing voters from out-of-state and exploiting Iowa's honer system for registration?

Barack Obama won the Iowa caucus and is the odds-on favorite to become the next President of the United States.

Well, he's not the "odds-on favorite" in terms of where the money's going. Although predictions markets like Obama's chances of taking New Hampshire, they still favor Clinton for the nomination: http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2008/01/04/iowa_vote_boosts_obama_mccain_on_prediction_market/
And that's probably because with overwhelming institutional support (unions, superdelegates, party operatives, etc.), she only has to take a single first place finish in a primary to start to make this look like a very different race. Working people in big industrial states know where their bread is buttered, and most of them will stick with the proven competence of Hillary Rodham Clinton. Obama needs to knock her out before Super Tuesday. Otherwise, she's the nominee come February 6th. Let's put it this way: if Obama wins on Tuesday, Clinton will still be in the race. If she wins, his chances for taking the nomination are basically over.

so we're supposed to be impressed with hillary clinton now? or should we wait til she really says what's on her mind?

Musik, you should check out the latest Intrade.com numbers, as they have changed. Obama is now the favorite to win NH, SC, NV, and even FL. He is also the favorite to win the nomination.

Also, I disagree with it being over if Hillary wins. Half of the voters in SC are black. Obama was already tied with Hillary before Iowa. I have a feeling Obama would still win in SC even if he loses a close one to Hillary in NH.

Woodie, Zogby may have her up 4 now, from 6 yesterday, but he admitted that in the 20% of the survey taken after the Iowa results, Obama was up 8 and Hillary was down 4.

Also, Rasmussen, which was taken completely after Iowa, has Obama up 37-27.

Do you still think she isn't plummeting?

"Befitting a candidate on the rise"

Seriously, Marc, you are moving into Baghdad Bob territory here.

CNN showed a partial clip of the scene at Hillary's speech when Bill'O was there. I uploaded it to youtube and posted it here:

http://politicaldiscontent.blogspot.com

of course I'm not surprised CNN cut off her answer to Bill, as they give her no air time and the only air time she gets at MSNBC is when they bash her 24/7 (since they are fox wannabe's and all right wingers over there).

No clue how Faux Snooze handles it as I never tune to that cable channel.

Hillary imo gets no fair airtime or media coverage, it's a sham and a disgrace.

ARG post-Iowa Poll in New Hampshire give credence to the Rasmussen poll which has it 37-27-19:

Obama 38 (+7)
Clinton 26 (-9)
Edwards 20 (+5)

THIS IS A BREAKING NEWS !!!!!!!!! In the world like ours, there is still something good report on Hillary ? WOW ! I thought media killed her already. This poor woman is too tough to kill, 16 years, you name it, all media, msnbc, first read, Leading by Chris Matthews, and cnn, and.......

NH is not Iowa, no 2nd choice issue.

I don't want to say anything because I don't think I have finished my "homework", there are lot of things to look into. But I find this reasonable from a different blogs and I copied it to share here;

" Some inspired by words, speech, hope. Some inspired by examples, by actions, by making change into reality. "

" You go to Obama's event, you hear "speech", "hope", "change"
"You go to Hillary's event, you hear "reason", "change", "how to..."

Last but not least: Why Repubs push Obama ?
http://www.taylormarsh.com/archives_view.php?id=26712

Marc, It appears you may have been duped:

http://blog.washingtonpost.com/the-trail/2008/01/05/how_to_guarantee_an_sro_event.html

CONCORD, N.H. -- A New Hampshire voter arriving to see Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton on Saturday morning at a local high school might well have assumed that the event was overwhelmed by an stunningly high turnout, an impression that the candidate herself did her best to encourage.

...

But the impression of overcrowding was misleading. Concord fire department officials said later that there was room in the gym for many more people than had arrived.

The problem, they said, was Clinton's campaign had configured the space for about 300 people -- a small figure for an event in one of New Hampshire's biggest towns in the final days before the primary. More than that showed up -- about 500, said battalion chief Guy Newbery, and "that's at the high end, giving them the benefit of the doubt."

...

Friday, Obama packed Concord High School's gym to the rafters, with dozens of people turned away at the door by the fire marshal.

"Now that was very overcrowded," said Newbery. "It was a real headache."

As for negatives, the last I saw, Clinton had 50% negative -- and Obama had 51% negative.

As for 'go ask the people in the halls to come in' -- they were IN the halls to see her. That was the whole point of the story: more people had shown up than had RSVP'd so she got the barriers down so they could come in anyway.

As for favored candidate, last I saw Clinton already had 150 'super delegates' in her camp to Obama's 50, and the Iowa caucuses added 16 to his and 15 to hers.

The early, caucus states are easy to pack with activists who are not necessarily representative of the rank and file voters, so may nominate a candidate who loses in November. (McGovern talked about this, it happened to him.)

1950 please point us to more than 1 poll that shows Obama having higher negatives than Clinton. There aren't any.

1950, also was Kerry not the most electable Democrat in 2004? He won the same way Obama is winning.

Here's a contrast in character - Clinton shushes people for boo-ing Bill O'Reilly, and Obama does nothing when his supporters loudly boo Clinton at the NH Democrat Dinner...Obama and his supporters idea of hope is being a-holes.

Ben - Rasmussen Polls on January 2, 2008 recorded that OBAMA'S NEGATIVES WERE HIGHER THAN CLINTON'S (though hers have been forming for 15 years):

51% Obama - Unfavorable
50% Clinton- Unfarvorable

"Fifty-one percent (51%) have an unfavorable opinion of the former Massachusetts Governor. That unfavorable rating is matched by Obama and topped only by Giuliani at 55%."

http://rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/election_20082/2008_presidential_election/as_campaign_season_begins_only_one_presidential_candidate_is_viewed_favorably_by_majority_of_voters

Ben - like most O'Highness supporters, even if a proven piece of negative info is in front of your face, you deny it. Obama - the candidate UNVETTED, UNPROVEN - for O8.

1950, also was Kerry not the most electable Democrat in 2004? He won the same way Obama is winning.

Like I said ... win the Dem nomination by activism, lose the November election. The GOP creamed Kerry -- partly because he wasn't well enough known to the public. The GOP was able to define Kerry as they wished -- because not enough people knew the real Kerry.

Obama will have the same vulnerability in 2008, and there are lots of real facts out there to attack Obama on (fairly or unfairly). (See Chicago Tribune and other big newspaper profiles re his 'community organizing' in Chicago, and a TNR profile about it that quotes his mentor saying he was a "master agitator" in the tradition of "rub raw the sores of discontent.")

Now that Obama has got some attention, if he establishes a solid record and reputation in the next few years, he might have a real chance in 2012 or 2016.

"Hilary's ability to dive into policy detail, right off the cuff, is one of the things I love about this lady." Sorry. Clinton doesn't get it. She sets up an "intimate" time with young folks to prove she's relevant, then comes late and lectures them. "Enough about me, how about me?" There's an arrogance about her...she doesn't understand how to engage and empower people...how to make them integral to her quest. She reminds me of the detail obsessed folks in meetings I've attended who bore the socks off of the rest of us citing policy and procedures verbatim and hogging the agenda. And what's up with Chelsea? I mean...does this young woman have a voice of her own? When other candidate's grown children are out campaigning on their own, Chelsea is relegated to tagging along and turning down interviews with 9 years olds. Hillary Clinton is Old School. The world has changed and she has not and she can't seem to stop reminding people of that.

You see something is happening, but you don't know what it is. Don't you Ms. Clinton?

Hillary is the wrong candidate, running in the wrong election, at the wrong time.

In about another hour the votes from New Hampshire will be in and she will be toast.


Copyright © 2008 by The Atlantic Monthly Group. All rights reserved.