Daily Clinton Talking Points: "Rhetoric v. Results"

Here are the latest talking points distributed to Sen. Clinton's campaign surrogates and allies.

We always knew and said Iowa would be our toughest state, which is why we built this campaign to compete in states across the nation through February 5th. Democrats around the country are going to have their voices heard in determining the next President and we have the resources and the organization to make our case from start to finish.

Rhetoric vs. Results, Talk vs. Action

Last night at the debate New Hampshire voters saw the difference between talk versus action, rhetoric and results.

Hillary Clinton has a real record of making change and getting results for New Hampshire families. If you want to know what kind of change the candidates will make, look at the change they have already made.

She took the lead in the White House on ensuring that 6 million kids nationwide have health insurance, including 7,000 children in New Hampshire.

She worked with Republicans and helped pass legislation that guaranteed that every member of our National Guard and Reserves has access to health care. As a result 2700 New Hampshire members of the Guards and Reserves have access to health care regardless of their deployment status.

She took the lead in passing legislation that helped ensure that up to 324,000 children in New Hampshire have been vaccinated.

She took the lead in passing legislation that helped double the number of adoptions out of foster care.

Hillary’s real record of action and results for New Hampshire families serves in sharp contrast to her opponents.

At the debate last night it was clear when opponents were asked what change they had made:

Instead of telling New Hamphsire voters what he had done for them, Barack Obama defended rhetoric and talk and cited legislation that bans sit-down meals with lobbyists but allows them to stand up and eat together.

Obama talked about government reform, but denied that the co-chair of his New Hampshire campaign is a lobbyist. He talked about energy reform but couldn’t defend his vote in favor of Dick Cheney’s energy plan that gave the big oil companies billions in tax breaks. He talked about his speech against the war, but didn't explain why he voted for 300 billion in funding for the war and why he said as late as 2004 that he didn’t know how he would have voted on the war.

And all John Edwards could point to on behalf of New Hampshire families was legislation that passed the Senate but never passed Congress and was never signed into law.

Hillary said no matter how beautifully presented, words are not action and pointed to real accomplishments that made real change for people.

The choice for New Hampshire voters is clear – Hillary Clinton’s action and results vs her opponents’ rhetoric and talk

Comments

Her own personality was so offputing, and her political acumen so badly-tuned, that she walked right into an ambugh, and torpedoed universal healthcare for a generation.

RESULTS!

Posted by drfranklives | January 7, 2008 10:30 AM

Bush did everything the opposite of what President Clinton did
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

I've heard a lot of garbage about "the Clinton-Bush years" as if we are talking about the Bush-CHENEY years.

We should at the very least stick to the facts, and the facts are that Bush did everything the opposite of what President Clinton did. After Clinton protected our national forests, Bush let the loggers, drillers and miners ravage our national forests. While Clinton protected our rights, Bush took them away. Whereas Clinton sought peace through diplomacy, Bush sought power through war-making ... etc. ... etc. ... etc.

Secondly, during the Clinton years, we had UNPRECEDENTED prosperity.

With Bush as president, all but the rich have seen that prosperity disappear. Local property taxes have soared during the Bush years as a direct result of his tax-cuts- for-the-rich and cuts in federal aid to the states -- forcing state, county and local governments to have to make up the difference by raising their taxes or cutting vital services.

If you don't believe me, or if you do but want proof of what I say, go to this link: http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/
and you will see in chart form how employment went steadily UP during the Clinton years and down during the Bush years (with one minor bump up).

You will also see how UN-employment went steadily DOWN during the Clinton years, and went up again during the Bush years.

And there is more to consider:

When Bill Clinton was president, street crime was reduced, the numbers of Americans living in poverty fell, the numbers of new jobs rose dramatically, we had a balanced budget and even a surplus, diplomacy was favored over unilateral aggression, we enjoyed peace and prosperity and were respected around the world.

During the Bush years, street crime went up again.

Poverty is up again.

The federal budget is NOT balanced, and has not been balanced all through the Bush years.

Every year, Bush's policies create a budget deficit and add to our federal debt woes.

Bush favors aggression over diplomacy.

And we do NOT have peace and prosperity.

Yes, I will take the Clinton years every time -- and those years would be even better if we could do away with the media whores who told us how charming Bush was/is, and believed Bush when he said he "would change the tone in Washington."

If we had had REAL reporters and journalists during the Clinton years -- instead of the howling pack of nincompoops we had (and still have) -- Clinton would have been their hero instead of their punching bag.

I think it is about time for us all to do our own research and our own thinking and stop letting the media maggots tell us who is winning, who is losing, who is good and who is bad.

It is beyond me why smart people in New Hampshire have their minds changed by some voters (excuse me, caucus-goers who don't always get to vote FOR their FIRST choice) in Iowa.

I think for myself and everyone else should too.

There is NO such category as the Clinton-Bush years -- those were two OPPOSITE administrations in EVERY way.

If President Clinton could run again, you can bet I would vote for him. Those were good years for the vast majority of Americans, even for the rich who did very well too, even though they paid higher taxes then than they do now.

Every category of Americans prospered during the Clinton years, and Hillary Clinton played an important advisory role in making all of that possible -- she was President Clinton's most valued and trusted adviser and was an integral part of all his presidential decision-making.

Posted by poetry | January 7, 2008 12:09 PM

Omigod. This is worse than I thought possible. Is there no one in her campaign willing to stand up and say it is a mistake to echo Bush's "a reformer with results" slogan from 2000?

Posted by aretino | January 7, 2008 1:03 PM

Obama reminds me so much of Bush it keeps me up at night. His vague, "I'm your buddy" attitude makes people who want their answers handed to them say, "yeah, let's have that beer . . . these policy issues are too complicated!" Please, for the sake of the future of the county, let's not elect another one of these guys. Clinton's depth and experience is what is needed now.

Posted by Susan | January 7, 2008 2:48 PM

As the latest Clinton ad and trolls forgot to tell you:

She voted to support an unnecessary war against Iraq.

She signed off on Bush and his abuse of the constitution.

She failed miserably on healthcare.

Yes, experience - bad experience!

Yes, change - for the worse!

Vote Hillary? Not while there is an alternative. Even Mitt Romney has achieved more than Hillary Clinton, and that's setting the bar remarkably low.

Posted by nickzi | January 7, 2008 3:02 PM

Hillary accuses Obama of being all rhetoric, then steals his words and ideas. Shows his rhetoric is valuable if it is good enough to steal. Shows she is out of ideas and fresh language. Shows a mediocre leader who has to plagiarize and follow her opponent's lead. Even her faked choke-up moment before the cameras this morning uses his language of bringing everyone together. The language of inclusiveness is sooooo phony for her--it was all "I,I,I"--I am so ready to lead, I am so wanting to be president. She uses mean negative targetting ads and attacks and then tears up at how tough it is to be a woman running for the presidency. Like it is easier for Obama. Or for Edwards and Elizabeth! End the Clinton hegemony in the Democratic Party. It is hurting the party and turning off party faithfuls like us women.

Posted by shirlin | January 7, 2008 3:19 PM

Susan:

The real difference is that Obama, while likeable, really does address policy questions. Those who accuse him of being an empty suit haven't been around for the past year.

Posted by Meng Bomin | January 7, 2008 3:33 PM

American people should not elect a president just because that person is different. A person being just different does not bring a change. That itself constitutes recognition of differences due to colour, gender etc. etc. The appointment of current president was also done on the recognition that he could be related to common people. If we need that then we might as well ignore, qualifications, experience, and past records in the appointment of any government position. I do not think Obama has the experience nor the past achievements that Hillary possesses. If people think that it is high time that we appoint an African-American, then it is also the high time that we appoint a woman as the president. That should not be the deciding factor when you vote for a president.
The president should be capable of many things. The most important one is the ability to sail forward against adversity. Only the experience, past achievements hone the ability of a person to tackle prolbems of a country. That president should be someone other countries can recognize as a powerful leader.
I believe that Hillary is the best in this regard. Obama is the best as the vice president so that he will get an opportunity gain more experience. By not letting Hillary win this election, American people will do a huge mistake for the second time.

Posted by E de Silva | January 7, 2008 4:35 PM

As a early and strong Obama supporter, I do wish he would trot out what he has done a bit more. Because, having investigated it myself, I know there's a lot there. It's a big part of why I support him, in fact.

Posted by Phoebe | January 7, 2008 5:22 PM

Finally a blogger that includes some excellent and sourced points. Thanks "poetry" -- ironic name. I think the poetry is among the emotional fluff that surrounds the blogosphere. Hillary is being characterized as part of a Clinton Machine that really wasn't all that bad. There is a kind of revisionist history going during the campaign mud slinging that is disturbing. Keep up the solid blogging "poetry."

Posted by fortheloveofbees | January 8, 2008 2:36 PM

Poetry & others who want to go back to the Clinton years:

Please be more objective about how "good" those Clinton years were.

In today's globalized world, Presidents aren't usually single-handedly responsible for good and bad economies. Anybody who knows basic economics, knows that booms and bust, growth & recessions, are usually CYCLICAL.

During the 90s, the US enjoyed economic prosperity - but so did much of the rest of the world. Due in no small part to the rapid technological revolution of the 90s (computers, internet, etc.) Now during the last couple years, we're experiencing low-growth/recession... and what do you know, so is much of the rest of the globe. Again, GLOBAL ECONOMY. Our economic fates are now intertwined - thanks in no part due to NAFTA and "free trade", which is not free at all, and has cost a lot of American jobs.

Clinton said, "It's the economy, stupid." Well, we're all pretty stupid if we believe that he was singlehandedly responsible for those boom times.

If there's any one person that can influence the US economy the most, it isn't the President, but the Chairman of the Fed.

Mr. Clinton didn't even bother trying to balance the budget until his last 1-2 years in office. Plus, that's just the budget deficit - he didn't do anything to reduce the national debt.

Too busy having fun in the Oval Office with Monica Lewinsky and then getting impeached after that.

Posted by sky2evan | January 8, 2008 7:10 PM