Hillary damage control a day late and a dollar short folks

H

Harry Dope

Guest
Campaign call reveals Clinton debate concern
By Sam Youngman
November 01, 2007
Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton's (D-N.Y.) top advisers, doing damage
control after the candidate's debate performance Tuesday, told supporters on
a conference call Wednesday that the campaign needed more money to fight
back.

Mark Penn, Clinton's senior strategist and pollster, and Jonathan
Mantz, the campaign's finance director, told the supporters on the call,
which The Hill listened to in its entirety, that they expect attacks from
Clinton's rivals to continue, and she will need the financial resources to
deflect their attacks.

Clinton came under withering assault in the Philadelphia debate, and
some supporters on the call agreed with analysts that she stumbled.

"I wouldn't say she lost her cool," one caller said. "But I would say
she lost her footing."

The caller addded that Clinton's response to questions about records
from her time in the White House that have been sealed by the National
Archives "made me roll my eyes."

The criticisms followed Penn's assertion that Clinton was
"unflappable." He also said criticisms from Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.) and
former Sen. John Edwards (D-N.C.) would backfire and that he was already
"detecting some backlash," particularly among female voters.

Those female voters are saying, "Sen. Clinton needs our support now
more than ever if we're going to see this six-on-one to try to bring her
down," Penn told those on the campaign call.

He, Mantz and several supporters hinted repeatedly on the call that
Clinton was unfairly targeted by Tim Russert, debate moderator and host of
NBC's "Meet the Press."

"Russert made it appear that President Clinton had done something new
or unusual," Penn said, before adding that it "is, in fact, an extremely
confusing situation . I think there will be further clarification."

"I hope so," a female caller responded. "To me, it was the most
uncomfortable part of the debate."

Penn turned again to Russert. "The other candidates were asked
questions like, 'Is there life in outer space?' "

The object of the call, and a follow-up breakfast Thursday morning
with campaign chairman and former chairman of the Democratic National
Committee (DNC) Terry McAuliffe, was apparently to stop whatever bleeding
the senator might have sustained during a debate in which Clinton wore a
bull's-eye on her back throughout the evening.

Penn and Mantz said "a new phase" in the campaign had begun with about
65 days to go before the Iowa caucuses. They expect Obama and Edwards to go
"negative on TV, and we're going to need the resources to fight that front."

While one supporter voiced his concern that the Clinton campaign is
not devoting enough money and staff to Iowa, lagging behind Obama, most
supporters who commented on the call expressed their displeasure with what
they saw as the moderators' focus on Clinton.

One caller from Oklahoma City said that "the questions . were designed
to incite a brawl," and that Russert's and Brian Williams's moderating was
"an abdication of journalistic responsibility."

Another said Russert "should be shot," before quickly adding that she
shouldn't say that on a conference call.

Penn and Mantz said they were hearing a lot of the same sentiment from
other supporters, but they do not plan to engage the media or the debate's
moderators.

"We're not challenging the media on that, but the sentiment you've
expressed is obviously one I've heard," Penn said.

Penn added that he conducted polling before and after the debate - a
focus group, perhaps - that saw Clinton as the winner. Sen. Joseph Biden
(Del.) "had a good night" and John Edwards "did better," Penn said, though
he added Edwards's numbers have been going down. "Obama did not have a
particularly good night," Penn said.

Those results diverge sharply from the assessment of most analysts who
watched the debate, and thought Clinton did poorly. Her campaign appeared to
be in full damage-control mode Wednesday.

It received a big boost at midday when Clinton received the coveted
endorsement of the American Federation of State, County and Municipal
Employees (AFSCME).

Gerald McEntee, AFSCME's president, mentioned the debate during his
endorsement speech, and took Penn's and Mantz's view of the results.

"Some of you may have seen last night's debate," McEntee said. "Six
guys against Hillary, and I'd call that a fair fight. This is a strong
woman."

Obama and Edwards continued their assault throughout the day, trying
to capitalize on the first chink in Clinton's armor that they have seen in
months.

In a memo from the Obama campaign, spokesman Bill Burton said Clinton
"offered more of the same Washington political calculation and evasion that
won't bring the change America needs."

"The 'politics of hope' doesn't mean hoping you don't have to answer
tough questions," Burton wrote.

Burton wrote that Clinton dodged questions on Social Security, Iran
and the National Archives issue. And on one of the more talked-about moments
from the end of the debate, Clinton's position on a move by New York Gov.
Eliot Spitzer (D) to grant driver's licenses to illegal aliens, Burton said,
"Twelve hours after the debate ended, the American people are still waiting
for an answer on Sen. Clinton's position . She didn't answer the question in
the debate and her campaign couldn't answer it afterwards."

In Wednesday's conference call, Penn said Clinton "clarified that she
does support governors like Gov. Spitzer" who are faced with the issue
because of the federal government's failure to offer comprehensive
immigration reform.

The Edwards campaign, apparently referring to the AFSCME endorsement,
said Clinton was "trying to change the subject after losing a debate."

Clinton drew fire throughout the day from the Republican National
Committee, which sent around a compilation of negative press releases from
state Republican parties in Texas, Florida, Georgia and California.

Two conservative bloggers filed a complaint with the FEC charging that
Clinton had engaged in questionable, and possibly illegal, fundraising
practices.

The Clinton campaign released a video Wednesday, entitled "The
Politics of Pile On," showing clips of the senator's rivals going after her
by name during the debate.

The senator did not appear ready to surrender Wednesday, though. When
accepting the AFSCME endorsement, Clinton handed McEntee a pair of boxing
gloves.

"When it comes to fighting for America's working families, I'll go 10
rounds with anybody," she said.


--

"The Clintons Are A Terminally Unethical And Vulgar Couple, And They?ve
Betrayed Everyone Who Has Ever Believed In Them." - Bob Herbert, Columnist
NY Times Clinton
 
"Harry Dope" <HHHA@aol.com> allegedly said in
news:4729e9c4$0$16487$4c368faf@roadrunner.com:


Just remember EMU... "Madame President Clinton". you will get it in the
end.


--
AW

<small but dangerous>
 
"Harry Dope" <HHHA@aol.com> wrote in message
news:4729e9c4$0$16487$4c368faf@roadrunner.com...
> Campaign call reveals Clinton debate concern


When do you remember Bush or Cheney getting attacked by "moderators" in a
debate?
 
"Chauncy W. Bush" <AbbuBush@WH.net> wrote:

>"Harry Dope" <HHHA@aol.com> wrote
>> Campaign call reveals Clinton debate concern

>
>When do you remember Bush or Cheney getting attacked by "moderators" in a
>debate?


Aww poor little baby Hillary was confronted with her own bullshit!

Nice try Cheesy but nobody sees that bloodthirsty power hungry
shark as a victim.

You Battleax flunkies can't have it both ways. You want to portray
her as a strong leader type, but when asked to explain what she
has said, suddenly she's a delicate little flower who's off limits to any
kind of confrontation.
 
Foxtrot <foxtrot@null.com> wrote in news:4d7oi31imubhadl25lforqv36spsurkop8@
4ax.com:

> "Chauncy W. Bush" <AbbuBush@WH.net> wrote:
>
>>"Harry Dope" <HHHA@aol.com> wrote
>>> Campaign call reveals Clinton debate concern

>>
>>When do you remember Bush or Cheney getting attacked by "moderators" in a
>>debate?

>
> Aww poor little baby Hillary was confronted with her own bullshit!
>
> Nice try Cheesy but nobody sees that bloodthirsty power hungry
> shark as a victim.
>
> You Battleax flunkies can't have it both ways. You want to portray
> her as a strong leader type, but when asked to explain what she
> has said, suddenly she's a delicate little flower who's off limits to any
> kind of confrontation.



Kinda like how you rightwingers repeat your mantra about how
she is a "radical socialist" but cannot find anything in her
voting record to back that up.
 
Mitchell Holman <Noemailplease@comcast.com> wrote:

>Foxtrot <foxtrot@null.com> wrote
>> You Battleax flunkies can't have it both ways. You want to portray
>> her as a strong leader type, but when asked to explain what she
>> has said, suddenly she's a delicate little flower who's off limits to any
>> kind of confrontation.

>
> Kinda like how you rightwingers repeat your mantra about how
>she is a "radical socialist" but cannot find anything in her
>voting record to back that up.


She tried to nationalize our health care system before she even
had any power to vote.
 
"Foxtrot" <foxtrot@null.com> wrote in message
news:qrtpi3hm150v0lpdam5vbf522nun048cis@4ax.com...
> Mitchell Holman <Noemailplease@comcast.com> wrote:
>
>>Foxtrot <foxtrot@null.com> wrote
>>> You Battleax flunkies can't have it both ways. You want to portray
>>> her as a strong leader type, but when asked to explain what she
>>> has said, suddenly she's a delicate little flower who's off limits to
>>> any
>>> kind of confrontation.

>>
>> Kinda like how you rightwingers repeat your mantra about how
>>she is a "radical socialist" but cannot find anything in her
>>voting record to back that up.

>
> She tried to nationalize our health care system before she even
> had any power to vote.


The horror
 
>> She tried to nationalize our health care system before she even
>> had any power to vote.

>
> The horror


At least she ain't privatizing our military _and_ our spooks!

(Uh, right, Hillary?)

--
Phlip
 
Foxtrot <foxtrot@null.com> wrote in
news:qrtpi3hm150v0lpdam5vbf522nun048cis@4ax.com:

> Mitchell Holman <Noemailplease@comcast.com> wrote:
>
>>Foxtrot <foxtrot@null.com> wrote
>>> You Battleax flunkies can't have it both ways. You want to portray
>>> her as a strong leader type, but when asked to explain what she
>>> has said, suddenly she's a delicate little flower who's off limits to
>>> any kind of confrontation.

>>
>> Kinda like how you rightwingers repeat your mantra about how
>>she is a "radical socialist" but cannot find anything in her
>>voting record to back that up.

>
> She tried to nationalize our health care system



Actually she was member of a committee that proposed
single payer health care. Do you think your HMO really
has your interests at heart?


> before she even had any power to vote.



So show what part of her voting record that make
her a "radical socialist".
 
>>>>She tried to nationalize our health care system before she even
>>>>had any power to vote.
>>>
>>>The horror

>>
>> At least she ain't privatizing our military _and_ our spooks!
>>
>> (Uh, right, Hillary?)

>
> Not sure of your point. Our spooks have already been ratted
> out by the traitors in the White House and our military
> apparently cannot do what Blackwater can.


I mean...

- Blackwater recently hung out a shingle for a spook
service. For a fee, they will commit illegal research,
surveillance, and operations for you. Maybe even
regime change, like in the Good Old Days...

- I don't know Hillary's true position (or her publicly
stated position) on prosecuting Blackwater for every
crime they ever committed.

--
Phlip
 
Foxtrot wrote:
> Mitchell Holman <Noemailplease@comcast.com> wrote:
>
>
>>Foxtrot <foxtrot@null.com> wrote
>>
>>>You Battleax flunkies can't have it both ways. You want to portray
>>>her as a strong leader type, but when asked to explain what she
>>>has said, suddenly she's a delicate little flower who's off limits to any
>>>kind of confrontation.

>>
>> Kinda like how you rightwingers repeat your mantra about how
>>she is a "radical socialist" but cannot find anything in her
>>voting record to back that up.

>
>
> She tried to nationalize our health care system before she even
> had any power to vote.


I don't have a problem with that since the NHS in Britain
works well and includes everyone and doesn't bankrupt anyone.
What I do have a problem with is when people propose things
they KNOW won't make it, just to posture.


--
B3
==
Governments should fear their people, not vice versa.
Neocon Score: 4000+ US, UK Coalition Dead, 30,000+ Wounded.
Osama still at large.
Mullah Omar still at large.
Onwards to the new Cold War and HUGE profits!!!
 
Phlip wrote:

>>>She tried to nationalize our health care system before she even
>>>had any power to vote.

>>
>>The horror

>
>
> At least she ain't privatizing our military _and_ our spooks!
>
> (Uh, right, Hillary?)


Not sure of your point. Our spooks have already been ratted
out by the traitors in the White House and our military
apparently cannot do what Blackwater can.


--
B3
==
Governments should fear their people, not vice versa.
Neocon Score: 4000+ US, UK Coalition Dead, 30,000+ Wounded.
Osama still at large.
Mullah Omar still at large.
Onwards to the new Cold War and HUGE profits!!!
 
Mitchell Holman <Noemailplease@comcast.com> wrote:

>Foxtrot <foxtrot@null.com> wrote
>> Mitchell Holman <Noemailplease@comcast.com> wrote:
>>> Kinda like how you rightwingers repeat your mantra about how
>>>she is a "radical socialist" but cannot find anything in her
>>>voting record to back that up.

>>
>> She tried to nationalize our health care system

>
> Actually she was member of a committee that proposed
>single payer health care.


LOL she spearheaded the committee fer chrissakes. Since it flopped
so badly, you're trying to make it appear that shucks she just
happened to be nearby when the disastrous nationalized health care
scheme was floated.

>Do you think your HMO really
>has your interests at heart?


I have a PPO, not an HMO. They do an adequate job, better than
federal bureaucrats would do.

>> before she even had any power to vote.

>
> So show what part of her voting record that make
>her a "radical socialist".


Who has used the phrase "radical socialist" in this thread other than
you? Nobody? Then why are you putting it in quotes?
 
Phlip wrote:
>>>>>She tried to nationalize our health care system before she even
>>>>>had any power to vote.
>>>>
>>>>The horror
>>>
>>>At least she ain't privatizing our military _and_ our spooks!
>>>
>>>(Uh, right, Hillary?)

>>
>>Not sure of your point. Our spooks have already been ratted
>>out by the traitors in the White House and our military
>>apparently cannot do what Blackwater can.

>
>
> I mean...
>
> - Blackwater recently hung out a shingle for a spook
> service. For a fee, they will commit illegal research,
> surveillance, and operations for you. Maybe even
> regime change, like in the Good Old Days...
>
> - I don't know Hillary's true position (or her publicly
> stated position) on prosecuting Blackwater for every
> crime they ever committed.


She is being heavily backed by the Neocons and has supported
the war at every turn. She's just another apparatchik for
the status quo and corporatocracy.


--
B3
==
Governments should fear their people, not vice versa.
Neocon Score: 4000+ US, UK Coalition Dead, 30,000+ Wounded.
Osama still at large.
Mullah Omar still at large.
Onwards to the new Cold War and HUGE profits!!!
 
In article <qrtpi3hm150v0lpdam5vbf522nun048cis@4ax.com>, Foxtrot <foxtrot@null.com> wrote:
>Mitchell Holman <Noemailplease@comcast.com> wrote:
>
>>Foxtrot <foxtrot@null.com> wrote
>>> You Battleax flunkies can't have it both ways. You want to portray
>>> her as a strong leader type, but when asked to explain what she
>>> has said, suddenly she's a delicate little flower who's off limits to any
>>> kind of confrontation.

>>
>> Kinda like how you rightwingers repeat your mantra about how
>>she is a "radical socialist" but cannot find anything in her
>>voting record to back that up.

>
>She tried to nationalize our health care system before she even
>had any power to vote.


She's gonna be your next president.
Just watch the puppet show.
The presidents are not elected by the PEOPLE.
They are hand picked by the "hidden hand"
that owns all there is to own.


--
The most powerful Usenet tool you have ever heard of.
NewsMaestro v. 4.0.7 has been released.

Bug fixes and improvements.

Note: In some previous releases some class files were missing.
As a result, the program would not run.
Sorry for the inconvenience.

Web page:
http://newsmaestro.sourceforge.net/

Download page:
http://newsmaestro.sourceforge.net/Download_Information.htm

Send any feedback, ideas, suggestions, test results to
newsmaestroinfo \at/ mail.ru.

Your personal info will not be released and your privacy
will be honored.
 
"Almond" <almond@brothers.orgy> wrote in message
news:fgot39$149k$3@sage.ukr.net...
> In article <qrtpi3hm150v0lpdam5vbf522nun048cis@4ax.com>, Foxtrot
> <foxtrot@null.com> wrote:
>>Mitchell Holman <Noemailplease@comcast.com> wrote:
>>
>>>Foxtrot <foxtrot@null.com> wrote
>>>> You Battleax flunkies can't have it both ways. You want to portray
>>>> her as a strong leader type, but when asked to explain what she
>>>> has said, suddenly she's a delicate little flower who's off limits to
>>>> any
>>>> kind of confrontation.
>>>
>>> Kinda like how you rightwingers repeat your mantra about how
>>>she is a "radical socialist" but cannot find anything in her
>>>voting record to back that up.

>>
>>She tried to nationalize our health care system before she even
>>had any power to vote.

>
> She's gonna be your next president.
> Just watch the puppet show.
> The presidents are not elected by the PEOPLE.
> They are hand picked by the "hidden hand"
> that owns all there is to own.




how do we get in on this racket ?
 
Back
Top