“Two for the price of one”…
Former President Bill Clinton is now stumping almost as hard for Hillary’s presidency as she is, reminding voters he had promised “two for the price of one” during his own stump speeches in the 1990’s and hinting at the notion the American People got just that. Of course, wifey is simultaneously making the same claims and hinting at the probability we will receive more of the same — should we vote for HER this time. Will this strategy twisting of the truth work against her most worthy oponent of the moment, Barack Obama? Only time will tell, but it had better start working FAST if it’s going to work at all…
From The Washington Post — a piece entitled “Hillary Clinton Embraces Her Husband’s Legacy“, which probably SHOULD have been entitled “Hillary Clinton CLAIMS Her Husband’s Legacy“:
By Anne E. Kornblut and Alec MacGillis
CONCORD, N.H., Dec. 21 — After months of discussion within her campaign over how heavily she should draw on her husband’s legacy, Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton is closing out her Iowa and New Hampshire campaigns in a tight embrace of Bill Clinton’s record, helping fuel a debate about the 1990s with Sen. Barack Obama that she thinks she can win.
As part of the Clinton strategy, the former president is playing an increasingly prominent public role as an advocate for his wife. He appears to have overcome concerns within the campaign over how closely she should associate her candidacy with his time in office and over whether his appearances could draw attention away from her. …”
(Snip!)
“… She has tried to co-opt the message of change from Obama, declaring that she has been “working for change” her entire life. Over the past week, she injected the phrase “new beginning” into her stump speech.
But the unchanging core of Clinton’s message is her experience, and in recent days she has presented the election as a binary choice: between a competent, experienced Clinton and novices such as Obama. …”
Hmm. Good luck with that one, Hill and Bill.
I don’t think for one moment anybody who lived through the 1990’s considered Ms. Clinton to be their “co-president” but it MIGHT work with the younger college kids who drink the kool-aid. Most people I personally knew thought of her as being a particularly annoying and boisterous First Lady at the time; much as she has been as a presidential campaigner and as the Senator from New York.
So what — she was in the White House for eight years — that’s not “presidential experience” as she is trying to claim it is. I’m an avid college hoops watcher and NFL fan but I’m smart enough to know I’d be MURDERED on a NCAA Division I basketball court or an NFL football field in a matter of moments. And I truly believe the vast majority of voters can see right through this strategy, too. But, even as I digress, I suppose we’ll soon find out, won’t we?
And, come to think of it, if TRUE — wouldn’t that make Hillary the “blackest” of the two major front-running candidates for the Democratic nomination?
***
Thanks to my good friend Joe Gandelman of The Moderate Voice for quoting this post in his excellent, across the spectrum, blogger roundup…
Thanks also to my good friend from the Right, William Teach of Pirate’s Cove, for adding this article to his Sorta Blogless Sunday Pinup blogger roundup…
Other bloggers weigh in, H/T to MemeOrandum: Hot Air (Right); The Heretik (Left); Blue Crab Boulevard (Right); Jules Crittendon (Right); Talk Left (Obviously, Left)
Loading ...
6:47 pm on December 22nd, 2007 1
[...] –Gun Toting Liberal: I don’t think for one moment anybody who lived through the 1990’s considered Ms. Clinton to be their “co-president” but it MIGHT work with the younger college kids who drink the kool-aid. Most people I personally knew thought of her as being a particularly annoying and boisterous First Lady at the time; much as she has been as a presidential campaigner and as the Senator from New York. [...]
9:56 am on December 23rd, 2007 2
[...] The Gun Toting Liberal is skeptical on a Hill&Bill co-presidency [...]
3:11 pm on December 23rd, 2007 3
[...] Didn’t they mean the “Clinton co-presidency“? [...]
11:53 pm on December 25th, 2007 4
Clinton and Obama are both Wall Street-sponsored candidates. I urge Democrats to support John Edwards in the primaries. He is the only candidate who can prevent Clinton/Obama from getting the party nomination.
There are no perfect candidates but Edwards is the only major Presidential contender who is speaking out against free trade agreements that have destroyed millions of good-paying American jobs.
Stephen Crockett and Al Lawrence of Democratic Talk Radio make an excellent case for Edwards. See link
http://www.democratictalkradio.com/07_edwards_fdr.html
The blog for the Oregon Democratic Gun Owners Caucus has an informative post which explains why Edwards may be the best option for pro-gun rights Democrats.
http://bluesteeldemocrats.blogspot.com/2007/12/john-edwards-and-2nd-amendment.html