Hillary to go on the attack aggressively says no more free reign for her opponents

http://www.upi.com/NewsTrack/Top_News/2007/11/26/clinton_dem_nominee_will_be_me/4185/

Clinton said she will be more aggressive as the campaign moves along because "I have absorbed a lot of attacks, my opponents have basically had a free reign. After been attacked as often as I have from several of my opponents, you can't just absorb it, you have to respond."

..


Sen. Hilary Clinton, D-N.Y., said Monday she expects be the Democratic nominee for president.

"Well, it will be me," Clinton told CBS News when asked if she would be disappointed if she doesn't win the Democratic nomination.

I wish I had a dime for every time Edwards sputtered out a sentence with "Clinton" and "corrupt" - and a dollar for every time he denied he was calling her corrupt.

To work with there....

That should be run an Obama ad, her saying that. Would do wonders for his campaign.

Hard to keep track...

:rofl:

...WAS confident. She doesn't need to point out that it's for the voters to decide. I think we all know that...sheesh!!!

I am tired of arrogant presidents. I hope Hillary isn;t nominated so I have to work to elect an arrogant president. That would be a bummmer.

things like election fraud in the past, who's to say that we will never encounter this again. Its like on Fahrenheit 9/11, they show Bush snickering as he says he knows he will win Florida as he sat next to his brother laughing like there was an inside joke going on. The best we can do is get out and make a statement to the system that we want someone that absolutely, %100 stands for the people, not the just elite. If we get the best candidate good for us, if not lets just tear up the constitution and prepare for blackwaters home coming, it should be a blast.

arrogant instead of confident for using a term which is so common in elections. It must take a great amount of willpower for some of them to stop themselves from typing "uppity".

It's practice on the stump to say you will win.

It's standard.

Hardly "arrogant".

One of the problems with Hillary is her personality. She just doesn't know when it is best to show a little humility.

...and say I am going to win.

Most candidates at least go through the motions of ASKING the voters for their vote. Some even realize that as politicians they are the servants of the people, their boss.

But not Hillary.

It's the same in any service profession. Can you imagine a realtor telling his/her client, "you are going to buy a house from me"!

Can you imagine a car salesman telling his/her customer "you are going to buy from me!"

Sorry, it doesn't work that way. Hillary is trying to assert an arrogant attitude than not even a realtor or used car salesman could get away with!

ALL political candidates say they're going to win.

Even when they're 20 points down in the polls.

Do you really think that's wierd? Did you just recently become interested in politics?

As a matter of fact, most candidates, even when they are way ahead, warn their audiences against complacency and over-confidence. And they ASK again for their vote. What if the candidate just said "I'm going to win"?!

That seems to be the norm.

I'm not disagreeing that candidates ASK for votes, and say things like "with your help...", but it's very common for them to state that they will be the winner.

It's a pretty lame attempt to besmirch Hillary.

... most HRC supporters have Asbergers or something. If you don't think personality matters, you are a fucking moron. There is a fine line between confidence and arrogance, and HRC crosses it in every debate.

If you think her numbers are falling because people just discovered the rest of the pack, think again. HRC has not done herself any favors when she WHINES about "mud" when people point out her glaring faults. She COULD defuse such criticism, but instead develops this schizoid personna blending "I don't have to answer for my record" with "waaaahhhh, they're picking on me".

I used to really like HRC, I cannot stand her now. Or Obama for that matter, he's the same only different.

He's what, 46 years old with virtually no experience in national politics and he thinks he should be President? My god, I can't even fathom that level of conceit. He literally doesn't even deserve to be on the same stage with the other six primary candidates. He hasn't earned it in the least and yet he feels entitled to it.

Now, I like broad primary contests, but mostly for the variety and the ideas. The challenges to the mainstream candidates. Introducing new players - that would be Obama. Testing party policy. Etc. That's all good. Al Sharpton was my favorite contender in 2004 outside of Wes Clark, but Wes and Al, like Nader before them and Dennis and Obama today, aren't serious contenders even if their ideas are closer to mine than those of the mainstream candidates. There is alot more to running this country than good ideas (and Obama doesn't even really have any of those). They simply aren't viable candidates, and most of them know it inside. But Obama doesn't. He's presumptuous enough that he really thinks he should be President. I've never even met someone with that little humility, and I've met some pretty fucking arrogant people.

If I were as inexperienced, as ill-equipped and as unprepared to be President as Obama is, I'd be EMBARRASSED if someone even brought up the possibility in front of me.

Hillary is just the opposite of that kind of baseless arrogance. She's got the time in, the experience from the highest levels, the ability and the battle scars that makes her level of arrogance well within what she has earned and what she is reaching for.

She's not a punching bag.

It'll be interesting to see how the warmth routine holds up.

other Democrats?

I have no problem with any of them defending themselves. It's exactly what our nom will have to do every single say.

If she could get away with not responding, she would.

To avoid doing so would be monumentally stupid.

in national polling.

to the other candidates that they better shape up or she will get down in the mud with them. While Clinton is not my first choice, I sure would not want to be in a real honest fight with her - she can be ruthless when she needs to be.

When one is blissfully waaaaay ahead, everyone should be nice and sweet. When one feels some heat, all's fair. This is getting amusingly like Clinton's turning on Brown in '92...

You and Bill didn't support Bush on the biggest issues since 2001 for nothing.

You paid the price asked. Now it's time for reciprocation from BushInc.

With this crowd of Republicans, she'd better get used to attacking.

No one told her she couldn't respond to criticism.

This is one of my pet peeves. When used in this way, it should read "free rein" as in the reins on a horse a rider can use to go slow or fast or turn. To give a horse "free rein" mean to let him/her gallop full speed ahead. Reign refers to what kings and queens do over their kingdoms. Hill may be a queen, but I don't think "reign" applies here.

"Well, it will be me." Uhh yeah -- :rofl:

You took it on the chin long enough. Staying "above the fray" can only get someone so far, it's time to show them why since the 70s you and Bill have been running winning campaigns. Experience DOES count in the long run.

There are two parts to the Hillary Clinton campaign essentially:

1. Use her husband's resume to act like it's hers

2. Whine about "being attacked"... insert "by those men" or "with Republican talking points"

It is PATHETIC.

How short of a short term memory is required to be an Obama supporter?

So I don't blame her one bit for going on the counterattack.

That was only, like, two weeks ago??

Ah, I get it. It's the The Politics of Parsing aka. flip-flop-flip-flop again.

More Clintonian Hypocrisy.

lol

amazing how erratic people get when threatened....

You hit the nail on the head. She's a pathetic excuse for a "leader" when she can't for the life of her stick to ANY conviction.

...would you want to piss this woman off?


Brought to you by, Bushco.

we could all dredge up unflattering pics of any candidate, but most of us don't.

and her numbers have NOT been going up. What happened to the politics of remaining above the fray? As someone said on Hardball tonight, Hillary attacks with no sense of humor and with rigidity while Obama hits back with a wry smile and it's working for him.

Liebmerman did this in 2004 and it didn't work out for him. She's been attacking pretty aggressively already, so I wonder what she has in mind. It sounds overly and unnecessarily desperate to me.

OUCH!

Sorta like Junior's butchery of "let freedom ring" as opposed to "let freedom reign"...

She's damned smart, but the usage of the article before it gives one pause...

Could well be that she's seething somewhere at the hack-job some journalist did on her, but if she's talking about "a" free whatever, it sounds a tad like she's missing the concept.

One is letting the horse run as it will; the other is some addle-headed gratis imperial rule...

Ah, well; enough snottiness. Back to more pointed mischief...

She didn't write the article.

She's starting to crack under the pressure.

.... HRC is SO predictable. Her polling is sagging and now its the "free reign" she's been giving, not her imperious answers, her overweening negatives, her support for a war nobody supports, nothing.

She is so delusional. Bring it Hillary. Is it precisely that sense of entitlement coupled with your huge negatives that is causing your sagging numbers. Go for it.

My personal impression is that Hillary is expecting the nomination almost by divine right, that her nomination is right, good, fair and inevitible and some people (including myself) resent that. Her response of "well, it will be me" just adds to that impression. Maybe I'm being unfair, could just be a poor choice of words.

The other thing is that she has got to stop with the "pity me, the poor ickle gurl, I'm being attacked" stuff. It's not getting anyone to vote for her, it's just annoying.

Democracy means we get to choose, not be told by the person who wants to lead us "It will be me"

Thats not democracy, thats tyranny

Main Entry: de·moc·ra·cy
Pronunciation: \di-ˈmä-krə-sē\
Function: noun
Inflected Form(s): plural de·moc·ra·cies
Etymology: Middle French democratie, from Late Latin democratia, from Greek dēmokratia, from dēmos + -kratia -cracy
Date: 1576
1 a: government by the people; especially : rule of the majority b: a government in which the supreme power is vested in the people and exercised by them directly or indirectly through a system of representation usually involving periodically held free elections
2: a political unit that has a democratic government
3capitalized : the principles and policies of the Democratic party in the United States <from emancipation Republicanism to New Deal Democracy— C. M. Roberts>
4: the common people especially when constituting the source of political authority
5: the absence of hereditary or arbitrary class distinctions or privileges

That sneaky varmint Edwards has is coming.

though I agree. I wrote off Edwards long ago when he started using his sick wife to do his dirty work and bash Hillary at every opportunity.

And the others vying for the nomination would be wise to do the same.

Then everybody can see who is best at that game --because that is the game that counts.

This is what I saw in her encounter with Code Pink. (That is what finally really turned me off to Hillary.) This Miss Prissy side of Hillary. This should get really entertaining.

We have to refresh the viciousness at some point.:evilgrin:

"Well it will be me", then why is she wasting time and energy attacking Dems?

She should be focusing on the Repubs with full force! Use every opportunity possible.

I would suggest she quit pointing to clean hands with her surrogates covered in blood standing behind her. Sniveling is not only unattractive, it is a sign of weakness. She is a flawed candidate and baptism by fire in the primary traditionally sorts that stuff out and hones a better candidate.

It's not like others in her campaign have been mud-slinging free.