Hillary's "Moment" already on YouTube

his ass..:woohoo: :woohoo:

35 years of CHANGE... :spray:

STAY THE COURSE FOR CHANGE!

Look at all the great "change" you've given us!

fucking liar! Just like bush! :puke:

... I changed the oil in the car.

HRC's own examples show what a ridiculous argument it is for her to talk about change.

Taken on big pharma, when was that I missed it?

:shrug:

And Hillary is nowhere near my preferred candidate.

I've seen Kucinich much more "angry," and everyone applauds his passion. :shrug:

Really, it has nothing to do with her being a woman.

Hell, she even said her gender shouldn't matter.

Until tonight (for one example) when she defended her "change" message and brought up gender and said the first woman president would be a big change.

So, once again, she believes something until she says something different.

There are male politicians who do this as well. It has nothing to do with gender. It has everything to do with character, honesty and truth. Hillary Clinton falls short on all three counts.

So what is the difference?

She didn't say "gender shouldn't matter" in terms of the meaning of a woman as president -- she recognizes the significance of it. Hopefully we all do.

I don't see anything -- except old rightwing rhetoric -- to impugn her character, honesty, or "truth." So I disagree with you.

There are men who have been rightly labeled as abrasive and angry. We were right when we said it about Pat Buchanan. We (well, some of us) were right when we said it about Mike Gravel just this year. I even thought Dodd came off the same way.

So there's a difference, and it has nothing to do with gender (unless that's your only fall-back).

Hillary Clinton has said that her gender shouldn't matter. I have seen her say it on C-SPAN in a few speeches. But, again, that doesn't matter because she says different things to different audiences.

Was Edwards "angry" when he raised his voice and pointed?

Gender doesn't matter as to why the others were attacking her -- that is what she said. That doesn't negate the significance of having a woman as president. Is this hard for you to understand?

how anyone could watch more than, say, ten of her speeches and not see that she changes what she says depending upon who the audience is. She's done it on health care, the Iraq War (MANY times), the gender issue...on and on it goes. She's simply an applause-line machine. She knows that some people will fall for it, and/or some people will support her just because she's a woman (as evidenced in this discussion).

But, of course, you are free to vote for someone who does that. She certainly isn't alone. The choices we have among those who possess core beliefs are few. I prefer to stick with them.

Oh, and by the way, before you play the gender card again, I'd vote for Barbara Boxer 100 times before I'd vote for Hillary Clinton once. Clinton could really learn a thing or two from Boxer about principled beliefs.

Happy New Year to you!

She's been extremely careful to be consistent.

I'm not sure of my vote yet. Defending her on matters like this, to me, is defending all women on matters like this. It strikes a nerve. (I'd better be careful not to get ANGRY!!)

I don't care who you'd vote for, frankly.

Happy New Year to you, too!

If she were a male, I still wouldn't vote for her/him unless I had no choice. It's about her affiliation with the DLC and the cast she brings to the table.

:thumbsup:

theres a way you go about being strong. she should NOT have gone so negative. i've been saying going negative in the debates would look bad for hillary all along.

The only thing I can't stand are double standards.

Edwards went "negative" on her BIG time; Obama less so.

What's the difference there?

and I'm not even a Hillary fan....

His eyes were going batty and he was jittery and snarky looking.

I'm not supporting a candidate yet--except maybe Kucinich--and so I feel that all this hype against her was overblown hysteria.

The rest of the time his expression was fixed. At least he didn't look like he was about to nod off.

Look at it again with your timer.

Hillary was angry, but IMHO, she didn't turn into an A--H---.

When you actually watch it, it's obvious she was angry but she didn't become unhinged the way some here have made it seem.

Apparently, that means she had a "moment."

Happier than ever... together~ ~ ~

Why doesn't she just run on the GOP ticket and leave us democrats alone?

bullshit. Grow up, she's probably been a Democrat longer than most of her detractors.

There are plenty of us out here, and we don't all support Obama.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

You are one of the children who fell for the Obama hype right? I'm willing to bet that I've been a Democrat since before you were born.

I'm leaning towards Edwards after tonight.

Hillary did lose it a bit on that exchange. Too bad.
Obama stammered/stuttered a lot. Also, he put me to sleep.
Richardson annoyed.

over the last thirty years. She was recognised before Bill even took the white house for her work giving women and children justice in education, healthcare, and so on.

Frankly, I'm not a Hillary supporter, but I also don't condone people just making fun of other people without the complete facts.

So much change we're right back where we started. :crazy:

This is how you bring about change over 35 years:

- Working on children's issues as a part of the Children's Defense Fund.

- Reforming education in Arkansas

- Working on veteran's health care issues such as Gulf War Syndrome, as First Lady

- Working to bring democracy to places like China by staring down the Chinese and saying "Women's right are human rights, and human rights are women's rights, once and for all."

- Going to places all over the world, include Africa, and championing issues such as "microcredit," which helps people (especially women) take control of their destiny by receiving microcredit loans to start their own businesses.


And then, you bring change when, as a Senator, you learn that the Pentagon is trying to get back the signing bonuses of injured troops. You help sponsor legislation that tells the Pentagon no way will you get back the signing bonuses of injured troops.

You bring about change by preventing George W. Bush from privatizing social security like he wanted to.

Those are just SOME of the accomplishments of Sen. Clinton over 35 years.

It's easier for them to ignore what she's done than to acknowledge it.

:rofl:

What's more priceless is that Edwards looked like they portrayed Al Gore in 2000.

And frankly, I am not behind any of the candidates yet. So hmmm... what you have to ask yourself is how INDEPENDANTS reacted, not how partisan Edward supporters acted.

WTF are you talking about?

That didn't reflect poorly on her. She defended herself as someone who has, and will continue to, fight to change inequities in the system. Why can't women be forceful and passionate without being slapped with negative lables and cliches?

I think John Edwards won the debate, hands down. I also think people are way off base comparing that moment to the 'Dean Scream' and some are sounding more like Freakers everyday.

... actually she pointed out the rather nebulous nature of her opponent's pronouncements by comparing it with her own real acheivements.

Also Richardson's incessent banging of his finger on the table to emphasize a point was very distracting. Hillary came off angry and shrill. Nobody wants to look at that for four years. May have been unintended but she hurt herself tonight.

But I'm surprised how much I like hearing her, how she carries herself, speaks very well.

assertively stating what she's accomplished over what someone else just promises.

This whole thread is nothing but spin.

Hillary took a stand. That's what people see and hear. They hear someone who isn't going to allow people to wave the word "change" around without having the record to prove it!

She did a good job.

I'm independant--except for maybe Kucinich--and I have to tell you that Edwards really looked like the loser in the clip. He was doing his best Al Gore from 2000 debates immitation. AND that won't work.

Loud and proud, dear. Ask Jerry Springer.

on DU...but to verify it myself.

I was out this evening, and missed the debate. Logging on to DU, I see all these post from the anti-Clinton brigade acting like she just had some melt-down.

So I go to YouTube and watch her so-called "moment," and I don't see the big breaking deal.

She wasn't yelling. She was passionate, and she handed John Edwards his ass on a platter.

He, and Obama, got booed at the last debate for their tactics and it seems John did not learn his lesson then. Obama apparently knew better even after she challenged him on his "record"...nonexistent as it is....

It was pretty shameless. I don't think he's going to be a candidate much longer anyway, so I'm kind of done concerning myself with that anyway.

I thought Obama and Clinton both did well.

I didn't get to see this part until YouTube replay and I was shocked that this counted as a "Meltdown." Meltdown? Really?
Please, please, please.

I call it clear, direct, concise, emphatic, passionate.

Wow. We truly need to watch for ourselves.

Or was that "Journalist 8675309"?? Sometimes I get the two of you confused. If it wasn't you, I apologize for the confusion.

I would say that she got real close to yelling at him though.
She definitely did not hand him his ass!

when she was leading implying that she was now "attacking" Obama because she was now behind. Why is pointing out Obama's lack of experience, changing his positions on several key issues in the Senate an "attack?" Last I looked she was still beating them both in national polls.

Tis true.

I prefer either Obama or Edwards over Clinton, but after reading this exchange described on DU, I thought people must have been referring to something else. This was really the "moment"?

Good golly, I hope non of those placid folk ever join a dinner table conversation with my family.

That was nothing.

It's amazing.

:eyes:

We know you'll vote Republican if Hillary doesn't win (which she won't). Why not save everyone the trouble and go somewhere you're more wanted?

http://www.freerepublic.com

... really, I can't see what all the fuss is about. If she was a British politician this "moment" would only gain her respect.

Why does anyone put ANY confidence in anything she says, considering the fact that she changes what she says on an almost daily basis?

I think she looked really desperate tonight. The clock is ticking and she knows she's just weeks away from going back to the Senate to do more of nothing.

:rofl:

he laid claim to the "Patient's Bill of Rights"....didn't Hillary tell him that there was no such thing as a "Patient's Bill of Rights" and he had to agree..? I was between the debate and the Steelers/Jac game.

I caught the tail end of that exchange.

I had just switched back from checking the score of the football game and just caught the end of her comment. He did not look good in his reply to that question. I really feel sorry for him. He was my choice before Kerry but I don't like this new version at all.

did they change it in the middle?

to figure out which words ring like bells, and "change" is one of them. The nation thirsts for change. So what are the hip pols offering? No-less than the semblance of change wrapped within personality, and quick cause the people are responding to it.

bush...said he was "a reformer", "a uniter", "a compassionate conservative"...that rifle was bought lock, stock & barrel sight unseen because this nation thought it thirsted for something, some targeted opinion, some product placement; what is that line?

"People don't drink the sand because they're thirsty. They drink the sand because they don't know the difference."

It is a good thing at this juncture imo to stop the flow of buzz words sometimes, intermittently, however pretty to the ear, jiggle them, see if & where they stratify, discern their sediments if any. Like wine aging perhaps.

There's plenty of time for druthers and the world is watching, 08 is too important for Coke v. Pepsi

Really?

And she took on the drug companies and the oil companies and the health companies?

Really?

:shrug:

I missed this moment making dinner for my boy...glad they put it up so quickly...feel free to clue me in, I think Hillary is cookie cutter politics, molded, shaped, baked.

JMO...Peace

She had a hell of a carreer before Bill Clinton took the White House. It's really shitty of people to denegrate those accomplishments particularly since women of that time period were the pioneers in the legal field and had to work 3 x as hard to get 1/10th the recognition.

I'm not even a Hillary fan and I can see that the anti-hillary comments on this thread are just people who don't know what she accomplished.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x2606591#2606673

and here's another hint

google.com

Don't buy spin when you can research facts.

I see a big corporate media pig hugging a corporate schill.

This is My Opinion. My Opinion.

Sorry, she never made my radar and you are right I do not have her resume in front of me.

I lived in Arkansas for many years and still have family there, I don't hear a lot of great things at the local coffee shops about her stunning record of change. I probably just don't go to the right coffee shops. Nobody I know back in Arkansas supports her but that is MY circle.

That is my opinion and you have yours.

Peace

edited to remove google ref...unnecessary

Hillary has been brutal toward the drug companies. She voted against their dream program, prescription drugs paid for by medicare. Then she worked to give the government the power to negotiate lower drug prices. She also voted for a bill that allowed prescription drugs to be imported from Canada. She's fought the drug companies every step of the way against everything that was important to them.

Oil companies? She voted to take away their big tax breaks. She wants an alternative energy policy.

Hillary has a list of accomplishments that go back 35 years. Edwards is a snake for saying Hillary is a defender of the status quo. No truth to that at all.

Edwards lit the crazy fuse and waited for her to explode.

you sound like Hanutty or Rush.

... walking headlong into a very well set trap. She was outmatched there.

was an quite an exaggeration, it's similar to Hanutty/Foxspeak, a la the oft used "unhinged". It's true what some posters are saying - what "moment"? Jeez

Lookout Gov'!!!!

:nuke:

Honestly, I keep expecting this sort of pithiness to go to break.

hope the Pats do as well...:applause: :toast:

:loveya:

and you liked her "moment"?

Enlighten me. I'm serious! Edwards wibbled nebulously and she called him on it. Good for her.

what the hell?

what 'moment'?

look i am not a hillary clinton supporter. and i am not a fan of feminists. but there is nothing in this video that is over the line, at no point in time did she loose her composure, she did use a forceful tone of voice, but that's no different from any other politician on any given day

if you think that this was a 'freak out', i think you might have a problem with women in general

industry when you "changed" health care as First Lady?

Hillary went all out after them in '93. Big money and the far left wrecked it all. She hasn't quit though.

We're single payer supporters. Hillary blew it--cuddling up to the HMO's. Go back and check your facts--you might be buying into some Clintonian revisionist history.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harry_and_Louise

HMO's were a separate type of organization which was challenging fee for service plans
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Health_insurance#Health_Maintenance_Organizations

Hillary's plan was likely to put fee for service insurance plans out of business.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clinton_health_care_plan

HMO's subsequently turned out to be (through the 90's) not much better than fee for service plans.
They offered bonuses to MD's who turned people away for care, and made their money by denying services
to insured claimants. The insurance industry soon figured out that setting up HMO's was good for the bottom line and they proceeded to do it. Nothing changed. Hillary blew it.

Edwards has it right (and Howard Dean had it right in 2004). Medical decisions are best left to individuals and their health care providers. The US should have universal health care coverage. Most industrialized
nations in the world have it. Why don't we? Follow the money to get your answer.

I still believe big money and the far left derailed the plan. Not the HMOs though.

And I'm an Edwards supporters. She's right about that - and that distinction between words & action has been a constant theme for her throughout her life.

:shrug:

:shrug:

:spank:

I only saw that clip, so it's completely out of context, but it looked like she was holding her own from what little I saw.

What's outrageous is the vitriol DUers are throwing at each other tonight. Apparently I am a FOX troll HillBot plant for posting this: :rofl:

Evil on the prowl! Sinstress be gone! Leave my garden troll alone! I mean gnome. Sorry.

:shrug:

I don't get it.

She was calm and direct and clearly ready for that. She did great on that one in my humble opinion.

Much more so than I had been led to believe by all the pontificating about her "moment" on this site....

She might want to tweak that a little bit.

Clinton Machine Shaken by Setback...The scope of Barack Obama's victory in Iowa has shaken the Clinton machine down to its bolts. Donors are panicking. The campaign has been making a round of calls to reassure notoriously fickle "superdelegates" — elected officials and party regulars who are awarded convention spots by virtue of their titles and positions — who might be reconsidering their decisions to back the candidate who formerly looked like a sure winner.
http://www.time.com/time/politics/article/0,8599,1700705,00.html
:nopity:

Do you want nebulousness or real solutions?

Really, the more I read the anti-Hillary people the less they seem to have to say...
I'm not even in the States, I don't get to vote for her but I'm beginning to wish I could...

Other than that, I don't see much wrong with it. It's a typical politician ramble, but that's ok, she's a politician.

As an Edwards supporter, I was a bit embarrassed at how he attacked her and kissed up to Obama.

Totally cringeworthy. Hillary's response came after she realized that Edwards had basically allied w/Obama so both could attack her as the "status quo".

What an insult. What arrogance.

Real, substantial, genuine reform is NOT a "false hope". She suggests the people of this country should ask nicely for some crumbs, when they should be demanding a fair piece of pie. Whose country is this, anyway?

I found her "moment" laughable and satisfying because it exposed her for what she is.

She could BARELY come up with a list of her "changes and accomplishments" that have helped the majority of the people. Sorry Hill, but a few thousand doesn't cut it.

Her outburst proved her to be a TOTAL corporate shill who-as Edwards asserted-is protecting the status quo. :puke:

Does this woman honestly think she's going to be elected?

I think she handled herself really well. I also have no idea why this is being treated as something consequential. Did I miss something?

Maybe some anger managment classes would help.