"We don't need to be raising the false hopes of our country about what can be delivered."

--Senator Clinton

Talk about setting the bar low. Obama's mild progressive positions are apparently more than Hillary thinks a Dem president can get done. This line, more than the raised voice, is what stood out for me. I haven't heard Obama make any wild boasts about what he can do as president. In fact, he's excessively cautious (health care plan will be passed in his first term).

I'm very sympathetic to Hillary's dilemma -- how to look tough without looking like a bitch. But this statement is troubling because its major premise is that the Beltway Insiders DECIDE what the people "need to know."

This bugs the crap out of me. It makes the Pubs who hate Hillary for arrogance seem correct.

"Let's not raise their expectations too much, they'll get so uppity when we disappoint them"

Which only reinforces Edwards' and Obama's charges.

Rp

It's as if she's promising to get nothing of substance done. Thanks for the heads-up, Senator - but a lot of us already figured that.

Hillary will never bring about the 'change' that is needed. She has already given up on 'real change' saying there won't be much because of negotiation.

a role in taking back their country, it is completely realistic! Give them a reason to put down the god damned remote and make some CHANGE!

Why on earth should the American people have hope that this country and our lives can be made better? :crazy:

If she doesn't think she can make some serious changes, then why the fuck is she running?

.. the bar for the definition of
progressive has moved right and
corporate.

supporting him earlier. I have, however, fallen victim to his charms. Resistance is futile.:) Just imagine living in an America that would elect Barack Obama as president. He appeals to our better nature.

Can't be delivered?

Because why?

...in the same sentence. Maybe the Clinton speech writers can get to work on that.

they can do as they please and we will continue to give up because we have no chance at fixing it. I don't think this is a bad move by the Clinton campaign, I think its that the issues are being pressed more and the truths are starting to seep out. This is a great thing for the American people.

The elites have plenty of hope in their own lives... but ordinary Americans should just resign themselves to "nothing much?" She's promising me more of the same mediocre existence I've had for decades and I'm supposed to be excited about that?

No thanks. I'll take a candidate who says major change is possible and wants to get started fighting for it.

Edwards is a big phony. He's never going to get money out of politics. His whole proletariat revolution is never going to happen. Change can happen. The poor, working and middle classes can get a better deal, but Edwards is not going to make Washington a bastion of integrity.

Hillary was brave enough to tell the truth even if it cost her a couple of points. That's integrity.

have become synonymous. I agree with you somewhat about Edwards anti-corporate rhetoric.I think all of the Dems as president would basically end up in much the same place on domestic matters, even though their stylistic approaches might be very different.

If the country votes for a politician based on promises that cannot be kept, the party risks only having the WH for 4 years. What's that old saying..."fool me once, shame on — shame on you. Fool me — you can't get fooled again." :)

I'm not saying that Senator Obama makes promises he can't keep but I do understand what Senator Clinton is saying.

I think she's going to regret saying it.

years of bush/cheney, people really want to feel good about their country again. Hillary has gone the opposite way. I thought she lost Iowa when she completely changed the tone of her campaign appearances during the last week. She started speaking in hushed tones about all the problems we have. The future's kind of scary, isn't it, and you want somebody who can protect you. She was almost telling people that they might enjoy they're fling with Obama, but now it's time to get serious. This strategy, probably emanating from the overstuffed suit named Mark Penn, fell flat on its face. They seem to have realized this in her New Hampshire appearances and went back to the more successful "ask Hillary" format, but this false hopes line tonight is a killer.

Was that what she was saying? If so, then I understand it. Still, probably not a good thing to say.

I'm sure Bush told corporate America behind closed doors promises that raised their hopes...and he was able to deliver to them.

Hope, change, a desire for something better - these are the reasons why people vote. It's really not a good idea for a candidate to say something like that. Why should we vote for you if you've already decided that you're not even going to try to give us the things we want?

Like you, I think that was her big blunder of the night - not the raised voice.

...okay, one of them, LOL.

I wish she hadn't said it.

:rofl: good one

She really said that? (I didn't watch the debate.)

How can anyone campaign on being the candidate of 'Change' and come out and say that not much is going to change?

- as

She undid a lot of her decent points with that one comment.