Clinton visit details expected next week, lead staffer named

In the wake of Senator Obama's visit to Medford, the Mail-Tribune reports on upcoming efforts by the Hillary Clinton for President campaign in Oregon.

First, visit details:

Presidential candidate Hillary Clinton and former President Bill Clinton might be in Southern Oregon in the next few weeks.

Isaac Baker, spokesman for the Clinton campaign, confirmed that the Clintons will make a sweep through the state, with details expected to be announced next week.

"I expect her to campaign in Southern Oregon and across the state," said Baker.

Second, staffing:

Clinton officials announced Friday that Clay Haynes will serve as director of the Oregon effort. Haynes has been deputy national field director, overseeing the campaign's voter strategies in battleground states.

Discuss.

  • Cindie (unverified)
    (Show?)

    May all the Christians in Oregon see through Obama. God bless us all. Vote for Hillary, at least we know what we have with her, with Obama we don't know what we're going to get. I'm totally terrified of Obama and the company he keeps. The Rev. Wrights of the world is what keep slavery alive. It's a shame. Real shame.

  • Bill Bodden (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Maybe we can get Hillary to explain this and we can watch Bill bite his lip and explain his role in NAFTA.

  • joeldanwalls (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Count me as an Obama supporter who would be glad to vote for Clinton if she is the Democratic nominee and who would like to see her if/when she comes to Portland.

  • (Show?)

    I'm glad to hear Senator Clinton is on her way to Oregon. While I have my favorite, I would be proud to call her my President.

    I hope everyone trolling around this site making vague and unfounded statements against either candidate - rather than debating their positions on specific policy issues - will stop making themselves look so publicly foolish. Do some research. Cite some facts. Be a Democrat.

  • Bob (unverified)
    (Show?)

    The real question is how will she pay for it?

    From the NY Times:

    Still, at the end of February, Mrs. Clinton owed $8.7 million to campaign vendors. The month earlier, she had lent her campaign $5 million. While she has $33.2 million in cash on hand, only $11.7 million can be used for her primary effort, with the rest set aside, by federal regulations, for the general election.

    Once the outstanding campaign debt of $8.7 million is factored in, Mrs. Clinton has only $3 million in free cash for the battles ahead — one-tenth of the $31 million the Obama campaign has in primary cash.

    Even if Hillary brought in a boatload of money this month, she barely has enough to be competitive in Pennsylvania, much less Oregon, Kentucky, or any of the other states that follow. It sure looks like her campaign is subsisting hand-to-mouth right now. Losing a longtime Clintonite like Bill Richardson certainly doesn't send a message of confidence to any potential donors who haven't already maxed out.

  • (Show?)

    May all the Christians in Oregon see through Cindie. God bless us all. Vote for anyone but Cindie, we know she is just a troll, with Cindie we know what we're going to get: racist crap. I'm totally terrified of Cindie and the company she keeps. The Cindies of the world is what keep slavery alive. It's a shame. Real shame.

  • Douglas K (unverified)
    (Show?)

    When is Hillary going to drop through Portland? I'd like to see her campaign book the Coliseum for a rally. See how long it takes to fill it.

  • SDG (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Sounds like Hillary's campaign cannot afford to book the Coliseum.

  • Harry (unverified)
    (Show?)

    "I'd like to see her campaign book the Coliseum for a rally. See how long it takes to fill it."

    and then...

    <h2>"Sounds like Hillary's campaign cannot afford to book the Coliseum."</h2>

    Yeah, she really can't afford the Coliseum, even if she had $100 Million in primary cash, which she does not have.

    She can't afford to look small compared to Obama if she does'nt have the crowds that Obama did. It is an image problem. Playing the me-too game against Obama makes her look silly, even if she could match his progress, which she is not able to. Obama has more small donors, more money, more crowds. Clinton, less so.

    Clinton really can't afford to go to the Coliseum.

  • (Show?)

    Maybe a meet-and-greet with Sten and Kulongoski at the Lucky Lab...

  • joeldanwalls (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Coliseum or Lucky Lab, whatever, just make sure it's announced here!!!

  • Viki (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Hillary is not about taking on stadium. She is more about town hall. I like to have opportunity to talk to candidate. While huge crowd is good marketing it doesn’t provide opportunity to learn more about candidate. We are choosing president of United States not American Idol. I hope she can make stops in more places around city and state.

  • Iced Tee (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Oh yeah....Hillary wants a dialogue with the common people, because she really cares about what they have to say. Especially people who disagree with her policies or her readiness for the job, or the wing-nuts her think her husband is a philandering hick. That's why she likes the intimacy of the town hall format. Let's just learn from each other. It's like a teach-in with Secret Service screening.

    It's NOT because the hand-picked "town-hall" crowds are friendlier, and provide fewer opportunities to compare her to the Obamorator.

  • Larry (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Could it be that Hillary is stealing a page from the Bush campaign book? Or was it a fallacy made up by the MSM that Bush screened all campaign visits?

    Maybe Rove is managing the HillBill campaign as a puppet master?

  • (Show?)

    Well, I guess that most of us had little hope for Oregon's relevance in the primary and now we're gonna get attention from both of the Big Dogs.

    That's gotta be kinda encouraging.

    <hr/>

    Hope they both get the difference needed when campaigning in the state with mail in system.

    Hint, it's about more than being here early.

  • Bill Bodden (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Perhaps Hillary can also explain this fact-challenged statement while she is in Oregon:

    "I remember landing under sniper fire. There was supposed to be some kind of a greeting ceremony at the airport, but instead we just ran with our heads down to get into the vehicles to get to our base." --Hillary Clinton, speech at George Washington University, March 17, 2008.

    Try an Internet search for "Hillary Clinton Tuzla" for more.

  • MarkDaMan (unverified)
    (Show?)

    I don't understand the hate leveled against the Clintons in some people's comments here. Sounds like the Repubs from the 90's. I'd be delighted to see one of modern day's best presidents and the first genuine female presidential candidate, terrific first lady, and respected Senator...Even if I'm not voting for her/them.

    Debate the policy peeps, stop attacking like a bunch of conservatives.

  • LT (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Mark, Someone I know went to college with Hillary Clinton. Wellesley grads are very bright, polished women, but some of Sen. Clinton's actions and remarks are not in keeping with what I would hope the first major female presidential candidate would do. Anymore than I think it helped Geraldine's reputation when she called Obama an affirmative action candidate---and that is exactly what her remarks were saying.

    I think Hillary Clinton has made some mistakes in her campaign. Also, she had the bad luck to be running against someone who has the rhetorical and inspirational skills of Bobby Kennedy--and one almost has to be the same age as Hillary Clinton to have ever seen something like that before.

    Also, increasingly the 2008 Clinton campaign reminds me of the 1984 Mondale campaign, a campaign which lost heavily (59% for Hart, maybe 11% for Jesse Jackson, the rest for Mondale) in Oregon.

    I don't think the above is hateful, merely stating an opinion. What do you think?

  • Bill Bodden (unverified)
    (Show?)

    I don't understand the hate leveled against the Clintons in some people's comments here.

    I take it you're not concerned that Hillary reneged on her vote to defend the Constitution and that she approved of the war on Iraq that has cost tens of thousands, perhaps hundreds of thousands, of people their lives. Or hundreds of thousands of people limbs and other body parts. Or the fact that millions of Iraqis have become refugees. Or the billions of dollars that have been squandered in Iraq while people, including children, in the United States are living in poverty and going without health care that we could easily provide. All of which add up to a crime against humanity. I don't hate Hillary, but I do despise what she, John McCain and other politicians like them represent. And that goes for people who don't care and are willing to vote for them.

  • Harry (unverified)
    (Show?)
    <h2>"I remember landing under sniper fire. There was supposed to be some kind of a greeting ceremony at the airport, but instead we just ran with our heads down to get into the vehicles to get to our base."</h2>

    Was this seared into Hillary's memory also, or is she just plagiarizing Kerry's Vietnam and Cambodia service?

    Or maybe, with all of Hillary's vast experience, did she actually serve with Kerry and McCain in 'Nam?

  • joeldanwalls (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Bodden: I don't hate Hillary, but I do despise what she, John McCain and other politicians like them represent. And that goes for people who don't care and are willing to vote for them.

    SO you're walking around despising tens of millions of your fellow citizens? Gotta say that sounds like one helluva depressing way to wake up every day. And if you are someone who manages to gain strength from despising a large chunk of your fellow...whoa. Not sure I want to go there. Not sure a beer with you would be a terribly relaxing affair.

    Could be some people DO care but are still willing to cast that vote in the imperfect world we inhabit.

    I'll vote for Clinton if she is the nominee, although I definitely favor Obama, and although I definitely have never supported our imperial adventure in Iraq.

  • (Show?)

    SO you're walking around despising tens of millions of your fellow citizens?

    No, he clearly said he despises what they represent. Big difference.

  • Bill Bodden (unverified)
    (Show?)

    SO you're walking around despising tens of millions of your fellow citizens? Gotta say that sounds like one helluva depressing way to wake up every day. And if you are someone who manages to gain strength from despising a large chunk of your fellow...whoa. Not sure I want to go there. Not sure a beer with you would be a terribly relaxing affair.

    You didn't pay attention to the qualifier I added - Those who don't care. I can understand that people will vote for Hillary and others, especially if Hillary is seen as the lesser evil when opposed to McCain. But if there are tens of millions who don't care that she and other politicians have contempt for or are indifferent to the Constitution and that they helped facilitate a crime against humanity, then that should be a signal that this nation is in real trouble.

    One of my favorite commentators on politics is the unfortunately late Walter Karp. In an essay on the Pledge of Allegiance he recognized, in relation to the phrase "...one nation,...,indivisible,...," the many ways in which this nation was divided (race, political allegiance, etc.) but he noted that the one element that united the nation was the Constitution. If the Constitution is now a meaningless document then the United States is "A house divided against itself (that) cannot stand."

    And, yes, that is a depressing thought as it should be for people who care.

  • diane (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Bill:

    I believe you have been taken in by yet another politician who you know little about.

    You state you are voting for Mr. Obama simply because he “did not vote for the war.” He continues to indicate he was opposed to the Iraqi Freedom military action when he wasn't even in the Senate and did not have the opportunity to vote for OR against the war. He was not elected into the Senate until 2004!

    Please remember that Colin Powell in 2002, as Secretary of State under our current president, argued before our political leadership that the Sunni Muslim dictator Saddam Hussein and Sunni Muslim terrorist Osama bin Laden were in cahoots! He presented testimony before the United Nations Security Council that Saddam Hussein had stockpiles of chemical weapons, biological weapons (ie: anthrax), and working to create nuclear weapons in Iraq for the purpose of terrorism. He drew the picture to ask our political leadership to consider a nuclear bomb being detonated on US soil. Colin Powell had a lot of credibility as he was a General and had served as the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. He convinced our leaders that the best decision to insure our safety from terrorism, under these circumstances was to go directly onto Iraq with military action.

    Presented with this information, our political leaders overwhelmingly supported General Powell’s recommendations.

    Mr. Powell was the first black secretary of state. He held substantial credibility at the time of this presentation. Unfortunately, his credibility has been diminished as a result of his part in bringing our country to war.

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

    I doubt that Mr. Obama would have voted against the war under these circumstances. He has even been quoted as being pretty wishy-washy on the topic. “In a meeting with the Chicago Tribune reports at the Democratic National Convention, Obama said, “On Iraq, on paper, there’s not as much difference, I think, between the Bush administration and a Kerry administration as there would have been a year ago. There’s not much of a difference between my position and George Bush’s position at this stage.” (Chicago Tribune, July 27, 2004.) This was during the time he was running for his first (and only) Senate seat.

    Mr. Obama is the worse kind of liar. One who hides behind a fuzzy truth. It is a lie when he says, “I didn’t vote for that War!” He was not in office and was not offered the opportunity. He is a Johnny-come-lately, with a swagger big enough to fool many. However, he is the fool and will be uncovered as such.

    Thank you.

  • disgusted (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Diane's post is specious. Just because Senator Obama wasn't a US Senator in 2002 doesn't in any way diminish the veracity or credibility of his opposition to the war.

    In fact, at that time (October 2002), Obama was running for reelection to the Illinois state senate, and his principled opposition to what was then a "popular" war, is even more remarkable. If memory serves, Oregon's legislature took up a resolution to support the war and many of our Democratic legislators were not as courageous as then state senator Obama.

    Diane's fantasy that Colin Powell would have convinced Obama to vote for the war because he was the first black secretary of state is just another thinly veiled attempt to define this election along racial lines.

    As far as the wishy-washy charge Diane levels at Obama, the speech he gave in October 2002, LESS THAN A MONTH before his election is pasted below.

    You decide if he was wishy washy.

    from Huffington post:

    "Good afternoon. Let me begin by saying that although this has been billed as an anti-war rally, I stand before you as someone who is not opposed to war in all circumstances.

    "The Civil War was one of the bloodiest in history, and yet it was only through the crucible of the sword, the sacrifice of multitudes, that we could begin to perfect this union, and drive the scourge of slavery from our soil. I don't oppose all wars.

    "My grandfather signed up for a war the day after Pearl Harbor was bombed, fought in Patton's army. He saw the dead and dying across the fields of Europe; he heard the stories of fellow troops who first entered Auschwitz and Treblinka. He fought in the name of a larger freedom, part of that arsenal of democracy that triumphed over evil, and he did not fight in vain.

    "I don't oppose all wars.

    "After September 11th, after witnessing the carnage and destruction, the dust and the tears, I supported this Administration's pledge to hunt down and root out those who would slaughter innocents in the name of intolerance, and I would willingly take up arms myself to prevent such a tragedy from happening again.

    "I don't oppose all wars. And I know that in this crowd today, there is no shortage of patriots, or of patriotism. What I am opposed to is a dumb war. What I am opposed to is a rash war. What I am opposed to is the cynical attempt by Richard Perle and Paul Wolfowitz and other arm-chair, weekend warriors in this Administration to shove their own ideological agendas down our throats, irrespective of the costs in lives lost and in hardships borne.

    "What I am opposed to is the attempt by political hacks like Karl Rove to distract us from a rise in the uninsured, a rise in the poverty rate, a drop in the median income - to distract us from corporate scandals and a stock market that has just gone through the worst month since the Great Depression.

    "That's what I'm opposed to. A dumb war. A rash war. A war based not on reason but on passion, not on principle but on politics.

    "Now let me be clear - I suffer no illusions about Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal man. A ruthless man. A man who butchers his own people to secure his own power. He has repeatedly defied UN resolutions, thwarted UN inspection teams, developed chemical and biological weapons, and coveted nuclear capacity.

    "He's a bad guy. The world, and the Iraqi people, would be better off without him. But I also know that Saddam poses no imminent and direct threat to the United States, or to his neighbors, that the Iraqi economy is in shambles, that the Iraqi military a fraction of its former strength, and that in concert with the international community he can be contained until, in the way of all petty dictators, he falls away into the dustbin of history.

    "I know that even a successful war against Iraq will require a US occupation of undetermined length, at undetermined cost, with undetermined consequences. I know that an invasion of Iraq without a clear rationale and without strong international support will only fan the flames of the Middle East, and encourage the worst, rather than best, impulses of the Arab world, and strengthen the recruitment arm of al-Qaeda.

    "I am not opposed to all wars. I'm opposed to dumb wars.

    "So for those of us who seek a more just and secure world for our children, let us send a clear message to the president today. You want a fight, President Bush? Let's finish the fight with Bin Laden and al-Qaeda, through effective, coordinated intelligence, and a shutting down of the financial networks that support terrorism, and a homeland security program that involves more than color-coded warnings.

    "You want a fight, President Bush? Let's fight to make sure that the UN inspectors can do their work, and that we vigorously enforce a non-proliferation treaty, and that former enemies and current allies like Russia safeguard and ultimately eliminate their stores of nuclear material, and that nations like Pakistan and India never use the terrible weapons already in their possession, and that the arms merchants in our own country stop feeding the countless wars that rage across the globe.

    "You want a fight, President Bush? Let's fight to make sure our so-called allies in the Middle East, the Saudis and the Egyptians, stop oppressing their own people, and suppressing dissent, and tolerating corruption and inequality, and mismanaging their economies so that their youth grow up without education, without prospects, without hope, the ready recruits of terrorist cells.

    "You want a fight, President Bush? Let's fight to wean ourselves off Middle East oil, through an energy policy that doesn't simply serve the interests of Exxon and Mobil.

    "Those are the battles that we need to fight.

    "Those are the battles that we willingly join. The battles against ignorance and intolerance. Corruption and greed. Poverty and despair.

    "The consequences of war are dire, the sacrifices immeasurable. We may have occasion in our lifetime to once again rise up in defense of our freedom, and pay the wages of war. But we ought not - we will not - travel down that hellish path blindly. Nor should we allow those who would march off and pay the ultimate sacrifice, who would prove the full measure of devotion with their blood, to make such an awful sacrifice in vain."

  • Bill Bodden (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Diane your sloppy thinking, and being specious as "disgusted" said, helps to explain why you and so many others are going along with the Clintons and McCain for president:

    You state you are voting for Mr. Obama simply because he “did not vote for the war.”

    If you paid attention to what I have written, there are other reasons, despite reservations, why I'm voting for Obama. So that point of yours, like your entire post, is meretricious nonsense.

    Don't tout that wretched creature, Colin Powell, to me as some authority. There is a lot that Christopher Hitchens has said that has proved to be utter claptrap, but he was right on target when he referred to Colin Powell as the most over-rated man in Washington. Which shows how naive and ill-informed the American people can be. Powell was one person with a possibility of stopping the drive to war on Iraq. Instead, he thought of his own butt and went before the Security Council of the United Nations and presented a stream of lies to sell this on-going crime against humanity in Iraq. "60 Minutes" had a program that featured former members of the State Department's intelligence unit during Powell's stewardship. They knew what Powell was telling the U.N. and the world was not the truth. Powell, therefore, had to know it. Try an Internet search for "Greg Thielman Carl Ford Colin Powell security council Iraq" for more on this. Not that I expect Diane or others sharing her attitudes will be persuaded by facts or the well-argued points made by "disgusted" above.

  • (Show?)

    Open the sewers, the Clintons are coming!

  • (Show?)

    or maybe I should quote AC/DC: Lock up your daughter Lock up your wife Lock up your back door and run for your life!

  • Anon (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Mr. Bodden:

    Obama on Iraq: Prior To Joining U.S. Senate While running for senate in 2003, Sen. Obama acknowledged that he took his anti-war speech off his campaign website, calling it 'dated.' Specifically, State Senator Obama maintains that an October 2002 anti-war speech was removed from his campaign web site because “the speech was dated once the formal phase of the war was over, and my staff's desire to continually provide fresh news clips." [Black Commentator, 6/19/03]

    Obama in July 2004: 'There’s not much of a difference between my position and George Bush’s position [on Iraq] at this stage.' In a meeting with Chicago Tribune reporters at the Democratic National Convention, Obama said, “On Iraq, on paper, there's not as much difference, I think, between the Bush administration and a Kerry administration as there would have been a year ago. […] There's not much of a difference between my position and George Bush's position at this stage. The difference, in my mind, is who's in a position to execute.” [Chicago Tribune, 07/27/04]

    Obama on 2002 Iraq resolution vote: 'What would I have done? I don't know:' "When asked about Senators Kerry and Edwards' votes on the Iraq war, Obama said, "I'm not privy to Senate intelligence reports," Mr. Obama said. "What would I have done? I don't know. What I know is that from my vantage point the case was not made." [New York Times, 07/26/04]

    In September 2004, Obama says he ' would be willing to send more soldiers to Iraq.' [AP, 9/19/04]

    Obama on Iraq: U.S. Senate Record 11 months after joining Senate, Sen. Obama delivers first speech devoted to Iraq, says 'US forces are sill part of the solution.' "[T]he level of his criticism lowered when he arrived in Washington. In his first year in the Senate, he delivered one speech on Iraq, calling for a phased withdrawal by the end of 2006. But last November, Mr. Obama revised that time frame, saying the drawdown should begin in four to six months." Obama's Senate web site lists his address to the Chicago Council on Foreign Relations on November 22, 2005, 11 months after entering the U.S. Senate. Obama said, "I believe that U.S. forces are still a part of the solution in Iraq." [New York Times, 2/12/07; obama.senate.gov]

    18 months after joining Senate, Sen. Obama gives first floor statement devoted to Iraq, opposes timeline for withdrawal. "…But having visited Iraq, I am also acutely aware that a precipitous withdrawal of our troops, driven by congressional edict rather than the realities on the ground, will not undo the mistakes made by this administration. It could compound them." [obama.senate.gov]

    Upon arriving in the Senate, Sen. Obama supported every funding bill for Iraq, some $300 billion….until he started running for President. [2005 Vote # 117, HR1268, 5/10/05; 2005 Vote # 326, S1042, 11/15/05; 2006 Vote # 112, HR4939, 5/4/06; 2006 Vote # 239; 2006 Vote # 186, S2766, 6/22/06; HR5631, 9/7/06]

  • Bill Bodden (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Anon: You are apparently like Diane in not paying full attention to what I have written. I have said that I'm voting for Obama but with reservations, so I will not argue against some of the points you made above. However, I will on this:

    Obama on 2002 Iraq resolution vote: 'What would I have done? I don't know:' "When asked about Senators Kerry and Edwards' votes on the Iraq war, Obama said, "I'm not privy to Senate intelligence reports," Mr. Obama said. "What would I have done? I don't know. What I know is that from my vantage point the case was not made." [New York Times, 07/26/04]

    Many Clinton supporters, I presume you are one since you are attacking Obama, would like to have people believe that if Obama had been in the senate in October 2002 he would have voted for the war. The counter argument is probably more valid. 23 senators voted against the war, including some on the intelligence committee who might have shared something of their inside knowledge with Obama persuading him to vote "No.".

    Chris Hedges over at Truthdig has a very good argument for not voting for both Obama and Clinton.</a

  • Anon (unverified)
    (Show?)

    Not attacking, just wanting to set the record straight is all. I don't think it's right for people to repeatedly say that Mr. Obama is perfect on Iraq. Neither of them are. But they're both better than McCain, which to me is the bottom line.

  • Daniel Russell (unverified)
    (Show?)

    To "Cindi"-religion aside-you make a good point. We DO know what we'll get with Clinton. More of the same. More NAFTA/WTO. More WAR. More divisive politics. Even if we were to set that aside, is it prudent to allow two families (Bush/Clinton) have near dynastic power over our country? That hardly seems democratic. Don't you agree? Think about it...Bush I=4 years, B. Clinton=8years, Bush II=8 years and now H. Clinton for four or eight more years? While it is true, there are fewer "knowns" with Obama, the President doesn't operate in a vacuum. Please realize he will put together an extraordinary cabinet. The pickin's are excellent! Change & progress take courage. Making decisions out of fear are powerless decisions. If you haven't all ready, I suggest you watch Obama's "Race" speech delivered on 3/18. It is on www.youtube.com.

  • Kami Mulder (unverified)
    (Show?)

    CNN boycott started. If they can't be objective like the news USED to be when I was younger, they need to CHANGE THEIR NAME or add another station, site. We are SICK of their subjectiveness but their flat out BIAS.

    http://www.cnn.com/feedback/

  • fava bean (unverified)
    (Show?)

    I for one will be supporting Hillary. Obama would be quite dangerous as a president in my opinion and is essentially an empty suit... if you have watched this race as close as I have, you would notice that the Obama camp always released their policy statements after Clinton and Edwards - and they were often word-for-word similar.

    I don't think he even really knows WHAT he will do in office.

    Clinton on the other hand - most girls dream about their wedding day, she dreamed about the policies she would have as first woman president. she's very very smart.

    <h2>please Oregon, vote Hillary!</h2>
in the news

connect with blueoregon