Hillary Clinton in Oregon
Hillary Clinton made campaign stops in Hillsboro and Eugene yesterday, where she gave Oregon high marks for its environmental policies.
From the Oregonian:
In Hillsboro, Clinton detailed how she wanted to follow Oregon's lead to push for greater use of solar and wind energy and to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. She said that her highest priority was to slash America's dependence on imported oil, which she argued endangers both national security and the environment.However, Clinton blasted attempts by the federal government to force Oregon and other states to allow liquefied natural gas terminals. Although supporters say they can help reduce U.S. dependence on foreign oil, critics of the proposed LNG terminals in Oregon say they pose environmental and safety dangers while doing little to encourage the use of renewable energy.
Clinton complained that the Energy Policy Act of 2005 gave the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission -- which she said is "stacked with those who have the same mind-set as George Bush and Dick Cheney" -- exclusive authority to rule on the siting of LNG terminals.
Clinton praised Oregon's commitment to renewable energy, and pledged to follow Oregon's lead.
From the Statesman Journal:
"Part of the reason why I'm proud to be here in Oregon is that Oregon is already doing it," she said.Oregon has set a goal of obtaining 25 percent of its power from renewable sources by 2025, and Clinton said the nation should do the same.
Her energy plans are aimed at cutting foreign-oil imports by two-thirds from projected 2030 levels, about 10 million barrels per day, and reducing greenhouse-gas emissions by 80 percent from 1990 levels.
She would pay for the fund by ending tax breaks to big oil companies.
"I will give the oil companies a choice," she said. "They can be part of the solution and invest themselves in renewable sources and upgrade their equipment to reduce their greenhouse-gas emissions — or we will impose a windfall-profits tax."
In Eugene, Clinton also came out strongly in favor of extending federal timber payments, pledging to vote "yes" on Senator Ron Wyden's bill even if that meant interrupting her campaigning:
Federal payments to Oregon's counties should continue until the government can find another way to compensate rural communities for the demise of old-growth logging, Sen. Hillary Clinton said Saturday.In an interview with The Oregonian, Clinton called the financial crisis a byproduct of the Bush administration's insistence on continued logging in Northwest forests rather than looking for long-term economic solutions to the problem.
"When you look at what the Bush administration has done, it's a very typical example of their ideological bias and their disregard of people's rights," Clinton said.
"Those county payments are part of a structure of resource transfer because the federal government owns so much of your land."
Speaking with the Oregonian, Clinton also addressed her and her husband's recently released tax returns:
In an interview with The Oregonian, Clinton said that when she and her husband left the White House in 2001, they had few assets and were "starting out like 22-year-old newlyweds." She said the big financial success they received from their books and the former president's speeches was a "great American story."She was referring to tax returns made public Friday reporting that the Clintons had $20 million in income last year and more than $109 million since 2000.
"We had nothing (when we left the White House), and that was fine because we loved every minute of his public service. We were fortunate because people wanted to read what we wrote. They wanted to hear him speak.
"We paid a lot of taxes and we paid off all our legal bills," she said. "We were millions of dollars in debt. We're still the same people we were."
The Register Guard reports her campaign also used some creative tactics in Eugene to reach out to Oregon voters:
When asked about her chances of winning Oregon’s primary, Clinton responded, “I probably start behind. It’s going to take some hard campaigning but I welcome that,” she said. “I want to work hard in Oregon to do as well as possible.”The Clinton campaign used her Oregon appearances to unveil a new campaign tactic. While they awaited the candidate’s appearance, campaign aides passed out phone-banking scripts to cell-phone-packing audience members to “turn this room into the largest phone bank this country has ever seen” by calling people at the numbers provided and encouraging them to support Clinton in the May 20 Oregon primary.
The Portland Mercury also has a detailed account of Clinton's stop in Hillsboro.
Were you at either of the rallies? What did you think?
Discuss.
|
April 6, 2008 |
in the news | Comments (70 so far)
| Share on Facebook |
Sponsored Advertising
Comments
Posted by: Gina | Apr 6, 2008 1:10:33 PM
I love Oregon too but don't believe a word Clinton says. More Bush/Clinton/Bush/Clinton? No thanks!
Posted by: Josh Kardon | Apr 6, 2008 1:11:02 PM
A slightly more balanced report than Charlie Burr's. Thank you for posting.
Senator Clinton showed she knows something about Oregon yesterday. First, she addressed the state's desire to lead the way on green, sustainable practices and commerce. In fact, she began her day with a lengthy discussion with Erik Sten about Oregon's business efforts and Portland's emphasis on charting a new energy and sustainable practices future. And for those of you who know Erik, you know he took the opportunity to also discuss affordable housing issues.
In Hillsboro, Senator Clinton laid out her energy vision, and the crowd really responded-she is thinking big on energy. Oregon big.
She also took the opportunity to draw a sharp contrast between herself and Senator Obama, blasting the Bush Energy Bill he supported for stripping Oregon's voice and most of its authority in the siting of LNG facilities. Senator Clinton stood with too few Senators against that oil, gas, nuclear industry bill. A very passionate woman from the Forest Grove area explained to Senator Clinton what the impact of a proposed pipeline from the Astoria LNG proposal would do to her organic farm and countless Oregon communities, rivers, and forest lands, and Senator Clinton demonstrated she was listening. She said in no uncertain terms that the decision must rest with the states, and that she doesn't trust the Bush-dominated FERC with Oregon's energy future. She will restore the power to Oregon that was stripped by the Bush energy bill.
And finally, in Portland, Hillsboro, and Eugene, she declined to have a fundraiser, and instead met with county and state officials, Democrat and Republican, to hear from them about the county payments crisis faced by this state due to President Bush's betrayal of rural counties (including Lane). She demonstrated superior knowledge and commitment to the issue by saying that we cannot wait for the next President to fix this mess because thousands of public safety, education, public health and other employees would lose their jobs in 2008, decimating countless rural communities. She pledged, if her vote is required for passage, to drop her campaigning and return to the Senate to vote for Oregon's rural counties. And she announced her cosponsorship of the Wyden 5-year reauthorization legislation still pending in the Senate.
All in all, it was a great day for Hillary, and a great day for democracy in Oregon. She indicated that she knows that she start behind Obama in our state, but that she intends to take her case to Oregonians who are savoring the moment of finally having a chance for their vote to count. She will compete and compete well in Oregon. There will be no coronation.
Posted by: torridjoe | Apr 6, 2008 1:29:10 PM
"And finally, in Portland, Hillsboro, and Eugene, she declined to have a fundraiser, and instead met with county and state officials,"
We'll consider that payback for coming to fatten her coffers in an essentially uncontested race, only to be cajoled into kicking a couple coins into DPO after justly being rapped for it.
Josh, do you think she stays in if she loses NC and IN and is only single digits winner in PA? Her money situation is dire.
Posted by: SDG | Apr 6, 2008 1:34:26 PM
She has been in the Senate for awhile. She could have addressed the issue of timber payments before today.
Posted by: Bill R. | Apr 6, 2008 1:37:54 PM
Jake Tapper does some fact checking on her lie that she opposed the war before Obama. The prevarication is getting to be a bad habit. Bosnia and snipers, phony hospital and death stories, now "I was first to oppose the war in Iraq." Sheesh..
http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2008/04/in-oregon-clint.html
In Oregon, Clinton Makes False Claim About Her Iraq Record Vs. Obama's
April 06, 2008 9:49 AM
In Eugene, Ore., Saturday. Sen. Hillary Clinton, D-N.Y., attempted to change the measure by which anyone might assess who criticized the Iraq war first, her or Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill., by saying those keeping records should start in January 2005, when Obama joined the Senate. (A measure that conveniently avoids her October 2002 vote to authorize use of force against Iraq at a time that Obama was speaking out against the war.) She claimed that using that measure, she criticized the war in Iraq before Obama did.
But Clinton's claim was false.
Posted by: Bill R. | Apr 6, 2008 1:49:33 PM
Ed Rendell says on Meet the Press (interview by Tim Russert with Sen. Casey and Gov. Rendell) that pledged delegates don't matter, popular vote doesn't matter, states don't matter, vital constituencies don't matter. So perhaps Josh Kardon can clarify, what does matter any more in the Dem. party, besides the ambition of the Clinton imperium?
Josh, I can only conclude you've hitched your wagon to a strange sense of values and some odd colleagues. I've pretty well decided that the Clinton campaign is now running for 2012, so the strategy for this year is only one, sabotage.
*************************************
From Meet the Press this morning:
" Mr. Tim Russert: Senator Casey, if Barack Obama goes into the convention ahead in elected delegates combined with superdelegates, having won more contests, and has the popular vote lead as well, can he be denied the nomination?
SEN. CASEY: Oh, I don't think he, he could or should be.
GOV. RENDELL: I, I disagree.
MR. RUSSERT: Governor, Governor...
GOV. RENDELL: I disagree.
MR. RUSSERT: Governor Rendell, let me ask you a simple question. If Barack Obama, at the convention, is ahead in elected delegates, ahead in contests won, and ahead in cumulative popular vote, could the superdelegates still nominate Hillary Clinton?
GOV. RENDELL: Sure. It depends on what trends are happening....
Posted by: Chris Corbell | Apr 6, 2008 1:55:59 PM
Hillary's initiatives on green energy and her work on the environment set her apart in this campaign; among the three major candidates she -is- the green choice.
Hillary has a 90% rating from the LCV. She co-sponsored the Roadless Area Conservation Act and has strongly supported the Arctic Wildlife Natural Refuge. She introduced the Zero Emissions Building Act. She urged action on climate change as a minority member on the Senate floor long before Al Gore's movie and Nobel Prize made it politically safe to do so.
John McCain has a 0% rating from the LCV; not much more to say there.
Barack Obama only introduced nuclear-safety leak-reporting legislation when it was demanded by his constituents and then watered it down at the behest of his corporate backer Exelon (who has also employed David Axelrod) and the influence of Republicans - so much for proving that a non-partisan approach can lead to change. When he had the chance to voice opposition Yucaa Mountain in the Illinois State Legislature he declined (though he conveniently decided to claim he had always oppose the waste dump this year while campaigning in Nevada). And Obama - not Clinton - voted yes on the Cheney energy bill that was a gift to companies like Exxon-Mobil.
Like so many other issues, Hillary has led and Obama has followed on green energy and the environment. For more detail check out my article Hillary's Green Agenda or visit the Issues section of hillaryclinton.com.
Posted by: Charlie Burr | Apr 6, 2008 2:08:04 PM
Hillary has a 90% rating from the LCV.
And Barack Obama has a 96 percent rating from LCV. Also, LCV's scorecard does not factor in the environmental degradation associated with a three trillion dollar war. How much investment could we have made toward energy independence with even a slither of that money?
Posted by: Josh Kardon | Apr 6, 2008 2:20:50 PM
TJ -- Sen. Obama came to the state, I believe in 2006, and raised money for his PAC right here in our fair city. He had a fundraiser with some high donors and split, which was his right. I don't believe he informed the DPO of his visit and I also do not believe he kicked a dime of that money to Dems in this state. I haven't heard anyone here carp about that . . . probably because it was a well-kept secret.
From 1993 through 2002, both Senator Clinton and President Clinton raised piles of money for Democrats in this state. More than anyone else. Without that money, much of which came through the DNC, this state night look a lot different. Now what was your point again?
Posted by: joeldanwalls | Apr 6, 2008 2:22:55 PM
I went with my family to hear both Obama and Clinton. Useful civics lesson for an 11 year old whose parents talk about politics at home a lot and try to promote the "question authority" principle without getting into the silly bumper-sticker approach.
Clinton was generally impressive in Hillsboro. She has a command of details, I think, although some of the details I suspect come from notes prepared by aides (not that that is a problem--we're not talking about a brainless Dubya performance). She did not sway my primary vote away from Obama, but certainly left me feeling that there is no question of a vote for her in November if she is the nominee.
My spouse and I were interested in the demographic differences between the Obama and Clinton events. One has to be careful about making such a comparison, of course--different venue, different day of the week--but the two of us agreed that the Clinton crowd was:
--generally older.
--contained relatively more folks of Asian background (east Asian and south Asian).
--contained practically no African Americans at all.
--more working class.
Posted by: Katy | Apr 6, 2008 2:28:55 PM
Hillary thrilled me as well. It was great to be there, witnessing history in the making.
Posted by: SDG | Apr 6, 2008 2:52:57 PM
On December 17, 2007, Hillary said that the campaign would "end" on Super Tuesday - by implication disenfranchising all states with primaries after that date. Fox and Friends interview.
I will say it again. Disenfranchising all states with primaries after that date.
She had her inside man, Harold Ickes, on the DNC rules committee, who set up a quasi-national primary custom-made for "inevitable" Hillary. They dreamed up the penalty against states with earlier primaries, so that as many as possible would be enticed to the Feb. 5 date, to Hillary's benefit (or so they thought). They wanted it to end on Feb. 5.
And now to shriek about disenfranchisement, in a purposeful attempt to alienate FL and MI Dems and cause the Democrats to lose the General because Hillary won't be the nominee.
It sickens me. It is obscene.
And no Hillary supporter will yet address this December 17, 2007 statement of Hillary's. Certainly not Katy. Certainly not Chris. Won't touch it with a 10 foot pole. Because it is indefensible.
Posted by: SDG | Apr 6, 2008 2:58:26 PM
How did Democrats fare overall in the House and Senate while the Clintons were in the White House? Did they build the party up from the grassroots level then, when they had the chance? Did we gain seats, or lose seats, at all levels, during that time?
(Hint: we lost seats. Hint: they did not build up the party.)
Posted by: t.a. barnhart | Apr 6, 2008 3:11:31 PM
our country's economy is going down the toilet for one reason: we're pissing away all we have on the occupation of Iraq. this is a war Hillary voted to authorize, and everything comes back to that. make all the noises you want about green energy, 3 a.m., whatever. she failed the most important test of leadership she'll ever face in the Senate. she didn't even read the NIE of Iraq. let me repeat that. 90-page NIE. she didn't take a couple of hours to read it.
the war is tearing the foundation out from under our country, and Hillary gave her approval to that war. there is nothing she will ever do that can undo that failure of leadership. which is why i continue to be stunned that so many people are in mist-eyed awe of her.
she has yet to say her vote was wrong. this is not a person we need to lead our country. someone please explain to me how you can simply look past this failure of hers.
Posted by: Bill Bodden | Apr 6, 2008 3:15:02 PM
And no Hillary supporter will yet address this December 17, 2007 statement of Hillary's. Certainly not Katy. Certainly not Chris. Won't touch it with a 10 foot pole. Because it is indefensible.
Will these trolls ever get the message they are making fools of themselves by continuing to promote Hillary at the same time they are incapable of defending her against her critics?
As for some of that loot that Bill has collected it seems it pays to have friends, such as Nursultan Nazarbayev and Ron Burkle.
Posted by: Josh Kardon | Apr 6, 2008 3:50:11 PM
T.A. - I will attempt to take on your challenge, though I'm well aware that there will be no convincing you.
I work for one of the 23 Senate Democrats who voted against the authorization, but I support Hillary without hesitation. How is that? Because I know Hillary Clinton never would have taken us into that war as President. I wasn't privy to the classified information and briefings she, John Kerry, John Edwards and many other great Democrats received prior to their authorization vote, but the decision clearly wasn't an easy one for them and many other progressives. T.A, I seem to recall you supporting John Kerry despite his vote, as did I. I could support either of these good and decent men because I also know that John Kerry and John Edwards never would have taken us to war with Iraq if they had been President.
As for Bill's comment, why in heaven's name would you refer to pro-Hillary posters on BlueOregon as "trolls?" If your candidate prevails, don't you think your guy might want good relations with the large number of Hillary supporters in this state? Who is ripping apart the Democratic party now? Chill out with the attacks on Democrats who support another candidate, work hard for Obama, and let's have an issue-based campaign without the name-calling.
Posted by: Harry Kershner | Apr 6, 2008 4:01:20 PM
Progressives should take pride in the fact that, due to their diligence, Clinton has endorsed the ban on the use of Blackwater and other private security companies in Iraq, scoring a point on Obama.
As Naomi Klein and Jeremy Scahill say (Anti-War Campaigners Have to Change Electoral Tactics), "Despite the calls for Clinton to withdraw in the name of 'unity,' it is the very fact that Clinton and Obama are still fighting it out, fiercely vying for votes, that presents the anti-war movement with its best pressure point...While Clinton and Obama denounce the war with great passion, they both have detailed plans to continue it."
The best strategy for progressives to take is to withdraw support from both candidates until one or the other changes her regressive positions on the issues we most care about.
Posted by: Josh Kardon | Apr 6, 2008 4:13:31 PM
Jacksmith -- Ditto with calling people "idiots." I have several family members and countless friends who support Sen. Obama, and they are not idiots.
Posted by: Katy | Apr 6, 2008 4:15:21 PM
Hmm, I hadn't realized that this blog had become an official Barack Obama campaign website, that's the only way one who supports a different candidate could be considered a "troll." And here I thought this was blog where progressive Oregonians could come together?
To "SDG," you have (and I'm about to coin a new phrase!) "blogstalked" me here a few times, demanding I answer your questions. I've answered the specific question you're asking(again)in previous posts. If you didn't like my answer then, I'm pretty sure you won't like my answer now so, oh well.
I will say I think those of you who are attacking folks who are posting here in reaction to an event they went to yesterday, and posting in a positive way, are only doing yourselves a disservice. I'll add I think you're alienating a lot of women who are very excited about this campaign.
Again, yesterday was a great day for us Hillary supporters in Oregon! Nice to see so many people gathered to support the first viable female candidate in the history of America for President!
I posted this in a previous thread but for those of you who didn't see it...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DH6jjj2YfEI
Posted by: BloodDAnna | Apr 6, 2008 4:19:27 PM
I was also at the Hillsboro event and beg to differ with the above comment concerning the demographic makeup of the people in attendance.
My 17 year old son was there with me in line and we both noticed how many young people were there. I was impressed with how many young girls were in the audience. Two in particular were sitting in front of us and they got right up front when Senator Clinton first came out and she stopped to speak with both of them. Senator Clinton is walking proof of what parents tell their daughters; that they CAN be anything they choose to be in this country including running for President.
I'm wondering what people consider to be "older"? I'm in my upper 30's as were the hundreds of people in the section I was sitting in. There were two Asian couples near where we were sitting, also a handful of African American couples so neither group were represented in an overwhelming amount.
I'm also not sure how someone could look at the mile long line wrapping around Liberty High School and determine if they were working class or not. I would say 85% of everyone looked like they stepped out of an Eddie Bauer ad, just like the rest of us in the PNW this time of year.
Some of you can rehash your feelings on what the Clinton administration did or didn't do for this country during the 1990's but I'm voting for the best candidate running in 2008. The more people try to trash my candidate the more firmly I believe that she is the best person running and I will continue to fight for Senator Clinton just as long as she is willing to fight for me and this country.
Posted by: james r bradach | Apr 6, 2008 4:25:17 PM
Clean coal is about as green as Bush's 'Healthy forest' bull. Giving the oil gaints piles of taxpayers money works so well, Senator Clinton wants to give 5 billion to these coal folks. I just bet that these are the same people.
Her husband, as I recall, was pretty good on conservation and that was so good the real price of gasoline was at an all time low...no wonder these people have done everything they can to keep fuel prices up ever since.
Clinton is pretending she was ahead of Al Gore on what? Just checked the index of 'EARTH in the balance', Gore's 1992 book to see where it referenced Sen. Clinton and I found what Clinton will be able to due as president for the environment.
You have to face the fact that she is a lightning rod for controversy and darn it, a whole lot of folks dislike her.
I am all for her remaining as a strong voice for the environment right where she is in the Senate and this campain is keeping her away from voting on important environmental legislation.
Posted by: Dr. Feelgood | Apr 6, 2008 4:29:12 PM
jacksmith said: "You see, the medical and insurance industry mostly support the republicans with the money they ripped off from you."
Do some research before you try to peddle this malarky.
Financial-services, insurance and real-estate companies have donated to Obama over McCain by almost two-to-one -- and favored Clinton by even more. Health-care and pharmaceutical firms have given three times as much to each of the two Democrats as to McCain (WSJ, Brody Mullins, April 2).
Posted by: torridjoe | Apr 6, 2008 4:33:32 PM
Hillary Clinton has no business being President, and the sooner she quit disgracing Oregon with her presence the better. Let her run on the McCain ticket if she's so enamored with Corrupty McAncient. She's behaving as if her winning is all that matters, just like a Republican would, so she's already halfway there. Sad, too. I didn't think she was quite as amoral as she's turned out to be.
Posted by: BloodDAnna | Apr 6, 2008 4:39:05 PM
What exactly makes you think she is amoral? She has no ethics and behaves like a Republican because she is running for President? I don't quite follow that line of thinking...is it that you really just have a misogynistic motive for your dislike of her and have no other way of expressing it?
Posted by: t.a. barnhart | Apr 6, 2008 4:43:01 PM
Josh, i did not support John Kerry: i supported Howard Dean. from the moment i heard the report on NPR of his speech to the California Dems in 2003, when he unequivocally spoke against the war, i was on-board. in 2004, i supported the Democratic nominee. John Kerry came clean on his vote for the war, he took responsibility, and he tried to undo the damage he knew his vote was, in part, responsible for.
Hillary has done no such thing. she continues to pretend she is somehow innocent of being one of those who sanctioned the war. "it's all Bush's fault," she says, and then quickly changes the subject so to avoid having to ever own up to her own culpability. had she done what Edwards did, i would have sufficient respect for her to be ready to campaign for her if necessary. i have no respect for her.
and it doesn't help that she started this new lie -- and it is a lie -- that she was against the war before Obama was. add that to her use of Rev Wright to get the heat off herself for her Tusla lies, and you have someone proving just how unqualified she is for the presidency.
Posted by: SDG | Apr 6, 2008 4:43:18 PM
She is amoral for lying and cheating to win, and destroying the Democratic party out of spite and bitterness because she didn't get what she felt like she was entitled to.
In my book - amoral.
Misogyny - cute how you throw that red herring in there to try to prevent anyone from saying anything negative about Hillary. Too bad for you we see right through that crap. So save it.
Posted by: BloodDAnna | Apr 6, 2008 4:50:43 PM
How exactly is she lying and cheating to get elected? From what I have seen she is running a campaign like anyone else. What I see alot of on this site are people who are not true supporters of Senator Obama but Hillary haters.
What I don't understand is where that even comes from, theres no video of her stomping puppies or slapping little kids but yet she is always revered as a villain. What I see is a powerful woman who worked long and hard to get where she is and to alot of people that is scary thing.
Posted by: Bill Bodden | Apr 6, 2008 4:51:19 PM
As for Bill's comment, why in heaven's name would you refer to pro-Hillary posters on BlueOregon as "trolls?" If your candidate prevails, don't you think your guy might want good relations with the large number of Hillary supporters in this state? Who is ripping apart the Democratic party now? Chill out with the attacks on Democrats who support another candidate, work hard for Obama, and let's have an issue-based campaign without the name-calling.
The term "troll" is generally applied to commentators on blogs who make statements in support of an agenda without regard to facts that take on the essence of insulting the intelligence of other people contributing to the blog. That, I believe, would apply to anyone supporting a candidate who makes a statement that is challenged by others and instead of admitting that statement was not justified or making a valid defense of the provoking statement goes on to change the subject to try another tack that often as not goes through the same process.
Josh: On your first posting a couple of weeks ago, I challenged you on a point. I would say that I'm still waiting for a response, but that would be pointless after so much time.
I wasn't privy to the classified information and briefings she, John Kerry, John Edwards and many other great Democrats received prior to their authorization vote, but the decision clearly wasn't an easy one for them and many other progressives.
These votes weren't based on classified information. Senators Bob Graham and Dick Durbin were on the intelligence committee and got the straight intelligence and voted against the AUMF. Kerry's decision was political. Bob Shrum revealed in his book that John Edwards was opposed to signing Bush's blank check, but Shrum persuaded Edwards against his better judgment and over his wife's protests to vote for the AUMF. Another political decision, and it's a good bet Hillary's decision was also political. Senator Wyden voted against the AUMF. He was leaning towards voting for it when he visited Central Oregon and got an earful from constituents there and probably the rest of his Oregon tour. So his decision was political. Luckily for him he got it right. There were millions of people who weren't privy to classified intelligence but saw through the warmongering of the Bush administration and opposed the war. So, what does that say about Hillary and the other 76 senators who voted "Yea" to go to war?
Posted by: Miguel | Apr 6, 2008 4:53:46 PM
I am a grad student here in Eugene. i went to both the Clinton and Obama rallies. Though Hillary's event was much smaller and more subdued, I have to say I was MUCH more impressed with what she had to say, especially the specificity of her claims.
I am still likely an Obama voter but I left his rally a lot more cynical about his candidacy. I left the Clinton rally almost convinced... maybe I still can be.
Posted by: SDG | Apr 6, 2008 4:57:29 PM
Read this as a start.
I also have extreme disgust at her tactic of going to the superdelegates and telling them Obama can't get elected in essence because he is black.
Posted by: Katy | Apr 6, 2008 4:59:36 PM
If you guys spent even 5% of the time you spend on Blueoregon attacking Hillary Clinton supporters, and used it in a positive way in support of your candidate (say, I don't know, telling your neighbors why you like Obama) you could make an impact.
It seems getting onto every thread and and telling folks who are already planning to vote for her why they shouldn't is a waste of time. Maybe go after some undecideds? I got 3 for Hillary yesterday by talking about the candidate I like in a positive way.
Posted by: BloodDAnna | Apr 6, 2008 5:10:59 PM
One is persons blog and interpretation of facts and the other is Harold Ickes making a statement not Hillary?
Does anyone really listen to the candidates and do research themselves anymore or just regurgitate the pablum fed to them by the media and internet sites?
Posted by: SDG | Apr 6, 2008 5:19:47 PM
I just want a simple answer about the December 17, 2007 statement, and you keep avoiding the question.
Posted by: Sally | Apr 6, 2008 5:23:39 PM
Thank goodness most of you spend your time blogging instead of actually working on a campaign.
while you were busy pontificating on the blue oregon blog - I was out walking door to door for HILLARY!! I just hope you all continue to blog and not work in the streets for nobama!
Sally Sue
Posted by: Christy | Apr 6, 2008 5:33:02 PM
Reading through this thread compels me to tell of my recent experience as a Clinton supporter. "Coming out of the closet," as Karol called it the other day, is an apt description of what it feels like to tell the legions of Obama supporters around me that I will be voting for Hillary. I talked about it here a while back - and Katy and I were accused of being the same person. We know each other - we are not the same person. But, whenever I tell my friends and colleagues that I am supporting Hillary, they all say the same thing: they like Hillary, too! They talk about how lucky we are to have two such fantastic candidates down to the wire. And you know what? I feel the same way! Obama is a good candidate, too, and he will likely take the nomination - good for him. I had felt like everyone was going to think less of me, less of my "progressive chops," if you will. Nope. It is just here on the Internet and in the media that Hillary is getting ripped apart: amoral, evil, blah, blah, blah. This is politics. No one is perfect. I think the argument over the FL and MI delegates is not Hillary's best idea - and, for the record, she talked about it for like less than a minute on Saturday. I am still pretty shocked that Charlie put that up as the main post on her visit, after she gave an awesome, policy-rich speech. I think that everyone just needs to calm down and play nice - whether you are for Clinton or Obama, Merkley or Novick. They all make mistakes, whether it is borrowing some phrases from a friend, finding out a story you have been telling is not true, ripping on someone for voting for Nader in 1996, or posting opinionated blogs with some "extreme" rhetorical speech. We are incredibly lucky to have great people on our ballot here in Oregon, from the top of the ticket to the bottom, and we should celebrate that rather than continue to post vitriol.
Posted by: BloodDAnna | Apr 6, 2008 5:42:40 PM
Much like I want one Senator Obama supporter to tell me how and what he is going to change and how he plans to unify the country.
Now, since I am bored I actually looked up this Fox interview http://newsbusters.org/blogs/justin-mccarthy/2007/12/17/conservative-fnc-fox-friends-puffs-hillary-clinton
I don't see her saying she was planning to disenfranchise every state that followed "Super Tuesday". I'm happy this election has gone the way it has, I want to see candidates earn their way to the Democratic nomination. This is the process in place, if the powers that be really don't want the process to actually take place then they need to change it after this.
Strangely there are no Republicans ranting about how their nominee was decided early.
So, I responded to your question now please feel free to explain this unification and change I hear so much about.
Posted by: Katy | Apr 6, 2008 5:45:27 PM
I too was really disappointed to see the first and main post on BO about Clinton's visit was so negative.
Now I see the next headline is "Hillary misleads Oregon." C'mon guys, this is supposed to be a progressive website for Oregon - repeatedly bashing the first viable female candidate for President in this country doesn't seem very, well, progressive.
You have to understand how alienating this is to your female readers who support Clinton?
Posted by: SDG | Apr 6, 2008 5:50:33 PM
She is not shielded from criticism because she is a woman! What an idiotic thing to say.
Posted by: BloodDAnna | Apr 6, 2008 5:51:31 PM
They are just following the national trend of the media. It tells me that people are'nt as free thinking as they presume to be.
Posted by: SDG | Apr 6, 2008 5:53:01 PM
You did NOT answer my questions.
By ending the primary on Super Tuesday, as Hillary wanted and tried to engineer, every state with a primary after that date would be disenfranchised. Why didn't Hillary complain about disenfranchising the later states? I mean, count every vote, right?
Don't worry - I don't expect a real answer from you.
Posted by: BloodDAnna | Apr 6, 2008 6:00:57 PM
Since I am the only person willing to battle this out with you please point out in that interview where she planned any of that? I know she and President Clinton are rumored to be ciminal masterminds but I just did'nt see it. Anyone can read into it what they want but I don't see "Hi, I'm Hillary Clinton and I am so superior to everyone that I will single handedly win this nomination in Iowa."
It's ok, you can think whatever you like and no one will stop you. You can also support whichever candidate you like as is your right. I do however have to agree with Katy that there are far better ways to promote your candidate then by attacking everyone who doesn't agree with you.
Now, you can continue to rant and have a tangent about something that has nothing to do with the issues both candidates have discussed or you could do something positive. I prefer the latter as is my right so I think I'll go to HillaryClinton.com and make my weekly contribution.
Posted by: Charlie Burr | Apr 6, 2008 6:05:14 PM
Katy, both are opinion pieces posted under my own byline. Hillary *did* mislead Oregon on one of the most important issues facing our country. She misrepresented Obama's record and her own. You're complaining about a response to attacks coming from your own candidate's mouth.
I don't think you're a troll and wish others wouldn't make it personal like that. However, I don't think you should agree that Obama supporters are "lobotomized" or call that type of personal attack the "best Blue Oregon comment ever." Unless you believe it. But I don't believe you do.
In this primary, vive la difference. But Obama supporters like me are going to respond when Hillary departs from the reality-based community.
Posted by: Katy | Apr 6, 2008 6:09:07 PM
But that was a really funny comment(the one that i referred to as the best bo comment ever)!
Posted by: SDG | Apr 6, 2008 6:11:03 PM
By simple logic and common sense, if Hillary won the nomination on Super Tuesday, as she engineered and she wanted, all the later states would be disenfranchised.
Don't worry - I don't expect a real answer from you.
Posted by: Katy | Apr 6, 2008 6:11:10 PM
...at least if I remember correctly it was really funny! It was a long time ago though, you dug into the archives on that one Charlie:)
Posted by: skmckinny | Apr 6, 2008 6:14:12 PM
JK, Thanks for your post on Sen.Clinton's approach to green environment. It is one of the many things I like in her offering.
What I particularly appreciated in her plans (www.hillaryclinton.com/issues) is that the plans are cohesive, systemic and brilliant. e.g., her approach to greening involves innovation [creating long-term competitive advantage], reduced bi-products that are harmful to earth and health [contributing to the health side of the plan] and generates local jobs that cannot be outsourced [impacting global competitiveness and in-sourcing the jobs and rebuilding our base]. (that is my summary from my notes after I read what is in that link)
Last week, I listened to her on CNBC interviewed by Jim Cramer. I did not think anyone could out-talk Jim Cramer, SENSIBLY on macro-economics. I have 7 years of economics, and golly, Senator Hillary Clinton knows American and global economics inside out. It was quite that impressive. Here are my notes from watching that show.
(April 2, 2008) - Hillary on MAD MONEY [Cramer interviewing Hillary]
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21134540/vp/23925313#23925313
Bringing the Economy back on track.
On Macro economic policies, mortgage crisis, SEC, FHA, Global issues
How politics could affect your portfolio
Cramer throws a LOT of questions at her, one after the other.
Hillary knows and articulates her positions and plans very well.
Hillary has a very good and PROACTIVE approach.
She gives excellent coverage of key items in her Economic Plan.
I am so glad that this time we have a chance to entrust our leadership to someone who is as BRILLIANT and COMMITTED A PUBLIC SERVANT as SEN. HILLARY CLINTON is.
About her public service, it behooves us to visit www.thehillaryiknow.com and listen to about 40 small video segments. These people know her and speak from the heart. Sure nice to have a Presidential Candidate presenting their REFERENCES!! What a concept!
I am glad Oregon is leading greening. We need this to be an important platform at the heart of every solution we develop. Until we see people as part of nature, we will not develop solutions that will withstand the test of time. Yes, Hillary is committed to this. Even when the solution of digging for gas seems so apparent, she would like to ensure that ALL the bi-product issues and mitigation issues are brought up front as part of the decision-making criteria and NOT as "what do we do now" holding the bag criteria. She has a great head on her shoulders; with consistent talk on issues like DIGNITY and RESPECT for ALL, because she holds that WE ARE ALL UNIQUE INDIVIDUALS STRIVING TO ACHIEVE OUR FULLEST POTENTIAL. I was amazed to see the consistency of her message from her college graduation speech in Wellesley, thru her speech in Arkansas and in Beijing China when she spoke up for women's issues. She simply demanded that everyone be given dignified and respectful treatment. That is the kind of consistency we will need in the new competitive flat world where we have to face competition from elsewhere with rigor while respecting the dignity and aspirations of all we seek to protect and promote from within. I know that Senator Hillary Clinton not only knows how to do this, she has demonstrated how to do this over the past 7+ years as the Senator from NY State. She not only represented NY, she actually treated this as her home base, rolled up her sleeves and delivered. It is a refreshing change to see public servant at the Senate level to be that approachable. She is a terrific, positive force, energizing so many of us in the right direction. I hope all of you Oregonians support her fully! Thank you.
Posted by: joeldanwalls | Apr 6, 2008 6:34:49 PM
SDG, please give it a rest and accept that some people have looked at the whole picture and decided that Clinton is the best candidate, just as you and I have done so and concluded that Obama is better. Or it's going to start to seem that SDG must stand for Some Dumb Guy. Agree to disagree. Please.
Hillary Clinton is an impressive candidate. We have two impressive candidates. Preferring one need not imply trashing the other.
PLEASE.
Note: The presence of any individual above does not imply an endorsement by BlueOregon. The selection of faces shown is done by Facebook. Visit BlueOregon on Facebook.
Post a comment
Posted by: Viki | Apr 6, 2008 10:45:23 AM
I love Oregon very much!
I travel a lot internationally and here in US.
Nothing is like Oregon:)
I am proud that Oregon is pioneer in green initiatives and I am glad that Sen. Hillary Clinton feels the same way about our great state.