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 06, 2008
Posted in in the news. |
More Recent Posts | |
Albert Kaufman |
|
Guest Column |
|
Kari Chisholm |
|
Kari Chisholm |
Final pre-census estimate: Oregon's getting a sixth congressional seat |
Albert Kaufman |
Polluted by Money - How corporate cash corrupted one of the greenest states in America |
Guest Column |
|
Albert Kaufman |
Our Democrat Representatives in Action - What's on your wish list? |
Kari Chisholm |
|
Guest Column |
|
Kari Chisholm |
|
connect with blueoregon
Apr 6, '08
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.
Apr 6, '08
I love Oregon too but don't believe a word Clinton says. More Bush/Clinton/Bush/Clinton? No thanks!
1:11 p.m.
Apr 6, '08
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.
1:29 p.m.
Apr 6, '08
"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.
Apr 6, '08
She has been in the Senate for awhile. She could have addressed the issue of timber payments before today.
Apr 6, '08
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.
Apr 6, '08
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.
<hr/>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....
1:55 p.m.
Apr 6, '08
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.
Apr 6, '08
Hillary thrilled me in Eugene!
Apr 6, '08
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?
2:20 p.m.
Apr 6, '08
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?
Apr 6, '08
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.
Apr 6, '08
Hillary thrilled me as well. It was great to be there, witnessing history in the making.
Apr 6, '08
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.
Apr 6, '08
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.)
3:11 p.m.
Apr 6, '08
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.
Apr 6, '08
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.
3:50 p.m.
Apr 6, '08
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.
Apr 6, '08
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.
4:13 p.m.
Apr 6, '08
Jacksmith -- Ditto with calling people "idiots." I have several family members and countless friends who support Sen. Obama, and they are not idiots.
Apr 6, '08
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
Apr 6, '08
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.
Apr 6, '08
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.
Apr 6, '08
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).
4:33 p.m.
Apr 6, '08
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.
Apr 6, '08
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?
4:43 p.m.
Apr 6, '08
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.
Apr 6, '08
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.
Apr 6, '08
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.
Apr 6, '08
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?
Apr 6, '08
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.
Apr 6, '08
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.
Apr 6, '08
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.
Apr 6, '08
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?
Apr 6, '08
I just want a simple answer about the December 17, 2007 statement, and you keep avoiding the question.
Apr 6, '08
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
Apr 6, '08
Work all you want for Hillary, she won't win Oregon.
Apr 6, '08
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.
Apr 6, '08
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.
Apr 6, '08
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?
Apr 6, '08
She is not shielded from criticism because she is a woman! What an idiotic thing to say.
Apr 6, '08
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.
Apr 6, '08
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.
Apr 6, '08
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.
Apr 6, '08
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.
Apr 6, '08
But that was a really funny comment(the one that i referred to as the best bo comment ever)!
Apr 6, '08
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.
Apr 6, '08
...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:)
Apr 6, '08
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.
Apr 6, '08
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.
6:34 p.m.
Apr 6, '08
Katy, where do you get off telling us we should be spending some amount of our time being positive? do you have any idea how much time & energy any of us spend working for Obama in what little free time we have? i have been active for Obama for over a year now. i have written extensively, run 2 websites (providing info about Obama and very little against anyone). i've tabled for Obama, donated and i have spoken out time and again to say that if Hillary gets the nomination, all Dems (and "right"-thinking indies) have to support her.
your blanket attack also takes in Charlie Burr, about whom you know zero. and yet you manage to make sweeping accusations against us as if you had a clue about our lives beyond the few minutes we spend writing at BlueOregon (and btw, check my posts here; predominantly pro-Obama with very little anti-anyone except Paul Krugman, who has gone a bit wackjob in his anti-Obama rants).
and if by some chance i have your attention, will please answer the question i have asked you repeatedly: why should i trust my son's life to Hillary when he goes to Iraq next year when she lacked the judgment to vote against the war in the first place? you seem incapable of addressing the human element of her vote. i have no choice: i live with it every day. it's a fear she'll never know.
Apr 6, '08
BloodAna, Great job! I am glad that somebody else calls “Blueoregon” on becaming the same “free promotion for Obama “ blog like the rest of the media.
What surprises me the most is Obama supporters? I don’t hear much why is Obama is great candidate; I hear a lot why they think Hillary is no good.
You right-o n on the headlines here: “Hillary misleads Oregon”. What?
I am glad I went and saw Hillary in Hillsboro. Again, I didn’t see - Mostly working class people? How can you tell? Did they have red bows on top? - Older people? Older how? I sat next to two 16-18 years old kids on one side and couple in their 20th on another. They were older than 13 it is for sure, but behind me was young mom with baby. Baby was about 6 months old. Yes, it was “older” gentlemen on another row. I would say in his 60th. The crowd was as diverse, as Oregon crowd could be.
Apr 6, '08
I also enjoyed attending Hillary's town hall event in Hillsboro yesterday - and I agree that the demographics were fairly diverse (for Oregon). Hillary is an impressive candidate and I am honored to be able to vote for her as my democratic candidate for president.
8:34 p.m.
Apr 6, '08
TA says to Katy... your blanket attack also takes in Charlie Burr, about whom you know zero.
I'm pretty sure Katy and Charlie do actually know each other.
8:38 p.m.
Apr 6, '08
Katy wrote...
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."
Katy, would you mind explaining what was negative about any of the following posts?
Event details: Hillary Clinton in Oregon on Saturday Event details: Hillary in Portland Area Hillary in Hillsboro, Eugene today Hillary Clinton in Oregon
Those are the only posts for which "BlueOregon" is responsible. The rest, like the stuff by Charlie, is editorial/opinion -- and our contributors are welcome to write whatever they want.
And you're welcome to submit a guest column anytime you like. So, how about it?
Apr 6, '08
I do know Charlie and like him very much! Which is why I posted this (to be funny and ease mean-ness) on his "Hillary Clinton Misleads Oregon" post. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_OBlgSz8sSM If you haven't watched it you must, it's freaking FUNNY!
Kari, I'm not sure the difference between "posts" and "comments" but let me rephrase: I wouldn't have submitted something to you guys saying "Obama Misleads Oregon" on the day he came to campaign when 99% of my friends showed up to see him and were very excited about seeing him. I will, however, defend my candidate. No doubt!
8:48 p.m.
Apr 6, '08
Yes, Katy and I know and like each other. Even though Katy exposed my finger biting exploits on another thread.:) I look forward to working with Katy after the primaries are settled. Until then, we're both passionate advocates for our preferred candidate. Nothing wrong with that.
Josh mentioned up thread that my take on Hillary's Michigan comments weren't very balanced. They weren't. I wrote an opinion piece. But I didn't misquote or take her comments out-of-context. I just responded to them.
Apr 6, '08
Chalie, watch the remixes too, they might be even funnier. Charie bit me!
10:34 p.m.
Apr 6, '08
goodie. you know Charlie.
do you know how to answer a question asked of you repeatedly for weeks? if you simply cannot defend Hillary's vote on the war, just say so & have done with it. otherwise, answer my question.
Apr 6, '08
Are Katy and Charlie married?
1:00 a.m.
Apr 7, '08
Ha! No.
Apr 7, '08
Jacksmith really DOES know "jacksmith" about the blogosphere...or at least about the cut-and-paste function. I just saw the same "you might be an idiot" rant posted by Jacksmith on The New Republic website.
10:20 a.m.
Apr 7, '08
Having met both the candidates now, I have to say that they are both impressive and charming.
They have different strengths and styles, but I do not question either candidate's commitment to cleaning up the Bush mess, getting out of Iraq as gracefully as possible, or attempting to resolve the health care problem.
They're a lot closer on the issues than they are apart. We're having a spirited campaign, as we should, but I am distressed by the meanness of some of the commenters. I'd like to think we're all on the same team.
I also see a lot of confusion here about how things work, and suppositions by people that frankly amaze me. Both of our candidates are good people, who work very hard. They're sincere and care very much about what happens to our country. Any other characterization really does both the candidate and our party a disservice.
It's great to lobby on BlueOregon for your candidate, but I'd sure like it if at least some of that passion went into registering some new voters. Or into honing your anti-McCain talking points. Once this thing wraps up, however that happens, we need to hit the ground running.
Apr 7, '08
They're sincere and care very much about what happens to our country.
Really? Please explain how Hillary cared for this country when she voted for the war on Iraq. Voting for a war must surely be one of the most momentous decisions anyone can make with the history of wars making it obvious how horrendous the costs can be. Possible answers: (1) Political considerations for her future; (2) Indifference to the human and financial costs; (3) Incompetence because of ignorance of history, the Middle East and the realities of war.
11:18 a.m.
Apr 7, '08
I can no longer agree Clinton is a good person, Jenny. She is a plague on American politics and apparently will sell out her stated beliefs as much as necessary in order to win. Her moral center appears nonexistent, and her respect for the process is entirely coincidental with how she can manipulate it. Only one of the three candidates left in the race is remotely fit to serve honorably, we've discovered.
Apr 7, '08
Hillary was AWESOME in Eugene!
I really enjoyed seeing her and hearing her speak. I now know, more than ever, that Hillary is the only candidate with the strength and experience to bring about the change Oregon needs!
Apr 8, '08
I was in Eugene and saw Hillary speak. She was excellent and spoke to National and State issues. Two of my favorite moments and things that really spoke to me as an an MSW student were her answers to two audience questions. A nurse asked a questioned about mental health funding and mental health and general and Senator Clinton spoke out about how stigmatized people diagnosed with m.h. conditions are and how she feels that m.h. conditions should recieve parity (i.e. equal medical treatment) by insurance companies, and that if she is elected president and her National Health Insurance plan is passed it will include parity. This would be an enourmous step. An audience member also asked if she would reduce the "independent" status back to 18 years old for students that are actual 18 and indepent, like it was before the Regan administration. As a student who in undergrad had to go through the "dependency override" process, which is virtually impossible to get (believe me I had a financial aid file the size of a dictionary) -- all because my parents were not supporting me at age 19 -- I was extremely happy to here Senator Clinton say she would do this. She also said the FAFSA was an unnecessary burden and we could simply add a box to the tax form - hello - logical woman!?! Yes!
Senator Clinton has my vote - based on these and many other issues I agree with her own.
And to the person that said we don't want another "Bush/Clinton/Bush/Clinton" -- This is the most ridiculous argument! We were willing to have a Kennedy and a Kennedy? What is in a last name? Maybe she should have changed her name back to Rodham before she ran, eh? This is almost as ridiculous as voting for Obama because he is going to "change" something when you don't know what he is going to "change." Well, Hillary is going to give us Universal Health Care? How's that for change?
Apr 8, '08
Hillary's Iraq War Vote
So, I'm reading back over the post, and I keep reading all this stuff about Hillary's Iraq war post. As someone who has been agains the war from the start, after reading others post, I wanted to post my feelings and rationalizations about how I can vote for Hillary even though I have been anti-war from the start. My logic proceeds like this 1) First I am familiar with Hillary's anti-vietnam stance in her past, thus at my gut I feel her to be anti-war 2) I look back during the period that the vote was made, and although I was not one of them, there were many Americans that DID want to go to war, and she is a Senator of the U.S. and represents citizens 3) She is a Senator from N.Y. that was affected by 9/11, thus representing a different population of America, 4) This vote is in the past, I do believe that she made the decision based off the information she had at the time; I believe she made it based off of what the country wanted to do; I believe she made the decision based off of what she thought was going to happen, and I imagine she even consulted Bill about what she though he though was going to happen - I do not think that many people thought what happened, would happen.
The vote is in the past: I am glad she has not apologized, because 5) I would not ask her to apologize for a war, thus making the veterans I work with everyday feel as though the war they fought was absolutely pointless and though the reason they loss brother and sisters and limbs was for naught - this is why so many of our vietnam vets came back damaged, mentally ill. 6) This would damage her against John McCain in the General Election, because like Kerry she would be accussed of flip-flopping on National Security.
What people think is a strong point in Obama as far as a non-vote will prove to be a weak point against McCain in the G.E. because they will be played as polar opposites. More moderate democrats that were voting for Hillary will switch to McCain.
Apr 8, '08
As a Democrat I''m totally dismayed that such a weak and flawed candidate like Obama is leading for the Democrat nomination; if he gets it we''ve got another Kerry on our hands who will lose. Obama has never really accomplished anything that would justify moving him up to the WH; every large city in the US has people who have done more. And now here he is, after listening to this racist preacher for 20 years, saying he didn''t know his real political view. That''s just plain unbelievable. Obama chose this church, he chose this "minister." Think what the Republicans can do with this in the fall; he wants to be president but for 20 years he did not figure out that his "minister" was a racist who hated America; put that with Obama''s refusal to wear a flag lapel pin and his wife''s apparently hating American until Obama appeared to be getting the nomination...the Republican ad makers will have a field day as they put McCain in the White House
Obama has STILL not explained why he was a member of such a hate-filled church and WHY he had this loony pastor on his advisory board?? He has NOT explained how he tolerated such horrible, hateful rhetoric for so long (unless he secretly agrees with it) and how he called this man a close, personal friend. A man who preached that the U.S. invented the AIDS virus to infect and murder black people!! Who calls the USA the USKKKA to imply we are no better than the KKK. A man who encourages his flock to say God #$%@ America instead of God Bless America. He still has not explained why he stayed in such a hateful church for 20 years!! Instead he gives a lame speech about race relations and side-tracks the whole issue. I think he''s a con man and a hypocrite I found this speech devisive on so many leves. First, let us not compare Ferraro''s statement with Wright''s. Wright has made numerous anti-white and anti -country statements while Ferraro simply stated what everyone including Obama knows and that is his race has garnered him votes..it has..and it certainly isn''t racist to say it. 90% of the blacks vote for him . If this is not racism , what is? Second, he says the past is not dead and buried...while we should never forget what happened to black in America it is time to move past it and create an atmosphere of acceptance for all. As outraged as blacks would be if this was said at a primarily white congregation is as outraged as everyone including black Americans should be over the rantings of Wright. I am sorry but he is not the unifier that everyone thought he was. Finally, now he admits..yeah I was there when he made some of those remarks..well then he lied two days ago when he said he was not. He knew that with 8000 members in the church someone was going to say he was there so he was forced into telling the truth...I am sorry but the speech leaves me to believe that he would have gone on with Wright as his mentor if the sermons had not hit the media. Last week, Obama said he was not aware of Rev. Wright''s comments until his presidential campaign. Then, today, he said he was aware of Rev. Wright''s comments. So, he lied. And, since he was aware of Rev. Wright''s comments, what does it say about his "judgement" that he allowed his children to be exposed to such hateful comments? I know Obama is a real smooth talker, but there are still some very serious questions about this guy. Preaching hate of America in the name of religion is wrong! To sit in a pew for 20 yrs and take your family to that church is wrong even if the hate language was only occasional. Religion should be about healing, love, peace and forgiveness, not hate. Look at what has happened in America, to America and by America as a result of hate in religion. Obama Practices and preaches one thing until he is caught and then changes gears and redirects attention away from his involvment on the issue by broadening the issue so it appeals to the masses. This guy is a true politician, and has very good spin control analysts in his war room.This is the 3rd time those spin doctors have taken something Obama was caught red handed in and turned it around so the message appeals to the masses or he just down right dismisses it by saying that is nothing more than "old Washington politics." I guess someone is qualified to speak about race in America if his mother who is white, marries a black man and brings his family to worship at a church led by a racist.
Obama and family go to church with ear plugs because "I''ve never heard him speak that way" but in the next sentence says "He''s been part of my life..." News flash people - the hatred this minister holds did not happen overnight, it''s deep seated just as Obama says - but I guess it was the ear plugs that prevented Obama from hearing it all these years?He''s qualified to lead this country because he can''t afford a house so he has a rich friend (now on trial) buy the lot next to them a list price so they get the home at a discount. Most Americans would just keep looking but not Mr. Obama he takes the offer and is a proud owner of a luxurious house in Chicago - Oh until he is caught. When asked about this - "It''s just old Washinton politics."You''re right Mr. Obama, you are old Washington politics - another fraud - just shined up to appear new. Senator Obama stated that Wright (I am not sure of his credentials to be a Reverend or Pastor; ie, what seminary he attended), harbored mis-trust and animosity built up from years of racial injustices that had been thrust upon Blacks in America. I am para-phrasing but this appeared to be the rationale Senator Obama was hiding Wright under. It seems to me that someone, anyone, in that church should have pointed that out to Wright and the fact that to continue to spew hatred in the direction of others (whites) would be an injustice to the children who attend the church and now have the opportunities of nearly 3 generations of assurances for racial equality - such as the fair housing act and affirmative action. Just the fact that Obama has come so far in his candidacy for his parties Presidential nomination attest to this.To continue to re-live the past, especially in front of the children of the church, on makes the past, the present. It never allows the past - to pass. These many omissions by Obama spotlight why he is "not ready" to be President or to lead this nation. I have no doubt of his ambitions to do so; however, his mistakes and worse, his excuses show a lack of preparation and a lack of judgement that is necessary for a President.There is a strong will among many of the voters for him to be President, but it is better for him to run when he can succeed than to run now when he will undoubtedly continue to stumble and worse, fail.His experience has been on a local level where everyone he has worked with has had the interest of south Chicago or the interest of Illinois in common. He has never worked with leaders of foreign governments whose only interest is their own and could not care less about the agenda of the U.S. Obama has confused his abilities on local levels to achieve common goals with like minded people with an ability to bring together persons who have no concern in the best interest of Americans. GOD BLESS AMERICA A BILLION TIMES !!!