In Labor Day Blitz, Hillary Describes Herself As Agent Of Change

AP:

Seeking to dispel rivals' claims that she can't bring needed change to Washington, Democrat Hillary Rodham Clinton told supporters Sunday that her years in public life and willingness to seek common ground would produce real results as president.

"I know some people think you have to choose between change and experience. With me, you don't have to choose," she said at a rally here.

Clinton unveiled a new campaign speech in New Hampshire, as the Labor Day weekend signaled the start of a final four-month sprint before voting begins.

She outlined several goals she wanted to achieve as president -- restoring American leadership in the world; rebuilding the middle class; reforming government; and "reclaiming the future" for children.

But the subtext of her speech was clear.

Read the whole story: AP

Comments

[MAGLATINA]

11:34 AM on 09/04/2007

I AM EXTREMELY DISSAPOINTED AT HOW HILLARY IS BEING PORTRAYED BY HER ENEMIES. AS TO HER QUALIFICATIONS; H WASABLE TO HELP IN BRINGING THE WELLBEING OF CHILDREN TO THE FRONT; AT LEAST SHE HAS LOBBIED FOR HEALTH CARE FOR EVERY ONE, SHE HAS BEEN AROUND THE WORLD CONFRONTING THE SITUATIONS AND NEEDS OF THE PEOPLES OF THE WORLD, SHE HAS BEEN A PROMOTER OF WOMEN. I COULD SAY MORE BUT IT IS A WASTE OF TIME TO TRY TO MAKE THE "HATERS" SEE REASON. AND I AM SURPRISED AT ARIANNA'S POSITION IN REGARD TO HILLARY... WELL, THERE IS A SAYING "THAT THERE IS EVERYTHING IN THE VINES OF THE LORD." NOT ONLY THINGS, BUT PEOPLE...

[LaraineNewman]

09:34 AM on 09/04/2007

For the love of God, it's confounding to me how my own party doesn't see the urgency of voting for John Edwards. I couldn't agree more about Hilary. She's more of the status quo and she's unelectable. Obama isn't even a viable consideration. If anyone needs convincing, read the Rolling Stone article about Edwards in the current issue. I know, I know, Zac Efron is on the cover. You can wear a disguise when you buy it.

[hbanks]

09:26 AM on 09/04/2007

I have two comments about Hillary. While I would like to see a woman President, I am afraid she will never be elected. She will be a fabulous GOTV tool for the Republicans; if she is the nominee, she will get out all those Republicans who would have stayed home if someone else were the Dem candidate. I know Republicans who are not only supporting Obama; some are even raising money for him.

Also, she has been saying that she has done battle with the Republicans and won. If by some chance she is elected, we will have the same old paralyzing partisanship. Barack Obama has a history of forming alliances with Republicans to draft good, solid legislation that passes. Let's get past partisanship, and on to moving our country forward.

[trotskyxxx]

09:00 AM on 09/04/2007

Hillary better be careful she doesn't turn out to be an Agent of Orange.

[truthyguy]

06:33 AM on 09/04/2007

Didn't we hear Hillary's "I will seek common ground" speech before?

Oh yes. It was 2000 and it was in the form of "I'm a uniter, not a divider."

That worked out well, didn't it?

[drblack]

11:52 PM on 09/03/2007

Hillary is a corporate schill just as Bill was and Bush is.Though she may not hate gays people and would be for freedom as far as women are concerned she is a Republican in all the areas involving big business, and the prosperity of the American people.
She is old hat. We do need change that is why we DON"T need Hillary.
Kucinich for President.

[CharlesMac]

09:02 PM on 09/03/2007

Mrs Clinton obviously thinks we are stupid or ignorant. So let me play her fool....

HEY BABE... you give great morph!

[larry278]

05:30 PM on 09/03/2007

Hillary & Bill mistake excreta for excellence & the clap for change.

[NABNYC]

05:05 PM on 09/03/2007

Hillary an agent for change? Nonsense. The only thing she keeps changing is the color of her otherwise exactly identical pants suits.

Since she became a politician Hillary has positioned herself as a widgit - a product indistinguishable from others. She has done exactly nothing since being in the Senate except say nothing, do nothing, try to position herself as the nothing candidate who promises everything to no one and nothing to anyone, who is pro-business in everything she does and stands up on Labor Day and proudly proclaims she wants to "restore" the middle class. Yeah, right.

Look at her platform. Look at what she has done during her 7 years in the senate and her entire life to help working people, which is precisely and exactly nothing. Every program she has is set up to provide more tax giveaways to her corporate sponsors and owners. She was in private practice representing real estate investors, then became a political wife, then a politician. Her claims to care about working people surfaced only within the last few months and are as phoney as her dye job.

And her husband is exactly the same. During 2006 he was given millions of dollars from major corporations and foreign interests for "giving a speech." Yeah, sure. IBM ($200,000), Cisco ($150,000), International Council of Shopping Centers ($150,000) General Motors ($200,000), Mortgage Banker Assn ($150,000), National Assn of Realtors (only $125,000), and Citigroup ($150,000) just to name a few. What do you think all these corporations want from Bill Clinton besides just the pleasure of his company? Influence?

Remember the Dems protesting the revolving door policy where someone leaves government then cashes in by taking money from the corporations? Exactly what do you think Bill Clinton is doing?

If we want to end this corruption we need to stop Hillary Clinton. Let her stay a Senator. But support John Edwards. He's the only major candidate who has a chance of winning and is pursuing a populist platform.

[steamboat]

10:23 PM on 09/03/2007

Yeah, but last time I saw her she wasn't looking bad. She was even showing a little cleavage.

[MAGLATINA]

11:37 AM on 09/04/2007

IS THIS AN EDWARDS BLOG??? HE IS OK, BUT DISPARAGNG HILLARY AND HER POSITIVES DOES NOT HELP HIM...

[naijaman]

03:35 PM on 09/03/2007

Madam Flip-Flop is now saying SHE represents change? That's funny. She needs to explain how Bush-Clinton-Bush-Clinton = "change".

She is so unoriginal and scripted, it's pathetic.

[Independent voter]

01:21 PM on 09/03/2007

Hillary will tell the cattle whatever she thinks they need to hear. And the cattle all go "yeah, Hillary is right. Hillary has the most experience. Hillary is for change, yeah - let's vote for Hillary"

But the cattle don't look under the hood and see that there's no motor there. It's all smoke and mirrors folks.

Hillary says that she has fought the special interest all of her life. Anybody can say that they fought - but what did she win? As far as I am able to tell, she has accomplished nothing for the people (a lot for herself of course). She totally screwed the healthcare initiative. She voted for war in Iraq without bothering to read the NIE. I don't think these are things to be proud of and this is not the kind of record that qualifies a person for running the country. Nancy Reagan was first lasy also - does that make her qualified to lead?

If only the cattle would learn to read a bit and do some research - or ask a few pertinent questions - like 'what is this experience that you claim to have a monopoly on' or 'what did you achieve in your fight for truth, justice and the American way'.

If she has been fighting the special interest for 35 years and accomlished nothing tangible, doesn't that make her a collosal loser?

I'm voting ABC. I can't stomach this person.

[truthyguy]

06:15 PM on 09/03/2007

Trouble with her experience is that it is non-existent, except for her 7 years in the Senate. Edwards had that.

As to her years in the White House - as I recall (and I am looking it up to be sure) Hillary did not receive a single vote in the years Bill Clinton was elected, she was not appointed to any office (except her failed healthcare try early in the 1st term) and when Bill Clinton was governor she worked for a private law firm that did business with the State.
Bottom line is that her only experience is working the system for personal monetary gain.

[steamboat]

10:21 PM on 09/03/2007

She was in charge of improving education in Arkansas when Bill was governor. And she did. Arkansas jumped all the way to 49th.

[FlowerGirl]

08:52 PM on 09/03/2007

The health care initiative was a good thing for us to consider.Why was it a worthless thing? Because Hillary had to put in everything each special interest group wanted. But it couldn't take that big a load of shit.

[TerryFL]

10:41 AM on 09/03/2007

.

"I've been standing up to special interests and taking all their incoming fire for 15 years. And guess what, I'm still standing, and proud to fight every step of the way."

What troubles me most is the ease with which she lies. Haven't we had enough of government officials who just lie to our face? Not again...not with my vote.

.

[steamboat]

10:19 PM on 09/03/2007

Of course she lies. She's a career politician.

[kroses98]

10:31 AM on 09/03/2007

Well, who the Hell wants Hillary? Only the media and the Rethugs want us to believe she is our candidate, (and of course, so do the Clintons.) Why can't we choose someone else? Why can't we choose Edwards or Obama? Why do we have to listen to the media and the Rethugs? It is all a setup! They did this in 2004 with Kerry. We really wanted Dean. We must take the "ball" into our own hands and run with it! We cannot let them manipulate us again!

[Macready]

11:01 AM on 09/03/2007

I'm with you kroses98 . . .who the hell wants hillary . . .the neocons and the WH . .. she has repeatly shown bad judgement not a very good show for a ivy leaguer . . . hmmmm. . . and neither have gonzo and the chimp been good adverts for the ivy league . . . just goes to show . . . that some ivy leaguers are good and some well as disasters

[WorkingClass]

02:28 PM on 09/03/2007

So tell me kroses, did you vote for Kerry? If you did you created the situation you find yourself in now.

[Audacity Of Hype]

10:28 AM on 09/03/2007

So what.

Laura Bush would also have high unfavorable ratings if all we heard about were Buddist temples, pardons, and the Lincoln bedroom. I am not too worried about this. It is Hillary's destiny to be president. When all of the chips are on the table, her Ivy League wit will shine through and everyone will realize why she is entitled to the presidency.

[OhPlease2007]

04:54 PM on 09/03/2007

It may be Hillary Clinton's "destiny to be President", but one thing is for sure in THIS voters mind, she is definitely NOT, "entitled to the presidency."

Trust is EARNED no matter WHAT party or gender you belong to.

I am voting for Senator John Edwards, the TRUE Peoples President in 2008!

[Eoin45]

10:32 PM on 09/03/2007

Me too, if that's who is nominated, but I'll vote for any Democrat with the knowledge that they'll at least be competent.

[steamboat]

10:17 PM on 09/03/2007

Why always an Ivy Leauger? Bush, Gore, Kerry, Hillary----all Ivy Leauger.

[anastasiabeaverhousen]

09:56 AM on 09/03/2007

Voting republicon is not the answer. Talk about more of the same???? There isn't a republicon on the dais worth his weight in shit.

[FlowerGirl]

08:47 PM on 09/03/2007

I'd prefer an honest wolf to one dressed up as a sheep. As much as I hate the Republicans now, I agree with truthyguy. I'd vote for Cheney before I'd vote for Hillary Rodent Clinton.

[steamboat]

10:16 PM on 09/03/2007

Oh please, you don't mean that.