Clinton: Now Is Texas' Chance To Make Up For Bush

How does voting for Clinton, who has supported Bush in attacking Iraq and Iran, make amends?

Besides, Texas Democrats aren't responsible for Bush. Clinton is largely responsible for Bush by leaving such a mixed legacy in 2000, which made it harder for Gore to win.

the only way Texas can make up for bush is to vote Obama! . ..

so hillary is saying that george bush and the last 8 years are "TEXAS' " fault ?????????

i can't imagine that one going down well with texas democrats...

THE CLINTONS JUST WON"T LEARN
Feb 27 2008

Published on TheHill.com on February 26, 2008.

Whether one likes, dislikes, loves, hates, admires, fears, despises, or envies them, every Clinton watcher has this in common: They are dumbfounded both by the incompetence with which Hillary has run for president and her intransigence at sticking to a failed message. In a demonstration of inability and inflexibility reminiscent of her healthcare debacle of 1993-94, Mrs. Clinton seems destined to fulfill Voltaire"s description of the Bourbon kings of France: "They learn nothing. They forget nothing."

Even now, with her back against the wall, fighting for her political career, Hillary, presumably with Bill"s acquiescence, insists on making the same mistakes that landed her in the soup. No new tactics, no new strategy, no new message emerges.

Incredibly, both Clintons are harping, once more, on the theme of experience to carry the day. No matter that it hasn"t worked since before Iowa; they repeat the same mantra endlessly " that Hillary can "hit the ground running" on "Day One." Will they ever realize that voters grasp two essential facts:

(a) That Hillary"s experience is derivative of Bill"s and her claims to his achievements are largely invented and spurious, and

(b) That the real edge she has in experience is her ability to repeat the strategies, tactics, message, fundraising models and campaign style of the 1990s, something modern voters reject emphatically?

Why, after losing 24 states, do Hillary and Bill fail to get these messages? Are they saving up these insights for their memoirs?

And why do the Clintons persist in running a negative campaign even when they can"t find anything to be negative about? Alienating voters with their abrasive attacks without attracting them with their content, they throw pitty-pat punches accusing Obama one day of plagiarism for borrowing speech lines from his close and consenting friend and the next day for accurately describing Hillary"s healthcare plan as requiring sanctions to make those who do not wish to sign up do so against their will (albeit for policies Mrs. Clinton deems to be "affordable").

If you are going to pay the price of going negative, throw real punches. Hit Obama with big negatives. You take the backlash for going negative in order to pass the lethal message on to the voters. But if you don"t have any negatives to throw and your detectives have, indeed, come up empty, then stop trying to go negative. Stop alienating people to no purpose.

But as obvious as these observations are, they seem to be lost on Bill and Hillary and the geniuses who are running her campaign. Despite defeat after defeat, we still hear about experience and still get a daily dose of so-what attacks on Obama.

The deeper reality of this campaign is that Obama has shown, by his incredible skill in the way he is waging it, an ability to handle himself and a talent for the demands of center stage that show, experienced or not, he is better able to be president than the inept Hillary.

We are watching a grim re-enactment of all of the character traits that led Hillary to decompose in the healthcare debate of her husband"s first term. The blind reliance on a guru-delivered strategy, the religious insistence on following the same rhetorical line even when it obviously isn"t working, the inflexibility in adapting to one"s opposition, and the inability to formulate new strategies or to improvise tactics when her pre-conceptions are found to be so obviously faulty " this is Hillary at her worst.

As citizens, we are entitled to watch Obama"s skill, leadership style, and savvy sophistication and contrast it with Hillary"s doctrinaire insistence on approaches that aren"t working and to conclude that Hillary would be a disaster as president and that Obama would be pretty good. We can, at least, conclude that the same tenacity that led Johnson into Vietnam and may be inducing Bush to risk his party, his reputation and the attitudes of a generation in Iraq may be abundantly present in Hillary.

But we are driven to wonder: Does Hillary"s rigidity stem from a false conviction or from an absence of sufficient imagination and creativity to formulate an alternative course?

The latest Rasmussen Reports telephone survey shows Obama attracting 48% of the vote while Clinton earns 44%. Eight percent (8%) remain undecided and another 12% say it"s possible they could change their mind.

Why should Texas make up for Bush? He wasn't born there any more than Hillary was born in New York. Should we blame New Yorkers for her negative campaign?

Actually the blame should be laid where it belongs - at the Clintons feet. If Bill had not lied about his zipper under oath, if the 2 of them had not spent the entire 8 years going from one scandal to the next, people would not have been disgusted with the Democrats and voted in Bush in the 1st place.

Voters in Ohio: Bill Clinton was the force that pushed NAFTA into law, with the backing of Republicans. Now Hillary wants you to forget that your lost jobs are a result of his actions (which she promoted at that time and for years afterward).

What message do you want to send her on Tuesday?

It's a bit hostile of Hillary to blame all Texans for GWB. I guess with her AIPAC affiliation so deep and strong Hillary is into collective punishment.

Actually, Connecticut must share the blame since he was born in New Haven.

"Clinton: Now Is Texas' Chance To Make Up For Bush"

I'd say, either way, Texas has a chance for atonement. But, then again, it isn't the general election, is it?

*sigh*

Who would Molly choose?

There is NO WAY in HELL to make up for the Bush administration. It will take many, many years to even get the US back to where it was 8 years ago. The Bushies dragged the US into bankruptcy, made US a laughingstock around the world. Every time Georgie opens his mouth, his ignorance and lack of intellect shows. The WH will have to be fumigated to rid it of the stench of these repubs. It has been turned into a frat house. Rove, plus many others belong behind bars for treason. How can a failure like Georgie have been installed as president? Rove never graduated from college, yet became, through manipulation of Georgie, a powerhouse in Washington. "Genius"? Not in my opinion, not even close. "Evil" ? Definitely. Georgie "attended" Yale and Harvard, but there is NO WAY he could have graduated. Bought and paid for, those are his diplomas.

Bushies are NOT real Texans

Bushies are NOT real Christians

Bushies are NOT real Capitalists

I'm pretty sure the good people of TX would take umbrage with this tactic -- especially since the Bushies aren't even REAL Texans.

The headline distorts her statement somewhat, but does she really think it's a good idea to call Texas voters stupid, given that her political future largely rides on the goodwill of the people of Texas?

Wow! Way to win over Texas voters by blaming them for Bush.

She really doesn't want to be president. I can't imagine anyone who wants it so badly would screw things up for herself this badly.

CLINTONS......BUSHES IN DEMOCRATIC'S CLOTHING....