Clinton isn't the 'genius', Edwards isn't the 'energizer bunny', and Obama

[babylonsister]

represents 'change'.
Why did Hillary try to bogart that phrase? Why can't she just be real, be her own self and have her own convictions? Why is everything 'vetted' before it escapes, and when it's wrong, people get fired, tactics change.
Why does she have to TRY to make herself more human? If it's not there to begin with,it won't ever be.

[madrchsod]

1. submit to the inevitable babylonsister

hillary will rule for the next 8 years. i feel so much better when praise hillary .... it`s almost a going to church to get that spiritual healing.

[MonkeyFunk]

2. Are you saying Obama is the first politician

to use the word "change", and that it belongs to him? How odd.

[MadBadger]

4. They saw in polls that Obama's change argument was working over her experience one

So suddenly she decided to become the change candidate too.

[indimuse]

3. Change?

I've watched Hillary for years...on C-span...Older footage..etc.. The fact is Obama has TOO...and he's been studying Bill and Kennedy ,etc.. archive. Hillary has been vocal and out front for years about "CHANGE" on many issues. hence...her voting record > that she does not support the corporate agenda, as many in the left blogosphere would have you believe. And her history of working for women's and children's rights all over the world for most of her adult life is exemplary.

From an article on the Huff: somehow lost the author' name...sorry.

Senator Clinton has traveled to more than 80 countries, building relationships that will enable her to begin to restore America's global standing, beginning on Day 1 of
her Presidency. Senator Clinton is a passionate believer in diplomacy, negotiations, and the value of, well, American values. She would outlaw torture and close
Guantanamo. She would make us proud again of our leadership role in the world. I know from extensive personal observation that she would be a superb negotiator and
diplomat. Hillary would strengthen the U.N. and make it more effective, after the Bush Administration weakened it.
Of course, there are times like in Bosnia and Rwanda, when a president must be willing to act. President Clinton should have acted earlier in those cases, as he
himself has acknowledged. My point was that, having observed these tragedies closely in the 1990s and learned more as a Senator, Hillary Clinton knows how to mix
diplomacy and power. She has made clear repeatedly that she believes strongly in diplomacy and that the Bush administration's failure to emphasize it has been
terrible for our nation. She has called for direct talks with our adversaries, including Syria and Iran, and the sooner the better.
As a member of the Senate Armed Services Committee, Senator Clinton has traveled to both American war zones three times, spent a great deal of time meeting
privately with active-duty and retired military personnel at all levels, and immersed herself in the issues that are most critical to the presidential role of Commander-in-
Chief. The nation needs a new president who on taking office will withdraw our troops from Iraq responsibly and swiftly (Bush won't). Although her position has been
misrepresented by some during the heat of the campaign, this is precisely what she has pledged to do. She has said she will convene the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs
of Staff and her national security team to draw up a safe and viable plan for the withdrawal of our solider from Iraq, with the first troops coming home within 60 days of
her taking office. She has also committed herself to a new strategy in Afghanistan, the country in which failure is unthinkable yet Bush has consistently sent too few
troops while proclaiming success in the face of undeniable deterioration. This is what I meant when I talked about her commanding knowledge and readiness to be our
next Commander-in-Chief.
:think: