Hillary Clinton Calls Bush 'Radical'
link
"...Clinton questioned whether the United States could seek tougher trade sanctions against China when it's economically beholden to the nation.
"How do you get tough on your banker?" she asked.
She pledged to put the country on a firmer economic footing.
"There's nothing conservative about squandering a budget that was in surplus," she said.
Later in the day, during a rally that drew nearly 1,000 people in Ottumwa, Clinton criticized President Bush's claim to be conservative.
"I think the only description of him is radical," Clinton said. "He is a radical departure from presidents of both parties."..."


No doubt about it. Hillary has the best political advisors in this campaign.

If you look at it, she is running as a conservative. She is harkening back to the age of the Southern Democrat. That may pay off in the South. If she can win a couple of southern states (maybe a state in play like florida?) vs. a northern opponent, that might help her win the election.

This was big because it allows Hillary to present herself as "THE moderate" if not the conservative in this race. When you have valid points to backup your claims the American public is more than willing to accept negative campaigning without questioning it. Bush has a huge negative rating and has spent US taxpayer money like...well...like someone with a drug problem might. (Not saying that Bush still HAS a drug problem, mind you --- only that drug users often can't help themselves about spending their money against logic to get what they want. Bush does seem to still have that problem.)

In contrast, my boy Biden comes up with brilliant ideas, but doesn't get that he is having to fight the media to get traction. They don't want to report things like Biden's outline of his plan to make America & to finance homeland security or his critique of the failings of the Bush adminstration's approach in Iraq--- instead they want to focus on his throwaway comment that Bush is "brain dead". Why? Because the media know that a certain percentage of the populace hate criticism of the standing president because of a belief that the position demands a level of respect. You can criticize decisions of the president, but not the president himself.

They focus on that because that helps usher a "non-player" out of the election, which makes their job easier. They do this to all of the "minor" candidates. If Biden is going to make headway, he has to stop making these type of comments and force the media to report his substance.

Saying "The decision by the President to prevent a member of his cabinet from doing time for lying under oath to the government is an absolute abuse of Presidential power. This was against the wishes of over 70% of America and constitutes an total betrayal of the American public. It honestly begs the question of how much corruption is actually taking place in the Bush Administration and to what lengths the administration is going through to cover it's tracks. We have a Vice President who is the first in history to refuse to submit his paper to oversight. We have a war were Billions of U.S. Taxpayers and their children's tax dollars have been given to corporations under auspices that many consider to be questionable and where literally PALLETS of our our and our children's tax dollars have gone missing. If this administration was willing to go under the microscope, we could chalk it up to only gross incompetence by the members of this cabinet. As this decision illustrates, they are not willing to go under that microscope and instead hide behind the Administration's smokescreens and the President's ability to pardon them from all wrong doing. That suggests more than just incompetence.... I promise if elected President to launch a thorough investigation into this Administration and it's corporate partners." is a lot juicier for the media than "This guy is brain dead".

...But I can acknowledge that may be more than he is willing to commit and has issues as well. For example, there is no built in escape clause like those headliners (hillary and Obama) throw out. It isn't saying someone should look into this, it is saying I WILL look into this.

I recognize at this point that Biden may be angling for the VP spot, but he isn't going to get it if he is known for political missteps, which means he has to go for the presidency. That means it is time to lead. When these opportunities come up, Biden can't go off the cuff. His handlers have to give him a prepared statement that maximizes his ability to gain traction.

The only positive spin I can put on this is that Biden's people may be aiming for a 2 step process to get into this race. They may be aiming for Edwards' supporters. That, to me, is a good first step. Edwards thus far is the only democratic candidate who is actively courting the more liberal (and radical) parts of the democratic party. Hillary is running as a Neo-con and Obama is trying to mirror Hillary. That leaves the hard core Dems out in the cold with Edwards, who can't shake the spoiled rich guy tag and while making good points is frankly seeming very disengenuous. He looks like a guy who won't get any tractions beyond 15%. No one likes to waste a vote. They could be ready to defect.

It is possible that Biden's people agreed to the "Brain Dead" comment because that kind of "light Bush on fire" comment that really appeals to Edward's base. The thought could be that the mainstream will not remember that comment in 6 months, but that might give the most bang for the buck with that group today.

If Biden could steal Edward's 15%, that would put him on the map with the media and he would be given much fairer coverage. Biden, unlike Edwards, might be able to grow that 15% in the next 4-5 months as he throws off competency vibe as well as Hillary and the presidential vibe stronger than any other democrat in the debates. Additionally, he might resonate in the south as he is personable and isn't black or female (Don't hate, I am just speaking the truth).