Hillary Clinton at the AARP convention

by georgep, Sat Sep 08, 2007 at 07:57:43 AM EDT

I am planning to use Monday's frontpage diary to focus on Clinton's special appeal with voters 55 and over, explore some of the reasons why that voting block is by far her best constituency. Given that voters over 55 make up the most reliable and numerous voting community (that age demogroup makes up over 50% of all primary voters and over 60% of all caucus voters) it is amazing that candidates are not more agressive in courting them.

Somewhat of an idea why we are looking at such a lopsided "affair" with Clinton and the over-55 set can be found in today's coverage of Clinton at the AARP convention in Boston.

The AARP convention in Boston drew 27,000 seniors, and aside from Hillary Clinton not a single other Democratic candidate showed.

http://www.bostonherald.com/news/regiona l/politics/view.bg?articleid=1030086

Hillary wows senior set at Hub conference

Sen. Hillary Clinton brought her considerable star power to an awestruck crowd of thousands of retirees yesterday, vowing to revamp Social Security, fix the nation's health care system and end the "war on science."

Social security is a major issue for seniors. Bush threatened to privatize SS, efforts were made to extend the age when SS can be drawn. Clinton vows to fight any such efforts, in fact, do more to strengthen SS, not weaken it. I also appreciate her ongoing efforts for stem-cell research, another big topic with seniors, as stem cell research has shown promise in perhaps someday being able to eradicate Alzheimers disease.

Clinton (D-N.Y.) turned on the charm, joking about her age and taking shots at President Bush during the half-hour speech to the AARP conference at the Boston Convention & Exhibition Center.
"I turn 60 this year," she said to loud applause. "Speaking for myself, I consider it the new 30."

I hope she is right. I am heading to 50 myself. :-)

She saved her sharpest barbs for Bush's handling of the war in Iraq and said Washington needs to "get away from no-bid contracts and cronyism."
"I want to rebuild our standing in the world," she said.
She also called for increased stem cell and biotech research, saying, "We need to end the war on science going on in America."

Who better to rebuild our standing in the world than Hillary Clinton?

Earlier, Republican former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee spoke. The two were the only 2008 presidential candidates to accept the invitation to speak to the convention, which has attracted 27,000 people to Boston. AARP officials say 25 percent of all 2004 presidential voters were members of the organization.

Here is where Obama (and also Edwards) are losing the nomination battle - in the trenches. Where are they when it comes to senior issues? Where are they when it comes to making their case to seniors? This conference drew 27,000 people to Boston. A good number of neighboring New Hampshire seniors are getting a close look at Clinton, none of the other candidates bothered to show. This senior convention and Clinton's showing is headlining articles in every New Hampshire newspaper and will probably picked up by many newspapers in communities with heavy senior shares.

Tags: Hillary Clinton (all tags)

Comments

69 Comments

Sort by

permalink

Re: Hillary Clinton at the AARP convention

George,

I'm trying to upload the local coverage to youtube... If it works, could you please insert it into this diary?

Here's the video link (non-youtube version)
http://www.boston.com/partners/worldnow/ necn.html?catID=80780&clipid=1732647 &autoStart=true&mute=false&c ontinuous=true

Thanks,

by areyouready 2007-09-08 08:04AM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: Hillary Clinton at the AARP convention

unfortunately, I was unable to upload the video to youtube... Damn. I intercepted the video in flv format and could play it on my local drive, but for some reason the youtube was unable to convert it...

by areyouready 2007-09-08 08:27AM | 0 recs

permalink

have you searched for a free video converter?

youtube really likes mpg, because they can compress the hell out of it. but if you haven't gone to videohelp.com you should. a quick search came up with this:

http://www.videohelp.com/forum/archive/h ow-to-convert-flv-flash-video-to-avi-or- mpg-t259578.html

by bored now 2007-09-08 10:01AM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: have you searched for a free video converter?

Another video converter site is http://www.media-convert.com It's a great site to convert everything from video's to pictures. I love it and it's totally free.

by SouthernBelle82 2007-09-08 03:45PM | 0 recs

permalink

cool, thanks...

by bored now 2007-09-08 05:03PM | 0 recs

permalink

The "AARP non-attendance" scam

Folks, this looks like another lousy, transparent attempt at dissembling misrepresentation by some Clinton supporters. Turns out that the other Dems are indeed, attending other important AARP-sponsored events, this is nothing more than just choosing different AARP events to go to. It's nothing more than scheduling variations and visiting the AARP on different days. DU is having a lively discussion on it:

http://tinyurl.com/2st7pj

Shameful, just shameful.

by ArkanDem 2007-09-08 06:37PM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: The "AARP non-attendance" scam

The story didn't come from Hillary supporters. It came from the Boston media. This was the national AARP convention with 27,000 AARP members in attendance in Boston. They invited all of the serious candidates from both parties. Only Clinton and Huckabee showed up. The Boston reporters were dumfounded as AARP members account for 25% of all voters in the United States.

by hwc 2007-09-08 07:21PM | 0 recs

permalink

The point is, they're just attending other events

AARP sponsors many important events in many places at different times. The Dem candidates will be at some AARP events, and not at other AARP events (that includes Hillary). Common sense. It's in no way ignoring the AARP or their agenda, or their members, it's just minor variations in their respective calendars, that some are trying to falsely portray as dissing the AARP, which it isn't. Another discussion thread on it:

http://tinyurl.com/ytsefn

by ArkanDem 2007-09-08 07:24PM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: The point is, they're just attending other eve

For some reason, you are attaching a link to DU to almost every post here.

I still don't see any schedule showing Obama at an AARP event -- I actually don't care, but I wonder why you keep trying to send us over to DU?

by dblhelix 2007-09-08 08:01PM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: The point is, they're just attending other eve

The event the article you link to mentions is the "Divided We Fail" candidate form, sponsored by SEIU, AARP and other organizations. Obama is not scheduled to attend it but Clinton and most of the other candidates are. That is completely different from the Life@50+ AARP annual national conference mentioned here. This wasn't a scheduling issue, it was a priorities issue.

Unless there are some other AARP events you are referring to? AARP does not appear to host any other national conferences for its membership.

by souvarine 2007-09-08 08:13PM | 0 recs

permalink

silly

This is getting silly.

The report of other candidates' no-show was from a local TV station... There's no misinformation.
We, Hillary supporters, could not be happier if other candidates just concede every opportunity to her.

by areyouready 2007-09-08 08:29PM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: Hillary Clinton at the AARP convention

where was obama? i guess too busy to address out seniors. GO HILLARY GO!!!!

by terrondt 2007-09-08 08:46AM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: Hillary Clinton at the AARP convention

It's just staggering that Obama and Edwards turned down the invite to speak to a convention of 27,000 AARP members.

This is exactly the kind of missed opportunity that makes me worry about their ability to play big league campaign hardball.

by hwc 2007-09-08 01:06PM | 0 recs

permalink

They didn't, other Dems at other AARP events

This reeks of misinforming here-- the other Dems are in fact attending other big AARP events, just on different dates on the calendar. Obviously, various candidates will be at various events on various dates-- just because they don't show up at one particular event, this doesn't mean they're dissing the institution, just that they may be attending something else. Hillary has missed other AARP events after all. Some discussion on this:

http://tinyurl.com/ytsefn

by ArkanDem 2007-09-08 07:19PM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: They didn't, other Dems at other AARP events

Please quit spreading misinformation. This attempt at hijacking a diary with trolling is not cool at all.

by georgep 2007-09-08 08:25PM | 0 recs

permalink

Except, again, others are courting seniors

They're just going to different AARP events, discussed elsewhere:

http://tinyurl.com/ytsefn

Nothing more than insignificant differences in the candidates' calendars (some candidates meet the AARP on some days, others meet on other days). Nothing special-- Hillary was there with the AARP on one day, she won't be on other days, while other candidates will. Misinformation frankly, don't take it so easily without reading into it.

by ArkanDem 2007-09-08 07:21PM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: Except, again, others are courting seniors

You are spreading misinformation here. This was the main AARP event. There aren't "many." There is also going to be an AARP sponsored debate coming up.

by georgep 2007-09-08 08:24PM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: Hillary Clinton at the AARP convention

I think you mean Boston, MA in the third paragraph.

GREAT diary!

by DoIT 2007-09-08 08:13AM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: Hillary Clinton at the AARP convention

Yeah, I had New Hampshire on my mind. Thx.

by georgep 2007-09-08 08:17AM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: Hillary Clinton at the AARP convention

You can watch her speech at the Alliance for Retired Americans Conference below , if you haven't seen it yet.

http://www.c-span.org/search/basic.asp?R esultStart=1&ResultCount=10&Basi cQueryText=hillary+clinton+&image1.x =24&image1.y=7&image1=Submit

by lori 2007-09-08 08:18AM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: Hillary Clinton at the AARP convention

Though I support Hillary (as you know), I disagree with her that considerations of raising the retirement age should be completely off the table. The average lifespan in the U.S. has increased by 17 years since social security was started in 1935 (from 61 to 78), but the retirement age has been raised by just two years (from 65 gradually to 67). Why shouldn't further raising the retirement age be on the table (not immediately but to take effect over the next few decades. As the average lifespan increases more and more, it's not tenable for the younger population to be burdened with supporting a rapidly growing 65+ (or 67+) population.

Thoughts?

by markjay 2007-09-08 08:26AM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: Hillary Clinton at the AARP convention

I agree with you on this.

by areyouready 2007-09-08 08:27AM | 0 recs

permalink

It seems like everything...

is "off the table".

Clinton Campaign Insists: Payroll Tax Off The Table, Too
08 Sep 2007 11:12 am

When HIllary Clinton told an audience of AARP members in Iowa yesterday that cutting Social Security benefits or raising the eligibility age to boost Social Security's long-term sustainability was "off the table," it was meant to be a direct shot at Sen. Barack Obama, whose table contains those sour-tasting options.

So how would Clinton reduce pressure on the Social Security trust fund? The print edition of today's Wall Street Journal suggests that Clinton hasn't ruled out raising the payroll tax.

"When it comes to Social Security," she will stand her ground, Mr. Singer said. "People rely on Social Security." Asked if that would mean an increase in the current payroll tax, he said, "Among other things, yes."

But the Clinton campaign says the Journal is wrong.

The print edition of today's Wall Street Journal suggests that Hillary Clinton would be open to an increase in the payroll tax for Social Security.
That is not correct.

Hillary Clinton would not increase payroll taxes for Social Security as President.

Okay, so no raising the retirement age, no benefit cuts, and no payroll tax increases. How exactly can we ensure the next generation will get Social Security? Magic Beans?

If this isn't a pure pander, I don't know what is.

Also worth noting from the article...if we're going to need to run a "surplus", there isn't going to be any money for universal health care. Is that just a bogus promise too?

Link:
http://marcambinder.theatlantic.com/arch ives/2007/09/clinton_campaign_insists_pa yro_1.php

by rashomon 2007-09-08 06:34PM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: Hillary Clinton at the AARP convention

You are right , the only thing that should be off the table is privatization in my best estimation , I disagree with her on that one.

by lori 2007-09-08 08:33AM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: Hillary Clinton at the AARP convention

Yeah, I was suprised by this, too. Although social security is not hardly in the dire straights people clai it is. Only under the worst dooms day senario's does social security becomes insolvent in 32 years and even then it maintain 75% solvency. Really, the system just needs a slight tweaking; raise retirement age(in the future)somewhat, raise payroll taxes slightly, or raise the cap(you may actually be able to lower payroll taxes if you did this). So, I actually, reject when Democrat's by in to the argument that it is in peril, but I do think it needs tweaking and one or some combination of the following is possible. I also think investment accounts on top of social security should be utilized. I think Lieberman(Who I disagree with strongly on Iraq) had a plan for this at the tail end of Bill Clinton's term and it had broad support but then Bush just wanted to privatize the whole thing so nothiit was scrapped. I would be interested as to what she went. Did she mean on no raise in age for people to retire in the next couple of decades or ever? What other ideas does she have for retirement security?

by bookgrl 2007-09-08 08:39AM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: Hillary Clinton at the AARP convention

I disagree with that sentiment. I don't think we should be going down beyond 67. At some point enough is enough, and going beyond into the 70s before retirement is set to kick in is not what I would want to see happen. The Iraq war has drained tons of resources, the tax cuts for the rich need to be rescinded, tax loopholes for the oil industry costing us Billions need to be plugged, etc. Then we would not have to tap into Social Security funds at all to make up for shortfalls elsewhere and SS would remain solvent for a very long time. I just don't see why anyone should be forced into their 70s because politicians in Washington are touching SS funds they should never have put their hands on in the first place. 67 is long enough.

by georgep 2007-09-08 10:13AM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: Hillary Clinton at the AARP convention

Well, I do agree with you there to a large extent because I think educated professionals forget that many americans work in physical labor and really could not work into their 70's in such professions. But, see above, I do think the policy needs some tweaking and there are a number of options for that. I hope she will discuss this further.

by bookgrl 2007-09-08 10:23AM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: Hillary Clinton at the AARP convention

Asolutely. I agree that many things can be discussed and tweaked about this. I just think that 67 is on the outer level of where retirement should start, so we have reached the point where we should draw the line. Otherwise, where does it end? Go to 70? Then you start looking at 73, 75. Our seniors have paid their dues and it should not be our way to get more cash for the system to extend their working years. Let's find the cash elsewhere and give our parents their deserved retirement.

by georgep 2007-09-08 11:18AM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: Hillary Clinton at the AARP convention

I agree w/ george. My dad is a blue collar laborer, and i wouldnt want him working into his 70's.

Also, the debt of America is so high that we pay billions a year in interest alone. If the debt can be reduced (see Georgep's post above) and stop this damned war which is bleeding the country out of money (life, morale, etc) then SS wouldnt be in bad shape.

by sepulvedaj3 2007-09-08 10:30AM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: Hillary Clinton at the AARP convention

Well, there is a difference between "into their 70s" and 68, 69, or possibly 70 (to kick in over the next couple of decades. I'm sure that even 1-2 additional years would make a big financial difference.

Again, it may not be needed immediately--or even at all--but I don't agree that it has to be taken off the table as one of the options to consider.

by markjay 2007-09-08 11:07AM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: Hillary Clinton at the AARP convention

I think 67 is as far as we should drive it. If we need money to keep it going we need to find it somewhere else. Heaven knows there are plenty of areas where we can go. I would rather see us tax those making over $200,000 an extra percent specifically earmarked to pay into keeping SS solvent (I would imagine that the American people would support such a SS-saving measure strongly) than looking at extending the retirement age as another competing alternative. Taking it off the table forces us to look for the funds somewhere else, and there are tons of ways to get this done without looking at people working until they are 70.

This also goes into the issue I raised in the diary itself: Seniors seem to be an afterthought with many politicians, the red-headed stepchild. COLA for SS? Bah, not important. Age? They can work until they are 70. We need that SS money for other things (shiny wars, bridges to nowhere, etc.) Medicare supplements? Cut them. Who cares if medicine has become extremely expensive, seniors should pay their "fair share." I understand the angst that exists that people live longer these days, but lets not forget what has happened to seniors in this country over the last 7 years, they have effectively become the "real poor" in this country. It is amazing to me, since seniors make up BY FAR the biggest voting constituency in our voting system, the most reliable voter, rain or shine. Politicians ignore them at their peril. They consider them cash cows at their peril.

by georgep 2007-09-08 11:34AM | 0 recs

permalink

Yeah, not fair to minorities to raise the age

Minorities, especially Blacks and Latinos generally have shorter life expectancy than American Whites, and many die well before age 67 at higher rates-- thus they're paying into the system but not reaping the benefits, which Whites are to a much greater extent.

That's just not fair to minority groups-- there should be some effort perhaps, to normalize social security payouts so that minority groups get them a bit earlier, otherwise they're being totally shafted.

by ArkanDem 2007-09-08 07:16PM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: Hillary Clinton at the AARP convention

Don't forget age discrimination. Some folks really need that social security when they've been let go from a fulltime job before their mid-60s. Realistically speaking, nobody's going to hire them.

Do we really want people in their mid to late 60s grilling hamburgers at McDonalds?

by Coral 2007-09-08 02:55PM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: Hillary Clinton at the AARP convention

Having watched the speech, I'm not sure it's not a good idea to start off by stating that we will not raise the retirement age or reduce benefits. She pointed out that in 2000 we had ss solvency until 2055, and that Bush paid for Iraq and tax cuts for the rich primarily by raiding the trust fund and borrowing from China. There has been so much hype over the past 8 years that ss was on the brink, ofcourse that was never true, but is more true today. I'll have to listen to what she says in the future, but maybe it's not a bad thing to state from the outset that we are not going to enhance social security by reducing it's advantages to citizens. If she can repay the trust fund by paying off the deficit and limiting the waste, fraud and abuse primarily in military spending(as her husband did), then that seems like the right place to start. I think the age issue may have to be looked at primarily for my age group (30's and younger), but rasing the age on people already 50 will hurt the working poor and lower middle class.

by bookgrl 2007-09-08 03:18PM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: Hillary Clinton at the AARP convention

recommend please. The rec list has again been occupied by Hillary hit pieces. Don't get lazy, folks.

by areyouready 2007-09-08 08:34AM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: Hillary Clinton at the AARP convention

no its not , on the contrary.

by lori 2007-09-08 09:00AM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: Hillary Clinton at the AARP convention

simmer down

the morning shift is just trickling in.

by misscee 2007-09-08 09:18AM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: Hillary Clinton at the AARP convention

Smart of Hillary to have been there and stupid for everyone else to not have been.

by Quinton 2007-09-08 09:21AM | 0 recs

permalink

Other Dems are showing up, to other AARP events

C'mon, this one's so transparent it's sad-- the other Dems are just showing up to other big AARP events and meeting the AARP members. It's just different days etched out on their calendars to meet with the AARP. Some Clinton supporters tried to take that and present it as though it were a conscious decision to ignore the AARP by the other Dems, which it isn't, they're just coming to other events.

http://tinyurl.com/2st7pj

by ArkanDem 2007-09-08 06:50PM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: Other Dems are showing up, to other AARP event

Another thread on it:

http://tinyurl.com/ytsefn

by ArkanDem 2007-09-08 06:53PM | 0 recs

permalink

Re:

This trolling has gone too far. This was the NATIONAL AARP convention. Are you just too dense to discern the difference? Even if you are, it is absolutely ridiculous to attach your post to every discussion here. MAKE YOUR POINT ONCE and then leave it be. Your trolling here is beyond the pale.

by georgep 2007-09-08 08:29PM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: Hillary Clinton at the AARP convention

It's kinda hard to show up at a place where you weren't even invited. Kucinich and Gravel weren't invited because they didn't have an office in Iowa. What bull. If they were invited you KNOW they would've been there. Hillary being the only person there it's kinda easy for her to "wow" them. I have no idea why the others didn't show up but there's the reason's for Kucinich and Gravel.

by SouthernBelle82 2007-09-08 10:39AM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: Hillary Clinton at the AARP convention

Pointing to Dean as to a good example of having the senior vote isn't a good one. He ended up LOSING.

by SouthernBelle82 2007-09-08 10:40AM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: Hillary Clinton at the AARP convention

Who did that? Dean lost specifically because he did NOT have the senior vote. THAT is the vote you need to be strong in, especially in Iowa. Dean was not, and to everybody's surprise, he lost Iowa. Should not have come as a surprise if you know that 64% of caucus goers in Iowa are 55 years or older. Be strong in THAT age group, and you win the Iowa caucus everytime, despite what polls say with everybody claiming that they will truly, surely, absolutely, "this time for real" show up at the caucuses. The only group that really DOES show up are seniors, which is why caucus and primary polls should be reweighted, giving seniors a much larger "realistic" share. I suspect the result of such an exercise would not be too pleasing for Hillary-detractors.

by georgep 2007-09-08 11:41AM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: Hillary Clinton at the AARP convention

Edwards does well amongst older voters too. It's Obama who is in an even worse place than polls make it look like in Iowa.

by Quinton 2007-09-08 12:29PM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: Hillary Clinton at the AARP convention

Iowa isn't the only primary state out there you know. There are a good number of others. Dean also didn't win here in TN and Kerry did which was kinda weird since Dean was a lot more conservative than Kerry and was also a southern governor. It doesn't do you any good if you just focus on one primary state and you don't win any others.

by SouthernBelle82 2007-09-08 03:54PM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: Hillary Clinton at the AARP convention

Of course. The Iowa example works for ALL caucuses and primaries. Seniors make up over 50% of primaries and over 60% of caucuses nationwide. Whoever is doing very well with seniors is going to have a major, major advantage. That is why Clinton is so well positioned. She is doing very well with the groups that always show up to vote, rain or shine. Other groups are less populous, and on top they are very hard to count on to show.

by georgep 2007-09-08 06:06PM | 0 recs

permalink

Wrong

the majority of Dean's support was well educated baby boomers.

by TeresaINPennsylvania 2007-09-08 01:35PM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: Hillary Clinton at the AARP convention

It really depends on the youth vote. If you go back to archive.org and type in "John Kerry" and see some of his older campaign video's throughout 2003 and 2004 he had a lot of college age kids on his side (including me) and who were a lot of his big supporters. I think it just depends on the issues a person addresses and what we young people are concerned about. Kerry was good about addressing issues that concerned everyone in some way whether it was about jobs, health care etc. I didn't really follow Dean during the primary's so it wouldn't be fair to critcise him since I didn't follow him as closely since I wasn't a supporter. I'm sure there are video's of Dean at archive.org as well and of course CSPAN (but I haven't looked there in a long while). With Dean he just didn't have the support on the ground and that's what you need. Media attention can only do so much.

by SouthernBelle82 2007-09-08 03:48PM | 0 recs

permalink

P A N D E R

. she's very very good at telling people what they want to hear. This is how dems nominate horrable general election candidates. Our interest groups don't want to think about anything but thier own issues you would thinks after losing with another unlikeable candidate they would learn.

by nevadadem 2007-09-08 12:26PM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: P A N D E R

You know not showing up is a bad move.

by sepulvedaj3 2007-09-08 01:02PM | 0 recs

permalink

Yes, but they are showing up-- to other events

The AARP and other such major lobbying organizations hold a variety of major events throughout the year, some candidates attend some of them, other candidates attend others. This is nothing more than a minor scheduling variation-- the other Dems will be at other events.

http://tinyurl.com/2st7pj

Just a laughably feeble attempt at twisting the facts around, and trying to turn minor differences in the candidates' monthly planners into some perceived attack against the AARP, which it definitely is not by any stretch.

by ArkanDem 2007-09-08 06:47PM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: Yes, but they

i never said anything about the planners of each candidate, and the scheduling conflicts it involved.

If this constituacy is important to the candidates, i am sure they can reschedule their fundraisers. Its all about choices, and not showing up is STILL BAD

by sepulvedaj3 2007-09-11 12:51PM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: P A N D E R

So why didn't Obama show up to tell them like it is? You know to tell them all the things they didn't want to hear. Are you really saying that the candidates have the luxury of blowing off 27,000 voting old people (said with love)? Come on, it has nothing to do with what Hillary said(pandering or not), but the fact that she had the crowd all to herself.

by Kingstongirl 2007-09-08 01:18PM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: P A N D E R

You know, what she says has nuts and bolts, is absolutely believable. That is why people trust her that she will actually do as she says. With Obama and Edwards I feel like some of the "plans" are just pandering, pie-in-the-sky stuff. For instance, take health insurance. That will be a huge deal, a revamping of such a gigantic system can't be done quickly, will take years to fully complete (although some parts can be rolled into S-CHIP to provide more and more adults with universal care, incrementally erasing uninsureds one by one.) Yet, Edwards makes it sound like it will be instantaneously "enacted." I even saw Elizabeth Edwards make the case that it can be done right away. The BS radar went out of whack on that one. People trust that what she says is what she will do, because she could have easily promised to enact health care reform immediately (which is unrealistic) just to tell people what they want to hear.

by georgep 2007-09-08 03:52PM | 0 recs

permalink

Hillary doesn't pander? What about Iraq?

And the flag-burning amendment? Sounds an awful lot like pandering to the gallery to me, and Hillary's pandering on Iraq was a major contributor to one of the most disastrous wars in US history, one that is causing us permanent and severe damage. Hillary certainly seems to be pandering a lot to her big ocntributors. She may be the worst panderer of the group, but what matters for this thread, is that the "non-attendance" of the other Dems at the AARP event is a scam, they're just showing up for other big AARP events.

by ArkanDem 2007-09-08 06:44PM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: Hillary doesn't pander? What about Iraq?

What is WRONG with you? This has got to be one of the worst attempts at a troll I have seen on this site. I remember you coming with the same junk before, and you did not even UNDERSTAND when I explained it to you.

1. Clinton did NOT support or write or co-sponsor a FLAG BURNING AMENDMENT TO THE CONSTITUTION. You are grossly misinformed.

2. Clinton cast the deciding vote AGAINST the flag burning amendment. It failed by ONE vote, which means that had Clinton been absent that day or had abstained or voted in the affirmative, the flag burning amendment to the constitution would have passed the Senate.

3. THIS was THE big AARP event, the NATIONAL CONVENTION. Other events are happening, forums here and there (like the AARP forum in Iowa coming up,) but this was the ANNUAL NATIONAL CONVENTION. Even IF you were right (you are not,) you have now made that SAME point in the same diary a dozen times. That is pure trolling.

by georgep 2007-09-08 08:38PM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: P A N D E R

Recommend this comment 100 KAJILLION times! Straight. Fucking. Up.

by ReggieH 2007-09-09 08:49AM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: Hillary Clinton at the AARP convention

I see Edwards doing well with seniors in Iowa. At the end it will be between him and Hillary.

by DonB11 2007-09-08 12:34PM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: Hillary Clinton at the AARP convention

I am very proud of Hillary for attending the important AARP Convention and I cannot understand why Obama, Edwards, Richardson, Biden, Dodd and Kucinich were not there. I can see where one or two of them might have had a serious scheduling conflict but all of them? So what is up with that? Anyone care to take a guess?

by samueldem 2007-09-08 02:07PM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: Hillary Clinton at the AARP convention

I already told you. Kucinich and Gravel were not invited because they don't have an office in Iowa. I know Gravel's supporters (including me) really raised some hell over the issue (and I'm sure Kucinich's did too) but it was obviously too late. I am hearing however through the grape vine that Gravel is supposed to tell that he has an office there in the next few weeks or so. I'm not sure about Kucinich. Someone else said that Biden was in Iraq and I'd rather him be there than at AARP quite honestly. However for everyone else I have no idea. They might've had the same problems but I think Edwards has an office there. Hopefully everyone else will tell why.

by SouthernBelle82 2007-09-08 04:00PM | 0 recs

permalink

Edwards will be at the AARP forum

in Davenport, Iowa, on September 20. That forum will also be broadcast on public tv, which a lot of seniors watch.

Obama does not plan to be there for the AARP forum in Davenport. Why I do not understand.

by desmoinesdem 2007-09-08 06:27PM | 0 recs

permalink

It's a scam, SD, the other Dems are at AARP events

Some pathetic attempt by many Clinton supporters to portray the other Dems as ignoring the issues of seniors and dissing the AARP, which they're not doing-- they're just going to other big AARP events. It's nothing more than a scheduling variation, different days for the AARP with different candidates. Major discussion:

http://tinyurl.com/2st7pj

by ArkanDem 2007-09-08 06:40PM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: It's a scam, SD, the other Dems are at AARP ev

Another one:
http://tinyurl.com/ytsefn

by ArkanDem 2007-09-08 07:13PM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: Hillary Clinton at the AARP convention

From an AARP memeber.

xxx, I am informed that AARP still publishes their magazine, the current issue is September-October, and it was received a few days ago. Therefore, it is reasonable to assume that the next issue will be November-December and will be received in early November by their millions of subscribers. It is also reasonable to assume that it will give good coverage to Hillary on the verge of the holiday season when families get togther and the discussions turn to politics.

by areyouready 2007-09-08 08:35PM | 0 recs

permalink

To me, this is the worst kind of pandering

Hillary: "I will never cut social security benefits, even if the rest of the country is going down the shitter. I don't want to piss off AARP so I'm going to raise benefit checks through cost-of-living increases forEVER even though we desperately need to reform social security[which I will never do]! Hoorah!"

Talk about a single-issue voting block.

by ReggieH 2007-09-09 08:46AM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: Hillary Clinton at the AARP convention

I went back, georgerep, to some of your earlier posts where you say you are a Hillary supporter and have been given the opportunity to diary on her campaign here.. I am wondering are you being paid by the campaign for this work? You do such a phenemonal job, with all the graphs and the extensive research it is quite difficult to imagine that you are operating without a budget of some sort.

This is an honest question. I have never seen such sophisticated work on such a consistent basis and I wonder if campaigns are now paying bloggers... And would there be anything wrong with that if they are? Are bloggers paid on HuffPo? AlterNet? Truthout? When you have someone like Bill Moyers or Sidney Blumenthal or Norman Soloman posting do they get $?

And if they do, why can't a Clinton or Edwards or Gulliani or any candidate's blogger who is being paid just say so?

by boatsie 2007-09-09 08:58PM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: Hillary Clinton at the AARP convention

Thanks for the compliments, but, no, not being paid at all. Not even any connection to the campaign whatsoever. I hope that will change, as I intend to canvass for Hillary-Florida, time permitting. I am a web designer and network specialist, and my work allows me to use install-time to check in here and type a little (I am a fast typist.) Now, the graphs are usually just links to photos or pollster.com charts, which are not a big deal to incorporate in posts, takes just a few seconds.

I used to blog on a local newspaper blog (The now defunct St. Pete Times politics forum) which drew an equal amount of liberals, moderates, libertarians and conservatives. I got bored "discussing" George Bush with die-hard conservatives, though, so I came over here and found the discussion much more interesting.

Just having a lot of fun with this stuff, and will continue to blog here as long as my wife does not get mad and comes after me with a frying pan. :-)

by georgep 2007-09-10 10:49AM | 0 recs

permalink

a commonly held dilemma...

thank god for patient/forgiving wives...

by bored now 2007-09-10 01:09PM | 0 recs