Hillary Clinton Draws Applause From Hispanics

[wyldwolf]

Speaking on the grandest stage of the nation's largest Hispanic civil rights organization yesterday in Philadelphia, Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-N.Y.) made no mention of presidential ambitions, but many said her message and delivery had the aura of a campaign speech.

Clinton touched on nearly every issue that was important to Hispanics, the nation's largest ethnic group and a crucial voting bloc. She said she wanted to make sure Hispanic children got a fair education, and that families had medical insurance to ward off health problems such as asthma and lead poisoning that affect kids. She also talked of supporting legislation that would make it easier for immigrants to send money back home, which Hispanics do at a rate of about $200 per month.

"You are doing your part to make sure that every child has a special place in the American dream," she said at the National Council of La Raza convention. "But I don't know if your government is doing its part right now to make your job easier."

A thunderous ovation followed, the first of many rounds of applause.

"To me it sounded like a campaign speech," said Nellie Moreno of Phoenix, who said she was surprised that Clinton did not talk about immigration, temporary-worker programs and the border with Mexico. "I was hoping to hear something," she said. America Jones of El Paso said she heard what she wanted. "I hope that she will run, whether it sounded like a campaign speech or not," she said

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/07/18/AR2005071801530.html

[Lecky]

1. There was a similar article found on fark.com

Note how differently the story is written:

Clinton speaks before Hispanic civil rights conference

"Speaking to the nations' largest Hispanic civil rights organization, Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton, D-N.Y., received a standing ovation Monday when she vowed her support for legislation that would allow illegal immigrant high school students to attend college.

Clinton made her remarks on various issues of importance to the country's Latinos at the annual conference of National Council of La Raza, attended by 23,000 people at the Pennsylvania Convention Center in Philadelphia.

The event started Friday and has included a rally in center Philadelphia in support of the so-called DREAM Act that would benefit illegal students.

On Tuesday, the chairpersons of both the Republican and Democratic national committees are schedule to address the conference, which NCLR officials say is a first for the organization and a sign that both parties have heightened their interest in the growing Latino population and its votes."

Think they could be any more transparent? People are in a hurry to smear Hillary already.

[AmericanDream]

2. Both articles have a biased tone.....

The washington post (conservative media bias guru) likes to glorify Clinton as they see good stuff in her for their future issues if she decides to run in 08... that is why they keep on praising her star power and potential to great levels, only to pull her down if and when she becomes the national candidate. Another attempt to shove her down people's throats by the corporate media, which is fully displayed by the overzealous "reporting" of audience applause, etc.

And, as for the fark article... you pointed out their "fair and balanced" writing just for what it is: crap.

Lastly, I hate when Hillary panders whenever she is talking to an out of beltway crowd and then get backs to her silly, dlc ways in washington. Words are fruitless... she has to show she's gonna stand by her broad claims (unlike her husband who promised to "reform welfare as we know it" and then went on to make the welfare problem worse than it had ever been... I hate him for that)... I am clearly not a fan of the clintons' wobbliness... we have seen people like Reagan, W get elected due to their "show" of strength and convictions.... Hillary lacks that, and that is why I believe she would be a bad candidate regardless of what moves she is making. Nevertheless, for 2006, everyone's gotta be behind her ;) ... 2008, however, is another matter....

[Lecky]

3. She's not my first pick for 08' either

...but I would back her over any republican nominee.

It just amazes me how much she is hated by republicans. They absolutely loathe her which means they see her as a threat.

Are her chances good for re-election 06'?

[AmericanDream]

4. Oh, 06 is no worry for her; she has got another term sitting in her lap...

That is why it was such a great move for her to run from NY... and not IL, where her politics would have played out differently. And trust me, the republicans hated her as the first lady... but these days, they love hillary clinton... have you seen the repub cronies on fox news always praising and glorifying her moderate political tactics? They salivate at the thought of a clinton nomination... because she is the easiest target for them and thus they are doing their best to push her stars. I haven't seen a single republican talk bad about her lately (especially on TV; the right-wing blogs of course hate any and every dem)... they enjoy the clinton show as much as anything else... because she will be the easiest candidate to smear and win against in the dem presidential field.

As for 08... of course, if she becomes the nominee, I'll be behind her too.. albeit unenthusiastically... I truly believe we need "new" leadership in this country!

[CWebster]

5. The trend among Hillary cheerleaders

The less familiar with her politics the more likely the support. A glance at the letters responding to a recent Hillary piece in "The Nation" is indicative of how divisive she is just on the Left. Why would the Democrats want to promote a continuation of Bush-Clinton that has even wider conflict across partisan lines? Then again, they pushed Kerry--goes to demonstrate how clueless they can be. To think that they would back such a compromised candidate as the antidote to Bush---with so little to actually oppose him on, is a sad commentary on how dim the light is at the end of the tunnel.

[SaveElmer]

6. Bush - Clinton?

You have got to be kidding...it doesn't take more than a casual reader of the newspapers to see a vast difference in the policies of Bill Clinton and Chimpy. Give me a break. Hillary may not be as leftist as you would like, but she is certainly well ensconced in the Democratic Party mainstream.

Kerry lost not because he wasn't liberal enough...he was the most liberal candidate we have ever put up. He lost because he and his advisors simply did not know how to respond to right wing attackers. To put it bluntly, they were not ruthless enough in their counterattacks, naively believing the media would do its job.

Well if there is one person who is under no illusions about the media doing their job, or the best way to respond to right wing attackers, it is Hillary Clinton. Do you think the reaction to the Joe Klein book was some fluke? It is no accident that this attack on Hillary backfired. She has an army of defenders ready to take the fight to these people, and she knows how to marshal them to maximum effect.

[ladeuxiemevoiture]

10. that point about Klein's book is a good, interesting point.

The Clintons really know how to win and how to effectively counter-attack. And I know Hillary would be better than any Republican.

[wyldwolf]

7. Hmmm

I think Democrats who are MOST familiar with her politics will be MORE likely to vote for her.

[LittleClarkie]

8. The primaries may work against her

The more left and right wings of the party vote in the primaries. If she ticks off the left enough, she may discover she shouldn't be taking the primaries for granted in her move to the center.

[SaveElmer]

9. Absolutely...

Agree with that 100%