In a conference call just now the Clinton campaign would not guarantee that Sen. Hillary Clinton, D-NY, has never used someone else’s rhetoric without crediting them.
In fact, Wolfson seemed to say it wouldn’t be as big a deal if it were discovered that Clinton had “lifted” such language.Joe Gandelmann proffers a good guess on what the back flash on this will be and it won't be good for Hillary.
I read at least half of the posts on this. The Clintonites were citing Tapper's coverage all day. I was wondering what the response would be to this development. Since TalkLeft has, as far as I can see, pretty much joined the Clinton camp, perhaps Jeralyn's post offers a clue.
Ignore the speeches. Who has the best and strongest record, the most experience and the ability, once elected, to get their agenda through Congress? Who will be a better and more electable candidate against the Republicans in November?Good advice even though I think it comes out of a realization by the Clinton camp that their 'explosive revelation' is about to blow up in their faces. Nonetheless, Clinton would do well to figure out a way to run a more positive campaign. Call me crazy, but countering the politics of hope with the politics of negativity doesn't sound like a winning strategy. Not now, and not in November.