How interesting. The NY Times "the caucus" reports the following today about Hillary's two "different" speeches yesterday. One in New Hampshire, and the other in Iowa.

Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton left a couple of things behind in New Hampshire this morning when she left for Iowa: Her vocal support for abortion rights and gay civil unions, both of which she touted in the Granite State but left out of her stump speech here today.

She said yesterday in New Hampshire that she would never compromise on a woman’s right to choose, and she also praised the state’s Democratic-led legislature and Democratic governor for recently enacting a civil union law.

Guess she forgot? Doubt it.

This line is also rather interesting.

Mrs. Clinton was also fairly blunt about one of her first actions in office: She said she would quickly call together the Joint Chiefs, her Secretary of Defense, and her national security team and direct them to craft a swift plan to start withdrawing American troops from Iraq “as soon as we responsibly can.”

Hmm, does that sound like the "immediate" pullout that those over at Daily Chaos (kos) are looking for? A responsible pullout? That can't be what they want to hear.

Sweeping through Iowa today, Hillary had this to say about the fears of some Democrats who believe that she is unelectable.

With her husband former President Bill Clinton at her side, the New York senator and former first lady said her experience trumps her rivals’ and can overcome concerns about her electability.

“I want to say, let’s look at the person. Let’s look at the person’s qualifications, experiences, ideas and vision for the future,” Sen. Clinton told more than 500 Democratic activists at a Sioux City labor picnic at a park along the Missouri River.
Sen. Clinton was making her second campaign trip with her husband in Iowa, the state scheduled to host the leadoff presidential nominating caucuses next year.

The former president stressed in introducing the senator that Democrats must choose whom they feel is best experienced in order to bring about change in the nation’s economic, foreign policy and national security policies.

“The decision the Democrats have to make is who the best person is to lead that change,” the ex-president said.

What change? We started with a Bush, then came a Clinton, then another Bush, and now they want voters to "vote for change" by electing another Clinton? LOL

I know that what I just said was simplistic, but I have a feeling that will be in the back of people's minds come election time.

It just makes me laugh when I hear the Clinton's touting change. :)