Great attack ad on Hillary (Thanks, John Edwards) - Dallas-Mavs.com Forums

kg_veteran · 11-02-2007, 03:09 PM

http://www.youtube.com/v/qggO5yY7RAo&rel=1

chumdawg · 11-02-2007, 04:35 PM

Link isn't working, KG.

EDIT: I got it to work. Maybe it was my browser's fault.

Mavdog · 11-02-2007, 04:47 PM

so kg you agree with john edwards?

kg_veteran · 11-02-2007, 05:22 PM

Mavdog - That Hillary talks out of both sides of her mouth? Yes.

Chum - Sorry about my poor linking skills. I tried to embed the Youtube video directly into the post, but I failed miserably.

Usually Lurkin · 11-02-2007, 06:01 PM

Hello, pot. I'm kettle.

Mavdog · 11-02-2007, 06:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by kg_veteran

Mavdog - That Hillary talks out of both sides of her mouth? Yes.

i agree she's trying to not offend anyone, and that could be a huge problem.

yet the episode on new york licenses for illegal immigrants was as much about her not wishing to throw the governor under the bus as much as not trying to take a firm position.

she clearly needs to improve in communicating what she means. the ambiguity will turn off more people than actually standing on one side or the other.

FishForLunch · 11-02-2007, 07:05 PM

Hillary position on any issue can be summed up with one statement, does not matter what the issue of the day is.

"If you come to a fork in the road, take it"

kg_veteran · 11-02-2007, 11:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mavdog

i agree she's trying to not offend anyone, and that could be a huge problem.

yet the episode on new york licenses for illegal immigrants was as much about her not wishing to throw the governor under the bus as much as not trying to take a firm position.

she clearly needs to improve in communicating what she means. the ambiguity will turn off more people than actually standing on one side or the other.

I saw that portion of the debate.

She was confronted with a direct quote she made, and then she proceeded to take both sides of the issue, multiple times, over the course of about two minutes.

Yes, I think it's a good idea. No, I don't. Yes, I do. No, I don't.

It's as if she couldn't figure out which way the wind was blowing.

Dirkadirkastan · 11-02-2007, 11:56 PM

I do NOT support Clinton at all, but I do understand her point in the third segment. Short answer: "No." Long answer: "I understand the governor's reasons behind his actions, but ultimately I disagree with them."

Clip 1: "I did not say that it should be done but I certainly recognize why governor Spitzer is trying to do it."
Clip 2: "No no no, you said yes you thought it made sense to do it." "No, I didn't Chris."
Clip 3: "It makes a lot of sense, what is the governor supposed to do?"
Clip 4: "Do I think this is the best thing for any governor to do? No."

This is why I hate politics. When Clinton says it makes sense, she means she disagrees with it in spite of it making sorta sense. Then some politician comes around and says BUT YOU SAID IT MAKES SENSE THAT MEANS YOU BACK IT UP 100% AND THATS FINAL LOL. It's not what you mean, it's what you say. Even when it's obvious what you mean.

P.S. Those first two segments though... hmm...

Flacolaco · 11-03-2007, 01:01 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by kg_veteran

I saw that portion of the debate.

She was confronted with a direct quote she made, and then she proceeded to take both sides of the issue, multiple times, over the course of about two minutes.

Yes, I think it's a good idea. No, I don't. Yes, I do. No, I don't.

It's as if she couldn't figure out which way the wind was blowing.

*A womans prerogative (to change her mimd)

I wonder when it comes down to it, if the American public will really elect a woman. I know she's the favorite, but.....it just seems like a stretch. Even my stupid liberal wife says to me the other day "I just don't think I can vote for a woman."

Dirkadirkastan · 11-03-2007, 01:08 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Flacolaco

Even my stupid liberal wife says to me the other day "I just don't think I can vote for a woman."

I'm guessing your wife doesn't watch this forum? Or has she gotten used to her new nickname "stupid liberal wife"?

Flacolaco · 11-03-2007, 01:11 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dirkadirkastan

I'm guessing your wife doesn't watch this forum? Or has she gotten used to her new nickname "stupid liberal wife"?

lol I've told her that before. She fancies herself a democrat, but after 5+ years with me, she has developed some pretty conservative views on lots of issues, even if she doesn't want to admit it. She was a victim of college professors. So many of them turn young minds in radical idiotic directions. It takes years to undo the damage, but I'm fighting the good fight.

Mavdog · 11-03-2007, 08:05 AM

Hillary Reveals Her Inner Self
By PEGGY NOONAN
November 3, 2007

The story isn't that the Democrats finally took on Hillary Clinton. Nor is it that they were gentlemanly to the point of gingerly and tentative. There was an air of "Please, somebody kill her for me so I can jump in and show high-minded compassion at her plight!"

Barack Obama, with his elegance and verbal fluency really did seem like that great and famous political figure from his home state of Illinois -- Adlai Stevenson, who was not at all hungry, not at all mean, and operated at a step removed from the grubby game. Mr. Obama is like someone who would write in his diaries, "I shall point out Estes Kefauver's manifold inconsistencies, then to luncheon with Arthur and Marietta."

The odd thing is it's easier to be a killer when you know exactly what you stand for, when you have a real philosophy. The philosophy becomes a platform from which you can strike without ambivalence. Mr. Obama seems born to be mild. But still, that's not the story.

Nor is it that John Edwards seems like a furry animal on a wheel, trying so hard, to the point he's getting a facial tic, and getting nowhere, failing to get his little furry paws on his prey, not knowing you have to get off the wheel to get to the prey. You have to stop the rounded, rote, bromidic phrases, and use a normal language that cannot be ignored.

The story is not that Mrs. Clinton signaled, in attitude and demeanor, who she believes is her most dangerous foe, the great impediment between her and an easy glide to the nomination. Yes, that would be Tim Russert.

The story is that she talked about policy. Not talking points, but policy. In talking about it she seemed, for the first time, to be revealing what's inside.

It was startling. It's 1993 in there. The year before her fall, and rise.

I spent a day going over the transcripts so I could quote at length, but her exchanges are all over, it's a real Google-fest. Here, boiled down, is what she said.

Giving illegal immigrants drivers licenses makes sense because it makes sense, but she may not be for it, but undocumented workers should come out of the shadows, and it makes sense. Maybe she will increase the payroll tax on Social Security beyond its current $97,500 limit, to $200,000. Maybe not. Everybody knows what the possibilities are. She may or may not back a 4% federal surcharge on singles making $150,000 a year and couples making $200,000. She suggested she backed it, said she didn't back it, she then called it a good start, or rather "I support and admire" the person proposing such a tax for his "willingness to take this on."

She has been accused of doubletalk and she has denied it. And she is right. It was triple talk, quadruple talk, Olympic-level nonresponsiveness. And it was, even for her, rather heavy and smug. Her husband would have had the sense to look embarrassed as he bobbed and weaved. It was part of his charm. But he was light on his feet. She turns every dance into the polka. And it is that amazing thing, a grim polka.

But the larger point is that her policy approach revealed all the impulses not of the New Centrism but the Old Leftism. Her statements were redolent of the 1990s phrase "command and control." They reflect a bias toward the old tax-raising on people who aren't rich, who aren't protected, the old "my friends and I know best, and we'll fill you dullards in on the details later."

For a few years now I've thought the problem for the Democrats in general but for Mrs. Clinton in particular is not that America is against tax increases. They've seen eight years of big spending, of wars, of spiraling entitlements. They've driven by the mansions of the megarich and have no sympathy for hedge fund/movie producer/cosmetics empire heirs. They sense the system is rigged toward the heavily protected. They sense this because they're not stupid.

The problem for Mrs. Clinton is not that people sense she will raise taxes. It's that they don't think she'll raise them on the real and truly rich. The rich are her friends. They contribute to her, dine with her, have access to her. They have an army of accountants. They're protected even from her.

But she can stick it to others, and in the way of modern liberalism for roughly half a century now, one suspects she'll define affluence down. That she would hike taxes on people who make $150,000 a year.

But those "rich" -- people who make $200,000 and have two kids and a mortgage and pay local and state taxes in, say, New Jersey -- they don't see themselves as rich. Because they're not. They're already carrying too much of the freight.

What Mrs. Clinton revealed the other night was more than an unfortunate persona. What I think she revealed was that her baseline thinking has perhaps not changed that much since the 1990s, when she was a headband wearing, power suited, leftist-who-hadn't-been-wounded-yet. It seemed to me she made it quite possible to assume you know who she'll be making war on. And this -- much more than the latest scandal, the Chinatown funny money and the bundling -- could, and I think would, engender real opposition down the road. The big chink in her armor is not stylistic, it is about policy. It is about the great baseline question in all political life: Whose ox is being gored?

A quick word here on why the scandals I refer to above do not deter Mrs. Clinton's rise. There are people who've made quite a study of her life and times, and buy every book, from the awful ones such as Ed Klein's to the excellent ones, such as Sally Bedell Smith's recent "For Love of Politics," a carefully researched, data-rich compendium on the Clintons' time in the White House.

People who've studied Mrs. Clinton often ask why her ethical corner cutting and scandals have not caught up with her, why the whole history of financial and fund-raising scandals doesn't slow her rise.

In a funny way she's protected by her reputation. It's so well known it's not news. It doesn't make an impression anymore. People have pointed out her ethical lapses for so long that they seem boring, or impossible to believe. "That couldn't be true or she wouldn't be running for president." This thought collides with "And we already know all this anyway." Her campaign uses the latter to squash the latest: "old news," "cash for rehash."

I've never seen anything quite like this dynamic work in modern politics. But the other night, for the first time, I had the feeling maybe it isn't going to work anymore, or with such deadening consistency.

URL for this article:
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB119403384858580743.html

Jack.Kerr · 11-03-2007, 09:51 AM

MR. RUSSERT: Thank you, Brian.

Senator Clinton, Governor of New York Eliot Spitzer has proposed giving driver's licenses to illegal immigrants. You told the Nashua, New Hampshire editorial board it makes a lot of sense. Why does it make a lot of sense to give an illegal immigrant a driver's license?

SEN. CLINTON: Well, what Governor Spitzer is trying to do is fill the vacuum left by the failure of this administration to bring about comprehensive immigration reform. We know in New York we have several million at any one time who are in New York illegally. They are undocumented workers. They are driving on our roads. The possibility of them having an accident that harms themselves or others is just a matter of the odds. It's probability. So what Governor Spitzer is trying to do is to fill the vacuum.

I believe we need to get back to comprehensive immigration reform because no state, no matter how well-intentioned, can fill this gap.

There needs to be federal action on immigration reform.

MR. RUSSERT: Does anyone here believe an illegal immigrant should not have a driver's license?

REP. KUCINICH: Believe what?

MR. RUSSERT: An illegal immigrant should not have a driver's license.

SEN. DODD: This is a privilege. And look, I'm as forthright and progressive on immigration policy as anyone here, but we're dealing with a serious problem here, we need to have people come forward. The idea that we're going to extend this privilege here of a driver's license, I think, is troublesome. And I think the American people are reacting to it.

We need to deal with security on our borders, we need to deal with the attraction that draws people here, we need to deal fairly with those who are here; but this is a privilege. Talk about health care, I have a different opinion. That affects the public health of all of us. But a license is a privilege, and that ought not to be extended, in my view.

MR. WILLIAMS: Who else? Senator --

SEN. CLINTON: I just want to add, I did not say that it should be done, but I certainly recognize why Governor Spitzer is trying to do it. And we have failed --

SEN. DODD: Wait a minute. No, no, no. You said yes, you thought it made sense to do it.

` SEN. CLINTON: No, I didn't, Chris. But the point is, what are we going to do with all these illegal immigrants who are (driving ?) -- (inaudible)?

SEN. DODD: Well, that's a legitimate issue. But driver's license goes too far, in my view.

SEN. CLINTON: Well, you may say that, but what is the identification if somebody runs into you today who is an undocumented worker --

SEN. DODD: There's ways of dealing with that.

SEN. CLINTON: Well, but --

SEN. DODD: This is a privilege, not a right.

SEN. CLINTON: Well, what Governor Spitzer has agreed to do is to have three different licenses; one that provides identification for actually going onto airplanes and other kinds of security issues, another which is an ordinary driver's license, and then a special card that identifies the people who would be on the road.

SEN. DODD: That's a bureaucratic nightmare.

SEN. CLINTON: So it's not the full privilege.

MR. RUSSERT: Senator Clinton, I just want to make sure what I heard. Do you, the New York Senator Hillary Clinton, support the New York governor's plan to give illegal immigrants a driver's license? You told the Nashua, New Hampshire, paper it made a lot of sense.

SEN. CLINTON: It --

MR. RUSSERT: Do you support his plan?

SEN. CLINTON: You know, Tim, this is where everybody plays gotcha. It makes a lot of sense. What is the governor supposed to do? He is dealing with a serious problem. We have failed, and George Bush has failed.

Do I think this is the best thing for any governor to do? No. But do I understand the sense of real desperation, trying to get a handle on this? Remember, in New York we want to know who's in New York. We want people to come out of the shadows. He's making an honest effort to do it. We should have passed immigration reform.

Jack.Kerr · 11-03-2007, 10:00 AM

Goddamn it, I hate when people make HC look better than she is.

From my vantage, she takes a pretty reasonable position here--undocumented immigrants driving without a license is a problem. Spitzer has proposed a measure that addresses part of the problem, but is ultimately an imperfect measure within the greater problem of illegal immigration.

And then the also-ran Dodd, without addressing any of the substance of the issue, tries to puff his windbag self full by collaborating with an obviously hostile Russert to spring a little trap on her. And she didn't back down, and didn't allow them to maneuver her into a corner where they could do more damage later. Basically she stood her ground. I'd give the point to Hillary.

Yeah, she loses style points, because she allowed herself to get a little shrill, but if this is the best that Edwards' campaign can do, I'm guessing he didn't even muss his hair.

Where she'll lose is if her campaign tries to paint this as men ganging up on her. If they don't say a word, it will look like that subliminally. But if they articulate it, they'll be seen as making excuses, and playing the gender card too soon and for too little.

Usually Lurkin · 11-03-2007, 10:47 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jack.Kerr

From my vantage, she takes a pretty reasonable position here--undocumented immigrants driving without a license is a problem. Spitzer has proposed a measure that addresses part of the problem, but is ultimately an imperfect measure within the greater problem of illegal immigration. .

But in doing so, she avoids taking a stand at all. Is she going to do that with military strikes on Iran? It makes sense, but I'm against it, but I can see how it might be someone's decision, but it's not the best way to go, but what're we supposed to do anyway? What kind of leadership is that? That's someone just saying stuff for the sake of image. When she gets called on it on the international stage, is she going to play feminist victim and have Bill make some comments about unfair questioning?

Jack.Kerr · 11-03-2007, 12:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Usually Lurkin

But in doing so, she avoids taking a stand at all. Is she going to do that with military strikes on Iran? It makes sense, but I'm against it, but I can see how it might be someone's decision, but it's not the best way to go, but what're we supposed to do anyway? What kind of leadership is that? That's someone just saying stuff for the sake of image. When she gets called on it on the international stage, is she going to play feminist victim and have Bill make some comments about unfair questioning?

Again, I hear it differently. She basically said it was a reasonable if imperfect approach to a problem. I'll take that level of leadership hedge over Dodd's empty, false rhetoric every day of the week.

By comparison to Giuliani's hedges about abortion, or Romney's hedges about civil unions, she almost looks responsible.

Usually Lurkin · 11-03-2007, 12:20 PM

you came away with some idea of whether or not she would implement the plan if it were up to her? She said it makes sense, but she also said she didn't say it should be done. But she didn't say it should be done, and didn't say it shouldn't be done. She didn't delegate that as responsibility that shouldn't be federal, or should be in congressional hands, or the courts hands. She said it is federal, and named Bush as having not done enough. Now she's in effect arguing for a plan (or worse, excusing a plan) that she isn't going to say should be done, but won't say it should or shouldn't be done? If you want that kind of leadership, well, vote Hillary.

Jack.Kerr · 11-03-2007, 12:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Usually Lurkin

She didn't delegate that as responsibility that shouldn't be federal, or should be in congressional hands, or the courts hands. She said it is federal, and named Bush as having not done enough.

What she said:

Quote:

You know, Tim, this is where everybody plays gotcha. It makes a lot of sense. What is the governor supposed to do? He is dealing with a serious problem. We have failed, and George Bush has failed.

Again, I'm hearing it differently--"We have failed, ..." sounds like she's taking part of the blame as a member of Congress for not having passed a legislative solution, and sympathizing with her home-state and same-party Governor over the problem that he's faced with. And yeah, she took a gratuitous shot at Dubya. What do you expect? It's a Democratic circle jerk.

If this is the worst example of indecisiveness or hedging or double-talk or straddling or call-it-what-you-will that we hear from a politician over the next 12 months (Democratic OR Republican) we will be damned lucky indeed.

Instead, it sounds like the news media, flagging Democratic contenders and Far Right Republicans in particular are just a little too giddy over a relatively minor misstep (at worst) by Clinton.... and ya know what? It smacks of desperation.

Usually Lurkin · 11-03-2007, 01:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jack.Kerr

What she said:

Quote:

You know, Tim, this is where everybody plays gotcha. It makes a lot of sense. What is the governor supposed to do? He is dealing with a serious problem. We have failed, and George Bush has failed.

sure. And there's a reason she knows she's open to the gotcha game. She opened the whole can by immediately claiming:

Quote:

I just want to add, I did not say that it should be done, but I certainly recognize why Governor Spitzer is trying to do it.

so, should it be done or shouldn't it? She says "we failed," yeah. But also took the opportunity to name Bush in particular. I happen to agree that there are massive failures on the general issue. But she's the one running for office. She is the one diverting attention from this particular issue of licensing (on which she would rather please everybody, it seems) and onto the more general issue. She's the one completely avoiding (and doing a craptacular job at it) making a commitment to an issue that most of the people who will be voting already have a commitment too.

Quote:

If this is the worst example of indecisiveness . . . It smacks of desperation.

Did you watch the video? It's not even the worst of the bunch she produced in the debate. And of course there will be more, and by others. But because others will do it too doesn't mean it's not bad for her politically. And it doesn't mean that it's not indicative of poorly thought out policy positions on her part. And what sound desperate is Bill Clinton coming out to defend her by accusing others every time she makes a misstep.

jthig32 · 11-03-2007, 01:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Flacolaco

She was a victim of college professors. So many of them turn young minds in radical idiotic directions. It takes years to undo the damage, but I'm fighting the good fight.

There so, so much truth to this.

Jack.Kerr · 11-03-2007, 02:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Usually Lurkin

Did you watch the video? It's not even the worst of the bunch she produced in the debate. And of course there will be more, and by others. But because others will do it too doesn't mean it's not bad for her politically. And it doesn't mean that it's not indicative of poorly thought out policy positions on her part. And what sound desperate is Bill Clinton coming out to defend her by accusing others every time she makes a misstep.

It's unnecessary, probably unwise of her campaign to trot Slick Willie out to stick up for her. But not desperate.

Again, it all sounds like an overreaction to me. She probably should've asked Dodd if he'd rather be hit by an insured undocumented immigrant, or an uninsured undocumented immigrant and left it at that. (Related: I read a few months ago that auto insurers were targeting the undocumented immigrant market for coverage, because they were less likely to file a claim due to their undocumented status. Collect the premium upfront, then count on them NOT to file claims. Insurers......gotta love 'em.)

The more I listen to and re-read what she actually said, the better she comes off. The more that her detractors try to create something out of nothing, the more extreme and desperate they expose themselves to be.

kg_veteran · 11-03-2007, 02:19 PM

Of course Edwards is desperate. He's way behind and trying to catch up. I doubt this helps him do that, and I doubt that it seriously damages Hillary at all.

But, it is illustrative of Hillary's double-talk. Caught on the unpopular side of a polarizing issue, she was more intent on parsing her rhetoric than in defending her position -- whatever it is.

Hopefully people are paying attention. We don't need a Commander-in-Chief whose opinions are so...pliable.

Usually Lurkin · 11-03-2007, 03:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jack.Kerr

The more I listen to and re-read what she actually said, the better she comes off. The more that her detractors try to create something out of nothing, the more extreme and desperate they expose themselves to be.

In rewatching it, you are just reinforcing previously made judgments.That would happen to just about anybody. if you can honestly and accurately state whether you think Hillary is for or against licensing illegal aliens, then maybe I'll start to believe you are not the one desperately spinning.
As for how it will affect Hillary - her polls dipped a bit against Giuliani, and she's opened herself up to attack in a way that she doesn't do very often. It will be up to her opponents to do anything with it.

Jack.Kerr · 11-03-2007, 03:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Usually Lurkin

In rewatching it, you are just reinforcing previously made judgments.That would happen to just about anybody.

Maybe. But the same argument can be made about people who watch or rewatch it and reinforce previously formed prejudices--not just with respect to her position on Social Security or immigrant IDs, but with respect to her as a politician.

For myself, the most interesting thing (for me) is that I've never been able to stand her or what she represented, and I watched the clips (the first time) expecting to see something egregious. What she said wasn't.

As for where she stands, I think she said she thought it was a reasonable step by Spitzer, so I'm going to infer that if she were looking at the same considerations he's looking at, that she could be expected to act similarly. Her very, very minor misstep was in trying to word her response so as to avoid an immediate attack from one of the Democratic dwarves onstage with her. Dodd, however, was all too willing to play the fool.

By the way, who do you intend to support in the Republican primary?

dude1394 · 11-03-2007, 04:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jack.Kerr

Again, I hear it differently. She basically said it was a reasonable if imperfect approach to a problem.

that would mean she supports it doesn't it? I mean nothing is perfect. So she supports it, she also supports federal legislation of some sort.

Usually Lurkin · 11-03-2007, 06:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jack.Kerr

As for where she stands, I think she said she thought it was a reasonable step by Spitzer, so I'm going to infer that if she were looking at the same considerations he's looking at, that she could be expected to act similarly.

but:
SEN. CLINTON: I just want to add, I did not say that it should be done, but I certainly recognize why Governor Spitzer is trying to do it. And we have failed --

SEN. DODD: Wait a minute. No, no, no. You said yes, you thought it made sense to do it.

` SEN. CLINTON: No, I didn't, Chris. But the point is, what are we going to do with all these illegal immigrants who are (driving ?) -- (inaudible)?

It's clear to me that she wants us to think she's for it if we're for it and against it if we're against it

Quote:

By the way, who do you intend to support in the Republican primary?

I'm not sure. Probably Giuliani or Thompson or Romney.

Jack.Kerr · 11-03-2007, 09:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Usually Lurkin

I'm not sure. Probably Giuliani or Thompson or Romney.

You are probably wise to wait until their respective policies become a little clearer
and/or until their respective possibilities of winning become a little clearer. If Thompson and Romney are out of the race, you might not want to be committed to a candidate who didn't have a chance of winning. You'll wait an analyze the circumstances at a different time and make a decison based on the information available to you. And that sounds reasonable to me.

But it's the kind of answer that might bring down cries of 'waffler' or 'hedger' or 'indecisive' (or even 'flip-flopper' if you end up changing your mind) if you were being held to the same standards that she is apparently being held to in that debate on that question.

Usually Lurkin · 11-03-2007, 10:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jack.Kerr

But it's the kind of answer that might bring down cries of 'waffler' or 'hedger' or 'indecisive' (or even 'flip-flopper' if you end up changing your mind) if you were being held to the same standards that she is apparently being held to in that debate on that question.

well, first, she should be held to a higher standards, right? I'm not asking you to vote for me. Second, I'm more than willing to say that I haven't done the homework to prepare my vote yet. I'd have more respect if she'd just come out and said, "I haven't a decision on that yet." or something.

FishForLunch · 11-04-2007, 04:26 AM

She is not as skilled as Bill in giving a big speech and saying absolutely nothing, that is her problem. Maybe in couple of years she will learn from Bill how to bullshit and feel people pain.

At least the late night shows and talk radio will have great material when she become the President.

Look at Bush, he looks old and stressed after 7 years in office, imagine how Hillary will look like in her second term.

Mavdog · 11-04-2007, 08:58 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Usually Lurkin

I'd have more respect if she'd just come out and said, "I haven't a decision on that yet." or something.

do you expect the public (or her opponents) to accept a "I don't know yet" answer?

that's raw meat for russert.

to seal the deal, she needs to be much more direct and decisive. if she keeps giving wordy responses that seem to go all over the issue, the door's open for others.

could it be the scars of the health fiasco? could it be poor campaign advice? or could it be a lack of clarity?

kg_veteran · 11-04-2007, 09:38 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mavdog

do you expect the public (or her opponents) to accept a "I don't know yet" answer?

that's raw meat for russert.

to seal the deal, she needs to be much more direct and decisive. if she keeps giving wordy responses that seem to go all over the issue, the door's open for others.

Right, but that would require her to have a definitive position on the issue.

Quote:

could it be the scars of the health fiasco? could it be poor campaign advice? or could it be a lack of clarity?

Lack of clarity. Or lack of character. You pick.

Right now, it's great campaign strategy to avoid taking positions on controversial issues. But that won't work as the spotlight intensifies.

Usually Lurkin · 11-04-2007, 10:12 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mavdog

do you expect the public (or her opponents) to accept a "I don't know yet" answer?

no. I definitely would. Not being honest with what you've got is one of my pet peeves. For this particular issue, which is a home state issue with national press, she should have a position. A clear position that she can communicate. To admit she hasn't worked it out might have been as bad as bumbling around to the point that it's obvious she hasn't worked it out. But dancing around an actual "I don't know yet" answer would have been easier, and it would have at least left her sounding like she's approaching the issue intellectually, rather than politically.

Jack.Kerr · 11-04-2007, 11:23 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Usually Lurkin

well, first, she should be held to a higher standards, right? I'm not asking you to vote for me. Second, I'm more than willing to say that I haven't done the homework to prepare my vote yet. I'd have more respect if she'd just come out and said, "I haven't a decision on that yet." or something.

Well, actually.....the stakes for you deciding on a candidate to support are so much smaller than her articulating an opinion on how the Governor of New York implements an ID policy for undocumented immigrants, that one might argue that SHE should be afforded the luxury of deliberation, not you.

Jack.Kerr · 11-04-2007, 11:24 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by FishForLunch

Look at Bush, he looks old and stressed after 7 years in office, imagine how Hillary will look like in her second term.

Like Madeline Albright maybe? Or Ann Richards?

Eight years and a stressful job will do that do ya.

Jack.Kerr · 11-04-2007, 11:34 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by kg_veteran

Right, but that would require her to have a definitive position on the issue.

Lack of clarity. Or lack of character. You pick.

Right now, it's great campaign strategy to avoid taking positions on controversial issues. But that won't work as the spotlight intensifies.

It's probably an unfortunate part of the process that the weaker candidates like a Kucinich or Sharpton or Brownback (onlyl those without a chance of winning) are the ones who will come out and take controversial positions.....shortly before they drop out of the race for lack of support. Oddly enough, I never associate candidates like Sharpton or Brownback with "character".

If candidates playing peek-a-boo with the truth about controversial issues reflects a lack of character, then there may not EVER have been a candidate with character.

Usually Lurkin · 11-04-2007, 11:51 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jack.Kerr

Well, actually.....the stakes for you deciding on a candidate to support are so much smaller than her articulating an opinion on how the Governor of New York implements an ID policy for undocumented immigrants, that one might argue that SHE should be afforded the luxury of deliberation, not you.

You're the one who used the term, "higher standards." Do you really hold lower standards for candidates than for voters? Or are you changing the parameters of the discussion? Personally, if she had said she was deliberating, I'd have more respect for her. She didn't. We're left with the impression that she's hiding something or is confused. With your last reply to kg, it sounds like you've gone from arguing that she was confused (has a position but failed to communicate it) to arguing that she's hiding something (playing peek a boo with the truth).

kg_veteran · 11-04-2007, 03:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jack.Kerr

It's probably an unfortunate part of the process that the weaker candidates like a Kucinich or Sharpton or Brownback (onlyl those without a chance of winning) are the ones who will come out and take controversial positions.....shortly before they drop out of the race for lack of support. Oddly enough, I never associate candidates like Sharpton or Brownback with "character".

If candidates playing peek-a-boo with the truth about controversial issues reflects a lack of character, then there may not EVER have been a candidate with character.

Forget about a controversial position -- how about ANY position at all?

dude1394 · 11-06-2007, 09:50 PM

So if Clinton is elected will we have to have 4 years of her hubby crying about how folks are picking on her? Geezzz...It was bad enough having bubba point that lying finger at everyone without having both clintons lying to everyone.

If you debate me poor widdle wifey hard, then you are being a meany old swiftboat. You must by lying because my wifey would never tell a falsehood, just like me.

Oh for the days when ex-presidents had class. Maybe democrat ex presidents never did.

Quote:

Yesterday in Las Vegas, per the AP, Bill Clinton compared the dust-up over his wife’s answer on the drivers’ license question to … the 2004 Swiftboat campaign against John Kerry and the GOP ad in 2002 that linked Max Cleland to Osama bin Laden. Over the weekend, it was Clinton supporter Eleanor Smeal comparing the post-debate reaction to Anita Hill. Now it’s Bill invoking the Swiftboaters and Max Cleland. For one thing, much of the criticism over Clinton’s response is coming from Democrats, and it’s over how she answered the question — not its substance. Moreover, no one is questioning her patriotism, as the Swiftboat and anti-Cleland ads did. Given this overreaction from Clinton supporters, how worried are they about the aftermath of her debate performance?