Democrats & Liberals Archives

Is She For It or Against it?

According to reports about the Democratic debate last night, Hillary Clinton was attacked by Edwards and Obama. Up to recently, Hillary won all debates by cleverly answering questions so that people on different sides of an issue would believe that she is with them. Yesterday, this tactic did not work.

According to the Washington Post:

The most telling exchange came minutes before the debate ended, when Clinton declined to answer repeated questions about whether she supports New York Gov. Eliot L. Spitzer's proposal to allow illegal immigrants to obtain driver's licenses, after earlier suggesting that she does. Edwards pounced, arguing that Clinton had offered evasiveness when Americans want honesty and consistency from their leaders. "What we've had seven years is double talk from Bush and Cheney, and I think America deserves us to be straight," he said.

Obama attacked with this:

Well, I was confused on Senator Clinton's answer. I can't tell whether she was for it or against it.

Obama stated unequivocally that Spitzer's plan is "the right idea."

Finally, Clinton's strategy has been uncovered: staying in the middle by not being clear about the positions she takes. In this case, she talked a lot about why Spitzer had to do what he did - in order to attract lefties. When confronted, however, she decided to be against the plan, since this is the position taken by a majority of people when asked about immigration policies.

This is what makes Hillary Clinton a "moderate."

I would not waste my vote on such a "moderate." I want someone with gumption to state unequivocally where he stands. Both Edwards and Obama did this. I'd take either one in preference to Clinton.

But I prefer Obama. Even when he criticizes he does it with civility. All the pundits are complaining that he did not attack Clinton more ferociously. Why should he? Does he have to prove that he is a beast like all the other politicians? Obama is a true gentleman who will, nevertheless, be able to slay whatever dragon the Republicans come up with. The sheer contrast will make the public swoon for Obama.

Posted by Paul Siegel at October 31, 2007 4:51 PM
Comment #237335

Thanks Paul, that was a fun read. Not very accurate, but fun. I can’t wait for the “swooning public” to fall at Obama’s feet in adoration and fealty. I must admit that Hillary’s performance last night really left me wondering how she has gotten this far. Her remarks last night about “taking” billions from industries parallels what she has said before about taking things away for the common good. With such a display of arrogance she could probably scare the Iranians into caving to the U.N. sanctions. No longer will Ms. Clinton be considered the smartest woman in the world but will take her rightful place alongside husband Bill as a comsumate liar and poll-taker but lacking Bill’s charm and charisma. Just imagine any other candidate from either side talking about “taking” billions from private industry without even a nod to our Constitution or Congress and without regard for millions like me who have our retirement accounts with those businesses from whom she will steal, rob and plunder.

Posted by: Jim at October 31, 2007 6:35 PM
Comment #237339

Well Paul, you do have consistant faith in the Democratic Party. Like Jim said, I think you have maybe just a little bit too much faith. But I agree with you on the Hillary iOssue. She is completely fake. Does she really stand for anything? Obama’s civility is admirable and I’m no fan of John Edwards. Just don’t get cocky. The reps might get some fringe group to bring back the “Obama went to a radical madrasa” line or some other nasty false smear.

On an entirely unrelated note, thank God the “God hates fags” “church” just lost $11 million in a lawsuit.

Posted by: Silima at October 31, 2007 7:39 PM
Comment #237340

Well, there went any consideration on my part for Barack Obama. Hillary may be be prudent in equivocating, but, I can’t vote for any candidate that is going to promote illegal immigration, and in so doing, defy the laws of our nation, which Spitzer’s plan for driver’s licenses does. We have had quite enough of that under Bush.

Posted by: David R. Remer at October 31, 2007 7:40 PM
Comment #237346

If HC or Obama are at the top of the ticket we and the country could lose. HC represents the status quo. She has confirmed this by pandering to corporate lobbiest. Edwards has taken no money from them and challenged her to do the same. She refused.Americans want change. HC does not offer that.Edwards does. He has also won red states before. Obama,I am afraid is an “also ran” at this point.

Posted by: BillS at October 31, 2007 10:59 PM
Comment #237349

I don’t know. There was a point during the debate at which Russert asked Hillary if she was going to declassify her private correspondences with Bill during his presidency. O’Bama compared this with the secrecy that has gone on during this administration - the failure of Cheney to disclose his energy plan, etc. To me, this was the first real b.s. politicking I have seen O’Bama do, and I didn’t like it.

Posted by: Max at November 1, 2007 12:38 AM
Comment #237359

After watching the debate, I don’t think Obama helped himself. The attacks on Hillary and some of her answers hurt her somewhat. Edwards help himself and I would pick him as the overall winner of the debate. Edwards is my candidate so I could be somewhat prejudiced. In the next Iowa poll, I expect that Hillary and Obama will drop slightly, Edwards will gain the difference and the race will tighten.

Posted by: jlw at November 1, 2007 7:06 AM
Comment #237369

jlw, where does Edwards stand on securing borders against illegal immigrants? Don’t say he is for it. Tell me if he has said he would secure the borders against illegal immigrants as a top priority in dealing with the issue, please.

HC and BO have lost the potential of my vote on this issue. I have not heard Edwards speak on the issue. Can you help me out on this?


Posted by: David R. Remer at November 1, 2007 10:26 AM
Comment #237380


Hillary won all debates by cleverly answering questions so that people on different sides of an issue would believe that she is with them.

When she is asked tough questions and has to tell us who she really is and what she truly believes, she is not “clever”; not even a little bit. Hillary was exempt from tough media questions up until the last debate; that’s the only reason she came off as “clever” to some of you. She couldn’t even answer a question about illegals obtaining driver’s licenses (IN HER OWN STATE!!) without getting hammered by others in her party that are, for the most part, for amnesty.

Posted by: rahdigly at November 1, 2007 11:49 AM
Comment #237383

I think it’s funny that the Hillary is complaining about Russert and Williams’ treatment during the debate. She doesn’t like Fox News either; maybe she should take her lead, stay away and just say that all of the news co’s are part of the right wing conspiracy.

FWIW I think Hume and Wallace have done the best job of any on the debate circuit this year.

Posted by: George in SC at November 1, 2007 12:01 PM
Comment #237387

Why care if she is “for it or against it” now? You’ll do nothing but throw that away and vote for her when she is running for President against ANYBODY not a liberal Democrat.

You may say “I would not waste my vote on such a moderate,” but we all know you will fall right in line and pull that lever for her come election time, just as your told to.

Posted by: kctim at November 1, 2007 12:54 PM
Comment #237389

Hillary has done nothing for the state of New York, except tell us she was not using our state as a stepping-stone to the Whitehouse and use inevitable and practical base closings for photo-ops to make her seem pro-military.
Her philosophy has been do nothing and you have nothing that can come back to haunt you. Unfortunately she’s done nothing in the state I live in.

John Edwards is without a doubt the better leader.
Barak Obama is far and away the better diplomat.

Posted by: Andre M. Hernandez at November 1, 2007 1:17 PM
Comment #237451

Kctim: I can only speak for this liberal but, yes, you are right about me. I am supporting Edwards but, If Hillary gets the nomination, I will definately vote for her. The polls suggest that possibly as many as 20% of Republican women will vote for her. If Rudy gets the Republican nomination, that percentage could go even higher.

Posted by: jlw at November 2, 2007 10:31 AM
Comment #237460


Heres a link to Edwards position.
You might note that Edwards has just qualified for matching funds. That means he has agreed to honor spending limits unlike his rivals.

You are right about me also. HC is a corporatist like 100% of leading Rep candidates but I would vote for her based on social issues and just mere competence if that is my only viable choice.

Posted by: bills at November 2, 2007 12:18 PM
Comment #237467

So the same is just fine and dandy as long as those in charge are “Dems” for you guys eh?
Its ok that Govt by, of and for the people is trumped as long as it agrees with your personal views?

Fair enough and thanks for being so honest about it.

Tell me guys, if you were trying to fix a Chevy car with engine problems, would you just take the Chevy decal off, put on a Ford decal and then expect it to run?

And thanks for giving a perfect example as to why nothing about our govt will change significantly for “We the People.”
And thanks for giving a perfect example as to why third parties and well intentioned groups such as VOID are only pissing in the wind.

Posted by: kctim at November 2, 2007 12:52 PM
Comment #237472

kctim —-

It is a ‘team’ problem … no different than keeping a player who commits offenses … the team needs to win NO MATTER WHAT.
Voters want their ‘team’ to win … doesn’t matter what they do or say, doesn’t matter what they stand for or what they don’t stand for.
Our politics is not supposed to be a ‘game’ and our leaders should not be (not)running our country like it is a game!
George Carlin is correct when his says … ‘The United States is close to being finished.’

Posted by: Marie at November 2, 2007 1:01 PM
Comment #237478

Very sad, but oh so very true Marie.

Posted by: kctim at November 2, 2007 3:03 PM
Comment #237515

Gramp’s Goat
(An occasional observation through spectacles when annoyed by the other team.)

There is a style of question that you can try to force a person to answer, where both a yes or no response are negative. “Do you still beat your spouse?” is a prime example.

Sen. Clinton did not give a yes or no response to the undocumented resident driver’s license question.
She said she “understood” the Governor’s position. So do I. If the licensing test is passed, it means the undocumented resident will have been instructed in the driving laws, they will be able to obtain insurance, and every person using our roads will be safer than they otherwise would have been. This is a good thing but it also has the negative connotations of providing “citizenship” privileges to this group of people.

Sen. Clinton was then being pushed to say she “supported” the undocumented residents receiving a driver’s license. This could have been broadly interoperated in many extreme ways. The media and her opponents could have taken that “support” and spun it into a national program, driver’s licenses replacing applying for legal entry or a shortcut to citizenship.

I understand, but do not necessarily support for broader use, the issuing of a specific type of driver’s license for undocumented residents. There are driver’s licenses for juveniles, motorcyclist, professional drivers of people and cargo. They all have their purposes and now that we need a passport when traveling out of the country, none of that purpose is relative to citizenship identification.

There is nothing wrong with the answer being “I never beat my spouse.” This was not being evasive or providing two opposing answers.

Sen. Clinton used strength and strategy while under fire.

Recently, a comment was directed to me “I still can’t tell if Hillary is a hawk or a dove.” My response was “that’s because she’s an eagle!”

Posted by: Gramp's Goat at November 3, 2007 1:38 AM
Comment #237555

BillS, thank you for the link to Edward’s position border security. He FLUNKS.

His web site says nothing about securing the border with a barrier monitored and defended. So he intends to leave the border open. He did say, illogically, that he wants ports of entry and cargo containers thoroughly searched.

That is illogical if terrorists want to bring weapons in. Why would they risk search at a port of entry when 1900 miles of border are wide open around the ports of entry?

Edwards is playing the same “I want to increase Democratic voters to keep me and mine in office through unchecked immigration” as the rest of the Democratic candidates. Sad, he was in the running for my consideration until I saw his position on this issue.

There is no homeland security as long as our borders are wide open. Any candidate who is serious about homeland security will vow to take the first and most important step, erecting a visible border with NO TRESPASSING and NO TRASPASE signs hung on it, and sufficient border patrol to enforce that border barrier and those signs.

There are a thousand miles of border with Mexico where a hiker would never know they had crossed over. There is no border security if folks can’t even see where the border is. And no enforcement if crossing is unmonitored and unenforced.

Posted by: David R. Remer at November 3, 2007 3:28 PM
Comment #237556

Gramp’s Goat, that was an excellent defense of Hillary’s tact. But, as a voter, I want unequivocal policy answers - her answer was a complete dodge of the entire issue at the heart of the question, illegal immigration and amnesty. Clever, yes it was. Inspiring? It inspires me to seek another candidate.

Posted by: David R. Remer at November 3, 2007 3:32 PM
Post a comment