Was she for it, before she was against it. Debate obviously
didn't go well for the smartest woman in the world. Oh,
my. What's a good dimm-o-crap to do?
Obama, Edwards attack; Clinton bombs debate
By: Roger Simon
October 31, 2007 07:50 AM EST
PHILADELPHIA - - We now know something that we did not know before: When Hillary Clinton has a bad night, she really has a bad night.
In a debate against six Democratic opponents at Drexel University here Tuesday, Clinton gave the worst performance of her entire campaign.
It was not just that her answer about whether illegal immigrants should be issued drivers’ licenses was at best incomprehensible and at worst misleading.
It was that for two hours she dodged and weaved, parsed and stonewalled.
And when it was over, both the Barack Obama and John Edwards campaigns signaled that in the weeks ahead they intend to hammer home a simple message: Hillary Clinton does not say what she means or mean what she says.
And she gave them plenty of ammunition Tuesday night.
Asked whether she still agrees with New York Governor Eliot Spitzer’s plan to give drivers licenses to illegal immigrants, Clinton launched into a long, complicated defense of it.
But when Chris Dodd attacked the idea a moment later, Clinton quickly said: “I did not say that it should be done.”
NBC’s Tim Russert, one of the debate moderators, jumped in and said to her: “You told (a) New Hampshire paper that it made a lot of sense. Do you support his plan?”
”You know, Tim,” Clinton replied, “this is where everybody plays ‘gotcha.’ ”
John Edwards immediately went for the jugular. “Unless I missed something,” he said, “Senator Clinton said two different things in the course of about two minutes. America is looking for a president who will say the same thing, who will be consistent, who will be straight with them.”
Barack Obama added: “I was confused (by) Senator Clinton's answer. I can't tell whether she was for it or against it. One of the things that we have to do in this country is to be honest about the challenges that we face.”
Earlier, when Clinton was asked whether she had made one statement on Social Security publicly and a conflicting answer privately, she ducked the question, saying she believed in “fiscal responsibility.”
And when Russert asked her if she would make public certain communications between herself and President Clinton when she was first lady, she responded weakly: “Well, that’s not my decision to make.”
Perhaps just as bad was her general tone and demeanor. All of her opponents seemed passionate about one issue or another. But Clinton seemed largely emotionless and detached, often just mouthing rehearsed answers from her briefing book.
True, she was relentlessly attacked all night. But she can’t claim that she was stabbed in the back. She was stabbed in the front.
“Who is honest? Who is sincere? Who has integrity?” Edwards asked and then provided the answer: Not Hillary.
“She has not been truthful and clear,” Obama said at one point.
Hillary Clinton will certainly live to fight another day. She still has a huge lead in the national polls, a good staff and a ton of money.
But, in the past, Clinton could always depend on her opponents to lose these debates. All she had to do was stay above the fray to win.
Those days seem to be over.
TM & © THE POLITICO & POLITICO.COM, a division of Allbritton Communications Company
Of course, the Clinton supporters said:
CLINTON INNER-CIRCLE BLAME 'UNFAIR' MODERATOR TIM RUSSERT. 'HE BORDERED ON THE UNPROFESSIONAL,' TOP HILLARY ADVISER CHARGES. 'HE BROKE DEBATE RULES AND WAS BELLIGERENT'...
Didn't they know you cant ask tough questions of the smartest
woman in the world. Next thing you know they will bring up
her health care system she proposed in her other life. That
was an absolute failure.
speaking of flip floppers how is the republican side handling all of the debates? hey ray taler a deep breath since her plan was never allowed to proceed it couldn't have failed... try and take your GOP rose colored sunglasses and accept that both parties are full of political creatures in it foir their own benefit..
oh and ray i think hillary is flip flopping and riding the fence.. but so are all of the other candidates..
You forgot to add: wounded war hero.
Don't want to leave that out.
I didn't. You did!
ray only likes the troops who support bush.. the others are simply dimmo-craps..
on a side note hillary clinton was awful last night. maybe that's a good thing because she may win the battle but lose the political war.. I want to win the political war for America.. and i want to hear xray complain for 8 yrs..
can you imagine an xray at 83?ray only likes the troops who support bush.. the others are simply dimmo-craps..
on a side note hillary clinton was awful last night. maybe that's a good thing because she may win the battle but lose the political war.. I want to win the political war for America.. and i want to hear xray complain for 8 yrs..
What slander?
he'll still be old senile ray to me..
Is it possible for the liberal posters on this board to actually respond to criticism of a liberal, or a liberal policy, rather than attack Bush and Co.?
It is becoming evident it is not, and that the entire "rebirth" of the Democratic party is based ENTIRELY on Bush hatred, and not on any new, substantive prescription for change or solutions.
"Not Him" is basically it.
ok yoni chosses to play dumb so i will explain. i will use his hero president bush as an example. One could either say Bush defended his country and served his duty honorably. Or one could say bush got a favor because his dad was a congressman. Bush avoided combat duty to protect the shores of Alabama. Both scenerios are true but most dems, inculding myself, choose the latter in explaining bush's service. Yoni may think that is borderline slanderous but not completely untrue either..
there that was easy..
As opposed to the "Not Hillary" crowd? You are slowly losing your credibility when you pretend to be middle of the road..
You didn't mention the slander against Kerry. What was it?
And, then, where's your proof President Bush "got a favor because his dad was a congressman?" Dan Rather's "fake but accurate" memos don't count.
slandering his service. insinuating his service was anything but honorable. wouldn't you agree that ANYONE who chose to volunteer to go to war is acting honorably?
When the did I claim to be a moderate?
I think you've got me and Dark Reign confused.
By the way, in response to the question, you responded with TWO attacks.
Got it.
attacks or facts? do you criticize the other side for the exact same thing you criticize dems for? You don't, so i just pointed out that your just as guilty as those who you are convicting.
I think that would depend on their motive for volunteering.
If, Kerry was hoping to build a political portfolio [for which there is evidence]; that he was later going to lie about his exploits there in order to malign other soldiers [Winter Soldiers and his factually challenged Congressional testimony]; and if he exploited the "three Purple Hearts ticket home" criteria [also, for which there is evidence], then, no; he wasn't honorable.
And, it's not slander to say so.
By the way, today marks 1,009 days since John Kerry promised, on national TV, to sign form SF-180 and release his military records.
Frankly, if John O'Neill says he's dishonorable, that's good enough for me.
he'll still be old senile ray to me..
At any age, my boy, I will have more sense and under-
standing of what the world is about than you could
ever dream of. You know rocks and stones and all that
stuff. You keep it up and you are going to hurt my
feelings.
Do you know anything about his "honorable" service?
I thought not.
The original article posted makes a valid point that Hillary doesn't REALLY seem to have hardly any positions she is willing to stick to and defend.
Can you respond to that?
I, myself, think the article makes a valid point; but it has as much to do with the (very) difficult task of trying to hold together a majority of nutburger Democratic primary voters while maintaining some viability in the general election.
It might very well be impossible.
That is, the Democratic primary voters are SO FAR outside of the mainstream, that they ultimately will force any candidate to make statements and take positions which will make that candidate near plutonium in a general election.
It is what is destroying the Democratic Congress, after all.
Edwards was great.
I stopped at 'motives'. That's where you and I part ways. You seem to assign motivation whenever it suits your purpose and I don't. So in order for me to believe what you suppose about Kerry is that he signed up knowing that he would slander other soldiers, get injured three times (but none seriously), to then come home to position himslef to be president is preposterous. All of this MAY be true ( I won't consider right wing blogs as objective opinions) but to think Kerry had all of that in mind when he signed up is beyond ridiculous. His serving was honorable whether you agree with his politics or not.
Next thing your going to tell me is that max Clelland shouldn't be honored the way he is because he apparently caused his own mutilation and injuries by his own hand.
Well this I agree with. The right is united to stop hillary while the left seems to enjoy tearing itslef apart.
Agree?
Common ground sucks; now we'll never get the split screen on NightLine.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
