Clinton Bombs In Dem Debate

Discussion in 'Politics & Religion' started by AAAintheBeltway, Oct 31, 2007.

  1. I could only stand a few minutes of the Democrat debate last night. I did get to hear Hillary weasel around the tax increase issue, doing everything but promise massive tax increases ( but only "on the rich") but at the same time refusing to actually take a position. Apparently the pundits were also less than impressed by her performance, so much so that her spin team resorted to personal attacks on liberal lap dog Tim Russert. I guess they will insist that James Carville moderate all future debates.

    ***************************

    Obama, Edwards attack; Clinton bombs debate

    By: Roger Simon
    Oct 31, 2007 06:02 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.
     
  2. She hopes to win by default. She's just another slick politician of no substance. As the pressure mounts she'll buckle. I don't know who the next president will be but I know it won't be Clinton.
     
  3. Right. Her whole campaign, her political career really, has a Wizard of Oz quality to it. Look behind the curtain and there really isn't much there. What has she ever run? What is her record of leadership? What are her accomplishments, other than being married to Bill?

    When she waffles on simple questions, her lack of leadership becomes obvious. A leader inspires and sets a course. She bobs and weaves.
     
  4. Did you ever see the movie "Election" with Reese Witherspoon and Matthew Broderick ?

    http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0126886/

    Hilary reminds me of the obnoxiously ambitious character Reese Witherspoon plays. She oozes greed for appointment and power. I believe Hilary cares more about being president than about improving America. I also believe that Ron Paul cares more about fixing America than being president. This is why I don't trust Hilary. She is the perfect candidate for a politcal puppet.
     
  5. With the lead she has, it was only a matter of time until she stepped on her dick. Too much baggage...........

    And with Ford's comments, do you really want Bill back in the White House? From my point of view, he pardoned an enemy of the country in Marc Rich. that, and the fact they are two of the most two sided couple since Sacco and Vanzetti.

    Joe Lieberman should have run. At least, you could stomach a debate.
     
  6. Even though he's technically not an independent, Ron Paul offers a radical departure from establishment politics; this is why he may turn out to be the Ross Perot of '08 - he'll shake things up a little but will ultimately lose because when it comes to the crunch Americans tend to play it safe.
     
  7. As someone once said, "I refuse to believe that 2 people named Hil and Billy occupied the White House..."
     
  8. LT701

    LT701

    they've* been pushing the 'inevitable' thing hard for a couple of months now, and too many people look at themselves and say 'whatever it is that makes her 'inevitable', I'm not part of it'

    I know that's how I feel, and those who feel that way vow not to vote for her.

    'they' being shill media, pundits, her campaign etc
     
  9. I find it ironic that Russert, who is totally in the bag for democrats, is now watching his career flash before his eyes for asking a simple question. He knows when you get on their wrong side, bad things happen. Since the network heads all take their marching orders from Clinton Inc, he could be looking at early retirement. At the least, he can forget any juicy exclusive interviews.

    Bringing a powerful national media figure to heel is also a good example for any lesser journos who might entertain the thought of doing something to displease the Clinton machine.
     
  10. maxpi

    maxpi

    Ron Paul could gather up the people that want to return to the stricter view of the constitution and the anti-war crowd.. Both of those sets of people have nowhere else to go... he might pick up the anti immigration folk too, the major parties have a 40 year track record of open borders.. libertarians of other kinds could get on the bandwagon.... It's going to be interesting to see what they do to try to stop him... I remember when Alan Keyes got arrested for trying to be part of the political discussion....

    I don't think Ms Clinton is in any way inevitable... I am hearing women that don't trust her and comments about how she has never really ran anything... and considering the incompetence with Pelosi in charge of the Senate why would anybody think that Hillary could do any better?
     
    #10     Oct 31, 2007