CE Week #5: “How long can Clinton weave?”
David S. Broder
Washington Post
September 30, 2007
HANOVER, N.H. – On the flight from Washington to New Hampshire to cover Wednesday night’s Democratic presidential debate, I was joined by a Hillary Clinton staffer headed for Hanover to prep her for the encounter with her seven rivals. “I expect fireworks,” he said, anticipating that the challengers would try to shake up the race at one of the last confrontations before the January voting.
It didn’t happen. There were several jabs – from Joe Biden, John Edwards, Bill Richardson and Mike Gravel – but Barack Obama, who is her closest pursuer in the polls, had lost his voice to a bad cold and mostly stood mute.
And Clinton smothered every question with a blanket of conditional responses, so reluctant to take a clear stand that she frustrated NBC’s Tim Russert, the designated questioner at the two-hour MSNBC talkathon.
Her posture during the debate was the classic front-runner pose: Don’t make waves. The question is whether she can go through the next three months saying little or nothing, without jeopardizing her lead in the contest.
The highly regarded Granite State Poll released just before the debate showed Clinton had expanded that advantage, drawing 43 percent of the support, to 20 percent for Obama, 12 percent for Edwards and 6 percent for Richardson.
During the debate, she rarely came out of a defensive crouch, as if determined to protect her favored position. Answering the first question, she said her goal would be to withdraw all American troops from Iraq by 2013, but “it is very difficult to know what we are going to be inheriting” from the Bush administration, so she cannot make any pledge – as Richardson and others feel free to do. Troops might be needed for counterterrorism for many years.
Angering utter long shot Gravel and disagreeing with Biden and Chris Dodd, she voted earlier Wednesday for Sen. Joe Lieberman’s resolution designating Iran’s Revolutionary Guards as a terrorist organization.
Edwards claimed that President Bush could use that as a pretext for war and said it showed Clinton had not learned the lesson of her “mistake” in authorizing the use of force in Iraq. But she calmly replied that the Revolutionary Guards had provided weapons to kill Americans in Iraq and promoted terrorism – so the designation was justified.
When Russert asked what her attitude would be toward an Israeli strike on Iranian nuclear facilities, she refused to answer such a “hypothetical.”
He insisted it was a real possibility, but she would not play. Instead, she endorsed the Israeli attack on Syria – a safe stand.
Clinton joined the others in endorsing “sanctuary cities” for illegal immigrants, but couched it as a step toward law enforcement rather than protection for people here illegally. And when challenged on the failure of her 1993-94 health care initiative, she said she was “proud” to have waged that “lonely” fight, and rejected Russert’s claim that her stubbornness had blocked a bipartisan agreement back then.
Her greatest evasiveness occurred on the volatile issue of Social Security. Biden, the first to answer Russert’s question about steps to save the system from bankruptcy, said he would lift the cap on payroll taxes and raise additional millions from people making more than $97,000 a year.
But when it was Clinton’s turn, she argued that sound fiscal policies and economic growth could eliminate the problem – claiming that her husband’s experience proved that point. Russert knew better, and corrected her math, but she was adamant: “I’m not putting anything on the proverbial table” – meaning no painful tax increases or benefit cuts – until the budgetary and overall economic fixes are attempted. That is a position that would be hard to maintain in office, but it offers maximum protection for the campaign.
It went on like that through several more topics, until a final question about baseball fandom. Clinton identified herself as a Yankees fan, saying she knew it would not help her members of Red Sox nation in New Hampshire. But what if it is the Cubs vs. the Yankees, Russert asked. “I guess I would have to alternate,” she said, triangulating once again.
This dodginess got her through the two hours. Whether it can get her through the next three months is a different question. The same poll that gave her a 2-1 lead over Obama and almost a 4-1 lead over Edwards found that only 17 percent of New Hampshire voters have a firm choice of a candidate, and 55 percent said they are still deciding. Politics, like nature, abhors a vacuum.
The URI to TrackBack this entry is: http://pkautzman.edublogs.org/2007/09/30/ce-week-5-how-long-can-clinton-weave/trackback/
Wow, that really sucks for Barack that he lost his voice. Hillary kind of bugs me. Before I read an article that was saying that she wanted to get the troops out as soon as possible, but maybe I am misinterpreting this, but it seems like she is not saying that she is going to do it as soon as she said she would earlier. Maybe she is coming to the realization that bringing troops out of Iraq isn’t going to be as easy as she thought it was going to be. Overall this author made it seem that Hillary was the winner of the debate in New Hampshire by a landslide. She seemed to for the most part have a majority of well answers as opposed to bad answers. I believe that Hillary could have answer about Iran’s Revolutionary Army was very contradictory, because early in the article she talked about taking the troops out of Iraq, but yet she authorized the use of force in Iraq. But I guess since it was to protect our troops, and Americans in Iraq it was ok that she authorized the use of force. I think that if Barack would have had his voice the rave would have been closer.
I think it’s so stereotypical for any Politian to avoid answering a question directly. Bush does it all the time. When asked what his plan in Iraq is, he simply goes around it and says something rather irrelevant. It’s just absurd, I think, that this author is ragging on Hillary just because she avoided answering questions completely. I mean come on, every politician doesn’t answer questions. They don’t want to say something stupid and lose their voters. Which I can completely understand coming from Hillary’s perspective. She’s ahead right now and she doesn’t want to lose her lead, so she feels like the longer she can wait before she makes a clear stand on her beliefs, the better. What if she wasn’t really thinking and out of pressure she said that she was pro teacher lead prayers in school. At the time it might have seemed like a smart idea, but she could lose a great majority of her voters for making such a statement. So I say until she gets all her ducks in a row and decides what she’s for and against she shouldn’t really answer anything. So, you go Hillary keep being evasive.
Well, early polls don’t tell much. I can definitely tell you that now. No one really knows who they are or aren’t voting for. Although, I wouldn’t say Hillary’s passiveness is aiding to her overall campaigning process. Opinions do start to circulate long before elections. If Hillary seems like a wimp, as she did in this situation, then people might get the impression that she will be like that if elected. No one wants a wimpy leader. They elect people to have a “leader”, aka someone that leads, not someone that stands on the side nods, then when is asked something directly constantly changes their mind due to public opinion. This just really made Hillary look stupid. Bad move on her part. I think it just shows that she does not have firm beliefs. If you don’t stand for something you fail. Our beliefs make us individuals. After this I would not think that Hillary was a person that really stands out from the crowd, much less someone who thinks for them self. She seemed to follow what others said, and when she went out on her own foot she wasn’t firm in what she said. Hillary doesn’t stand for much. I do not find my views to lie with the Democratic party, but if someone did that in the Republican party I would be saying the same thing. I want a leader who can think for them self and be confident in that. Confidence goes a long way when leading a country. If she pulled something like that in front of other international leaders she would be laughed at. Do I want my country’s leader to be laughed at by other political leaders? Of course not! Hillary needs to shape up if she wants any votes.
2013?! Where the heck did THAT number come from?
My dislike for Hillary spiked as I continued to read this. If she can’t be direct and take a stand on a question, how the heck is she supposed to be President of the United States?
I have a distinct feeling that Obama would have at least mauled her a little bit, had he been able to speak.
What I don’t understand is why this woman can’t pick a position and STICK TO IT. All this playing around is reminiscent of her husband in some ways and I don’t like it one itsy bitsy bit.
It feels like all she is doing is playing her audience, which, if you read Hardball, is somewhat of a good move, but she’s not putting spin in it, she’s not adding her own spice and zest. It’s making her just fall apart like a flan in a cupboard, if you ask me.
Good luck, Mrs. Clinton. You are SO going to need it.
I really did actually like this article; I thought it was kind of funny to be honest. It sounds like Hillary Clinton just pretty much got bashed on, and was trying to make her self look good throughout the whole presidential debate. I was shocked to find out that Hillary was such a front runner, I didn’t know that. For example when it says, “The highly regarded Granite State Poll released just before the debate showed Clinton had expanded that advantage, drawing 43 percent of the support, to 20 percent for Obama, 12 percent for Edwards and 6 percent for Richardson.” She leads the next competitor by 20 percent that is crazy, she has a legitimate shot at winning the presidential race. The end of this article kind of got off track at the end, it started going away from the title, but then it got back on track. Finally, my favorite part is when Hillary admits that her favorite baseball team is the New York Yankees. Now, I know that if I had the chance to vote I would be voting against her because we all know the Yankees will lose to the Indians in their first playoff series!
My anti-spam word happened to be “whoa” which is exactly what I happen to be thinking right now. Hilary avoided all the topics to avoid seeming to far right or left field. Smart idea, but that tactic just kinda bugs me. What kind of leader keeps from making choices or just goes with the masses because it makes them happy? Hilary even went far enough to stay in the middle by saying her favorite team was the Yankees, and then saying that she would have to alternate if another team played. Avoidance for some topics is understandable but this is just unbelievable. Whoa… can you say lack of thought? She even made Tim Russert frustrated. Her answers were so vague and indisputable because of the vagueness that her answers could not be countered at all.
I like how she claimed that Bill’s exprience would help work out social security, even though it is quite obvious it won’t work Like the article says, she remains adamant and claims it will be successful.
Now I don’t know about you guys, but Hilary’s answers just seemed to be vague and anything but thoughtful, and if this continues, I know she’ll lose my vote.
Hilary once agian demonstrated her wavering views on almost every issue in the 2008 presidential election. For years she has taken the side that best benefits her, not what she actually believes. That was shown when she voted for the war in Iraq and now is saying it was an unwarranted war.
She knows that she is the front runner and is finding any and every way to avoid picking sides. All of the other democratic candidates seem to be taking firm stances on most of the issues, which actually rather impresses me. But hilary at times seems to be trying to operate under the veil of her husbands presidency, despite attempts to distance herself from him. It seems to rather conflicting.
It seems that she doesnt realize that we want a leader that is going to take action and make a difference instead of being wishy washy and without a firm stance. I dont see how she ends up ahead coming out of the debates, that will never cease to amaze me.
I agree with Cody, I thought that this was a pretty good article too. I also think that it sucks for Barack to lose his voice, like Alyssa said, especially when he is falling behind Hillary. Before class today I did not know that Hillary had such a lead in the polls. This article was somewhat bashing Hillary and how she approached just about every question. For example the article said, “Clinton smothered every question with a blanket of conditional responses, so reluctant to take a clear stand that she frustrated NBC’s Tim Russert, the designated questioner at the two-hour MSNBC talkathon.” The article also questioned whether or not she would be able to remain this way and keep her lead in the polls. In my opinion, I don’t think that she will be able to keep it up. She has a good lead now but if she doesn’t take a firm stance on anything then I think that lead will begin to slip away. Barack will get his voice back and start taking positions on different subjects and the polls will start evening out if she doesn’t change her approach. And as for the Yankees statement, it would be much better if it were the Giants, but at least its not the METS! – Matt Powles
I’m not sure what to think about this article only because I understand why Hillary is playing it safe, however, I don’t think it’s right to mislead people or not give them the answers that they so deserve. Personally, I like Hillary, something about a Woman leading the free counrty sound right to me. Although, it would also be great to see the first black man e president as well. It would give a whole knew meaning to sticking it to the white man. Well anyway, I think Hillary is playing the game very smart. Even though he claimed that Billy boy will help with the Social Security, we all know what great help he is when he’s in the Whitehouse.That thinking wasn’t so smart of Hillary, despite the unforgetting news of her husband that she should of divorced. But then again that would be bad for her politics, because the Presidents family is suppost to be the best family, the ones that everyone looks up too. Also, in addition to her attempts to stay in the lead and get any advantage that she can, she needs to be more forth coming with her answers and her feelings on certain issues or else she may infact do more damage than anything else.
I think that this is the stupidest thing ever! She is doing the same thing that her stupid husband did. He would always just wait tell he found what the popular vote on things were and go that way, she is doing that but ever more so. She won’t give a straight answer on anything. She is just trying to keep her led in the polls with Obama, even though she will have to answer these questions eventually she is just going to wait because she is scared. She knows that if she says what she really thinks she would not even have a chance at winning this. I just think that she is not ready to lead our nation and that if she gets in to office we are going to have a large down fall because she will not know what her stance is on anything, not just that but she is just not someone who could handle the responsibility of what this office takes. I think that she is just trying to prouve a point and this is how she is going to do it for now.
So I honestly do not know that much about Hilary and everything she stands for, apparently similar to the rest of people in this country, but I really do not see why people are so disgusted with her. Is it the fact she is a woman or she is married to a former president? As a sort of response to Brynna, what “spiked” your dislike for Hilary in the first place? More and more I have been feeling the need for reading up on the political runners simply so I can understand what all the commotion is about. Obviously in the case of Clinton, Hilary that is, she is not taking a permanent stand on any issues so that she can have a better chance of winning the election; just look at the polls, even though they are never completely correct, how far off could they be? But back her “weaving” situation, it is a good idea for her not to say much for the moment. Any sudden position on a certain issue could come back and shut her down during a later debate. Although it seems like a cheap way of playing the game it is also the safe way.
Reply to Caitlin:
I disagree with Caitlin’s comment about Hilary’s passiveness being a good thing. Trying to win support by all groups, is every candidates goal. But, does it really help the American people? The candidates are suposed to state what they want to do to help the country. Not, necessarily what the majority of the people want to do. It’s nice trying to appease the majority, but it isn’t alway right. To me her passiveness shows that she just wants the title of President, but if she gets it she won’t be able to take a strong stance on anything. If a candidate just follows the majority, or popular opinion, they will do the same in office. That’s not always right. The people strongly discouraged President Bush’s decision to enter Iraq, now if it is right or wrong may be debatable, however we are seeing good in that country because of our involvement. There have been many times in history when the right thing was not the popular thing, however the leader of our country at these times, has ultimately helped the country. I do not think Hilary can do that if she is solely dependent on popular belief. A person needs to be able to think for themelf, especially the President of our country.
Reply to Christine…
I conmpletely disagree with you on the fact that you don’t believe that Hillary is ready to take office as president. For one, while her husband was busy in the oval office, who do you think was running the counrty? It most certaintly wasn’t Wild Bill. Another thing that disturbes me greatly is the way you talk like she doesn’t deserve it because she acts like her husband. You must be a Bush fan, because a side from Bill’s extra activities in the white house(oval office), he was a good president. However, I will agree for you on one thing and that is that Hillary is trying to prove a point. That point will affect you in the future because you are a woman. Her point is that she is trying to encourage woman in the world to take a stand and make more of themselves, that a woman can be the leader of the free world. So ask yourself in the future after the election is over, What if Hillary had never run for president? Then think about all the things that would never come to be without her.