CE Week #9: “Rivals home in on Clinton during Democratic debate”
They say vote on Iran helps Bush’s case
|
Anne E. Kornblut and Dan Balz
Washington Post
October 31, 2007
PHILADELPHIA – With just over two months until the first primary contest, Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton’s Democratic rivals aggressively challenged their party’s front-runner here Tuesday night, accusing her of being dishonest and of emboldening President Bush to declare war against Iran.
Former Sen. John Edwards, of North Carolina, lingering in third place in most polls, took the lead in attacking Clinton as Democrats gathered for the fourth of their six official debates. He mocked Clinton for voting to designate Iran’s Revolutionary Guard Corps as a terrorist group and all but accused her of being corrupt.
Voters, Edwards said, “deserve a president of the United States that they know will tell them the truth, and won’t say one thing one time and something different at a different time.”
Sen. Barack Obama, of Illinois – under pressure to take sharp aim at Clinton – criticized her directly for not releasing her correspondence as first lady. But he kept his cool demeanor, describing her tendency toward secrecy as simply “a problem.”
Under fire, Clinton defended her positions on Social Security and Iran, and denied assertions – made most forcefully during the debate by Edwards – that she was mirroring the Republican Party in her actions and rhetoric.
“Well, I don’t think the Republicans got the message that I’m voting and sounding like them,” Clinton said. “If you watched their debate last week, I seemed to be the topic of great conversation and consternation. And that’s for a reason: because I have stood against George Bush and his failed policies.”
The most pointed back-and-forth came over Iran. Clinton supported a Senate resolution last month that urged the administration to label the Revolutionary Guard Corps a terrorist organization. The measure was approved by a vote of 76-22, but all of Clinton’s rivals opposed it Tuesday night as the Bush administration enabling a rush to war with Iran.
Clinton defended the vote, saying that early this year she had argued that Bush has no authority to use military force to prevent Tehran from acquiring nuclear weapons.
Her opponents, however, sharply challenged her interpretation of the measure. Edwards said the resolution read as if it were “written literally by the neocons.”
Sen. Christopher Dodd of Connecticut, recalling the 2002 congressional resolution on Iraq, said that the vote on the Iran resolution could come back to haunt those who supported it.
New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson called the resolution “saber rattling” by the Senate that would embolden the administration.
Rep. Dennis Kucinich, of Ohio, accused his fellow Democrats of being “enablers” for not ruling out war against Iran. He said the Democratic support for labeling the Revolutionary Guard Corps as a terrorist group amounted to “licensing President Bush.”
Richardson defended Clinton briefly, a move that seemed destined to fuel speculation that he is interested in being chosen as a vice presidential running mate. He said the debate had gotten “pretty close to personal attacks that we don’t need.”
The URI to TrackBack this entry is: http://pkautzman.edublogs.org/2007/10/31/ce-week-9-rivals-home-in-on-clinton-during-democratic-debate/trackback/
What I am feeling at least from the first paragraph is that all of the candidates are getting worried that Hillary is going to run away at the Primaries and Caucuses. It makes sense that Edwards would be someone who is bashing Hillary. He is third place in the polls and likely will not be nominated, so he really has nothing to lose. I think if Hillary wants to vote that Iran’s Revolutionary Guard Corps are a terrorist group than she can do that. It might be taken to the extreme with Bush and he could send many troops over there, even though Hillary would just want to have an eye kept on them to see what they might do. I do not think that Edwards is right in his quote saying “deserve a president of the United States that they know will tell them the truth, and won’t say one thing one time and something different at a different time.” It really goes against what every person wants. Just look at how Bush lied to us about Iraq. America wants someone who they think is best for the job. She is the hardest working candidate on Universal Healthcare in the country. She has been working on it since her husband bill was in office. I think that might be a problem for Obama.
I am not sure if it is a good thing that she sounds a little like a republican. She might think that it could help win her some of the republican’s votes. It might be like her husband take some ideas from both parties and make them your own. That worked out as well as it could have for Bill Clinton. I am glad that she has stood against George Bush. He should be questioned for everything that he signs and vetoes because it could have helped or hurt our country.
It’s interesting to see the other democratic candidates catching Hillary. But I don’t think it will be a problem. I really think that it’s going to come down to Obama and Hillary for the democratic nomination. Frankly I think that all the bashing of Hillary is doing her good. It just solidifies her as a frontrunner of the democrats. And I really think that all the bashing will give a negative view on the other candidates. I find that her support of declaring the Iranian guard as a terrorist organization is a little strange. But I really don’t think it’s that big of a deal. I think the other candidates are simply using it to fight off the monster that is Hillary Clinton.
I liked seeing Bill Richardson defend Hillary and everything. Even though Bill Richardson will never win, I’d like to see him as Hillary’s running mate. He has a lot of great ideas for the environment and he has ties to the previous Clinton administration being that he was an ambassador to the Middle East and the secretary of energy. He also has experience being the governor of New Mexico. Richardson would be a great running mate, helping Hillary to get the minority vote.
(And on another note, doesn’t that picture look like Obama is checking Hillary out? Dang)
Note to New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson who said that the debate had gotten “pretty close to personal attacks that we don’t need.” : Governor Richardson, we are talking about trying to run for President of the United States here. I guess Governor Richardson doesn’t know that is what you try to do to the other candidates – You attack them personally. I mean, come on, you are trying to get a vote. Obama and these other candidates aren’t going to sit back and let Senator Clinton run the show. They are going to go after her anyway possible. I was watching the nightly news and they said the debate in Philadelphia was big for Senator Obama. The news said Obama needed to attack Clinton, to try to make a push, since he is behind Senator Clinton in the polls. Hilary Clinton is an easy target to go after. I know the Republicans are praying for her to win the Democratic Party vote so they can have a field day with her in the media. Nowhere does it say that Presidential candidates have to play clean during the campaign. The candidates can do whatever they feel like. If it is going after Senator Clinton by saying “that she was mirroring the Republican Party in her actions and rhetoric.” earns them a few more votes, they’ll go for it. It’s only two more months until the first primary contest so things are really starting to heat up.
Is there a party today? In applying this to what we read about today, is there a party left? In the beginning of the party, I’d have to say that there is because Hillary was being attacked about stances that are traditionally Democratic stances on issues. Towards the end, you can clearly see that there is a bunch of bipartisanship in the voting of Iran. It’s interesting because 26 democrats supported military action against Iran. So that might represent how there are no parties left, but I personally think there are.
So everyone’s ganging up against Hillary, but will that leave a big dent in her image? This may very well be the debate in which Obama will start to pull ahead of Hillary and she falls off the map. Or, it could be the other way around. Hillary may increase her lead.
New Mexico Governor Bill Richardson as her running mate? Cool, I guess…I don’t really follow the Democrats that much(I should though, just for the sake of being informed of politics), so I’m not sure what his views on issues are, so I can’t really comment on that one.
-Jason Wong
In response to what Evan had said I don’t think that the main reasoning behind the other Democratic candidate’s attacks was that Hillary is going to get all the votes for the primaries. While I agree that this might be a part of the reasoning I don’t think that it is all there is to it. I personally, think that what they did was in part to try and get Hillary to take definitive stances on issues. Like Edwards said she is continually changing her mind on what her stances are and I do not think that if she wants to be president she should be able to that. I disagree with Evan because I think that the American voters need to know who and what they are voting into office and if Hillary keeps changing sides I do not think we should be voting her into office for anything. I also find it very odd that she would vote to make that Iranian group labeled a terrorist group. If she has such a problem with the war in Iraq, why is she helping to set us up for another potential conflict? I also disagree with Evan when he says she has stood against Bush because her voting to label that Iranian group as terrorists is something Bush should want, so if we should be questioning everything Bush does because it could hurt us why would you want Hillary as President? Overall, I was really glad to see these other candidates taking a hard line against Hillary because she really needs to show why on earth we should elect her.
Lindsey Devaney
Response to Matt and Corbin:
It could go either way. The Democrats bashing on Hillary could either ruin their chance of getting nominated or it could ruin Hillary’s chance of getting nominated. I can see why Matt and Corbin are both right. On Corbin’s side, I agree that bashing on Hillary just gives her the advantage as the frontrunner of the democrats and that criticizing her will only increase her chances of being nominated. Obama and Edwards bashing on Hillary will only hurt their chances of being nominated. However I also agree with Matt that the candidates are not going to sit back and watch Hillary take the nomination. If Obama needs to push Hillary, he will push Hillary by pointing out the flaws of her campaign. This could get votes to realize that Hillary is not the right candidate for the presidency and will therefore not nominate her. It could go either way. There isn’t anyway to predict who the winner is until the primaries. With the primaries underway, the campaigning is going to get more intense and more interesting. I’m anxious to see what the candidates will do in order to win the nomination.
I agree with Melissa. Going after Hilary could either ruin the reputations of the other candidates, or make Hilary fall. I think that as long as the other democratic candidates were to do their research well and followed through with things carefully, then it would much less likely for them to hurt themselves. On the other hand if they do not do things well then the media will take over and do what they do best, send candidates into ruins. As for Corbin’s statement I think that any extreme bashing would lift Hilary up. Although in my opinion, if top candidates like Obama and Edwards were to attack her more subtly, and she continues to work her way around questions without answering them directly then they can work in and make Hilary slip. Along with what Matt and Melissa said, I don’t expect all the democratic candidates to sit back and allow Hilary to take over, although some of the weaker candidates may realize that hey don’t have a chance and start to try and get on Hilary’s good side so she might take them under her wing. – Matt Powles
Corbin, I agree with that it will come down to Senator Obama and Senator Clinton for the Democratic Party candidate. However, I don’t agree with you on that bashing is doing Senator Clinton good. Yes, it shows that Hilary Clinton is top player of the Democratic Party. Let’s be serious here though; Clinton won’t make it through the bashing. Even if Senator Clinton gets through all the negative remarks by the Democratic candidates, she still has to go up against the Republican Party candidate. It could be Rudy Giuliani or Mitt Romney. Either way they are going to attack Senator Clinton, left and right. As I stated in my last post, the Republican Party is praying that Hilary Clinton gets the nomination. The Republican Party will somehow come up with something against Senator Clinton to have a negative public image. There has to be a whole bunch of dirt on her, whether it is from her days as a New York Senator or when her husband Bill Clinton was in office. They’re already pressuring Senator Clinton to release communications between her and former President Clinton during their White House years. Hilary Clinton’s opponents obviously feel they could have a field day if they got a hold of those records. I hear on the news that Hilary Clinton is already taking a bashing for being sympathetic to NY Gov. Eliot Spitzer’s proposal to issue driver’s licenses to illegal immigrants. I think Senator Clinton better be good at blocking if she wants to win this fight because she’s in for a good bashing.
I agree with everyone basically that basically focusing the entire Democratic campaign on Hillary and her flaws will make or break the candidates, and Hillary. Personally, I feel like Hillary is only drawing more negative attention to herself by always complaining about how her fellow running mates pick on her. She’s making a larger issue of her gender, then everyone else does. Unlike her husband, Hillary doesn’t have the ability to just brush it off her shoulder. Acceptance of social norms is an important quality for a politician to have, and from what we’ve seen, Hillary does not have it. Although her stubbornness is admirable, it is not necessarily a quality you want as a President. Maybe if Hillary stopped bringing herself up in conversation, people would stop bashing her. You never heard Margret Thatcher complaining about how harsh politics is to woman; she was a real leader, who was able to rise above negativity. Yes, America and her fellow running mates will always “bash” Hillary, but if she can’t ignore them with grace, then I don’t know if I want her to be my President. Her inability to accept negativity against her makes her just as unappealing as those spreading the negativity.
RE: Corb DAWG
I agree with Corbin. By having the other democratic candidates bashing Hillary just proves how much of a threat she really is. The democratic candidates to me are between Hillary and Obama. If Obama is smart he would attack Hillary’s stances and question her. However, her being a frontrunner and being bashed will just make more people stand behind her. “He has a lot of great ideas for the environment and he has ties to the previous Clinton administration being that he was an ambassador to the Middle East and the secretary of energy.” I agree with that, Bill Richardson has some great stances on helping the environment.
I think that Hillary is going to get the nomination whether people are bashing her or not. The fact that she is raising above these attacks shows her strength which is/has turned out to be an advantage. The saying “any publicity is good publicity” is true, the one out of the three M’s plays into her election, media which in a sense gives her another M, momentum. By having all the other candidates talking about her extends her exposure even further than a regular candidate. Basically keep going strong Hillary and sway those other negative comments in your favor.
-Caitlin Barschig
I have to agree with Corbin on this one. It’s interesting that the other candidates are catching up to her, but this might be a good thing because the more competition means that there is a better chance of a candidate winning that has a chance to beat the republicans. However, it also might be true that “that all the bashing of Hillary is doing her good. It just solidifies her as a frontrunner of the democrats.” All candidates are going to bash each other though so I don’t think it’ll be too much of a bug deal. Its probably a good thing that Hillary and other candidates have to back up and support there previous stances. I think there needs to be more competition in this race however because every time that Hillary is polled against Rudy, she loses every time and I don’t think democrats are going to look to happily upon this.
Now I don’t know much about Richardson but if what Corbin says about the having “lots of great ideas for the environment and he has ties to the previous Clinton administration being that he was an ambassador to the Middle East and the secretary of energy. He also has experience being the governor of New Mexico.” Then I think I would like him too.
(Oh yah, I definitely think he is checking her out…pssh he’s like “Damn son”)
Well I can say that I can agree with you on one thing that Hillary will not be in any trouble with winning the candidacies. All the press she is getting is doing nothing but helping her and I think that she know that and that is why she just kind of keeps the story a live. I don’t think that what the other candidates are really trying to attack her all that much because they all know that she will win and that one of them most likely will be the vice president. I think that Obama is the only person that may have a slight chance of even giving Hillary a slight run for her money.
But I don’t at all agree with the whole Bill Richardson thing. He to me is just a brown nosing little boy. He knows that she is going to win and he is trying to get her to make him her put him as his running mate. He may have experience as a governor but not at all as a vice president , and I don’t think that he will help[ her in any way because the democrats need to win the south and he is not from the south and he really dose not have a huge group of people who would help the democrats out.