Home > Politics > Political Punch

Political Punch

Power, pop, and probings from ABC News Senior White House Correspondent Jake Tapper

« Previous | Main | Next »

Hillary Gets Poor Grades at Drexel Debate

October 31, 2007 9:49 AM

For the first section of last night's Democratic debate -- during the entire section on that arcane Kyl-Lieberman amendment on Iran -- frontrunner Sen. Hillary Clinton, D-NY, held her own just fine, I thought, and her reluctance to engage in the tit-for-tat bickering served her well.

But then something must have happened during that first commercial break.

Because when we came back, she seemed obfuscatory and less than forthright.

Take the question on whether or not she would allow the National Archives to open up more records of her husband's presidency -- a pertinent one given her declaration that her eight years as First Lady constitutes "experience," not to mention her husband's request that the National Archives keep their communications sealed until 2012.

"The Archives is moving as rapidly as the Archives moves," she said. 'There's about 20 million pieces of paper there.  And they are move, and they are releasing as they do their process.  And I am fully in favor of that."

She was pressed on her husbands request that any communication between the two of them not be made available to the public until 2012.  "Would you lift that ban?" she was asked by moderator Tim Russert.

"Well, that's not my decision to make, and I don't believe that any president or first lady ever has.  But, certainly, we're move as quickly as our circumstances and the processes of the
National Archives permits."

Said Sen. Barack Obama, D-Illinois: "We have just gone through one of the most secretive administrations in our history.  And not releasing, I think, these records at the same time, Hillary, that you're making the claim that this is the basis for your experience, I think, is a problem."

It went on like that.

Russert flatly accused her of being duplicitous on Social Security, saying to him and at an AARP-hosted debate that she would not increasing Social Security taxes, then telling a teacher -- and being overheard by an AP reporter -- that she would consider it. "Why do you have one public position and one private position?" Russert asked.

Clinton denied she did, saying -- when pressed on her private conversation with a teacher -- that "everybody knows what the possibilities are, Tim.  Everybody knows that.  But I do not advocate it.  I do not support it."

Then came questions about the tax reform proposal offered by one of her biggest supporters, Rep. Charles Rangel, D-NY, chair of the House Ways and Means Committee. Campaigning with Rangel and his wife, former President Bill Clinton on Saturday said, "Charlie Rangel wants me to pay more taxes so you can pay less and I think that's a good idea."

Is that Sen. Clinton's view?

Clinton declared herself a "great admirer of Chairman Rangel." Then she said "I don't know all the details of what Charlie is recommending, but I certainly agree with the goal."

Then she sounded as if she was quite familiar with the details of what Rangel is recommending.

Then she said "I don't agree with all the details, but he's on the right track to say we've got to do something about" the Alternative Minimum Tax.

Her worst moment came at the end of the debate, (watch it HERE) when asked about a comment she gave to a New Hampshire newspaper that New York Gov. Eliot Spitzer's controversial proposal to give driver's licenses to illegal immigrants "makes a lot of sense." 

"What Governor Spitzer is trying to do is fill the vacuum left by the failure of this administration to bring about comprehensive immigration reform," she said. "We know in New York we have several million at any one time who are in New York illegally.  They are undocumented workers.  They are driving on our roads.  The possibility of them having an accident that harms themselves or others is just a matter of the odds.  It's probability. So what Governor Spitzer is trying to do is to fill the vacuum."

Then Sen. Chris Dodd, D-Conn., took issue with Spitzer's proposal.

Clinton then interjected -- "Well, I just want to add, I did not say that it should be done, but I certainly recognize why Governor Spitzer is trying to do…"

If you paid attention you might have felt hundreds of thousands of Americans go: HUH?

"No, no, no," Dodd said. "You said -- you said yes, you thought it made sense to do it."

"No, I didn't, Chris," said Clinton.

"Senator Clinton, I just want to make sure of what I heard," said Russert. "Do you, the New York senator, Hillary Clinton, support the New York governor's plan to give illegal immigrants a driver's license?
You told the New Hampshire paper that it made a lot of sense.  Do you support his plan?"

Clinton got defensive. "You know, Tim, this is where everybody plays 'gotcha.' It makes a lot of sense.  What is the governor supposed to do?  He is dealing with a serious problems.  We have failed.  And George Bush has failed.  Do I think this is the best thing for any governor to do? No.  But do I understand the sense of real desperation, trying to get a handle on this?  Remember, in New York, we want to know who's in New York.  We want people to come out of the shadows. He's making an honest effort to do it.  We should have passed immigration reform."

It fed into the meme that Obama and former Sen. John Edwards, D-NC, had been pushing all night -- that Clinton is calculating and less than honest.

So they, too, pounced.

"Unless I missed something, Senator Clinton said two different things in the course of about two minutes just a few minutes ago," Edwards said. "And I think this is a real issue for the country.  I mean, America is looking for a president who will say the same thing, who will be consistent, who will be straight with them.  Because what we've had for seven years is double-talk from Bush and from Cheney, and I think America deserves us to be straight."

Added Obama: "Well, I was confused on Senator Clinton's answer.  I can't tell whether she was for it or against it.  And I do think that is important.  One of the things that we have to do in this country is
to be honest about the challenges that we face."

Clinton is still the frontrunner, and has a commanding lead. But it was shaky performance, with the grand finale of the debate being a devastating punch delivered by … Clinton herself.

Thoughts?

-- jpt

October 31, 2007 | Permalink | Share | User Comments (94)

User Comments

Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

I have a few questions for the Democrats out there.


1. If Democrats are for the people why do they
a. support abortion
b.raise taxes on companys that eventually raise taxes on the American people?
2.What will Democrats do about the war in Iraq? And is it the right thing considering why Americans are there in the first place?

3. How will Democrats keep Americans safe from the Islamic radicals in the future?

And why is everyone against president Bush? I mean yeah he's made mistakes but its called being human and everyone is human and makes mistakes. I'm actually pleased that he sticks with what he says and doesn't wavier. And I support the war in Iraq. Just think of it like this there are terroists out there and if we don't stand up to them they'll kill us all! And it seems to me that the American people don't understand this. Is it really gonna take another 9/11 or worse for the American people to wake up and realize what the men in the middle East are fighting for.

I know that some people are ignorant about the subject. But they need to realize that the men in Iraq and else where in the Middle East are fighting for America's freedom. If we don't slove this now then when will we? If we don't solve this now there will be no Americans to stand up for the rights and freedoms that Americans are blessed with.


The sooner we defeat the Islamic radicals the daster taht we can get out of the Middle East.

Posted by: Gwen | Feb 21, 2008 7:21:18 PM

Hillary has been outed for the scum sucking hag that she is

Posted by: steve | Nov 4, 2007 12:49:22 PM

I am a Captain in the United States Army Reserve. I am also a 25 year veteran law enforcement officer. Hillary is a liar. She takes advantage of liberal/uneducated anti-male(mostly anti white male) people. She is a disaster. She was exposed for the first time by her own party. I am not part of her party. I have a disdain for MS Clinton more so than any other politician. Her husband used to be on the top of the list. I do have solice though. If any of you out there vote for her I will have the same amount of disdain for you. America was not founded on ignorance. Bad people, mainly terrorist would kill you if they had a chance. Liberals only believe these type of things when they are crime victims. I hate liberals but as long as I am able to I will protect them. Even if it is from themselves. Think about it

Posted by: steve | Nov 4, 2007 12:46:26 PM

Hillary talks out of both sides of her month. She seldom answers a question with a yes or no. Many of her answers are cloudy and are open to ones personal interpretation. John Edwards did the Democrats a favor by exposing her for what she is. Her husband (President Clinton) was a master of double talk many people accepted that in Bill because he has a like-able personality. Hillary might be a Clinton but she is know Bill Clinton good or bad.

Posted by: Mark | Nov 2, 2007 1:54:28 PM

Oh my God! Are you serious Brenda? You think the best candidate over all is Ron Paul? You've got to be kidding! He's the most coward person I have ever seen. I rather have Ross Perot back!

Posted by: Sonya | Nov 1, 2007 6:43:40 PM

BooMan - I guess you can ignore the Clintons ties to the Saudi's and PLO and even China, but because Pres. Bush deal with the Saudis.

Where do you think the money is coming from for Hilary's campaign, The Clinton Library.

So please, And the Constitution issue, he believes in it for AMERICANS not Terrorists.

Give two (or even one) true fact of an individuals right that has been violated.

James Delaney - Don't forget the 35% Dems that believe that 9/11 was an inside job


There is no helping libs because they are so blinded by hatred they can not see pass their noses.

Posted by: spock | Nov 1, 2007 10:29:26 AM

Hillary's amour was damaged. She looks vulnerable.

Edwards was the best-looking candidate and the most inspiring. He also has the best polls against Republicans. He should be the nominee.

Posted by: Oscar | Nov 1, 2007 9:26:05 AM

I cringe when I listen to/watch Clinton's contortions to try to be all things to all people. Consider the difference: Obama states clearly he supports driver's licenses for undocumented immigrants; many of the reasons he gives are like Hillary's, but he states his support unequivocally; if you disagree with his position, at least you know what it is and can debate it on its merits. Clinton states she agrees with the premise, but disagrees with the practice, and nothing should be done at the state level until something is done at the federal level. That is simply waffling, straddling the fence, as it were.

When she did this defending lobbyist and PAC donations and refusing to disclose her earmarks (which are much more impressive than the actual legislation she passed) or "paybacks" to benefit donors, Obama confronted her again. He said that to say we can't do anything to clean up political donations until we've got mandatory public campaign financing is bogus, and to claim the huge bundling donors, lobbyist, PAC, 527, are giving out of sheer charitable goodness is laughable. He didn't take any federal lobbyist, PAC or 527 support, and has run a credible honest campaign as openly funded as any, including publicizing his earmarks this past term.

Hillary's the type of Democrat we've got too many of already, from Feinstein to Harry Reid. Capitulating, self-serving, totally bought and paid for.

Posted by: VCubed | Nov 1, 2007 5:25:32 AM

Here here James!

Posted by: southern_bell | Oct 31, 2007 7:08:35 PM

Smith, you wrote: "I'd rather a president, or whomever for that matter, change their stance and say "I was wrong", rather than let their pride override their better judgement." You want to impose your own ideals and judgment upon President Bush. But see that is where you have no clue.

President Bush strongly believes -- a true heartfelt conviction -- that the key to peace in the Middle East, and hopefully to the overall War on Terror, is two-fold: (1) Thriving democracies in Afghanistan and Iraq being role models for their neighbors. That eventually the populace of their neighbors will demand democracies in their own countries; (2) The two-state solution to the Palestinian-Israeli conflict. Therefore, he will not waver from his conviction.

Now it is possible that democracy will never take hold in the Middle East. And if that is the case, then there will NEVER be peace in the Middle East. But President Bush will not give up on the Middle East. That is why he is so adamant in wanting to win the war in Iraq both from a military and a political standpoint.

A recent poll indicates that 19% of Democrats actually believe that the world would be a better place if the United States were to lose the War in Iraq; and another 20% of Democrats don't know whether the world would be better off or not. Overall, 11% of Americans believe the world would be better off if we lost the war; while 73% disagree. That's because many of you just do not believe that the terrorists are serious about wanting to end Western Civilization and destroying the United States. And you certainly refuse to believe that we ARE fighting al Qaeda in Iraq. But letting al Qaeda have a military victory in Iraq WILL OPEN the gates of Armageddon. And when that happens, losing nearly 3,000 citizens on 9/11 and losing 3,842+ members of the U. S. Armed Forces in Iraq the past 4 1/2 years, will pale in comparison.

Posted by: James Danley | Oct 31, 2007 6:24:44 PM

Millie - I'm sorry if you lost someone in the war but that doesn't make Bush a murderer.

all wars are absurd.

Posted by: southern_bell | Oct 31, 2007 5:45:10 PM

How about we issue the illegal immigrants driver licenses and when they come to pick them up deport them? You know, since they are, you know, illegal and all...

Posted by: southern_bell | Oct 31, 2007 5:22:39 PM

Jim Bob,

If your son or daugther had been killed in Iraq in this absurd war that only Bush and his cronies support, you would not hesitate to call the president a murderer. You do not need to do a lot of homework to verify this fact!! I can only ask, how can he sleep at night????

Posted by: Millie | Oct 31, 2007 5:18:15 PM

Alex - When you said, "A President - a leader - should not just do what the masses want, otherwise they'd just be a follower and not a leader." I disagree. A leader NEEDS to take into consideration what the people want. Isn't that what our country is based on? Politicians are supposed to represent their constituents' wishes. I'd rather a president, or whomever for that matter, change their stance and say "I was wrong", rather than let their pride override their better judgement. I also understand why candidates will ride the fence on some issues. It's so that they can appeal to more than just one group of people. I understand that we also need someone firm in their beliefs, but when everyone picks on every single word you say, it's hard not to waffle from time to time. Give it a rest, will ya! (And go ahead, pick on my posting too. I know you want to.)

Posted by: Smith | Oct 31, 2007 4:56:20 PM

Spock,

If you think Bush is interested in the welfare of America, please consider the close relationship between King George and the Saudi Royalty and the Bin Laden family. He is interested in the wealthy and the elite, not the US, not the US Constitution, not the US soldier, only the US military because his family makes money when the military uses ordinance. Go ahead and Google "Bush and bin Laden".

Posted by: BooMan | Oct 31, 2007 4:45:43 PM

correction - can not be that dumb

Posted by: spock | Oct 31, 2007 4:29:31 PM

Brenda - Jeff seems ideologically blinded by his hatred for Bush, See Pres Bush ran for the People of the US, not Foreign countries. Who cares if they like us or not.

Kerry did it, Gore did it, I just do not understand why they run for President here if France likes them.

President Bush can be that dumb he beat the Libs twice with the second time a record number of the popular vote, more then even Reagan.

Posted by: spock | Oct 31, 2007 4:28:21 PM

Hey Jake
I got to hand it to you, in one Blog your called a Hilary supporter, and then in this blog your called a Hilary Basher!

Got to wonder!

Posted by: spock | Oct 31, 2007 4:20:36 PM

UGOCHUKWU - Kerry served Honorable, um you forget the question purple hearts, the radio speeches in France, I guess thats honorable for you libs.

Gore? Are you kidding, anybody who Blames the US first can get a Noble Peace Prize! what in the world does his Propaganda Global Warming got to do with Peace, and it shows since they skipped giving it to that woman who saved thousands from the Nazis

Lets see your Clinton/Soros attack on a General who is a Hero

STOP READING LIBERAL PROPAGANDA!!

Posted by: spock | Oct 31, 2007 4:13:38 PM

UGOCHUKWU, I don't like Sen. Hillary Clinton. Not because she is a woman, but because she is a socialist (if not a communist). Back in May, Sen. Clinton said that what the Bush administration touts as an "ownership society" really is an "on your own" society that has widened the gap between rich and poor. She also said: "It's time for a new beginning, for an end to government of the few, by the few and for the few, time to reject the idea of an "on your own" society and to replace it with shared responsibility for shared prosperity. I prefer a "we're all in it together" society."

CONNECT THE DOTS! First she said that an "ownership society" is really an "on your own" society. Then she says it's time to reject an "on your own" society. Thus she says we should reject an "ownership society" and "replace it shared responsibility for shared prosperity." That is Marxist!

Posted by: James Danley | Oct 31, 2007 4:08:00 PM

Next Comments »

Post a comment





 

POLITICAL VIDEOS