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

« Previous | Main | Next »

What is Hillary implying about Mississippi?

October 23, 2007 1:27 PM

Check out this new column by David Yepsen in the Des Moines Register.

In it, Sen. Hillary Clinton, D-NY, suggests that one of the reasons she's not doing as well in Iowa as she is nationally or in other states is because she's a woman and Iowa has "never elected a woman governor, senator or member of Congress."

She says that's the case with Mississippi, too.

But then she seems to imply she's not surprised that's the case down South, but given the "quality," "openness" and "communitarianism" of Iowa she is surprised that's the case in Iowa.

Hard not to read that as a slam on Mississippi.

"I was shocked when I learned Iowa and Mississippi have never elected a woman governor, senator or member of Congress," she said. "There has got to be something at work here...

"I think not only do I have to bring people to me, I have to maybe reassure people here maybe more than I do in New Hampshire, which has had a woman governor...

"I think Iowa poses a special burden, or a special obstacle to me because when you look at the numbers, how can Iowa be ranked with Mississippi? That's not what I see. That's not the quality. That's not the communitarianism, that's not the openness I see in Iowa."

Doesn't that sound like she's saying she expects Mississippi to be backward but not Iowa?

I asked Clinton campaign spokesman Phil Singer about this. His response: "Clearly, she was referring to the historical fact that a woman has never been elected Governor or to the House or Senate from those states."

Uh...right.

What do you think?

- jpt

October 23, 2007 | Permalink | Share | User Comments (114)

User Comments

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

I thought Libs were oblivious but this is beyond even that to believe anything that Clinton says you definitely require the willing suspension of disbelief.

How could anyone thinks she is telling the truth at all, because first is she changes what she says daily. And Truth does not change.

She is a power hungry politician that wants to bring Socialism to our country, and that is fact!

Posted by: spock | Oct 24, 2007 10:08:05 AM

Sorry, but when I think of states which are on the forefront of significant social and economic progress, Iowa and
Mississippi aren't the first ones that come to mind. Sen. Clinton is simply stating the obvious, whether most people like it or not.

Posted by: chuck | Oct 24, 2007 8:56:07 AM

I read a number of comments about Hillary Clinton and wonder why there is so much jealously over her running for president. She speaks her mind and says the truth and that'w what many people don't want to hear. They like lies told to them. If these critics think Edwards and Obama are going to win the nomination their dreaming. Its not going to happen and may never happen. They haven't shown any ability to run the White House just listen to their campaign speeches. The same for Giuliani, McCain, Thompson and Mitt. All her rivals are a big joke and are not headed anywhere. They are just wastin time. Giuliani may beat out his rivals but he won't beat Hillary.

Posted by: Mariann Pepitone | Oct 24, 2007 7:19:47 AM

Oh my God! What Hillary actually caught expressing her true feelings? The slam on the South is not so surprising as the fact that someone caught her in an honest moment. Mark this one down in the books.

Posted by: Will Gibbs | Oct 24, 2007 6:45:09 AM

Hillary Clinton was saying don't use a comparison MODEL(Iowa-Mississippi)/but just consider the female advantages of politics OVER-what/considering the news story it seems that Iowa politics is of a male-encounter..maybe there's a encounter in Iowa that women actually need to be(there in that place)..I personally don't know..the most direct spoken words have been that Hillary Clinton HAS NEVER/run a City-a Company-any kind of people place..she's a novice I quess in the argument..listening to how Hillary Clinton will look at America for the dollars/Connecticut offers this mentality(it must contain dollars)..rather why not Values get mentioned because dollars are very(inhumane)personalites to wage in a combat MODEL/Hillary Clinton being a NY Senator might mirror the Connecticut IMAGE that corruption is a direct result of dollars over Values..because corruption allows the truth to escape w/the paperwork(lack of it)/Values have that un-mistakible paperwork of the most humane/"these truths we hold to be self evident"/instead of a menadering pledge of dollars..Hillary Clinton is "buttering" the people like they were bread-slices..then she turns the next corner w/her Butter Knife and its Iowa/but butter might be better on toast in Mississippi..its a bad sales job most times(the Clinton's)seem to have poor salesmanship as a mainstay(like)creating a mirror image that's so self centered(it)seems actually creative/the Clinton's are absurd to say the least.

Posted by: Mark S. M. | Oct 24, 2007 6:31:29 AM

Insurance companies have NO competition right now.

Posted by: m | Oct 24, 2007 5:53:42 AM

Carl: Your scare tactic regarding Hillary's proposed healthcare is pathetic, considering that 50 million american CITIZENS currently have NO healthcare whatsoever. THat's 1 in 6 Americans. Also, know what's scary too? That medical bills are the number one reason for bankruptsy and high debt in the U.S.

Posted by: m | Oct 24, 2007 5:43:47 AM

Sorry guys... Hillary WILL be the next president... Why? Because most women will vote for her just because she is a woman... For you women (or men) who think she will make a good president... you better hope you never require any kind of serious medical procedure or for you women you better hope you never get pregnant... because if you ever did, you would find yourself going into Mexico to get PROPER medical treatment. Hillary care will be a disaster.

Posted by: Carl | Oct 24, 2007 5:36:26 AM

What difference does it make? As if there was any chance of Mississippi going blue next year. Very typical Hillary. By the way, Mrs. Clinton, you're not from NY. These folks were your longtime neighbors. Get over yourself.

Posted by: tommyboy092371 | Oct 24, 2007 12:57:37 AM

Hillary can’t win on issues so she plays the gender card. Sorry lady, most of us are smart enough to see through that. I don’t care if a woman is elected president, just not that woman. The next election is as simple as ABC. Anyone But Clinton.

Posted by: Royce | Oct 24, 2007 12:40:25 AM

Fred, you wrote: "Can't you conservatives understand the truth? Stop trying to misinterpret her words." I did not misinterpret April's words. She wrote: "You can't argue with the facts. The South has yet to elect a black senator, either. How do you explain that?" Based on what she has since written, it is clear that she intended to say that the South has not elected a black senator by popular vote since Reconstruction. Now if you want to accuse me of misinterpreting what she intended or meant to say, I proudly claim my guilt.

Posted by: James Danley | Oct 23, 2007 10:39:03 PM

Why is it that we must always prove that we're not discriminating? You can't prove a negative anyway. People can vote for whom they want. If you're not happy with it Hillary, deal with it. I will not vote for Hillary because she's conniving, cunning, deceptive, calculating, devious, repugnant, repulsive, revolting, dishonest, mendacious, beneath contempt, immoral, and full of crap.

Posted by: thatsthewayitis | Oct 23, 2007 10:32:03 PM

What she is saying is true. Can't you conservatives understand the truth? Stop trying to misinterpret her words.

Posted by: Fred Howze | Oct 23, 2007 10:09:51 PM

Boo hoo hoo, they won't vote for me because I'm a woman, she says. Get off it lady and be honest with yourself. Southern and Midwestern folks are plain and simple and if they don't vote for you it's because they DON'T LIKE YOU, plain and simple. Deal with it.

Posted by: genlin | Oct 23, 2007 9:29:05 PM

Hillary should be complaining about much more important things than our state having not elected a woman. SO WHAT?? We're almost 9 trillion in debt and in a horrible tragic war and about to get in another! What does an female congressman have to do with anything!!

Posted by: Jeff | Oct 23, 2007 8:48:51 PM

Dawn, you wrote: "Sen. Clinton isn't playing the victim: she never does." I beg to differ. She certainly has blamed the "vast Right-wing Conspiracy" for most of the negatives that have appeared in the press for her and Bill over the years.

Now as for my comment regarding the two African-American senators, I was only correcting another individual's statement that the South has yet to elect an African-American senator. But since these two African-Americans from Mississippi graced the halls of the U. S. Senate, there have been only THREE subsequent African-American U. S. Senators: Sen. Edward William Brooke III (R-MA) 1967-1979 -- the first African-American senator to be elected by popular vote; Sen. Carol Moseley Braun (D-IL) 1993-1999; and Sen. Sen. Barack Obama (D-IL) 2005-present. Its interesting that the only two Democrats are from Illinois -- Sen. Hillary Clinton's birthplace. And the only other African-American senator from a blue state was a Republican. Some record for the Democrats to tout!

Posted by: James Danley | Oct 23, 2007 8:28:48 PM

A smart political move by Clinton. Internal polling probably shows that Democratic voters in Iowa do not like their state being compared to deep southern states. They feel "we are trying, to make the state more progressive, however there is such an equal balance between democrats and republicans in the state that it hasnt quite happened yet.. The Clinton campaign is pressing for a response among democrats," No is our chance. This again, is a democratic caucus. They also feel a comment like this will not hurt her in Iowa in the General because they probably calculated that Guiliani will be the nominee and he is likely to come in fourth or fifth in the Iowa Caucus! Iowa republicans will have a hard time voting for Rudy on the Pro-choice issue in the General. Hillary's campaign is one of the best I have seen in along, long time (FDR)!

Posted by: Sageofpolitics | Oct 23, 2007 7:45:12 PM

1) Sen. Clinton isn't playing the victim: she never does. She's pointing out a perfectly reasonable explanation for why she isn't doing as well in Iowa as in the national polls. Sen. Clinton has said that she needs to earn every vote so often that it should be her campaign song. It's simply true that the fact that most states have never had a female governor or senator makes it harder to elect the first female President of the United States.

2) When Sen. Edwards had his wife imply that he couldn't raise money for his campaign because of all the donations made to Senators Clinton and Obama only because of her gender and his race, was he vicariously playing the victim?

(3) James Danley: as I expected, those two Republican African-American Senators were elected during RECONSTRUCTION. Apart from being over a century ago, Reconstruction was the one moment in time before the modern Civil Rights Movement when racism in Mississippi was not allowed to reign unchecked. However, it's gratifying to hear of Mississippi's two female Lt. Governors.

Posted by: dawn | Oct 23, 2007 7:09:40 PM

The thought of Hillary Clinton becoming the next President of the United States scares me to death. She is a power hungry, cold, high-society female who has no concept of the real world. And as for those who spoke out of sheer ignorance to bash the state of Mississippi, you are yourselves racist. I've been all over the U.S. and never have I met people as friendly, neighborly, intelligent, and hospitable as in Mississppi. Racism has many facets and all of you bashers exhibited one facet of it. I pray everyday Hillary never becomes President. This comment is just one example of how she doesn't live in the real world.

Posted by: Laura | Oct 23, 2007 6:35:35 PM

A vote for Hillary is a vote for business as usual in Washington. Don't kid yourself. Hillary and Bill are part of the establishment. The only difference is they will be telling the libs what they want to hear. Look at the Democractic controlled congress. There is no consensus among the Democracts. They can't get anything done. We are at a time in our history when we need a leader who is going to bring the american people and our government together to make thoughtful, innovative, decisions about policy and our future. I don't see a candidate out there who is prepared to deal in much more than pandering to political favors. It's heart breaking.

Posted by: Bill | Oct 23, 2007 6:33:41 PM

Post a comment





 

POLITICAL VIDEOS