Political Punch
Power, pop, and probings from ABC News Senior White House Correspondent Jake Tapper
Jake Tapper is ABC News' Senior White House Correspondent based in the network's Washington bureau. He writes about politics and popular culture and covers a range of national stories.
RECENT POSTS
- Obama’s Mother-in-Law to Move in To the White House
- Stimulus Legislation Could Be Introduced As Soon As Monday
- PEBO Acknowledges Some Democratic Fat Cats Will Get Ambassadorships
- President-elect on Bowl Game Series: LET THERE BE PLAYOFFS!
- In Friday Presser, PEBO Introduces Intel Team and Talks Jobs
- Obama Makes Intel Announcements
- PEBO to Name Fred Hochberg to Head Export-Import Bank
- Obama's Pick for Dep. Pentagon Chief Violates Pledge About Lobbyists
- Palin Assails Media Classism
- PEBO Warns of Dire Days
MONTHLY ARCHIVES
« Previous | Main | Next »
A Bankrupt Answer
January 16, 2008 10:10 AM
At last night's debate, after former Sen. John Edwards, D-NC, said he regretted voting for the 2001 bankruptcy bill (#56 in a list of votes Edwards now regrets casting), came this exchange:
RUSSERT: Senator Clinton, you voted for the same 2001 bankruptcy bill that Senator Edwards just said he was wrong about. After you did that, the Consumer Federation of America said that your reversal on that bill, voting for it, was the death knell for the opponents of the bill. Do you regret that vote?
CLINTON: Sure I do, but it never became law, as you know. It got tied up. It was a bill that had some things I agreed with and other things I didn't agree with, and I was happy that it never became law. I opposed the 2005 bill as well.
Am I reading that right? Did Sen. Hillary Clinton, D-NY, say she's happy a bill she voted for didn't become law?
Um … then why did she vote for it?
Also --- what's with the "as well" at the end there? Is that like -- 'In addition to voting for a bill then being happy it didn't become law I also voted against a similar bill?'
Confusing.
But maybe that's the point.
-- jpt
January 16, 2008 | Permalink | User Comments (13)
Well, this sounds like her drivers licenses-for-illegals answer, but this one won't have the same impact, or follow-up. It does show, however, that her opponents can make her look confused and evasive if they hammer her on a series of similar issues that resonate better with voters. Agreeing with Cordelia on this one, to the extent that Obama should have pounced--but maybe he learned what I noticed, and will make her wiggle more often. She took alot of heat the last time (the drivers licence thing), and I think she is vulnerable if she is made to defend her votes.
Posted by: SteveW | Jan 16, 2008 2:28:18 PM
reading the review i saw that hillary is no different than her husband. HE said.." i did not have sexual relations with that (monica lewinsky) woman." he deliberately LIED UNDER OATH....an impeachable offense...SHE said she voted for a bill she never REALLY SUPPORTED in the first place.....get the picture....It sounds as if Bill is talking all over again....except in Hillary's voice.
Posted by: j. martin | Jan 16, 2008 1:22:17 PM
It looks like the Senator from New York is triangulating her position again and, in the meantime, confusing everyone in the process. It would be extremely refreshing, not to mention a vital change of pace, if the Senator could express herself clearly and without equivocation. Is that asking too much?
Posted by: chuck | Jan 16, 2008 12:18:47 PM
This smacks of "I was for the bill before I was against it." There are already plenty of signs that Hillary is Kerry 2.0 -- and this is even before the Republicans have started to take their whacks.
Posted by: Howard B | Jan 16, 2008 11:43:34 AM
the problem with that exchange is that no one raised the issue of all the money Clinton received from industry groups that pushed the bill. And that's on Obama. He phoned it in last night. I still think Obama is overrated.
Posted by: cordelia525 | Jan 16, 2008 11:25:30 AM
hello world.
Posted by: YaYa | Jan 16, 2008 11:10:10 AM
hi
Posted by: samantha | Jan 16, 2008 11:07:34 AM
None of this is surprising. Hillary does a fair job representing the Democratic Party on social issues, but on foreign policy and, as in this case, on economic issues she is FAR to the Right of mainstream Democrats.
Her most recent national journal liberal vote rating has her at 62% on foreign policy (Obama scores an 85) and 63% on economic policy (Obama scores an 87). This means that on foreign and economic policy, she sides with Republicans on nearly 4 out of every 10 votes. The undeniable, inarguable official record shows that, on economic and foreign policy, Hillary Clinton simply does not represent the Democratic Party.
Posted by: ElodieStClair | Jan 16, 2008 11:06:39 AM
What no one mentions is that Al Gore has the same position on nuclear power that Obama does. Has he also been bought out by the lobbyists?
Posted by: Tom | Jan 16, 2008 11:04:37 AM
Of courrse Obama defended his vote, he has too since Exelon has been giving him money firts in Illinois from many years ago and now is one of the biggest contributors of his campaign. He has to do whatever the lobbyists tell him to do. Hillary and Obama will bring no change at all. They are sold to the big companies, lobbyists and Wall Street.
Posted by: Peer | Jan 16, 2008 10:51:07 AM
They stick amendments onto bills that have nothing to do with the actual subject. Tim "gothcha" Russert is an *** by the way.
Posted by: geevill | Jan 16, 2008 10:31:07 AM
That was interesting spock.
Obama, on the other hand, defended his "bad" vote on the energy bill and his tentative support for nuclear power, even though they were in Nevada.
This is why he's head and shoulders above the rest in my view.
Posted by: Tom | Jan 16, 2008 10:24:48 AM
You got to love Edwards and Hilary
I voted for it before I decided it was a bad bill
Where did we hear that before?
Posted by: spock | Jan 16, 2008 10:15:40 AM
Post a comment