Hillary bombs badly
That's the consensus amongst the pundits this morning (at least among the HONEST ones), and it's well placed as Roger Simon explains today:
We now know something that we did not know before: When Hillary Clinton has a bad night, she really has a bad night.
In a debate against six Democratic opponents at Drexel University here Tuesday, Clinton gave the worst performance of her entire campaign. It was not just that her answer about whether illegal immigrants should be issued driver's licenses was at best incomprehensible and at worst misleading.
It was that for two hours she dodged and weaved, parsed and stonewalled. And when it was over, both the Barack Obama and John Edwards campaigns signaled that in the weeks ahead they intend to hammer home a simple message: Hillary Clinton does not say what she means or mean what she says.
And she gave them plenty of ammunition Tuesday night.
Asked whether she still agrees with New York Gov. Eliot Spitzer’s plan to give driver's licenses to illegal immigrants, Clinton launched into a long, complicated defense of it.
But when Chris Dodd attacked the idea a moment later, Clinton quickly said: “I did not say that it should be done.”
NBC’s Tim Russert, one of the debate moderators, jumped in and said to her: “You told (a) New Hampshire paper that it made a lot of sense. Do you support his plan?”
John Edwards immediately went for the jugular. “Unless I missed something,” he said, “Sen. Clinton said two different things in the course of about two minutes. America is looking for a president who will say the same thing, who will be consistent, who will be straight with them.”
Barack Obama added: “I was confused [by] Sen. Clinton's answer. I can't tell whether she was for it or against it. One of the things that we have to do in this country is to be honest about the challenges that we face.”
Earlier, when Clinton was asked whether she had made one statement on Social Security publicly and a conflicting answer privately, she ducked the question, saying she believed in “fiscal responsibility.”
And when Russert asked her if she would make public certain communications between herself and President Clinton when she was first lady, she responded weakly: “Well, that’s not my decision to make.”
Everyone has off nights. But judging from this piece, the reaction at NRO's The Corner last night, and what we were able to watch of this train wreck, things didn't go well for the anointed one. She really looked bad; not only in how she answered questions and handled herself, but head on over to Politico and see the photo of her on the roger Simon story. It's not pretty. It's not flattering. She looks like a miserable old hag. (Appropo, one would say given what today is.)
Some will say that this debate is irrelevant. That it's one misstep by her, and one that the media will try to hush up. The problem is that the media isn't trusted by most people anymore. They know that the people behind the scenes are going to cover for her. But how can you cover for someone who seemed to be stepping on rakes all night long?
Granted, it's true that the other candidates went after her. Of course that's going to happen because she's the main frontrunner. Welcome to Mayor Giuliani's world, Senator Clinton. It's not so much fun when you become the punching bag. And the whole attempt to weasel out of flip-flopping by claiming that everyone's looking for a "gotcha" moment is pathetic. It's politics. Suck it up and admit you got caught being indecisive, unless the wind changed direction.
People in America aren't stupid. They see a performance like this, form a person wishing to be the leader of the free world, and it sticks with them. With Hillary, we'll get a different version of her husband, and one that more closely resembles the politics she embraces surrounding socialism and Marxism. She can't come right out and tell people this because she knows if she does -- if she comes clean and is absolutely honest about it -- she'll be about as electable as Dennis Kucinich or Ron Paul.
Publius II
We now know something that we did not know before: When Hillary Clinton has a bad night, she really has a bad night.
In a debate against six Democratic opponents at Drexel University here Tuesday, Clinton gave the worst performance of her entire campaign. It was not just that her answer about whether illegal immigrants should be issued driver's licenses was at best incomprehensible and at worst misleading.
It was that for two hours she dodged and weaved, parsed and stonewalled. And when it was over, both the Barack Obama and John Edwards campaigns signaled that in the weeks ahead they intend to hammer home a simple message: Hillary Clinton does not say what she means or mean what she says.
And she gave them plenty of ammunition Tuesday night.
Asked whether she still agrees with New York Gov. Eliot Spitzer’s plan to give driver's licenses to illegal immigrants, Clinton launched into a long, complicated defense of it.
But when Chris Dodd attacked the idea a moment later, Clinton quickly said: “I did not say that it should be done.”
NBC’s Tim Russert, one of the debate moderators, jumped in and said to her: “You told (a) New Hampshire paper that it made a lot of sense. Do you support his plan?”
John Edwards immediately went for the jugular. “Unless I missed something,” he said, “Sen. Clinton said two different things in the course of about two minutes. America is looking for a president who will say the same thing, who will be consistent, who will be straight with them.”
Barack Obama added: “I was confused [by] Sen. Clinton's answer. I can't tell whether she was for it or against it. One of the things that we have to do in this country is to be honest about the challenges that we face.”
Earlier, when Clinton was asked whether she had made one statement on Social Security publicly and a conflicting answer privately, she ducked the question, saying she believed in “fiscal responsibility.”
And when Russert asked her if she would make public certain communications between herself and President Clinton when she was first lady, she responded weakly: “Well, that’s not my decision to make.”
Everyone has off nights. But judging from this piece, the reaction at NRO's The Corner last night, and what we were able to watch of this train wreck, things didn't go well for the anointed one. She really looked bad; not only in how she answered questions and handled herself, but head on over to Politico and see the photo of her on the roger Simon story. It's not pretty. It's not flattering. She looks like a miserable old hag. (Appropo, one would say given what today is.)
Some will say that this debate is irrelevant. That it's one misstep by her, and one that the media will try to hush up. The problem is that the media isn't trusted by most people anymore. They know that the people behind the scenes are going to cover for her. But how can you cover for someone who seemed to be stepping on rakes all night long?
Granted, it's true that the other candidates went after her. Of course that's going to happen because she's the main frontrunner. Welcome to Mayor Giuliani's world, Senator Clinton. It's not so much fun when you become the punching bag. And the whole attempt to weasel out of flip-flopping by claiming that everyone's looking for a "gotcha" moment is pathetic. It's politics. Suck it up and admit you got caught being indecisive, unless the wind changed direction.
People in America aren't stupid. They see a performance like this, form a person wishing to be the leader of the free world, and it sticks with them. With Hillary, we'll get a different version of her husband, and one that more closely resembles the politics she embraces surrounding socialism and Marxism. She can't come right out and tell people this because she knows if she does -- if she comes clean and is absolutely honest about it -- she'll be about as electable as Dennis Kucinich or Ron Paul.
Publius II
posted by Syd And Vaughn | 3:16 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home