Hillary: “I’ve Been Very Clear On Where I Stand”
Yes, that’s an accurate quote. That’s Hillary’s quote from an interview she did with CNN’s Candy Crowley. Here’s that statement in context:
“I wasn’t at my best the other night,” Clinton told CNN’s Candy Crowley. “We’ve had a bunch of debates and I wouldn’t rank that up in my very top list. But I’ve answered probably, I don’t know, more than 5,000 questions over the last 10 months and I have been very clear about where I stand and what I want to do for the country.”
Suffice it to say that Dick Morris doesn’t agree with Hillary on her being clear about where she stands:
Every time she approaches a microphone, Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton labors under the necessity of fudging on her program, offering, instead, an artificial personality and a variety of poll-tested bromides that let her duck key issues.
The resulting circumlocutions were evident in Tuesday night’s Democratic debate. Her plans for Social Security? Clearly, she thinks she may need to raise Social Security taxes, but she can’t say so. Instead, she repeats the poll-tested mantra of “fiscal responsibility” and a “bipartisan commission.”
By “fiscal responsibility,” she means ending Treasury borrowing from the Social Security Trust Fund, a policy already in place. By a “bipartisan commission,” she means sharing the blame for unpopular policies with Republicans to minimize the deadly electoral impact. But she can’t explain any of that, so she just repeats the mantra.
If there’s anything that I won’t believe about Hillary, it’s that she’s the re-incarnation of John McCain’s Straight Talk Express. That’s utterly laughable. The Clintons turned parsing sentences into an art form. Does anyone seriously think that the woman who manned the “Bimbo Eruptions” desk in the Clinton War room, then said that Monicagate was “part of a vast Right Wing conspiracy” is capable of being “very clear” on what she believes?
If Hillary’s been very clear on where she stands, why didn’t Hillary give a straight answer on whether she supports giving drivers licenses to illegal immigrants? That’s a straightforward question. It’s an answer that Rudy Giuliani or Fred Thompson would answer in their sleep.
In the wide-ranging interview exactly a year before the election, Clinton continued to hold back from offering full-fledged support for a plan offering illegal immigrants driver’s licenses, saying it’s a question that doesn’t allow a candidate to answer simply by “raising their hand.”
“It depends upon what state they’re in, it depends upon what [governors] think the risks are,” Clinton said. “The governor of New York has a lot of immigrants, many of whom we know are not their legally; [he] has to worry about security. A governor of another state where that’s not a problem doesn’t.
“This issue has been so politicized,” Clinton continued, “and I understand that, because you can score points, you can score all kinds of political, demagogic points.”
That’s typical Hillary. If someone tries getting a straight answer from Hillary about the most important issues in a generation, she goes into evasive mode. She acts like it’s a difficult moral question that’s painted in shade of gray. This isn’t difficult. It’s extremely straightforward.
Furthermore, when she says that “it’s a question that doesn’t allow a candidate to answer simply by ‘raising their hand’”, she’s exactly wrong. Of all the possible questions she could’ve been asked, this is the most tailor-made for a straight yes or no answer. There isn’t much nuance to this. Either she’s for maintaining America’s sovereignty or she doesn’t care about maintaining America’s sovereignty.
Another telltale sign that she’s being evasive is her saying that “you can score all kinds of political, demagogic points.” That’s Hillary’s way of telling candidates (a)that she’s demagoging this issue and (b) how she’ll defend herself when they exploit her weakness.
The thing to notice is that she’s still taking the same evasive actions that she did during last Tuesday’s debate.
It’s another perfect example of Hillary refusing to board the Straight Talk Express.
Technorati Tags: Hillary, Bill Clinton, Parsing, Demagogue, Drivers Licenses, Illegal Immigration, Sovereignty, Election 2008
Cross-posted at LetFreedomRingBlog
November 6th, 2007 at 7:02 pm
I think don’t think Clinton is going to be able to hide her Marxist views.
She will lose big time and I am going to love watching the whole show.
November 6th, 2007 at 8:38 pm
Ahh nuance, the hob-goblin of conservative minds. Just can’t wrap your head around two conflicting ideas, can you?
Oh well, here goes. Sen. Clinton is opposed to giving illegal immigrants driver licenses. However, the federal government is not the issuing authority. Conservatives should like the fact that Hillary doesn’t want to meddle in the States’ affairs, so she supports Gov. Spitzer’s authority to do what he feels best for his state. Does that mean Dick Morris’ or Gary Gross’ state will have to do the same? No. Does that mean it is the right thing to do? No. Does that mean that Hillary thinks issuing drivers’ licenses to illegals is the right thing to do? No.
But it does present the fringe rightwingnuts and opportunity to pounce, which of course, they are wont to do. Especially on Hillary the front runner.
At least Hillary supports the governor of New York in his effort to do something about illegal immigration, on which our Federal government can’t seem to come to any consensus. Having the obstructionist republicans in Congress blocking common sense reform doesn’t help, but that’s a whole other story.
However, the demagoguing of Hillary’s answer obscures the real issue that Gov. Spitzer is trying to resolve. Does the state have a compelling interest in knowing who is operating a vehicle and driving on state roads? Is it not a great security enhancement to have the picture, name and address of everyone driving in the state, legal or not? Or do the republicans now not want to take one of the simplest steps available to make our country more secure?
Apparently, xenophobia overcomes common sense, once again.
November 6th, 2007 at 10:05 pm
Rocky,
Where did you learn the Sen. Clinton opposes giving illegal immigrants drivers licenses? Tim Russert asked her and she did not answer. Mohammad Obama stated she didn’t answer. John Edwards stated she gave two answers. Her staff when asked states she ‘generally’ favors doing so, thus allowing illegals to vote for her handout promises.
My impression that she wants the illegal votes and the votes of those who oppose the nonsense as well.
So from where did you discover she opposes this? And why can’t this fearless leader answer that simple question herself? And what is the xenophobia to which you refer?
November 6th, 2007 at 11:34 pm
–The Boston Globe
Yes, of course she wants the migrant vote, and the moderate vote. I’ll bet she even wants the conservative vote!
Sometimes, simple questions have difficult answers. Immigration is certainly one of those areas full of difficult scenarios. For example, are we going to deport 12 million migrants en masse? I can’t recall a coherent answer from the right (let alone the rightwingnuts) regarding this matter. Perhaps Brit Hume could query the republican candidates at the next Fox Noise debate.
November 7th, 2007 at 8:35 am
So to you illegal votes are “migrant” votes. And giving a DL to illegals is a simple question with a difficult answer? What is the DMV to do, issue a DL or not?
And what was the xenophobia reference?
bla, bla, bla
November 7th, 2007 at 9:26 am
Rocky should listen to himself. He just wrote a 200 word essay explaining how Senator Clinton said yes.
November 7th, 2007 at 11:06 am
He was able to work xenophobia and fringe rightwingnuts in, even without a reference. The big guns, homophobe and neocon, will likely come later.
November 8th, 2007 at 7:29 pm
Hey Rocky,
What about clinton’s speaches at the La Raza hate protests??
mmm?
Go fly a kite….you are obviously a worthless POS using my tax money for liberal BS.
November 8th, 2007 at 7:32 pm
Rocky,
You are a waste of American air.
I wish Roe v Wade would have worked with you mother.
November 9th, 2007 at 1:33 pm
Im sorry I have to get this off my chest.
George, whatever you may think of Rocky, the man is only trying to give his side of the argument on a decidely one sided forum, the least we can all do is give him the respect of his right of opinion, instead of acting the way we accuse many on is side of doing.
Personally, I enjoy my little tiff’s with Rocky.
November 10th, 2007 at 2:32 pm
And I’ll add my “thank you” to Rocky as well. While I have vehemently disagreed with him on nearly every post, and don’t think most of them make a lick of sense, I welcome his responses and his skewed point of view.
“Ahh nuance, the hob-goblin of conservative minds. Just can’t wrap your head around two conflicting ideas, can you?”
And liberals can’t wrap their minds around anything other than total agreement with their own personal viewpoint. Why is it that a liberal can understand that right is left and white is black, but can’t for the life of themselves understand economics in the real world, or that there really are evil people in the world (I’m talking Ahmadinijad, not GW), or that freedom to pursue happiness is the right, not happiness itself?
And why can’t they understand the simple, clear wording of the greatest legal document ever written that the federal government has specific responsibilities (enumerated powers) and that there are NO other functions of the federal government, including education, health care, or any of the other myriad of sacred cows of the left?