« "winning the Democratic process...is virtually irrelevant to the general election.” | Yoda Urbinato's Blog | 7 scenarios on how the Democratic nomination ends. »
3 questions for Hillary at the next debate
1. Senator Clinton: the first official campaign statement regarding your opinion that delegates for Florida and Michigan should be seated came on January 25th. This was after votes held in Iowa, New Hampshire, and Nevada. It was also just one day before polls showed you would likely lose in South Carolina and just four days before Florida would hold its primary.
Why didn't your campaign protest the idea of the delegates being taken away from MI and FL back in September when you signed the no campaign pledge or in the several months after that when you were campaigning in Iowa and New Hampshire where voters there take the early primary status seriously? Follow-up: If it was such a great injustice to the voters of these states, shouldn't you have protested the DNC plan to strip the delegates immediately when the punishment was proposed? 2. You've made foreign policy experience an issue in this campaign and said that you are the better Democrat on foreign policy and would be best in a crisis. Two of the examples you use have been Northern Ireland and Kosovo. Is it fair to use the best foreign policy examples of your husband's Presidency when you had no meaningful role in negotiations with heads of state and no actual decision making authority? Followup question, probably the most important foreign policy issue that has come before you as an elected official was the vote to authorize President Bush to use military force against Iraq. Were the 23 Senators who voted against the war authorization, which included 21 Democrats, ultimately proved that they were correct to oppose the AUMF resolution? 3. How can your campaign claim that your primary victories in states such as Ohio, New York, New Jersey, and California are good examplesof your strength as a candidate for the General Election, while then your campaign also dismisses the same conclusion for the states won by Senator Obama such as Wisconsin, Minnesota, Missouri, Iowa, and Colorado? Follow-up: If you are the nominee in November, many people have said that your candidacy will be the greatest chance the GOP has to mobilize a base of voters who are voting simply against the Clinton name and who otherwise are not going to be motivated in November. Could a Clinton candidacy in November have an adverse affect on "down ticket" Democrats running for elected office in states like North Carolina, Kansas, Iowa, and Washington?
If you enjoyed this post, please click the recommend this link and share with other readers.
Why didn't your campaign protest the idea of the delegates being taken away from MI and FL back in September when you signed the no campaign pledge or in the several months after that when you were campaigning in Iowa and New Hampshire where voters there take the early primary status seriously? Follow-up: If it was such a great injustice to the voters of these states, shouldn't you have protested the DNC plan to strip the delegates immediately when the punishment was proposed? 2. You've made foreign policy experience an issue in this campaign and said that you are the better Democrat on foreign policy and would be best in a crisis. Two of the examples you use have been Northern Ireland and Kosovo. Is it fair to use the best foreign policy examples of your husband's Presidency when you had no meaningful role in negotiations with heads of state and no actual decision making authority? Followup question, probably the most important foreign policy issue that has come before you as an elected official was the vote to authorize President Bush to use military force against Iraq. Were the 23 Senators who voted against the war authorization, which included 21 Democrats, ultimately proved that they were correct to oppose the AUMF resolution? 3. How can your campaign claim that your primary victories in states such as Ohio, New York, New Jersey, and California are good examplesof your strength as a candidate for the General Election, while then your campaign also dismisses the same conclusion for the states won by Senator Obama such as Wisconsin, Minnesota, Missouri, Iowa, and Colorado? Follow-up: If you are the nominee in November, many people have said that your candidacy will be the greatest chance the GOP has to mobilize a base of voters who are voting simply against the Clinton name and who otherwise are not going to be motivated in November. Could a Clinton candidacy in November have an adverse affect on "down ticket" Democrats running for elected office in states like North Carolina, Kansas, Iowa, and Washington?
If you enjoyed this post, please click the recommend this link and share with other readers.
Advertisement
Here is how I think Clinton should answer these questions:
1. Because it became clear at that point that this was going to be a much closer race than anyone anticipated. If either candidate came out on top consistently in all of those states, the nomination would have been more or less wrapped up. Since it didn't happen, it was clear that both MI/FL should be rethought.
2. A first lady has no portfolio and is expected to be a Laura Bush, tending to flowers and dinner invitations. However my experience in the WH is critised and scrutinized, it's clear that I was more involved in major decisions made in this country. So even accepting attacks from my critics, I have more experience than Sen. Obama in dealing with state matters.
3. My victories mean that much only because of the voting coalition I have been able to assemble: women, working class, Catholics, Latinos. This is the coalition that every Dem President since Roosevelt used to win the WH. This is the coalition that John Kerry lost in his presidential bid and Sen. Obama doesn't have.
March 15, 2008 1:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
Your answer to #1 is highly specious. The problem is that the Clinton campaign is using "voter disenfranchisement" to try and force a do-over. If voter disenfranchisement is indeed what matters to you, the time to protest this would have been when that decision was made. How close the race is immaterial to upholding democratic principles and, in fact, this reponse points to the real motivation here: Clinton now knows she needs these states to win, which is what really matters to her and her campaign. So, in a way, your answer exposes what's really driving this discussion from the Clinton side.
#2 and #3 are pretty much boilerplate.
March 15, 2008 2:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
Thank you Senator Clinton. Some follow-ups:
On question #1, you've said however that the voters should be seated according to the results, including Michigan where Senator Obama took his name off the ballot. That goes beyond just "rethinknig" but rather a reversal of your position before IA and NH.
On question #2, please note my follow-up - were the 23 Senators who voted against the war authorization, which included 21 Democrats, ultimately proved that they were correct to oppose the AUMF resolution.
On question 3#, then are you saying that your coalition will not vote for a Democratic nominee that is not you? Does this mean that young voters, independents, and African-Americans are not going to vote for you if you are the nominee?
March 15, 2008 2:59 PM | Reply | Permalink
"However my experience in the WH is critised and scrutinized, it's clear that I was more involved in major decisions made in this country."
How exactly is it clear? Can you cite specific examples?
The Clinton Camp does that all the time. they make an assertion and then fail to back it up with facts or records. Terry Mcauliffe (sp?) said on the Bill Maher show last week that Hillary was better on national security than John McCain without saying exactly HOW she was better.
Now, obvioulsy Lalo isn't with the campaign, but answered on Clinton's behalf anyway. So please. Can you cite specific examples?
March 15, 2008 5:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
See when I hear Clinton or her supporters respond like that, remembering that back in '92, Bill Clinton sold them as "co-presidents*", I'm still unclear as to why they get a 3rd term.
And even if people decide they don't want to get into the legalities of having these two back for a 3rd term, and Clinton and her supporters want to persist that the Clinton administration did include the Senator, that means everything is fair game and the Senator shouldn't hide behind her First Lady shield to hide documents. She knew she was running for president back in '99 when she carpetbagged NY. She's has more than enough time to get all her paperwork in order. As Hillary likes to date herself by saying, "Where's the beef?"
*The 4th reason I didn't vote for Clinton in '96.
March 15, 2008 9:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
An important follow up would be: lacking any security clearance to be a substantive contributer on these matters, how is it that you legally took part?
March 16, 2008 1:40 AM | Reply | Permalink
Glad to hear someone discount my vote finally. I was afraid I was going to have start drinking lattes and wearing Birkenstock.
Do this groups (any groups) truly vote as a block? Maybe she should focus on a coalition of voters block and see if that is a bit more effective in the current nomination race before she gets all giddy about the GE.
March 16, 2008 1:52 AM | Reply | Permalink
Lalo35adm,
Geez, isn't it enough to hog the majority of the voters with women?
What chance does that scary white/black inexperienced, Muslim dude with the ranting spiritual adviser have?
If Hillary can just keep Republicans, independents, men, African-Americans, liberals, educated people from voting; she can even beat John McCain.
Best, Terry
March 16, 2008 6:23 AM | Reply | Permalink
Senator Clinton,
On Question number 2, if you were so deeply involved in foreign policy decisions as First Lady, then why have you not released even your calendars? Where is the documentation of the substantive meetings, before the events you lay claim to achieving (Belfast, Kosovo)? Where are the testimonials from independent people involved in those foreign policy action during the 8 years you cite as your experience?
March 15, 2008 9:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
The "independent" testamonials all suggest her role was not as substantive nor as relevant as she claims.
Contemporary reporting of the events shows, she wasn't as involved as she claims.
Even her own memoir -- which arguably is hers to inflate and embellish at will since it is her "memories" the book is based upon -- do not reflect the level of involvment she is claiming today.
March 16, 2008 10:51 AM | Reply | Permalink
I will give credit to Lalo for answering the questions at least!
March 15, 2008 11:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
Half credit. She didn't answer the follow-ups.
March 15, 2008 11:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
Not to mention SCHIP:
http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2008/03/14/clinton_role_in_health_program_disputed/
I'm really disgusted. I question her honesty and integrity if she can take credit for the work and effort of others.
March 16, 2008 12:44 AM | Reply | Permalink
But... she did all that work behind the scenes. With no documentation or proof.
You know, like whoever it was that wrote those books for her. Whaddya call it? Ghost Presidenting Writing?
Poor Hillary, allways pillaried, and never a memory of all the things she did for 35 years. Not only is she a fighter for the forgotten and unheard, she too is forgotten and never heard.
Clinton/Victim '08
March 16, 2008 1:47 AM | Reply | Permalink
If Hillary hadn't told Al Gore to invent the internet, none of us would be here today!
March 16, 2008 1:41 AM | Reply | Permalink
Shorter answer: I thought I had it in the bag, so it didn't matter. Once I found out everyone wasn't on board with my coronation, I figured I needed every delegate I could get.
March 16, 2008 1:50 AM | Reply | Permalink
All good questions and answers. I have questions that can only be answered by tax returns for the last six years. The release has been stone-walled and Clinton supporters have said tax returns just aren't important.
Vinod Gupta is a principal in the firm InfoUSA. He was one of the fortunate occupants of the Lincoln Bedroom during the Clinton years. InfoUSA is being sued by stockholders because InforUSA has paid 2.1 million dollars to Bill Clinton and has promised to pay another 1.2 million for consultative fees. InfoUSA produces lists of addresses and phone numbers and offers various information collections to businesses. InfoUSA also has provided a corporate jet for use by the Clintons for the price of a first class ticket. I am puzzled about just what expertise Bill Clinton might possess that would be of such value as, evidently, are the suing stockholders.
Bill Clinton has been wheeling and dealing nationally and internationally since leaving office. My contention is that the tax returns could possibly reveal connections and associations that could be embarrassing to the Clintons and therefore they are withholding the returns to a later date.
I may be way off base, but if there is information that could be damaging to Hillary Clinton in the general election, we need to know about it now, before we are locked into a candidate who alread has huge negatives and has not truly been vetted.
March 16, 2008 10:39 AM | Reply | Permalink
arleang, I agree that these issues of transparency and ethics are also important.
Talking about disenfranchising voters is just so much hot air if you're not willing to be open with the voters about things that might impact your decision-making. If it's fair to expect Obama to come clean on his ties to Resko -- and it is-- then it's fair to expect the same of his opponent. This is important not only for financial ties she and Bill might have to powerful donors, but for the full gamut of money an influence in the Clinton universe.
I urge Senator Clinton to embrace the same level of openness and disclosure so we can have a fair chance of evaluating her fitness for office. Enough of the bob and weave, non-answer answers. If she doesn't open up, I will assume she's hiding something embarrassing or potentially explosive, as I suspect, most people will.
March 16, 2008 11:48 AM | Reply | Permalink