Election Central Debate Roundup
• A full transcript of the debate is available here.
• Via Chuck Todd, Hillary Clinton could be seen standing on top of a stepping stool in certain camera angles.
• The New Hampshire Union Leader quotes local political experts, saying Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama gave the best performances, while John Edwards and Bill Richardson did poorly.
• The Des Moines Register's David Yepsen says the top three candidates all did good jobs, but "Edwards probably did himself the most good."
• Chris Dodd's campaign has released a chart showing just how much time each candidate used during the debate, plus moderator Wolf Blitzer:
• Wolf Blitzer's role as moderator was mainly marked by two trends: His tendency to pose "raise your hand" questions on the one hand, and also his strong approach of asking a question a second time if the candidate veered off in another direction — for example, if a candidate used a question about gas prices to talk about global warming.
• Joe Biden explained why he voted for the recent Iraq funding resolution. "Lives are at stake," Biden said. "I knew the right political vote, but I tell you what. Some things are worth losing elections over." — T. W. Farnam
• Part of the vibe about Hillary winning the debate might come from this: She led a revolt against Wolf Blitzer's frequent use of "raise your hand" questions. "Well we’re not going to engage in these hypotheticals," Hillary said, in response to a question about a missile strike against Osama bin Laden that might kill civilians. "I mean one of the jobs of a president is being very reasoned in approaching these issues. And I don’t think it’s useful to be talking in these kinds of abstract hypothetical terms."
• Hillary Clinton said she disagreed with John Edwards previous assertion that the war on terror was a "bumper sticker campaign." "I am the senator from New York. I have lived with the aftermath of 9/11 and I have seen the firsthand the terrible damage that can be inflicted." — T. W. Farnam
• John Edwards hit Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama for going "quietly to the floor of the Senate" to vote against the Iraq funding bill, rather than being more outspoken. "But there is a difference between leadership and legislating," Edwards said.
• Barack Obama shot back to Edwards. "Well, look, the — I think it is important to lead. And I think John — the fact is is that I opposed this war from the start. So you're about four and a half years late on leadership on this issue," Obama said. "And, you know, I think it's important not to play politics on something that is as critical and as difficult as this."
• Hillary gave something of a backhanded compliment to Edwards: "And what we are trying to do, whether it's by speaking out from the outside (pointing to Edwards) or working and casting votes that actually make a difference from the inside, we are trying to end the war." (Emphasis ours.)
• John Edwards took offense when Hillary Clinton said "the differences between [the candidates] are minor" on the war, saying "there are differences between us. And I think Democratic voters deserve to know the differences between us."
• John Edwards said, regarding Barack Obama’s opposition to the war: "He was right. I was wrong." That led to discussion of Hillary Clinton’s refusal to recant her vote for the war resolution. – T. W. Farnam
• Joe Biden took a stand on the Darfur issue: "By the time all these guys talk, 50,000 more people are going to be dead. They're going to be dead. And I tell you, I guarantee you, we have the capacity by setting up a no-fly zone to shut down the Janjaweed. That's our moral authority. Exercise it."
• Barack Obama made up some ground on his widely-perceived foreign policy weakness at the last debate. After Dennis Kucinich said he would not move to assassinate Osama bin Laden, Obama pointed out that bin Laden has declared war on the United States, and is a legitimate military target. "You take him out," Obama said.
• Hillary Clinton said her vote to authorize the war was not by itself a mistake: "I said it was a mistake to trust George Bush and that he would do what he told all of us he would do."
• Bill Richardson made a novel threat regarding what to do about Darfur: "We need China, which has enormous leverage over Darfur. If the Chinese don’t want to do this, we say to them, maybe we won’t go to the Olympics." The 2008 Olympics are going to be held in Beijing. None of the other Democrats agreed, except for John Edwards — after all, they remember what happened to Jimmy Carter's ratings after the U.S. boycotted the Moscow Olympics. (Late Update: This post originally said none of the other Dems agreed.)
• Bill Richardson took a position that many in the Democratic base might not like: He does not think the oil companies are engaging in price-gouging.
• Dennis Kucinich said all of his opponents’ health care plans are inadequate. "They are talking about letting the insurance companies stay in charge." – T. W. Farnam
• Barack Obama defended his health care plan when John Edwards’s noted it was not a universal plan. "John believes we have to have mandatory insurance for everyone in order to have universal health care. My belief is that most families want health care, but they can't afford it, so my emphasis is on driving down the costs." — T. W. Farnam
• Joe Biden had a great line against President Bush: "And by the way, when power is handed from this president to the next, the next president is going to be left with no margin for error. They'd better be smarter than their advisers."
• All the Democrats support ending the Don't Ask, Don't Tell policy, and would allow openly gay people to serve in the military.
• Chuck Todd: "Most improved performer: Clearly Obama. He seemed much more at ease answering 60 second questions than he was during the first debate ... He was clearly at ease and more comfortable than last month and looked and sounded as presidential as anyone on stage."
• This is a big surprise: James Carville, speaking as a CNN analyst, says Hillary won the debate. CNN's Web page did not have any disclaimer that Carville endorses Clinton and did an online fundraising promo for her a few months ago.
• Andrew Sullivan says Hillary won the debate: "It kills me to admit it. But there you are. And as it sinks in, a dreadful specter emerges. Think June 2008. Think Romney vs Clinton. Plastic vs Perma-Freeze. It could happen."
Hillary is at her best in these "cattle calls." The one-minute answers suit her, because she is always well-rehearsed and uses the minute well and it forces her to stay focused. Whenever she addresses a group and gives a full speech, I find her completely boring, but not in these fora. Style aside, I wonder whether Hillary made a significant substantive blunder when she agreed with -- indeed parroted verbatim -- the Bush slogan that, since 9-11, "We are safer, but not safe." I bet Tony Snow or some such flack rapidly incorporates that statement.
Though Hillary was good on style, Obama, however, was very good, too. He came off as more real and less programmed, but also, admittedly, a bit less fluent than Clinton. On substance, I thought he had her beat, particularly by disputing the notion we are safer, and articulating how US policy in Iraq -- as well as our sullied image by reason of Guantanamo and the issues surrounding our treatment of prisoners -- has made us less safe by increasing resentment against the US.
I do wish Obama was more aggressive against Hillary. Obama, I hope, is playing some very long, patient martial-arts-type game, or Ali rope-a-dope strategy, where he is looking for the right moment to take on Hillary. I am impatient and wish he would finally take her on when she insists on proclaiming, over and over again, that Bush misused the authority she granted him and broke his promise to her, because she wanted to allow more time for the weapons inspectors to complete their work.
She needs to be looked in the eye and confronted with that big lie. He should say, as someone suggested on another site, "Senator Clinton, we have scoured your record and your public statements between the time of your authorization vote and the launching of the war, and there is not a word you said that called for the brakes to be applied to the invasion, so that the inspectors could have more time before launching a full scale invasion."
It may be that Obama is lying in wait for a moment that is closer to when more voters are paying attention, but he should be a bit nervous that he seems to have plateaued a bit. On the other hand, maybe some of us amateur Obama supporters are too nervous; Obama may rightly feel that he first needs to establish an affirmative identity before launching a direct attack on the front runner.
June 4, 2007 10:10 AM | Reply | Permalink
FWIW, I liked this debate much more than the MSNBC one. It was clearly more substantive. I thought Hillary did very well, and I also agree with Chuck Todd about Obama being the most improved. Edwards kind of got on my nerves, frankly.
June 4, 2007 10:27 AM | Reply | Permalink
It seemed to me that Blitzer focused to a great degree on the three front runners, to the detriment of the second tier candidates. Even the physical positions of the candidates on the stage seemed to reinforce their relative horse-race positions, with Hillary in the middle, flanked by Obama and Edwards (making for "dramatic" tv shots of Hillary-Obama, or Hillary-Edwards). The second-tier candidates were on the edges of the stage and were also called on for answers less frequently - if I were involved with their campaigns I'd be pretty angry about that. In fact, as an undecided, I'm pretty angry about that. We're still way over a year from the actual election - for Wolf Blitzer and CNN to be crowning the frontrunners now seems very premature. Dodd's graphic above says it all.
One aspect of last night's format was very good: the candidates were required to actually answer the question - if they attempted to use the time to talk about some other unrelated issue they were stopped and brought back to the original question. I thought that was a very good thing and look forward to the same rule being applied in the eventual debates between the Democratic and Republican candidates.
Know your enemy well, for in the end that is who you become. ~~Old Chinese Proverb
June 4, 2007 10:53 AM | Reply | Permalink
I very much agree with you. As her vote opposing the Levin amendment contradicts this assertion.
What I see happening is that it is Edwards who initiates the 'attacks' on the opponents as he is in last place, this forces the other two to respond to his aggression. I like this. Obama is no wimp, he simply does not initiate 'conflict'. I would like to see Obama take Hillary 'on' on this issue as well. I believe he is more of a dialogue person and has now improved in terms of the debate format when it comes to rebuttals.
What we need is for him to improve on assertions. He should certainly demand that Hillary square not voting for the Levin amendment which set out diplomacy as a the first option prior to receiving any AUMF yet she claims she believed that Bush was going to use diplomacy. If she truly beleived that then why did she not insist on it by voting for the Levin amendment?
I am pleased with the progress Obama has made for this forum style. I do not expect it to become his most effective style as it does not fit his deliberative thinking process and simultaneous analysis post a query. Hillary simply gives canned answers and shapes the query to encompass an already known talking point she has. However, Obama certainly improved on clarity and stating things more quickly.
Obama has a hard time doing this as he seldom has pre-conceived ideas about handling situations and issues. He is always receptive to new information that may need to be considered prior to an artificial retort like Hillary has mastered. Edwards is fluent in this format having mastered courtroom tactic to sway a jury. He knows how to go for the jugular appropriately in a non alienating manner that gets folks on his side.
Edwards and Obama both need to both focus on Hillary not each other in these debates, that is the only way to force Hillary out of her 'frontrunner status quo' demeanor where she acts like the leader and attempts to shape the overall philosophy of the entire Democratic field. ala...we have minor differences between us but major differences against the GOP field. If they both tag-team Hillary in these debate forum if will be impressive, masterful and Presidential most of all the democratic field will see what it is like to actually have two front runners who care about this country and they will become the desired ticket vs. Hillary.
Hillary's responses are against the GOP she does not even attempt to address her primary opponents. Thus, she was the only one attacking Bush and saying this was 'his war and she should not have trusted him. All of that is a general election strategy and presumes she is the democratic presidential nominee who need not deign to even consider the present field as competition meriting her distinguishing herself...after all she seems to say...'we are all alike and I am the frontrunner of the bunch so you guys have made me the choice from amongst us'
If Edwards and Obama attack her points in the debate she will be rattled and become shrill. What the public will see is how she is not collaborative and she will lose points big times. Imagine her head swiveling back and forth between those two last night as if she is an Exorcist..having to rebut on the left and the right constantly..heheheheheee
Both the Edwards and Obama campaign should strategically target Hillary as the one to demolish. Hillary should have to spend the rest of the primary season responding to attacks from both their camps to expose her as the worst possible nominee. Why wait for the GOP to do it? Once they knock her off frontrunner status the nomination process will become wide open making both of these guys the Presidential contenders.
The vast majority of the Democratic primary voters would very much like to see that happen. It saves us and the Democratic party from once again being dragged through the mud with Clinton drama. The number of Democrats who do not want to see Hillary at the head of the ticket far outweighs the number who are nostalic for Bill in the WH.
Obama and Edwards need to strategize and do what is in the best interest of the country and Democratic party. Knock Clinton off front runner status and then they can make the race about which of them heads the ticket.
Someone has got to step up from amongst this field and do the job of pushing her off the top of the field, Obama has the money, Edwards has the tactics and Dodd has shown he will step up and lead.
Who's it gonna be guys?
June 4, 2007 11:05 AM | Reply | Permalink
leon, imo, you need to get over Hillary being confronted on her vote, especially if you somehow believe that might change her answer.
Over 80% of the public supported Bush on Iraq, and the huge majority of them, especially Independents and moderate Republicans, now feel they were fooled by Bush too.
I personally find her answer perfectly plausible -- "Bush lied, people died." If that answer doesn't satisfy you, you have a right to that opinion.
But I think those of you who aren't going to vote for Clinton because of her Iraq vote need to do just do that... and move on. Don't vote for her! And don't vote for her in the general either, if that helps you feel better.
But the demands by people who don't support her are just starting to get boring. She already told you the solution to your angst -- Don't vote for her.
As of now, she's the front-runner, and those of us who support her aren't asking her to back off her determination to hold BUSH accountable for HIS miserable decisions. In fact, I personally applaud her answer.
June 4, 2007 11:09 AM | Reply | Permalink
I realize this was only highlighted as an alleged zinger against Edwards, but mostly this quote from Clinton reminds me of her "yes" vote on allowing George Bush to start a war with Iraq. If Clinton wanted to brag about "casting votes that actually make a difference" maybe she should have voted differently back then when it actually could have made a difference.
June 4, 2007 11:19 AM | Reply | Permalink
It's not just about her really bad judgment on the Iraq use of force vote, it's also significant when looking how her flawed judgment might be used in the future ... i.e. her judgement on the use of force against Iran..
We also have Putin now threatening Europe because of the US MIC playing wargames. She's more obsessed about little Israel than what's happening in the rest of the world.
I can image it now... the Hillary look cast on Putin as they try and talk diplomacy... wow! that's gonna to work -- Not.
June 4, 2007 11:55 AM | Reply | Permalink
So... again, don't vote for Hillary Clinton. No one is going to hold that against you.
Do you know what I mean when I encourage you to advocate for your own candidate?
Look at your message:
Bash Clinton / Vote for ????
Sorry, not my kind of politics.
June 4, 2007 12:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
freespeak, very well put.
June 4, 2007 12:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
John Edwards couldn't be trying more desperately to be Bobby Kennedy. I would offer up the "You're no Bobby Kennedy" refrain, but it's a cliche by now.
June 4, 2007 12:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
I don't think she should apologize. I'm not one of those obsessives. I simply think she should not confabulate and reinvent her position. That's Orwellian. It's a character flaw, not a policy flaw. You may find it surprising that I agree that a vote for the war resolution is not disqualifying. Confabulating about it, pretending the voters are dummies, and assuming that you won't be called out on your dissembling when it really matters in the general election, are real problems.
June 4, 2007 12:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
Her vote is not going to go away, however much she and her supporters may wish it would. It's a huge wart in the middle of her forehead and pretending it's not there is probably not the best strategy.
I'm always slightly amused when the supporters of a particular candidate start whining that -GASP!!!- their candidate is being criticized during a presidential election.
For my part, I'm currently an Obama supporter. I'm trying to imagine myself whining that people keep questioning Obama's lack of experience. But I'm not going to whine about that because, like Clinton's vote, it's fair game for discussion. Like Clinton's vote, it should be debated. Like Clinton's vote, it is not going to go away.
Yes, I'm sure you'd like us all to move on. Like Bush supporters always roll their eyes whenever the topic of nonexistent WMD's comes up. Move on, already, they often say. Bush's lies don't matter they say, what matters is what we do now. Clinton's vote doesn't matter, her supporters say, what matters is what we do now.
But back in reality both of those things matter, Bush's lies and Clinton's vote.
Of course, Bush never makes any mistakes. Neither does Clinton. Just ask their supporters.
June 4, 2007 12:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
But out of all those millions of Americans, only Hillary was unaware George Bush was going to war.
On style, I think it is reasonable to say Hillary won the debate.
On substance, blah.
Both the best answer - and perhaps the worst - answers were supplied by Kucinich. He stuck it straight to the others over national health insurance. His answer on taking out bin Laden had a resonance with me but I doubt many others. Agreed it was a goofball question in the style of Wolf Blitzer. Hillary even did a good job calling out Blitzer on his questions.
Best, Terry
June 4, 2007 2:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
My moniker is "freespeak" and you can whine about Clinton's Iraq vote as much as your heart desires. My point is, if I whine about Obama's "lack of experience" does it do any good? In addition, please note that I DON'T come here whining about Obama's lack of experience. Why? Because I'm going to VOTE for Obama if Hillary doesn't get the nomination. You say her vote is "not going away" but what does that mean? She's the front-runner; it HAS gone away, except for people who are still pissed about it. She told those people to vote for someone else. You are. What more do you need?
June 4, 2007 3:40 PM | Reply | Permalink
I mean that it will remain an issue as long as she is a candidate because of the way she has handled it. She was asked about it again in last night's debate. If she's the nominee, she will be asked about it in the general election.
Essentially, her handling of it has made it an issue, whereas John Edwards has defused the issue for himself as best he can by stating the obvious: voting for authorization was clearly a mistake.
I need a Democratic nominee that I can support, and one that can win in the general election. Part of the process of choosing a nominee is to debate their strengths and weaknesses. That's all I'm trying to do here. I think her vote and the way she handled it is an important issue. I think her "yes" vote shows a lack of judgement. I think her handling of her vote shows a lack of integrity. And overall I think it is an issue that will carry over into the general election and will be a factor in her defeat.
June 4, 2007 5:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
At this point... as each day passes GORE is the only one that I believe can do the job and take on the republicans as a DEMOCRAT.
Hillary is dead in the water -- dead... because she's trying a little too hard to be a republican to the republicans -- but it's just not going to work. She left her clan, missed the boat a long time ago - as Christine Todd Whitman found out. Plus, Hillary is really really pissing off the Democratic base that are not republican lemmings and can see right through her.
Out of the 'current' three, I was impressed with Edward showing some spine against the growing corporate democratic cabal. Obama I have my concerns. Credit card Biden == a different funding stream than DLC Clinton, but nonetheless wouldn't put it past him to have negotiated a job, some kickback in a Clinton Dynastic/Carlyle/MIC administration.
Richardson... nah.
So what is your kind of politics -- Republican?
June 4, 2007 5:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
May I ask what issue you are "debating" here?
I can only see that you are demanding Clinton give you something that she has already said she is not going to give you. You're "debating" an issue that isn't there, because she's already told you herself that she is not your candidate.
You say her vote is still an issue and it will continue to be an issue and will never go away. How do you measure that statement? Is there another Democrat ahead of her? Are you promising us that she won't get the Democratic nomination?
I appreciate that you don't trust her or think she has integrity because of her Iraq vote. I get it. You're not voting for her. But the fact is, she is NOT going to be blaming anyone but Bush for invading Iraq, no matter how much you want her to blame herself. So, now what?
If Clinton has the most support of any of the candidates, even though we all know her Iraq vote and her refusal to apologize for it, what/who are you now debating?
June 4, 2007 5:59 PM | Reply | Permalink
And, btw, Hillary Clinton's vote "keeps getting brought up" -- by John Edwards. John Edwards has dutifully apologized for his vote... and it doesn't seem to have done him a darn bit of good.
June 4, 2007 6:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
Just noticed your question about my politics.
Well, I'm a charter member of MoveOn.org
I took all my vacation time and left home for a month in order to volunteer for Al Gore.
In order, in 2004, I worked for: Bob Graham, then Howard Dean, then John Edwards, then John Kerry in the order my candidates left the Presidential race.
I worked for Paul Hodes in 2008, helping to turn my state of New Hampshire blue, and the House Democratic.
I went to CT and tried my best for Ned Lamont.
And I went down to VA to volunteer for Jim Webb in the last days of the campaign, which I hope helped Democrats take the Senate.
So, is it okay with you if I support Senator Clinton in the Democratic Primaries?
June 4, 2007 7:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
You can do what you like
...but if you have supported all those candidates, presuming you actually researched those candidates (unless you are attached to AIPAC in some way, or a paid member of a campaign) -- then I truly think it strange, inconsistent that you are so attached to Hillary?
I'm a relatively new member of MoveOn, but now after meeting some of their coordinators I'm beginning to have my doubts on MoveOn's agenda as well (unfortunately).
June 4, 2007 7:42 PM | Reply | Permalink
I think it's a straw man that most of us choosing among Democrats in the primary are fixated on an apology per se. Whether we more admire Edward's noble desire to admit and correct an error, or Hillary's strength in refusing to shift the focus from Bush, there are certainly plausible political motivations for the former's mea culpa and the latter's lack thereof.
But one need only stop by this site occasionally to see that it is not just Edwards or anti-Hillary partisans who keeps bringing up that infamous vote to authorize the war. How each Senator/candidate voted in general, whether they supported the Levin Amendment, whether they were diligent enough to scrutinize the actual NIE before they voted etc. all provide some insight into how seriously and skeptically they responded to Bush's rush to war. The substance and timing of their criticisms, proposals and insights once the war began are obviously important, too. How long did it take Hillary (and others) to gradually become anti-Iraq War candidates? What does ending the war mean to each candidate and what will it look like on the ground?
Some of us have clear favorite candidates and cannot (at least for now) stomach certain alternatives. But it seems most of us are still evaluating the field. Interest in one candidate does not preclude interest in another and we have a lot of time to change our minds.
For what it's worth, I like Hillary overall but have some serious doubts about her (and others') poor judgement and questionable priorities in voting to authorize the war.
The stakes are far too high in the general election for me to ever consider withholding my vote from the Democratic Nominee. But if Hillary's (and your) response to questions about her vote are essentially: "we already heard you, drop it, go vote for somebody else", then is it any wonder our reaction is somehere between offended and unimpressed?
And if you your point is that people who have chosen a candidate should make their case, then make the case for Hillary's judgement in voting to authorize the war. From my perspective, her decision to do so was either overly naive or overly cynical, and either way something of an abdication of responsibility.
June 4, 2007 8:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
How many of the leading candidates went to law school?
Yipes. Is there a name for "rule by lawyers"? Tortocracy?
June 4, 2007 9:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
Fine with me if you support Brownback but I do find it odd you support Hillary with your most admirable record.
The leaders of the Enlightenment thought Catherine the Great was an ideal ruler. There are some mysteries of the human mind beyond the ken of rational analysis.
Best, Terry
June 4, 2007 10:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
Assassinate Osama, instead of prosecute him. COuld it be because there's not enough evidence to convict on the day after Sept. 10th?
They can get him for the first WTC bombing connections(Fitz trial established as much) that should be sufficient.
Then why is he not on the FBI ten most wanted list?
June 5, 2007 8:31 AM | Reply | Permalink
Maybe it would be useful to read what Hillary actually said before casting her vote.
Here are snippets from Hillary Clinton's October 10, 2002, senate floor speech, made just prior to the vote authorizing the use of armed force against Iraq.
================================
Today we are asked whether to give the President of the United States authority to use force in Iraq should diplomatic efforts fail to dismantle Saddam Hussein's chemical and biological weapons and his nuclear program.
- - - - -
I also greatly respect the differing opinions within this body. The debate they engender will aid our search for a wise, effective policy. Therefore, on no account should dissent be discouraged or disparaged. It is central to our freedom and to our progress, for on more than one occasion, history has proven our great dissenters to be right.
- - - - -
Some people favor attacking Saddam Hussein now, with any allies we can muster, in the belief that one more round of WEAPONS INSPECTIONS would not produce the required disarmament, and that deposing Saddam would be a positive good for the Iraqi people and would create the possibility of a secular democratic state in the Middle East, one which could perhaps move the entire region toward democratic reform.
This view has appeal to some, because it would assure disarmament; because it would right old wrongs after our abandonment of the Shiites and Kurds in 1991, and our support for Saddam Hussein in the 1980's when he was using chemical weapons and terrorizing his people; and because it would give the Iraqi people a chance to build a future in freedom.
However, this course is FRAUGHT with DANGER.
- - - - -
If we were to attack Iraq now, alone or with few allies, it would set a precedent that could come back to HAUNT us.
- - - - -
So Mr. President, for all its appeal, a unilateral attack, while it cannot be ruled out, on the present facts is NOT a good option.
- - - - -
While there is no perfect approach to this thorny dilemma, and while people of good faith and high intelligence can reach diametrically opposed conclusions, I believe the best course is to go to the UN for a strong resolution that scraps the 1998 restrictions on inspections and calls for COMPLETE, UNLIMITED INSPECTIONS with COOPERATION EXPECTED and DEMANDED from Iraq. I know that the Administration wants more, including an explicit authorization to use force, but we may not be able to secure that now, perhaps even later. But if we get a clear requirement for UNFETTERED INSPECTIONS, I believe the authority to use force to enforce that mandate is inherent in the original 1991 UN resolution, as President Clinton recognized when he launched Operation Desert Fox in 1998.
If we get the resolution that President Bush seeks, and if Saddam complies, disarmament can proceed and the threat can be eliminated. Regime change will, of course, take longer but we must still work for it, nurturing all reasonable forces of opposition.
- - - - -
If we try and fail to get a resolution that simply, but forcefully, calls for Saddam's compliance with UNLIMITED INSPECTIONS, those who oppose even that will be in an indefensible position.
- - - - -
Even though the resolution before the Senate is not as strong as I would like in requiring the DIPLOMATIC ROUTE FIRST and placing highest priority on a simple, clear requirement for UNLIMITED INSPECTIONS, I will take the President at his word that he will try hard to pass a UN resolution and will seek to AVOID war, if at all possible.
- - - - -
I urge the President to spare no effort to secure a clear, unambiguous demand by the United Nations for UNLIMITED INSPECTIONS.
- - - - -
A vote for it is NOT a vote to RUSH to war; it is a vote that puts awesome responsibility in the hands of our President and we say to him - use these powers wisely and as a LAST resort. And it is a vote that says clearly to Saddam Hussein - this is your last chance - disarm or be disarmed.
- - - - -
[emphasis added]
http://clinton.senate.gov/speeches/iraq_101002.html
June 5, 2007 12:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
Giving you the benefit of the doubt.
When you compare what she said vs. how she voted (the topic of which has been discussed here many times) her words appear hollow, weak and maybe even dishonest when you looked at the way she voted on amendments that would have made sure Bush would have followed her diplomatic and logical instructions.
However, in the end she freely, happily gave him the loaded gun -- basically giving a loaded gun to a madman... -- why?
June 5, 2007 4:40 PM | Reply | Permalink
So, I guess we can put you down as a "no" as far as supporting Hillary.
Glad we got that cleared up.
June 5, 2007 4:44 PM | Reply | Permalink