Hillary Clinton, can we get some answers please?

[ultraist]

Run time: 00:59 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bygAResnA2c   Posted on YouTube: November 07, 2007 By YouTube Member: Views on YouTube: 0   Posted on DU: November 07, 2007 By DU Member: ultraist Views on DU: 3260

 

Where does Hillary Clinton really stand on the Spitzer Bill and Immigration?

Iraq?

Social Security?

The Peru Free Trade Agreement?

Americans deserve straight answers---not double talk.

[waiting for hope]

1. This is great - all you have to do is pull

video up and bam! there it is. Thanks! K&R!

[pioneer111]

2. Hillary is really trying hard not to answer the question

And she still hasn't answered it. She wants to keep Spitzer onside but she is afraid
that this will be used against her in the GE. So we will have her governing by poll results.

This is so dangerous for the Democrats. Edwards is the right choice. :kick:

[sparkleon]

3. Don't Hold Your Breath

on getting a straight answer from Hillary. Depending how the wind blows Hillary's answers are not consistent!

[ProfessorPlum]

4. In Hillary's defense

(god, I never thought I would be typing that), I don't think that being the nominee should hinge on having the perfect answer to the messy immigration question. The floundering is embarrassing, but I couldn't give a crap about what Clinton thinks about Spitzer's plan. Do the people asking the question even know what Spitzer's plan consists of, or how it is predicted to effect the lives of citizens and non-citizens? How then to judge her stance on this?

Let's not give the media a Gordian Knot with which to bludgeon all of our candidates.

[ultraist]

5. It's not just the Spitzer plan that she is waffling on

She has also not been clear on her plan to end the war in Iraq, for example. She has said she wants to end it but then said she intends on continuing combat missions. To continue combat missions is to continue war.

Also, on Social Security, she gave one answer at a townhall and a different answer at the last debate.

And, where does she stand on the Peru Free Trade Agreement? We have yet to hear from her on it. That's not leadership.

Voters have a right to know where Hillary stands on the issues. If she cannot stand up to the scrutiny of a primary election, she will get bludgeoned in the general election. We'll end up with another Republican President.

Weak candidates should get weeded out now, during the primary. We cannot afford to lose the WH during the GE. There is too much at stake.

[ProfessorPlum]

7. Yes, exactly

I do oppose her on her waffles for clearer issues, like the war.

I guess the (depressing) question is: does this kind of waffling make her a weak candidate or a strong candidate? People say they hate phoney, waffling politicians, and then continue to elect them.

I too, hope she doesn't win the nomination. But I do think this one issue is a bogus one. Does the base of the Democratic party (or even the GOP for that matter) have a "right answer" on it? No. On the war, on permanent bases in Iraq, on torture, yes, and they media ought to have her pursue those issues fully.

[ultraist]

13. Having two positions on one issue is a problem

The problem lies with the fact she has taken two positions on this one Spitzer issue.

Some candidates oppose it while others support it. Edwards opposes the Spitzer plan.

We still don't know where Hillary stands. If a candidate cannot articulate where they stand on the issues, they will get roasted in the general election.

Furthemore, immigration likely will be somewhat of a wedge issue in the general election.

[creeksneakers2]

18. Edwards doesn't exactly oppose the Spitzer plan

Edwards also says that the states should decide and his disagreement with the licenses is only his personal view, nothing that he will act on. Edwards fuzzes it up more by saying that those immigrants who are on the path to legal citizen ship should be able to get licenses. Then Edwards says the real answer is national immigration reform, which is the same thing Hillary said that Edwards smeared her about.

The only difference between Edwards and Hillary is that Edwards has teamed up with the right wing to distort what Hillary says to push by constant repetition the falsehood that Hillary is evasive. Hillary hasn't done anything like that to Edwards.

[JDPriestly]

30. Edwards is very honest about his answer to this complex question.

Hillary answers out of both sides of her mouth without connecting her two answers in any coherent way. She is not thinking clearly. She is talking without thinking about what she is saying. She lacks humility. It makes her dishonest. She wants to have the "right answer" or at least appear to have the "right answer" on any question she is asked. As a result she is inconsistent. She wants to hedge her bets on Iraq also. She knows she can't get elected if she presents a solid plan to withdraw American troops from contract and let Iraqis decide for themselves what happens to their country. But then, she is afraid to commit herself to such a plan. So she equivocates and doesn't really say what she will do about Iraq. It's really troubling.

I think she is not being her own woman. She is allowing herself to be handled. Huge mistake.

[Apollo11]

33. I agree - Edwards is also trying to take both sides of this issue

If you go to the abcnews website and watch the full interview with John Edwards on last Sunday's This Week with George S. - you will see that Edwards position is very close to what Hillary has been saying.

They both understand what Spitzer is trying to do in New York. They both think States should be able to give drivers licences to non-citizens. They are both calling for national immigration reform.

I don't see the difference between Hillary's and Edwards' positions on this issue.

People who have seen me around her on DU will know that I am not a Hillary fan.

But I don't like to see one of our candidates being unfairly attacked by another.

Given the facts, I think the video in the OP is just childish name-calling.

[ultraist]

44. Edwards does oppose the Spitzer Plan

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WVVChO-3yoA

Does Hillary? We still don't know.

[creeksneakers2]

49. We know what Hillary supports

Hillary said the day after the debate, October 31, 2007 that she supports Spitzer's plan.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,307247,00.html

Six days later, Edwards is still lying about Hillary not choosing sides. Hillary does say she doesn't agree with all the details of the Spitzer plan. So what?

The video you linked to is so misleading that I have to consider it fraudulent. It cuts out 95% of Edwards' answer to the driver's license question to make it look like Edwards just gave a simple black and white answer. For the real answer, see ABC This Week website.

More on Edwards and his double talking from MSNBC First Read:

EDWARDS: No one -- outside of the RNC -- has been more critical of Clinton's answer from last week's debate about illegal immigration than Edwards. His campaign has released two attack Web videos mocking Clinton's non-answer on the issue. But the Politico notes that "his own position on the issue is also incoherent, experts say."

“‘He supports licenses as part of a path to citizenship. He doesn't support the Spitzer plan because it doesn't include a path to citizenship,’ said Edwards' deputy campaign manager Jonathan Prince in an e-mail referring to the New York governor’s plan that prompted the question that flummoxed Clinton. ‘That's not a rational position — Eliot Spitzer couldn't ever offer somebody a path to citizenship,’ said Margie McHugh, the Co-Director of the National Center on Immigrant Integration Policy at the Migration Policy Institute, which favors immigration reform.”

“‘I don't know if they think you're stupid or what they think,’ said Frank Sharry, the executive director of the National Immigration Forum, another broadly pro-immigration policy shop. Sharry laughed aloud when read Prince’s statement of Edwards’ position.”

And apparently Edwards has flipped on the issue of ending combat missions in Iraq. "Edwards, who has been highlighting his differences with Hillary Clinton on the Iraq war, acknowledged today that he also would continue combat missions against Al Qaeda in Iraq -- but from bases outside the country. He told Globe editors, however, that ending the permanent combat military presence in Iraq -- what he calls an occupation -- is a significant distinction between him and the front-runner for the Democratic presidential nomination."

http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2007/11/08/454984.aspx

[FREEWILL56]

27. She does make a stand on one thing only.

To be consistent in being inconsistent. This boils down to no stand on anything and makes her not only a risk, but full of it too imho. She does stand for stuff and I see it in her voting in the senate. We do have more candidates to vote for than 1 as this is the primaries and she hasn't won squat yet in spite of internet and msm strongarming us in various nonphysical ways and that includes polls.

[JeanGrey]

36. I think we might be a little short sighted here. The immigration

issue, like it or not, is huge, and a high priority on many voter agendas. Look what happened when they tried to get amnesty pushed through not to long ago. The majority of people went ballistic and sent so many threats in to their elected officials they backed off. This is definitely not a win win for Hillary.

[FREEWILL56]

37. This is not being shortsighted.

You don't keep rewarding people here illegally because you failed in stopping them from coming here in the first place especially after 9-11. None of the presidents have really done this, but let's face it, at one time people coming here wasn't a threat either and this country can't hold the world within its borders. Those that are here now are because there is no such thing as Homeland Security with proper border controls. It's just one big excuse to run bigtime pork to all of the republicans and corporations out there that bushco deems their buds. We are not anywhere near being more secure and their efforts seem to be screwing up the airlines while inconveniencing passengers almost to the point of their freedoms being violated while the fed shores up the airlines financially too. I see nothing much being done along other lines such as any other public transportations let alone power plants, chemical plants, etc. either. It is in the interest of national security I would think to not only stop people entering or staying illegally, but to also go after those that are here along with the efforts in keeping them out. No, bush thought getting Iraqi oil is more important than our security or safety and hillary comes along backing a joke of a bandaide solution to it. That rewards them and doesn't make us safer as more incentives are then being given to allow more to come without repercussions. It's out of hand purely because the people in our government are failing to do their jobs. Yes, it is a big task, but we could've done so if we weren't chasing after nonthreats to this country because of their own greed and lust for power. This in no way prevents somebody from legally coming here as it would now go through channels and be made to be kept track of. This government does more to track and know of its own citizens more than it attempts to know of those they are even aware of entering this country legally. WTF? People entering here illegally is a big problem they don't address and hillary should've known better than to insult the intelligence of fellow Democrats with such an assinine solution that makes W look smart. At least the W is thinking a big fence. We need more common sense here about matters of this importance and a few are coming up with common sense. Shortsighted on our part about her? I think not.

[JeanGrey]

60. I disagree. The vast majority of public opinion, right or wrong,

in this country is anti-illegals. She should be careful.

[creeksneakers2]

19. The two answers on Social Security myth is debunked

http://mediamatters.org/items/200711030002?f=s_search
Hillary did not give two different answers.



Here's what Hillary's position is really about:

Hillary isn't pledging anything until she balances the budget. That's a courageous stand. The GOP is pulling a hoax by claiming that there is a social security problem. What we actually have is a debt problem, which includes but is not mainly money owed to SS. Hillary wants to balance the budget, which will reduce future debt, so the future taxpayers will have to spend less and can afford to pay off the debt to social security. That's the only real solution, other than cutting benefits.

Democrats should have never conceded that there is a social security problem. Not only are the SS problems a hoax, Democrats saying there is a problem validate the GOP hoax. That's what Hillary says she won't do.

The GOP got away with stepping on the third rail of American politics because they can say,"Something has to be done about Social Security and we are the only ones stepping up to the plate."

[JDPriestly]

31. The lives and wellbeing of millions of seniors has to take

precedence over balancing the budget. Seniors and small children do not have the choices that people have during their "earning years." Social Security payments have to be made, and then the budget can be balanced.

It is a matter of survival for people on Social Security. This is not a discretionary matter.

Social Security pays out very little to individual recipients. For most people, the monthly stipends are very small compared to what a person needs to survive. And those seniors who have other sources of income pay taxes on their Social Security as well as the other sources of income. So, Social Security benefits should not be cut. They need to be increased to keep up with the true inflation.

[creeksneakers2]

50. Hillary is not suggesting balancing the budget by cutting SS

She says we have to balance the budget. Then we can look at SS.

[JDPriestly]

29. The problem isn't the floundering.

It's Hillary's inability to say that the the issue is complex and she isn't sure about it. It's her lack of humility and honesty about herself. Truth is, there is no simple answer to this question.

[Egalia]

6. Immigrants are the new gays

This issue is going to trip up all the Dems in 2008. Republicans have found their new "wedge" issue, and this is it. Edwards has also hemmed and hawed over this one.

On Meet the Press, Edwards said that his position is exactly the same as Hillary's position. (Yet he criticizes her position elsewhere.)

The GOP will use this one against whomever.

[Skip Intro]

8. What bs. Edwards just lost any chance for my vote with this unfair attack.

She's saying she understands the pressures on the states to do something about the problem, but that a solotion at the federal level is what is needed. She said it clearly, and it's quite understandable to anyone who is actually listening.

Edwards has dug his own political grave with the smear attacks. He represents a big problem with our system. He is no solution.

[maddiejoan]

9. This galls me as well.

She is clearly answering the question.

I don't see how her answer is unclear... but I understood her at the debate last week as well.

[sallyseven]

14. People will hear and see whatever they think they

should. I too took my name off of Edwards list of supporters because of his nasty obnoxious comments. He had no proof and no plan of his own that he would articulate then and there. No one will know how bad things are until they get elected and open the garbage dump of george bush's transgressions. She knows that she cannot put out statements that can be thrown back, and they will be thrown back, by the pundits. We will be going thru a year of "on July 1, you said this and on Oct 1 you said that". Timmy's bull s t gotcha routine. Don't vote for her but she is the best one to win. DK is not going to win, wonderful as he is, Obama is black and the repuks and people like Matthews and Abrams know that he will be savaged by the repuks with the whispering campaign. Look what happened to Harold Ford. Even the East and many blue stats have prejudice people walking into the voting booth. I have watched many debates in my lifetime but never such a debate as last week. The moderator acted like he hated her and the ass wipes on the stage encouraged him. shame on them all.
shame on them all.

[ultraist]

11. Edwards campaign did not produce this video

I did. I am not a campaign staffer, just an independent blogger.

[maddiejoan]

15. Don't quit your day job

n/t

[Inspired]

22. I think the video in enlightening. n/t

[azmesa207]

16. I produced

this video and I think it stinks all Edwards and Obama did was repeat republican talking points just like your Video

[creeksneakers2]

20. Where is the entire answer in context?

How do the two snippets picked out contradict one another?

[Skip Intro]

23. Context? From a Hillary-basher? That's a good one.

and the snips don't contradict each other - it's just spin...no "there" there


pathetic, isn't it?

[JDPriestly]

32. Hillary says that she agrees with Spitzer and that the solution

should be uniform across the nation and she approves of what governors of states who favor giving licenses to illegals are doing. Then she says she doesn't agree with it.

Edwards says he believes states should decide individually what to do about licenses, and in addition and separately we need immigration reform. Edwards' stance is consistent. Hillary's is not.

[creeksneakers2]

56. Its possible to support something while not agreeing to all the

details, or think its the best alternative under current conditions but that conditions could be improved to provide better alternatives.

Edwards says let the states decide but he says his own opinion is different and that he's against Spitzer's plan but wouldn't be if the plan only applied to immigrants who are seeking legal status. Edwards says it all ought to be part of comprehensive immigration reform, which would limit the states he pretended to give the decision making to.

[Veracious]

34. E D W A R D S 08!!!!!!!!

Give me a breaks E D W A R D S is not attacking Hillary he is attacking her position on policies! I'm dam pro womens rights! But I am absolutely sick of women thinking Hillary is the right choice because of her gender! Polls are showing that DEMOCRAT men will not vote for her! WE have to WIN this election. Edwards can win southern independent voters and men Hillary can't. She is a big big big big RISK!

[dk2]

10. I love it!

WE need plenty more just like this. People meet the real Hillary Clinton!

[okamichan13]

12. I'm sure Hillary

will provide some content for stuff like this soon :)

[leftchick]

17. very well done

:applause:

[creeksneakers2]

21. Hillary's position on Iraq is far clearer than Edwards'

Both candidates want to continue combat missions. Edwards would just move the bases to Kuwait and force the poor troops to carry all their equipment, go without cots and hot meals, and have no protected base to sleep in. Either Edwards is flat out lying when he says no combat or he's flat out lying when he says he'll still use troops to go after Al Qaeda.

Hillary will have a position on the Peru trade deal soon. Trade with Peru is just a tiny fraction of our trade. Democrats, including the Democratic leadership support the treaty because it contains protections for workers and the environment. The AFL-CIO supports the deal. Edwards is once again trying to distort what's happening so he can play up to the Hillary haters.

[Veracious]

35. Edwards WILL End Combat missions Hillary wont.

Edwards has said he will end combat missions. Hillary will not.

[creeksneakers2]

51. That isn't true.

See my post #49.

[bpeale]

43. we have protected bases in kuwait & they have been there for decades

no troop will be dragging a cot behind them or going without regular hot meals or water. your argument is specious at best & smacks of the republican argument that democrats "don't take care of the troops" which is bullshit. no matter where troops go, they have to carry all their equipment, otherwise how would their equipment get there? do you think they have a cruise liner all lined up to carry their stuff for them? be real. been there & done that & know how it goes when you move out.

[creeksneakers2]

57. Equipment gets to bases by repeated transport

and its accumulated over time. It comes in trucks and transport planes. Edwards wants to run combat missions out of Kuwait which will obviously last for more than an afternoon. Troops can't haul all the comforts.

Why do they have MREs? Because kitchens can't easily follow troops.

You can compare what I say to Republicans but its obvious Edwards is more concerned with being able to con people into thinking he's going to end the war than with the comfort and safety of the troops.

[bpeale]

59. look, WAR IS NOT COMFORTABLE

it's part & parcel of the job they signed up for. i say this from the standpoint of someone who has actually been in that type of situation in the military. you do what you have to do. that's life. you obviously have no idea how the military works.

[MannyGoldstein]

24. Her Position Is Crystal Clear!

She's for it and against it.

Whatever it is.

[swag]

25. Nice! The main video on DU is a Republican campaign ad.

Keep goin', boys!

Heaven forfend anyone should discuss the substance or nuances of an issue. Let Lou Dobbs and his nativist friends sort it out all with petulant slogans.

Lather, rinse, repeat on the DU homepage.

[Skip Intro]

28. You NAILED it. Wish I wasn't seeing what I am here. n/t

[ronnykmarshall]

47. What else is new?

I'm tempted to go out and find an anti Edwards or Obama clip from YouTube and see how long it lasts.

Who needs freepers?

[ultraist]

45. I'm not a "boy"

Interesting assumption of all "boys" which is generally considered to be sexist.

I am a woman.

[swag]

46. I was referring to the admins.

[defendandprotect]

26. Where does the Council on Foreign Relations stand . . . ????

[CGrantt57]

38. I see the trolls are busy lately.

Don't you republicans have anything better to do?

[benny05]

52. Poster has been a donor star of the DU since at least 2004

Whereas you have 198 posts and haven't donated to this site. I think it would be wise for a newbie not to call an old timer a kool-aid drinker.

[Auggie]

39. You don't think the independent voter will see right through Clinton's double talk?

I do. It's a huge liability for the Democratic Party, especially coming from a "supposed" front-runner.

[sallyseven]

40. You really don't want to know.

You just want to complain. I wouldn't vote for a person who had the answer right away without thinking. That is a george bush trait. Things change and who wants to hear whiney but you said, two years ago. Don't vote for her if your that childish. A lot of us will.

[benny05]

41. This is pretty funny

Doesn't one laugh at something when there's some truth to it?

:rofl:

[L0oniX]

42. mmmm ...nice waffle ...pass the butter, syrup and blue berries please.

[The M Double]

48. Hillary

Is Bush without the skirt...

Bush / Clinton / Bush again / Clinton again? - Not this voter!

[Chichibabin]

53. These terrific clips on Hillary

Rang really true for me:

Hillary on fundraising: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fS-P71J6rIs

Hillary on the war: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2cJpFGyEgfA

[LaloBorges]

54. What is so great about it?

With friends like this, who needs enemies?

I like the fact that Democratic Underground bloggers are doing the Repubs work much easier. Come, please more videos ridiculing the democratic candidates, please...

This place is turning into an anti-Hillary site and I would like to know what are you all going to do when she DOES become the nominee? Are you going to vote republican?

I may not like some of her choices but she is, by far, the best candidate for the democrats and not to mention the repubs. I don't see anyone saying anything about Obama complaining about the new laws that have been introduced against the mining industry which he finds to hard...

I understand that many of you like Edwards, and although I did like him, I now feel that he has become like any other politician going after Hillary (not trying to defend her, mind you) and has shown his class in doing it. He has taken on rebub tactics, "trash the oponent".

[Chichibabin]

55. When did criticizing Hillary become being "anti-Hillary"?

I am not "anti-Hillary"; I simply will not vote for her. This all-or-nothing, black-or-while rhetoric is typical of neo-cons and the Christian right, not us -- so let's all check ourselves a bit here. Many of us who reflect on her policies, her softshoe, her fundraising, her past, her divisiveness etc. do not think Hillary is "the best candidate for the Democrats." And until someone tells me what John Edwards did "consulting" for a massive hedge fund incorporated in the Caymans -- and good luck with that -- I will not vote for him either.

Luckily for me, "not voting" for these two has been made easier by the candidacy Barack Obama -- someone we can vote FOR, whose policies, judgment, and leadership are going to redeem our country and pull us out of this immature politics of "anti-".

[creeksneakers2]

58. I complain about criticism

that is false, that is intended to attach definitions to candidates when the definitions don't fit.

I especially hate teaming up with the right wing and the mainstream media to limit Hillary's ability to campaign. The bash Hillary conspiracy launches multiple attacks a day. Hillary can't possibly answer them all. So the best thing for her to do is diminish the credibility of the bashing conspiracy, which should be zero anyway. Now though, with the help of Edwards, if Hillary talks about the smear artists she's "making herself a victim" or "trying to demand a different set of rules for women."

Hillary explains her positions - Edwards says she's double talking
Bill defends Hillary - Bill called opponents "swiftboaters."
"
"
"

Repeated groundless personal attacks. That's what I call anti-Hillary.