Hillary - Ask Me After the Election

[IEATV8S]

Ask Me After the Election
Hillary's answer for everything.
by Fred Barnes
11/01/2007 12:00:00 AM



SENATOR HILLARY CLINTON tried a new tactic at the Democratic presidential debate Tuesday evening. It amounted to this: a major event or policy breakthrough or something else must occur, she indicated, before she'd be ready to state her view on a number of touchy issues. In effect, she used this tactic to duck issues. And she ducked a lot of them.

She was asked, for example, if she favored raising the cap on income subject to Social Security taxation. Moderator Tim Russert noted she had both said the cap should remain at $97,500 and, privately at least, said she might favor lifting it to $200,000. In her answer, the New York senator declined to state her position.

Why not? "I have said consistently that my plan for Social Security is fiscal responsibility first, then to deal with any long-term challenges which I agree are ones that we are going to have to address," she responded. To put it mildly, this was a vague answer.

By fiscal responsibility, she said, "we have to move back toward a more fair and progressive tax system," which involves rolling back some of the Bush tax cuts. At that point, the president should create a bipartisan commission to recommend ways to reform Social Security, Clinton said.

Then--and seemingly only then--she might offer her opinion on raising the cap on Social Security taxes. The president, presumably with the commission's report in his hands, would have "the resources and the options to make decisions." For now, though, forget it.

Clinton was equally resistant to giving her view of New York governor Eliot Spitzer's effort to allow illegal immigrants to get driver's licenses. She expressed sympathy with Spitzer, but followed that by saying, "I didn't say that it should be done." Instead, "we need to get back to comprehensive immigration reform," she said.

The reform effort, in which Clinton did not play a leadership role, failed in the Senate earlier this year and its future is unclear. Clinton said Spitzer's proposal was now trying to "fill the vacuum" on dealing with illegal immigrants. But "no state, no matter how well intentioned, can fill this gap," she said. So she declined to endorse Spitzer's proposal. "There needs to be federal action on immigration reform," she insisted.

Then there was her dodge on releasing the records of her advice to President Clinton when she was first lady for eight years. She had cited that period as an important part of the 35 years of experience in national affairs that makes her qualified to be president. Former president Clinton has written a letter asking the National Archives to keep these records secret until 2012. But Senator Clinton didn't comment on the letter, saying that releasing the papers is "not my decision to make." It's up to the National Archives. It's their slow "processes" that are holding things up, she suggested.

Finally there's the huge new tax bill proposed by Charles Rangel, the chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee, that includes a 4 percent surtax on incomes over $200,000. Once again, she didn't state an opinion of the surtax or the tax bill, which would replace the alternative minimum tax (AMT).

This time, the impediment was timing. The Rangel bill "is not going to happen while George Bush is president . . . The AMT has to be part of what we try to change when I'm president." Until then? "I'm not going to be committed to a specific approach," Clinton said.

Let's summarize.
1) Clinton couldn't talk about the Social Security cap because "fiscal responsibility" hasn't been achieved.
2) She couldn't discuss driver's licenses for illegals because immigration reform was needed.
3) She couldn't talk about releasing records in the Archives because the folks at the Archives handle that.
4) And as for Rangel's bill, it won't come up any time soon, so she couldn't talk in any detail about it either.

As it turned out at the debate, broadcast on MSNBC, Clinton's new tactic didn't work. Her performance was her poorest in a debate in the campaign. Her tactic was transparent. The other candidates ganged up on her. But she gave them plenty to gang up about.

Ask Me After the Election

[henschman]

vote for me and i'll do... something. i can't tell you yet what it will be (because you might not vote for me or because i just don't know), but it will be really really good!

[Drew L]

3) She couldn't talk about releasing records in the Archives because the folks at the Archives handle that.



these records are at THEIR OWN LIBRARY

can't find them

[GNandGS]

vid

Michelle Malkin » Hillary’s big blunder

Hot Air » Blog Archive » Video: Hillary Clinton flip flops around Eliot Spitzer’s licenses-for-illegals plan Updates and additions

[loki993]

why?? because if the american people knew what sue was really like, shed never have a chance. the thing I dont understand is that its so obvious. she is obviously pandering and hiding what she really is. everything she says is scripted, based on the polls. she will do anything she can to try and get to the white house. she is not genuine at all and its obvious.

[Underboost]

Originally Posted by loki993

why?? because if the american people knew what sue was really like, shed never have a chance. the thing I dont understand is that its so obvious. she is obviously pandering and hiding what she really is. everything she says is scripted, based on the polls. she will do anything she can to try and get to the white house. she is not genuine at all and its obvious.

I think all Democrats have some mild form of mental retardation. Their all a few chromosomes shy. It's not whats best for the American people it's how many votes can we get "with lies", and the uneducated just sit back and believe whatever is said to them with blinders on completely oblivious to whats really going on.

[Weester]

"I think all Democrats have some mild form of mental retardation. Their all a few chromosomes shy. It's not whats best for the American people it's how many votes can we get "with lies", and the uneducated just sit back and believe whatever is said to them with blinders on completely oblivious to whats really going on."

Yup, n al dem redd staats r fild weth sum reely sumart 1's................LMAO!

Hillary will say what ever it takes to get elected, the sad part is she may be our next prez!

[IEATV8S]

Originally Posted by Weester

Yup, n al dem redd staats r fild weth sum reely sumart 1's................LMAO!

Weester, after going through all your Christian bashing episodes, now it SOUNDS like your picking on good Southerner folk?

Don't you ever think before you post?

[salvageV6]

Of course not he's a good liar, and of course gets away with it.

His redneck bashing started when the forum started.

He actually is a true Dem. who thinks he knows more than you.

Of course after reading his posts over the years we all know that isn't true.

I'd rather be labeled a redneck hillbilly than BE A PATHOLOGICAL LIAR!

[Weester]

"Weester, after going through all your Christian bashing episodes, now it SOUNDS like your picking on good Southerner folk? "

Southern folk or Dumb folk?..............You decide......



Save yur dixie cups, the south will rise agin...............

[IEATV8S]

Originally Posted by Weester

Southern folk or Dumb folk?..............You decide......

The way you put it, they are one and the same!!!

[Weester]

"The way you put it, they are one and the same!!!"

If you say so....................

[henschman]

Originally Posted by Underboost

I think all Democrats have some mild form of mental retardation. Their all a few chromosomes shy. It's not whats best for the American people it's how many votes can we get "with lies", and the uneducated just sit back and believe whatever is said to them with blinders on completely oblivious to whats really going on.

i hate to destroy any oversimplified good "guy/bad guy" notions you may have about our two party system, but what you describe is not limited to just the democratic party. however, you hit the nail on the head about stupid people... that is definitely the root of the problem. you have a small minority of people like a lot of the people in this forum who actually care about politics and have a pretty good idea about what's going on with the national scene, and then you have the majority of people who interrupt their normal reality show/soap opera/mtv viewing schedule a couple of weeks before the election to watch some biased cable news to see which politician says things that sound good or who is the best at looking "genuine" or whatever... or better yet, the people that just go to the poll and check the "straight ticket" box for their favorite party because that's who their daddy was for, or that's who their favorite celeb is for, or that's who their wannabe-intellectual friend who "knows about politics" is for. Everybody trumpets the message that it's every citizens' duty to go vote, but nobody mentions that they should get educated before they do so.

[Underboost]

Originally Posted by henschman

i hate to destroy any oversimplified good "guy/bad guy" notions you may have about our two party system, but what you describe is not limited to just the democratic party. however, you hit the nail on the head about stupid people... that is definitely the root of the problem. you have a small minority of people like a lot of the people in this forum who actually care about politics and have a pretty good idea about what's going on with the national scene, and then you have the majority of people who interrupt their normal reality show/soap opera/mtv viewing schedule a couple of weeks before the election to watch some biased cable news to see which politician says things that sound good or who is the best at looking "genuine" or whatever... or better yet, the people that just go to the poll and check the "straight ticket" box for their favorite party because that's who their daddy was for, or that's who their favorite celeb is for, or that's who their wannabe-intellectual friend who "knows about politics" is for. Everybody trumpets the message that it's every citizens' duty to go vote, but nobody mentions that they should get educated before they do so.

I agree with you henschman!
I guess maybe I shouldn't have thrown the Left under the the bus w/ the slightest of ease like I did, It's a good 50% of the people in America.