The Hillary Sunday Blitz…
The New York Times’ Patrick Healy writes about Hillary Clinton’s Sunday talk show blitz…
She also said that, if she were president of Columbia University, she would not have extended an invitation to the president of Iran, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, to speak there on Monday as part of a World Leaders Forum on campus.
“Well, if I were a president of the university, I would not have invited him. He’s a Holocaust denier. He’s a supporter of terrorism. But I also respect the right in our country to make different decisions,” she said on CNN’s “Late Edition with Wolf Blitzer.”
______________
She also said flatly on “Fox News Sunday” that she would not vote for any future Iraq war spending bill that does not include plans to withdraw troops.
As for her own plans to keep at least some troops in Iraq for narrowly tailored missions, she continued to be vague about the number of troops who would remain in country, but did say on CBS that her missions would require fewer than 100,000 troops.
On NBC’s “Meet the Press,” Tim Russert confronted Mrs. Clinton over her full-throated support for a military threat to Iraq in 2002; her comments in support of the war during its first two years; and her old view, two years ago, that setting a hard deadline for withdrawing troops would be irresponsible and be a boon to terrorists.
How mad is Daily Kos going to be that she appeared on that mean ol’FOX news show?…if she and Obama can both appear on FOX then theres no excuse for them not to go on the FOX debates.
Comment by mlong — September 24, 2007 @ 12:23 am
#2 - Yeah, she was full of contradictions, but unfortunately there are very few presidential candidates who aren’t….and they are marginalized as unable to win (Kucinich, Ron Paul for example).
I TIVO’d Meet the Press and This Week and she had her talking points down cold. What drives me crazy about these interviews is not that the candidates don’t answer questions or contradict themselves as much as that Tim Russert, George Stephanopoulos and their peers won’t call these candidates out when they are blatantly not answering a question either honestly or not at all.
One example from this Sunday’s HillaryFest….She was asked on both shows about her 2002 vote to give the President authorization to go to war and was reminded of amendments that would have required the President to work more through the UN before invading. She said that the UN thing would have subjected the US to a UN veto, which is not true. She then went on to say (paraphrasing) that she voted for the authorization but didn’t expect the President to misuse it. Neither Russert or Stephanopoulos bothered to stop her and say - “Well, the authorization was to invade, topple the regime and disarm the country. Outside of the absence of WMD (which the country was scoured for), how did the President “misuse” the authorization you agreed to????
I suppose the pundits don’t want to irk the candidates and not get them back on, but come on….they are not helping the voters make informed decisions when they let candidates play loose with the facts and dodge questions.
As far as I’m concerned, Hillary Clinton could have had someone from her campaign ask her the questions and had posted this on her website because if you saw one, you saw them all. The only intersting interview was with Chris Wallice when he brought up her polarizing stances (which she denied).
Comment by FishOil — September 24, 2007 @ 3:48 am
What really bothers me is how dishonest she is and she is going to be the President of the United States. We teach our kids not to be habitual liars and she is one. We need health care and immigration reform, etc., but I just hate to think she will be our next President. Where’s Gore.
Comment by Cathy — September 24, 2007 @ 8:46 am
I have to tell you, when Hillary started cackling in response to the question, Chris Wallace asked her, the hairs on the back of my neck stood up.
Comment by Ree — September 24, 2007 @ 10:02 am
Ree, me too. That was just eerie.
And re: Hillary’s lying. That is what she does. She is so ambiguous that virtually anyone could listen to some of her positions and believe that she’s on their side. And that’s why she’s leading in the polls.
Sadly, I don’t know who the Republicans could get to go up against her. My guy, Duncan Hunter, stands for everything conservative yet he’s only got ~1% support in the polls! Why our party is going for that empty suit Fred Thompson is beyond me.
Comment by Missy — September 24, 2007 @ 11:36 am
I watched Hillary on Fox and on CBS. Two observations:
(1) On her health care plan, she recited every word she said on Fox on CBS. Which makes me think she memorized that
those lines, or maybe was reading from a teloprompter.
(2) Every time she was asked a question, she gave me the feeling whe was overdosed on caffeine, without pausing and not giving either host the opportunity to ask follow-up questions.
She just reminds me of Bill - too talkative, deceitful, and
sneaky.
Her appearances just reinforce the popular view that she cannot be trusted.
Comment by RGL — September 24, 2007 @ 11:49 am
Always, always carefully scripted. Chris Wallace should have asked her about the hidden findings of the Barrett Report, and why the multi-million dollar investigation’s final report was squashed.
Comment by spiffo — September 24, 2007 @ 12:49 pm
For those who missed the interview with Chris Wallace, the defining moment was her laughing like a hyena at the start of the program. Ridiculous? You decide.
Comment by RGL — September 24, 2007 @ 2:24 pm
Drudge has a link to that witch’s cackle on his page. Bone chilling!
Comment by spiffo — September 24, 2007 @ 3:12 pm
It was a hearty laugh and to me she laughed right at Chris Wallace’s loaded questions. Believe me after 8 years of Bush; a good qualification for this job would be to speak clearly and speak in sentences. She sounds smart. If all the candidates lie might as well sound smart doing it. Down with dummies like Bush.
Comment by ali — September 24, 2007 @ 4:08 pm