Other Democrats let Clinton off the hook on license issue

  LAS VEGAS, Nev. … It got pretty hot here in the desert Thursday night, and Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton came prepared.

   "This pantsuit, it's asbestos tonight," she said.

   What Clinton didn't say was that she was also carrying a flamethrower.

   What's more, she used it.

   In what seemed like the 2,578th debate in the race for the Democratic presidential nomination (but was really only the eighth), Clinton fired back at the opponents who had been firing at her for the past two weeks.

   She accused former Sen. John Edwards of "slinging mud" that was "right out of the Republican playbook."

   And she attacked Sen. Barack Obama for offering a health care plan that leaves 15 million people uncovered … pointedly noting that that's about the number of people in Nevada, New Hampshire, Iowa and South Carolina, the first four states where people will vote for their presidential favorites.

   And afterwards, the pundits … who love to see third-degree burns at such affairs … raved about Clinton's performance.

   Yet one question remained. Why did the moderator, Buffalo's own Wolf Blitzer, and the other candidates let Clinton off the hook on the question that burned her so badly in the previous  debate?

   After two weeks of contradictions and vagaries, Clinton was again asked if she favored  driver's licenses for illegal immigrants.

   She said "No" … and nobody challenged her to say anything more.

   So what do you think? What would have happened if Clinton had been seriously challenged on that question?

   Would she have come away with a few burns of her own?

--Jerry Zremski

Comments

[BobbyCat]

Wolf Blitzer did an awful job as moderator.He hectored every speaker to stop speaking seconds before they reached their conclusion. His desire for tight control was a distraction and a public speaker's nightmare.

Not only did he let Sen. Clinton off the hook on the illegal/license issue, Wolf also ignored Clinton's famous promise to bring hundreds of thousands of jobs to Buffalo and upstate.

He should have asked: Where are the jobs you promised, Senator Clinton?

The exclusive exchanges between Clinton and Obama at the beginning of the debate shortchanged all the other candidates.

Blitzer kept pitching softballs to Clinton and gave her much more airtime than the others.

Instead of showing up in person, Kucinich could have mailed-in a cardboard cutout of himself, for all the time he received.

Nobody asked...but I think Joe Biden won, Edwards 2nd, Dodd 3rd.

[BobbyCat]

Wolf Blitzer did an awful job as moderator.He hectored every speaker to stop speaking seconds before they reached their conclusion. His desire for tight control was a distraction and a public speaker's nightmare.

Not only did he let Sen. Clinton off the hook on the illegal/license issue, Wolf also ignored Clinton's famous promise to bring hundreds of thousands of jobs to Buffalo and upstate.

He should have asked: Where are the jobs you promised, Senator Clinton?

The exclusive exchanges between Clinton and Obama at the beginning of the debate shortchanged all the other candidates.

Blitzer kept pitching softballs to Clinton and gave her much more airtime than the others.

Instead of showing up in person, Kucinich could have mailed-in a cardboard cutout of himself, for all the time he received.

Nobody asked...but I think Joe Biden won, Edwards 2nd, Dodd 3rd.

[BobbyCat]

Why are so there so many double-postings? Can't you debug your software? It's been a problem for months!

[Realist]

That should not have been a surprise. As was reporetd on the Druge Report the afternoon of the debate, Clinton's people strongly warned Blitzer to not to ask any impolite questions. One does not ignore such a warning. The other candidates took the hint too.

[Coming Events]

That's what will happen in future debates too. None of the other candidates will want to anger her, or "him" for that matter. The Clintons have shown over the years that revenge is a dish best served cold.

[No Illusions]

The only people that fear Hillary are the ones that know she's smarter than they are.

[A real realist]

Get with it, people! Hillary is far and above the best candidate for president. She has the experience and the smarts. With Hillary we get Bill Clinton too. How lucky can we get.

[Health care authority]

Sen. Clinton did not deny or refute the charges made against her by Edwards. It is not "mud slinging" to cite accurate facts about her PACs and the actual contradictory statements she had made about drivers licenses for illegal immigrants. This is an old tactic by the Clintons. After Bill had his affair with Monica Lewinski, both Bill and Hillary denied it. she called it a "vast right-wing conspiracy" and he perjured himself rather than admit the truth (until the prosecutors discreetly warned him that they had the semen-stained dress).

[Health care authority]

Regarding Clinton saying that Obama's health care proposal leaves out 15 million uninsured. Even advocates of reforming our health care system have acknowledged that about 1/3 of the uninsured could afford insurance but have chosen to take their chances without it and another 1/3 are children of those same individuals. So "leaving out" 15 million people who can actually afford insurance is actually a very responsible approach avoiding unnecessary taxes.

[Two Plus Two]

"The only people that fear Hillary are the ones that know she's smarter than they are."

No Illusions is onto something, but wouldn't that imply the whole country fears her?

No Illusions, can you think of any example of any American whom Hillary is not smarter than?

I can't. So your point means all of the rest of us should fear her. Seems many Americans are rapidly figuring that out: Obama, Edwards, Spitzer, her husband, Richardson, Blitzer...

A few people are slow to figure it out... Russert, and uhhh let's see... Mrs. Edwards, and uhhh... well not many.

[Two Plus Two]

Oh yeah, Jerry Z might be another one of those slow learners. Get with the program Jerry! Hillary is smarter than you, so as "No Illusions" so perceptively says, it's time to start fearing! Let's try to have your future articles and blog posts acknowledge that her intellect is superior tou yours. Anything less means you're jealous or in denial.

[podbabes]

One of the Candidates will be the next President, and I find no joy or substance in fearing anyone - this is simply an incorrect perception to garner respect for anyone. Hillary has not sponsored one single significant bill or change that has improved our economy, especially in NY. She promised jobs in WNY and we saw none. We saw under her leadership in NY the County and City of Buffalo go under the harness of Control Boards. Under Hillary we saw Medicare costs in NY now almost the Highest in the Nation and spending of Medicare go out of control. If Hillary cannot put a real fire in your heart, and cannot improve on single State (New York) in her almost decade of service, how can she improve 50 States? I don't care about if a Candidate is Republican, Democrat, Independent or whatever - I want a Candidate that could really back the talk with proof, and show tangible evidence in their words. If we look at Hillarys track record in NY, we don't see that. If I am missing something, let me know...

[No Illusions]

I see most people missed my comment. Most people inaccurately drew the conclusion that we should fear Hillary because she is smarter than most. Let’s look at the comment: The only people that fear Hillary are the ones that know she’s smarter than they are. This statement does not imply that ALL people that know she is smarter than they are fear her. It simply states that those that in fact fear her fear her because they know she is smarter. You inaccurately deduced this statement. Just as you inaccurately deduced her record and what she has done for Western New York, New York State, The United States of America, and the world at large. I could knit-pick every inaccurately drawn conclusion here but what’s the point - you base your conclusions on fear not reality. As Roosevelt said: The only thing we have to fear is fear itself – that means you – not her.

[Two Plus Two]

No Illusions, ok I understand that new adjusted explanation but it's different than what you wrote the first time. You wrote the people who fear her "are the ones" that know she's smarter than they are. You did not write "are some of the ones".

And no, please don't try to say it depends on what the definition of "the" is. Even though I realize Hillray is smarter than me, I know very well what "the" means.

Anyhow, I fully accept your clarification and thank you for making it.

I still think the point is very well taken as you originally wrote it (pre-clarification), that people who realize she is smarter than they are do indeed fear her. For example Wolf Blitzer seems to (correctly) realize she's smarter than he is, and accordingly it's pretty clear from the debate that he fears her.

Similarly with Obama. He seems so fearful of her that he's incoherent when discussing her. He is smart, but smart enough to realize the she is smarter than he is. So that's consistent with your original theory as well.

Governor Spitzer: fearful of her - check, knows he's not as smart as she is - double check.

So there's three who have caught on. But people who seem to have not caught on yet include Tim Russert, Elizabeth Edwards, and our local man Jerry Z. They are not acting as though they fear her, yet clearly (and no offense to them), let's face it - she is smarter than they are. I predict they will eventually catch on.

[Barton Keyes]

I suggest that many of the people who oppose Hillary do NOT do so because she is "smarter" than they are, but because of four fundamental reasons:
1) they believe she supports positions they are strongly against. And this is on the basis of both careful analysis and partisan suspicion, or
2) because they fear or believe the Clintons have bought into the current political strategy of rule by partisanhip in a evenly divdided America, or
3) because she is too "different" because she is a woman, or
4) because she is a "Clinton" which has come to be viewed as "evil" by some because of the political propaganda propagated over the past fifteen years.
The fact is that emotion and political adds that are created to excite emotion, have a lot more to do with our choices than comparative intelligence.

[More Reasons Please]

Barton, interesting set of reasons there.

Would any of those apply for Kathleen Wiley, or would another be needed? I kind of doubt she's supporting a Clinton this time around.

And her murdered cat? Although I suppose even when alive, the cat was probably not registered to vote in Democrat primaries... but you never know.

And Norman Hsu? Unless he's still supporting her... but since the mega donations seemed to have stopped, maybe he's now opposing her.

http://tinyurl.com/ywkcoc