Clinton Defends Wife on Driver's Licenses

Source: NYT/AP:

By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS
Published: November 5, 2007

LAS VEGAS (AP) -- Former President Clinton on Monday compared Republican criticism of his wife's position on driver's license for illegal immigrants to the ads that helped sink John Kerry's White House hopes in 2004. ''I had the feeling that at the end of that last debate we were about to get into cutesy land again,'' Clinton told some 3,000 members of the American Postal Worker's Union at a convention.

At the end of a televised Democratic presidential debate last week, Hillary Rodham Clinton hedged on whether she supported a plan by her home state governor, New York's Eliot Spitzer, to issue licenses to illegal immigrants. Republicans -- and her rivals for the Democratic nomination -- quickly criticized her answer, accusing her of trying to have it both ways.

But Bill Clinton said the issue is too complicated for sound bites. ''It's fine for Hillary and all the other Democrats to discuss Governor Spitzer's plan. But not in 30 seconds -- yes, no, raise your hand,'' he said....

He compared the driver's license dustup to television ads during the 2004 presidential campaign that questioned Kerry's patriotism, and campaign commercials in 2002 suggesting that former Sen. Max Cleland, D-Ga., who lost three limbs in Vietnam, was soft on terrorism....

Read more: http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/us/AP-Bill-Clinton.html

Obviously.

Congrats.

damage of this clusterfuck of an administration we the people are going to need someone like a Bill Clinton to help the President restore the U.s. credibility. I get it and I got it for a long time now and am damn happy that Bill Clinton would give of his time to restore the American ideal over the world....

Ben David

Any Democrat would send the Big Dog around the world and make the most of his credibility. And he'd go in a heartbeat. He doesn't need the whole enchilada for that.

But Bill never was much for portion control.

A man that cannot be trusted to be faithful to his wife, cannot be credible about much of anything.

They start talking Rudy

The Clintons aren't old money like the Bushes. Is Chelsea being groomed for the job twenty years from now? I just don't see the Clintons in the same way I do the Bush "WASP mafia" family.

They aren't. HRC is being attacked for what she said. This is valid political criticism.

Where are the lies? Where are the smear? I resent that Bill Clinton is using the fact that a large percent of people realize that what was done to Kerry and Clealand was wrong. That perception NEEDS to stay that way. Calling any criticism of HRC swiftboating dilutes that. (In fact, no one calls OTHER attacks on JK swiftboating - even when they were not true.) Here there is NOT EVEN A LIE.

I wish that Bill Clinton and his people had showed as much outrage in 2004 with the real swiftboaters. The election was close - and Kerry in 2005 would have been better than HRC in 2009.

Lies: she did not "hedge" the answer. And the proof of that is the response Edwards gave on Sunday (remember he was not asked during the debate, he was only asked to attack Clinton). Edwards answer was the same as Clintons. Edwards said no and yes at the same time...and in the past has said yes, so he changed his answer.

Smears: she is not "triangulating" she was answering a complicated question with a reasonable answer. The smear is that Edwards / Obama are suggesting that she is a liar (that is what disingenuious means). And she has been consistent in her answers.

Social Security: remember when she was asked about social security at the debate? The next question was to Obama, asking first what was wrong with that answer, and everyone soaked up the lies that Obama told (about how awful an answer that was) and gave him a pass on his response to the same question: his answer was the same as Clinton's.

So, the lies and smears are taken at face value by people who want to believe them without considering the substance.

These are NOT smears or lies - they are characterizations that anyone looking at the debate tape can accept or reject. This is very standard politics.

There is a huge gap from liars claiming Kerry intentionally shot himself, didn't deserve medals, or even was a war criminal versus someone accusing a Clinton of .....triangulating !!!! Oh, no

the secrets left over from the time he did the job kept under wraps.

running for president, the husband should suppress that instinct. She needs to defend herself. A lot of people are not DUers and not as supportive of women in politics and they'll see her as weak if she lets her husband defend her. "She needs her husband to defend her? How can she be president?"

When a candidate's wife defends him, it's not judged quite the same way, which is unfair but life is unfair. Even when it's a wife doing the defending, though, some will think the candidate looks weak when the wife defends him. "What kind of man is he if he can't speak up for himself? How can he be president?"

Candidate's spouses are better off confining themselves to supporting their spouse by discussing his/her positions on issues and resisting the urge to defend him/her against criticism and the urge to criticize other candidates.

How does that look? You probably get screwed even worse that way than if Bill lends his considerable credibility to defusing problems like this. He'd be expected to do the same for any other Dem candidate, why not Hil?

so it makes him look, to some people, as if he thinks she can't take care of herself.

Spouses just should not go on the defensive, in my opinion. If they are asked about something negative said about their spouse, they could say "I'd rather talk about his/her positions on the issues than to comment on that."

Yes, Michelle and Elizabeth, that goes for you too. :P

what Hillary actually said. She said she didn't think it was a good thing for Governors to do that, but what are they going to do? The admin. nor the Congress did anything about the illegal immigration problem, so I understand why Elliott is doing this.

How is that double speak?

in the debate, and then she gave additional "clarifications" afterwards.

I am still waiting to find out what Hillary meant when she said she was "evolving" on gay marriage to a LGBT group behind closed doors, as reported by the Washington Blade.

spinning is a definite possibility.

I mean, why didn't Pumpkinhead ask the candidates how they stood on Oregon's Measure 49, as long as we're asking meaningless questions about strictly local concerns.

The reason for the question, though, was simple "gotcha" politics. No matter what answer Clinton gave, it was sure to send a small but loud-mouthed portion of the electorate into a new realm of fake outrage and screaming dudgeon solely for the amusement of the talking chuckleheads, who would rather be waterboarded than discuss real issues.

Actually, it's kind of simple: The New York Department of Motor Vehicles is there to license drivers, not to determine everyone's immigrant or citizenship status. The Immigration and Naturalization Service is there to do that. Let's keep the various functions of governmental agencies separate, shall we?

Then she tried to suggest she against it.

This issue is a HUGE problem for us.

Thankfully Biden is against the idea of such licenses.

that's what she said on Wolf Blitzer's show on Wednesday.

Better to put Bill in the background, or else people might start weighting whether a dual Presidency is such a good idea.

husbands, either. It always comes across as a spouse being petulant because his/her mate was criticized and also looks as if the spouse doesn't think the candidate can fight her/his own battles.

Spouses: talk about issues, leave the complaining for pillow talk.

I think she should let him defend himself. Every candidate's spouse should let the candidate answer criticism.

and Bill Clinton knows better. This apparently is his game plan - any attacks on HRC will be equated to what was done to smear Kerry and Clealand. He should be ashamed of himself. It is absolutely legitimate to hit positions taken - even when they are wedge issues.

Oddly, I don't recall Clinton ever attacking the real SBVT like this!

so that his ambitious wife could return the two of them to the White House. This is also why Hillary was so eager to join the smearing of Kerry about his flopped joke.

Let Hillary fight her own battles.

Valid criticism of HRC's waffling on the question is NOT swift-boating. The comparison is petulant, ridiculous, and to be honest, insulting (especially when Max Cleland is mentioned). HRC herself said that she could stand the heat that is coming out the kitchen. She doesn't need you to defend her or her bullshit nonanswers.

It's like comparing the dude who had to show his recipt at Circuit City, or the guy who got tazed, to Nazi Germany.

It makes one look like an asshole, and is insulting to survivors of the original offense (not to mention the memory of the dead.)