Thomas wrote:Lola wrote:We're talking past each other oakie. Big surprise.
For what it's worth, Lola, I went back to
the transcript. From reading it, I get the sense that Clinton believes four things: (1) It's the federal government's job to deal with immigration, not the state governments' job. (2) The federal government hasn't been dealing with immigration throughout the Bush administration. (3) Given that it hasn't, the job of regulating immigration falls back to he states and their governors. (4) Governor Spitzer's approach has been reasonable -- given the federal government's inaction.
Since Clinton is taking these positions, it is entirely reasonable of her not to give a yes-or-no answer when Russert asks: "do you support Spitzer's plan?" The truth is that she supports Spitzer's plan given that Bush isn't dealing with immigration. But she doesn't support Bush in not dealing with immigration, and opposes that Spitzer is being compelled to act in Bush's place. One can argue whether her ansers were true or not. But they were reasonably clear and consistent answers.
Thanks Thomas, that says it more clearly than I did. Since they were reasonably clear and consistent answers, it seems clear to me that all this debate about her "evading" questions and "crying 'don't hit me, I'm a girl'" are in fact piling on and insulting to any thinking person's intelligence.
It's an example of her opponents grasping for straws since they couldn't seem to find any other point to pile on about. Piling on is politics as usual, but pile on about something of substance please.
Quote:It is insulting for Ferraro and other Clinton supporters to decry the fact that she is being pressed on her policy decisions. For years women have always said that what matters are the issues, and not their hair, nails, pantsuits versus dresses or if they can bake cookies.
But now that she is getting some heat, Clinton is coming off as the woman who cries, "Don't hit me because I'm a girl."
Soz,
Here's only one example from the CNN article that I see as political reaching. She's not being "pressed on her policy decisions." She's being pressed on fabricated accusations and assumptions about her policy decisions. All this started in and directly after the debate. Russert's question was a set up from the beginning. To say it's about her policy decisions is furthering an intentionally planted misconception.
This is an example of why I've grown to mistrust CNN.
I agree with you about Ferraro. Her brand of feminism is repugnant to me. Women deserve more credit and respect than that traditional old feminism. Ferraro is guilty of confusing the matter and making it worse. Were her comments endorsed by Hillary? I doubt Hillary was very happy about it.
I started out an Obama supporter. I sent money and believed Hillary was too polarizing and couldn't win. I've been encouraged by her performance to this point. But my support for her is waning because she seems to make too many compromises that cut too deep into democratic values.
For instance she and Kennedy are trying to move a health IT bill requiring broad Republican support. The Republican support is dependent on the absence of these basic privacy protections because certain key Republicans in the Senate are opposed because of their allegiance to the insurance industry. This bill, known as Wired for Health Care Quality Act, S. 1693, calls for a nation wide electronic health information system, with standards to be set by the secretary of Health and Human Services without notice or public comment. The bill is set up so that organizations who would like to eliminate the right to privacy may do so with no Congressional finger prints and without public scrutiny.
There are other examples, like her position on the war in Iraq and possibly Iran. Obama seems less likely to make such compromises.
I may return to the Obama camp. We'll see. He represents a refreshing change.
