Clinton: I’m a Fighter
27 February 2008 1:11 am by Taylor Marsh
Clinton fights for children and families.
She fights for women’s rights around the world.
She fights for health care. She fights for veterans’ health care too.
After a year in the primary season, Hillary Clinton has found her theme: I’m
a fighter.
It does not go unnoticed that she’s fighting to win this nomination even as
people want to push her out of this race.
The first part of the debate it was obvious that it was three on one. Conservative women noticed it too.
How Dare the Patriarchy! How Dare He — All of Them [Kathryn Jean Lopez]
Tim Russert wants to keep me down. It’s clear that women have it worse than blacks in America, the way Hillary Clinton is being questioned tonight. Does he realize she could be the first woman president ? Does he realize I cried during Geena Davis’s show? We gals all did, naturally.
I know I have Gloria Steinem’s cell number somewhere here. I need her to talk me through this. Michelle Obama can’t be proud of this.
Too bad so many men in The Progressive Village are dumber than conservative Republicans (snark above notwithstanding). But that’s where “progressives” stand today.
Clinton
didn’t flinch at first, then finally let it rip.
SEN. CLINTON: Well, can I just point out that in the last several debates,
I seem to get the first question all the time. And I don’t mind. I — you
know, I’ll be happy to field them, but I do find it curious, and if anybody
saw “Saturday Night Live,” you know, maybe we should ask Barack
if he’s comfortable and needs another pillow. (Laughter, boos.) I just find
it kind of curious that I keep getting the first question on all of these
issues. But I’m happy to answer it.
It was clear she was furious. The flash from her eyes was obvious, but it
was organic so the rest of the debate washed over it, as everything settled
back down.
Clinton also finally cornered Obama about the NATO sub-committee on which
he has yet to convene a hearing. He admitted that was the case, that since January
2007 he hasn’t. But his answer was basically that he was too busy. Unfortunately,
there was no follow up to ask: why? Afghanistan is going to hell and Obama’s
too busy to get involved in his own sub-committee. This just doesn’t pass the
test. There is no excuse considering what’s happening in Afghanistan. It was
a prime opportunity for Obama to lead, which he failed. Clinton nailed him on
it.
Time and again Clinton fought back to make an additional point on subjects
that are important to her, fighting her way through Obama’s continual word blizzards.
Russert then threw out a question on Russia, which he later said on MSNBC was
a “jump ball.” Over at the The Corner, my reaction to Russert was the same as theirs:
Gotcha BS [Andy McCarthy]
Good for Hil getting the name of the new president of Russia right (more
or less). Catty of Russert to ask. She got the essential part of the question
right — he’s Putin’s marionette. Did she really need to know the guy’s
name off the top of her head to convince us she understood what’s happening
in Russia?
Dmitry Medvede is the name.
On the next issue, I’m playing the contrarian again.
Because it was on Louis Farrakhan that the debate shifted and you really saw
the differences in these candidates. As much as it’s popular to beat up on Bill
Clinton these days, at least he knew a moment when a marker is laid down. Last
night, Barack Obama missed his Sister
Souljah moment by a mile.
SEN. OBAMA: You know, I have been very clear in my denunciation of Minister
Farrakhan’s anti-Semitic comments. I think that they are unacceptable and
reprehensible. I did not solicit this support. He expressed pride in an African-American
who seems to be bringing the country together. I obviously can’t censor him,
but it is not support that I sought. And we’re not doing anything, I assure
you, formally or informally with Minister Farrakhan.MR. RUSSERT: Do you reject his support?
SEN. OBAMA: Well, Tim, you know, I can’t say to somebody that he can’t say
that he thinks I’m a good guy. (Laughter.) You know, I — you know, I — I
have been very clear in my denunciations of him and his past statements, and
I think that indicates to the American people what my stance is on those comments.
Word blizzard again. It’s really simple. You don’t go near anyone like Louis
Farrakhan.
Clinton then took Obama to school.
CLINTON: I just want to add something here, because I faced a similar situation
when I ran for the Senate in 2000 in New York. And in New York, there are
more than the two parties, Democratic and Republican. And one of the parties
at that time, the Independence Patty, was under the control of people who
were anti-Semitic, anti- Israel. And I made it very clear that I did not want
their support. I rejected it. I said that it would not be anything I would
be comfortable with. And it looked as though I might pay a price for that.
But I would not be associated with people who said such inflammatory and untrue
charges against either Israel or Jewish people in our country.And, you know, I was willing to take that stand, and, you know, fortunately
the people of New York supported me and I won. But at the time, I thought
it was more important to stand on principle and to reject the kind of conditions
that went with support like that.RUSSERT: Are you suggesting Senator Obama is not standing on principle?
CLINTON: No. I’m just saying that you asked specifically if he would reject
it. And there’s a difference between denouncing and rejecting. And I think
when it comes to this sort of, you know, inflammatory — I have no doubt that
everything that Barack just said is absolutely sincere. But I just think,
we’ve got to be even stronger. We cannot let anyone in any way say these things
because of the implications that they have, which can be so far reaching.OBAMA: Tim, I have to say I don’t see a difference between denouncing and
rejecting. There’s no formal offer of help from Minister Farrakhan that would
involve me rejecting it. But if the word “reject” Senator Clinton
feels is stronger than the word “denounce,” then I’m happy to concede
the point, and I would reject and denounce.CLINTON: Good. Good. Excellent.
As a Scots-Irish broad, I saw Obama’s tepid response to Farrakhan, and was
appalled. Emails from Jewish friends confirmed that I wasn’t alone. That Obama
had to be led to this reality is proof of his ruffle no feathers at any cost
mentality. It has nothing to do with him believing in our “special relationship”
with Israel, or insinuating anything remotely anti-semitic. It’s about moral
courage and the conciliatory reflex he has to extend grace to people who haven’t earned and don’t deserve it. People like Louis Farrakhan.
So the winner in political terms was Clinton, because she found her
theme and it fits.
Obama was a push, because he remained cool throughout. For me that’s a draw
back. I like my politicians with passion, but pontificating on an air filled hill suits some. But conceding the point on Farrakhan was important and showed a bit more of the man, which is good, even though he had to be led to it.
Take away of the night: Clinton, the fighter. That’s for sure.
