Hillary's stiff arm

Posted: Tuesday, August 07, 2007 9:23 PM by Mark Murray

From NBC's Mark Murray

Chicago's Soldier Field hasn't seen a stiff arm like Hillary Clinton wielded tonight since the days Walter Payton played for the Bears. And if we were to give her stiff arm a nickname, we'd call it the George W. On nearly every question -- whether it was on Iraq, No Child Left Behind, NAFTA, or why lobbyists earn more money than average Americans -- Clinton responded by invoking Bush's presidency or record.

When you're up double digits in the polls, and when you receive tough questions, it's a great tactic to use. And to be fair, she isn't the only Dem who does this on tough questions. But she does it more than most.

At the end of the debate, Obama seemed to make a dig at Clinton's Bush references when he said, "It's not enough to change political parties." It's an argument that Obama, Edwards, and the other Dem candidates will have to make to strip the nomination away from her.

EMAIL THIS

Comments

"It's not enough to change political parties."

That's it in a nutshell...Hillary is polished, knowledgeable, as DC candidates should be...but that's the point of why local polls don't match with all you pundits and the national polls...

Folks are not stupid...their everyday lives are seeing horrific conditions just to survive, let alone achieve what was the American dream. The environment fostered by the status quo DCers is great for the investor class...the rest of us are wondering how much more milk will cost next week...

Get out of the DC bubble...listen to the voters.

For once, we outsiders have a very good crop of viable alternatives to choose from. The Queen is not the nominee just yet.

G Davis (Sent Tuesday, August 07, 2007 9:33 PM)

The loosers are the Republican Party, for sticking with the George Bush disaster. It's Hillary verses the loosers. hillaryclinton.com

Cathy P. Norris, Atlanta, Ga. (Sent Tuesday, August 07, 2007 9:38 PM)

What a tough crowd, but Hillary won them over. This shows true strong leadrship. hillaryclinton.com

Allison Smitters, N.Y.,N.Y. (Sent Tuesday, August 07, 2007 9:41 PM)

obama's right - it's not enough to change political parties. We need to change D.C. From where I stand, Hillary will be more of the same - working on the margins, not reading NIEs and selling out the working men and women of America (the Clinton administration's second legacy is NAFTA; the first was not taking out bin Laden after the embassy bombings).

Jeff, PA (Sent Tuesday, August 07, 2007 9:41 PM)

Yes, the Clinton/Bush connection is pretty striking, eh?

Both will never specifically address a question. Both supported the war in Iraq. Both are beholden to big corporate agendas(and have received ringing endorsements from the propogandist-in-chief Rupert Murdoch). Both have supporters who fully believe they are above reproach, regardless of their past actions or policies. And both make very vague foreign policy proclamations so that they can have deniability later on when they do the exact opposite of what they promised to do.

I would say the similiarities are remarkable. Bush/Cheney-lite indeed.

Abe, Dayton, Ohio (Sent Tuesday, August 07, 2007 9:45 PM)

Frankly, I don't see Chris Dodd as a water-carrier for anybody. In 2007, it's easy to throw a label like "Washington Old Guard" on someone who's served in the Senate for as long as Dodd has. What does "Old Guard" mean in his case? That he's not more qualified than the vaunted "top three"? Who makes Hillary/Obama/Edwards the top three anyway??? The pundits? A candidate's campaign bulldog who promotes promotes promotes on the TV screen? A look inside a candidate's checkbook?

Dodd makes a terrific candidate for President because he's seen it all. I'm sure one of the other fine folks running among the Democrats would make a good VP to work with him.

Bruce (Sent Tuesday, August 07, 2007 9:50 PM)

A PRESIDENT SHOULDNT TELL PEOPLE WHAT THEY THINK????? AFTER BUSH WE DONT NEED ANOTHER PERSON WHO WONT LEVEL WITH THE AMERICAN PUBLIC. I AM NOT AN OBAMA FAN, I ACTUALLY LIKED CLINTON........BUT I SEE A HUGE MEDIA BIAS IN NOT COVERING THIS QUOTE THAT GOT MAJOR BOOS. PLEASE BE FAIR AND RAISE THE POINT ABOUT HILLSARY'S GAFFE THAT GOT BOOS.

FG, WASHINGTON, DC (Sent Tuesday, August 07, 2007 9:51 PM)

The difference between these candidates and the repub candidates is like night and day, these candidtates all have positive can do vision of the future and the repubs have, well I dont know what the repubs have, basically darkness.

mikeeg,abdn,wa (Sent Tuesday, August 07, 2007 9:57 PM)

I suppose I'm going to have to learn how this blogging stuff operates, and where to find follow up comments/opinions and such.
In the meantime, you guys know where to find me.

Bruce (Sent Tuesday, August 07, 2007 10:00 PM)

America isn't a cornation, it's a democracy, HRC has to get thru the primaries for the nomination. National polls are meaningless. Also, the media should be ashame of the mischaracterization of Obama's forgein policy speach. How many media types donated to HRC's campaign. Report the facts, that is why America's in going to down the tubes. The media was wrong with Iraqi and is wrong now.

sonya, atlanta, ga (Sent Tuesday, August 07, 2007 10:01 PM)

I think it is very clear that there is a huge disconnect between what the media is seeing and what your average voters are seeing. I was watching with a group (not a drinking game, I swear!) and the results were pretty shocking. We had a number of undecideds (including me), a few hard cores for Obama and Clinton, a few who had slight leanings towards Clinton, and one Kucinich nut. The group overwhelmingly agreed that Obama won tonight, especially the debate about Pakistan. Even the hard cores for Hillary felt that there was a real problem with her response about not saying what your thinking when running for President. Not sure if he won votes tonight, but he impressed people. I'm still undecided, but I have to say I'm more likely to vote for him now than I was a few hours ago.

Beth, DC (Sent Tuesday, August 07, 2007 10:03 PM)

Hillary won again. Period.

Mark James, Dallas, TX (Sent Tuesday, August 07, 2007 10:04 PM)

here again, i am amazed at msnbc's coverage of this debate. anyone who came away from that debate talking mostly about hillary clinton either wasn't watching the debate or is a paid operative of her campaign. she was booed heartily by the audience, several of her answers (particularly regarding the pakistan issue) were just plain awful, and several other contenders had much more impressive showings. those of you in the media need to take the blinders off.

Dave McDaverdave, Davidson, WA (Sent Tuesday, August 07, 2007 10:07 PM)

She's playing right into the Obama campaign's hands with this tactic. It's already damaging enough for her that the main exchange of the campaign just ended with Obama getting cheered and Clinton getting BOOED. Those AFL-CIO voters are clearly representative of Democratic primary voters, and with Obama leading in Iowa, South Carolina, and tied for first in New Hampshire, this debate will in hindsight be viewed as a serious blow to the Clinton candidacy. She sounded downright authoritarian and scolding towards the audience in the tone of her "don't say what you think" answer, and American voters - whether Democrat, independent, or Republican - do NOT like that. Clinton's only consolation is that Biden's embarassingly booed performance where he offended the Sago mine widow might deflect a little bit of the heat from her - but not much.

Shadow, Hamden, CT (Sent Tuesday, August 07, 2007 10:14 PM)

Hillary's "straight arm" plays directly into the article in today's Wall Street Journal at http://online.wsj.com/article_print/SB118645110306090056.html
She is following the Soviet Union's playbook again!

Dick Tracy, Fleetwood, PA (Sent Tuesday, August 07, 2007 10:36 PM)

Tactics - that is all that Hillary Clinton is about. We need a change from tactics to tact and honesty. As Obama says, we don't just need a change of political parties, we need a change of attitude.

MT, Denver, CO (Sent Tuesday, August 07, 2007 10:40 PM)

What do Democrats believe in? Their personal and party's political fortunes or fairness and equality for the little guy? See http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/08/06/AR2007080601161.html
There rhetoric doesn't match their actions.

DC Insider (Sent Tuesday, August 07, 2007 10:53 PM)

Clinton is a wus. She should have divorced Bill years ago, and shown what she was made of. Instead her aspirations for presidency were planned many many years ago, and nothing will get in her way.... even answering questions honestly, instead of politically correct for her presidential bid.

kerry C, disabled vet, Mckinney, TX and also a registered Democrat) (Sent Tuesday, August 07, 2007 10:57 PM)

Hillary says Nukes should be off table in 2006 interview..now she thinks they shouldn't be discussed:

HUNT: Senator, you sit in the Armed Services Committee. There were reports this weekend, the ``Washington Post'' and elsewhere, that the United States is considering a military option against Iran if it won't relinquish any ambitions to nuclear weapons. The ``New Yorker'' even said that we're considering using nuclear – tactical nuclear weapons. Should those options be on the table when it comes to Iran?

CLINTON: Well, I have said publicly no option should be off the table, but I would certainly take nuclear weapons off the table. And this administration has been very willing to talk about using nuclear weapons in a way we haven't seen since the dawn of a nuclear age. I think that's a terrible mistake.

Secondly, when it comes to Iran I think the administration needs to engage in a process with Iran. They outsource this issue of whether Iran would go nuclear to the Europeans. I thought that was a mistake then. I've said it on numerous occasions since. We dealt with the Soviet Union, who had thousands of missiles on hair trigger alert pointed at us. I remember hiding under my desk – a little good that would do – when I was a child. But we lived with that threat and we never stopped negotiating and engaging in a process with our most implacable foe for decades, someone who had been a country, a system, that was dedicated to destroying us.

Click here: Lynn Sweet: Hillary Rodham Clinton: tells Bloomberg's Al Hunt, ``honestly, we've got to have a national conversati

D, MD (Sent Tuesday, August 07, 2007 11:04 PM)

did you say Edwards- Obana? I'll vote to that!

michele Smithe (Sent Tuesday, August 07, 2007 11:29 PM)

A Sex Change is Not Enough...
Americans know that there needs to be fundamental change in the ways things are in done in America.

Government must stop being run by high paid lobbyist who represent the most powerful special interest groups and instead must start being run by the electorate. Heath care must stop being run by a few mammoth insurance companies and a handful of pharmaceutical companies. Instead, universal health care must be made available to all. Foreign policy must stop being the private reserve of a handful of establishment so-called experts. The treatment of our environment cannot continue to be decided by the wishes of the oil companies.

For these fundamental changes to occur, it is essential to put a stop to "doing business as usual". For these fundamental changes to occur, it is essential to close the chapter on the Sr. Bush/Sr. Clinton/Jr. Bush dynasty. The very last thing America needs is a continuation of the dynasty with Jr. Clinton.

Yes it is necessary to break through the race/gender barrier to the Presidency. But a candidacy has to be more than that. It must be about fundamental changes in the way things are done in this country. That's why in the battle for fundamental changes, a sex change is not enough.

pservelle, palm springs, ca (Sent Tuesday, August 07, 2007 11:30 PM)

If anyone but Dennis Kucinich or Ron Paul gets elected, this country will cease to exist....All the rest will keep the status quo and not undo one thing that the bush crime family has perpetrated on the Constitution and this country....I'd love to see a Kucinich/Paul ticket, or vice versa....And that's assuming that bush doesn't pull off another "false flag terror attack" like 9/11, bomb Iran, declare martial law and cancel the election....The bush crime family was absolutely involved with 9/11....Please watch these Google videos: 9/11 Press for Truth, Loose Change 2nd Edition, America: Freedom to Fascism

911truthdotorg (Sent Tuesday, August 07, 2007 11:44 PM)

Hillary Clinton becoming president is the same mistake that Bush was becoming president. She is not qualified. She is a hypocrite. Her husband was a great president, the best in my lifetime. She is NO Bill Clinton. It is a shame that the media is helping her so much. I work overseas and travel. The rest of the world thinks shes a joke. I am from Texas and I never voted for that carpet bagging Bush. When are Americans going to wake up and put a person in office that we can respect and the world can respect. John Edwards seems to be the best the Democrats have to offer. I really thought Joe Biden was the best candidate until he said he was a zionist. The best candidate in the republican party is Ron Paul.
America wake up you elect Hillary Clinton and we are in for all kind of attacks because she is clueless.

Brian L. Nolen, Danbury Texas, Dhahran, Saudi Arabia (Sent Tuesday, August 07, 2007 11:45 PM)

Is it me or did I see Hillary wink at Dodd during the exchange with Barack (Before she is asked to respond) Look at the full clip. tell me if I am wrong

http://www.crooksandliars.com/2007/08/07/afl-cio-democratic-forum-sparks-finally-fly-hillary-gets-booed/#comments

When Barack responds about Washington insiders with Biden, Billary and Dodd looking at him. They are really together to damage him..

Ciara, American in Paris france (Sent Tuesday, August 07, 2007 11:52 PM)

well its not how you play the game its when you play the political parties stance on the peoples choice and the tenur is know matter how you play you can please most of the people some of some of the people some of the time and all the people when you win

Phillipdcallaway Dodgecity ks (Sent Wednesday, August 08, 2007 12:08 AM)

Clinton has a habit of raising her voice loudER, loUDER, and LOUDER as her answer rambles on.

Maybe it was the heat, but she looked tired and her performance was lacking tonight.

I think Senator Obama hit tonight's debate out of the park. It was definitely HIS night!

Pfc Mark Andreason, Ft. Rich (Sent Wednesday, August 08, 2007 1:10 AM)

Hilary Clinton is an idiot. She, like almost every other candidate cannot seem to understand simple rules like time limits. Every answer went WAY over the time limit, every answer was complex as to confuse the american people as to how she would solve the issue. If she simply would have said "Yes...this is how" she would have been okay. On the contrary she like almost every candidate makses answers complex and hides the reality of their answers that is simply they want to do this but dont really know how. All these candidate can do is moan and complain about how bad things are. For example one candidate said in response to terrorism, "We are more at risk now." Well for one, we are at risk or we are not. Their is no more or less. The fact is every country is at risk, and every country will always be at risk. We are at the same risk of being attacked as we were thirty years ago or even ten years ago. There will always be terrorism, there is not much we can do. Make if everyone was civil and happy with what they have then terror simply wouldnt exist, but as long as we have politics terrorism will always be there. I for one do not support any of the candidates on tonight.

Andrew Roberts, San Diego, CA (Sent Wednesday, August 08, 2007 1:34 AM)

Clinton is running to portray strength without actually taking a stand on controversial issues.

Obama needs to press her to take a stand not be defensive.

She endlessly panders, Bush-Cheney Lite.

Yiannis, Baltimore. MD (Sent Wednesday, August 08, 2007 1:44 AM)

The outsider image has about 40% of the democratic ticket. It's not enough for one candidate, let alone 2.

Obama MUST engage Clinton's unwillingness to commit on controversial issues.

Clinton: Trust me I'm experienced
Obama: Where do you stand?

Yiannis, Baltimore, MD (Sent Wednesday, August 08, 2007 2:13 AM)

Obama has it right. It would amuse me if it weren't so dangerous that all the *pundits* don't see the cry from this nation for REAL change...new innovative thoughts how to get this nation back to it's real strength of leading through example.

Did all the pundits miss the man that brought everyone to tears with his lack of health care question? He is the epitome of the condition for the vast majority of us that aren't the investor class.

Get out of the beltway and find out what America really believes.

G Davis (Sent Wednesday, August 08, 2007 3:50 AM)

This is what is wrong with politics today... It is not about responding to questions and developing firm positions on issues, it is more about destroying your opponent or the incumbant. What does that really tell us about the candidate?

I find the primary period quite laughable. The candidates spend months viciously attacking their fellow party members, only to warmly embrace two of them when the the party ticket is determined. Smacks largely of hypocrisy.

We have also become a political system based on straw polls, popularity and short-sighted policy. Whatever it takes to get elected... Whatever happened to conviction? If I elect someone, I want them to represent their positions and beliefs rather than to turn on a dime because a poll indicates their position is not popular during the current five-minute period.

Johnny Kirsch, US citizen currently living abroad (Sent Wednesday, August 08, 2007 4:11 AM)

This is getting old. Yeah, George is bad but the Dem. need to stop bashing him and start telling me what they are going to do if they are in the White House and control Congress. So far I have heard nothing. It would be nice if a blogger or reporter or someone would ask them what the Democrats stand FOR not what they are AGAINST. Tell me how they are going to fix what they think is broken and how much is this going to cost me in new taxes. I am willing to pay but tell me what I am paying for.

Mel Stricker, Riverview, Florida (Sent Wednesday, August 08, 2007 4:57 AM)

the story today is that the front runners were also-rans in this debate, for the first time. Richardson being the only exception, the lower tier candidates outperformed the leaders. As I understand it, Richardson is going to brang.... our people... together..... but the other low-tier guys were fired up and seemed to connect with the crowd better than Barack or Hillary, both of whom seemed tired and a bit weathered.

Ramon Backwards (Sent Wednesday, August 08, 2007 7:32 AM)

Hillary has tried to give the image she is "tough". Maybe if she got "tough" with Bill, many of these problems would not exist.

Susan Schurman 1203 River View Dr Green Island NY 12183 (Sent Wednesday, August 08, 2007 7:39 AM)

This is a common way politicians duck legitimate questions, and it is used on both sides of the aisle. Whenever someone poses a question about lies that got us into the phoney war in Iraq, the standard answer is " Clinton lied about Monica". The fact is that he did lie, but that should not let someone else off the hook as far as answering a legitimate question. This is a tactic little kids use when caught doing something wrong, "he did it first ! "

MM (Sent Wednesday, August 08, 2007 7:47 AM)

Who cares? The election is too far away for any of this to matter. In fact, the candidate that gets the most exposure will sound like a broken record when it matters.

Gerry, Sussex, WI (Sent Wednesday, August 08, 2007 8:12 AM)

Finally, Clinton seems to get it---don't fight the other Dems, beat the hell out of Bush. She's such a b**** that the attack dog thing works well for her. Go with your strong suit, Hil---don't whine that everyone is against you. Save that for the National election, when everyone WILL be tearing into you. A good start for her.

Class warrior, D.C. (Sent Wednesday, August 08, 2007 8:44 AM)

The adults in the group, Biden, Clinton, and Dodd, put Obama in timeout, thankfully!

As the recent polling suggests, they aren't the only ones taking issue with Obama's increasingly erratic foreign policy, military, and diplomatic musings.

JoeCHI, Chicago, IL (Sent Wednesday, August 08, 2007 8:49 AM)

It was great to hear each and every candidate point to the disaster the bush administration.
Each one was forceful in their disdain for the way bush has lied us into war.
Biden was excellent.
Someone tell Obama Canada has a Prime Minister not a president.

H P Boston (Sent Wednesday, August 08, 2007 8:54 AM)

I loved the MSNBC coverage after the debate. The black people interviewed thought Obama won, Pat Buchanon thought Hillary won. EWverybody thought John Edwards should have taken his ball and gone home and I guess there was a brokered deal in the back between Biden and Clinton and Biden went after Obama. What a show (NOT).

jerry/corpus christi texas (Sent Wednesday, August 08, 2007 8:59 AM)

Yes, we all feel Hillary's stiff arm in our pockets, savings accounts, very private lives, and in her dangerous pathway for our children. Over my cold, dead body!

Noe Deal, Plainfield, NH (Sent Wednesday, August 08, 2007 9:00 AM)

The Shame, Washington Paper Hangers!

America ""Watched another side show"",,,It was all self serving. What "he would do" and what She would do"! The shame being America is again being sucked into the liar's nest.

Post Auto Suggestion !

STRAIGHT UP/AZ (Sent Wednesday, August 08, 2007 9:01 AM)

Hillary leaves them in the dust; she is the only Dem tough enough to take on the liars; best quote of debate and accurate "I've been fighting the right-wing machine for 15 years" If you've been in this country for the last 7 years you know it is not only enough but it is essential to change parties. Imagine thinking not being on the cover of Fortune magazine as a selling point for one's candidacy. On that basis I should be president. Obama and
Edwards, excellent men. Don't they remind you of Gore and Kerry, nice men that Bush and the right ate for breakfast and we suffered the consequences.

Paul Abbott (Sent Wednesday, August 08, 2007 9:01 AM)

And Hillary will be the midnight snack for the GOP!

jerry/corpus christi texas (Sent Wednesday, August 08, 2007 9:17 AM)

Senator Clinton is a hypocrite and will say anything to get nominated - just like her scum bag husband.

Delaware Republican (Sent Wednesday, August 08, 2007 9:19 AM)

It's not "The Chris Matthews Show"; it's "The Hillary Clinton Show".

Great insight last night Chuck Todd.

Hillary is fortunate; she has her husband President Clinton to defend her, and if he's not around, she has Kerry, Biden & Chris Dodd to defend her. And she was WRONG on the Iraq War. They were ALL WRONG!!!! Her judgment is questionable to say the least.

Senator Obama needs to toughen up more. They are all going to gang up on him throughout this campaign. Hillary is the ultimate insider. It was obvious last night.

Maureen (Sent Wednesday, August 08, 2007 9:20 AM)

What an impressive Cabinet that line-up of candidates would make. Mix-em, match-em, pick the candidate of your choice with ANY cabinet level office and you have a country that runs so much better than what we have today. Quite frankly, only one Republican candidate even strikes me as worthy of consideration of a cabinet-level position, much less the top chair, so yes, I think the Democratic Party has arrayed a most impressive slate from which to choose. However, would someone please ask Hillary what time it is, or what the weather is like so we can get at least ONE direct answer to a direct question from her? That is the most troubling thing about her candidacy to me, a long-time supporter of both the Clintons. To me, the more she side-steps, the more she ducks direct questions, and the more she "stiff-arms," the more she looks power hungry rather than statesman-like.

John Doe, Raleigh, NC (Sent Wednesday, August 08, 2007 9:21 AM)

F.G. - It wasn't a gaffe. A president shouldn't always say exactly what is on his or her mind. As Hillary pointed out, words have consequences. When you are the leader of the most powerful country in the world, you have to understand that. You can't say anything that pops into your head; you have to be deliberate in your speaking in order to avoid sending the wrong messages to the wrong people. You can say what you think, but you have to be responsible about how you say it and mindful of the consequences that may flow from your words.

This is not a gaffe - this is common sense.

Carrie, Eastern Iowa (Sent Wednesday, August 08, 2007 9:22 AM)

I'm a proud supporter of Senator Clinton. I find it amazing that fellow "Democrats" (I have my doubts) can be such Clinton Haters. Have any of you noticed that her support is actually GROWING? I guess that makes everyone but Clinton Haters just plain stupid?

Jan, Nashua, NH (Sent Wednesday, August 08, 2007 9:23 AM)

Hillary was awesome. Shes highly intelligent-opposite of George, shes tough(not a macho idiot), and actually cares about other people, also unlike out current moron of a leader. A Clinton/Obama ticket would be unbeatable. 8 yrs of Clinton and then when Obama is more seasoned, he can have it for another 8 yrs. Both would be fantastic.

Susan, Miami (Sent Wednesday, August 08, 2007 9:27 AM)

Next >>

SEND A COMMENT

PLEASE READ: All comments must be approved before appearing in the thread; time and space constraints prevent all comments from appearing. We will only approve comments that are directly related to the blog, use appropriate language and are not attacking the comments of others.

Message (please, no HTML tags. Web addresses will be hyperlinked):

Your name, city and state (John Doe, Seattle, Wash.):

Your e-mail address (jdoe@msnbc.com):

Your website (it's okay if you don't have one):

Remember me? (We'll keep it private) Remember me?

TRACKBACKS

Trackbacks are links to weblogs that reference this post. Like comments, trackbacks do not appear until approved by us. The trackback URL for this post is: http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/trackback.aspx?PostID=308142