Gail Collins: Everybody vs. Hillary

[babylonsister]

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/01/opinion/01collins.html?ref=todayspaper

Everybody vs. Hillary

By GAIL COLLINS
Published: November 1, 2007

Hillary Clinton stood on a stage for two hours Tuesday night, being yelled at by six men. Now this is what they mean by pressure. The most important job in the world is at stake and every single one of the other candidates walked into the presidential debate gunning for her. They began piling on from the first question. She took it all and came out the other end in one piece. She’s one tough woman. Kudos.

Her fighting spirit was all the more impressive because so many of the positions she was defending were virtually indefensible. It’s not easy to try to make a matter of principle out of a refusal to say anything specific about Social Security. And you really need a spine of steel to stand up on national television and explain why it was a good idea to vote for a bellicose Senate resolution on Iran that has given George W. Bush a chance to start making ominous remarks about weapons of mass destruction again.

“Well, first of all, I am against a rush to war,” she said. That would have been disturbing even if she had not attacked the idea of “rushing to war” twice more in the next 60 seconds. Being against a rush to another war in the Middle East seems to be setting the bar a tad low. How does she feel about a measured march to war? A leisurely stroll?

And how could she have voted for an Iran resolution that was sponsored by Joseph Lieberman, who was basically drummed out of his party in Connecticut because of his hyperhawk stance on Iraq? Lieberman, who was once a somewhat boring but apparently good-hearted centrist, has turned into a disaster area for Democrats, a one-man quagmire.

snip//

What the debate did demonstrate was that the others deserve more time to make their case. Hillary might have looked immovable on that stage, but she sure didn’t look inevitable.

There are still two months before the first primaries, contests that as we all know only involve a tiny, tiny number of very, very special voters. (On behalf of the rest of the country, let me suggest that presidential candidates refrain from ending their rallies by saying: “We need your support! If you know anyone in Iowa or New Hampshire {hellip}”) Most of the nation has at least until next February to think about this, and Hillary really hasn’t sealed the deal.

But you do have to give her a few points for not letting the guys push her around.

[earthlover]

1. Scary Quote from above:

"Her fighting spirit was all the more impressive because so many of the positions she was defending were virtually indefensible".

Same could be said, of course, for Bush's fighting spirit defending positions that were virtually indefensible.

We don't need another president who tries to defend the indefensible. We need someone who defends positions with reasons. We don't need more indefensible wars or policies.

"fighting spirit"....or intractable stubbornness?

[wtmusic]

3. xlnt point

and how does someone with indefensible positions get to the position she has? :shrug:

[flpoljunkie]

15. And, what's up with her typically Republican response on the Social Security question?

On Social Security, the underlying message seems to be that Clinton will not support any effort to keep the program solvent by eliminating the cap on Social Security taxes until she gets elected president and sets up a bipartisan commission to provide political cover. The problem with that, as Barack Obama pointed out, is that you don’t arrive in the White House with a mandate for anything more daring than appointing a bunch of people to do a study. And when you’re talking about taxing income above $97,500 the same way we do income of, say, $30,000, it’s not really helpful to describe it as “a trillion-dollar tax increase on middle-class families.”

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/01/opinion/01collins.html?ref=todayspaper

[niceypoo]

17. "underlying message seems to be"

Could you please be a little more vague?

The republican response is, "privatize."

[niceypoo]

16. Fighting spirit...

Which convinces me that she can emerge from any mud, whatsoever, by from the right wing smear machine.

[still_one]

2. Let's face it, everyone of the points she was attacked on will be brought up in the general

election if she wins the nomination, and what the republicans will throw at her will be far worse

What bothered me about the debate wasn't the other candidates ganging up on her, but russert. His role should have been a neutral party, but the SOB was actually taking part in it himself, which shows how screwed up these so called guardians of the media are

[wtmusic]

4. I remember when debate moderators made a pretense of being impartial

Maybe in the future Tim will have a laugh track button, and be able to dump a bucket of slime on her

[DemocratSinceBirth]

6. I'd Love To See

I'd love to see Hillary debate the fat fuck (Tim Russert) mano a mano...

[still_one]

13. So do I. It has become an entertainment business now. Pathetic /nt

[KittyWampus]

22. You know, that'd be appropriate considering the perfomce TR gave. Your comment made me LOL!

It really is the next logical step.

[MannyGoldstein]

5. Fortunately, Once She Wins The Nomination

- which she inevitably will, because all our votes are belong to her - the Republicans will treat her with kid gloves. Their attacks will be like pokes with a feather pillow unto her.

:sarcasm:

[jmp]

7. "... being yelled at by six men."

:eyes:

[BeyondGeography]

19. I know...What a ridiculous line

Cartoon imagery and hysteria; America at its worst.

[gorekerrydreamticket]

21. Who was yelling? I watched the whole thing and didn't see anything like that.

Too much of the "poor me" stuff could backfire on HRC.

[KittyWampus]

23. should read "being confronted by her six opponents".

[illinoisprogressive]

8. i think she could have done herself real damage with her ducking, ect. at the debate

Russert was trying to getting her to answer one question clearly and honestly. take a stand. Because she would not and this was exposed to people, this could have hurt her and cast doubts in people's minds.

[MannyGoldstein]

9. She Had No Choice

The very crux of her campaign is to duck and weave. If she gets pushed on any specifics, that's all she can do - to Clinton, commiting to a position is the worst thing a candidate can do. Even when she votes on a controversial issue, she issues an "I'm voting for this but I don't like it" statement so she can backpeddle later.

Triangulation uber alles!

[niceypoo]

18. Russert was setting her up by making her the answer to every question tossed out

I hate to say it, but her responses made me respect her a lot more.

[MethuenProgressive]

10. "But you do have to give her a few points for not letting the guys push her around. "

She'll face worse, and still laugh it off.
At least Richardson had the integrity to call Obama and Edwards on their Rovian attacks.

[earthlover]

11. Candidates sparring with each other is what a campaign is all about!

This is an election, not a coronation!

They are running for president, not monarch.

Everything is subject to discussion and debate.

And we as a party want to nominate our best candidate, and we too have the right to examine every candidate closely.

To dismiss debate as Rovian is disengenuous! Rove is for stifling debate. I say, bring it on!

Hillary was her own worst enemy at the debate. Nobody put a gun to her head and told her she had to talk out of both sides of her mouth on an issue within a couple of minutes. She did that voluntarily. And what a mistake.

Ok...time to blame it on Russert, and imply that her opponents should just shut up and let her be coronated without further ado. Far be it from anyone to suggest that the emporer is naked.

[BushOut06]

12. I am sick and fucking tired of this "awww, she's a woman" bullshit

She's the FRONTRUNNER. She's not some poor, hapless woman running for her first public office. OF COURSE the other candidates are going to take aim primarily at her - not because she's a woman, but because she's the FRONTRUNNER. Most polls show her far ahead of anyone else. The other candidates would be doing a shitty job if they didn't go after her.

[zulchzulu]

14. Weird OP by Collins that starts off with the Pity Party Candidate...

..that serves into how other candidates have every right to show why they are a better candidate.

Some of the Letters To The Editor near Collins' column did play up the Pity Party Act...awww...poor little Hillary gettin' picked on my some big sweaty men... is this where the "dialogue" is supposed to go now?

[Forkboy]

20. A lot of people say attacks help her so I don't see why anyone is complaining.