Do we really want an "I don't know" nominee?

[Armstead]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/09/23/AR2007092301099.html
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x3544306

One of the things that really bothers me about Hilary is her tendency to use a lot of words to say nothing.

It often boils down to "I don't know," but said in 596 words.

I would rather have a tangible candidate, who says tangible things and has tangible positions and beliefs.

[snappyturtle]

1. Agreed. nt

[PDittie]

2. No.

I didn't find the candidate poised, but over-rehearsed, right down to the tittering laugh she gave several times.

I didn't care for her overly cautious, somewhat dodgy, occasionally cagey answers to most of the questions.

I just can't warm to her.

[fenriswolf]

3. obsfucation is clarity

[Captain Hilts]

4. That's the way the game is played. nt

[Armstead]

5. Not necessarily

Wrongheaded as he was, Ronald Reagan, for example, tended to answer questions directly in ways that made you knew what he stood for, and what he wanted to do.

[Captain Hilts]

19. Worked for FDR, Bill Clinton, etc. nt

[Armstead]

21. Worked for GWBush too -- Is that a recommendation?

[jillan]

6. That's why we need Biden. Ask him anything -

And he'll be glad to tell you "The American people have a right to know the truth."
and he will tell you all about it "man".

[PatSeg]

8. For those of us who have been following politics closely

the last few years, we've become very perceptive when it comes to evasion and general overall BS. I sit in front of the TV yelling, "answer the damn question!" Candidates often are terrified of going off the script and it is far too obvious. As a nation, we are becoming more and more immune to political jargon - been there, heard that, and it doesn't fly anymore. I want direct, honest answers, not more of the same carefully crafted speech.

[jillan]

9. Did you watch Hillary yesterday at all?

She is the master of spin.

Gotta give her credit.

[PatSeg]

10. I saw some of the MTP interview

and once she started evading a particular question, I switched to something else. It all sounded good, but didn't really SAY anything. I don't even remember what the question was. It is all a forgettable blur to me now.

[jillan]

15. I saw that and her on Fox News Sunday

too bad you missed that one!

[Carolina]

14. Biden is full of crap, too

[Bitwit1234]

7. Gee I guess we need a moderator up there

someone who "KNOWS" what people are thinking and interpret for the public what they are going to do and what it is they are saying...

[Cha]

11. Well, I agree with her on one thing..

no use in using hypotheticals when she sure as hell doesn't know what all kinds of messed up bushit is planning for this last year.

[blm]

12. I'd bet that she knows EXACTLY what is planned -

because Bill and Poppy helped plan it.

[Cha]

16. Oh dear..

so you think if she becomes the pres that she's not going to withdraw our troops? They're wanting them to stay ad infinitum for the profits of the oil and the strategic ME bases for more agression..say IRan?

One can only imagine what the ME country leaders and citizens are thinking and planning now? Surely, they know the US fascists want their OIL?

[blm]

17. They knew THAT decades ago. Anyone think Clinton WASN'T advising Tony Blair

from 2001-2006?

[Cha]

18. Okay...poodleboy went down

in infamy albeit rich as croesus.

I was trying to find some humanity here.

Someday, somebody will no doubt write about The Great Fraud perpetuated on the American People just like The Good Germans.. only they tried to be not as blatant.

[Prophet 451]

25. BWA HA HA!

Sorry, I'm a Brit, the description of Blair as "poodleboy" just made me spit coffee over my keyboard.

[Carolina]

13. Exactly

"I don't know" is perfect triangulation. Prior words and actions cannot be used against her.

She doesn't know what will happen, ergo she doesn't know what she'll do!

Yet she's a leader!

If that's the case, let's nominate and elect a clairvoyant. 1-800-psychic

[Armstead]

20. Yes John Edward -- not Edwards -- for president

Maybe the spirits of the afterlife cxan advise us via the TV medium.
:)

[Lerkfish]

22. in her defense, that's senatorial discourse SOP

its why senators are seldom elected president.
they appear unable to extricate their salient points from the morass of their rhetoric. Frankly, they end up boring the citizenry, or frustrating them, for not really making a clear concise point.

As much as I hate to admit it, KKKarl understood that when working for Shrub's campaign.

[superkia]

23. Clinton as president = more war for profit, more of the same.

Clinton speaking in Iowa about what the next president will inherit and what she would do:
http://www.hillaryclinton.com/news/speech/view/?id=2366

As a result of these failures, the next President will inherit some of the greatest foreign policy challenges in our history. Rising terrorism and extremism. Frayed alliances. And the increasingly difficult task of restoring American leadership in a world that has come to view our nation with suspicion and mistrust.

We cannot effectively address any of these challenges if we continue our military engagement in Iraq. As long as we stay there, our military strength will continue to erode. Our standing in the world will continue to decline. Our enemies in the region will continue to exploit our failures. Our occupation will continue to serve as a recruitment tool for terrorists. Our support for Afghan democracy, our conflict with the Taliban, and our hunt for al Qaeda will continue to be compromised. And our brave men and women will continue to lose their lives and suffer grievous wounds.

Clinton speaking out of her other face like she has already won the election?
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/09/23/AR2007092301099.html

"You know, I'm not going to get into hypotheticals and make pledges, because I don't know what I'm going to inherit, George.



If we elect her we are asking for more of the same, she says what you want to hear and does what benefits her and her people, the wealthy and corporations.

[KoKo]

24. Everything is so calculated not to make a mistake that one can't figure out where

she stands on any issue. It's a good strategy if she wanted to be a Diplomat...but for a country that's in as much trouble as ours is...she comes of as sounding like she's saying "Stay the Course," or trust me because look at how good "we" meaning She and Bill were for the country.

I don't know why I should trust the Clintons. Their legacy looks worse and worse given how fast the country has gone into the muck. There were so many policies that Bush managed to build on that have hurt us like NAFTA and Media Consolidation plus alot of SEC Financial Deregulation that's coming home to roost.

She won't talk about changing NAFTA ....she only will say "Globilization is here to stay" and she would put in some human rights reforms.. Doesn't mention Media Degreg which worked against Bill's Administration...or SEC and Corporate Reforms. She just talks about the same old "Chicken in Every Pot" stuff that Dems run on but do little about...(although they are better than Repugs) we are in such a mess how much can she do?

[Prophet 451]

26. She's not unusual there

Watching it from this side of the Atlantic, most of the primary contests (both Dem and Repub) seem to consist of using a lot of words to say very little. That said, the ones who do tell you what they mean, such as Kucinich and Paul (who I think is nuts but at least he's honest), are getting hammered in polls.

[Carrieyazel]

27. Yes, but how about "I don't know if she can win" because

thats what we will be saying when we get stuck with her as the nominee. Or "she can't win". We need a candidate who knows what they're talking about, but also one that we know can actually have a shot to win.