Clinton: Yes or no questions are “cutesy”
posted at 12:42 pm on November 6, 2007 by Bryan
Vote for Hillary Clinton and you get all the Clinton corruption and doubletalk without any of the greasy charm that at least made him entertaining. She’s so bad at that part of the job that Bill Clinton keeps having to do it for her. The latest iteration: Asking her yes or no policy questions is unfair.
Former President Clinton on Monday compared Republican criticism of his wife’s position on driver’s license for illegal immigrants to the ads that helped sink John Kerry’s White House hopes in 2004.
“I had the feeling that at the end of that last debate we were about to get into cutesy land again,” Clinton told some 3,000 members of the American Postal Worker’s Union at a convention.
I’ll point out one more time that the Swifties were never factually debunked. They were smeared and mischaracterized, lied about and abused, but never debunked.
But Bill Clinton said the issue is too complicated for sound bites.
“It’s fine for Hillary and all the other Democrats to discuss Governor Spitzer’s plan. But not in 30 seconds — yes, no, raise your hand,” he said.
Actually it’s not complicated at all. Do you support the basic rule of law, yes or no?
See how easy that is?
Related Posts:
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
The master politician – funny thing is the more Clinton talks, (Bill), the more he draws attention to the weakness of Hillary.
Keep talking Bill – you’re doing us all a favor.
jake-the-goose on November 6, 2007 at 12:45 PM
Never easy for a Democrat; nuance, and all that, don’t you know.
Frozen Tex on November 6, 2007 at 12:45 PM
But Bryan, wouldn’t the answer depend on what your definitioin of “is” is?
Wyrd on November 6, 2007 at 12:45 PM
The Clinton White House: some dissembly required.
James on November 6, 2007 at 12:48 PM
Of course they don’t believe in the rule of law. What do you think the immigration debate was all about? Out of the other side of their mouth, though, they cry about George Bush breaking the law.
It is typical democrat double speak to match their double standards. And the public seems to love it.
saiga on November 6, 2007 at 12:48 PM
That’s the part of Swiftie history Dems keep trying to rewrite.
Greasy charm? LOL.
petefrt on November 6, 2007 at 12:50 PM
Well, of course! For the rest of you mopes, anyhow.
morganfrost on November 6, 2007 at 12:51 PM
Bryan; define basic, as in basic rule of law.
They will never answer a yes or no, and they get to pick the questions they want to answer.
BTW, that was a warning shot to all of the other liberal talk pundits, mind your manners, ask the “right” questions, or you will be smeared and shunned by your colleagues. We will have no more questions to the queen that makes her uncomfortable.
right2bright on November 6, 2007 at 12:52 PM
It’s not easy at all! Think of a Clinton conundrum…
Can’t say yes, because that may:
a) annoy a majority of issue voters based on internal polling
b) be easily disproved with previous statements
c) pigeonhole me into a category when further internal polling, even though it may be supportive now, can change thus requiring more nuance
d) lump me in with dirty, dirty Republicans in some way and thus anger the wackjobs and nutcases that hate Congress b/c it isn’t acting ‘Democratic’ enough
Can’t say no because that may:
a) annoy a majority of issue voters based on internal polling, or common sense
b) pigeonhole me into a category etc.
Note, no where is an option of “it would be against what I truly believe.” For all the sweaty charm the Clintons (moreso Bill) have, actual solid principles and non-negotiated terms are just not there.
Wineaholic on November 6, 2007 at 12:53 PM
Makes perfect sense to me, Bryan. Am I the only person here that sees Billary as more and more of a petulant, whiny little priss?
gryphon202 on November 6, 2007 at 12:53 PM
Just get her into the general Bill, that’s all I ask.
Theworldisnotenough on November 6, 2007 at 12:58 PM
It is hard to give a one-word answer when you are talking out of all sides of your mouth.
bbz123 on November 6, 2007 at 1:00 PM
Why do you think they want the fairness doctrine? There were no blogs during the Clinton years, just fawning MSM toadies.
bbz123 on November 6, 2007 at 1:01 PM
Hey Bryan,
In USA Today
saiga on November 6, 2007 at 1:02 PM
He compared the driver’s license dustup to television ads during the 2004 presidential campaign that questioned Kerry’s patriotism, and campaign commercials in 2002 suggesting that former Sen. Max Cleland, D-Ga., who lost three limbs in Vietnam, was soft on terrorism.
I gotta admit, except for the part about “questioning Kerry’s patriotism” (they questioned his integrity, his honesty and his judgement, but not his patriotism), I’m, hopefully, with Bill.
Why?
Because the Swiftboat Vets showed Kerry for who he was, an opportunistic, amoral jerk who thought nothing of smearing his fellow soldiers if it meant political power for him.
And because the ads against Cleland did show that he was more worried about helping unions than catching terrorists.
Two good points that drive Dems crazy and help keep them out of elective office.
Let’s hope Bill is being prescient here.
Veeshir on November 6, 2007 at 1:03 PM
Democrats hate simplicity because simplicity doesn’t allow them to hide the devil in the details. Winston Churchill once commented concerning a bill in parliament that …. it defended itself from ever being read or understood by it’s sheer length and volume. Doesn’t that description fit most of today’s legislation ? If no one knows what the laws are, then you can just make it up as you go along. That’s the way Democrats like it.
Maxx on November 6, 2007 at 1:04 PM
Yes, when Clinton is talking, even the meaning of “is” is complicated. There are just far too many subtle nuances in the world to define the answers to issues in terms of yes and no, unless it’s a hot chick, in which case the course of action is clear and indecision a liability.
And why do you Republicans keep bringing up that pesky truth over and over? Don’t you realize that it’s been superceded by the Clinton Truth 2.0, which has thoroughly debugged the original version which admittedly didn’t work all that well? Can’t we just move on to the new version?
Tantor on November 6, 2007 at 1:07 PM
Yes or No answers are bad? But…But….but… I thought that was all they wanted from Mukasey on waterboarding?
JamesLee on November 6, 2007 at 1:08 PM
Willie Horton was an Al Gore production. What’s your point?
Bryan on November 6, 2007 at 1:10 PM
Dodd managed to answer it in 30 seconds or so.
MayBee on November 6, 2007 at 1:10 PM
Actually Hillary Clinton told a blatant lie in her postdebate explanation and nobody except for me has caught her. HRC claimed that when she was Iowa, three Iowans complained to her that they were driving and were struck by “undocumented workers” who were driving cars and that the three Iowans weren’t able to be compensated and so the Iowans told Hillary that “undocumented workers” should get drivers licenses and then they will have to get insurance. HRC’s claim about these conversations in Iowa is a blatant falsehood for a number of reasons. First, television and radio cameras and reporters follow HRC whereever she campaigns, especially in Iowa. Yet nobody has any film or audio of these conversations. HRC won’t say what city these conversations took place in. Second, people who are angry about illegal aliens driving in the US don’t use the expression “undocumented workers”. They would use the expression “illegal aliens” or “illegals”. Third, people who are driving their cars and are struck by illegal aliens who don’t carry insurance are not left without a remedy. These people would simply make a claim for uninsured motorist benefits and their own insurance company would compensate them Uninsured motorist coverage is part of every insurance policy. The three Iowans who supposedly told HRC about being struck by “undocumented workers” and having to foot their own bills could not have told HRC that. The three people would have been compensated by uninsured motorist provisions of their own policy.
When Pete Wilson gave his inauguration speech after being reelected Governor, he made up some nonsense about “5 Californians” he talked to. The LA Times inquired about the names of the people and where Wilson talked to them. When Wilson fessed up that his speechwriters made up the whole thing, The LA Times had stories for about a week. Yet will the MSM do the same thing with Hillary and her phantom Iowans? I doubt it.
Larraby on November 6, 2007 at 1:13 PM
Clinton (eiter one)is nothing more then a Slick Crook.
CloneTrooper on November 6, 2007 at 1:16 PM
Ahhh, she’s not so slick. Slick would be to not answer yes or no to tough questions, but to answer with “maybe”. Maybe always leaves you with two ways to escape the question…..just a thinker.
soulsirkus on November 6, 2007 at 1:17 PM
What about the criticism and “piling-on” by the Dems, Bubba??
Rick on November 6, 2007 at 1:18 PM
And we all know that Slick Willy likes him some cutesy!
lan astaslem on November 6, 2007 at 1:25 PM
Dont forget some other sound bites
William Amos on November 6, 2007 at 1:28 PM
Question: Senator Clinton, did you and Bill kill (or have killed) Kathleen Willey’s husband as alleged in her new book “Target: Caught In The Crosshairs Of Bill and Hillary Clinton”? Just a simple yes or no will do.
OBX Pete on November 6, 2007 at 1:29 PM
You get an A+ in journalism (or an F- in a university journalism class). Excellent point, and I hope somehow, somewhere, somebody in the media would follow up.
Great catch.
right2bright on November 6, 2007 at 1:30 PM
The one link through all of this is the ever present Clintonian nauseating narcissism.
the great expectation of the Bill-Hill cabal is that they are divinely entitled to pure uninhibited arrogance.
How dare even Tim Russert ask a substance question.
Us common folk are privileged to breath the same air they do.
Speakup on November 6, 2007 at 1:30 PM
Bryan to your very valid point about the Swift Boat Veterans, I think it is quite revealing that many in the MSM continue to “talk about” Dubya and his TANG service in couched terms that indicate there is something there while completely ignoring the Swift Boat Veterans. Strange that no one of credibility has come forward (at least that I have seen) to back up the MSM and progressive point of view that W skipped out on his committments while at the same time these same people completely ignore all of the credible information and commentary vis a vis Kerry and his short and disputed service followed by his treasonous behaviour after coming home. But hey don’t question their patriotism and to Wm Jefferson’s point, don’t ask the dhimmis and especially Hill any questions that actually require a concrete answer and staking out a position because that’s not fair eh! Canada’s first and only female Prime Minister, one Kim Campbell (complete disaster) infamously said during the heat of a national campaign that elections were not the place to debate policy or some such nonsense. She lost the election and her party was reduced to 2 seats out of 300+ in that election. Hopefully history will repeat itself south of the border.
oilbertan on November 6, 2007 at 1:44 PM
That’s cute but not terribly useful. I’m reasonably sure that the honorable junior senator from New York would tell you without any hesitation that yes, she supports the basic rule of law, along with motherhood, apple pie and the flag. Any politician would say yes to that question, it’s just that not every one of them agrees with your meaning of “basic rule of law.”
At the same time, democrats can ask their series of gotcha questions as well:
– Do you support illegal aliens driving around unlicensed?
– Do you support an Iraq policy resulting in a thousand dead US troops every year?
– Do you support deficit spending when we have already saddled our children with $9 trillion of debt with no realistic hope of repaying it in our lifetimes?
– Do you think the government should, under certain circumstances, compel a woman to have a child?
Then, when you try to explain about efforts to expel the illegals, the success of the surge, the positive effects of cutting taxes and the abominable nature of abortion, they too can accuse you of doubletalk and “nuance.”
The problem is, that while you keep badmouthing each other, the illegal alien issue remains unresolved, Iraq continues to be a bloody meat grinder, the national debt keeps climbing and pregnancies keep getting aborted.
Which is a shame, because, believe it or not, most people, red or blue, do not like illegal aliens, dead soldiers, debt or abortion. It’s just that, despite the moral clarity that people like Ann Coulter or Al Sharpton purport to have, public policy issues are actually complicated, many-sided questions.
So why not quit playing gotcha and try to find some sort of meaningful national unity consensus instead?
factoid on November 6, 2007 at 1:50 PM
Here’s an encouraging Newsday column about Hillary’s vulnerability. It starts like this:
Allahpundit appears to have conceded the election to Hillary, based on her current poll numbers vs. the Republican field. To me that’s very strange, since most people aren’t yet tuned in and don’t know anything about the Republican candidates except the headlines. I’ve maintained from the start that when the electorate gets a chance to compare Hillary directly with Romney/Giuliani, those poll numbers will change.
Equivocating vs. straight answers
Consummate politician vs. accomplished executive
Whiney girl vs. confident man
Clinton baggage vs. ???
Splashman on November 6, 2007 at 2:00 PM
The point is that the race card is a dirty weapon that works sometimes. Also, I yields to your Al Gore thing but I think it was against Michael Ducakus or Dukacus whatever.
saiga on November 6, 2007 at 2:11 PM
Remember this
saiga on November 6, 2007 at 2:17 PM
Smears are dirty weapons too, and you’re attempting to deploy one here. Illegal immigration is about the rule of law. If you insist on making it a race issue, you’re being dishonest.
Bryan on November 6, 2007 at 2:19 PM
Those aren’t “gotcha questions” – those are liberal talking points (with the exception of the first one, which Dems try to steer clear from).
Rick on November 6, 2007 at 2:20 PM
I just thought of something.
The Democrats and lefties in general, and the Clintons in particular, all remind me of a character from the Hanna Barbera “Yogi’s Space Race” cartoon.
Captain Good.
Every episode, he’d show up at the start of the race, appearing to be the heroic champion of all things good and wonderful.
But every episode, he would, at some point, push a button and reveal himself to actually be the Phantom Phink, the dastardly evil villain of that show.
Despite the fact that Captain Good and Phantom Phink were NEVER in the same place at the same time, none of the other characters ever suspected that they were one and the same, completely oblivious to Phink’s evil machinations.
I feel like far too many people are just like them, completely oblivious to the damage the Democrats will do this country if they get the White House.
You and I here get it, and see right through their deception. We know that Hillary wants driver licenses for illegals, but will not come out and say it. To take a stand for what she truly believes in (and what I believe she will work toward if she is elected) means alienating that majority of Americans that do not want this. Instead, she will avoid the issue as much as possible from now until election day.
But so many others are either completely oblivious to what the Democrats and liberalism stand for (and the fact that the liberal run entitlement state has been a complete failure wherever it has been tried), or they are complicit in the plan.
Whatever the case, if you had told me when I was a little kid just learning about politics, that it would be so ridiculous as to be comparable to a cartoon, I would have never believed you.
Amazing.
Hawkins1701 on November 6, 2007 at 2:21 PM
For me, as a woman, (though I doubt that matters) it doesn’t look good for a woman who’s running for POTUS to have her husband jump in and stick up for her. She really needs to be able to do that herself. The fact that she can’t answer yes or no to a simple question is noted, and not surprising coming from Hillary.
4shoes on November 6, 2007 at 2:23 PM
Bryan on November 6, 2007 at 2:19 PM
I’m not. I’m just commenting on what appears to be the reality of the debate in the MSM and the Congress. From Lindsey Graham to Chuck Schumer, the race card appears to be in play. I totally agree with you that it is about the rule of law, but the amnesty crowd can’t win on that aspect of it. They need to try and go for the conscience of the voters and force them to look in their hearts for the evil bigotry within themselves. I have seen this tactic all over the media. I hope it backfires.
saiga on November 6, 2007 at 2:27 PM
Bryan wrote:
Dan Rather called. He wants his lame defense back.
Seriously, Bryan — I’m on the Swifties’ side, but if you have to stoop that low to defend them, you’d be better off avoiding the topic.
Splashman on November 6, 2007 at 2:45 PM
She supposedly has as bad a temper as Bill. If a softball/slightly sharp question from Russert can flare it up, well, I hope that many Conservatives visit her rallies to ask her some harder questions. If she campaigns near where I live, I’ll do my best.
“Mrs. Clinton, as you support taxing the rich, could you tell me how long ago it was that you made your first million dollars? As a couple, exactly what is your and your husband’s net worth today?”
“Mrs. Clinton, as an American citizen who enjoys the benefits of living in a Democracy,do you denounce Communism and Communists?”
You get the idea- she wants to work for us, be our President. She’s interviewing for the position for the next year. Ask her questions.
Doug on November 6, 2007 at 2:48 PM
Yes or no answers pose problems for the Clintons.
Yes and no answers are a longstanding Clinton tradition.
Bill excelled at it. Hillary is drowning in it.
fogw on November 6, 2007 at 2:48 PM
Soon the Clintons will be able to mass produce that “Greasy Charm” with out any by-products or added fillers.
Scorched_Earth on November 6, 2007 at 2:51 PM
Do you write for the Clintons? Or someone in the amnesty crowd?
shooter on November 6, 2007 at 2:54 PM
saiga on November 6, 2007 at 2:58 PM
Boy, the “bad news kill the messenger” bug seems to be flying around today. That is what makes HOT AIR so spirited. I am 100% against any form of amnesty and want our current law enforced vigorously. Like I have said many times, Latin America is replete with corruption, and activities like amnesty reflect the immigration of political corruption into the U.S. Amnesty underminds the rule of law and the rule of law is one of the key contributors to American success. I am to the right of Lou Dobbs on this.
saiga on November 6, 2007 at 3:09 PM
Uh, you may want to go here before continuing down this road.
Rick on November 6, 2007 at 3:13 PM
When I look at the overall immigration debates, Geraldo, Lindsey Graham, John McCain, it strikes me how political correctness has gummed up the works. Like the USA Today article on comparing the Hillary drivers license comment to the Willie Horton ad in 1988 to the Fox News article today.
Im sick of the race card getting pushed into almost everything from healthcare to taxes to education. We can’t deal with these problems in straight jackets.
Don’t blame me for the race card, I’m just commenting on how it has expanded it’s realm here lately. I want a color blind society like Ronald Reagan wanted. If your an ideot your an ideot no matter what color you are.
saiga on November 6, 2007 at 3:25 PM
What’s your point? All I did was call attention to Bryan’s lame Ratheresque defense; I didn’t defend the Swifties. And if your opinion on the subject has changed because Waffles opened his mouth, I’m not going to bother trying to persuade you. I’ll wait for more reputable analysis, if and when Kerry actually releases anything.
Splashman on November 6, 2007 at 3:32 PM
My point is that it appears you got it backwards, Splashman. Kerry is the one with the “lame Ratheresque defense”, not the Swifties. 4 years later, and all he keeps telling us is that he’s coming out with the information. If he was/is in the right, where are the records?
And no, I’m not a Waffles supporter.
Rick on November 6, 2007 at 3:53 PM
And then he interrupted her when she tried for an answer more complicated than “yes” or “no” to bully her back to answering it his way…
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1282/is_n1_v50/ai_20221456
thanks to the Corner for the link.
Odd how when he was President he thought it was completely acceptable to treat someone else like that. And I’m going to have to say “Abigail” isn’t likely to be a guy… so treating a woman like that was acceptable too.
I wonder what has changed?
gekkobear on November 6, 2007 at 3:54 PM
Waffles is a different subject, and I DID NOT CHALLENGE THE SWIFTIES, I CHALLENGED BRYAN’S LAME DEFENSE OF THE SWIFTIES! One more time, here’s what Bryan wrote:
Replace “Swifties” with “TANG memos”, and you’ve got a quote from Rather. Care to respond to that?
The Swifties can be defended adequately without resorting to this garbage. Sounds like the Kossacks.
Splashman on November 6, 2007 at 4:26 PM
I agree with the Clintons about the yes/no questions. I find Sean Hannity intolerable for trying to shove yes/no answers down his guests throat.
But Clinton is simply deflecting in making this charge. The real problem for the Clintons is that their position on illegal immigration is an unpopular position, but they seem unable to triangulate it like they do so many other issues. While part of their problem on the immigration issue is the leftist Democratic primary voter, I believe that the Clinton’s actually have a few core beliefs and that one of those core beliefs is the liberal Christian fetish of the immigrant–also seen in some evangelicals like Mike Huckabee.
I suggest that rather playing the sadly typical sleazy politics of right-wing character assassination that we take the high road. It wouldn’t hurt to harp on the actual policy disagreement, since our position is quite popular with the American people.
thuja on November 6, 2007 at 4:33 PM
What Bryan wrote doesn’t seem like a “lame defense” of the Swifties. Kerry made himself out to be a war hero, and the Swifties came out with their side of the story. Kerry never debunked it – the burden was on him, not the Swifties. He was the one that put his military record out there in the first place – he was the one running for office.
As for Rather, he was supposed to be a credible and very well respected journalist, who reported on something that was not properly fact-checked, and he got called on it. Burden was on him because he was the journalist. He put it out there.
Rick on November 6, 2007 at 4:51 PM
I give up.
Gawd almighty.
Splashman on November 6, 2007 at 5:03 PM
As do I…
Rick on November 6, 2007 at 5:20 PM
It depends on what the meaning of ‘yes’ or ‘no’ is.
This can be complex and never answered by ‘yes’ or ‘no’ unless we can discern what type of ‘yes’ or ‘no’ they are using
However we can determine what ‘yes’ or ‘no’ they mean with waterboarding.
A waterboarding ‘yes’ is a true ‘YES” and a waterboarding ‘NO’ is a true ‘no’. Any other ‘yes’ or ‘no’ could be false.
Plus waterboarding the candidates would be both fun, and fair, at least to the voters who have been toyed with for years by these slimeballs
entagor on November 6, 2007 at 7:59 PM
Clinton: Well, that depends on what your definition of is is…
eanax on November 6, 2007 at 8:01 PM
SAIGA, I just don’t know what to think about what you write.
….keep comin’ back.
shooter on November 6, 2007 at 8:25 PM
….keep comin’ back.
shooter on November 6, 2007 at 8:25 PM
Friend of Bills are ya? Oh ha the other Bill.
sonnyspats1 on November 6, 2007 at 9:07 PM
At least fake it ’till you make it…
Rick on November 6, 2007 at 10:17 PM
Open ended questions for Hillary:
What’s it like being married to a rapist?
Why did you kill Kathleen Wiley’s husband and Vince Foster?
When will you lose weight?
Food for thought…
Mojave Mark on November 7, 2007 at 1:00 AM
Hillary Clinton’s just won the nomination… what are you going to do now?
I’m going to Cutesy Land!
saint kansas on November 7, 2007 at 3:18 AM
Splashman: “Replace “Swifties” with “TANG memos”, and you’ve got a quote from Rather. Care to respond to that?”
It’s fallacious reasoning at best even if it were true, but it also bears the double disadvantage of being false. The very first poster who duplicated the TANG memos on Word and demonstrated that they matched perfectly factually debunked them. There was quite a detailed public factual debunking, which you apparently missed, which decisively demonstrated that the technology used to produce the fake memos was an anachronism in the TANG.
Tantor on November 7, 2007 at 9:27 AM
The point is that Ronald Reagan wanted a colorblind society as do I. In today’s PC world, you can’t call an idiot an idiot if race comes into play. It’s like calling a baseball game where you can’t call strikes on some players because of race, but you are free to call what you want on others. Once race is injected into any debate about anything, the wheels come off and the discussion gets polarized between the good souls and the evil souls. I find it counter productive when trying to address problems honestly.
Race relations are a very complicated problem that runs deep into American history and culture. We need to figure out a way to move past all the race babble and elevate the dialog. Assimilation was a key point of the immigration debate. The US is not a melting pot but a tossed salad. How do we deal with getting everyone back on the same page when looking out for what’s best for America with such a disjointed public? We must get Race relations out in the sunshine and hammer out the injustice and speak truth to power.
saiga on November 7, 2007 at 10:07 AM
We have the Moslems calling themselves a race, and they complain that the American public wrongly sees them as terrorists and it is racial prejudice. In my view there are justifiable are reasons behind the public apprehension. With illegal immigration, there is law breaking going on and document fraud along with ansilary corruption with employers and government. With the Rap culture, there is behavior that seems to be above the general guidelines of acceptable behavior. There are white skin heads acting fools also.
None of these issues are about Race, but about behavior and actions of individuals. However, discussion about this behavior can’t be discussed without the race card pooping all over everything. I don’t know how to get past it cleanly, but I do have some ideas.
saiga on November 7, 2007 at 10:23 AM