The Trail: A Daily Diary of Campaign 2008

Archives

Morning Cheat Sheet

Reminding Voters Which Clinton is Now Onstage


The Democratic candidates met at Dartmouth last night.

A central and vexing challenge in running for the same office your husband once held is demonstrating that you are your own person. During last night's Democratic presidential debate in New Hampshire, Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (N.Y.) seemed to dispatch that with a couple easy quips.

It came late in the two-hour debate aired on MSNBC, after many viewers may have switched channels or nodded off. Tim Russert, the "Meet the Press" host who moderated the debate, tossed out one of those hypotheticals meant to throw candidates off their scripts. It came from a guest on his show once, he said, who had suggested there should be a presidential exception to a torture ban in extreme circumstances -- such as capturing al-Qaeda's number 3, who knows the location of a big bomb about to go off. "We have the right and responsibility to beat it out of him," Russert quoted the guest saying.

Sens. Barack Obama (Ill.) and Joseph R. Biden Jr. (Del.) quickly said no, there should not be a presidential exception. And Russert then turned to Clinton, who agreed. "As a matter of policy," she said, "it cannot be American policy, period."

Then Russert sprang the trap. "The guest who laid out this scenario for me with that proposed solution was William Jefferson Clinton last year," he said. "So he disagrees with you."

Hillary Clinton paused a moment. "Well," she said with a smile, "he's not standing here right now."

The line sent the audience off. Russert tried to press the point.

"So there is a disagreement," he said.

"Well," she replied wryly, "I'll talk to him later."

Just like that, she had the crowd and she had established who is really in charge these days in the Clinton household. Bill can say what he wants on Russert's show. Hillary plans to be president. No worry here that Bill is secretly pulling the strings. If anything, worry that, uh oh, he's now in trouble at home. Rich Lowry, editor of National Review, cited that exchange on the conservative magazine's Web site. "She might have had her strongest moment during the torture question," he wrote last night.

The dynamic between a former president and would-be future president in the same marriage, of course, is unique in American history and endlessly fascinating to watch. The public clues are scrutinized and dissected and analyzed to death: How much use will she make use of him on the campaign trail? How will she exploit his popularity among Democratic base voters? How will she sidestep the negative baggage from his various scandals? How will she differentiate herself from him?

Biden at one point effectively tried to remind Democratic voters of the Clinton baggage, but stepped on his message a bit when it seemed he was referring to scandals and then quickly retreated. "There's a lot of very good things that come with all the great things that President Clinton did, but there's also a lot of the old stuff that comes back," Biden said. He quickly interjected: "When I say old stuff, I'm referring to policy -- policy."

Hillary Clinton gave the expected answer to some of those questions last night. "I thought Bill was a pretty good president," she said in response to a question about the drawbacks of political dynasties in a democracy. "The values that he acted on on behalf of our country, both at home and abroad, are ones that stand the test of time. But look, I'm running on my own. I'm going to the people on my own."

Already she has taken different positions from her husband on some key issues. At a debate sponsored by the AFL-CIO, she agreed that the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) that Bill Clinton pushed through the Senate needs to be "fixed," although she tried to blame President Bush for its implementation. In other settings, she has said she would scrap the don't ask, don't tell policy the former president enacted and allow gays to serve openly in the military.

And last night, there was a surreal moment when she was asked the fact that her husband's foundation and library refuse to disclose the names of the people who have chipped in, sometimes in the millions of dollars, any of whom might have a potential reason for currying favor with the family of the next president. Russert asked her why not voluntarily make those donor lists public even if the law does not require it given the potential for conflict. She answered as if she had nothing at all to do with her husband's library and foundation.

"You'll have to ask them," she said.

"What's your recommendation?" Russert asked.

"Well, I don't talk about my private conversations with my husband," she responded.

The question Russert posed on terrorism and torture stemmed from his interview with Bill Clinton that aired on "Meet the Press" on Sept. 24, 2006. Amid a debate at the time about the proper limits of interrogations, Russert asked the former president if he would outlaw waterboarding, sleep deprivation and other tactics. Clinton said he would adopt "the generally accepted definitions of the Geneva Convention" but then raised without prompting the ticking-bomb exception.

"Every one of us can imagine the following scenario," Clinton posited. "We get lucky, we get the number three guy in al-Qaeda and we know there's a big bomb going off in America in three days and we know this guy knows where it is. Don't we have the right and the responsibility to beat it out of him?" He went on to suggest a presidential exception to the torture ban for such a situation. "They could set up a law where the president could make a finding or could guarantee a pardon or could guarantee the submission of that sort of thing post facto to the intelligence court, just like we do now with wiretaps." The point, though, was that such a rare possibility did not justify the sweeping powers the Bush administration wanted.

Hillary Clinton's answer allowed for some wiggle room. She said such an exception should not be policy . She did not say she would not authorize it if she were confronted with such a situation. "These hypotheticals are very dangerous because they open a great, big hole in what should be an attitude that our country and our president takes toward the appropriate treatment of everyone," she said. "And I think it's dangerous to go down this path."

Which sounds like someone who thinks she's going to be president and doesn't want to be locked in by Tim Russert, al-Qaeda's number three or even her own husband.

-- Peter Baker

Posted at 10:25 AM ET on Sep 27, 2007  | Category:  Morning Cheat Sheet
Share This: Technorati talk bubble Technorati | Tag in Del.icio.us | Digg This
Previous: VP Speculation:
The (Very) Early Jim Webb Edition
| Next: McCain's Staff Says
He's Back on Track


Add 44 to Your Site
Be the first to know when there's a new installment of The Trail. This widget is easy to add to your Web site, and it will update every time there's a new entry on The Trail.
Get This Widget >>


Comments

Please email us to report offensive comments.



i know i'm not the only one that notices that Hillary won't answer 'hypotheticals' when they ask her to show her true values or admit that she is against something that is popular. but she has no trouble answering hypothetical questions about what she would do if she was president, how she would structure health care, etc. if she wants to hide behind the hypothetical excuse to NEVER answer a question then she should shut her mouth for good.

same with her husband. when she needs some experience to hide behind she stakes her claim to everything he did, when something from the past comes back to haunt her she is suddenly her own person with no connection to that bill fellow of the same last name.

Which is it Mrs Clinton? Which way are you going to play it? Because you can't have both sides. You are a divider and not a unifier, this is furhter evidence.

Posted by: ourgameorders | September 27, 2007 3:06 PM

The last thing Hillary wants is to remind the voting public who's on stage this time around. She's counting on the fact that people want to see Bill Clinton back in the White House, and that's what they are really voting for when they vote for her. I'm appalled that the MSM has given her a virtual pass when it comes to giving real answers to questions in debates, interviews, etc. Come on WaPo - it's time to step up and give all the candidates equal time, good and bad.

Posted by: skpedersen | September 27, 2007 3:05 PM


After hammering same old lies a third party seems mandatory. Hillary's strenght is slippery. Hard to believe most sophisticated jewish minds support her politics of aggression against Israel's neighbors.
Efficient diplomacy and cultural action is the real solution toward peace.
Something she is not 'hired' to promote
Israel needs constructive criticism not opportunist senators obsessed in being presidents, at any cost.

Posted by: tabita | September 27, 2007 2:32 PM

I felt the MSM, including Tim Russet, who I think did a fantastic job yesterday by the way, are all out to put Mrs. Clinton back in the WH. In a very important topic as Iraq, Mrs. Clinton should have answered first, rather than allowing her to user others reply as part of her own platitudes. The issue of torture is also a good example.

If the MSM was really spoiling for a fight as Chris Mathews and his fellow clowns were suggesting yesterday, Mrs. Clinton should have been made to answer question before other and then allowed her a rebottle.

The most annoying part for me is that she already acting that she is president when no vote has been cast!

Also, if they want a real debate, Kucinich, Gravel and Dodd (know I normally call a GRUMPY OLD MAN) should not be on that stage because:
(1) They don't have any chance.
(2) They are just wasting precious time and not allowing people to see the real Mrs. Clinton, which would have come out yesterday had Obama been more aggressive as Edwards was.
(3) Time for comic relieve is over, serious issues need to be discussed and put on record

Posted by: ztlogic | September 27, 2007 12:49 PM

Peter Baker, you are wrong on this Article about what Obama said. He said that a matter of POLICY he would not allow torture under any circumstances. As a matter of policy is very different to saying he would not under any circumstances allow torture. And to be sure he was talking about policy, he also said that he would make that decision when the when confronted by the circumstances. When you state what Clinton said, without noting that she merely agreed with Obama, i don't think you are doing objective reporting.

Posted by: anzive | September 27, 2007 11:43 AM

The comments to this entry are closed.

 
 

© 2009 The Washington Post Company