Network News

X My Profile
View More Activity

On the Race to the White House,
Clinton Talks More 'When' Than 'If'


Clinton in Iowa this week, talking more about the presidency itself than the race to the White House. (AP).

It took only a few minutes of conversation with Hillary Clinton on Monday to drive home how much she already has thought about being president.

My colleague Anne Kornblut and I spent about 20 minutes with the New York senator on her campaign bus in Cedar Rapids as she was getting ready to set off on a two-day tour of small-town Iowa. That was hardly enough time for a comprehensive interview but it was more than enough time to see how a strategy for governing has helped shape her campaign for the White House.

When we raised the issue of Social Security, for example, we got nowhere trying to pin her down on the specifics of what she might support to deal with the retirement program's long-term solvency. Instead we got an answer that suggested she begun to calculate which battles she wants to take on in her first term and which she doesn't.

As she knows, there will be considerable pressure on the next president to move swiftly to confront the consequences of the Baby Boomers' retirement on both Medicare and Social Security. But Clinton also has watched other presidents founder -- and in her husband's case, contribute directly to the problems -- by trying to do too much at once, or by not have a smart strategy for dealing with Congress. She seems determined not to repeat those mistakes if she can help it.

The result is that Clinton is determined to stay as vague as she can for as long as she can on Social Security, rather than risk getting that issue tangled up in others about which she cares more and believes have greater urgency. Her own words were illuminating.

"There are many things we're going to be negotiating about with the Congress," she said. "To me Social Security is not a front-burner issue. It is a long-term challenge we have got to address. I don't want to get into negotiating over Social Security while I'm trying to do health care, change our energy policy, and move back to fiscal responsibility and get us out of Iraq."

She even cited Ronald Reagan as a model for what she would do. She said Reagan had repeatedly "beat up" on Social Security as candidate and early in his presidency. "He ran into a total stonewall from the Congress," she said. "So then he regrouped and he and Tip O'Neill set up the bipartisan commission. And basically at the time Reagan said, 'And I'm not saying anything else. We're all going to hold hands and jump together.' So I think that's a pretty good model."

Clinton continues to seek the nomination in a way that will not compromise her for the general election. But the interview underscored that preserving her options as president is equally important to her.

Take the issue of Iraq. She spent months this year trying to make herself more acceptable to Democrats who oppose the Iraq war, all with the goal of preventing Barack Obama, John Edwards or any other rival from getting around her on the left.

Having made considerable progress on that objective -- a number of polls show that Democrats believe she is best equipped to end the war -- she has softened her language. Her pledge to end the war now always carries the qualifying words "as quickly and as responsibly as I can." When she first made the pledge, she told the Democratic National Committee, "If we in Congress end this war before January 2009, I will."

When we asked her what she would do as president, she said, "I think that I've been very clear that I want to start withdrawing troops as soon as I responsibly can, once I become president. I along with everyone who is serving in the Congress now, other than Rep. [Dennis] Kucinich, has voted to both withdraw and for continuing missions -- the length of which is not determined in anything that we have set forth yet."

Speaking about both changing course on the war and on U.S. interrogation policy of enemy combatants, she stressed that she is not prepared to make promises now that she might not be able to keep once she sees the issues from inside the White House. So when confronted by her rivals or by reporters to be more specific about the size of the force she would keep in Iraq or the pace of a potential draw down, she declines to answer.

"It's one of these questions that I know what the satisfying answer would be -- saying, oh my gosh, they'll be out tomorrow or they'll be out in three months or they'll be out in a year, whatever," she said.

"I have tried to be as clear as I possibly can -- voting and speaking -- about my intention to do everything I can to end this war in a responsible and expeditious manner," she added. "But I think I've also been honest in saying I've got to get in there. I want to be as committed to getting out as quickly as I can but as clear that I have to look at all of these problems we're going to face"

When we asked about her capacity to unite the country, it was apparent again how much she is thinking beyond the campaign itself. "I think that it will be one of my biggest jobs as president because if we don't become united we will not be able to meet the challenges we faced here at home and around the world."

She argued to us that she is uniquely equipped to unite a country divided along ideological lines, and she expressed her belief that her own perseverance in the face of attacks creates a combination of toughness and resilience that eventually may earn the admiration and possibly the cooperation of at least some of her political opponents.

Her analysis of why she thinks she can move the country beyond the polarizing politics that have defined both her husband's presidency and Bush's will be challenged by many, including Democrats who want to deny her the nomination. They will argue that she has been through too much ever to truly become a uniter.

They will also say that she is too combative in her own right to play the role of uniter. She flashed that combativeness on Sunday in Iowa when she was challenged by a voter over her support for an amendment urging the Bush administration to label the Iranian Revolution Guard as a terrorist organization. Clinton accused her questioner of being part of an organized effort to embarrass her with incorrect information. He denied the charge and she apologized -- but a testy exchange ensued nonetheless.

So some big questions remain about her possible presidency. But there is no doubt that Clinton is someone who, as she battles to win the nomination, and if successful, the general election, is thinking hard about what it takes to build a successful presidency. She may turn out to be wrong in her assumptions and conclusions, but if elected, she won't be asking her advisers, "Now what?"

--Dan Balz

Listen to excerpts of the interview with Clinton here.

By Washington Post editors  |  October 10, 2007; 11:42 AM ET
Categories:  A_Blog , Dan Balz's Take  
Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   Del.icio.us   StumbleUpon   Technorati   Google Buzz   Previous: Romney and Lawyers
Next: Bartlett Backpedals

Comments

fcv_pi i understand public service is not always the same as being an elected official- but it's an important distinction here because she's running for an elected office for the. hopefully we are all involved in some type of public service( which is it's own reward) regarding iran- is hillary getting tough or is it a non-binding resolution ( not both way's please) - what about the recent and disturbing move toward not only an imperial presidency but also a presidency potentially held by 4 people from 2 immediate families. please give me a list of any other 1st world nations where that would not be frowned upon.

Posted by: jacade | October 12, 2007 2:41 AM | Report abuse

Jacade, being in public service does not necessarily mean one has to be an "elected" official.

For me Hillary's vote on declaring the Iranian Republican Guards as terrorists is right on track. She has explicitly explained that this is not giving Bush a blank check to go to war. The Iranian goverment was proven to have supported the insurgents that kill US soldiers in Iraq. The Iranian President's pronouncements are sooo hostile towards the United States (be reminded that this particular President when he was young was one of the students who stormed the US embassy in Tehran in the 80's and held captive US consulate employees). It is important that the United States identify formally its enemies so that they can be dealt accordingly. But I think going to war should not be an option. As Hillary said you can punish them thru other means (economic embargo, etc.). I just wonder for those who did not vote for this resolution, how they will deal with Iran. One really has to take a stand and not be a fencesitter (because you can't be once you are the President)

Posted by: fcv_pi | October 12, 2007 12:23 AM | Report abuse

I am a long time Hillary supporter, but I find it disturbing that she won't say what she plans to do about the cap on Social Security taxes, I am uncomfortable with her vote on declaring the Iranian Republican Guard terrorists, and the fact that she thinks we can do universal health care with insurance companies.
I haven't decided to switch yet, but I will be watching closely. If I did switch it would be to Dennis Kucinich, whose views echo mine 100 per cent.
I guess Hillary is doing what she thinks it takes to win the election and to put her policies into law. I trust her integrity completely. I trust her knowledge of politics better than that of any other candidate, but I am not sure we are in agreement on all these points. That's what I find scary.
I will watch carefully as the campaign goes on. I will be really interested in whether she can be "Swift Boated" or not. I am guessing not, but the Republican distortionists have never failed to amaze me.

Posted by: bghgh | October 11, 2007 10:00 PM | Report abuse

well we always get the government we deserve- some posts say she been in office 30 plus years. please remember she is only been in "elected " office since 2000 and another that she is best suited b/c she knows where the levers of power are- do you hear yourself- take that thinking to it's natural conclusion and you get a monarchy or some sort of strong man where the people never are a lever of power. Indeed like we are in an unpopular unwise war that is detrimental to or long term interests-then people want a do over during the 2006 midterms. it does not work that way, people had every reason to doubt this war in 2004- and the people decided to stay the sad path. even now there are glaring signals of an eroding democracy i.e. in family presidency. we know the corporate media will not ask tough questions b/c they want to play golf and go to parties w/ the pols. well that's my two cents

Posted by: jacade | October 11, 2007 5:00 PM | Report abuse

Freespeak opines: "As far as the "testy" exchange with a questioner, I'd like to note for Dan Balz that Senator Clinton in FACT actually got TWO hardy rounds of applauses from the audience!!!

The media makes it sound like the audience thought she was "testy."
No, the audience obviously thought she was RIGHT."

I was there at that rally, and not everyone was clapping. Not by a long shot. But a round of applause from HRC partisans at a rally is hardly an answer to her critics.

Neither was her "answer," which blew off legitimate questions about why she voted for a measure that designates the military of a sovereign government as a terrorist organization. That combined with the 2002 AUMF is all the cover Bush needs. He will wait until there is some Tonkin-type border incident, then go after the "terrorists." When Iran resists an incursion across its border and some American soldiers get killed, (think of them as "fodder"), Bush will start the bombing. She knows this.

If she was "right," then Lugar, Biden, Dodd, Webb, Hagel, Kerry and others were wrong. Note that the Chairman and Ranking Member of the Foreign Relations Committee are on the list. It was a cynical vote, and she deserved to be called on it.

The voters deserve an answer and they aren't going to get one. They guy who asked the question got a lecture from her in a tone that left no doubt that she thought he was an ignorant jerk. My son walked out of there saying "Wow, she was mean!"

And consistent with the treatment of anyone with the temerity to criticize The Imperial Campaign, I am sure I will be personally and mercilessly attacked as a sexist Hillary Hater. Just to save time, I'll respond now and say that I don't hate her, I thought enough of her to consider supporting her and read her book, and I am a woman who loves to vote for other women when they represent my views and interests. I do not support Clinton for reasons of chanacter, policy and electability. So don't bother.

Posted by: snelson648 | October 11, 2007 1:43 PM | Report abuse

To ALL HILLARY CLINTON HATERS:

She is the greatest candidate for this presidential. She is a great thinker, a honest person, a good leader and a great intellectual/ strategist.
She will win the nomination and she will crash the republican nominee (and any independant) and she will become the next president. She will give this country what it lost since the hijacking of the elections, she will unify and not devide, she will give the american people not just hope but a long lost good image in the world, a better economy not just for the rich but for the middle class and the poor and give this society the lost american way of life back.
She will make this country a greater country. She will clean up washington and give the american people their rights back.

Go Go Hillary, you are in the right path, if you wern't, they will not unify on attacking you!

Posted by: Rev6 | October 11, 2007 1:07 PM | Report abuse

Come on, Mr Balz. Be a mensch. Don't screw us over. It's wrong and it's un-American. Just report the frickin' news, please.

Posted by: zukermand | October 11, 2007 12:08 AM | Report abuse

"Senator Clinton reminds me of the young couple that dedicates immense amounts of time, money and energy into planning a perfect wedding, then doesn't know what to do with themselves upon being married. "

Bsimon, I couldn't say it better. If the democrats think for one minute the republicans have even begun the attack they are delusional. I see it now - Torturous "Where are they now?" interviews of Gennifer Flowers, Monica Lewinski, Paula Jones etc.; attacking how "smart" HRC really is, Yale law school graduate who managed to fail the bar exam on her first attempt when 70% of the applicants pass; and let's not even go into any hint of a Bill Clinton extramarital affair since he left the white house. Hell, there will be no time to bring up Hillary's positions, or lack there of, on social security or her vote for the Iraq war. The general election will be a public nightmare and a partisan disgrace of mudslinging.

And even worse for democrats? The republican surprise could very well be the choice of the vice presidential candidate - What about Liddy Dole, Condoleeza Rice or Michael Steele (or God forbid - Colin Powell)? The possbilities are endless - Romney/ Rice? hmmmm. . . intriguing.

Hillary Clinton may be a decent person and a good senator of New York, but as a presidential candidate, she is a tremendous mistake.

Posted by: dpack | October 10, 2007 8:26 PM | Report abuse

I really don't understand this negativism towards Hillary Clinton.

She had been called the Evita (likening her to Eva Peron of Argentina) of the United States, a calculating and cold person.

Whatever criticisms hurled against her, for me the most important is the track record/past performance of the candidate running for public office. Campaign rhetorics are just that, rhetorics, empty talk.

As I remember, Hillary has been in public office for almost 30 years. As First Lady of Arkansas, as First Lady of the United States and as a New York Senator. This is no small feat. She did a tremendous job handling those positions. Initially New Yorkers were skeptical of her, calling her a carpetbagger, but her sterling performance changed their view of her.

Some people touts a Hillary Presidency as the second coming of doom , catastrophic to America, Republicans warn. What has Hillary done in the past for her to be portrayed like this? Isn't her almost 30 years in public service already a concrete proof of what kind of a person she is? Do you think she will become a monster once she occupies the Presidency? There was no proof that she was ever a monster before.

If her being ambitious is the reason for the negative perception of her, then how do we consider other candidates? Does this make them Saints?

The recent polls showing her in considerable lead is proof that people are beginning to see the real Hillary Clinton and not what the opponents portray her to be.

Posted by: fcv_pi | October 10, 2007 6:57 PM | Report abuse

Let us not overlook the fact that, according to the betting sites, Hillary will certainly be the Democratic candidate and will handily beat any of the Republican fools pretending to be Presidential candidates.

The the Intrade and Iowa betting sites:

https://www.intrade.com/aav2/trading/tradingHTML.jsp?evID=23190&eventSelect=23190&updateList=true&showExpired=false
http://iemweb.biz.uiowa.edu/quotes/Nomination08_Quotes.html

Posted by: Realist1929 | October 10, 2007 6:39 PM | Report abuse

YOu go girl! The more I hear you in debates and interviews, the more you have my vote (though Al isn't running). At least most of your answers to "what if" questions are less BS than your opponents. There isn't anyway of telling until after a person gets a job how they will deal the big issues of that job. For this, my hat's off to you Hillary! YOU GO GIRL!

Posted by: brokenlinks | October 10, 2007 5:33 PM | Report abuse

Its funny how Hillary supporters can't go into details about any of her specific policies, yet they always speak of her 'knowing her way around the white house'. I guess we can nominate and elect Laura Bush in 2016 then! Woooo! Bush, Clinton, Bush, Clinton. Hey, after Laura wouldn't Chelsea be old enough to run!? What about one of the Bush twins after that!? Gotta love dynasties.

Posted by: thegribbler1 | October 10, 2007 5:17 PM | Report abuse

I think it's refreshing that Hillary isn't promising everything to everyone. She saw how Mondale was torn apart as a "pander bear"; she also saw how Bill Clinton was lauded for his "Sister Souljah" moment. I see Hillary as smart, cautious, experienced, pragmatic...all nice changes after the Bush-Cheney years. We've seen what happens when an amiable C student gets a grip on power. I like our chances when we get the person from the front row who actually studied for the test.

Posted by: gromaine3 | October 10, 2007 5:02 PM | Report abuse

Clinton has all the help she needs from the media and political "experts" touting her candidacy. I hope the uneducated voters who believe what they read or hear on television don't make it to the polls or caucuses, because those of us who are really listening hear a much different HRC.

Posted by: literate1 | October 10, 2007 4:49 PM | Report abuse

Mrs. Clinton's analysis of why she is the one to move the country beyond the polarizing politics in which she has participated so actively for so long may be challenged by many people, but Dan Balz won't be one of them.

Posted by: jbritt3 | October 10, 2007 4:25 PM | Report abuse

peterdc: I do not hate Hillary Clinton. I disagree fundamentally with your premise that she is ready to lead this country from day one and knows where the levers of power are and how to use them.

She failed on health care.

She failed on Iraq.

She's failing us on Iran.

She's an excellent senator for the people of New York I have no doubt and played the game for her constituents. But the fact of the matter is she is not answering the valid questions the American people have. She's demonstrated a distinct tendency to want to shape the conversation and elimanate disension much like Bush in my opinion.

I would be happy with ANY of the other democratic candidates as President barring Kucinich and Gravel. Because they all seem to me to have a core of authencity and truth that I find fundamentally lacking in Sen. Clinton. I fundamentally do not trust that woman. It's not because I'm sexist or don't want a woman President. I was excited for Elizabeth Dole in 2000. I would be excited for Elizabeth Edwards if she wasn't sick to have been the candidate instead of her husband. I want that for my own daughter - a woman in the White House. I take pride in Speaker Pelosi.

But I want someone I can trust and I don't trust Hillary Clinton. I just fundamentally don't trust her at all. And most of it is on health care and how closed off that process and arrogant it was. I think I see the same process repeated in her controlled rollout. Only she's gotten pointers from the Bush/Rove machine on how to handle matters far more cleanly.

It's also frustrating that all these other candidates are being willfully overshadowed by the media allowing Sen. Clinton to skate on through without ever taking a postiion or actually communicating with the public.

I don't hate Sen. Clinton and I really resent you mischaratrizing this in that way. She's a successful woman and I admire her as a mother and a wife. But I fundamentally don't trust her political instincts.

Posted by: Rhoda | October 10, 2007 3:49 PM | Report abuse

THE QUESTION FOR HILLARY IS NOT "MORE WHEN THAN IF" BUT HOW! HILLARY WILL NOT EXTRICATE THE U.S. FROM IRAQ, WILL NOT REPUDIATE NEOCONISM, AND IF ELECTED, WILL BE UNABLE TO CUT OUR $750 BILLION PLUS DEFENSE SPENDING! TO ALLOW HILLARY TO FANTASIZE ABOUT NEW DOMESTIC PROGRAMS (HEALTH, ENERGY, SOCIAL SECURITY, ETC.) WITHOUT FIRST DELINEATING HER MIDDLE POLICIES INCLUDING THE REMOVAL OF ISRAEL FROM THE WEST BANK AND GOLAN IS ABSURD!

Posted by: dgward44 | October 10, 2007 2:43 PM | Report abuse

She may turn out to be wrong in her assumptions and conclusions (as usual), but if elected, she won't be asking her advisers, "Now what?"
--And that's precisely why her candidacy is going nowhere, but down.

Richardson/Dodd Ticket to Win in 2008.

Posted by: lockmallup | October 10, 2007 2:12 PM | Report abuse

freespeak writes
"Sorry, but I really don't understand how one would want a Presidential candidate to be much more specific, especially about Iraq. It is her goal to get the troops out of Iraq as quickly and responsibily as possible. That's my goal too."

What I expect is an answer that indicates she has considered the issue in the last 5 years. Has she thought about Iraq since she voted to approve the use of force? Not from what I can tell. I expect any current Senator - and especially a candidate for President - to be able to say "Here's what the current problems we face in Iraq are. Here's what I would do about them. [list follows] Don't hold me to that in 15 months, because conditions on the ground will undboubtedly change."

But to just say "Oh yeah, I'll withdraw the troops eventually" belies a complete and utter lack of interest in and consideration of the problem.

Posted by: bsimon | October 10, 2007 1:56 PM | Report abuse

peterdc writes
"She knows where the levers of power are and without a doubt having the former President at her side, which now nearly 65% of the people think is a great idea, won't be making those first year mistakes that every other President inlcuding Bill Clinton made."

Ok, without Bill, what does Hillary have going for her?

Or, if Bill promised to be available to any new President, showing them where the bathrooms & levers of power are, who would be a compelling candidate beyond HRC?

Posted by: bsimon | October 10, 2007 1:52 PM | Report abuse

Sorry, but I really don't understand how one would want a Presidential candidate to be much more specific, especially about Iraq. It is her goal to get the troops out of Iraq as quickly and responsibily as possible. That's my goal too.

After the 2006 Thumpin', didn't we all think Bush would finally move in OUR direction? (Baker-Hamilton, Gen. Abizad, etc.). Instead, Bush poked a finger in our eyes, and ordered in MORE troops to Iraq!!!
Seriously, who knows what The Worst President Ever will do before he leaves office?

In addition, I don't understand what's wrong with the answer on Social Security. Like she said, not borrowing from the SS "lockbox" bought us YEARS of solvency, which Bush has SPENT.
Why make changes in SS until we actually stop stealing from the SS lockbox, as candidates Gore and BUSH promised they would not do? (Bush broke his promise. Imagine that.)

As far as the "testy" exchange with a questioner, I'd like to note for Dan Balz that Senator Clinton in FACT actually got TWO hardy rounds of applauses from the audience!!!

The media makes it sound like the audience thought she was "testy."
No, the audience obviously thought she was RIGHT.

Put the video up on WaPo and let Dan Balz and his readers see for themselves.

Posted by: freespeak | October 10, 2007 1:46 PM | Report abuse

Rhoda- you live in a world of Hillary haters and thankfully that world is really shrinking as people realize the grasp that Hillary Clinton has on both the issues and what people really want. I am an ardent supporter of Hillary's and what I am seeing even in my small network of friends is how so many of them who were not ready to support her 4 months ago are now coming to me and saying, "I guess you were right all along".

Hillary Clinton is truly the only candidate running who won't have to spend the first year in the White House finding the bathrooms.

She knows where the levers of power are and without a doubt having the former President at her side, which now nearly 65% of the people think is a great idea, won't be making those first year mistakes that every other President inlcuding Bill Clinton made.

I think it is great that Hillary is not only thinking about how to win the Presidency but about how to handle it once she is elected. Too many candidates are only thinking about how to win and never give a moments thought about how to govern which is after all what we ask them to do. As suggested, John Edwards is thinking about plans and policies but has no idea how to make them happen. He has no experience even in the Senate of getting things done. It is very hard to think of anything he did in the Senate before he got bored and decided over four years ago, before he even finished his first term, to run for the Presidency and he has been doing nothing since but that. And even then he isn't thinking about the ramifications of his actions as evidenced by working for a hedge fund, building a 26,000sq. home and getting $400 haircuts. That makes it very hard for him to be credible when he talks about the poor. I personally think he has every right to do all that, but it calls into question his judgement.

Hillary's intimate knowledge of the power and sometimes lack of power of the White House in relation to Congress will stand her in good stead. Contrary to the other candidates she rarely says "I will do" but rather "I will try to do". She understands the necessity of forming a concensus on the big issues and learnt that the hard way in Bill Clinton's first term.

When we elect Hillary we will be electing a President that many of the worlds' leaders have met. One who they know and like and trust. We will be electing a woman who is trusted by women around the world and who stood up to the Chineese at the Bejing woman's conference, and women around the world remember that with pride.

We will be electing a President who just by dint of the fact that she is a woman, will change how people view the Presidency and the United States. She will bring her own thoughts and ideas to the White House and combine those with the intimate knowledge she has of how to govern.

We will have a President we can once again be proud of.

Posted by: peterdc | October 10, 2007 1:36 PM | Report abuse

it pains me every time i see hillary speak. she never says anything. refuses to answer a question. laughs everything off like shes the popular kid on the school playground.

i tell you what, i'll be looking for an independant candidate if she does manage to win the nomination. i just dont see how she can, she isn't standing on anything but hype from the media and bill clinton. thats her whole campaign! its disgusting.

and i've always been a democrat and would love to see a woman president, but what did obama call her, President Bush Light? yeah he was right on about that.

Posted by: ourgameorders | October 10, 2007 1:32 PM | Report abuse

I think the most astute observation about Hillary Clinton came from James Carville on a Meet the Press broadcast..."Hillary Clinton is the most attacked political figure in American history. I am not saying it is sexism, but I am not saying it is not sexism, either."

It is sexism. White supremacist patriarchy run American society and dominate American politics. Look at the news videos. Congress, old white men, MSNBC, interviews and clips of Wall Street, old and young, white men.

This social structure of reactionism, which is what the Republican party and the class they have given privilege to to keep the elite in power, can not stand the possibility of a female president.

Oh, by the way... I am a white guy. How ya all doin'.

Posted by: leo_ora | October 10, 2007 1:27 PM | Report abuse

Hillary Clinton will be as vague as she can get away with, in order to be elected.

If the news media continue to abdicate their responsibilities by not addressing issues and only addressing the "horse race", it is up to people at every town hall event she attends to stick her with hard specific questions.

And be sure to point out when she fails to address the question (she's good at stalling and changing the subject).

Posted by: jsmith021961 | October 10, 2007 1:17 PM | Report abuse

Dan Balz writes
"So some big questions remain about her possible presidency. But there is no doubt that Clinton is someone who, as she battles to win the nomination, and if successful, the general election, is thinking hard about what it takes to build a successful presidency. She may turn out to be wrong in her assumptions and conclusions, but if elected, she won't be asking her advisers, "Now what?""

Given that she won't tell us what she'll do as President, it seems a bit hasty to conclude that she's spent a lot of time thinking about being a successful President. Instead, I suspect that Senator Clinton has spent a lot of time thinking about how to be a successful presidential candidate. Unfortunately, those two things are not the same. President Bush, for example, was a successful candidate. As President, not so much.

Thus far, Senator Clinton reminds me of the young couple that dedicates immense amounts of time, money and energy into planning a perfect wedding, then doesn't know what to do with themselves upon being married.

Posted by: bsimon | October 10, 2007 1:16 PM | Report abuse

First of all she's not the first person to think hard what to do: John Edwards has a comprhensive health care plan, he has clear plans on Iraq, he has clear plans on poverty. He's spent four years thinking about what needs to be done.

Barack Obama has made so many policy proposals and laid out a vision of his presidency that would be compelling when added all together.

Hillary Clinton has JUST started talking substance and REFUSES to speak details or even general outlines calling everything "hypothetical" and yet acting the presumptive president.

So I find you're comment about her not needing to say "Now What?" belittling the other candidates.

Hillary Clinton was first lady of the United States and most people think she made a hash of that until they saw the way Bill Clinton treated his marriage and felt bad for her. She became Sen. from New York and voted for the war in Iraq for polotical reasons in my opinon and then trys to wiggle out of it saying she voted to give the president power to negotiate, please.

It pisses me off how free a ride she's gotten by the media and why the hell when her campiagn refuses to answer questions it's not followed up on. She's Bush all over again. A saner Cheny and smarter Bush maybe, but it'll be a Restoration to THIS presidency if anything.

If she wins the nomination the President will be in a win-win situation. The new president will carry on his policy in Iraq and inherit that mantle while he can go in history as the 9/11 president.

Posted by: Rhoda | October 10, 2007 1:08 PM | Report abuse

The comments to this entry are closed.

 
 
RSS Feed
Subscribe to The Post

© 2010 The Washington Post Company