What Would Bill Do, Edwards Asks of Hillary Clinton
Days before the Iowa caucuses, Democratic presidential candidate John Edwards questioned Sunday how one of his rivals, Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (N.Y.), would utilize her husband, should she be elected president.
"[Y]ou watch him out on the campaign trail and he spends an awful lot of time talking about his views and not as much time talking about Senator Clinton's, which is understandable, given his history and his leadership," Edwards said on CBS's "Face the Nation." "... [I]t's unrealistic to think that President Clinton wouldn't play a major role" in a Hillary Clinton administration.
Clinton, who appeared on ABC's "This Week," downplayed that idea, saying that her husband "would play the role that spouses have always played for presidents, which is a very important role. ... [J]ust as presidents rely on wives, husbands, fathers, friends of long years, he will be my close confidant and adviser, as I was with him."
"So no National Security Council meetings?" asked host George Stephanopoulos.
"No. That wouldn't be appropriate. He will not have a formal official role," Clinton said.
Edwards called that prospect "a complete fantasy."
A number of Democrats cited Sunday as a test of presidential timber the political crisis in Pakistan, inflamed by last week's assassination of Benazir Bhutto.
"Who do we want sitting in that chair in the Oval Office when the unexpected happens?" asked Sen. Chris Dodd (Conn.) on CNN's "Late Edition." "And voters out here want to know that they are going to nominate someone who has years of experience of dealing with these matters, as I have over a quarter of a century."
Clinton suggested anew that her time in the Clinton White House and the Senate offer unique experience to address such international crises.
"I was intimately involved in so much that went on in the White House, here at home and around the world," she said, adding that she went to China as a defender of women's rights, was briefed on classified matters and traveled around the world with officials from the Pentagon, CIA and State Department.
Edwards and Sen. Barack Obama (Ill.) took issue with her view.
Obama focused on Clinton's 2002 vote to authorize a war against Iraq, saying the war "distracted us" from more relevant operations such as targeting terrorists in Afghanistan and their safe havens in Pakistan.
"Candidates will be judged based on the judgments they have made," he said on NBC's "Meet the Press."
Edwards noted that he spoke to Pakistani's president, Pervez Musharraf, after the killing of Bhutto and urged him to continue moving toward democracy with free and fair elections and to allow a transparent, and preferably independent, investigation of the assassination.
"On that [latter] score, he didn't give me an answer. He said he would be willing to think about it," Edwards said.
McCain, Huckabee Both Excoriate Romney Over Ads
Sen. John McCain, competing vigorously in New Hampshire, and former Arkansas governor Mike Huckabee, doing the same in Iowa, praised each other while going after former Massachusetts governor Mitt Romney for running attack ads.
"That's been his history, of spending a lot of his money attacking his opponents when they get close," McCain said on ABC.
"Mitt Romney is running a very desperate and, frankly, a dishonest campaign" Huckabee said on NBC, adding: "If you are not being honest in obtaining the job, how can we trust you in the job?"
McCain, for his part, faced questions about his own attack ad, targeting Romney in New Hampshire, which quotes a local paper that called the former governor a "phony."
"I think he's a person who's changed his positions on many issues. And the voters know that and they'll decide that," McCain responded.
McCain suggested that, with his fundraising bouncing back, he may not have to accept public funds.
"We've stayed under the caps, so that if necessary, that we can [accept the funds]. We bought all the media that's necessary and all we can in New Hampshire," McCain said. "Money is coming in very heavily now, and we're buying in South Carolina, Michigan, and even doing some -- a lot of stuff in Iowa. So the money is coming in strongly, just as it did in 2000 after we won in New Hampshire."
Recently, Huckabee wrote a controversial article saying the Bush administration had an "arrogant bunker mentality" in foreign affairs. Romney sharply criticized Huckabee's words and said that he should apologize.
But Huckabee defended the word choice, pointing out former defense secretary Donald Rumsfeld's decision not to send to Iraq as many troops as military advisers wanted in the beginning of the war. Huckabee added, "We have also given the world the impression that you're either with us 100 percent or you're against us 100 percent."
"Meet the Press" Tim Russert also quizzed Huckabee about his own foreign policy credentials, including his knowledge about Pakistan.
In recent days, the former governor has made a few blunders, saying that in light of events in Pakistan, the U.S. should monitor its borders for Pakistani immigrants and that martial law was still in effect in that country when it was not.
But Huckabee correctly answered Russert's questions about the country, including whether it is predominately a Sunni Muslim or Shiite Muslim country. (The answer is Sunni.)
Huckabee, however, was tripped up over his comments on illegal immigration. He calls on the campaign trail for a 120-day period during which illegal immigrants in this country can register and go home and sign up for reentry. Russert pointed out that Huckabee previously said a mass departure of illegal immigrations would "collapse" the economy.
"I don't think it would collapse the American economy if people went back and did their process of becoming legal," Huckabee said. "And all of them aren't going to go back on the same day. There's going to be a window of time. How long it's going to take for them to come back, I don't know."
Asked what would happen to children who are U.S. citizens after their illegal-immigrant parents leave the country, Huckabee suggested that they should leave too. "Before they're American citizens, they're the children of their parents," Huckabee said, then swiftly turned the conversation to his call for the government to "seal the border."
Former Tennessee senator Fred Thompson, who appeared on Fox and CNN, was asked about his recent remark, "I'm not particularly interested in running for president."
"The point was we were talking about the process," Thompson said. "I put the emphasis on running. I said I'm not particularly interested in running for president. But then I gave all the reasons why I thought I'd make a good president and what I was sacrificing to be president and my family was doing so and I was concerned about the future of our country and the future of our children and so forth."
Thompson acknowledged that it would be trouble for his campaign if he doesn't come in among the top spots in Iowa on Thursday.
"That would not be good if that turns out to be that way," he said.
-- Zachary A. Goldfarb
By Post Editor |
December 30, 2007; 3:26 PM ET
Previous: Paul Won't Rule Out Run as Independent |
Next: Romney Dismisses McCain's Electability
Posted by: Jim | December 30, 2007 4:36 PM
It will NOT be a win-win for America to have the Clinton's politics of equivocation and triangulation.
I voted for Bill twice, but he betrayed the faith that so many of us put in him as he turned further and further to the Right.
That Right turn did not gain him any political capital either. It HURT average Americans, but corporations liked it.
His wife, Senator Clinton, is obviously financed by corporate America, saying that lobbyists were average people.
Obama and Clinton are the top two Senate recipients of money from the health industry lobbyists. How much health care reform do you think we'll get from them?
Wake up America! Of the top three, John Edwards is the only candidate who truly cares about average Americans.
Posted by: tessablue | December 31, 2007 12:03 AM
"Obama and Clinton are the top two Senate recipients of money from the health industry lobbyists. How much health care reform do you think we'll get from them?"
Didn't know that. Thanks tessablue.
The only constant in life IS change and Americans better wake up and smell the coffee on that. We're the ones who need to change and quickly, at that.
Posted by: LongTimeRez | January 6, 2008 2:48 PM
The most important question in the 2008 campaign is what role will media coverage play in the final determination of both parties nomination. What I mean is this... ABC decided NOT to invite Dennis Kucinich to participate in last night's debate. Why? If we (USA) are to claim ownership of the 'true' participants in the democratic process, then WE cannot allow media to hijack the Democratic Process... the stakes are far too high now.
Posted by: NoweyeC | January 6, 2008 3:01 PM
Dennish Kucinich and Mike Gravel not being invited to participate in an ABC sponsored debate is a news worthy story in my view. In the wake of civil unrest in Pakistan and more recently Kenya in the absence of a true democratic process in their elections -- it seems to me CNN, CBS, Fox, NBC news would find the Kuncinich, Gravel, ABC's 'non-vitation' story compelling.
Posted by: NoweyeC | January 6, 2008 3:15 PM
I have been watching all the democratic debates and specially rallies of Obama and Clinton's campaign. Obama is a great person and so far I have never seen him engage in any negative talks or dirty tricks to the rivals other than the issues differences. I have seen him standing over race, gender issues and bring hope and unity to this presidential race. I have seen him inspiring more peoples than any other candidates of recent history. In this early stage of election, he draws more young, independants, women, aged than any other contender in the recent history. He is a unique leader who can bring this country together to a common goal and heals our nation's wound. It is unfortunate that the powerful interest does not see that way and they don't want to see change in Washington for their benefits so they are backing the Clinton who will serve the special interest groups better. The interest group like Bob Johnson and other do not want us to be accountable for our own action and be part of this nation's future. They want us to stay away and be the victims of their choice and diminish our own future. Please I am urging to everyone to see through this Clinton's or anyone's dirty tactics of division, bitterness and embrace the fresh and inspired goal to destiny of success.
Posted by: Dorie Jackson | January 14, 2008 5:27 PM
We as Democrat are very fortunate to have such great three candidates. I will take any of them over any Republican candidates. They have very similar policies. Democrats have their differences. Some are ready to fight other side some who want to cooperate. I supported Edwards in 2004.
This time I will support Obama. It is not a vote against other two. It is gridlock in Washington that I want to avoid. Clinton will give good fight to Republicans but that is what is not needed at this time. Lets support Obama. He is our future.
Posted by: kumar | January 15, 2008 1:41 PM
Thoughout history gold has and always will be money. The only reason Americans have turned away from gold is because the DeBeers company has brainwashed us into thinking that diamonds are valuable. Thus diamonds have replace gold. Look at who help fund DeBeers, JP Morgan/Rothchilds. Those very diamonds have bought and paid for civil wars and bloodshed in Africa. We need to stop looking a Fiat monet as anything more than Private Families way to control the population. Gold and silver are money and food is freedom.
Look at "the secret rulers" and you will realize that the ROthchild have been behild every conflict and started Central BAnking. They have bankrupted America and we need to protest this making every citizen aware!
Posted by: WE | February 3, 2008 3:32 AM
vo45rookx http://www.732528.com/142323.html > xlpzce56smvr2c [URL=http://www.872893.com/318669.html] 77i89q288yt7k5l [/URL] ozzc5wl6
Posted by: 754k10ikbx | March 26, 2008 4:05 AM
The comments to this entry are closed.
IF Hillary Clinton does win it could be a win, win situation for the United States to have not one President, but two in the same office to help each other out when thing get a little crazy around the world to confide in on world affairs . It would be two for the Price of one. We could see real Healthcare in the Unites States, and a real change in our economy with new ways to fuel our cars and homes as well as changing the way we do business around the world.
This is the time for change in the United States, and for real change for the middle class that are struggling trying to keep there heads above water to try to make there lives better for there children, and there children. It has been a real struggle for so many that may lose there homes to lenders that played with there number to get so many into homes, and know the homeowner are paying the price not the large corporations that put us there they get government bailouts like always.
We are so afraid of a woman being in office theses days, and why is it because we don't really believe in change? So many other countries have had women as Prime ministers, and have come a long way in democracy so why not us?