Was Clinton wrong last night when she refused to make the 100 day pledge?

[Karmadillo]

http://www.taylormarsh.com/archives_view.php?id=26637

<edit>

Pledging to provide a path to citizenship for illegal immigrants in the first 100 days?

I'm now convinced some primary voters in the Democratic party are willing to throw the best chance of taking over the White House we've had in a long time. I've never heard of anything so profoundly outrageous and so politically stupid. Demanding a candidate pledge something so divisive get done within his or her first 100 days is nothing short of general election suicide. Have people forgotten what happened when Congress tried to get decent legislation passed over illegal immigration? I have great hopes that we can bring illegal immigrants to a path to citizenship during the next president's first term, but demanding this pledge is ridiculous.

This is not the first time Clinton refused to pander to her audience, taking the boos from the faction before her; in this particular case as she talked on the phone with them, due to weather conditions that prevented her from being there in person. When Edwards challenged her at YearlyKos on accepting lobbying money she refused to go his way. Again, she was booed.

In front of a crowd that Clinton is committed to helping, she refused to tell them what they wanted to hear. That the demand being made of Clinton was absurd in the extreme and a sure loser in the general election is a no brainer. That didn't matter. News flash: nobody will get a pledge from a Republican on this one. Oh, but by all means let's make sure we hang ourselves out in the breeze on a sure loser.

It doesn't matter how strongly we all want to solve the illegal immigration challenge. There will be a long, slow fight to get it done and we won't get it done by making 100 day pledges that incites Americans on all sides of the political spectrum. It's just staggeringly stupid.

Good for Clinton.

[journalist3072]

1. If I could give this post 100 recommendations, I would. It hits the nail on the head.

And I was pretty much trying to make this point here on DU on yesterday. But of course the anti-Clinton contingent on here doesn't deal well with reality.

[creeksneakers2]

9. I clicked up one recommendation. n/t

[Bongo Prophet]

57. Part of the problem was you calling the crowd "left wing assholes" I think.

This was a crowd of youth groups, homeless advocates, emigres and so on.
Very divers, and a good example of the people that are hurting the most in this country.
Only some people booed at her comment, but you got out the big brush and called them "assholes."

Of course, Hillary was right about having to work immigration reform through legislative branch.
She also has the right to take a position, and if some don't like it, that is also fair.

Less than 24 hours after a plea for civility here on DU, which I supported.
I would think you could see that charaterizing a whole group, wome of whom shared very touching stories - as a bunch of "left wing assholes" - was a bit ... undiplomatic.
Hillary would be much more diplomatic herself, I think. Man, I hope so!
People who do that do their candidate great harm, in my opinion.


I wish she had been there in person, it might have helped.
That 2 second delay and tinny speakerphone was a detriment.

[cali]

2. Glad to be the 5th vote for this OP

She was being honest- not pandering and not triangulating. It is disgusting that she got booed.

[corkhead]

100. doing what she can not to offend her republican base

[sufrommich]

3. Very well said.k&r

[Cameron27]

4. K&R

The GOP will make this an explosive issue in the GE, our guys better be careful.

[maddiejoan]

5. Contrary to the popular "wisdom"

HRC is a straight shooter. She earns more respect from me each passing week.

:kick: and R

[journalist3072]

8. Thank you! That's precisely right! You know, I find it amazing that

Sen. Clinton constantly gets accused here on DU (and other places) for so-called pandering and telling people what they want to hear.

I always respond that if that were the case; if she were truly that concerned with doing the politically expedient thing, then by now she would have done what the far-left wing wants her to do, and repudiate and renounce her vote for the IWR.

She doesn't tell people what they want to hear: she tells them what they NEED to hear. She deals in reality.

There is no way she could have, or should have, promised immigration reform within the 100 days of her administration, to that crowd of losers on yesterday. She was absolutely correct when she said that Congress will need to pass the legislation and send it to her. And she cannot make promises for a Congress that doesn't even exist yet! She has no idea what the Congress will look like in January 2009. That session of Congress hasn't even convened yet, obviously. She can't make promises for a future Congress.

[earthlover]

91. Since you brought up her vote on the IWR, it WAS the politically expedient thing to do

There are lots of cases of Hillary pandering. The 100 day pledge may not be one of them, but that does not negate the others.

[emilyg]

55. I agree 100%.

[rucky]

6. She would've had nothing to gain from making such a pledge.

I really don't understand why single-issue groups keep trying to put candidates in a box on some of the most controversial issues. Wedge issues kill us every time, and we keep taking the bait by all the sudden making them a priority to please those who want to fight these battles.

In reality, immigration, abortion, gay marriage - all important issues - but ones that should be addressed AFTER a Democrat takes office.

Does anybody really believe that any of our candidates - once in office - won't be on the right side of these issues (or work to end the war, for that matter)? Do we really need constant reassurance of this? Look at their records if you need reassurance, and please try to understand: THEY JUST CAN'T SAY IT on the campaign trail.

We end up spending one year talking about it, and three years trying to avoid wedge issues. It should be the other way around, if we really want things to change.

[BeyondGeography]

7. She needs to offer some honey with the vegetables...but Hill ain't Bill

There's nothing wrong with levelling with people, but the high-and-mighty, you-don't-just-wave-a-magic-wand act is a curious way to try to win a primary. Does she think she'll be rewarded by Republican voters for her cold-eyed realism? Or is she just so consumed with her self-assigned image as the only adult in the room that it pleases her to give answers that piss people off?

Saying that immigration reform will be a top priority and that it will be introduced in the first 100 days would have been enough, but she had to make the idealists feel silly, so they booed. If you think that's a winning strategy, I say, stick with it.

[sufrommich]

11. What do you think the ratio is going to be

of people "pissed off" by her response and those who see it as a well reasoned,honest response?

[BeyondGeography]

21. The intensity of the response is what you need to look at

Those who see it as well-reasoned may be in her camp already or largely indifferent on the issue; those who booed are probably inclined to actively try to defeat her...kinda like the old maxim about the one guy who hated the restaurant being able to do more damage than the nine people who thought the food was just fine.

[sufrommich]

29. If those trying to defeat her

attempt to use her answer to a silly pledge question like that,I imagine they will be in for a letdown from the general populace.It's not going to fly.

[BeyondGeography]

33. Doesn't work that way

These were community activists; they won't be going back to the general populace. They'll be going back to their neighborhoods where they are leaders in their own right and some will be taking more negative attitudes about Hillary with them. Hardly the end of the world, but totally avoidable from HRC's standpoint. She loses more than she wins on this one.

[sufrommich]

36. No,she doesn't.

Clinton could very well narrowly lose Iowa,,but refusing to make pie in the sky promises will not be the reason why.It serves her well among the electorate in general to behave like an adult who is honest about what is possible.

[BeyondGeography]

44. Here's the point you're missing: she didn't have to offer pie-in-the-sky promises

She didn't have to give up anything to this crowd and she could have avoided the boos.

[sufrommich]

47. Perhaps she gave the answer she believes in

without consideration of the negativity of the audience.I'm amazed that so many who believe she panders for votes are now pissed that she didn't pander.

[Bongo Prophet]

60. When Obama and Edwards got booed in the CNN debate, did Clinton supporters insult them?

Did Obama and Edwards supporters insult them?
I seem to remember the talk was about planted supporters, but there will just be some rowdy people in these events.

Heck, during the hostage thing, one supporter posted 3 or 4 times that "other candidates supporters would have peed their pants and cried to mommy"!!!
WTF is that level of discourse?
And this while calling for civility. Boggles my mind, and poisons this place.


I don't think it was an extremely intense reaction, but that is a judgment call, and pointless to argue.
We can agree or not over things without slinging names, isn't that great? :hi:

[wyldwolf]

20. interesting an Obama supporter asks "Does she think she'll be rewarded by Republican voters" when...

...Obama thinks they're going to break his way.

[BeyondGeography]

25. Separate discussion

but we could start a whole other thread on the power of Obama if you want.

[wyldwolf]

30. no, it isn't, actually. Obama thinks Republicans will vote for him, yet an Obama supporter ask;...

Does Clinton think she'll get Republican support with her (very realistic) answer.

The power of Obama? Sure, knock yourself out.

[maddiejoan]

28. And Obama and Edwards

need to start serving up some veggies.

truth be told, I see them both as panderers.

We've all been sold enough snake oil for the last 8 years.

I'd like some freakin' spinach.

[Tellurian]

31. Yes, yesterday's replay of Obama addressing the audience

was stunning! Whatever they wanted...boom, he's giving it to them.

Raising minimum pay to $9.50 was almost laughable! Jeebus!

[maddiejoan]

39. and if you disagree --

--then you are not living up to his "audacity of hope".

It's all so faith in his audacity oriented. If I wanted to hear this kind of dribble I'd turn on the Daystar network.

Then you have Edwards who is all of a sudden Mr. Smith Goes To Washington on steroids.

[Tellurian]

51. I'm waiting for the day a Woodward or Bernstein

writes a competent biography of the "Audacity of Obama". Does anyone realize the ONLY information we have on Obama is what he's revealed in his cursory tale of Star Trek visits 2 people from Kenya and Kansas?

We know everything there is to know about the Clintons and every other candidate running in this race..

The question begs.."Who IS the real Obama?"

besides what he claims in his autobiography?

Here is a partial list of books of the Former First Lady, now Senator from NY, Hillary Clinton:

By the Clintons:

* Clinton, Bill. My Life. Knopf, 2004. ISBN 0-375-41457-6.
* Rodham, Hillary. "There Is Only The Fight...": An Analysis of the Alinsky Model. Senior honors thesis, Wellesley College, 1969. Available at the college archives.
* Clinton, Hillary Rodham. It Takes a Village: And Other Lessons Children Teach Us. Simon & Schuster, 1996. ISBN 0-684-82545-7.
* Clinton, Hillary Rodham, Osborne, Claire G. (editor). The Unique Voice of Hillary Rodham Clinton: A Portrait in Her Own Words. Avon Books, 1997. ISBN 0-380-97416-9.
* Clinton, Hillary Rodham. Dear Socks, Dear Buddy: Kids' Letters to the First Pets. Simon & Schuster, 1998. ISBN 0-684-85778-2.
* Clinton, Hillary Rodham. An Invitation to the White House: At Home with History. Simon & Schuster, 2000. ISBN 0-684-85799-5.
* Clinton, Hillary Rodham. Living History. Simon & Schuster, 2003. ISBN 0-7432-2224-5.
* Clinton Websites: Five Official Archived White House Websites from 1993 through 2001 (CD-ROM set). Core Federal Information Series, 2002. ISBN 1-59248-061-6.
* Complete collection of Hillary Clinton's "Talking It Over" newspaper columns, written for Creators Syndicate from 1995-2000

Pro-Clinton

* Blumenthal, Sidney. The Clinton Wars. Farrar, Straus and Giroux, 2003. ISBN 0-374-12502-3.
* Conason, Joe and Lyons, Gene. The Hunting of the President: The Ten-Year Campaign to Destroy Bill and Hillary Clinton. St. Martin's Press, 2000. ISBN 0-684-83451-0.
* Estrich, Susan. The Case for Hillary Clinton. HarperCollins, 2005. ISBN 0-06-083988-0.
* Halley, Patrick. On the Road With Hillary: A Behind-the-Scenes Look at the Journey from Arkansas to the U.S. Senate. Viking Adult, 2002. ISBN 978-0670031115.
* Tomasky, Michael. Hillary's Turn: Inside Her Improbable, Victorious Senate Campaign. Free Press, 2001. ISBN 0-684-87302-8.

Anti-Clinton

* Aldrich, Gary. Unlimited Access: An FBI Agent Inside the Clinton White House. Regnery Publishing, 1996. ISBN 0-89526-454-4.
* American Conservative Union. Hillary Rodham Clinton: What Every American Should Know. Green Hill Publishing, 2005. ISBN 0-89803-164-8.
* Andersen, Christopher. Bill and Hillary: The Marriage. William Morrow, 1999. ISBN 0-688-16755-1.
* Andersen, Christopher, American Evita: Hillary Clinton's Path to Power. HarperCollins, 2004. ISBN 0-06-056254-4.
* Boswell, John, The Unshredded Files of Hillary and Bill Clinton. Broadway, 1996. ISBN 0-553-06763-X.
* Bozell, L. Brent with Tim Graham. Whitewash: How the News Media Are Paving Hillary Clinton's Path to the Presidency. Crown Forum, 2007. ISBN 0-307-34020-1.
* Brock, David, The Seduction of Hillary Rodham. Simon & Schuster, 1996. ISBN 0-684-83451-0.
* Buchanan, Bay, The Extreme Makeover of Hillary (Rodham) Clinton. Regnery Publishing, 2007. ISBN 978-1596985070.
* Carpenter, Amanda B.. The Vast Right-Wing Conspiracy's Dossier on Hillary Clinton. Regnery Publishing, 2006. ISBN 1-59698-014-1.
* Goldberg, Jonah, Liberal Fascism: The Totalitarian Temptation from Mussolini to Hillary Clinton. Doubleday, 2007. ISBN 0-385-51184-1.
* Horowitz, David and Poe, Richard. The Shadow Party : How Hillary Clinton, George Soros, and the Sixties Left Took Over the Democratic Party. Nelson Current, 2006. ISBN 1-59555-044-5.
* Klein, Edward. The Truth About Hillary: What She Knew, When She Knew It, and How Far She'll Go to Become President. Penguin, 2005. ISBN 1-59523-006-8.
* Kuiper, Thomas. I've Always Been a Yankees Fan: Hillary Clinton in Her Own Words. World Ahead Publishing, 2006. ISBN 0-9746701-8-9.
* LeBorts, George and Wojciech Wilk (illus.), The Very Unofficial Hillary Clinton Coloring Book. Strobooks, 2007. ISBN 978-0979493706.
* Limbacher, Carl. Hillary's Scheme: Inside the Next Clinton's Ruthless Agenda to Take the White House. Crown Publishing, 2003. ISBN 0-7615-3115-7.
* Milton, Joyce. The First Partner: Hillary Rodham Clinton. William Morris, 1999. ISBN 0-688-15501-4.
* Morris, Dick. Rewriting History. HarperCollins, 2004. ISBN 0-06-073668-2.
* Morris, Dick and McGann, Eileen. Condi vs. Hillary : The Next Great Presidential Race. HarperCollins, 2005. ISBN 0-06-083913-9.
* Noonan, Peggy. The Case Against Hillary Clinton. HarperCollins, 2000. ISBN 0-06-039340-8.
* Olson, Barbara. Hell to Pay: The Unfolding Story of Hillary Rodham Clinton. Regnery Publishing, 1999. ISBN 0-89526-197-9.
* Podhoretz, John. Can She Be Stopped? : Hillary Clinton Will Be the Next President of the United States Unless .... Crown Publishing, 2006. ISBN 0-307-33730-8.
* Poe, Richard. Hillary's Secret War: The Clinton Conspiracy to Muzzle Internet Journalists. Nelson Current, 2004. ISBN 0-7852-6013-7.
* Regan, Turk. The Hillary Clinton Voodoo Kit: Stick It to Her, Before She Sticks It to You!. Running Press Book Publishers, 2007. ISBN 0-7624-2965-8.
* Tyrrell, R. Emmett and Davis, Mark. Madame Hillary: The Dark Road to the White House. Regnery Publishing, 2004. ISBN 0-89526-067-0.

Mostly neutral

* Berman, Ari. "The Strategic Class" The Nation August 29, 2005
* Bernstein, Carl. A Woman in Charge: The Life of Hillary Rodham Clinton. Knopf, 2007. ISBN 978-0375407666.
* Bowen, Michael. HILLARY! : How America's First Woman President Won The White House. Branden Books, 2003. ISBN 0-8283-2081-0.
* Flaherty, Peter and Flaherty, Timothy. The First Lady: A Comprehensive View of Hillary Rodham Clinton. Huntington House, 1996. ISBN 1-56384-119-3.
* Flinn, Susan (ed.). Speaking of Hillary: A Reader's Guide to the Most Controversial Woman in America. White Cloud Press, 2000. ISBN 1-883991-34-X.
* Gerth, Jeff and Van Natta Jr., Don. Her Way: The Hopes and Ambitions of Hillary Rodham Clinton. Little, Brown and Co., 2007. ISBN 978-0316017428.
* Harpaz, Beth. The Girls in the Van: Covering Hillary. Thomas Dunne Books, 2001. ISBN 0-312-28126-9.
* King, Norman. Hillary: Her True Story. Carol Publishing, 1993. ISBN 1-55972-187-1.
* Maraniss, David. First In His Class: A Biography of Bill Clinton. Simon & Schuster, 1995. ISBN 0-671-87109-9.
* Morris, Roger. Partners in Power: The Clintons and Their America. Henry Holt, 1996. ISBN 0-8050-2804-8.
* Oppenheimer, Jerry. State of a Union: Inside the Complex Marriage of Bill and Hillary Clinton. HarperCollins, 2000. ISBN 0-06-019392-1.
* Osborne, Claire G.. The Unique Voice of Hillary Rodham Clinton: A Portrait in Her Own Words. Avon Books, 1997. ISBN 0-380-97416-9.
* Radcliffe, Donnie. Hillary Rodham Clinton : A First Lady for Our Time. Warner Books, 1993. ISBN 0-446-51766-6.
* Sheehy, Gail. Hillary's Choice. Random House, 1999. ISBN 0-375-50344-7.
* Smith, Sally Bedell. For Love of Politics: Bill and Hillary Clinton: The White House Years. Random House, 2007. ISBN 1400063248.
* Warner, Judith. Hillary Clinton: The Inside Story (revised and updated). Signet, 1999. ISBN 0-451-19895-6.

Scholarly studies

* Anderson, Karrin Vasby. "Hillary Rodham Clinton as 'Madonna': The Role of Metaphor and Oxymoron in Image Restoration". Women's Studies in Communication, Vol. 25, 2002.
* Bostdorff, Denise M. "Hillary Rodham Clinton and Elizabeth Dole as Running 'Mates' in the 1996 Campaign: Parallels in the Rhetorical Constraints of First Ladies and Vice Presidents" in Robert E. Denton Jr., ed., The 1996 Presidential Campaign: A Communication Perspective, pp 199-228. Praeger, 1998. ISBN 0-2759-5681-4.
* Burrell, Barbara . Public Opinion, the First Ladyship, and Hillary Rodham Clinton (2nd Ed). Taylor & Francis, 2001. ISBN 0-8153-3599-7.
* Burrell, Barbara C. "The Office of the First Lady and Public Policymaking" in MaryAnne Borrelli and Janet M. Martin, eds. The Other Elites: Women, Politics, and Power in the Executive Branch, pp 169-88. Rienner, 1997. ISBN 1-55587-658-7.
* Cohen, Jeffrey E. "The Polls: Public Favorability toward the First Lady, 1993-1999" Presidential Studies Quarterly. Volume: 30. Issue: 3. 2000, pp 575+.
* Holloway, Rachel L. "The Clintons and the Health Care Crisis: Opportunity Lost, Promise Unfulfilled" in Robert E. Denton Jr. and Rachel L. Holloway, eds. The Clinton Presidency: Images, Issues, and Communication Strategies, pp. 159-88. Praeger, 1996. ISBN 0-2759-5110-3.
* Kellerman, Barbara. "The Enabler," Presidential Studies Quarterly Volume: 28. Issue: 4. 1998, pp 887-893.
* Kelley, Colleen Elizabeth. The Rhetoric of First Lady Hillary Rodham Clinton: Crisis Management Discourse. Greenwood Publishing, 2001. ISBN 0-275-96695-X.
* Muir, Janette Kenner and Lisa M. Benitez, "Redefining the Role of the First Lady: The Rhetorical Style of Hillary Rodham Clinton" in Robert E. Denton Jr. and Rachel L. Holloway, eds. The Clinton Presidency: Images, Issues, and Communication Strategies, pp. 139-58. Praeger, 1996. ISBN 0-2759-5110-3.
* Troy, Gil. Affairs of State: The Rise and Rejection of the Presidential Couple Since World War II Free Press, 1997. ISBN 0-6848-2820-0.
* Troy, Gil. Hillary Rodham Clinton: Polarizing First Lady. University Press of Kansas, 2006. ISBN 0-7006-1488-5.

[Froward69]

10. if hillary

cannot check the latest poll she cannot state a position. i am sick and tired of ANY candidate who blows smoke to get elected. if hillary was booed she deserved it. goes to show that not all of the electorate is dumb enough to follow her blindly.

by the way calling hillary by her first name, is to differentiate between Bill (a great president) and hillary ( a lackluster, slightly left of republican candidate at best.)

Mandatory Health insurance is pandering. hillary was paid off by big insurance long ago. I cannot forgive her for that.

[Evergreen Emerald]

13. try "Senator." Or just Clinton--we all know who is running for president

[jenmito]

40. Hilllary uses "Hillary" for her campaign signs. We should call her what she wants to be called.

[troubleinwinter]

49. Do you just make it up as you go along?

She is promoting herself as "Hillary".

The banner on her official website:



The bumper sticker offered on her official website:





.

[Cameron27]

14. They all check the polls,

how silly to expect otherwise in a primary. No, she shouldn't have been booed by a single interest voting group for not bending to their wishes.

[cali]

Ignorance is no excuse for ugly behavior

And blowing smoke and making claims withour any evidence whatsofuckingever, is bullshit.

[journalist3072]

22. Can I nominate you for the most stupid, ignorant, non-informed post of the day?

First of all, she stated a position yesterday. She said about 2 times, that she wants to work for a path towards citizenship. That is a policy position. Sadly, even as a supporter of Sen. Clinton's and one who will be voting for her, I disagree with that position. I am not for a path to citizenship for these illegals. But she stated it yesterday. She stated her position. You, my friend, are wrong.

The booing came when she refused to say it would be accomplished within the first 100 days of her administration. And I'm glad she didn't pander to that ignorant crowd. As I keep mentioning on here, she cannot promise it within the first 100 days. She is going to have to work with the Congress on this, and they will have to pass the legislation and send it to her. This is something that has to be done legislatively; not by executive order. And she cannot make promises for a Congress that doesn't even exist yet. She has no idea what the U.S. Congress will look like in January 20009. That session of Congress isn't in existance yet. She can't make promises for a future Congress.

[Froward69]

34. she does make promises

she never intends to implement to begin with. why the hesitation now?? so it is no surprise that she is the most divisive candidate of them all. I stand behind my statement she will do what ever pays the most back to her donors. not what is in our nations/or the peoples best interest.

[journalist3072]

37. If you're going to make a statement like that, back it up with facts. But you can't . Anyone ever

taught you about writing checks you can't cash?

[Froward69]

50. ever seen sicko?

M.Moore points out how and how much she got paid, to drop the issue...
have you ever read her health care statement regarding Health care? it plainly states she is going to thrust Mandatory health insurance upon America.

http://www.opensecrets.org/pres08/select.asp?Ind=H01

[Evergreen Emerald]

52. lies and distortions become reality to some who for what ever reasons

want to believe in them. It is easy to refute by looking at her statements and her record. But it is easier to just regurgitate the talking points until they become reality.

"Divisive" the only reason she is divisive is because of the lies repeated. She is not divisive--the media and the republicans and those who want to beat her are lying to you.

[Auntie Bush]

77. How many times do uou have to say something for them to get it in their little heads? n/t

[TwilightGardener]

12. IF she makes it to the general, and I still believe she will--

her reluctance on this will help her among righties (the no-amnesty crowd). There's no reason to take a stupid pledge--I hate those gimmicks.

[liberal hypnotist]

90. Gimmick is the right word.

it is fodder for the media to fill the 24 hour news cycle.

[wyldwolf]

15. the same crowd who *accuses* her of pandering boo when she won't

[Cameron27]

19. Yes, it's incredible.

Most pledges are a ridiculous waste of time anyway, and will be used against us in the GE.

[journalist3072]

27. Exactly! Isn't that the most amazing thing? They accuse her of always pandering and telling people

what they want to hear. She doesn't do it, and they boo! Amazing.

[jenmito]

43. Because she's pandering to the REPUBS. by trying to look tough just like on every other issue...

She is playing to the general electorate as if she already won the nomination. She hasn't won and the way things are going she WON'T win.

[Cameron27]

46. That's just baloney,

she was being honest in what she could & couldn't realistically do.

[jenmito]

48. Why can't she realistically do that?

It wasn't a pledge to SOLVE the problem. It was a pledge to START solving it.

[Cameron27]

53. Taking pledges isn't a good idea,

and pledges for the first 100 days in office are extremely bad ideas. She made a smart decision by refusing to pander to this particular group's demand of a pledge.

[Sparkly]

69. I didn't recall it that way.

Is there a transcript out there somewhere?

[jenmito]

71. This article has the quotes:

The senator was asked if she would "make a decision to give undocumented immigrants a path to citizenship" during her first 100 days in office.

http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalradar/2007/12/clinton-booed-a.html

[Sparkly]

73. Thanks.

The senator was asked if she would "make a decision to give undocumented immigrants a path to citizenship" during her first 100 days in office. Clinton responded saying, "I have been favoring a plan to citizenship for years. I voted for it in the Senate, I have spoke out about it around Iowa and the country and in my campaign. And as president comprehensive immigration reform will be a high priority for me."

Soft booing could be heard from the audience. The man repeated his question about the first 100 days. Clinton replied, "Well you've to get congress to pass the legislation and the president to do as much as possible, which I will do." Louder boos came from the crowd.

"...make a decision to give... a path" -- I think that's solving, not starting. If it were just starting, she affirmed that she was all for it, voted, spoke, high priority, etc. I think the audience wanted more, and she was honest in her answer.

[jenmito]

82. To "make a decision to give..." is not "solving"...

it's just committing to solving that problem.

[Sparkly]

83. It takes up to 100 days to decide to start a process toward solving a problem?

She'd already said she was committed to it.

[wyldwolf]

67. nope, you're just mad she won't kiss your ass.

[jenmito]

72. What are you talking about?

Do you even know my position on the subject? :eyes:

[wyldwolf]

78. she says what she believes and it's "pandering to the Repubs." Sorry she won't pander to you

:eyes:

[jenmito]

81. She says what she believes???

:rofl: She even SAID a president shouldn't say what they really think (unless you're going to parse that by saying "thinking" and "believing" are two different things). And again-what IS my position that she's pandering to? Do you KNOW my position on the subject?

[ChiciB1]

16. These 100 Day Pledges Seem A Bit Ridiculous To Me And I'm No

Clinton supporter. There is another fact about this refusal that bothers me about her though, but I'm not going to voice it here. It just reinforces my reasons for not supporting her. I'll just say given other comments she's made, she can't have it both ways.

I'm sure ALL candidates forget comments they've made when promoting themselves as the best choice for America.

[ClarkUSA]

17. Taylor Marsh is a huge Clinton cheerleader and apologist so her commentary is not surprising

Clinton is always referring important issues to the Congress. The last time she fudged an answer was when she was asked by a reporter how she'd enforce
the mandate in her Mandatory Private Insurance Plan and she used to same dodge/non-answer.

[wyldwolf]

23. and you're a huge Obama cheerleader and apologist so yours is not surprising...

...the difference is you think Taylor being who she is negates the practical fact of what she said.

[journalist3072]

24. How about dealing with the FACTS here, instead of just some ad homien attack against

Taylor Marsh and Senator Clinton?

[sallyseven]

18. Illegal immigration is this years abortion or gay marriage

wedge issue. Lets talk about the continuing war in Iraq and the billions of dollars we are throwing down the rat hole. We are making war profiteers billions and the treasury poorer every dam day. The country is going bankrupt and we are whining about illegals. Why because the repuks want us to. They have been in power for 7 years how come it is now the biggest issue? The America people deserve what they get if they allow scum like the republicans make this an issue. Do they all have jobs? Do they all contribute? What would you do if you could feed your family and still live a reasonable life? Not try to ender the US. Jobs are here not in Mexico.

[avrdream]

62. I agree, Sally.

Not only do the Repubs want us to whine about the illegals, they want us to do it NOW, in the lead-up to the primaries, because they are going to use every single one of these "100 day pledges" against us in the general election. This particular issue is going to be used against us and candidates need to pay frickin' attention to what they are pledging.

[Bongo Prophet]

76. I think you and Sally are right on, and the GOP is laying traps

GOP are desparate for an issue to exploit the falling economy and downsizing etc - voila a scapegoat that works so well with racist xenophobes.

It is all about the Evil Other with them.
And the URGENCY is a major tell with them, as you astutely observed.

BUT - if we are smart, their own racism laid bare for all to see will backfire on them ...bigtime.

[Justyce]

92. Exactly. I hope we won't

allow them to distract from all the other issues with this one -- it worked too well for them last time. Hopefully all our dems have learned something from that.

[mtnsnake]

26. Excellent post

:thumbsup:

[calteacherguy]

32. I disagree with Clinton on this. I think we do need a timeframe BECAUSE it is so divisive.

A timeframe would give everyone a goal, and we need a strong leader who will make it a priority.

It would give a better chance of something getting done, whether than people continuing to buy time and twidle their political thumbs on the issue.

[journalist3072]

38. You're missing perhaps the most important point though

Are you forgetting that this is something that has to be done legislatively? It's not something that can be done by executive order. And therefore, she can't really provide a time-frame. She can say what her policy position is (which she did; she said she was for a path to citizenship). And she can say that she will work with the Congress on this.

But she cannot promise it will be done within the first 100 days. She cannot promise that Congress is going to pass the legislation and send it to her to sign, within her first 100 days. She has no idea what that Congress will look like in January 2009. That session of Congress, obviously, isn't even in existence yet. She can't make promises for a future Congress. Heck, as just one Senator out of 100, she can't even make promises for this current session of Congress.

[calteacherguy]

54. Still, the promise could be made to make that a benchmark for the Congress.

A new President has a tremendous amount of leverage in the first 100 days. If something is to be done about immigration reform, it must be prioritized.

[journalist3072]

56. I'm sorry, but you're just wrong on that.

I would disagree that "a new President has a tremendous amount of leverage in the fist 100 days."

Sure, the new President will have just won an election, and can claim a mandate. But, so can that newly elected Congress. The new Congress that is installed in January 2009 can also claim a mandate.

Whenever a new President is elected, they and the Congress are BOTH trying to feel each other out, to see how they will work together.

I think you're just wrong that Sen. Clinton (who has not even been nominated or elected President yet), can set a benchmark for a Congress that doesn't even exist yet. That's just so far outside reality till it's not even funny. It's stupid to think that.

[Bongo Prophet]

59. Hopefully, the dems CAN win big enough to claim a mandate, and can move quickly on some things

Like health care for one.

Nice of you to call the poster STUPID, but many politicians try to do the "first 100 days" bit.
It's a way of leveraging the initial win, and can be a very smart move.
IF she does start saying what she will do in the first x days or 1st year or whatever, I will take a look at that with an open mind.
Just like I do with the other candidates.

It is likely you will think I am stupid for saying that.
I trust our next president will have better diplomatic skills than the cretins in office now, and better than their supporters.

[Bongo Prophet]

61. Who would be foolish enough to promise a bunch of stuff in "100 days" ??

Oh yeah, FDR and Bill Clinton both come to mind.

Maybe Bill and Hillary learned from that, and won't make thast mistake again?
I remember GOP trying their best to muck up BC's admin nominees in order to keep him from succeeding in that.
Immigration reform would spend a LOT of political capital. I would prefer HEALTH CARE and Foreign policy and opening up records and getting a working Justice Dept and more, FIRST.

Some things the new dem Prez could do via Executive branch, immediately.
We need EARLY SUCCESSES - that to me would make a big difference in the dynamic, and prove us competent in foreign policy, economic and environmental, being pro-science and so on.

Immigration reform, if played well, could help people and further divide the right, ensuring the demographic tsunami of Latinos to be on OUR side.
To do this, we need to be on THEIRS.

I would not put such a divisive and GOP emotion filled issue up FIRST however.
Note that I disagree with you, but do so respectfully - actually I agree that it must be prioritized, just that it should be a LOWER priority. ;)

[Sparkly]

74. Hiya Bongo. Have any other candidates been asked this question?

Or otherwise made such pledges?

Your comments make sense. Is this being drummed up in order to obscure other issues, I wonder?

[Bongo Prophet]

88. Hey Sparkly one, I think it was a template question asked of each.

I had c-span on, but was in and out of the room. Only saw Edwards/Dodd/Kucinich/Clinton/Obama.
It was very different, in that it was real grass roots people there and the moderators were not CNN fluffer types at all.
The questioners were allowed to tell their stories for at least as much time as they allowed the candidates to respoind -2 minute answers to each question.
Many were heartwrenching stories of INS raids and homelessness and lack of healthcare.

I believe they asked each candidate for a meeting once in the WH, and maybe the same about 100 days=immigration reform.
They did not define what that really meant, so a lot of room for slippery answers.
Kucinich and Edwards connected best with the people, in my opinion. Dennis was late, but animated and on fire, and invited everyone there to spend the night in the Lincoln Bedroom, as a symbol of The People taking back Our House. That got my populist drum beating.
Clinton was hampered by having to do it over speakerphone. No way she could connect with people on a human level, but she was courteous and funny - when she spoke a bit long on one answer and the moderator let her know of the 2 minute rule, Hil said "Yes Maam" and got a big laugh.
Obama seemed a bit laid back and professorial, which maybe mismatched the mood, but he was well received and, when asked if he would meet them after the inauguration he said he'd top that by having them as a part of the process of change, inviting them to DC for meetings BEFORE he took office to set the agenda. That went over well.

Overall it was MUCH better than the Corpmedia game shows. Town meetings have a certain charm and power when it is well focused but not controlled with a heavy hand.
There is definitely a feeling of disempowerment out here - we want our country back.

As to the hype being drummed up - well, the gangwars here are a self running drama, the GOP wants infighting and other narratives to further take root ... and corpmedia wants a show, to analyze clips of controversy without touching the real humanity that was the heart of the issue. Think they would like to report that a small non-corporate group could run a more interesting forum than they? "Ooh, we need more of that pathos!"

Just like the GOP you tube was so pathetic a showing they had to do the "planted General" angle to cover for that.
I caught bullyBill bennett checking his notes coming out of commercial that night, just before "planting" that meme.

Politics. Oy.

[Sparkly]

94. I meant in general, anywhere.

I did see most of the event through her um, "appearance," but not paying full attention. I agree that her amplified, disembodied voice had a weird "Oz" thing about it that was unfortunate. And I agree the crowd responded well to Edwards and Kucinich of course! (I loved his phrase, "I understand the process of community.") I didn't see Dodd or Biden. I was disappointed in the confrontational questions to Clinton and then the booing, and then in the extra photo-op they gave Obama with the little girl -- it just didn't seem equal.

I agree the stories were moving -- kept asking myself how on earth these things could happen in this country!? And realizing in most European countries, they wouldn't. What is wrong with the US?

I didn't see any teevee coverage of the event.

Do you think immigration is this cycle's gay marriage -- something to get Republican voters motivated to vote?

[Bongo Prophet]

101. Immigration as the new hotbutton GOP issue? Ab-so-lute-ly.

And it is a dangerous long term strategy for them too.
DEM-ographics you know. ;)

[Bongo Prophet]

89. I tried to find transcripts for you. no go, but you tube and JE08 et al have clips

Apparently they started with Edwards - so Biden and Richardson were not there I guess.

I just listened to the Edwards clip while searching, and they only asked "will you commit to meeting us in the first 100 days" and he said he would do it in the first week.

http://blog.johnedwards.com/story/2007/12/2/22425/0443

As I mentioned above:
Kucinch invited them to a slumber party.
Obama would give them a place at the agenda table before he was even sworn in.
I think I missed that part of Dodd.


I caught this clip of the "booing" and it was actually a different question by one of the individuals, and not the boilerplate asked of them all.
She got that question right after the boos, and was upbeat and said of course she would meet them... she was not shaken at all.
This is much overblown by people with an agenda, and some here say the others pandered on the same question, but it was actually a DIFFERENT question anyway.
They ALL committed to a visit.
How about that? revisiting this paid off in a small way for me. Thanks 4 that. ;)

http://youtube.com/watch?v=GBU46xnc-EA

You can find the longer clips, the above was probably posted by a wingnut, but it's good enough for an idea.

[Sparkly]

95. Thanks!

Yes, I did note the questions they all received, especially about meeting the community groups. I wonder if any others have been asked to pledge something like that.

Maybe it's also one of those tightropes the candidates have to walk, needing to appeal to Democrats now but knowing whatever they say can be used against them in the general election. Is honesty the best policy?

[mtnsnake]

45. Wow what a suprise you'd disagree with Clinton on anything (Snicker)

[Lucinda]

35. K&R

[glowing]

41. Here's a clue to some, not everyone wants a citizenship here... I know

2 who are saving money and plan to move back to Mexico and open up their own hotel, now that they have learned and earned the necessary tools to be successful.. They would like to go back in about 5 yrs. and start this project. I know other's who don't want citizenship, they just want to work and save money.. Come and go... One of our girls had a baby here, and then took the baby to Mexico, and then came back to work without the baby and the hassle of finding sitters... Its sad she is missing out on the precious moments, but a baby and work aren't good combinations if you and your husband are working 2 and 3 jobs to earn as much as possible to save up and send back.

And with the humanity crap going on, who the hell would want citizenship... shoot, I'm saving up in case I'd like to leave myself.

[Auntie Bush]

79. Isn't that true with about 12 million of them?

That wasn't much of a clue so I want my money back.

[glowing]

84. There's this big debate about a path to citizenship... I don't think all of

them want citizenship... If they could have dual, perhaps they would want to assimilate and join the union force and fight along side all American workers. They would be a force to be reckoned with. The girls I work with have work visas. They don't want citizenship. Their goal is to go back... they prefer their family, friends, and country. And I don't blame them, we treat them like shit, give them the worst jobs and the worst housing options, and created NAFTA which pulled them out of their towns and off their lands so they can feed their children... People don't want to feel ignored and victimized. Who would want to come here and be nothing, when before you were something.

[Auntie Bush]

85. What I don't understand is why with all our

jobs and factories going to Mexico...why don't they have jobs there. You'd think Americans would all be going to Mexico to find work. Is their president and their corporations hogging all the money? :Shrug:

[glowing]

87. Most of the jobs are on the border. So, that would mean moving no matter what.

And the pay is absolutly atrocious and the working conditions hazardous... mostly because its a dime a dozen job... if they fire one worker, there are 10 waiting to work that position. A lot of the workers coming are coming from small rural towns. Because of NAFTA it is now cheaper for the Mexicans to buy our corn instead of their own. NAFTA also opened up the fishing industry to big commercial fishing, so fishing towns cannot compete with the commercial enterprise and the waters are being decimated. It isn't by choice that they are coming.

The President is corrupt... Its pretty much an olgilarchy that protects only commercial aspirations and drug lords. The system is run by the "white Mexicans", while the natives are screwed.

[bunnies]

42. I actually think she was correct in not making that pledge.

I doubt anyone could accomplish such a task.

[Truth2Tell]

58. Just keep alienating the base

It's worked so well the last two Presidential elections. Why change?

[goodgd_yall]

63. Yes, she was right. n/t

[MrSlayer]

64. Not at all.

Not only was she correct in not making that ridiculous pledge, the fact is the majority of Americans do not want illegals made legal. She would have sunk her somewhat floundering campaign had she pledged to do this.

[Sancho]

65. Good Post

:kick:

[Sparkly]

66. She was honest.

I guess the question is whether honesty is the best policy for a politician. :shrug:

[Kucinich4America]

68. The audience felt Hillary's answer was a cop out. End of story.

If you have a problem with that, go to Iowa and try to track down a copy of the attendee list for the conference. Don't blame it on those of us who oppose Hillary's coronation at DU.

[ElboRuum]

98. Cop out to whom?

How is agreeing to one of these 100 day pledges helpful to any of the candidates? It's always easy to claim and near impossible to deliver. Hillary was simply acknowledging this fact. And every time one is made and not delivered, the person who made it looks like crap whether it was their fault or not.

[benny05]

70. See my post about a comment Taylor made

Today, I was reading Taylor Marsh's blog. The post was about Clinton getting boo'd at the Heartland Forum in Des Moines yesterday. Taylor believes Clinton can take the boos and was right to stand her ground in not committing immigration reform in the first 100 days of her presidency, if Clinton is in the WH. I don't have a huge problem with her answer either as the Rethugs won't do anything about the path to citizenship for undocumented workers either.

As this was Taylor's main post of the day (hey it's Sunday, so not unusual on a smaller blog to leave the threads open longer for comments), there were many comments about it. Most of the readers tend to pull for Clinton over there, and Taylor has been pretty harsh about Obama and his candidacy in general. But she surprised me in posting this comment amongst the others:

Everyone needs to get off of Iowa. It's one flippin' state. It's who has longevity. Clinton was *never* supposed to be this strong in that state. It's a very conservative place. She's got strong Democratic ideology, unlike Obama. They're also not progressive where women are concerned. Don't forget that point, which is important.

http://www.taylormarsh.com/archives_view.php?id=26637

I don't know about you, but to me, Iowa does matter, considering that the majority win translates into more funds, endorsements, and other votes for the candidate in NH, NV, and SC. That certainly happened in 2004 for Kerry in which his support surged in NH after winning IA. But another point: many of the Iowan women I know are pretty progressive. They have a Lt Governor, Patty Judge, who is progressive. Many more Iowan women are getting involved with politics, and they are progressive as well.

Clinton was ahead in the polls until recently. And it seems to me that some of her supporters, including Taylor Marsh (who hasn't officially endorsed Clinton, but posts more positive spin on Clinton's actions, and wants a "viable" woman candidate in the WH) are trying to downplay Clinton's chances in Iowa by saying IA isn't as progressive "where women are concerned."

Iowans: I'd like your take. I think Taylor's comment is a bit over the top.

[Adelante]

75. She was not wrong

She gets to decide what her priorities are just like any other candidate. Any of our candidates who becomes the nominee and is elected in the GE will have to have immigration reform on a front burner, it stands to reason. She's not my candidate, but she did not deserve to be booed or even second guessed. If you don't like her take on things, don't vote for her, but that doesn't make her wrong or right - it just makes her somebody's else's candidate.

[Beacool]

80. No, she was correct.

Any candidate who says that in their first 100 days in office will grant amnesty to illegals or bring all troops home is pandering, if not outright lying. They KNOW that it's not possible without congressional approval (amnesty) or that it's imprudent (Iraq).

Hillary is telling it like it is and some factions of the party don't like it. She's always cautious in not promising something that she can't deliver. I rather have the truth than empty promises.

[niceypoo]

86. Hillary was a lawyer....good lawyers dont sign things without reading them first

Like when Lazio shoved that pledge in her face during their debate and she flatly refused. Why should any democratic candidate jump on a right wing issue anyhow?

[focusfan]

93. there's more important things than illegal immigration

like the ecomony,and the war in Iraq and restoring heabus
corpus 

[happygoluckytoyou]

96. RUNNING CLINTON IS THE ROAD TO GOP-LITE

both edwards and obama are----->

more likely to beat any republican in the pack

more liberal and true to their (and my) beliefs

not a tool of the GOP lite, who see her as a "get along" girl

stronger against the war

stronger for labor

AND THIS IS WHY THE GOP DOES THEIR "FAKE" BASHING OF HILLARY... WHILE AT THE SAME TIME FUX NEWS CONTINUES TO POINT OUT HOW THE OTHERS SHOULD GIVE UP, AND THAT HILLARY IS THE WINNER

i won't vote for the hill.. if i am going to be screwed by a republican, i'd just as soon have it be by one NOT disguised as a democrat

[ElboRuum]

97. I am really amused by all of this...

If she says what the crowd wants to hear, she's pandering.
If she says something reasonable, she's booed.

Can't WAIT until the primaries are over.

[jwirr]

99. I am not a Clinton supporter but I also do not like the idea of pledges.

They have a tendency of coming back to bite you when you least expect it. History is not something we control to the point that we can predict the circumstances - even one hundred days from now.