A Democratic
political
activist in Iowa asks Clinton a good question on Iran. Clinton was suspect
of him, thinking he was a plant, because she’d gotten the question before. It’s not like that doesn’t happen. But evidently she still doesn’t get how much her Lieberman-Kyl vote worried people, including myself. She also likely thought, as Webb has stated, that co-sponsoring his
Iran bill would fix the problem. It hasn’t, because she should never have signed on to Lieberman’s bill in the first place, something Biden and Dodd figured out. Obama didn’t even have the courage to vote on it, so imagine if she’d done the same. So after she reacted to Randall Rolph’s question, he took “exception.” That’s when Clinton apologized.
Clinton thanked him for the question and explained her Iran vote would lay
the groundwork for using diplomacy and sanctions to pressure that government.Clinton accused the man of being a plant who had been sent to ask the question,
to which he took exception, saying the question was a result of his own research.“I apologize,” Clinton said, explaining that she had been asked
the very same question in three other places.The crowd applauded when the senator ended the back and forth by saying the
two had a disagreement and offering to put Rolph in touch with her staff,
who could provide him with the text of the legislation, which she suggested
he had misunderstood. … ..
Andrew Sullivan kicks into high gear, as usual. Honestly, I don’t know how
he’ll survive if Clinton is the nominee. She’s
arrogant!
Maybe, but she’s working her hardest regardless.
“I’m taking nothing for granted,” she said. “I hope I’ll be
able to earn your support.”
Another version of the exchange.
Clinton then explained that she had gone to the Senate floor in February
to state that Bush does not have the authority to use military action against
Iran and that she is working on legislation to put that into law. Rolph once
again challenged her recent vote, suggesting that it amounted to giving Bush
a free hand..“I’m sorry, sir, it does not,” she said, her voice showing her
exasperation. “No, no, let me just say one other thing because I respect
your research. There was an earlier version that I opposed. It was dramatically
changed … I would never have voted for the first version. The second version
ripped out what was considered very bellicose and very threatening language.”The campaign said later that the excised language stated that “it should
be the policy of the United States to combat, contain, and roll back the violent
activities and destabilizing influence inside Iraq of the Government of the
Islamic Republic of Iran,” and “to support the prudent and calibrated
use of all instruments of United States national power in Iraq, including
… military instruments, with respect to the Government of the Islamic Republic
of Iran.” … ..
See that part above in bold. That’s the part that was excised before Clinton signed on to the Lieberman-Kyl bill. Shouldn’t that matter?
But we’ve got another man who won’t vote for Clinton. Film at eleven; no, let’s put
his picture in The New York Times instead.
Clinton saying, “I’m sorry, sir, it does not,” prompted this cascade
of blathering? Here’s a news flash. Hillary Clinton is tough. How do you think
she got through the 1990s and continues to take the growing onslaught; every move is now scrutinized with an eye to take her down a peg. If she dares disagree with an Iowan, we’re supposed to send in the emotional paramedics?
No wonder we get stuck with people like Bush. Gore sighed. Kerry was aloof.
The only element of this back and forth between Clinton and the Iowan worth mentioning is that Clinton obviously underestimated
the message her vote on Lieberman-Kyl would send. Wesley Clark and Joseph Wilson have both come out in support of her Iran stance, because it’s still resonating with a lot of people, which is understandable. But again, the bold above that includes military action against Iran was scratched from the final Lieberman-Kyl legislation. Got that or are you just intent on ignoring the facts for some overblown drama in Iowa?
If Clinton doesn’t answer the questions you need answered sufficiently she shouldn’t get your vote. But the applause obviously signaled some Iowans thought she stood her ground. But if you have doubts, don’t like her policy stances or something else about her, you’ve got other candidates from which to choose. But let’s not pretend she’s not giving answers, even if you don’t like them, or that she’s being militant with Iran, or supposed to present herself as some political version of June Clever.
If Barack Obama or John
Edwards had responded to Randall Rolph as Clinton did the lede would be touting their strength.
Comments are closed.