Why didn't Hillary just say no?

[jenmito]

When asked today if she would pardon Libby? Why did she let the audience bail her out? A quick "no" would've done the trick. He did the crime, he should do the time.

[waiting for hope]

1. Think about it.......

Really think.

[jenmito]

2. I know...her husband's pardons?

Still...does that mean she WOULD pardon Libby?

[Bucky]

34. I'm certain she wouldn't. But still, her instinct is to dodge the issue.

She's too cautious a person to do something as radical and high profile as pardon Scooter. But she's also too cautious to take a strong law and order stand. I think she thinks she can win over some corporate heavyweights by playing it coy on controversial questions about how you deal with criminals from the priviledged class.

In case you forgot, there is a separate set of laws for people like Scooter.

[jenmito]

39. That's too bad...

I really hope she's not our candidate.

[Katrinepa2]

67. The Sad Thing is...

They live by different rules than the rest of us. IF we were that RICH, or that Connected, and had committed any crime, WE Would get off too. It's sick and so Double Standard, and unfortunately, Hillary and all the Candidates are wealthier than the rest of us.
Scooter took the blame, but we all know Bush and Rove are responsible! Pathetic that they have not been prosecuted!!
Scooter is an ASS, but I would bet he is receiving many $$$$ to take the heat and shut up.

[sallyseven]

72. Mr. Wonderful Chris Matthews asked her the question

to put her on the spot. If she said yes then people would say she is not right. If she said no then people would say what about your husband he committed purge ry? Damed if she did and dammed if she didn't,. Chris Matthews is a viper toward Hillary. She kicked his ass today. He is pissed off and what he showed at night was mild and he left off some other exchanges between himself and Hillary and also the audience. They kicked his ass too.

[enough already]

91. "Put her on the spot?"

It's a simple fucking question. Just say use a little common sense, say 'no', and move on. What's so damn hard about that?

[karynnj]

94. Consider what they committed purjury about

First, several here have said BC did not committ purjury because the ML questions were not pertinent - I am not a lawyer, so I do not know if this is true. Clinton wasn't pardoned - the Senate failed to convict and he wasn't charged elsewhere (and I don't know if he could be.)

Second - consider the subjects.

[rodeodance]

121. Tweety is phychologically 'obsessed' over Hiliary. I am glad she responded as she did.

[sallyseven]

73. Mr. Wonderful Chris Matthews asked her the question

to put her on the spot. If she said yes then people would say she is not right. If she said no then people would say what about your husband he committed purge ry? Damed if she did and dammed if she didn't,. Chris Matthews is a viper toward Hillary. She kicked his ass today. He is pissed off and what he showed at night was mild and he left off some other exchanges between himself and Hillary and also the audience. They kicked his ass too.

[Bucky]

76. Right on! It's completely unfair to make Clinton answer controversial questions

A real leader can handle a bullshit question by calling it out for the bullshit it is.

But the right answer to this question is easy. If he broke the law and got convicted, he should go to jail.

Where the hell is the controversy? Sorry, but Mrs Clinton is being a tap dancer here. I think it shows a lack of candor.

[John Q. Citizen]

68. It means she won't say either way. So if she's elected, don't count on anything

at all, because who knows?

If she attacks Iran and starts the draft, well, that's what people will get for electing a candidate who refuses to say where she stands on issues.

[Cosmocat]

7. Yep ...

Someone else hit the nail on the head ...

It was a set up question that would have opened the floodgates of RW Heel about how Bill pardoned so many people and how big of a hypocrite she was ... Like watching Russert throw a hissy fit on MTP when he tried to pin democratic candidates, who would not fall for it, down to say they would implement tax increases in the runnup to the elections last fall ...

[jenmito]

11. But still...

She is her own person who should call it like it is. Libby deserves NOT to be pardoned. Would she, as president, be obligated to be consistent with everything her husband did?

[arendt]

90. Which is exactly why she is a flawed candidate...Bill can be a weak spot, ethically n/t

[enough already]

92. When has the RW STOPPED talking about Clinton pardons?

She is supposedly her own candidate, not Bill, right? So answer the simple goddamn question. It's fucking traitor Libby we're talking about. If she can't commit to keeping a simple treasonous prick like him in jail, I really want no part of her.

[Kelvin Mace]

3. Two answers, take your pick:

1) Given that Bill pardoned a few shady characters, she can hardly complain.

2) She hasn't tested her answer with focus groups.

Either way, a good reason not to vote for her in the primary.

Just my opinion...

[jenmito]

6. I agree...

Either way...not good.

[northzax]

15. or, of course, a third answer

because she, as President, would review Libby's pardon application to see if he deserved it, before making a decision? Remember, she is a brilliant lawyer (a better lawyer than her husband ever was) and would know that it's important to review the case before making a declaration. She probably hasn't read the transcripts, or the briefs or anything more than what we have all read about the case, not enough to make a legal decision.

[Kelvin Mace]

21. If she hasn't been paying close attention to this case

that would be a THIRD reason not to vote for her.

[northzax]

27. close attention is much different

than really delving into all the minutia of the legal issues surrounding it. it's not her committee's issues, after all. I am sure she is paying attention, but that doesn't mean she has read the transcripts and the briefs and really made a legal decision one way or the other.

[Kelvin Mace]

63. The legal points are crystal clear

even to a first year law student. Hell, even to a rank amateur.

Only BushCo think there is anything complex about this case.

[northzax]

89. So i assume you are, in fact, a L1?

Since they are so clear to you?

as for me, i prefer pardons to be handled the old fashioned way: you appeal to the President and give your reasons why you think you should be pardoned, you admit de facto guilt, and have exhausted all you other lines of appeal. Once you do that, the President and the Pardon Office Review your case and make a determination on whether the reasons you give are good enough. Certainly, Libby has been convicted, that's the first step. And while i assume bush will pardon him, We don't even know that he would accept one before at least his initial appeal, not sure i would, if i had the resources to appeal and thought I had grounds.

so, senator clinton, as a good lawyer should, is waiting until the case for a pardon is made, by the felon, and going on from there. one of the key tennants is not to prejudge it's something i respect, i don't want another absolutist, thank you. I want someone who will fairly consider individual cases. Maybe they will teach you that as an L2?

[Kelvin Mace]

93. She is running for president,

not the Supreme Court.

Last time I looked, the job was a political one from the outset. If she is looking for my vote, then she needs to make it clear where she stands on people you abuse the law for their own gain. She has made it clear that she favors the same kind of middle of the road tactics that got people like Libby in power in the first place.

Libby was investigated by GOP administration, questioned by a GOP special counsel appointed by a GOP Justice Dept., tried by a GOP judge and convicted.

Libby had every possible partisan advantage, yet the level of his guilt was so convincing, he STILL got nailed.

Sorry. If Clinton wishes to play these "I'm a moderate" games, then she gets no votes from the liberal wing of the party.

[northzax]

96. fine

that's your choice. I, personally, want a president who is going to listen to the pardon appeals, if submitted, of any person imprisoned in the US, irregardless of political affiliation, with a fair and open mind. Scooter Libby is, in fact, a US citizen (last I checked, at least) and is imprisoned by the US justice system. I want a president who is going to treat all citizens as, well, citizens, not simply partisan hacks. Look what the opposite got us.

[jenmito]

103. But then why didn't she say THAT?...

That she would have to study the case or whatever, rather than not answering?

[Kelvin Mace]

115. Becaue it would cost her votes

and she is all about not taking any position unless she absolutely has to in order to please the Center-Right contingent she sees as her base.

[Kelvin Mace]

114. Again, she's running for president

not for a judicial appointment. Libby is part of a cabal of people bent on destroying democracy in America and turning us into a police state. They have made excellent progress in their plan so far and ANY talk of letting one of the guilty pricks skate is not about fairness, its about stupidity.

All I am asking is that a guilty man serve his time. To grant him a pardon, to even CONSIDER granting him a pardon, is to spit on justice.

Christ, it's not like he's going to REAL prison.

[madrchsod]

32. ahhh ...an answer that makes sense!

[rodeodance]

122. That would have been an excellant response from Hil.

[BeyondGeography]

24. Points for Kelvin

Hillary can't just say no to a Libby pardon because she's hamstrung by the past. Other candidates won't be so compromised.

[lyonn]

26. Bill's pardons had nothing to do with national security

Why did Libby Lie? To protect his boss who was and is promoting a war with a country that was not threatening us. Libby's lie was detrimental to our country, covering for the lies of our Vice President.

Nixon was pardoned but he resigned because of his lies.

Hillary is very cautious. Will it pay off in the end? It has slowed down my enthusiasm. Is it asking too much for signs of sincerity?

[Kelvin Mace]

65. You are correct

His pardons did not involve national security. Off course, this point means nothing to the Clinton-Hating media and their fans on the Right.

So, she play it safe and moves center-right.

[beachmom]

98. Marc Rich had EVERYTHING to do with national security -- BCCI

Scooter Libby was Marc Rich's lawyer. And Clinton pardoned Rich. Why, I do not know. But make no mistake that Rich was a named figure in the Iran/Contra and BCCI covert dealings which are at the core of most every national security problem this nation faces today. By giving in to the idea that Rich was 'just' a tax evader you are allowing the spin most favorable to the Bushes and the Clintons to prevail.

Link to the final BCCI report:


http://www.fas.org/irp/congress/1992_rpt/bcci/


Matters for further investigation:

9. BCCI's financing of commodities and other business dealings of international criminal financier Marc Rich. Marc Rich remains the most important figure in the international commodities markets, and remains a fugitive from the United States following his indictment on securities fraud. BCCI lending to Rich in the 1980's amounted to tens of millions of dollars. Moreover, Rich's commodities firms were used by BCCI in connection with BCCI's involving in U.S. guarantee programs through the Department of Agriculture. The nature and extent of Rich's relationship with BCCI requires further investigation.


Since he was pardoned, I guess there won't be any investigation of him in this matter . . .

[redqueen]

105. Nice how one hand washes the other...

isn't it?

[Renew Deal]

70. #2

She doesn't do anything untested.

[jenmito]

74. You're probably right.

:hi:

[realbluesky]

4. Because she has no core beliefs

Hillary goes with the wind. She is too cowardly to speak her convictions because she has none. There is a reason she is hated and it is not because of a right-wing conspiracy. It's because she has no strength of character. I hate republicans, but at least they have core beliefs they will stand for, even when those beliefs are stupid.

I would that you were hot or cold, but because you are lukewarm I will spew you out of my mouth.

[jenmito]

8. Sadly,

I believe that. But I'd STILL hold my nose and vote for her if she somehow won the primary.

[Norquist Nemesis]

17. Oh, bull! It's because she's experienced Swiftboat tactics for a very long time

It's the same reason she won't say she made a mistake. Geez!

If that's what you truly believe, then have at it because there isn't anything that's going to change your opinion. I still haven't made a decision which candidate I'm going to vote FOR, but I hope to try a keep an open mind to listen and learn.

[realbluesky]

46. If you don't know by now

I'm sorry, but I don't buy the open mind idea. If you don't know by now, you are just not paying attention.

[Norquist Nemesis]

82. Yeah, whatever

:eyes:

[Deep13]

19. Honestly, I don't care about her core beliefs or anyone elses.

I care how she or other candidates will act. The problem I have is that she started out as a liberal intellectual and then swung to the right during the Dumbass years just to run for president. While it is important to have donors, she has a lot of the same kind of big-money donors as the Rs. We all know that who is writing the checks is who is making the decisions. Is that a means to an end or will she be like every other president in memory and cave in to her financial supporters?

It seems like all Federal politicians care about is the next POTUS race. Congress' every move is calculated based on that and not based on either good government or the next Congressional race. Congress is where the Constitutional power is and always has been. A clear majority in Congress is more important than the WH.

I am also concerned that she will never be a concensus candidate would will have a clear majority in the Electoral College or have long coat tails for a Congressional majority to get anything done.

[CTD]

30. Yup. She can't tell you her position without someone taking a poll first.

We need a LEADER. Following public opinion in this country (considering the mass ignorance) will only get us another W.

[enough already]

97. Or without collecting a donation first n/t

[oasis]

5. Hill knows how much Tweety despises her. She wanted to show him up

for asking a dumbass question.

[jenmito]

12. I think Tweety wants to see a "subway series,"

with Hillary vs. Rudy. And he wants Rudy to win. I still think she should've answered the question.

[oasis]

22. Tweety's mission: Derail the Hillary express. Matthews hates all things Clinton.(n/t)

[babylonsister]

62. Ya think? Then why is he constantly talking about her? I think he

wants her to be the Dem candidate; maybe then he'll take his glee from bashing her.

[Bucky]

77. I think Tweety wants a three-way

subway series. Clinton v. Giuliani v. Bloomberg.

Finally, a combination that would give Ralph Nader a fighting chance.

[TwilightGardener]

9. That aggravates me too--she should have jsut said no. And if it's because of Bill's pardons, well--

what he did as Prez shouldn't have an influence on her actions.

[jenmito]

13. Exactly...

I said something similar a few posts ago. :hi:

[TwilightGardener]

20. Great minds, yada yada...

:hi:

[jenmito]

25. Yup.

:hi: :D

[rinsd]

10. It was a BS gotcha question by Tweety and the audience called him on it

http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2007/06/19/229581.aspx

[jenmito]

14. I think she should've answered it. n/t

[Beelzebud]

16. Because she's like a reed blowing in the wind?

This is what I don't like about MANY of the Democratic candidates. They won't stand for their own ideas and beliefs. It makes me wonder if they even have any.

[zulchzulu]

18. It depends on the meaning of what "pardon" is

:crazy:

[Lobster Martini]

23. Possibly because if she said no, the irony would be rich--Marc Rich

If Hilary says "no," Republicans are sure to ask why Marc Rich, a fugitive, gets a pardon from Bill on his last day in office but Hillary wouldn't pardon a dedicated public servant like Scooter.

Here's where the ironies multiply. Hillary was asked by a donor to her Senate campaign to suggest the Rich pardon to Bill. The donor was Rich's wife, who was asked to approach Clinton about the pardon Hillary by--you guessed it--Scooter Libby. Ergo, the inevitable talking point will be that she'll help a fugitive get a Presidential pardon for money, but she won't pardon the dedicated public servant without a payoff.

See why the question was not as simple as it seemed?

So exactly why was that question asked in a forum on labor and trade? Hmmmm.

(Edited to correct a factual mistake.)

[jenmito]

28. Yes, but

that says she has too much baggage to be president then IMO.

[CTD]

29. Exactly. Bill pardoned Marc Rich, who was represented by Libby.

And these ties to shady crap like this is a big part of why she can't be the Dem nominee.

She's too close to the neo-cons, AIPAC (the Israel lobby), and the corporate money brokers.

Sure she's "better than any of the GOP potential nominees". But not by much.


EDIT- Fix typo

[lyonn]

31. Every guest on those type shows get asked that question

Hillary should have been prepared. She probably was and that was her answer.?

[jenmito]

33. David Shuster just said Hillary brought down the house

with that Libby/audience exchange. No she didn't. Why are they hyping her so much???

[jefferson_dem]

36. No shit! It's like the media has been bought and paid for by the Hillaryites.

She is certifiably the establishment "Machine" candidate. Ugh...

[jenmito]

38. Yup...

It sure seems that way.

[Bucky]

37. You ask, "Why are they hyping her?" Think about it. Really, think.

Don't blame TV journalists. They're just reading the script.
.

[ShortnFiery]

44. Because the CEOs who RUN the M$N want HRC to win the Primaries so a Republican ...

is *a given* to win the General Election.

Why it's elemental dear Watson. ;)

[juajen]

54. Bullcrap!!!!!!

N/T

[CTD]

55. Wow. Such denial. Seek treatment.

The man speaks the truth. Hillary as the Dem nominee GUARANTEES a republican victory in 2008.

[Bucky]

78. Such eloquence. This is why Clinton's supporters are winning over DUers in droves.

[eweaver155]

35. She never answers a real question come on

You expected her to answer one today?

[jenmito]

40. I'd think she'd answer it...

no matter WHAT her husband did. It seemed like a softball question. I bet it would've been for any other Dem.

[rinsd]

41. Was the question directed to any other candidates?

[eweaver155]

43. That was a rightful question Her husband pardoned someone

before he left office. She should have answered the question.

[jenmito]

49. No. She was the first one questioned...

and the audience pretty much told him not to ask that question.

[eweaver155]

53. He should have pushed for an answer

[jenmito]

56. I agree. He caved. n/t

[ShortnFiery]

42. Because lawyers are shared between Libby and Rich?

Plus, with husband, Bill Clinton, the #1 PAL of H.W. Bush, it's "All in the Dynasties." ;) :wow: :P

[CTD]

45. Libby REPRESENTED Rich in his pardon request to Clinton

"As the Neo-Con World Turns"

[ShortnFiery]

47. Tks, but it's not neo-con, it's even more evil: "Corporations First and Always" - Big Money! n/t

[Red Knight]

48. LOL! She represents the progressive wing!

The guy with Shuster just defended her and said she was so popular because she represents the progressive wing of the party! LMAO!

Now, by all means vote for her if you want to--maybe it's her hairstyle, maybe it's because she's the lesser of an evil, whatever---but don't pretend she represents any progressive wing of the party.

That's just silly.

[jenmito]

50. I agree with your post.

It IS silly to believe that.

[ShortnFiery]

51. The Guy with Shuster now is dis' ing the CIA and says that we should strike on

the basis of what our enemies say. :scared:

I'm sickened by the disgusting WHORE for the Military Industrial Complex that *all* our major M$M outlets has degraded themselves into.

If we are not being "pumped up" with ideological rhetoric against *certain* Muslims, we're being "dumbed down" with dumb a** camera shots of a cow in someone's swimming pool. :crazy:

[jenmito]

58. Wes Clark is now an MSNBC analyst...

We need HIM to talk about foreign policy some more!

[PATRICK]

52. The answer, all three main variants

would be trouble. That probably struck her instinctively. NOW comes the second display of political acumen. There are a lot of such questions. You can practice a quick comeback with that plays immediately to the crowd and throws the question back at the would be trappers. One such sharp reply would even display quickness on feet no matter if rehearsed or written by an adviser. Or you could just naturally be brilliant, risky of course, but more real in its display of personal talent.

Getting caught dumbstruck or delaying is the fourth possible misstep, but at least it's not quotable. Only Bush in his long silent debate delays came close to surpassing actual gaffe blunders. For people wondering if Hillary is going to forgive or forget or doesn't get having any responsibility to deal with these crooks this is not reassuring whatever reason lurks behind the crickets and tumbleweeds.

OK, wait a minute. I didn't see this so I shouldn't make assumptions. What was the context. Did she immediately go to the audience? That was half of the right approach. Or did she get pushed by their cue?
My preference would be to consider a pardon when Libby revealed the information he was blocking with his perjury and apologized to the American people for....(list as crowd cheers each item).

The most disappointing, inoffensive, civilized presidency, as clueless and hands off about political opportunity as is elitely possible. That was going to be the "momentum" of 2004 before Dean tried to shake it up.

[AtomicKitten]

57. she really didn't get a chance to elucidate

she made a snarky comment which I thought was appropriate and then the audience jumped in

[jenmito]

59. Shuster KEEPS trying to minimize Obama!

He asked if it's time to use the word "inevitable" regarding Hillary! And if 2nd place IS the place Obama wants to be now. WTH? I think Obama got the MOST applause and had the BEST answers today (compared to his other performances).

[The Backlash Cometh]

60. These people live in a different world than we do.

They are accustom to pulling strings for themselves, their friends and their allies, or for leverage. The only thing that stops them, is public outrage.

[jenmito]

61. Shuster's definitely in the tank for Hillary...

He keeps saying things that make it seem as if she blew away the competition. "It was a stellar performance." "Is it time to use the word 'inevitable'?" "She really gave it to Chris Matthews." "The audience rose to their feet in her defense." (Other stuff I can't now remember). :D

[eweaver155]

64. It is a bunch of BS

[jenmito]

66. I know...

I REALLY hope we don't allow the media to dictate who our nominee is.

[Arugula Latte]

69. She can barely speak without triangulating.

I am already soooo sick of her, and the race for president has barely started.

[eweaver155]

71. Make me have to get Pepto to ease my stomach when I hear it at times.

[jenmito]

75. I agree.

I hope she burns out soon.

[illinoisprogressive]

79. blurr, triangulate and blame the moderator are the clintons games.

And, those people in the audience yelling were her people.

[jenmito]

80. I wonder what she would've said

if the audience members hadn't "saved" her.

[AZBlue]

81. I missed it - anyone have a link to a clip?

Thanks!

[AZBlue]

83. She didn't just say no? Maybe she was jonesing for a toke!

Oh...sorry...I was having a mid-80's flashback.

[Major Hogwash]

84. Force of habit, she had to think ahead of when she might want to pardon a crook.

Because, in her mind, she is already the next President.

[ShortnFiery]

87. Her mind, the M$M has fully anointed HRC as *inevitable* based merely on the last poll.

Talk about inside alliances and corruption?!? :eyes: Everything I observe about HRC and her campaign reminds me of Rovarian lite type tactics. I'm disgusted with all the blessed Clintonian triangulation at play again. The Middle Class is being trashed yet HRC's people DEMAND that we SUBMIT and party like it's 1995. No, not again. :thumbsdown:

[TeamJordan23]

85. Penn prolly didn't have the results from focus group. nt

[avrdream]

86. Just saw the clip over at Huffington Post....

she didn't even get a CHANCE to answer the question. The audience was screaming out "ask a REAL question" and "next question" straight away.
Before you go grumbling about her non-response, watch the vid. Chris Matthews had it coming, too.

[jenmito]

101. I saw it when she was asked that morning...

The audience did NOT screaming out immediately. She first gave a non-answer, something like, "I think there will be enough people answering that without my input" or something else, but it was AFTER she gave her non-answer that the audience started shouting out to ask a real question at which point she smiled, laughed, nodded, and agreed with them, saying something like, "Yes, ask something that these people in the audience care about."

[avrdream]

116. My apology.

The Huffington Post clip didn't show the part before that.

[jenmito]

118. No problem.

:hi:

[MGKrebs]

88. So now the standard for HRC is that she has to answer BS questions quickly?

She has to vote first, she has to answer before thinking, she has to use specific words to characterize previous votes.


This is a game, right? What's it going to be today? Let's see... she has to co-sponsor every Dem bill in the Senate. That would be the true test of a President. And she should only ever drive or ride in a Prius. How could we expect anything less from a President? No coffee, sugar free soda only.

[TeamJordan23]

95. No, but she does have to ANSWER the question. It was a simple question. She dodged. nt

[jenmito]

102. Exactly. n/t

[MGKrebs]

117. I didn't see the clip, but my understanding was that

people in the first couple of rows groaned and complained about the question. Is it possible Clinton was just distracted by that for a moment or trying to see what was going on? I mean, we're only talking a few seconds, right?

[jenmito]

119. No. I saw the whole thing, and as I posted earlier...

The audience did NOT scream out immediately. She first gave a non-answer, something like, "I think there will be enough people answering that without my input" or something else, but it was AFTER she gave her non-answer and tried to laugh it off, not answering, that the audience started shouting out to ask a real question at which point she smiled, laughed, nodded, and agreed with them, saying something like, "Yes, ask something that these people in the audience care about."

[SaveElmer]

99. Because she knows how to control an interview...

It is an extraneous topic, unrelated in any way to the campaign....

If she had gotten into it the interview would have veered in that direction...

These types of questions are designed as gotcha questions, designed to create a fake controversy...

Hillary knows this when she sees it and declined to get sucked into it...

[jenmito]

100. How hard is it to say no?

It's NOT unrelated. What if SHE were president at the time or what if Scoots was still in jail when she became president? Would she have to pardon him in her opinion because her husband pardoned Rich, for example? If she's hampered by or tied down by her husband's actions, that's something voters have to think about.

[SaveElmer]

104. Ridiculous straw man talking point...

No one in the country gives a rats ass about Marc Rich...I bet 95% of the people (or more) have no idea who that is...

Hillary says no, and then what does Matthews say..."ok" and moves on?...no, I don't think so, the interview would have veered entirely into an unrelated and irrelevant direction...

[jenmito]

106. Talking point from where?

When I heard her non-answer I had this question. So what if Matthews continued? If she wants to be president, she's going to have to deal with questions or situations like this.

[SaveElmer]

107. The whole ridiculous Marc Rich speculation...

straw man...

[jenmito]

108. I see no straw man. She should've answered "no."

She's not running as Bill's wife. She's running as Hillary Clinton who may be faced with having to pardon people, including Libby.

[SaveElmer]

109. I disagree...

The pardon of Scooter Libby is not only a tengential issue, it is unimportant in the context of the Presidential campaign...and I daresay completely irrelevant to anyone but political junkies on chat boards...

She did exactly what she should, stayed focused on the campaign and what she wanted to talk about...

[jenmito]

110. So she should get to answer

only questions she WANTS to answer?

[SaveElmer]

111. What politician...

Does not try and control an interview...

It's not like it is a public forum...this is Chris Matthews...

They are not obligated to answer every hair brained irrelevant question talking heads come up with...

Isn't that what the candidate boycott of Fox News all about?

[jenmito]

112. I just think she should've answered the question. No.

Easy answer. If Matthews kept on going after that, THEN she could've/should've said that's her husband's presidency and his decision. She's here to talk about HER ideas if SHE were to become president.

[SaveElmer]

113. No compelling reason too...

And it simply shows she is a pro at handling these types of interviews...

I don't think there is any serious thought that she would actually pardon Libby...it's the type of question talking heads ask to stir up fake controversy...she knows not to get sucked into it

[Kingstree]

124. She never can answer a question straight out.

Which only make people dislike her even more.

[rodeodance]

123. I agree

[MGKrebs]

120. This thread is based on incorrect information.

I finally watched the actual clip. The question asked was- would she have a problem, or anything to say if President Bush were to pardon Scooter Libby. She was NOT asked if SHE would pardon Libby.

And yes, she did dodge the question, but clearly because she thought it was a stupid question. She could have just said "That's a stupid question, Chris" and a lot of people would have liked that, but she took a more diplomatic approach and just said that there would be plenty of comments about that without her jumping in.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tvlOz0nzP0A

Honesty and accuracy matter.

[jenmito]

133. You're right...

But she STILL should've answered THAT with a simple answer-yes she'd have a problem with it. Sorry. My mistake, but same question. Why didn't she just answer it? I don't want someone who thinks Bush pardoning Libby is the right thing to do. He's convicted of perjury and obstruction of justice.

[Bake]

125. I'm surprised her campaign hasn't already prepared an answer for that question.

One that has been adequately focus-grouped. They must be slipping if they didn't anticipate that question.

Bake

[MGKrebs]

127. What makes you think this wasn't the prepared answer?

[Bake]

128. It was pretty sh*tty for a prepared answer.

But you're right, it probably WAS the prepared bob-and-weave non-answer.

Bake

[MGKrebs]

129. Did you see the clip? It was a nearly perfect non-answer.

You may have preferred a different answer, but as far as non-answers go, it was artfully done. Polite deflection, a little humorous inflection, even a little hint of self-deprecation and a minor scolding at the same time.

[Bake]

130. Yes, I saw it when she gave it.

It may have been artfully, humorously done, but it was still a non-answer to a simple question. I think people deserve and are entitled to STRAIGHT ANSWERS, particularly to simple questions. The straight answer might upset some people, but the non-answer irritated a lot more and played into the stereotype of HRC as calculating and poll-driven, with no principles of her own.

Bake

[MGKrebs]

131. I don't think it was a simple question.

Let's be clear- the question was not would she pardon Libby- to which a "no" would be pretty easy- but if she would have anything to say if Bush pardoned Libby.

Did he mean if Bush pardons Libby tomorrow? At the end of his term? If HRC is the nominee? If she is not? Is she supposed to question the power of a President to pardon? Interject her personal feelings while supporting the wisdom of the Constitution?

I appreciate thoughtfulness and deliberation in my leaders. It's Ronald Reagan and George W. Bush who cultivate the decisive cowboy mentality, the "I'm making an instant decision whether it's right or wrong" shtick. "I'm the decider" and all that. It's just amazing how we so easily throw away so many of the things we have been missing for the past few years in order to try to score political points.

I thought we wanted complete sentences.
I thought we wanted diplomacy.
I thought we wanted thoughtfulness.

I mean, I get the impression that since HRC is "perceived" as deliberative, then many who dislike her feel they must therefore support spontaneity. I hope we are not that shallow and reactionary.

[Name removed]

126. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Capn Sunshine]

132. I can't imagine how anyone wouldn't say no

unless they get their info from inside the beltway, where a pardon means something to all the drones

..........and the response from the HRC fans will be " Oh Yeah? Obama's lawyer called for a Libby Pardon too!" Which is NOT what we're discussing.

why didn't she just say no? because she's triangulating.

[MGKrebs]

134. Say no to what? "No, I would not have a comment if Bush pardons

Libby?" That, I presume, is NOT what you really want to hear. You would want her to say that hell yes, she WOULD have something to say, wouldn't you?

[jenmito]

135. You know what s/he meant...

As was pointed out, the question was if she'd say anything about BUSH pardoning Libby. I thought he asked if SHE would pardon Libby. No big difference, but of course, the answer would change accordingly.

[MGKrebs]

136. There is a big difference!

I agree that it should be a simple answer for her to say "No" she would not pardon Libby. This whole thread is based on the mistaken presumption that that was the question that she failed to answer. "No" is not a good answer to the actual question, and I invite you to provide what would have been a good, instantaneous answer to that rather vague and pointless question.

[jenmito]

137. As you pointed out...

The question asked was- would she have a problem, or anything to say if President Bush were to pardon Scooter Libby. Her answer should've been YES. He broke the law and should do his time.

[MGKrebs]

138. Which puts her in a position of having to forswear

using pardons if she gets elected in order to avoid being hypocritical. (Did I just use 'forswear' in a sentence?) Clearly not nearly as simple a question as "would you pardon Libby".


In any case, all those who agree that she should have said "no" almost certainly did not understand the question, and I hope have re-thought their position on this particular episode.

[jenmito]

141. Please...

People get convicted of different levels of crimes. She'd be held to no standard. She could've added that what Libby did was aid in blocking the investigation of who performed a treasonous act. All those who said she should've said no was in response to whether SHE would've pardoned Libby, since that's how I mistakenly posed the question. :eyes:

[MGKrebs]

143. Yes. And Clinton's "crime" was not answering directly within 5 seconds.

A couple of dozen posts in this thread have accused her of this while at the same time demonstrating the very reason for not doing so. They misread the question and they reacted quickly and without thought. We can do that on a forum like this without much repercussion, but surely that is not what we want from our leaders and potential leaders.

I think it is clear that the answer was more complicated than many would like to have imposed on her. I have no desire to quarrel with you, but I also think it is important to correct the record. People will have their differences, but we certainly cannot have productive dialog when the premise is mistaken. That is my intention, and I would do it if I came across a similar circumstance for any of the candidates (although I admit I am probably more likely to come across a Hillary 'situation').

In any event, I hope that most of us would be more dedicated to the truth than they are to any particular candidate. The question was more complicated and deceptive than many of us thought.

[jenmito]

144. I don't really agree

that if I put the correct question the responses would've been very similar but it would've been "yes" instead of "no" with similar reasons.

[MGKrebs]

145. You've said yourself that the answer might require further explanation.

There was no simple yes or no answer to the question. That is the premise and that is the point.

"No" is the wrong answer and is unsatisfactory without further explanation. "Yes" means she WOULD question a Bush pardon, but that opens up a can of worms about presidential pardons and would she do it, and justice vs. constitutionality. Again, no simple answer.

You can disagree, but as long as viewers understand that the original premise was incorrect and many of the responses were based on that incorrect premise, then my work here is done.

There may be other examples of Clinton's inability to take a principled stand on something, but this isn't one of them.

[martymar64]

139. Her boy Carville wants Libby pardoned.

One could safely assume that she does too. Unless she's too frightened to contradict her campaign guru in public . . .

[MGKrebs]

142. That is B.S.

Carville and Matalin wrote their letter based on Scooter's kindness to their children. It has nothinbg to do with Hillary Clinton. They are allowed to write a letter like that, Carville is not even officially associated with the campaign (as far as I know), I think their family experience SHOULD be considered by the courts, and they only ask for consideration, not exoneration.

One cannot safely assume what you assert.

http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/years/2007/0605071libby11.html))

[NaturalHigh]

140. It would probably depend on...

whether or not her brother was getting something out of the pardon.