Bill Clinton Defends Wife's Record on Women's Issues

[saracat]

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2007/07/19/bill-clinton-defends-wife%e2%80%99s-record-on-women%e2%80%99s-issues/


WASHINGTON (CNN) — Former President Bill Clinton defended his wife’s record on women’s issues Thursday, two days after Elizabeth Edwards contended her husband would be a stronger advocate for women than his Democratic presidential rival Hillary Clinton.

“If you look at the record on women’s issues, I defy you to find anybody who has run for office in recent history whose got a longer history of working for women, for families and children than Hillary does,” the former president said in an interview with ABC’s Good Morning America



Anybody find it weird that nothing is said about Bill jumping in for Hillary but the knives are out for Elizabeth Edwards daring to compare her husbands record with Hillary's hmm.No one says this campaign spouse shouls "shut up" as some have said about EE.

[Tellurian]

1. Yep, I'm afraid Elizabeth has erred terribly with a faulty statement...

Hillary's work for Women's Rights and Women's issues are well documented from years past. EE has made a tremendous faux pas with her wild assertion and more than likely will hurt more than help her husband's campaign...

[saracat]

2. Please.Like her refusinfg to fillibuster judicial anti choice appointments?

Like her softening her stance on abortion to please the Repugs? Give me a break.

[rinsd]

3. Where did Hillary refuse to fillibuster?

She voted against cloture for Alito. And spoke out strongly against both nominee.

There was no fillibuster planned for Roberts.

"Like her softening her stance on abortion to please the Repugs"

How so?

[saracat]

6. She would not join in when Kerry was begging for support and she sure knows how to turn the knife

on our own.See this video.Lovely woman!

blm (1000+ posts) Wed Jul-18-07 11:53 PM
Response to Reply #21
60. Let's go to Alito filibuster that she and Schumer undermined behind the scenes
and wouldn't support Kerry and Kennedy who were taking a beating in the media or speak publicly for it until the last minute.

Shameful. Yet she found a camera to do THIS: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dk1k0nUWEQg

[rinsd]

8. LOL. IOW, you have NADA

You just used as your source blm, who blames the Clintons for virtually everything, posting about undermining by Schumer and Clinton without a shred of proof.

"Yet she found a camera to do THIS: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dk1k0nUWEQg "

The joke did strike many an inappropriate. Her point was that it was a distraction.

[saracat]

9. But it is true she would NOT join Kerry in the Alito filibuster request.My source is ME!

I remember that and I don't blame the Clinton's for everything. And her remark about that joke was NASTY.Much worse than EE.

[rinsd]

11. You must have specialized ears that filter everything Hillary says

Her quote from YOUR video.

"What Senator Kerry said was inappropriate. And I believe we can't let this divert us from looking at the issues that are at stake."

One thing that's a bonus about the Clintons is that they drive their haters so nuts they can't seem to attack them honestly therefore such attacks are easily defended or ignored.

Oh and one more thing on the fillibuster:

http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/01/27/alito/index.html

Sen. Hillary Clinton of New York and Sen. Dianne Feinstein of California say they will join the Massachusetts senators in backing the filibuster.

[saracat]

37. Yeah.At the very last minute. Originally she supported Feinstien who wouldn't filibuster unless

Alito was found guilty of extreme"moral turpitude!" She dragged her feet and worked with Schumer to stop the filibuster! But whatever.I am not filtering and as I said, if she is the nominee, I 'll support her.I just don't like her gamesmanship! But she is better than the GOP.

"Hillary Clinton, previously silent on filibustering Alito, chose to attend a Seattle fundraiser instead of the Senate hearing on Friday. But from Seattle, she issued a statement supporting Kerry's initiative: "History will show that Judge Alito's nomination is the tipping point against constitutionally-based freedoms and protections we cherish as individuals and as a nation."

[rinsd]

40. Last minute? Kerry and Kennedy announced Thurs and she joined them Fri. Vote was Mon.

[Tellurian]

36. Tsk, tsk, saracat... Hillary did join the filibuster against Alito w/Kerry....

Saturday, Jan. 28, 2006 10:05 a.m. EST

Hillary Clinton Backs Alito Filibuster

New York Sen. Hillary Clinton told a Buffalo radio station Friday morning that she hadn't decided whether to support a move to filibuster the confirmation vote next week for Supreme Court nominee Samuel Alito.

But by the end of the day, Mrs. Clinton had made up her mind to join the doomed effort to block the conservative judge, which was launched Thursday by Sen. John Kerry.

In a statement posted to her web site late Friday, Mrs. Clinton announced: "Because I do not think Judge Alito would advance the principles Americans hold most dear, I oppose his nomination and support efforts to block his confirmation.”

Mrs. Clinton claimed: "History will show that Judge Alito’s nomination is the tipping point against constitutionally-based freedoms and protections we cherish as individuals and as a nation. He would roll back decades of progress, and roll over when confronted with an administration too willing to play fast and loose with the rules."

...Kerry made himself the laughingstock of the Senate, when asked by Luger: "If he (Kerry) knew how to count? Because the votes weren't there to begin a filibuster!"

And what has this got to do with EE anyway?

[saracat]

38. At the very last minute along with the faux Dem Feistien.

[Tellurian]

41. You can't filibuster with 30 votes...duh!

It was a loser from the beginning. Just because it was a lame grandstanding attempt by Kerry doesn't make it any less stupid!

[rinsd]

4. Perhaps because EE was the attack dog in this scenario.

I do recall Bill got alot of shit for performing that role early in the campaign dealing with Obama and Hillary's war votes in the Senate.

What I question is the campaign tactical wisom of having a candidate who is lampooned as girly having his wife as his attack dog while at the same time claiming he is the better President for women.

Was it the worry of backlash if it was Edwards himself who attacked her on women's issues?

I just don't understand the mindset there.

[durrrty libby]

5. Sorry, but Elizabeth Edwards made a mistake going after

Hillary. It makes the Edwards camp look silly and desperate.

Elizabeth is a fairly intelligent woman, but in my

opinion, she's over-rated. She did a lousy job

going after Coultergeist too. It made me wince.

[saracat]

7. Not me.Hillary alweays makes me wince when she speaks.

Elizabeth has elouquence and charm, Hillary unfortunately has neither.Sigh.I wish I could like her. She just makes me cringe.I don't know what happened.I really liked her as First Lady but somehow, she turns me off as a Presidential candidate.I will vote for her if she is the nominee but I think we can do lots better.And it is too bad I would love to see a woman Prez.

[Totally Committed]

10. This is an improper function for a former POTUS in anyone's campaign,

let alone his wife's. It's unseemly. It's undignified. And, it looks like the overkill that it is.

Mrs. Clinton should be doing the refutation, not The Mister.

Anyone else think the irony of arguing your wife's position on Women's Issues FOR her is a little cringe-inducing here, or am I just being an oversensitive feminist?

TC

[durrrty libby]

12. So it is ok for John Edwards' spouse to spout off for her husband,

but not ok for Senator Clinton's spouse to refute her remarks

Talk about cringe inducing hypocrisy

[Totally Committed]

21. She's not a former POTUS.

And, I didn't say I thought it was okay to spout off. (I actually think what she did was countr-productive.) What I did say is Mrs. Clinton should have done her own refutation.

Aside from being a tad co-dependent, the perception created by sending a former POTUS to duel with a woman who has cancer is unseemly. It's like killing a fly with a hammer.

It made me cringe. What can I say?

TC

edited for clarity

[Cameron27]

27. What you just said was unseemly,

having cancer doesn't prohibit anyone including Bill, from refuting EE's hit on Hillary. He is after all her husband, and he was asked this in an interview. I don't see anything co-dependent about it.

[Totally Committed]

30. It was the "perception" it created that I was talking about.

I'm sorry I wasn't clearer about that.

My apology.

TC

[Cameron27]

32. Thanks, it didn't sound like you lol

[durrrty libby]

33. "sending a former POTUS to duel with a woman who has cancer is unseemly"

I imagine that even Elizabeth Edwards would be offended by that statement

He's an ex pres?..so what, that's the way it is.

She has cancer? So she wants to be treated with kid gloves? He didn't even make it personal to her

I don't get your illogical logic

[ElizabethDC]

14. Are you serious?

The spouse of a candidate said something about another candidate, so *that* candidate's spouse said something in response. Seems perfectly natural to me.

You are being a little oversensitive - it seems to me that Bill is fulfilling his role as the spouse of a candidate in a perfectly appropriate way. Do you think Hillary should just have her spouse sit this one out because she's a woman?

[Totally Committed]

22. Bill is not ***just*** a spouse, he is the former President of the United States.

It's wrong. There's a reason why, historically, Presidents have stayed out of their Party's nomination process, endorsing only the Party nominee AFTER the voting is over. It's because it is an unfair advantage to have that much power coming to bat for you BEFORE one vote is cast.

TC

[ElizabethDC]

28. So the fact that he's a former POTUS totally negates his status as spouse?

Would you really expect him, or any other spouse, to stay out of it completely? Frankly, I think he's done a pretty good job of staying out of the way and letting people get to know Hillary. But the assertion that he shouldn't participate in the process at all is ridiculous.

Also, did Papa Bush campaign for his son in the primares?

[Totally Committed]

34. Ethically, I think it should negate his status as Hillary's husband in this case.

I believe (I could be wrong, but I don't think so) that Papa Bush did not go out and campaign for George until he was the Party's nominee.

Look, this is just my opinion. I have no candidate in this race as yet. So, take what I say in that light.

TC

[SaveElmer]

29. Did George Bush I campaign for George Bush II...

Did John Adams not advocate for J.Q. Adams?

I don't think the rule applies when the candidate is a member of your immediate family...I haven't heard this argument from anyone else...

And it is not unfair at all...every candidate uses the biggest weapons at their disposal...are you gong to argue Obama has to whisper from now on because he has the best speaking voice, or Edwards has to wear a bag over his head cause he is the best looking...?

[Cameron27]

31. This is a first though, isn't it?

No other president had a wife running for office.

[durrrty libby]

39. Ok after all the BS, now I get it

"It's because it is an unfair advantage to have that much power coming to bat for you BEFORE one vote is cast."


You want to win? Use everything you have. I would raise holy hell if I didn't see Bill out there helping her. I want her to win.



So you can just take those sour grapes and turn them into wa wa whine :nopity:

[SaveElmer]

20. Oh come on...you must see the double standard you are applying here...

First of all the Clinton campaign responded yesterday...

And really, I didn't see any complaints from you when Elizabeth Edwards initially made her remarks...

It is perfectly appropriate for President Clinton to respond to this...and he did so in a very gentlemanly and dignified manner...did not attack anyone, simply stated his belief that Edwards assertion was wrong and pointing out his reasons...

[Totally Committed]

23. I don't agree with you, but I respect you and your opinion.

This is my opinion, and I don't think there is a double standard to it at all.

TC

[Mass]

13. How did he dare? Defend his wife against an attack? Incredible.

:sarcasm:

As far as I can see from your post, he did not attack Edwards, but defended his wife. The problem with EE is not that she supported her husband (not exactly a surprise that she does that), but that she seems to expect that we have to believe her on her good name.

I put about as much stock with what she says in this race than I do for Clinton, a lot of skepticism and a sense of played for a fool.

[Cameron27]

17. I agree, and I don't have a problem with EE

playing attack dog for John, but she'd better expect to be called on it. I didn't like the "well do you believe me" attitude about the little debate kerfluffle between Clinton and Edwards.

[Totally Committed]

25. I don't disagree with you. I just think it should have been someone OTHER than the former POTUS.

Mrs. Clinton or a senior aide should have done the refuting.

Just my opinion, though. :)

TC

[welshTerrier2]

15. "women's issues"

Hillary Clinton voted against Diane Feinstein's amendment that would have banned cluster bombs from use in populated areas.

just wondering, would that qualify as a "women's issue?"

[Totally Committed]

26. Not, I guess, unless they were *pink* cluster bombs....

:sarcasm:

Any woman (especially one who is a mother) who can still vote against ending the use of cluster bombs in populated areas where children are often "collateral" damage is one cold human. Yet another reason not to support her.

TC

[madfloridian]

16. If it's ok for Bill to defend Hill, then Elizabeth can have her say as well.

Let's not have any double standards.

There's a big twofer going on here...and one is a former president. Tough deal to beat.

[Cameron27]

18. Yes she does.

But EE was the one who entered into the fray first, with her little attack on Hillary. She has every right to do that, but it's no twofer when Bill responds.

[maximusveritas]

19. The difference: Bill was asked about it in an interview

And he answered in a way that was positive and didn't attack Elizabeth or John. Elizabeth volunteered her attack on Hillary without being asked about it and did it in a negative way, attacking Hillary instead of saying anything about what John has done.

[Forkboy]

24. I think Elizabeth's statements were pretty harmless.

it's fodder for the partisans and nothing else.

Hillary's response was handled very well,and both sides will have forgotten about it by next week.

[Cameron27]

35. Yep, it was just a minor skirmish.

[goodgd_yall]

42. The rule is "woman should shut up"---(grunt, beat chest)

Women with power and influence are always told to "shut up," doncha know. In this campaign we have to have the consciousness to know when it's truth being spoken, or just plain misogyny.

[hey hey]

43. Mailing

I'm not sure who got the latest Hillary Campaign letter mailed to them (from home) but I think it was quite powerful. It highlighted her not as a politician but as someone with enormous public service... fighting for the people who need her to fight for her most like children, the uninsured and the poor... which IMO as a woman are very much women's issues... it also mentioned her fabulous speech in Bejing on Womens Rights when she was first lady.

Did any of you get the mailing (I got it snail mail not email.