NEW YORK, Aug. 31, 2007
Letterman Gets Serious With Clinton
Some Light Moments, But Emphasis In "Late Show" Interview On Iraq And Campaign 2008
-
Play CBS Video Video Hillary's 'Top 10'
Sen. Hillary Clinton stops by to see David Letterman on "The Late Show," where she announced the top 10 things she will do when she is elected president in 2008.
-
Photo
Sen. Hillary Clinton, campaigning last week at a house party in Concord, New Hampshire. (AP)
-
Photo Essay
Hillary Rodham Clinton
The Democratic Senator from New York and former first lady sets her sights on the White House.
-
Interactive
Battle For Iraq
The government, the insurgency, key players, background and photos.
That was just a warm-up for the main event, however.
Letterman's headliner was Hillary Clinton, who walked onto the "Late Show" stage to the strains of Bruce Springsteen's "Born to Run," ribbed Letterman for his many jokes about her pantsuits (while wearing one, of course), and answered some serious questions before delivering a Top Ten list of comedic campaign promises.
Most popular with the "Late Show" audience were a promise to allow taxpayers to roll dice for double or nothing against the IRS; a pledge to loan out Air Force One to folks who have trouble getting a flight; and a promise that her vice president "will never shoot anybody in the face."
Letterman took Clinton back to her first job after graduating from college, as a fish gutter in Alaska.
"The job was to be in hip boots with an apron, with a spoon," Clinton recalled. "The salmon would be brought in, they'd be slit open, and the caviar would be taken out and then they'd be thrown in a big pile. My job was to grab - I mean, these are big fish - to take a spoon and clean out the insides. That's called 'sliming fish.' "
It was, Clinton said satirically, "the best preparation for being in Washington that you can possibly imagine."
Asked about the tens of millions she's already raised for her campaign, and the many millions more that are likely to be spent, Clinton said she'd like to see a switch to "public financing, where people don't have to raise money like this."
"There's a great public financing system here in New York City, and I think it's a terrific model," she continued. "But, again, under our constitution, the Supreme Court has decided that your contributions is a form of political speech... So it would be very hard to come up with a system that would really work. But I'm gonna do everything I can - now, as a senator - I hope, as a president - to try to deal with it."
As for the campaign itself, the New York Democrat says it's long, intense, and takes stamina - which she has.
"I find it exhilarating," said Clinton. "I get to travel, go in and out of people's lives in a way that few folks ever get to do. You're in people's homes, workplaces - everything that you can imagine that's important, and they're telling you about it."
The campaign trail, she acknowledged, is also "incredibly draining... it seems to be what our system demands. Maybe because it's the hardest job in the world, they want to make the candidates go through very tough preliminaries."
The challenges are already in place, said Clinton, for the next president.
"I think it's going to be especially hard following President Bush and Vice President Cheney; I think there are going to be a lot of problems that we'll inherit," she said. "I wouldn't be doing this if I didn't think, number one, that I could win, and number two, that I could do the job that the country needs."
"I think the fact that I would be the first woman president is a good barrier for America to break," she continued, pointing to female leaders past and present, including Margaret Thatcher, Indira Ghandi, Golda Meyer, and Angela Merkel. "We're the land where we say to everybody, 'Live up to your potential, live your dreams,' right?"
"It certainly seems overdue," Letterman said about the prospect of a female president.
By Francie Grace © MMVII, CBS Interactive Inc. All Rights Reserved.
 | U.S. News & World Report: "The most credible print newsweekly" --The Pew Research Center. |
Video and Galleries from Politics
-
Video
Taxing The Rich
-
Video
Hi-Tech Drones Aid Terror Hunt
-
Video
Confirming Sotomayor
- 1
- 2
- next
See all 93 CommentsThis lars008 post, is he/she for real?
ANY COMMENT FROM THE ZOO?
STAY THE COURSE
I nominate the preceding quote for the biggest understatement of the millennium.
No matter who wins, they''re going to have the toughest job to do since FDR followed Hoover.
No doubt this is the same tactic. Chinese businessmen, spies, communist plots to destroy freedom, they are REAL people. This is it. China recieved unparalelled benefits from the last Clinton Administration. If we put another one in, shoot, we may as well start eh Peoples Republic of the United States Party and change languages. Can you say grng ch%u01CEn ??
Posted by pwrslm at 07:55 AM : Aug 31, 2007
No Shiit! That Hsu story disappeared off CBS''s radar quicker than a Clinton campaign contributor leaves the country.
Letterman LOVES Clinton......they are like lib ''peas and carrots'' - to coin a Gumpism.
OK, um, you are aware that the welfare program that went on since the 60s ended during the Clinton administration, right? It was a Republican Congress and a Democratic Presidesnt that got it done. You do know that, right?
And for whatever reason, that combination in reverse doesn''t seem to work one bit these days. Of course, times were much easier back then, about 10 years ago.
Great team work "axis".
Posted by infidel_us at 08:11 AM : Aug 31, 2007
I''ve been watching Letterman since ''82. He''s politcally neutral. The only person I''ve ever seen him go after with the claws was Bill O''Reilly. Let''s face it: that guy needs to be knocked down several pegs.
Letterman, like many of us, are disgusted with both sides of the aisle. Since the days of IKE, we''ve had three presidents make it the full 8 years: two Republicans and one democrat. Times were good (or at least decent) for two of those three (Reagan and Clinton).
C''mon. Stop promoting your candidate for president and be unbiased in your coverage... -if- you can even do that!!!
It''s so blatant. But it''s your goal to advance your political agenda. Still PO-ed about Rather vs. Dubya?
;)
Posted by themurph2000 at 08:16 AM : Aug 31, 2007
---------------------------------------
um it was the Republicans who got it done and that maggot Clinton knew he did not have the votes to veto it.
No doubt this is the same tactic. Chinese businessmen, spies, communist plots to destroy freedom, they are REAL people. This is it. China recieved unparalelled benefits from the last Clinton Administration. If we put another one in, shoot, we may as well start eh Peoples Republic of the United States Party and change languages. Can you say grng ch%u01CEn ??
Maybe with a female President, someone would think twice before sending our children off to a foreign country to die over someone else''s civil war.
Has anyone bothered to notice our gasoline prices did not get out of hand before Bush and Cheney''s war on terror in Iraq.
Posted by nexgen99 at 08:37 AM : Aug 31, 2007
OK, let''s check those numbers....
104th Congress - 1995-96
House: 232 Republicans, 201 Democrats, 2 Independents. Republicans control 53.3% of the House
Senate: 52 Republican, 48 Democratic. (52 were at the time of the vote, there were 53 in ''95 until Bob Packwood left) Republicans control 52% of the Senate.
Bottom line, it was the Republicans who could not override a Presidential veto, as you need 67% to do that in both houses. By that same token, Clinton couldn''t get the bills designed exactly as he liked them, as the Republicans would have chaired many (if not most) of the subcommittees in Congress.
Don''t you just hate people who do their research and remember their history?
The Real Reason We''re In Iraq:
An influential group of conservatives convinced President George W. Bush that it was in America''s best interests to conquer Iraq as a first step toward dominating the oil-producing nations in the Middle East. There was no "exit plan" because we never intended to exit. The plan was, and is, to build military bases in Iraq and stay there forever. Our leaders also see Iraq as a place to make money. So Bush & Co. have set up their friends to cash in on the rebuilding of Iraq.
Letterman, like many of us, are disgusted with both sides of the aisle. Since the days of IKE, we''''ve had three presidents make it the full 8 years: two Republicans and one democrat. Times were good (or at least decent) for two of those three (Reagan and Clinton).
Posted by themurph2000 at 08:19 AM : Aug 31, 2007"
Apparently, you weren''t around during the B. Clinton years. There was very little "decent" about his 8.
Letterman has hardly been neutral either. He''s been after Bush since his first election.
Letterman was a supporter of Clinton when he was in office and when Bush was elected Letterman let his Liberal Democrat side show in full force. He''s nothing but a yes man and has been bought by those who''d tear down the very fabric of this country.
I''ll pray that Hillary isn''t elected, but if all these, my countrymen do elect her, I''ll submit to her leadership as prescribed in the book of Romans. But, I''ll not swing to her immoral decrees of murder (abortion) and homosexuality. In fact I''ll stand in opposition to it every chance I get.
Posted by jack3213 at 09:31 AM : Aug 31, 2007
I see when Bush Sr left at 1992 he got less than 40% approval rating. Clinton left at 2000 with a 60%+ rating. Old Dubya jr. has less than 30% rating.
The republican whiners don''t get the hint that the Grand Old Perverts can''t get the job done in terms of how to be a president.
Posted by tuckerndfw at 10:07 AM : Aug 31, 2007
I wouldn''t blame so much her or the Republicans in congress for this, even if they could have been wiser. I would rather blame first the Bush administration for lying to them.
---
I''''ll not swing to her immoral decrees of murder (abortion) and homosexuality. In fact I''''ll stand in opposition to it every chance I get.
Posted by Hwy71So at 10:05 AM : Aug 31, 2007
Immoral decrees of homosexuality? Get over youself, willya? If you''re gonna use the Bible to spread hatred, do you think you can occasionally look up the quotes that say "Love one another as I have loved you?" Or would that be too much trouble? I''d really like to see how these homophobes react when it''s been proven beyond the shadow of a doubt that your sexual preference is part of your DNA.
Yeah, don''t you just hate people that think things out first?
The Real Reason We''re In Iraq: An influential group of conservatives convinced President George W. Bush that it was in America''s best interests to conquer Iraq as a first step toward dominating the oil-producing nations in the Middle East. There was no "exit plan" because we never intended to exit. The plan was, and is, to build military bases in Iraq and stay there forever. Our leaders see Iraq as a place to make money. So Bush & Co. have set up their friends to cash in on the rebuilding of Iraq.
Don''''t recall the Reagan recession, do you?
Oh, I''ve ticked off both liberals and conservatives? Wonderful! My work here is done.
4 Words, folks: BOTH SIDES ARE BULLSH**!!!
If it is what the WH says, it must be the truth, right ? Oh boy ... Congress, and even the 911 commission didn''t have access to all 911 documents. Why a special case for Iraq ? What about the Brewster-Jennings outing ? the yellowcake ? The WH fabricated intelligence. Why would they let the Congress know about it ?
"There is no excuse for anyone to have voted to authorize the invasion of Iraq. Even if Iraq had possessed millions of nuclear weapons, it posed no credible threat to the US."
Correct. But did you say so at the time. Honestly ?
"Iraq had no navy, air force, missile delivery system or military capable of posing any such threat."
Correct, same question.
Posted by tuckerndfw at 10:20 AM : Aug 31, 2007
The anti-Hillary flock of sheep have been kept themselves insulated from the mainstream, eating out of each others toilets for years. Try as they might, they''re laughable mental powers just won''t bend reality. The reality that plenty of people like Hillary, and her electability has been steadily climbing over the ''pubs for some time. AND she will make a much better president than any bush...
Which is the same tactic employed by Bozo Bush. Congress will have to pass another huge tax increase to pay for Bozo''''s (and Hillary''''s) borrow and spend policies.
Posted by tuckerndfw at 10:33 AM : Aug 31, 2007
Both statements are partially correct. We had good years under Reagan BECAUSE he borrowed against the debt. (not all 8 years were good, mind you, but you can use the same argument with Clinton''s 8). He passed on his financial troubles to old man Bush. It''s true that the economy goes in waves. Unfortunately, you can''t tell the average American that, because they have bills and employment concerns right then and there. A hands-off approach to the economy (like old man Bush tried) doesn''t work in the political sense during a recession.
I agree that "Bozo" Bush, as you put it, doesn''t get the economics of this. You can''t have tax cuts and spend like a madman at the same time. It just doesn''t work. Right now, China owns a ****load of U.S. Treasury Bonds that the current Bush put out there. This would likely explain our very tenuous relationship with them.
The bill is coming due very soon. I don''t envy the next President, regardless of which party is in the White House.
Do you mean, before they took place ? at the time of the voting ? You''ll notice that I agree with you on many points and indeed being against the invasions was unpopular at the time but ...
"I continue to oppose the invasion of Afghanistan despite the unpopularity of that position."
I don''t think it is unpopular anymore, well, depends where you live, of course.
Posted by tuckerndfw at 10:40 AM : Aug 31, 2007"
I wouldn''t vote for Clinton in primaries (my choice). Following your arguments, you must intend
to vote for somebody who opposed the invasions from the first day ... Obama ?
Posted by tuckerndfw at 10:59 AM : Aug 31, 2007"
which could be Giuliani ... the famous 911 "hero".
Posted by tuckerndfw at 11:15 AM : Aug 31, 2007
Make sense to me but what do you do in case it''s Clinton vs Giuliani ? I wouldn''t vote for somebody who is likely to have been ***involved*** in 911 ...
For once I agree with you here!!! LOL
I have no real interest in debating the finer points of those years, I merely disagree they were "good years."
Posted by tuckerndfw at 11:02 AM : Aug 31, 2007
There were some bad years there, no question about it. Won''t deny that for a minute. I remember Reaganomics. I remember my parents struggling like hell in the early 80''s as our family starting hitting college age and still had several still entering high school. All of us had to pay (or at least help pay) for our college education. High school, too, actually.
That aside, the one thing Reagan and Clinton shared, though, was a second term won in a landslide. They were both beneficiaries of a good economy at the time of said election, whether they caused it or not.
Posted by rushman71 at 11:19 AM : Aug 31, 2007"
Or discover that it was much worse than we tought.
Posted by incog-nito at 11:21 AM : Aug 31, 2007"
My point too. But I also notice, and that might be a first, that we have can a decent, constructive debate here without (much) name calling. Maybe it''s to early for mudrose and co.
My point is that of course you shouldn''t agree w/ a candidate on everything. You''d be a mindless stooge if you do (as evidenced by the Bush defenders). There are unfortunately only two parties in the U.S., and of course you can''t, and probably shouldn''t, agree with everything on your party''s platform. But to be a one-issue voter is simply naive. Might as well hand the victory to the other side.
One thing has been consistent with both parties since the days of Jimmy Carter and that is catering to their war profiteering cronies. At the expense of US taxpayers.
Posted by tuckerndfw at 11:30 AM : Aug 31, 2007"
Basically, we would need a new JFK, somebody capable of stopping "Operation Northwoods" (did you read about it ?). We needed this badly in 2001 too, I''m convinced.
My most successful years, professionally, were almost perfectly bookended within the Clinton years. Immediately after w was voted in, our booming plant had international orders cancelled, and they''ve been a ghost ever since.
Shoot me for being the messenger, but if the election were today, Hillary would win. And i don''t see her being such a liability. Hate radio has entirely been working a scam against her for 15 years, so there''s no credibility from there.
If you did away with all the lying politicians in DC, all that''d be left would be tumbleweeds. But when the lies gets tens & hundreds of thousands killed, it''s time to change hands, to say the least.
That was the reason for the "(much)" in "not (much) name calling".
My point is that of course you shouldn''''t agree w/ a candidate on everything. You''''d be a mindless stooge if you do (as evidenced by the Bush defenders). There are unfortunately only two parties in the U.S., and of course you can''''t, and probably shouldn''''t, agree with everything on your party''''s platform. But to be a one-issue voter is simply naive. Might as well hand the victory to the other side.
Posted by incog-nito at 11:36 AM : Aug 31, 2007
I could not agree more. We would be better off with a 3 party system.
That was the reason for the "(much)" in "not (much) name calling".
My point is that of course you shouldn''''t agree w/ a candidate on everything. You''''d be a mindless stooge if you do (as evidenced by the Bush defenders). There are unfortunately only two parties in the U.S., and of course you can''''t, and probably shouldn''''t, agree with everything on your party''''s platform. But to be a one-issue voter is simply naive. Might as well hand the victory to the other side.
Posted by incog-nito at 11:36 AM : Aug 31, 2007
I could not agree more. We would be better off with a 3 party system.
For tuckerndfw: I would understand you would vote for Ron Paul, even McCain instead of Clinton. McCain is certainly confused about some things but I think he is "clean" about 911. But Giuliani ...
- 1
- 2
- next
See all 93 Comments