CEDAR RAPIDS, Iowa, Oct. 10, 2007
Clinton Says She Can Unite America
Washington Post Interview: Front-Runner Says She'll Build "Centrist Coalition," Cites Lessons of Partisanship
-
Photo
Democratic presidential hopeful, Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton, D-N.Y., waves to supporters before her speech on the economy Monday, Oct. 8, 2007, in Cedar Rapids, Iowa. (AP)
-
Play CBS Video
Video
Campaign Quick Check
Politico.com's Roger Simon talks with Bob Schieffer about the lack of a unifying Republican presidential candidate and the success of Sen. Hillary Clinton's campaign.
-
Video
Clinton Leads In Iowa
Hillary Clinton is leading in Iowa polls, but it is still a tight race and her rivals are sharpening the attacks. Joie Chen reports.
-
In-Depth
2008 Presidential Hopefuls
Profiles and the latest news on the Democrats and Republicans running for the White House.
-
Photo Essay
Hillary Rodham Clinton
The Democratic Senator from New York and former first lady sets her sights on the White House.
From Our Partner:
Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton pushed back against criticism from fellow Democrats that she is too polarizing to unite the country as president, arguing that the political battles she has been through make her uniquely equipped to bring the nation together and build a centrist governing coalition.
In an interview aboard her campaign bus, Clinton (N.Y.) acknowledged that she has contributed to the divisive politics of the past decade but said she has learned from those experiences. She said that if she becomes president, she will attempt to assemble a broad, centrist coalition on such key issues as health care, energy independence and national security.
The former first lady called President Bush's political and governing strategy of concentrating primarily on his party's base for support "a tragedy" for the country's politics.
"I actually think that in a way, the fact that I've been through so much incoming fire all these years is an advantage," she said, adding: "It's been my observation that when you're attacked continually in American politics, you either give up or get disoriented or you either lose or leave -- or you persevere and show your resilience."
Clinton offered insights into the governing priorities she would bring to the White House, speaking cautiously about extricating the nation from Iraq and urgently about health-care reform. She also said she will take no position on how to fix Social Security and made it clear she does not regard it as a front-burner issue.
"I do not believe it is in a crisis," she said of the retirement program. On Iraq, Clinton continued to avoid being pinned down on how quickly she would withdraw U.S. troops, saying she would begin moving the military out if elected but refusing to give what she described as "the satisfying answer" -- a date when those forces would be gone entirely.
Clinton was similarly vague about how she would handle special interrogation methods used by the CIA. She said that while she does not condone torture, so much has been kept secret that she would not know unlesselected what other extreme measures interrogators are using, and therefore could not say whether she would change or continue existing policies.
"It is not clear yet exactly what this administration is or isn't doing. We're getting all kinds of mixed messages," Clinton said. "I don't think we'll know the truth until we have a new president. I think [until] you can get in there and actually bore into what's been going on, you're not going to know."
The interview, held as her bus sat parked outside an event site in Cedar Rapids on Monday, came in the middle of an important campaign swing for Clinton. She is in a tight battle for Iowa with both Sen. Barack Obama (Ill.) and former senator John Edwards (N.C.).
On a tour dubbed the "Middle Class Express," Clinton rolled out her economic overview, and Tuesday in Webster City she unveiled a proposal that would provide tax cuts of up to $1,000 to help Americans start a 401(k) retirement plan. She is to travel to New Hampshire on Wednesday and plans to propose a new education funding formula there on Thursday.
Her economic proposals included what she said would be a renewed commitment to fiscal discipline, higher taxes on the wealthiest Americans and programs aimed at easing economic uncertainties among middle-class families. They include housing assistance, making college more affordable and the universal health-care plan she outlined last month.
Clinton spoke at some length about her rivals' criticism that she carries too much political baggage from the conflicts of her husband's administration to be an effective and unifying president.
"I really think my experience uniquely equips me to be president at this time, both having gone through it, having been on the receiving end of it and -- in campaigns that were hard-fought -- maybe on the giving end of it . . .," she said.
"The overall assessment, given all of the mistakes that I made and all of the lessons that I've learned, is that we've got to put an end to it, but you can't just hope it goes away," she said. "You can't just wake up and say, 'Let's all just hold hands and be together.' You've got to demonstrate that you're not going to be cowed or intimidated or deterred by it, and then you can reach out and bring people who are of good faith together."
She said she has begun to attract support from contributors and voters who may have been skeptical of her in the past. Criticizing Bush, she said he has pursued a "50-plus-one" strategy "instead of saying, 'You know what -- there may be some people we will lose if we reach out' " to create a broader coalition.
"That's what I intend to do," she said. "I intend to win in November 2008, and then I intend to build a centrist coalition in this country that is like what I remember when I was growing up."
While acknowledging that she may have contributed to polarization, she did not specify how or when. Pressed to explain, she said: "I've talked about it a lot, and I think I will continue to talk about it in a lot of different ways."
Quote
On Social Security, Clinton declined to say whether she would support reduced benefits or increased taxes to ensure the system's long-term solvency.It's been my observation that when you're attacked continually in American politics, you either give up or get disoriented or you either lose or leave -- or you persevere and show your resilience.
Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton"Let me tell you where I stand on Social Security, and maybe that will explain where I stand on all the particulars," she said. "First of all, I reject the conventional wisdom and the Republican talking points that Social Security is in a crisis. I do not agree with that."
She said she would follow President Ronald Reagan's example by appointing a bipartisan commission to study the issue and avoid making her own recommendations until it reports back.
"I'm not advocating any of it as a presidential candidate or as a president," she said. "But I am strongly advocating a bipartisan process, similar to what we had in '83, and when that gets set up, as I hope it will be when I'm president, then I'm going to see what the bipartisan members are going to come up with."
Clinton's position on Iraq continues to draw criticism from some rivals, who say she is prepared to keep troops in combat there longer than they would. She said she has been clear that calling for a withdrawal plan if she is sworn in as president would be a priority, but acknowledged that she is not ready to offer hard deadlines.
"It's one of these questions that I know what the satisfying answer would be -- saying, 'Oh, my gosh, they'll be out tomorrow,' or 'They'll be out in three months' or 'They'll be out in a year' -- whatever," she said.
She added: "I'm saying that, once you're president and the weight of this responsibility is on your shoulders, I want to be as committed to getting out as quickly as I can, but as clear that I have to look at all of these problems we're going to face."
"I've known him for 30-plus years, and he is one of many people who offers ideas, but he has no official role in the campaign," she said.
© 2007 The Washington Post Company
|
|
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
...
- 8
- next
See all 369 CommentsI swear I am not watching an election I am watching a coronation.
As for uniting the country--in that half wants to keep torturing, disregarding international and domestic law and wants to control and dictate to the other half on everything from what they do with their bodies, who they marry and what happens with the result of what they did with their bodies (pregnancy), not to mention being FOR a war to continue that we KNOW was initiated based on lies...
well Hilary--has Hell froze over yet? There will probably be no uniting on these issues anytime soon.
Posted by badbrown126
11%
Anyone who would ban guns will never unite with America''s 80,000,000 gun owners, that''s for sure!!!
Posted by antoniof123 a
----------------------------------------
She does not need those powers, her and her husband are very capable of committing criminal acts on their own.
Posted by SignOf4 at 09:21 AM : Oct 10, 2007
What money!!!! Bush got all mine, and wants the rest before he leaves.Republicans have been in charge for the last 11 years, ARE YOU BETTER OF TODAY THAN YOU WERE SAY 7 YEARS AGO.
Isn''t that what the Dems were saying in the 1990''s, that Social Security was in a crisis? So, is she willing to state that George W. Bush fixed the problem, since it''s no longer a crisis?
Posted by radiob at 09:04 AM : Oct 10, 2007
None so far will win best of show as far as I am concerned. What you think Radiob.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted by nexgen99 at 09:25 AM : Oct 10, 2007
By your comments, are you asserting that Bush needed to abuse government to commit his set of Criminal acts?
Ergo--you are acknowledging his acts are criminal but defending them because he needed to pervert the Constitution and law to get away with them? LOL
If that won''t buy your vote, she''ll make it $2,000, no problem!
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted by starleo146 at 09:27 AM : Oct 10, 2007
YES. Absolutely. You LIBS crack me up. Outright LIES are not beyond you. EVERY American was bettered by the Tax cuts.
Posted by starleo146
YES! AND WHETHER YOU BELIEVE IT OR NOT SO ARE YOU. THE ECONOMY HAS NEVER BEEN BETTER. IF YOU HAVE A 401(K) PLAN YOU ARE DOING VERY WELL. YOU LIVE IN ONE OF THE BEST SOCIETIES IN THE WORLD. AND CAPITALISM IS IT''S DRIVING FORCE. AND AS AYN RAND SAID IN ATLAS SHRUGGED - CAPITALISM IS INHERENTLY A SYSTEM OF INDIVIDUALISM, A SYSTEM THAT REGARDS EVERY INDIVIDUAL AS AN END IN HIMSELF. THAT INCLUDES THE RIGHT TO LIVE FOR HIMSELF, A RIGHT THAT DOES NOT DEPEND ON BENEFITS TO OTHERS, NOT EVEN THE MUTUAL BENEFIT THAT OCCURS IN TRADE. - THERE''S NOTHING WRONG WITH ACQUIRING WEALTH. BUT THERE IS EVERYTHING WRONG WITH ENCOURAGING A WELFARE MENTALITY. THAT''S THE NATURE OF BIG NANNY GOVERNMENT THAT THE HAG WANTS TO TRADE DOWN TO. UGH!
--------
Posted by starleo146 at 09:27 AM :
.
STARLEO146
I AM DEFINITELY BETTER OFF TODAY THAN I WAS DURING THE 90''''s
WAY BETTER
And if the Democrats are stooopid enough to nominate
Hillary as their candidate, I will voting Republican
for the first time in my life.
As a gay man, this would have been difficult, until I saw
how the Democrats treated Foley(R) and Craig(R).
The NeoCommies are NOT the party of tolerance anymore.
xoxoxoxo
Bush daddy, and now Bush JR. has completely ruined this country. If it gets any worse in the next 6 months we will not have a country, so what will matter. The candidates are all saying the same thing and the Republicans they put me to sleep. Happy face Giuliani who is the curer of all the ills in this country with that smiley face, don''t believe him at all.Not all the democrats are that much better, I an waiting for someone to not promise me the world but tell me how they can begin to fix this mess . Forget all the promises that will not be kept.
You are one smart cookie. Wish people would wake up and see that the Dimnowits are using the gay community very much like they used the black commuity. They do not have anyone''s interests at heart. They only care about POWER. I may not agree with the gay agenda, but I respect your candor.
Oh wait I guess she means she will unite Americans against her.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted by gunownerdan at 09:44 AM : Oct 10, 2007
You may be right. After all, it worked really well for eternal lying Bush. Between saying we don''t wire tap Americans without a warrant, that no talk about the New Orleans levies occurred, that Iraq had huge stockpiles of WMD, to saying he never said "Stay the course" and that America does "not nation build" Bush would not know the truth if it stomped on his face.
Hilary is delusional and sickening to try to buy votes from the middle class and the poor. but I''d rather pay money to finance the 401Ks of lazy, irresponsible Americans who won''t save on their own (I''m not eligible for her little spread of the largesse) than to finance anymore killing and torturing of people who had done nothing to us.
The bottom line is--Bush was the worst President ever (thus far) and he has almost torn this country apart--if we must continue the rip--then let it be in our own country and not export our penchant for hatred and wars everywhere else.
Let''s tear ourselves apart here--so we don''t have to destroy other people in other countries there. LOL
- Posted by lorinkundert at 09:42 AM : Oct 10, 2007
Those are old statistics, stale and long out of date.
All the major candidates have committed NO voters. Romney has the highest negatives. Hillary and Rudy have about the same percentages of determined NO''s.
Hillary has more committed supporters than any of the other candidates.
Definitely for Clinton: 33%
Definitely against Clinton: 43%
Definitely for Giuliani: 26%
Definitely against Giuliani: 37%
Definitely for Romney: 16%
Definitely against Romney: 44%
Source:
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/romney_encounters_more_core_opposition_than_clinton
In his first election, Bush continuously said that he was a "uniter, not a divider" also.
That''s the most empty promise ever said by a politician, ever. It is absolutely impossible to unite people with polar opposite ideologies. Absolutely impossible.
What a bedwetting lib crybaby! If it''s an ''illegal war'', then why haven''t the dems stopped it?
Prove that we are torturing people.
Prove that government officials are giving themselves ''immunity from war crimes.''
You can''t. Because all your crybaby libs websites and Airhead America ONLY have innuendo and hyperbole. No facts, no proof, no brains!
Posted by USAyesterday
Which brings us back to the debacle known as Iraq.
I meant, determined supporters.
Not committed to mental institutions.
Posted by USAyesterday at 09:54 AM : Oct 10, 2007
I remember the first few months of the first Bush term. He did try to work with dems. Hell, he let Teddy Kennedy write education reform.
And to show their approciation and willingness to meet him half way, dems stabbed him in the back at their first opportunity. And they haven''t stopped in 7 years.
Kinda says something about the modern dem party, doesn''t it? 11% and FALLING!
I meant, determined supporters.
Not committed to mental institutions.
Posted by Iceman_1960
Your last sentence was the most accurate.
FoxNews couldn''t have picked a worse one.
http://wwwimage.cbsnews.com/images/2007/10/10/image3351650g.jpg
Posted by SignOf4
ABC News/Washington Post Poll. Sept. 27-30, 2007. N=1,114 adults nationwide. MoE 1 3 (for all adults). Fieldwork by TNS.
"Overall, how much do you think Congress has accomplished this year: a great deal, a good amount, not too much, or nothing at all?"
A Great Deal 2%
A Good Amount 14%
Not Too Much 65%
Nothing At All 17%
Asked of those who said not too much or nothing at all:
"Who would you say deserves most of the blame for that: President Bush and the Republicans in Congress or the Democrats in Congress?"
Bush and Republicans In Congress 51%
Democrats in Congress 25%
Both 20%
Neither 2%
The American people see the Republicans as obstructionist and a clear majority know who to hold responsible next November
Posted by toldyouso21 at 09:51 AM : Oct 10, 2007
..................
From class warfare to religious ideologies, we''re doing a good job so far.
(good line by the way).
Whichever candidate can prostitute themselves out to big money the best will get the most funds. No doubt Hitlery will be able to buy a lot of votes.
- Posted by PapaBC at 09:59 AM : Oct 10, 2007
That $5,000 check per baby might be retroactive.
You''ll change your mind when it arrives in the mail.
Posted by antoniof123 at 08:12 AM : Oct 10, 2007
Some here, are sounding desperate on the republican side, tone down the rhetoric, and really give me some substance as to why the democrats shouldn''t do better. We gave you every opportunity to do something, and you did. Brought us a illegal war, and forgot the war you started in Afghanistan. Forgot Bin Laden, and the spies you have trying to pin him down, you OUT them, and now the terrorist fixed that problem . The deficit, Clinton left you a surplus, and what did you do with it run it up so bad my great grandchildren will be paying for it .You think one of your people will fix anything. What about all this illegal spying we have going on? What about this Patriot act? What about the lie Bush told about bringing the troops home . I know Bush isn''t running again but the rhetoric I''m hearing is more of the same. Grant you the Dems have got to talk better to reach me so far it is more of the same. Stop the yelling and screaming and talk here about what you want to see better in this country and leave all the name calling to the comedians.
Posted by SignOf4 at 09:57 AM : Oct 10, 2007
Are you referring to what the GOP Senate did when they had power? Everything done in closed door meetings, Dems not invited, Dems kept from putting any legislation forward for 7 years.. And then when they still didn''t have enough control, threatening to get rid of the Senate Rules which have been in place for generations do basically silence the minority party?
Are you also referring to the impeachment of Clinton on bogus charges in order to gain control of the US government?
Which party really is concerned about democracy friend? I''d say it''s NOT the GOP!
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
...
- 8
- next
See all 369 Comments