By Brigitte L. Nacos
In her column about the latest presidential debate, New
York Times columnist Gail
Collins writes that “Hillary Clinton stood on a stage for two hours Tuesday
night, being yelled at by six men.” She is wrong. She was not only battered by
her Democratic rivals but chastised by the supposedly neutral moderators, Brian
Williams and Tim Russert, who set the stage for this disgraceful media slugfest
and took part in the rhetorical brawl against Hillary Clinton. The pompous moderator
duo carried the ball for many of their colleagues in the media.Tired of the civility
displayed during Democratic debates so far, many in the media were eager for
conflict and drama. For weeks, especially Senator Obama was lured into getting
tough and challenge Senator Clinton, the frontrunner in the polls. He finally
took the bait and promised during an interview with the New York Times a “forceful stand against Clinton.”
Unsurprisingly, the Times, the newspaper that fifteen or so years ago dug up
the Whitewater non-scandal against presidential candidate Bill Clinton to
derail his candidacy, seems now especially eager to prevent Hillary Clinton
from winning the nomination of her party and the White House. At least for Maureen
Dowd the attacks on Clinton were not tough and manly enough; she complained that “Obama whiffed in the
debate last night when Brian Williams and Tim Russert teed up the first question
for him to take on Hillary…” I watched a
different debate in which the opening question to Barack Obama and his answer
opened the flood-gates for the males on the stage to use Hillary Clinton as
punch-bag. It got so bad that Governor Richardson at one point protested mildly
against the close to personal attacks on Senator Clinton before assuring his
very different agenda. No wonder that Mrs. Clinton’s debate performance was
less sure-footed and less convincing than her previous ones. It will be interesting
to see how her media critics spin her performance: after characterizing her as
too tough and manly and calculating and tough, it takes some innovative spin to
perhaps claim that female are not tough enough under fire and thus not fit for the highest office.
In the Washington Post, Chris
Cillizza declared John Edwards the winner of the debate—simply because he
“continues to make the strongest case against Clinton of any candidate in the field. Time
and again last night, Edwards one-upped Obama's hits on Clinton by using his courtroom skills to
deliver devastating one-liners about the New York Senator and her record.” So,
the guy who hits the front-runner hardest wins the debate? Nobody seemed terribly
interested in questioning the positions of the attacking pack. Senator Dodd
questioned Senator Clinton’s electability in the general election given her
negative image among 50% of Americans. Senator Dodd who himself has hardly a
chance to win the nomination of his party should know that modern presidents
are elected with far less than 50% of eligible voters.
I disagree with Senator Clinton on a number of her positions—namely her recent vote in favor of designating the Iranian
Revolutionary Guard as terrorist organization. As I have written here
repeatedly, the resolution was unecessary because the Guard is part and parcel
of Iran that is already recognized as state sponsor of terrorism. The Bush administration could
have enacted additional sanctions without the Senate’s approval. Thus, the
suspicion that the White House wants to misuse the resolution as authorization
to go to war against Iraq.
Yet, John Edwards’ attack on Mrs. Clinton’s vote was troubling as well in that he seemed
indignant that the Guard was designated a terrorist group and did not at all
acknowledge at all that the organization is since its establishment more than 25 years
ago one of the most active and ruthless terrorist organization at home and
abroad. Yes, the administration may justify a move against Iran with the Senate resolution—and therefore it
is legitimate to question Clinton on this—but Edwards and everyone else among those eight guys on stage know darn
well that the Bush-Cheney regime would not act differently without the controversial
resolution. Treating the Revolutionary Guard Corps as if its members were benign is the very stuff that hawkish Republicans use against Democrats.
It is true that Senator Clinton has not been clear on a
number of important questions, including how to fix social security. She should
forget about being attacked by Republicans as a tax and spend Liberal. She
needs to go after Republicans for making the rich richer and the rest—upper
middle class, middle class, and the poor--poorer. Why are incomes up to $97,500
subject to social security payroll taxes but anything above is not?
Obviously, Hillary Clinton has positioned herself in the political middle—to the left of the Republican contenders and to the right of the Democratic rivals—especially with respect to foreign and security policy. But this must not deter her from being clear on her positions and how they differ from the current rulers in the White House and her Democratic opponents.
Comments