Home
Where Clinton’s Post-Paris Debate Went Wrong
Of the fight against ISIS, Clinton said, “It cannot be an American fight, though American leadership is essential.” Credit Photograph by Alex Wong/Getty Image
Hillary Clinton’s crucial misstep in the second Democratic debate, in Des Moines on Saturday, may have come about ten minutes in. The subject was Paris, which had been attacked the night before, with more than a hundred and twenty people dead. John Dickerson, the moderator, asked Clinton if the Obama Administration, in which Clinton served, had underestimated the Islamic State, which has claimed responsibility for the attack. She answered by talking generally about the various means available to defeat the group, and then said, “But it cannot be an American fight. And I think what the President has consistently said—which I agree with—is that we will support those who take the fight to ISIS.” Then she repeated what sounded, intentionally or not, like a renunciation: “But this cannot be an American fight, although American leadership is essential.”
“But Secretary Clinton, the question’s about what—was ISIS underestimated?” Dickerson said, trying again. This time, Clinton responded by saying, first, that “we abided by the agreement that George W. Bush made with the Iraqis, to leave”—which is true, but not really responsive—and then, after acknowledging that the situation had “developed,” added, “But I don’t think that the United States has the bulk of the responsibility. I really put that on Assad and on the Iraqis and on the region itself.” There was a sensible point in there about not going in alone or pretending that America can solve everything. But Clinton had also laid out ammunition for her opponents, and the responses came from left, right, and center.
“John, I would—I would disagree with—with Secretary Clinton, respectfully, on this score,” Martin O’Malley, the former governor of Maryland, said, jumping in. “This actually is America’s fight.” O’Malley is not exactly what Donald Trump would call “a killer” (“No dollar too small,” he said in his closing statement, after reminding the audience of his Web site), but he knew an easy hit when he saw it. A few commercial breaks later, CBS’s “back soon” promotion was an abridged video of the exchange. It was one of those moments that will likely be clipped, repeated, and distorted beyond what Clinton deserves. (If only she’d slipped an “only” in there.) And yet, in a way, the stronger response came from Bernie Sanders, from another angle entirely.
“I think she said something like, ‘The bulk of the responsibility is not ours,’ ” Sanders said. “Well, in fact, I would argue that the disastrous invasion of Iraq, something that I strongly opposed, has unravelled the region completely. And led to the rise of Al Qaeda and to ISIS.” Clinton voted to authorize that war; he voted against it. Dickerson asked, “Are you making a direct link between her vote for that and what’s happening now for ISIS?”
“Oh, I don’t think any—I don’t think any sensible person would disagree that the invasion of Iraq led to the massive level of instability we are seeing right now,” Sanders said.
In other words, Clinton had managed, in a couple of sentences, to simultaneously open herself up to the charge that she sees ISIS as someone else’s war and that she rushes into wars too readily. Those notions feel paradoxical, and yet they both feed into a critique of Clinton as someone who does not always embrace responsibility. It did not help that she replied to Sanders not by acknowledging the specific disaster of Iraq but by saying that there had been big terrorist attacks before Iraq, too—under Reagan and “when my husband was President.” Perhaps “cannot be America’s fight” was an attempt to reassure non-interventionist primary voters, but she has favored more direct military involvement in Syria, and needs to better explain that she knows what the consequences might be, rather than occluding them. In that sense, the exchange touched on a fear that Clinton is not only hawkish but hawkish in a politically opportunistic way.
There is, and will be, quite enough politicking in this race related to the dilemmas laid bare by Paris. On Saturday, Donald Trump was at a rally in Texas, talking about how what Paris needed was more guns and fewer immigrants. He was sorry about the plight of Syrian refugees, he said, but America would be “crazy” to take more. Jeb Bush gave an interview to Hugh Hewitt, the conservative talk-show host, in which he combined a bouncing eagerness to get on a war footing (“This is not a law-enforcement operation”) with a garbled call to arms (“This is an organized effort to destroy Western civilization, and we need to lead in this regard”). Rand Paul used Paris as a way of attacking Marco Rubio for being soft on immigration. Rubio released a video in which he explained that this is a “civilizational” fight rather than a “geopolitical” one, while sitting in a leather armchair in a shadowy space, as though the place for counterterrorism is and always will be an English gentlemen’s club. It can’t be helped; there is something about a crisis of this scale that makes politicians dream of Churchill.
That was the backdrop when the Democrats took the stage, at 9 P.M. They began with a moment of silence for the victims in Paris; all three were suitably solemn. Then came a request from Dickerson for each candidate to give a minute-long opening statement, “to share your thoughts about the attacks on Paris and lay out your vision for America.” Sanders went first and said that the attacks had left him “shocked and disgusted.” Paris got one more sentence in his opening—“Leading the world, this country will rid the planet of this barbarous group called ISIS.” Then he went straight to inequality and money in politics, ending on one of his signature phrases: “A handful of billionaires.” There were pre-debate reports that the Sanders campaign was not happy with CBS’s plans to reshape the opening around Paris; the sense among commentators beforehand was that it would play to all of Clinton’s strengths. It is puzzling that it did not.
And, again, there was the contrast with Sanders’s theatricality: in a discussion about the limitations of the phrase “radical Islam,” Clinton got caught up in the fine print, in a way that will likely leave her open to out-of-context quoting. Sanders basically said that he wasn’t so interested in labels, and then immediately railed, with greater passion, against organizations like ISIS that think “we should go back several thousand years,” to a time when there wasn’t even a Brooklyn.
Clinton’s answers on domestic policy were generally clearer, and more likely to serve her well in the general election—though here she was up against Sanders’s populism. (“It is not a radical idea to say that a single mom should be earning enough money to take care of her kids,” he said.) And yet it was in a discussion of a domestic issue that she gave what may have been her most discordant answer. Sanders had wondered why Wall Street figures and institutions would be among her biggest backers if they didn’t think they were getting something for their money—“I mean, you know, let’s not be naïve about it.” Clinton said that the answer was easy: “I represented New York on 9/11, when we were attacked. Where were we attacked? We were attacked in downtown Manhattan, where Wall Street is. I did spend a whole lot of time and effort helping them rebuild. That was good for New York. It was good for the economy and it was a way to rebuke the terrorists who had attacked our country.”
Wall Street the street is, indeed, in Lower Manhattan. But Wall Street the industry is all over town, and in other towns, too. Some financial institutions were devastated, and lost many people. But the idea that the guys in the neighborhood, whom she, particularly, helped to their feet after the terrorists attacked, had just passed the hat out of gratitude was Giuliani-level 9/11 political exploitation. It felt disingenuous. And, after a night that Paris spent under siege, it felt wrong.
http://creditrating.einnews.com/article/297068441/vFY1DdT0jk810r9P
By Amy Davidson
Of the fight against ISIS, Clinton said, “It cannot be an American fight, though American leadership is essential.” Credit Photograph by Alex Wong/Getty Image Hillary Clinton’s crucial misstep in the second Democratic debate, in Des Moines on Saturday, may have come about ten minutes in. The subject was Paris, which had been attacked the night before, with more than a hundred and twenty people dead. John Dickerson, the moderator, asked Clinton if the Obama Administration, in which Clinton served, had underestimated the Islamic State, which has claimed responsibility for the attack. She answered by talking generally about the various means available to defeat the group, and then said, “But it cannot be an American fight. And I think what the President has consistently said—which I agree with—is that we will support those who take the fight to ISIS.” Then she repeated what sounded, intentionally or not, like a renunciation: “But this cannot be an American fight, although American leadership is essential.”
“But Secretary Clinton, the question’s about what—was ISIS underestimated?” Dickerson said, trying again. This time, Clinton responded by saying, first, that “we abided by the agreement that George W. Bush made with the Iraqis, to leave”—which is true, but not really responsive—and then, after acknowledging that the situation had “developed,” added, “But I don’t think that the United States has the bulk of the responsibility. I really put that on Assad and on the Iraqis and on the region itself.” There was a sensible point in there about not going in alone or pretending that America can solve everything. But Clinton had also laid out ammunition for her opponents, and the responses came from left, right, and center.
“John, I would—I would disagree with—with Secretary Clinton, respectfully, on this score,” Martin O’Malley, the former governor of Maryland, said, jumping in. “This actually is America’s fight.” O’Malley is not exactly what Donald Trump would call “a killer” (“No dollar too small,” he said in his closing statement, after reminding the audience of his Web site), but he knew an easy hit when he saw it. A few commercial breaks later, CBS’s “back soon” promotion was an abridged video of the exchange. It was one of those moments that will likely be clipped, repeated, and distorted beyond what Clinton deserves. (If only she’d slipped an “only” in there.) And yet, in a way, the stronger response came from Bernie Sanders, from another angle entirely.
“I think she said something like, ‘The bulk of the responsibility is not ours,’ ” Sanders said. “Well, in fact, I would argue that the disastrous invasion of Iraq, something that I strongly opposed, has unravelled the region completely. And led to the rise of Al Qaeda and to ISIS.” Clinton voted to authorize that war; he voted against it. Dickerson asked, “Are you making a direct link between her vote for that and what’s happening now for ISIS?”
“Oh, I don’t think any—I don’t think any sensible person would disagree that the invasion of Iraq led to the massive level of instability we are seeing right now,” Sanders said.
In other words, Clinton had managed, in a couple of sentences, to simultaneously open herself up to the charge that she sees ISIS as someone else’s war and that she rushes into wars too readily. Those notions feel paradoxical, and yet they both feed into a critique of Clinton as someone who does not always embrace responsibility. It did not help that she replied to Sanders not by acknowledging the specific disaster of Iraq but by saying that there had been big terrorist attacks before Iraq, too—under Reagan and “when my husband was President.” Perhaps “cannot be America’s fight” was an attempt to reassure non-interventionist primary voters, but she has favored more direct military involvement in Syria, and needs to better explain that she knows what the consequences might be, rather than occluding them. In that sense, the exchange touched on a fear that Clinton is not only hawkish but hawkish in a politically opportunistic way.
There is, and will be, quite enough politicking in this race related to the dilemmas laid bare by Paris. On Saturday, Donald Trump was at a rally in Texas, talking about how what Paris needed was more guns and fewer immigrants. He was sorry about the plight of Syrian refugees, he said, but America would be “crazy” to take more. Jeb Bush gave an interview to Hugh Hewitt, the conservative talk-show host, in which he combined a bouncing eagerness to get on a war footing (“This is not a law-enforcement operation”) with a garbled call to arms (“This is an organized effort to destroy Western civilization, and we need to lead in this regard”). Rand Paul used Paris as a way of attacking Marco Rubio for being soft on immigration. Rubio released a video in which he explained that this is a “civilizational” fight rather than a “geopolitical” one, while sitting in a leather armchair in a shadowy space, as though the place for counterterrorism is and always will be an English gentlemen’s club. It can’t be helped; there is something about a crisis of this scale that makes politicians dream of Churchill.
That was the backdrop when the Democrats took the stage, at 9 P.M. They began with a moment of silence for the victims in Paris; all three were suitably solemn. Then came a request from Dickerson for each candidate to give a minute-long opening statement, “to share your thoughts about the attacks on Paris and lay out your vision for America.” Sanders went first and said that the attacks had left him “shocked and disgusted.” Paris got one more sentence in his opening—“Leading the world, this country will rid the planet of this barbarous group called ISIS.” Then he went straight to inequality and money in politics, ending on one of his signature phrases: “A handful of billionaires.” There were pre-debate reports that the Sanders campaign was not happy with CBS’s plans to reshape the opening around Paris; the sense among commentators beforehand was that it would play to all of Clinton’s strengths. It is puzzling that it did not.
And, again, there was the contrast with Sanders’s theatricality: in a discussion about the limitations of the phrase “radical Islam,” Clinton got caught up in the fine print, in a way that will likely leave her open to out-of-context quoting. Sanders basically said that he wasn’t so interested in labels, and then immediately railed, with greater passion, against organizations like ISIS that think “we should go back several thousand years,” to a time when there wasn’t even a Brooklyn.
Clinton’s answers on domestic policy were generally clearer, and more likely to serve her well in the general election—though here she was up against Sanders’s populism. (“It is not a radical idea to say that a single mom should be earning enough money to take care of her kids,” he said.) And yet it was in a discussion of a domestic issue that she gave what may have been her most discordant answer. Sanders had wondered why Wall Street figures and institutions would be among her biggest backers if they didn’t think they were getting something for their money—“I mean, you know, let’s not be naïve about it.” Clinton said that the answer was easy: “I represented New York on 9/11, when we were attacked. Where were we attacked? We were attacked in downtown Manhattan, where Wall Street is. I did spend a whole lot of time and effort helping them rebuild. That was good for New York. It was good for the economy and it was a way to rebuke the terrorists who had attacked our country.”
Wall Street the street is, indeed, in Lower Manhattan. But Wall Street the industry is all over town, and in other towns, too. Some financial institutions were devastated, and lost many people. But the idea that the guys in the neighborhood, whom she, particularly, helped to their feet after the terrorists attacked, had just passed the hat out of gratitude was Giuliani-level 9/11 political exploitation. It felt disingenuous. And, after a night that Paris spent under siege, it felt wrong.
http://creditrating.einnews.com/article/297068441/vFY1DdT0jk810r9P
» utube MM&C 4/16/24 IQD Update - Iraq Dinar - America - Activate - Massive Economic Deals -
» Al-Sudani urges the US corporation Honeywell to help finish the Basra refinery
» Al-Sudani Meets with Representatives of Western Media Outlets in Washington
» Chairman of the Investment Authority signs the United Nations Convention on International Mediation
» PM: We will sign a contract to establish the Al-Faw refinery with a Chinese company
» PM arrives in Houston as part of his visit to USA
» Militia Man & Crew 4/18/24 Bush signed it and all presidents implemented it. Iraq’s funds have been
» Association of Iraqi Private Banks: The suspension of some electronic payment services yesterday was
» Iraq is close to launching the electronic signature
» The Basra government discusses with an international oil company the implementation of social benefi
» The Prime Minister confirms to an American company: Gas projects in Iraq are a priority for the gove
» The Minister of Planning discusses with the World Bank mechanisms for scheduling external loans
» Oil sets the twenty-seventh of this month as the date for opening contracts for the fifth complement
» “Electronic begging”...professionalism and fabrication of stories” generates millions of dinars dail
» Al-Sudani calls on the American company Hanwell to contribute to the completion of the Basra refiner
» An American company expresses its willingness to establish LED lighting production lines in Iraq
» Including Iraq.. Iran announces the possibility of exporting 300 megawatts of “renewable electricity
» Political forces present two options to find an alternative to Al-Halbousi
» Parliament is awaiting the arrival of the budget schedules and the government is studying higher spe
» The International Monetary Fund adjusts its expectations for the development of the world’s economie
» A representative talks about the difficulty of finalizing the file of “electing the Speaker of Parli
» Work on preparing a law for diplomatic passports
» A female representative accuses the Ministry of Immigration of corruption
» Minister: Solving the Kurdistan salaries problem is the beginning of addressing other disputes betwe
» About 270 million dollars were sold by the Central Bank of Iraq in the currency auction
» The volume of trade exchange between Jordan and Iraq will exceed 800 million dinars in 2023
» Iraq signs memorandums of understanding with American companies in the fields of electricity, oil an
» The American company that manufactures the F16 expresses its readiness to implement the terms of con
» The volume of expected Qatari investments for the Iraq Fund for Development exceeds $3.5 billion
» Decrease in dollar prices in Baghdad and Erbil
» The President of the Region brings together the Kurdish parties to resolve the election file
» Al-Sudani receives in Washington the Chairman of JPMorgan
» Transport is starting to transform its ports into smart ones
» Sudanese reveals the volume of exchange with America
» "Al-Eqtisad News" publishes the memorandums of understanding signed between the Iraqi delegation and
» Al-Sudani urges an American company to contribute to establishing a chemical materials factory
» Iraq stresses the importance of Lockheed Martin's commitment to opening military aircraft maintenanc
» Iraq is on the verge of a “water disaster” by 2035
» Great satisfaction and optimism with the results of Sudanese’s visit to Washington
» Transport is beginning to adopt a plan to transform its ports into smart ones
» Completed 8,000 loan transactions at the Housing Bank
» Prime Minister: We plan to invest production capacities for export
» Transformation and partnership...a new horizon in Iraqi-American relations
» What is new in the economic dimension of the Washington visit?
» Two letters to the future
» National interests first
» Iraqi-American rapprochement...a national necessity
» Al-Sudani’s visit to Washington and the course of Iraqi-American relations
» Sudanese carries security, economic and development files to Washington
» Armament and military development... features of a sustainable partnership
» Analysts: Sudanese's visit to Washington will achieve excellent results in the future
» Iraqi-American relations...the legacy of the past and the aspirations of partnership
» Sudanese and external necessities
» The Strategic Framework Agreement... 7 important provisions
» Joint statement of the Iraqi-American discussions
» Supreme Coordinating Committee: Iraq's role is vital to the security and prosperity of the region
» Towards an effective bilateral economic relationship between Baghdad and Washington
» She saw it as a new, different chapter in Iraqi-American relations... Al-Sudani’s visit to Washingto
» Al-Sudani’s visit to Washington.. Implications and results
» Advisor to the Prime Minister: The relationship with America has moved to the stage of cooperation
» Sudanese sponsors the signing ceremony of memorandums of understanding in America
» Al-Sudani: The volume of exchange between Iraq and the United States does not exceed 10 billion doll
» During Erdogan's visit on Monday, Iraq seeks to sign the "Water Protocol" with Türkiye
» With the escalation of tension between Tehran and Tel Aviv...an expert reveals the secrets of Sudane
» There are 150 draft laws on the parliament table waiting to be voted on... and the debates require c
» Al-Sudani stresses the necessity of continuing the dialogue with the US Treasury, the Federal Reserv
» Deputy: We reject the term sanctions, and Iraq is financially independent
» Warnings of a “political impasse” after Barzani’s boycott of the elections... Al-Sadr raises questio
» The head of the Kurdistan Regional Government’s representative office in Baghdad visits the external
» Al-Sudani: There are no combat forces in Iraq to withdraw.. The Iraqi Prime Minister confirmed in Wa
» Do the Iraqi political blocs really intend to hold the second early elections?
» Baghdad is not aware of the factions’ participation in the attack on Israel, and Washington is revie
» Progress: Al-Halbousi may return to the presidency of Parliament
» Al-Sudani: Iraq has distinguished relations with Iran and America
» Minister of Industry: Iraq is not a rich country and the electricity problem will not be solved even
» A prospective law to employ prisoners and detainees... job and retirement opportunities similar to E
» Sako in Baghdad.. Three possible scenarios for his return after the “withdrawal of the decree” crisi
» Parliamentary Integrity reveals a move with the judiciary to recover TBI Bank’s funds
» Iraq signs 18 memorandums of understanding with Washington
» An Iraqi judicial delegation arrives in Syria to discuss terrorism files and document ISIS crimes
» A plan to exploit new lands...the latest developments in the wheat, barley and rice season in Iraq
» Al-Abadi accuses oil companies of causing 70% of the cancer rate in Basra
» Justice announces the formation of a higher committee to resolve the state’s real estate file
» Deputy: Iraq seeks to sign the “Water Protocol” with Türkiye
» Al-Sudani stresses the importance of the American company Lockheed’s commitment to opening military
» The team accompanying Sudanese in Washington: America will hand over to Iraq the antiquities that we
» Al-Sudani sponsors the signing ceremony of memorandums of understanding with American companies
» MM&C 4/17/24 Saleh: The budget tables are almost complete and will take into account urgent circu
» Saleh: Private banks in Iraq are considering reorganizing themselves with another government structu
» Al-Sudani: It is not possible to work in any development sector without reforming the banking sector
» Minister of Oil: Kurdistan’s exports will soon resume, and the region must hand over its oil to SOMO
» An economic expert identifies ways for Iraq to get out of oil rents... starting with $350 million
» Parliamentary Oil: A proposal to establish Iraqi refineries in neighboring countries... and these ar
» Al-Ardawi: The Sudanese government seeks to liberalize the Iraqi dinar and stabilize the economy
» MM&C 4/17/24 Al-Sudani receives in Washington the Chairman of JPMorgan
» MM&C 4/17/24 US Supports Iraq in joining WTO
» US Supports Iraq in joining WTO
» utube 4/14/24 MM&C Iraqi Dinar - Iraq Prime Minister in Washington - Coming to