Last night I sat and watched more than one political show in which the main discussion was the Clinton pardons vs. the Bush commutation and the Clinton's comments on Bush's action. Talk about being between a rock and hard place. Sen. Clinton, especially, was not going to be able to avoid answering questions about Libby. What was she supposed to say? "Hey I think it was a fine decision" or "It was wrong of Bush to commute Libby's sentence." Either way she's nailed to the wall. Did anyone really expect her to throw her husband under the bus? A "no comment" would have been just as deadly for her.
Don't get me wrong, Clinton made some highly questionable decisions about pardons, and he was roundly criticized for it at the time. Now it's Bush's turn.
How do you think Sen. Clinton should have handled it, realistically? What are your thoughts on this?
2007-07-06 06:24:34 · 18 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
Johnny:
Yes, she could have said that. But as I mentioned, that's effectively throwing her husband under the bus. Realistically not a good political move.
2007-07-06 06:33:25 · update #1
suthrn:
That's a pretty good answer. I have to agree with you, that would have been the smartest move I think. You already know I'm a Sen. Clinton supporter, and I still am, but she made a mistake handling this the way she did. Damn, and here I thought she was perfect lol.
;-)
2007-07-06 06:36:43 · update #2
Me too suthrun me too :-).
2007-07-06 06:45:28 · update #3
She should have been honorable and stated that as a President he has the executive power to do things such as this and it's not my place to agree or disagree with that decision. However, should I win, I will tell you right now that I will never use that power to go against the court of the law.
Now THAT would have been the right thing to say... agree? :)
Edit: I go WAY back when it comes to politics. LOL
2007-07-06 06:30:33 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 5⤊ 0⤋
Bush and his supporters have used the "Clinton did worse" argument for seven years now. I don't care how they try to spin it, Libby was a key member of the Bush Administration, and the fact that he got a pass from Bush is not going to be forgotten by the People. All Presidents give questionable pardons in the eleventh hour of their Presidency, yet Bush could not wait for his last days in office, or for the appeals process to be played out to give Libby his commutation, that in and of itself casts doubt on his motivation. I think the detractors of the Clinton's will always find a way to make them look bad, but the majority of American's know this is about corruption and blatant disregard for the law within the Bush Administration, not about the actions of a President who has not been in office for seven years.
2007-07-06 06:46:33 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
I wouldn't want to be in the position of defending the Clintons.
I wouldn't want to be in the position of defending Bush.
But I think that if I must choose, I will defend Bush. I think Clinton had 8 years to do what some think Bush should have accomplished in 8 months. And I think that stinks.
It smells. Of a government conspiracy, all right. But not the one some CT'ers smell. It smells of the Clintons being unwilling to challenge Bush because of the dirt that would be uncovered about them.
2007-07-06 06:33:42 · answer #3 · answered by ? 7 · 3⤊ 3⤋
Bush gave a deal to a political hack, Clinton to a political donor. There is not much difference. She could have handled it differently but tried to divert all of the attention onto Bush like her brothers clients who got pardon's didn't count.
She's got some nerve considering prosecutors thought she was guilty of the same crime and just didn't think they could get a conviction so they let her walk.
2007-07-06 06:29:23 · answer #4 · answered by netjr 6 · 1⤊ 4⤋
Boycott Hillary
2007-07-06 06:56:33 · answer #5 · answered by Sweet Tea & Lemons 6 · 1⤊ 2⤋
Ol bill got the thing rolling with his indiscretions during his term for this fact Hillary and he should have parted ways, so the finger pointing will always be there whether deserved or not.
2007-07-06 06:31:08 · answer #6 · answered by Old Guy 4 · 2⤊ 1⤋
i dig your observations, but all of this serves to keep our attention off of what really matters:1)the wars 2)attack on the constitution 3)economic trouble at home
2007-07-06 06:58:35 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 0⤋
Gosh, I truly think that given all the covering up and unethical wheeling and dealing the Clintons have done all of their political lives, being asked a difficult question is a piece of cake for them.
2007-07-06 06:34:22 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 3⤋
The Clintons should have kept their pieholes shut regarding this matter. They are the king and queen of quid pro quo.
2007-07-06 06:42:49 · answer #9 · answered by Truth B. Told ITS THE ECONOMY STUPID 6 · 1⤊ 2⤋
She could have said what we all know - that both were wrong.
Edit: True, she seems to want to carry the banner of the Bill Clinton legacy while leaving behind the baggage.
2007-07-06 06:27:43 · answer #10 · answered by Time to Shrug, Atlas 6 · 5⤊ 2⤋