CNN’s Roberts Questions Hillary on Iraq, Social Security, Principles

Photo of Matthew Balan.
  • Bookmark and Share

NewsBusters.org - Media Research CenterInstead of focusing on Hillary Clinton’s third-place finish in Iowa, her struggling poll numbers, or the typical horse-race questions, CNN’s John Roberts asked the former first lady about a number of issues, including the Iraq war, Social Security, and the principles that she would "stand on in good times and bad times." In his last question, Roberts asked Clinton, "What will be the underpinning of your decisions?" Her answer: "The United States Constitution first and foremost."

The first segment of the Roberts/Clinton interview aired 22 minutes into the 6 am hour of Tuesday’s "American Morning." Roberts first asked Clinton about her choice to go back to the "aggressive style of compare and contrast" that she last used before the Iowa Caucuses. She highlighted the apparent need that the Democratic candidates be compared and contrasted.

Video (0:57): Windows Media (1.76 MB) and MP3 audio (257 kB)

Story Continues Below Ad ↓

Roberts then asked Hillary about the Iraq war. "What have you done to bring a peaceful end to the Iraq war in such a way that U.S. troops will be able to come back home with a reasonable expectation that they won't have to go back?" She focused briefly on how she "worked hard to try to convince other Democrats to stick together," and then went on to outline her plan to withdraw American forces from Iraq.

On the issue of Social Security, Clinton made it clear that she was dead set against privatization. "We might be able to talk about dealing with the long-term challenges of Social Security, but we are not going to ever talk about privatizing." Roberts followed-up by bringing up the fact that she hadn’t come up with a plan for Social Security. Clinton brushed that point aside, and replied that "no one has come up with a plan." She then went on to say that "you cannot get to where we need to go with Social Security unless you focus on fiscal responsibility. And I am the strongest person on fiscal responsibility in this campaign."

The full transcript of the segment from Tuesday’s "American Morning:"

JOHN ROBERTS: We mentioned just a few minutes ago that I had the chance to sit down yesterday with Senator Hillary Clinton for about 10 minutes' time. We talked about the tears that she showed on the campaign trail. We're going to show you that and her reaction to that in just a moment.But we also talked about the issues, the principles upon which she stands, and her campaign strategy now in the crucial fight for New Hampshire.

ROBERTS: Senator, it's good to see you again.

SEN. HILLARY CLINTON (D), PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: Thank you, John. It's good to see you.

ROBERTS: It's always good to see you. In the last couple of days, you've gone back to that aggressive style of compare and contrast that we saw about a month ago, which didn't seem to really play too well for you at that time. Why did you feel the need to go back to that?

CLINTON: Well, I think the debate here in New Hampshire on Saturday night really was a turning point. All of a sudden, moderators were asking tough questions about each of us. And I thought that it was a moment that really helped to define what the election truly should be about going forward. Each of us should be compared and contrasted with the others. This is an election that is going to, we hope, pick the next President of the United States. And so, we've got to start by making sure that our candidates have their records compared and contrasted, their positions, and everything else, because you know, once we have a nominee, we know what the Republicans are going to do. They're not going to stand back and say, we shouldn't raise those questions. So, let's raise the questions, and I thought that, you know, on Saturday night, both Senators Edwards and Obama have some, you know, answers that really bare some further thought.

ROBERTS: What have you done to bring a peaceful end to the Iraq war in such a way that U.S. troops will be able to come back home with a reasonable expectation that they won't have to go back?

CLINTON: I have certainly worked hard to try to convince other Democrats to stick together, in order to withstand the pressure that the president puts on Republicans to stick with him. But, you know, the facts are, we don't have enough votes yet in the Senate. We need more Democrats. So, when I'm President, I am going to start withdrawing the troops. I will withdraw them within 60 days. I'll bring home one to two brigades a month. I'm going to tell the Iraqi government that the blank check that they've had is no longer valid. They're going to have to make their own decisions and take responsibility, and I will be deeply engaged in diplomacy in the region.

ROBERTS: What have you done on Social Security reform that would be an indication of what you'll do as president?

CLINTON: Well, in 2005, when President Bush tried to privatize Social Security, a truly bad idea for America, I was one of the leaders who stood against that.

ROBERTS: Mmhmm.

CLINTON: You know, the president kept pushing and saying, well, let's compromise or let's talk about it. And I was strongly in the forefront of saying, absolutely not. You take privatization of Social Security off the table. We might be able to talk about dealing with the long-term challenges of Social Security, but we are not going to ever talk about privatizing.

ROBERTS: Yet, you have yet to come up with a plan, though.

CLINTON: Well, no one has come up with a plan. People have thrown out ideas. Well, maybe we should do this and maybe we should do that. But the fact is everybody knows, you cannot get to where we need to go with Social Security unless you focus on fiscal responsibility. And I am the strongest person on fiscal responsibility in this campaign. And that you then you get Republicans to work with you. Because again, you know, the fact of our system, and as inconvenient as it is, and it is a lot, we have to get Republicans. Otherwise, we can't get the votes we need. That's why I'm going to follow the model that the Republican president and the Democratic Speaker of the House did in 1983. We're going to get together. We're all going to hold hands. But I'm going to say, no more tax increases on the middle class and keep the benefits very stable for those already on Social Security.

ROBERTS: Let me ask you a question that President Bush posited hypothetically at his last press conference. He said that he would ask the candidates, what are the principles that you will stand on in good times and bad times? What will be the underpinning of your decisions?

CLINTON: The United States Constitution first and foremost. That is the founding document of our government, the rule of law that undergirds our constitution. The understanding that we are a nation with separation of powers and checks and balances. I will also do everything that I can to protect and defend our country and then to fulfill the goals that I have set. We want to get back to having a position of international leadership and moral authority. We want to rebuild a strong and prosperous middle class. We need to reform this government, and we need to do it quickly, because it has become a government for the wealthy and the well-connected, and we need to reclaim the future for our children.

—Matthew Balan is a news analyst at the Media Research Center.


Comments Policy

All comments are owned by whoever posted them and are subject to our terms of use. They should not be assumed to represent the views of NewsBusters.

Viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

sticking with CNN

CNN is the last big TV outlet that's really pulling for Clinton to win so she's all over that. No more dealing with Scarborough, Bartiromo or Russert.

I sincerely doubt...

...if Hillary has ever read the U.S. Constitution (except of course for the section on impeachment and the requirements to be a senator) and her comment about the "rule of law" is laughable.

Oh, she's read it, but I

Oh, she's read it, but I don't think she's capable of truly understanding its intent. It's more of a hurdle to her, not a guide.

 

Then again, there aren't many politicians out there that do, so I guess she's no different in that respect.

Go Fred, Go!

Why Hillary is Losing

Summed up in a nutshell...

Obama's view:

"I know how hard it is. It comes with little sleep, little pay and a lot of sacrifice. There are days of disappointment. But sometimes, just sometimes, there are nights like this; a night that, years from now, when we've made the changes we believe in, when more families can afford to see a doctor, when our children -- when Malia and Sasha and your children inherit a planet that's a little cleaner and safer, when the world sees America differently, and America sees itself as a nation less divided and more united, you'll be able to look back with pride and say that this was the moment when it all began.

"This was the moment when we tore down barriers that have divided us for too long; when we rallied people of all parties and ages to a common cause; when we finally gave Americans who have never participated in politics a reason to stand up and to do so.

"This was the moment when we finally beat back the policies of fear and doubts and cynicism, the politics where we tear each other down instead of lifting this country up. This was the moment."

Clinton's view:

"Wait a minute, now, wait a minute. I'm -- I'm going to respond to this. I want to make change, but I've already made change. I will continue to make change. I'm not just running on a promise of change. I'm running on 35 years of change."

"It's not easy. It's not easy. And I couldn't do it if I just didn't, you know, passionately believe it was the right thing to do. You know, I have so many opportunities for this country, I just don't want to see us fall backwards, no. So -- You know this is very personal for me. It's not just political. It's not just public."

Notice the difference? With Obama, it's always "we", "us", "we're", "your", etc. He's always phrasing things from the perspective that we have to work together. With Hillary it's always "I", "me", "my", etc., which shows she's focused on herself, just like her hubby is, and voters have had enough of that.

Undermining everything

Put yourself in the position of an Iraqi. Sunni, Shiite, Kurd -- doesn't matter. The Americans have finally stabilized your area. The Americans have encouraged you to cooperate. At least, they've discouraged you from killing others. Things are starting to look up. Markets are coming back. Suddenly a new president abruptly changes policy and withdraws American forces. What's your natural reaction?

  1. Slap your forehead and giggle, "Of course! I must welcome and love my sectarian neighbor and make peace!"
  2. Go to the mattresses.

Hillary's policy will undermine every progress, and every Iraqi will go to the mattresses, and al-Qaeda and Iran will exploit it. They'll assure the Iraqis that, see, you can't place any trust in America. Even when they're winning, they'll abandon you to chaos. No American promise of protection, for the next hundred years, will have any credibility.

You want to answer a tough question? How about these?

  • Knowing this will happen, how can anyone believe that this will restore American "moral authority?"
  • How can you pretend to be an international leader when you're abandoning the people who followed us? Who's going to follow us after the corpses prove your willingness to abandon them? 

Someone has to tell Mrs. Clinton that we care. And we can see where she intends to take us. And we can see the bloodbath that's sure to follow. It's pretty personal for us, too, Mrs. Clinton.

another absolutely impossible question

Amen to this!

And here is another absolutely impossible question for ANY
Democratic candidate to answer:

Suppose you, <Democratic candidate>, want assuage
the fears that a large part of the electorate has that, if you are elected, you
will pull out Iraq precipitously and cause the kinds of problem that MC
Mulville has just described. No matter
how many platitudinous promises you spew out to assuage people’s concerns, how
on earth are you going to staff your administration and your cabinet? Is it possible to find even one eligible candidate
for a Democratic cabinet position who would back you and your promises of
prudence? How is this even conceivable, considering
how heavily not just you, but ALL of the other Democratic politicians, have depended
upon MoveOn.com, DailyKos.com, and their ilk, and considering how EVERY Democratic
politician has postured for the last few years to do their bidding? In other words, it is categorically impossible
to make any convincing promises of prudence.
And no matter what promises of prudence you make, in any case it will be
impossible to fulfill them. Even to
pretend to do so, if elected, would probably invite assassination by your radicalized
supporters within the first sixty days of your administration.

 

Impunitas semper ad deteriora invitat

Robert's "principle" Question of Hillary - missing, naturally...

Robert's "principle" Question of Hillary - missing, naturally...

"what are the principles that you will stand on in good times and bad times? What will be the underpinning of your decisions?"

John Robert's should have continued:

Understanding that, although not [sic., yet known to be] as prevalently abhorrent as your husband's, your record shows a considerable amount of taint, as well. There was your involvement in White Water via the Rose Law Firm, your scandal over the Peter Paul campaign funding issue, your personal investment scheme (which somehow, you got a pass on), and now once again, with the conviction and sentencing of one of your largest fundraisers, Norman Hsu, are the voters expected to just forget about the hey days of corruption in the Clinton White House; those dear friends and associates who spent so close time in the White House back then; the James Riady's (an overview - the sentencing), the John Huang's, the Yah Lin 'Charlie Trie's, etc. You know, Norman Hsu often wore the White House bomber jacket, President Clinton gave him (spoke loudly of close connections and power), when he was conducting his illegal campaign funding for you and other Democrats; what assurances, today, do you offer the American people (other than the fact that the MSM will continue to under report, or look the other way on such criminal activity) that this will not continue in a Hillary Clinton White House? 

Oh, one more question Hillary. Just when did President Clinton give that White House bomber jacket to Norman Hsu? Is he the missing link, today, to the corruption of the Bill Clinton White House?

 

add: "Did you write

add:

"Did you write Norman Hsu's suicide letter?"

 

D'oh!!!!!

THE COWARDLY LYINGNESS STRIKES AGAIN

Bush tried (as an OPTION FEATURE) to allow a small percentage of your Social Security to be under YOUR control...you know, without the 1% return, with being able to pass it to your kids...and the Klinton Lyingness says, "he tried to privatize Social Security".

What a snake. Did I mention HornDog managed to tax your SS?

Doug Schexnayder, Ph.D. (theconservativecrawfish)