|
The recent debate of Democratic Presidential candidates featured a disastrous performance by front-runner Hillary Clinton. She gave conflicting, equivocal answers to every question she faced—waffling on Iraq, Iran, taxes, social security, drivers licenses for illegals, and even the prospect of opening her own papers at the National Archives.
To mitigate the damage, aides appealed for sympathy based on gender—portraying Hillary as one defenseless woman with ten hostile men, including NBC moderators, ganging up on her. This approach raises painful questions: if Hillary can’t stand up to Tim Russert, how is she supposed to stand up to Vladimir Putin—especially since Russert doesn’t have nuclear weapons behind him? If she buckles and doubletalks facing John Edwards, how will she confront Ahmadinejad or Hugo Chavez?
Her weakness gives Republicans a great opportunity if they hone their ability to answer tough questions directly and unequivocally—giving America the straight talk that they’re certainly not getting from Senator Clinton.
|