Gov. Bill Richardson stood alone during Tuesday’s Democratic presidential candidate debate as Hillary Clinton’s only defender from the constant attacks of other candidates, and it came back to bite him at the end.
That’s because Clinton made a huge mistake at the conclusion of the debate that gave credibility to the tenacious attacks of Barack Obama, John Edwards and Chris Dodd.
The three – and Obama and Edwards in particular – spent most of the debate criticizing Clinton as a Washington insider, someone who won’t bring the change she promises and someone who has been spewing doubletalk throughout the campaign. Clinton spent the night attempt to deflect the criticism and, at least for awhile, was successful.
But the turn began near the end of the debate, when she was asked about Social Security. Clinton has said repeatedly in public that she would not favor lifting the cap on the tax that kicks in at an income of $97,500. But she was overheard by an Associated Press reporter recently telling a citizen after a public appearance something different.
Attacked on that issue and asked about her differing answers, Clinton failed to explain he contradictory statements. That’s when the mud began sticking.
Her face was covered in mud after a question at the end of the debate about a proposal by New York’s governor to allow undocumented immigrants to obtain driver’s licenses. Clinton defended the plan at first, explaining her prior statement that it “makes a lot of sense.” During a resulting exchange in which Dodd said criticized her for supporting the plan, she said “I did not say that it should be done but I certainly recognize why Governor Spitzer is trying to do it.” She then went on to defend the plan again.
Asked again whether she supports the plan, Clinton said the question was a “gotcha” question. She then said she didn’t think the plan was “the best thing to do” but is necessary because of Congress’ failure to pass immigration reform.
Dodd, Edwards and Obama all called her out on it what was, at best, a confusing answer, with Edwards saying she gave different answers to the same question in two minutes. Suddenly, the tone of the entire night – that Clinton is a Washington insider who speaks in doubletalk – stuck. The other candidates, the debate moderators and the audience (and me – I had to rewatch it twice) were confused about what Clinton had actually said, even though they had just heard it.
Earlier in the debate, Richardson had said the attacks against Clinton were inappropriate.
“What I’m hearing is this holier-than-thou attitude against Sen. Clinton,” he said. “… We need to be positive in this campaign. Yes, we need to point out our differences, and I have big differences with her.”
Richardson said he disagrees with Clinton “on a majority of issues,” but the debate should be about the issues, not on whether Clinton is trustworthy.
Edwards jumped on Richardson.
“I completely disagree with what Bill said. … This is about whether we believe the system works,” he said, adding that the election is about ending special-interest control of Washington.
Just like that, Richardson looked like the good ol’ boy and Edwards looked like the defender of the people. When Clinton later blew her defense, she left herself and Richardson looking like the Washington insiders in whom the vast majority of the nation’s citizens don’t approve.
Richardson was asked about it in a post-debate interview and had to admit that Clinton’s answer on driver’s licenses was “confusing.” But he still defended her and said the others shouldn’t attack her character.
That was about the only part of Richardson’s debate performance that was even noteworthy. And his defense of Clinton has national pundits once again speculating that Richardson is out for the vice presidential slot or, perhaps, the Clintons’ help with a U.S. Senate run.
The headline for this article has been changed.