Comments on: Hillary Clinton’s Hates Power (No, Really)

By: Steven Taylor

Steven Taylor — Wed, 24 Oct 2007 22:04:58 +0000

Who's Ruth and what has she got to do with this?

By: Christopher

Christopher — Wed, 24 Oct 2007 05:33:44 +0000

What abuse of power by President Bush are you guys talking about? What horrible things has he done with this supposed "power grab"? What terrible actions did the administration take that was beyond what was constitutionally granted? (Remember, democrats have voted for everything Bush wants. Indict Bush, indict yourselves)

You liberals are SICK. What a spin machine! I guess the trick is to keep repeating it, and repeating it, and repeating it over and over again.

Ruth is, Bush is the most honorable person in DC. You all sleep safe and sound in your beds tonight and enjoy the safety and security that our armed forces, led by the commander in chief, have provided for you.

Ungrateful nits!

By: James Joyner

James Joyner — Wed, 24 Oct 2007 01:20:57 +0000

Why not simply give her credit for raising the issue, for making the committment, and then make it very clear that all of us will keep the issue alive if she is elected and hold her to it?

Because she didn't raise the issue and made no commitment?

By: Tano

Tano — Wed, 24 Oct 2007 01:16:46 +0000

I really dont understand the strategy here.
I mean the one used by JJ and the other cynics.

What is the point of assuming, loudly, that she is just bs-ing? That totally lets her off the hook if she is to get elected and goes back on the committment.

Why not simply give her credit for raising the issue, for making the committment, and then make it very clear that all of us will keep the issue alive if she is elected and hold her to it?

By: James Joyner

James Joyner — Tue, 23 Oct 2007 23:34:19 +0000

Oh, absolutely, Michael. I mean that has to be part of the review that I undertake when I get to the White House, and I intend to do that.

But there's no promise to actually give up any power - just to review that possibility. I'm willing to lay great odds that the answer is No.

By: Sam

Sam — Tue, 23 Oct 2007 22:54:08 +0000

Well, there was this:

I guess I'm asking, can a president, once in the White House, actually give up some of this power in the name of constitutional principle?

Oh, absolutely, Michael. I mean that has to be part of the review that I undertake when I get to the White House, and I intend to do that.

By: Democrats Against Hillary

Democrats Against Hillary — Tue, 23 Oct 2007 22:20:21 +0000

Comment in violation of site policies deleted.

Those wishing to buy advertising should send inquiries to otb@blogads.com

By: yetanotherjohn

yetanotherjohn — Tue, 23 Oct 2007 22:18:11 +0000

The key to interpreting a Clinton is to take their words at face value and recognize that they may be using a different dictionary than you (e.g. the definition of sex).

I have no doubt that she would conduct a review (not personally, but some staffers. But she does not say that she would give up any of the powers. I suspect that the review would take some time, be released when other news dominated the headlines and conclude that she has "ceased all extraordinary executive powers" without mentioning that this means she has concluded all of them are ordinary executive powers.

By: Ugh

Ugh — Tue, 23 Oct 2007 21:43:12 +0000

Jack Balkin had a post a while back about how things aren't likely to change much with respect to presidential power even if a democrat arrives in the White House in 2009. It was extremely depressing.

By: jpe

jpe — Tue, 23 Oct 2007 21:18:22 +0000

I'd be very, very surprised if she maintained the Bush admin stance that the President can violate the law if it thinks it's really, really important for some double-super secret reason.

And Clinton I was scrupulous in his use of executive power; I'd expect Clinton II to be similarly disposed.

By: Dave Schuler

Dave Schuler — Tue, 23 Oct 2007 19:44:46 +0000

For someone who's pursuing the level of power she is, she's successfully avoided power for an awfully long time.