Discussion: Clinton On Protester's Critiques: 'I Shouldn't Have Used Those Words'

system1 · February 25, 2016, 9:03pm

Discussion for article #246474

humpback · February 25, 2016, 9:16pm

It has come to this. Hillary must explain and apologize for too-colorful a description of lawbreakers twenty years ago, while Trump gets to insult the Pope with swear words last week and folks cheer.

professorpoopypants · February 25, 2016, 9:20pm

Well, one is running for President of the United States, the other is running for President of the Confederacy.

atchka · February 25, 2016, 9:22pm

Hang on a second: you really think people hold Clinton and Trump to the same standard? Trump’s comments will bite him in the ass in the General, even if they aren’t now. But, more importantly, we should hold Hillary to a higher standard than Trump. Her words were deeply offensive. “Bring to heel”? Super-predators? These were racist then and they’re racist now. Hindsight does not erase that.

k_in_va · February 25, 2016, 9:23pm

If you remember the general tone back then, her phrase was pretty mild.

But why are we comparing what she said a few decades ago, in the general context of public opinion at the time, with what the leading GOP contender is saying now several times a day? Huh?

humpback · February 25, 2016, 9:23pm

I hope you are right. But for 8 months I have been over-estimating the tolerance and intelligence of American voters.

pmaroneyb · February 25, 2016, 9:25pm

Hillary has often tried to sound as tough as the GOP guys on many issues. This is one, Iraq is another. But when you have been playing in The Man’s world as long as she has, there are bound to be miscalculationsure that come back to haunt you. Progressive purism will only get us a GOP president.

feathered_head · February 25, 2016, 9:27pm

Somehow I really don’t think you give a rat’s ass about the statement except to exploit it as political fodder. Tearing down Clinton with african americans will not elect Sanders. It will elect Trump.

emilianoelmexicano · February 25, 2016, 9:35pm

In a vacuum, there is obviously a wrong choice of words, then and now. The problem is not so much with the strategy as with the MSM.

It is the MSM which is the “arbiter” of “decency”.

When people like Andrea Mitchell** are holding the GOP and the Dems to different standards, then the general public can get a misleading impression. Of course, with respect to “perspective” of the MSM, that ship sailed with Cronkite.

** Mitchell brought out the news of Mr. Obama announcing that he was going to fulfill his duty by nominating a Supreme Court Justice. She did this by framing it as Obama confronting Congress–this, a Senate which has instantly announced that they would not consider going through any of the process of Confirmation.

Bear in mind that there is unlikely to be a focus on things like the white supremacist bent of the GOP since this man has been President.

atchka · February 25, 2016, 9:40pm

Trump’s current status has nothing to do with American voters … it has to do with the distilled, bitter dregs of GOP base voters. The only reason Trump is where he is today is because: (1) name recognition, (2) replacing racist dog whistles with racist vuvuzelas and (3) the sheer number of GOP candidates. The 2012 Republican Autopsy nailed it when they said they had to make good with Hispanic voters. Trump has not only alienated Hispanics, but Blacks, women, Muslims and pretty much anyone with a shred of integrity or moral fiber. I still have faith he’ll struggle and fail in the General.

Um… do me a favor and STFU. Did I say anything about Bernie? I think Democrats can comment on the mistakes of our party leaders without it being political fodder. Clinton has genuine weaknesses that her supporters completely ignore. Bill’s record on Black issues, and comments like this, are one of them.

emilianoelmexicano · February 25, 2016, 9:40pm

We do tend to not vote in off years. And even in certain “on” years (The Nader 2000 election screw up).

We have no more off years (whether we choose to admit it or not)

jinx_tpm · February 25, 2016, 9:42pm

I have a huge frustration that few are offering the context of the cresting desperation leading to the mid-90s harsh policies regarding violent crime; and almost no one discusses one of the key factors that led to the nationwide rise of violent crime and the downward trend once the crest of violence passed.

In 20/20 hindsight, it wasn’t the over-reaching law enforcement efforts that drove crime down but, in many cities, it was the lead abatement efforts of the 70s.

Opportunists like Rudy claimed credit for the fix. But I also believe there were well-meaning people ready to try anything to bring down violent crime, and many of those folks said harmful things the would not have considered saying under different circumstances.

The shame is that we’re just now working to shed those hateful policing/incarceration policies two decades later.

We shouldn’t shame those who are fighting the good fight vigorously now.

atchka · February 25, 2016, 9:43pm

You’re absolutely right that the media will make a false equivalency between Clinton’s statement and the racist spew Donald peddles virtually every day. But I think most Americans will see the difference.

Personally, I think that as hideous as her statement was, it will likely blow over, whereas Donald’s words will come back to bite him when the real fight begins. The GOP will have to search and search for comments like this from Hillary, but we could probably come up with a list of horribles from Donald in just this Primary that will be a millstone around Republican necks.

seedeevee · February 25, 2016, 9:44pm

Of course she wouldn’t use those words today. She would not get any benefit out of doing so.

atchka · February 25, 2016, 9:45pm

I think you underestimate your audience. We’re TPM readers. We’re up on the rise and fall of crime, and the various theories (including the primary lead theory) behind it. But that doesn’t excuse the racist tone of the comments. Talking about bringing children “to heel” when the unspoken context of that statement is that they are Black children is pretty problematic.

horrido · February 25, 2016, 9:46pm

One of HRC’s biggest criticisms is that she places her political ambitions in front of integrity. Her critics pointing out that some of her views change with the weather is certainly appropriate. It was a stupid thing to say, borderline fear mongering that is so common on the right.

feathered_head · February 25, 2016, 9:46pm

I heard loud and clear the dog whistle you were blowing so don’t try to deny it.

jinx_tpm · February 25, 2016, 9:50pm

I guarantee I don’t underestimate my fellow TPM commenters at all.

atchka · February 25, 2016, 9:51pm

Ah, so any criticism of Hillary is a dog whistle. Got it. I forgot that all Democrats are required to support the Clintons and never criticize them. My bad. I’ll get back in my box now.

Exactly. How many issues has Hillary failed to get ahead of for fear of being on the “wrong side”? How long did it take her to embrace gay marriage (in fairness, Obama took some prodding from Biden to support it as well, but he gets bonus points for doing so in an election year)? The Clintons have always been too cautious for anyone’s good but their own. The context does not excuse the message.

mjshep · February 25, 2016, 9:57pm

Here’s my take, for what it’s worth:

Hillary thinks (wrongly) that many people perceive women as “weak,” and therefore not suited to tackle the tough issues that face the country. In order to counter the weak assessment (which is largely in her own mind) she takes tough stances to prove how “strong” she is. This unfortunately leads her to certain bad positions, hawkish foreign policy as in voting for the Iraq war, opposition to legalization of marijuana, and, until recently when under pressure from a changing electorate, BLM and Bernie Sanders, to “tough on crime” attitudes which led to mass incarcerations.

The question for all of us is, has she really learned anything from this? Will she continue to overcompensate? Does she really mean what she now says? Did she mean what she said then? With her, it’s hard to tell.