Daniel W. Drezner
Ohio debate hangover
The day after the Ohio debate, there’s a lott of blog chatter about NAFTA and the whole Farrakhan imbroglio. However, I’d really like to see the mainstream media look into two big questions: 1) How, exactly, does the political leadership of Canada and Mexico feel about this whole NAFTA renegotiation business? Are they real big ...
1) How, exactly, does the political leadership of Canada and Mexico feel about this whole NAFTA renegotiation business? Are they real big fans of this idea? 2) The following excerpt is from Hillary Clinton’s intervention during the Farrakhan dust-up:
[O]ne of the parties at that time, the Independence Party, was under the control of people who were anti-Semitic, anti- Israel. And I made it very clear that I did not want their support. I rejected it. I said that it would not be anything I would be comfortable with. And it looked as though I might pay a price for that…. And there’s a difference between denouncing and rejecting. And I think when it comes to this sort of, you know, inflammatory — I have no doubt that everything that Barack just said is absolutely sincere. But I just think, we’ve got to be even stronger. We cannot let anyone in any way say these things because of the implications that they have, which can be so far reaching. (emphases added)
Could the mainstream media ask Senator Clinton the following two questions:
a) How did rejecting the Independence Party (whose candidate won less than one percent of the vote) pose a risk to your 2000 Senate campaign? b) How, exactly, do you propose not letting, ” anyone in any way say these things because of the implications that they have”?