Hillary asked about Iran, falsely accuses questioner of being 'a plant'

[geek tragedy]

http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2007/10/07/400826.aspx

"NEW HAMPTON, Iowa -- At a campaign stop here, Hillary Clinton sparred verbally for several minutes with a man who pressed her on her recent vote to call Iran's army a terrorist organization.
Randall Rolph, from nearby Nashua, asked why he should support Clinton's candidacy when she did not appear to have learned any lessons from having voted to authorize force in Iraq.
Clinton thanked him for the question and explained her Iran vote would lay the groundwork for using diplomacy and sanctions to pressure that government.
Clinton accused the man of being a plant who had been sent to ask the question, to which he took exception, saying the question was a result of his own research."

I just don't understand why people think she has a likability problem.

[havocmom]

1. If someone asking a legitimate question is a plant

does that suggest her audiences are carefully vetted and a real question came as a surprise?

[geek tragedy]

3. Remind you of anyone?

She can't handle unscripted situations.

[papau]

46. Stupid comment on Hillary's part - but Hillary was correct -voter incorrect -text below

TEXT OF AMENDMENT AS SUBMITTED:

SEC. 1535. SENSE OF SENATE ON IRAN.

(a) Findings.--The Senate makes the following findings:

(1) General David Petraeus, commander of the Multi-National Force Iraq, stated in testimony before a joint session of the Committee on Armed Services and the Committee on Foreign Affairs of the House of Representatives on September 10, 2007, that ``t is increasingly apparent to both coalition and Iraqi leaders that Iran, through the use of the Iranian Republican Guard Corps Qods Force, seeks to turn the Shi'a militia extremists into a Hezbollah-like force to serve its interests and fight a proxy war against the Iraqi state and coalition forces in Iraq''.

(2) Ambassador Ryan Crocker, United States Ambassador to Iraq, stated in testimony before a joint session of the Committee on Armed Services and the Committee on Foreign Affairs of the House of Representatives on September 10, 2007, that ``Iran plays a harmful role in Iraq. While claiming to support Iraq in its transition, Iran has actively undermined it by providing lethal capabilities to the enemies of the Iraqi state''.

(3) The most recent National Intelligence Estimate on Iraq, published in August 2007, states that ``Iran has been intensifying aspects of its lethal support for select groups of Iraqi Shia militants, particularly the JAM , since at least the beginning of 2006. Explosively formed penetrator (EFP) attacks have risen dramatically''.

(4) The Report of the Independent Commission on the Security Forces of Iraq, released on September 6, 2007, states that ``he Commission concludes that the evidence of Iran's increasing activism in the southeastern part of the country, including Basra and Diyala provinces, is compelling. ..... It is an accepted fact that most of the sophisticated weapons being used to `defeat' our armor protection comes across the border from Iran with relative impunity''.

(5) General (Ret.) James Jones, chairman of the Independent Commission on the Security Forces of Iraq, stated in testimony before the Committee on Armed Services of the Senate on September 6, 2007, that ``e judge that the goings-on across the Iranian border in particular are of extreme severity and have the potential of at least delaying our efforts inside the country. Many of the arms and weapons that kill and maim our soldiers are coming from across the Iranian border''.

(6) General Petraeus said of Iranian support for extremist activity in Iraq on April 26, 2007, that ``e know that it goes as high as Suleimani, who is the head of the Qods Force. ..... We believe that he works directly for the supreme leader of the country''.

(7) Mahmoud Ahmedinejad, the president of Iran, stated on August 28, 2007, with respect to the United States presence in Iraq, that ``he political power of the occupiers is collapsing rapidly. Soon we will see a huge power vacuum in the region. Of course we are prepared to fill the gap''.

(8) Ambassador Crocker testified to Congress, with respect to President Ahmedinejad's statement, on September 11, 2007, that ``he Iranian involvement in Iraq--its support for extremist militias, training, connections to Lebanese Hezbollah, provision of munitions that are used against our force as well as the Iraqis--are all, in my view, a pretty clear demonstration that Ahmedinejad means what he says, and is already trying to implement it to the best of his ability''.

(9) General Petraeus stated on September 12, 2007, with respect to evidence of the complicity of Iran in the murder of members of the Armed Forces of the United States in Iraq, that ``e evidence is very, very clear. We captured it when we captured Qais Khazali, the Lebanese Hezbollah deputy commander, and others, and it's in black and white. ..... We interrogated these individuals. We have on tape. ..... Qais Khazali himself. When asked, could you have done what you have done without Iranian support, he literally throws up his hands and laughs and says, of course not. ..... So they told us about the amounts of money that they have received. They told us about the training that they received. They told us about the ammunition and sophisticated weaponry and all of that that they received''.

(10) General Petraeus further stated on September 14, 2007, that ``hat we have got is evidence. This is not intelligence. This is evidence, off computers that we captured, documents and so forth. ..... In one case, a 22-page document that lays out the planning, reconnaissance, rehearsal, conduct, and aftermath of the operation conducted that resulted in the death of five of our soldiers in Karbala back in January''.

(11) The Department of Defense report to Congress entitled ``Measuring Stability and Security in Iraq'' and released on September 18, 2007, consistent with section 9010 of Public Law 109-289, states that ``here has been no decrease in Iranian training and funding of illegal Shi'a militias in Iraq that attack Iraqi and Coalition forces and civilians..... Tehran's support for these groups is one of the greatest impediments to progress on reconciliation''.

(12) The Department of Defense report further states, with respect to Iranian support for Shi'a extremist groups in Iraq, that ``ost of the explosives and ammunition used by these groups are provided by the Iranian Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps-Qods Force..... For the period of June through the end of August, events are projected to rise by 39 percent over the period of March through May''.

(13) Since May 2007, Ambassador Crocker has held three rounds of talks in Baghdad on Iraq security with representatives of the Government of the Islamic Republic of Iran.

(14) Ambassador Crocker testified before Congress on September 10, 2007, with respect to these talks, stating that ``I laid out the concerns we had over Iranian activity that was damaging to Iraq's security, but found no readiness on Iranians' side at all to engage seriously on these issues. The impression I came with after a couple rounds is that the Iranians were interested simply in the appearance of discussions, of being seen to be at the table with the U.S. as an arbiter of Iraq's present and future, rather than actually doing serious business ..... Right now, I haven't seen any sign of earnest or seriousness on the Iranian side''.

(15) Ambassador Crocker testified before Congress on September 11, 2007, stating that ``e have seen nothing on the ground that would suggest that the Iranians are altering what they're doing in support of extremist elements that are going after our forces as well as the Iraqis''.

(b) Sense of Senate.--It is the sense of the Senate--

(1) that the manner in which the United States transitions and structures its military presence in Iraq will have critical long-term consequences for the future of the Persian Gulf and the Middle East, in particular with regard to the capability of the Government of the Islamic Republic of Iran to pose a threat to the security of the region, the prospects for democracy for the people of the region, and the health of the global economy;

(2) that it is a vital national interest of the United States to prevent the Government of the Islamic Republic of Iran from turning Shi'a militia extremists in Iraq into a Hezbollah-like force that could serve its interests inside Iraq, including by overwhelming, subverting, or co-opting institutions of the legitimate Government of Iraq;

(3) that it should be the policy of the United States to combat, contain, and roll back the violent activities and destabilizing influence inside Iraq of the Government of the Islamic Republic of Iran, its foreign facilitators such as Lebanese Hezbollah, and its indigenous Iraqi proxies;

(4) to support the prudent and calibrated use of all instruments of United States national power in Iraq, including diplomatic, economic, intelligence, and military instruments, in support of the policy described in paragraph (3) with respect to the Government of the Islamic Republic of Iran and its proxies;

(5) that the United States should designate the Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps as a foreign terrorist organization under section 219 of the Immigration and Nationality Act and place the Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps on the list of Specially Designated Global Terrorists, as established under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act and initiated under Executive Order 13224; and

(6) that the Department of the Treasury should act with all possible expediency to complete the listing of those entities targeted under United Nations Security Council Resolutions 1737 and 1747 adopted unanimously on December 23, 2006 and March 24, 2007, respectively.

[goodgd_yall]

55. This is the old version

The new one doesn't say anything about "combat."

[papau]

63. sorry - correct text below

KYL-LIEBERMAN MODIFIED AMENDMENT NO. 2011 SEC. 1535. SENSE OF SENATE ON IRAN.
(a) Findings.--The Senate makes the following findings:
(1) General David Petraeus, commander of the Multi-National Force-Iraq, stated in testimony before a joint session of the Committee on Armed Services and the Committee on Foreign Affairs of the House of Representatives on September 10, 2007, that ``t is increasingly apparent to both coalition and Iraqi leaders that Iran, through the use of the Iranian Republican Guard Corps Qods Force, seeks to turn the Shi'a militia extremists into a Hezbollah-like force to serve its interests and fight a proxy war against the Iraqi state and coalition forces in Iraq''.
(2) Ambassador Ryan Crocker, United States Ambassador to Iraq, stated in testimony before a joint session of the Committee on Armed Services and the Committee on Foreign Affairs of the House of Representatives on September 10, 2007, that ``Iran plays a harmful role in Iraq. While claiming to support Iraq in its transition, Iran has actively undermined it by providing lethal capabilities to the enemies of the Iraqi state''.
(3) The most recent National Intelligence Estimate on Iraq, published in August 2007, states that ``Iran has been intensifying aspects of its lethal support for select groups of Iraqi Shia militants, particularly the JAM , since at least the beginning of 2006. Explosively formed penetrator (EFP) attacks have risen dramatically''.
(4) The Report of the Independent Commission on the Security Forces of Iraq, released on September 6, 2007, states that ``he Commission concludes that the evidence of Iran's increasing activism in the southeastern part of the country, including Basra and Diyala provinces, is compelling. . . It is an accepted fact that most of the sophisticated weapons being used to `defeat' our armor protection comes across the border from Iran with relative impunity''.
(5) General (Ret.) James Jones, chairman of the Independent Commission on the Security Forces of Iraq, stated in testimony before the Committee on Armed Services of the Senate on September 6, 2007, that ``e judge that the goings-on across the Iranian border in particular are of extreme severity and have the potential of at least delaying our efforts inside the country. Many of the arms and weapons that kill and maim our soldiers are coming from across the Iranian border''.
(6) General Petraeus said of Iranian support for extremist activity in Iraq on April 26, 2007, that ``e know that it goes as high as Suleimani, who is the head of the Qods Force . . . We believe that he works directly for the supreme leader of the country''.
(7) Mahmoud Ahmedinejad, the president of Iran, stated on August 28, 2007, with respect to the United States presence in Iraq, that ``he political power of the occupiers is collapsing rapidly. Soon we will see a huge power vacuum in the region. Of course we are prepared to fill the gap''.
(8) Ambassador Crocker testified to Congress, with respect to President Ahmedinejad's statement, on September 11, 2007, that ``he Iranian involvement in Iraq--its support for extremist militias, training, connections to Lebanese Hezbollah, provision of munitions that are used against our force as well as the Iraqis--are all, in my view, a pretty clear demonstration that Ahmedinejad means what he says, and is already trying to implement it to the best of his ability''.
(9) General Petraeus stated on September 12, 2007, with respect to evidence of the complicity of Iran in the murder of members of the Armed Forces of the United States in Iraq, that ``e evidence is very, very clear. We captured it when we captured Qais Khazali, the Lebanese Hezbollah deputy commander, and others, and it's in black and white . . . We interrogated these individuals. We have on tape ..... Qais Khazali himself. When asked, could you have done what you have done without Iranian support, he literally throws up his hands and laughs and says, of course not . . . So they told us about the amounts of money that they have received. They told us about the training that they received. They told us about the ammunition and sophisticated weaponry and all of that that they received''.
(10) General Petraeus further stated on September 14, 2007, that ``hat we have got is evidence. This is not intelligence. This is evidence, off computers that we captured, documents and so forth . . . In one case, a 22-page document that lays out the planning, reconnaissance, rehearsal, conduct, and aftermath of the operation conducted that resulted in the death of five of our soldiers in Karbala back in January''.
(11) The Department of Defense report to Congress entitled ``Measuring Stability and Security in Iraq'' and released on September 18, 2007, consistent with section 9010 of Public Law 109-289, states that ``here has been no decrease in Iranian training and funding of illegal Shi'a militias in Iraq that attack Iraqi and Coalition forces and civilians . . . Tehran's support for these groups is one of the greatest impediments to progress on reconciliation''.
(12) The Department of Defense report further states, with respect to Iranian support for Shi'a extremist groups in Iraq, that ``ost of the explosives and ammunition used by these groups are provided by the Iranian Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps-Qods Force . . . For the period of June through the end of August, events are projected to rise by 39 percent over the period of March through May''.
(13) Since May 2007, Ambassador Crocker has held three rounds of talks in Baghdad on Iraq security with representatives of the Government of the Islamic Republic of Iran.
(14) Ambassador Crocker testified before Congress on September 10, 2007, with respect to these talks, stating that ``I laid out the concerns we had over Iranian activity that was damaging to Iraq's security, but found no readiness on Iranians' side at all to engage seriously on these issues. The impression I came with after a couple rounds is that the Iranians were interested simply in the appearance of discussions, of being seen to be at the table with the U.S. as an arbiter of Iraq's present and future, rather than actually doing serious business . . . Right now, I haven't seen any sign of earnest or seriousness on the Iranian side''.
(15) Ambassador Crocker testified before Congress on September 11, 2007, stating that ``e have seen nothing on the ground that would suggest that the Iranians are altering what they're doing in support of extremist elements that are going after our forces as well as the Iraqis''.
(b) Sense of Senate.--It is the sense of the Senate--
(1) that the manner in which the United States transitions and structures its military presence in Iraq will have critical long-term consequences for the future of the Persian Gulf and the Middle East, in particular with regard to the capability of the Government of the Islamic Republic of Iran to pose a threat to the security of the region, the prospects for democracy for the people of the region, and the health of the global economy;
(2) that it is a critical national interest of the United States to prevent the Government of the Islamic Republic of Iran from turning Shi'a militia extremists in Iraq into a Hezbollah-like force that could serve its interests inside Iraq, including by overwhelming, subverting, or co-opting institutions of the legitimate Government of Iraq;
(3) that the United States should designate Iran's Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps as a foreign terrorist organization under section 219 of the Immigration and Nationality Act and place the Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps on the list of Specially Designated Global Terrorists, as established under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act and initiated under Executive Order 13224; and
(4) that the Department of the Treasury should act with all possible expediency to complete the listing of those entities targeted under United Nations Security Council Resolutions 1737 and 1747 adopted unanimously on December 23, 2006 and March 24, 2007, respectively.
Insert prior to section (6) the following:
(16) Ambassador Crocker further testified before Congress on September 11, 2007, with respect to talks with Iran, that ``I think that it's an option that we want to preserve. Our first couple of rounds did not produce anything. I don't think that we should either, therefore, be in a big hurry to have another round, nor do I think we should say we're not going to talk anymore . . . I do believe it's important to keep the option for further discussion on the table.''
(17) Secretary of Defense Robert Gates stated on September 16, 2007 that ``I think that the administration believes at this point that continuing to try and deal with the Iranian threat, the Iranian challenge, through diplomatic and economic means is by far the preferable approach. That's the one we are using . . . we always say all options are on the table, but clearly, the diplomatic and economic approach is the one that we are pursuing.''

[ElizabethDC]

5. I doubt that. My guess is that she was asked the same question several times with similar wording

and maybe she found it suspicious? Based on events of hers that I've seen on C-Span, etc., the campaign doesn't seem to prevent tough questions from being asked.

[havocmom]

7. Ah, so she's just rude or thinks people shouldn't ask about what they care about?

Yeah, that works too.

[ElizabethDC]

8. I have no idea. I'd like to see further quotes or video from the exchange before I pass judgment

because that's just not the way she normally reacts at her events.

[Debi]

12. The same guy was in the paper earlier saying he was going to see every candidate

He's a 56 year-old registered Democrat who is obviously active and attentive. That shouldn't be too suspicious in Iowa.

[PurityOfEssence]

13. It still shows ridiculously bad judgment and a serious character flaw

It reeks of paranoia of "the vast right-wing conspiracy", which does, in fact, exist, although not in as organized a way as many would think.

Unless a question is rudely phrased, one needs to maintain decorum in situations like this and accord the questioner the assumption of him/her being an actual sentient individual. Otherwise, one seems haughty and arrogant, which are traits she's going to have to work hard and long to dispel as it is.

This conjures up the image of someone who considers herself privileged and above reproach; this doesn't go down well in this country: along with our well-publicized anti-intellectualism, we have an anti-aristocratic streak that runs deep.

To dismiss a questioner as a shill is a truly bad idea. It's bad enough to question or even gently ridicule the sources the person relies on, but to accuse the person of being what is in effect a spy is to use the peer pressure of the mob against the person. This is bullying with peer-pressure in abundance, and is dangerous even if done in the most casual way; if it's done with more certainty, the person is put into actual, extreme physical danger, as well as being subject to the scorn and derision of his/her neighbors.

Does one have the right to question her on her votes without being dismissed as a agent-provocateur?

I hate the bandwagon. Perhaps it's because I'm a contrarian, but perhaps it's just because I'm a real history nut and work in a highly social end of a highly social business and am pretty aware of the darker sides of humanity.

Crushing opposition often becomes literally and physically that, and the willingness to do so or the unawareness of the human condition that prompts one to do so both make one's character and morality suspect.

Does that humanize this pissy display of aristocratic scoffing enough to underline its gravity?

Let them eat cake.

[Tellurian]

25. Not Really..

your diatribe works except the visitor questioning Hillary has a Google history as a nutcase as long as your arm.

So, suck up your bile and swallow hard!

[PurityOfEssence]

29. Do tell.

I mean it: do tell. Besides the fact that if you have actually seen my arm you have no way of knowing that it's mine, please let us in on the big secret.

Who is this person and what are these many acts of insanity he's committed? How was this particular one by him phrased? Is there ANYTHING in the content or delivery to prompt a non-paranoid, non-arrogant, non-chickenshit rabble-rouser to make this accusation? Is she above reproach? Isn't mass killing something we should chat about a bit before blasting away?

Remember: accusing someone of being a plant at a political rally can cause that person serious bodily harm, so slinging that kind of mud should only be done with restraint in extreme situations, not with Her Majesty's characteristic perfunctory dismissal.

[Tellurian]

32. Google is your friend..

Do your own research; it's public record..

[ncabot22]

36. As you so fondly say

Link or slink!

[Debi]

38. post #37 - I've linked some of the guys LTTEs n/t

[Debi]

37. The guy is an active Democrat who writes LTTEs and this makes him a nutcase?

Questioning Charles Grassley's 'Religious Left' comment
http://media.www.iowastatedaily.com/media/storage/paper818/news/1999/02/02/UndefinedSection/Religious.Left-1084988.shtml

On republicans voting to overturn ethics rules to protect Tom Delay
http://media.www.iowastatedaily.com/media/storage/paper818/news/2004/11/29/Opinion/Letter.Institutions.Harmed.By.Delay.Debacle-1102325.shtml

On republicans voting to block any discussion or votes regarding veterans health care
http://www.blogforiowa.com/blog/_archives/2005/3/16

Bad news/good news on federal deficit (there is no good news)
http://www.populist.com/04.15.letters.html (1/2 way down page)

++++++++++++++++++++

:shrug: I guess attempting to discredit Rolph makes Clinton's behavior appropriate?

[Tellurian]

47. Rolfs question on Kyl/Lieberman was stated incorrectly from the get go..

when Hillary tried to correct him he got all huffy about it.. seeing he was mistaken, seemed to get him unnerved.

"She offered a detailed description of the resolution, which she said stressed robust diplomacy that could lead to imposing sanctions against Iran, and then pointedly said to Rolph that her view wasn't in "what you read to me, that somebody obviously sent to you."

"I take exception," Rolph interjected. "This is my own research."

"Well then, let me finish," Clinton responded.

Rolph, from nearby Nashua, fired back that no one had sent him the material.

"Well, then, I apologize. It's just that I've been asked the very same question in three other places," she said.

Clinton then explained that she had gone to the Senate floor in February to state that Bush does not have the authority to use military action against Iran and that she is working on legislation to put that into law.Rolph once again challenged her recent vote, suggesting that it amounted to giving Bush a free hand..

"I'm sorry, sir, it does not," she said, her voice showing her exasperation. "No, no, let me just say one other thing because I respect your research. There was an earlier version that I opposed. It was dramatically changed ... I would never have voted for the first version. The second version ripped out what was considered very bellicose and very threatening language."

http://blog.washingtonpost.com/the-trail/2007/10/07/clintons_iran_vote_prompts_a_h.html

[bvar22]

56. I guess Hillary forgot about the IWR.

That one didn't really give Bush the authority to go to WAR either, and we all know how that worked out.

Correct or Incorrect, Binding or Non-Binding,
Hillary has once again joined with Bush and the Republicans to increase hostility toward Iran and move us one step closer to WAR.

[Tellurian]

57. Not accurate...

The IWR Vote gave Bush the authority only as a last resort..Bush dismissed the Inspectors and rolled over the Congressional vote. When specifically, Bush claimed the authority to attack the terrorists who had flown into the WTC right after 9/11

The ball had been in play since that time. Although you may think he needed a Congressional vote to go to war with Iraq, he didn't. Congress attempted to add conditions to reign him in and slow down the inevitable. Had every single Congressman voted against the IWR...he would have attacked Iraq anyway!

[petersjo02]

59. Although Bush thinks he's king and reigning monarch,

Congress needs to rein him in, like I rein my horse in when he wants to go too fast.

[Debi]

2. More...

<snip>

"I apologize," Clinton said, explaining that she had been asked the very same question in three other places.

The crowd applauded when the senator ended the back and forth by saying the two had a disagreement and offering to put Rolph in touch with her staff, who could provide him with the text of the legislation, which she suggested he had misunderstood.

<snip>

++++++++++++

Maybe she's being asked about her vote everywhere she goes b/c people are unhappy about the vote (not because they're 'plants' for her opposition). Nice touch letting the guy know that he just doesn't understand.

++++++++++++++

On edit:

I attended three different campaign events this week (Barack Obama, Joe Biden's son Hunter, John Edwards) at each event a different person asked about the Israel/Palestine conflict. Since it was the same question can I assume that each of the people asking the question were plants? :shrug:

[geek tragedy]

4. Damn peasants questioning the Queen's judgment.

Do they think they live in a democracy or something?

[Inspired]

9. Off with their heads! n/t

[Sparkly]

6. I'd be interested to see what her exact words were. nt

[Debi]

10. NY Times link

http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/us/AP-Democrats-Iowa-Poll.html?_r=1&oref=slogin

[Sparkly]

11. Still no exact quote... but thanks. nt

[Bitwit1234]

14. Hillary asks questions if the questioner is a plant,

because it is the third time in a row that particular question was asked but....she's the liar, and the question is as pure as the driven snow. Nothing partisan about this post.

[Midwestern Democrat]

21. Well, it's not exactly an obscure issue.

Hillary's doing numerous campaign stops where the audiences are disproportionately comprised of politically engaged liberal voters and it's really that hard to believe that she would get three questions about the Kyl/Lieberman amendment?

[Pirate Smile]

15. Wow. It keeps getting asked because people don't feel like they've gotten

a decent answer yet.

Her answer about it paving the way for diplomacy and sanctions just gives terrible echos of before the Iraq War.

I wouldn't be surprised if this snowballs into a big issue with the talking heads yapping on it next week. I don't' think she understands that a lot of Democrats are worried Bush is going to try to use this to attack Iran. When she says these things it makes me think she just doesn't get it.

Do we know yet whether her opinion is that the Iraq War shouldn't have been waged or that it was just waged incompetently? I'm not sure what she thinks. I afraid she just thinks it was incompetence.

[rucky]

16. She doesn't have to explain her votes to anyone!

It's not inevitability I smell - it's entitlement.

[havocmom]

20. You might be onto something

She a decider too?

[Tellurian]

17. Another Anti-Hillary thread...ever wonder how this affects your candidate?

maybe his numbers would climb if you stopped the insanity..

[Debi]

24. How is this an anti-Clinton post?

When Howard Dean told a man "I am not your neighbor" he was massacred by the MSM (Interesting enough the guy WAS a republican who came to the event to rattle Dean's cage). Randall Rolph is a long-time Democrat (heck, type his name and town into search and you'll find several LTTEs from him). Why shouldn't Hillary Clinton get the same treatment from the MSM as the front-runner did four years ago? You wouldn't say she's above criticism, would you?

[Colobo]

26. Because she's the Queen and we must not question her.

[Debi]

35. Okay, well, I was actually being serious

I wonder why the poster thinks threads containing actual stories from newspapers should be considered negative posts :shrug:

[ncabot22]

39. Because they go against Her Majesty

The poster is an ardent Hillary lover. Any post questioning Hillary is met with scorn. Most Hillary supporters will intelligently respond to articles regarding Hillary and are not so vitriolic and nasty. Not this particular poster.

[emilyg]

53. I stopped supporting Obama. Wonder who'll be next.

[Forkboy]

61. You decide your support based on anonymous internet posters?

That's pretty fucking sad.

[PurityOfEssence]

18. "I pay absolutely no attention to what any poll says or what any pundit on TV says,"

I was searching around the web for the actual quotes from this snotty little slap-down, but haven't yet found it. What I DID find was this quote from her from her gig in New Hampton, Iowa.

One of the things I always disliked about Bill Clinton was that he lied so much. I called him "veracity challenged", but it's to such a degree with him that it seems like the first inclination in any situation. She has the same problem. Beyond all that, what one really doesn't want from a leader is one who lies SO BADLY. This is a ridiculous quote. She never watches TV. She doesn't have her people polling more furiously than every Gondolier who ever lived. It just isn't true.

Holy shit, this is beyond preposterous. The ridicule that'll be leveled at this person for the nine months from February 6th through the election would be incredible. This is one of the most whopperish whoppers ever tossed off by a credible candidate. Never mind that it just shows her to be a liar, think about what scorn she has for the very concept of truth.

And, of course, she didn't inhale either.

http://www.wibw.com/news/headlines/10300757.html

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

19. Silly error on her part -- defensive

[Colobo]

22. I'm glad this happened.

A preview of what's to come if...

[Yael]

23. Most off-the-charts Authoritarians DO end up with likability problems

when faced by the normal people they set out to conquer.

Lets just crown her queen and get it over with. ~~~yawn~~~

[goodgd_yall]

27. I wonder if Rolph did have the wrong version in mind

It sure took several days to get that across to DUers. But even as is, the amendment is one more step towards attacking Iran and was a stupid vote on HRC's part.

[Carolina]

49. one more stupid vote

yet she's so smart, so sure, such a leader. And we're... well fool me once, uh I won't be fooled again (cackle, cackle)

[bigdarryl]

28. is there a YOU TUBE video of this exchange

[ElizabethDC]

31. No video yet. n/t

[Yukari Yakumo]

34. If there was, we'd already know about it by now. {nt}

uguu

[Yukari Yakumo]

30. Somewhat foolish error, but an otherwise good answer to his question.

And I can't exactly blame her for asking if he was a plant. But if anyone did read the article, she did apologize after he said he wasn't and she did offer him to get in touch with her staff so they can give him a the text of the legislation to clarify any misunderstandings. If Randall was asking a ReThug the same question, he'd be at Gitmo by now.

However, some fringe groups are known for harassing candidates by asking the same question over and over again. So her reaction, though unfortunate, isn't exactly to be unexpected.

[ElizabethDC]

33. That pretty much sums up my reaction as well, Aya. n/t

[Zandor]

40. "Clinton accused the man of being a plant who had been sent to ask the question"

Can we see a transcript or see a video?

[ruggerson]

41. Here you go

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x3587719

[ElizabethDC]

42. See here for quotes

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x3587719

I haven't seen any video yet.

[Zandor]

45. Whre did she accuse him of being 'a plant'

That's different than saying he got his information from someone else. And the OP title has the phrase 'a plant' in quotations.

[ElizabethDC]

48. Yep, she never used the word "plant." n/t

[Canuckistanian]

51. Thanks

before we all make fools of ourselves.

[emilyg]

54. Too late for the usual culprits.

[calteacherguy]

43. "The crowd applauded when the senator ended the back and forth

by saying the two had a disagreement and offering to put Rolph in touch with her staff, who could provide him with the text of the legislation, which she suggested he had misunderstood."

[illinoisprogressive]

44. Arrogant and paranoid at the same time. sorta like Cheney....

[Canuckistanian]

50. deleted

the OP should delete as well.

[Name removed]

52. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[CoffeeCat]

58. She's so Rovian...

Lovely. She attacks the messenger, when she gets defensive about the question.

Instead of answering intelligently and honestly, she gets to deflect attention from the
real issues and attack the questioner.

I guess that's what the warmongers do when they want to hide their bloodthirsty tendencies
and chill free speech and questions that US citizens deserve to have answered.

Hillary's actions clearly reveal that she is no more interested in speaking honestly with
the American people--any more than Bush is.

How arrogant. How fake.

Now, we have to listen to a DEM candidate engage in all of this cowardly bullshit that
normally we get from the Republicans.

Disappointing. I always assumed that the Republicans were about covering up, squashing
free speech and town hall meetings that were highly scripted and afraid of real honesty.

You'd never hear any of the other Dem candidates making a remark like that. Who in the hell
does Hillary think she is these days...accusing an American citizen with a legitimate question--
of being a "plant" with no proof?

Just because he has some questions about her actions and opinions on the war with Iraq and
the current run-up with Iran...he gets attacked.

If Hillary wants to get in the ring with the big boys...she'd better stop behaving like a
wussy girl who can't handle a legitimate question.

[leftist_not_liberal]

60. A plant from the Democratic Forest

rather than the manicured grounds of beltway!

Wow. Just wow.

As I said in an earlier post, the gulf between the apparently pre-ordained leader and the led is just amazing.

I used to be really confused, trying to relate Hillary's essential Republicanism (Bill's too fer for that matter) with the fact she was instrumental in writing what became articles of impeachment against Dick Nixon.

Then I got a whiff of the split between the Bush wing of the Republifascist party and the Nixon Republicans. Stir in some Scoop Jackson former Dems and it's on, baby.

Wowee.





There may be two sides, but it's a lot cozier at the top of the food chain.

Ask Mark Penn.

[MethuenProgressive]

62. Any proof she really said that? Video? Direct quote? Anything?

Video? Direct quote? Anything?

[jgraz]

64. Yes. Google is your friend

Unless your goal just to cast doubt on the OP...