It's a shame that jan or colonpowwow weren't there to tackle the questioner to shut him up. It would have saved the bad press and off-message spin. Go mrs. bill/bush lite.

Sounds eerily familiar doesn't it?

Remember how she has also claimed that the authorization for the Iraq war was not a green light for Bush to invade when we all know and knew at the time that was precisely what it was? She still claims that the war authorization was only an okay to exhaust all the possibilities before taking any military action. The Kyl-Lieberman "Attack Iran" amendment just puts more bad judgement from Hillary on display. More cooperation with evil. More Republican Lite behavior and positioning. Very disappointing, but not surprising at all.

There seems no difference between her inability or refusal to admit mistakes or George Bush's inability or refusal to admit mistakes. The last thing America needs is another President of that ilk. The last thing our young men and women in Iraq need is another President of that ilk.

I wonder when they'll start screening the crowds so that only her own supporters will be allowed to see her in person or ask her a question?

So more than one person wants to know why Hillary voted for the Kyl-Lieberman amendment, and that means that someone out there is pulling the voters' strings? No, it was a bad vote, and informed voters want her to explain herself. Her response was Bush-like. (Remember how mad Republicans get when they are compared to Bill Clinton?)

I like Hillary, but she's going to have to do better than this. Her response to this man was a serious mistake, and if she repeats this pattern she's going to sink her candidacy.

I am waiting for coverage on the other negative story to emerge about Hillary this weekend. But, magically, this morning, there's not a whisper nor the slightest clue about it on any political sites, or in the msm, and it has already been airbrushed into benign on the official Hillary site.

So, I suspect this other story is buried deep in the 'do not look' bin [the bin holding the Hsu story and the Berger on her campaign staff story, and other unmentionables] perhaps because Penn realized it has more potentially adverse consequences than a story of how Hillary got snippy with an Iowa audience questioner.

Here's my short on the other story. On 10-5-07, Hillary got a live, in person, in NH, endorsement from Claudia Kennedy, retired 3-star general who just happened to include in her statement that, in all her dealings with Hillary, Hillary has never been 'against the Iraq War'. This endorsement and Claudia's words were reported in a New Hampshire newspaper, which prompted a Hillary campaign spokesperson to have to publically refute their own endorser's words a day later, when a single national spotlight briefly flickered on the story.

I could do a link, and might do so later, but I thought it would be illuminating for others to search in the bin.

Donna, why am I not surprised. I wonder if colonpowwow was the "campaign spokesperson" to "refute" the claim.

So, I wonder if this will silence those who accuse Senator Clinton of "pandering" to her audiences?
Anyway, I note that Senator Clinton got a round of applause from the audience. My only comment is, I would have been one of them.
Senator Clinton is now leading outside the margin of error in Iowa, and trending upwards. I wonder how that happens?

Jan - I don't consider myself silenced because I've never accused HRC of pandering to her audiences. Rather, it's been precisely the opposite problem -- unwillingness to engage substantively -- that was on display in the NH debate and again here in the Iowa anecdote.

Also, Hillary is not leading outside the MOE in Iowa because to calculate the margin on a lead, you need to take both candidates' MOE into account.

But don't let actual analysis of data get in the way the of fervid chest-beating.

I have confidence in you on that score.

The more I listen to this garbage from mrs. bill and her supporters, the more irritated I get. She says nothing and doesn't take substantive position on anything, other than perpetuating war in iraq. What is going on?

The more I hear and learn about webb, the more I wish he was running. He says what his positions are intelligently and clearly. He may not be the world's greatest campaigner, but at least he is honest and straight forward.

The mushy generalities coming out of mrs. bill's camp are pathetic. Basically, its vote for me and believe my spin, without any substance at all. If you question my lack of substance, mrs. bill will either laugh, attack or spew more generalities. I may vote third party if she's the nominee.

IWW

It sounds like she did engage the questioner on the substance of his question and disagreed with him.

I wasn't there and neither were you. I don't know how substantive her speech and Q & A session were. I am familiar with Hillary since I've liked her and followed her for many years. She, like all the Democrats running, has detailed positions on every major issue and she is open at these voter events (witness this one).

She does irritatingly "hedge her bets" on Iraq War related matters, but so do all the top contenders right now. Her official (web site) campaign position is in line with everybody else on this.

Oops.

Last accidentally anonymous post was me.

Gender-tinged language alert: In this headline, it's a "spat". In MSNBC's headline, Hillary "gets snippy" (as she reportedly did also with Gen. Petraeus). In Rolph's own words, she "bitch-slapped" him. At the NY Post it's "SNIT GIRL". In rightwing outlets, she "slaps" him.

How might the same exchange have been reported if it involved a Joe Biden or a Mitt Romney?

"Imagine the Iowa hog farmer cracking open and meeting Abraham Lincoln, Thomas Paine, John Kenneth Galbraith, Walter Lippmann, Johannes Gutenberg, John Stuart Mill, Thomas Jefferson and Marshall McLuhan -- all before finishing the introduction."

Dana Millbank, May 30, 2007, on Al Gore's book, "Assault on Reason,"

"..what you read to me, that somebody obviously sent to you."

Hillary Clinton, Oct 7, 2007,in response to question from audience at community campaign appearance, New Hampton, Iowa

(chigger waves "hi" from SE Iowa, hoping that people from back east will finally realize that we do have the internet here, and we don't all permit the lying msm to force-feed us their already-been-chewed "news".)

ChrisO, good point on the judges. I don't think any dem running would appoint those dimwits. Also, I agree on Gore, I would definitely vote for him.

I just don't trust mrs. bill, as I didn't trust mr. bill. There's just something there, and when you lump everything else in such as lack of record, no experience, etc., she really concerns me. I really don't know what I am getting with her and that's a problem.

Obviously in retrospect due to the disaster of the last 6 1/2 years, mr. bill looked wonderful, but at the time, as I think back, I had major problems with his administration. I think he got a lot of sympathy, me included, due to that outrageous impeachment attempt by the repukes.

Anyway, I think you get alot of attacks, whether justified or not, due to the constant spin and lack of substance. All you hear is spin, spin, spin. It's kind of annoying.

With a certain crowd HRC will never get it right: never. If she engages she is snippy. If she agrees she panders. If she votes and explains her vote and it does not fit in with the view already held by an open-minded questioner: not unusual. It is a no-win. I need to know why Mr Rolph had to write down his question and read it. I just stand up, get attention and ask.

The applause says it for me.

Give me a break, RonK. She treated the guy like he was invisible, looking right through him and seeing a vast conspiracy instead of answering his question. The word "spat" has nothing to do with her gender. A quick google turned up this on CNN's political ticker: "Brownback joins McCain-Romney spat". Dismissing anyone that isn't already on board as either a sexist or a wingnut "hater" doesn't make for much of a "conversation".

Re: RonK, Seattle wrote on October 8, 2007 11:22 AM:

"Gender-tinged language alert: In this headline, it's a "spat". In MSNBC's headline, Hillary "gets snippy" (as she reportedly did also with Gen. Petraeus). In Rolph's own words, she "bitch-slapped" him. At the NY Post it's "SNIT GIRL". In rightwing outlets, she "slaps" him."

And in this very thread, see Michael's comment on Ms. Clinton. He refers to her as "Mrs. Bill." (IOW, Hillary has no valid identity except by association with Bill Clinton.)

ChrisO

I do not think that Sen Clinton would have nominated Roberts or Alito. That is not the way she is Bush lite. She is Bush Lite in her love secrecy and unchecked power. She will do nothing to restore the fundamental balance to our government. She is not confident enough to believe that she can win in the marketplace of ideas so she will try to win through the manipulation of the levers of power. Hers will be another Whitehouse with a seige mentality. She will hurt the liberal cause in the same way that Bush has hurt the conservative cause. She will get things done but in such a way that it turns to be a strategic error and the squandering of future political opportunty.

Jeremy - No, give me a break. You claim she "treated the guy like he was invisible". On the scene, per the story link, the facts are reported otherwise:
===

"Well, let me thank you for the question, but let me tell you that the premise of the question is wrong and I'll be happy to explain that to you," Clinton began.

She offered a detailed description of the resolution ...

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."

The campaign said later that the excised language stated 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," and "to support the prudent and calibrated use of all instruments of United States national power in Iraq, including ... military instruments, with respect to the Government of the Islamic Republic of Iran."
===
Rolph was in error on the facts (not the "interpretation"), Clinton was patient but ultimately exasperated, and you are making shit up.

RonK. At least she apologized. Now you want to argue she had nothing to apologize for? Her initial response was to dismiss the guy as a plant parroting some talking point she imagined some anonymous group was sending around. Instead of hearing these questions and thinking "gee, a lot of Dems have an issue with that vote" she thought "some one's out to get me". Not a good instinct, imho.

But at least she did apologize. She has yet to apologize for treating the NIe like it was invisible and for treating all the Dems who opposed the war from the start like they were invisible. But of course, she's got all that "experience" so she could make the most important judgment of her political career without doing her homework and without listening to voters. Right?

Jan, oh, those are repuke talking points. Good we're making progress. Now, since these are repuke talking points I assume that they will be repeated ad nauseum by hannity, lush, fox entertainment, luddite hume, any fox announcer, the repukes in congress, and they will also be on the fox website. Soooo, give us some quotes from one of those sources jan, come on it should be easy since they are repuke talking points.

I am willing to bet you can't because they are not repuke talking points. Repuke talking points are:

1. She will be the dem nominee, she has it all locked up.

2. She will be a formidable candidate.

3. She has the national security credentials to be the nominee.

4. She is the only dem nominee with a chance to win

Need I go on, and these are direct quotes for the loon william kristol on fox entertainment as well as trent "the nazi" lott. These same points are repeated ad nauseum on fox entertainment by the talking heads as well as repukes in congress.

Soooo, I would say the talking points are play her up so she wins the nomination, because she is the only dem the repukes think they can beat.

Peace.

Hmmm, Jeremy, I think you are wasting your time. Hill campers don't do well with specifics. The secrets held by Hillary are off limits because those secrets might provide the information that dismantles the sound bite generalities that, so far, serve the 'flawless' campaign.
1] Actual paper records re: Hillary as First Lady-off limits

2] Actual donors to Clinton Library-off limits [until Hill should get elected, anyway, says Bill C]

3] Actual income tax records-off limits

4] Actual earmark requests submitted by Hillary [some 2+billion worth]-off limits

5 ]Actual lack of leadership success in the Senate -78% of Hillary's 'success' is comprised of fluff legislation like naming post offices, and the facts thereof arereplaced by tons of fluff accounts and her non-leadership-determining voting record.....

6] Hsu bundlees-off limits [I heard the hint that the Hill campaign will find a way to never disclose these names, not on Oct 15th as required, or even before the end of the whole campaign season]

7] Actual record of Hillary requesting import tax alleviation for foreign manufacturers-Hillary, at least 19 times, hid her involvement by hiding her name behind Schumer's

How anti-war is Hillary?
by kos

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2007/10/8/15728/1624

You just can't trust her

I think siding with Joe Lieberman (or Kyl, for that matter) under any circumstances, much less on the execrable exercise in proto-fascism being discussed here, is a mistake.

But, unlike Mr. Rolph and a few others, I am not at all interested in observing the tortured gymnastics Sen. Clinton will continue to engage in to justify her mistake.

I think siding with Joe Lieberman (or Kyl, for that matter) under any circumstances, much less on the execrable exercise in proto-fascism being discussed here, is a mistake.

But, unlike Mr. Rolph and a few others, I am not at all interested in observing the tortured gymnastics Sen. Clinton will continue to engage in to justify her mistake.

I was there in New Hampton. She went after the guy--who had a really important question--in a really meanspirited way. She treated him as though he had no right to challenge her and tried to cut him off. He said he was offended, and then she apologized, but went right on with explaining that the designation of the Iranian Revolutionary Guard as a terrorist organization constituted "robust diplomacy."

The questioner's point was that the 2002 vote for similar "robust diplomacy" led to war with Iraq. Why any Democrat would vote for any amendment whose chief sponsors are Joe Lieberman and John Kyl is another question. But what he asked is why we should trust her now, if she voted for this amendment after the first such vote led to war.

It's a really good question, and one that all the candidates should answer. Obama was asked about Iran in Charles City on Friday. Maybe people are asking about it because they're worried, not because someone fed them questions to read.

The rest of her presentation was heavy on the generalities and platitudes, and light on dealing with anything tough. Maybe this close to the coronation she doesn't think she needs to answer tough questions.

e. I will state my extreme displeasure at Senator Clinton's behavior yesterday regarding the questioner about her Iran vote. It's shows an amazing amount of arrogance, immaturity and poor judgement.

If this is what we have to look forward to if she does end up as President, I second the poster above who said get to Iowa and start working for other candidates.

With Bush and Clinton, there is a disturbing tendency to see any question of their position, vote or whatever as a threat. We were a democracy the last time I checked. That fellow in Iowa was polite, to the point and did not get an answer, so he pressed onward as he should have.

Yes Hillary, you may have been asked the question three times and you may get it 300 times. The American people want a straight answer, something that appears to be impossible for you to do, to the question. That is how do you justify your vote to declare the Iranian Revolutionary Gurards as a "terrorist" organization? Isn't this another in your face "axis of evil" speech?

Make no mistake, Iran is a threat, but signing onto giving George Bush a blank check for yet another military involvement when we are stretched to the limit in Iraq smacks of poor judgement at best and total disregard of our present situation at worst. For someone who is purported to be so intelligent this is shocking and cause for grave concern

Hillary's bullying tactics and demeanor may play well with Republicans and others bullies, but this kind of behavior would not be a quality I'm looking for in my president, male or female. I've had enough strong-arm, "you're either with me or against me" attitutde from the current administration.

The reason Hillary went nuts is because she was not being coddled, covered, and protected by her minions in the liberal mainstream media, whose only goal is to elect her president. Their coverage is slated toward making her look good, and all others look bad. Those choosing to vote for her have no ability to think for themselves, and are simply sheep following the orders of there chosen cult to vote for who they are told to vote for. ABC News stands for Always Backs Clinton. CBS stands for Clinton Broadcasting Service, NBC stands for Nothing But Clinton and CNN stands for Clinton News Network.

I was in N. Hampton and saw the exchange with Mr Rolph and Hillary. He stated that he was here for her "job interview" and that he wondered why she had voted for the original resolution that lead to the Iraq war and now had voted for the Lieberman Khyl resolution which allows use of "all instruments including military. He asked why we should trust her to make the right decisons now when she has been wrong in the past.

As for the Lieb-Khyl vote, I see no way that this can be interpereted as anything short of giving Bush the athourity to use military force if he believes there is a clear and present danger to the united states.

Hillary never answered the part of his question that dealt with her first vote that led to Iraq. She has never said that it was a wrong vote, or apoligized for it's result.

The part of the repartee that most bothered me is the mean spirited way in which she went after him. Oldest trick in the book. Don't answer the question, go after the motives of the questioner.

Good on Rolph, he stood his ground until the clapping and hoots of the sycophants in the audiance and her promise to get him more informatin forced him to back down.

He never got a REAL answer to his question. I have seen all of the major candidates of both parties come through Iowa going back to Jimmy Carter. I have never jumped on any bandwagon till this year.

I support Joe Biden. He can't buy the election like Hillary or Obama, he only has REAL experence and answers, not platitudes and salve. I firmly agree with others here that if Hillary gets the nomination the Dem's will go down in flames.

How is using notes as an aid to asking a question worse than using notes or a teleprompter as an aid to giving a speech?