Planted questions for Hillary

[il Padrino Ute]

The student from Iowa has guts to speak out and want the truth about Mrs. Clinton's campaign to be known. She tells the reporter that she felt she was treated with respect, but she needs to wait until she she is ready to get into the real world and she'll find out just how the Clinton political machine is and how the treat with those who dare speak against them.

http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/11/...ml#cnnSTCVideo

It's about 17 1/2 minutes long but worth the watch.

If anyone still believes that Mrs. Clinton didn't know about the planted questions - despite the campaign's claim to the contrary - after watching this, they are in complete denial. A control freak like Mrs. Clinton knows every detail of what's happening.

[NorCal Cat]

Originally Posted by Cali Coug

Dodge the issue? No, I just know ahead of time that no matter what I put out there, you are going to say it isn't evidence of leadership. She has founded over a dozen foundations, served on over 50 boards of corporations and non-profits, served on no fewer than 5 Senate committees, sponsored and passed legislation in the Senate, served as a partner in a law firm, and has millions who have somehow been inspired (despite the total lack of any leadership on her part) to contribute tens of millions of dollars to her campaign for the presidency.

For you to say there isn't a "shred of evidence" of her leadership is, well...

You don't like her, that much is obvious. And you apparently dislike her so much that you can't even be rational in a discussion about her.

What foundations did she start? Name them.

Wow...she served on the boards of corporations huh? That doesn't mean she led anything.

5 Senate committes...great. Did she accomplish or lead anything?

What legislation did she sponsor? Just because someone sponsors legislation doesn't mean they are an effective leader. If it's crappy legislation, they're a crappy leader.

Partner in a law firm? Is that supposed to be good?

Millions of people were "inspired" to follow Hitler also.

Yeah, call me crazy, but I don't like dishonest, manipulative, ugly, lying, cheating, Socialist, tax hiking people to be my President.

[NorCal Cat]

Originally Posted by il Padrino Ute

The student from Iowa has guts to speak out and want the truth about Mrs. Clinton's campaign to be known. She tells the reporter that she felt she was treated with respect, but she needs to wait until she she is ready to get into the real world and she'll find out just how the Clinton political machine is and how the treat with those who dare speak against them.

http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/11/...ml#cnnSTCVideo

It's about 17 1/2 minutes long but worth the watch.

If anyone still believes that Mrs. Clinton didn't know about the planted questions - despite the campaign's claim to the contrary - after watching this, they are in complete denial. A control freak like Mrs. Clinton knows every detail of what's happening.

Of course she knew about it. Anyone that believes otherwise needs to do some research, and find out what Hillary is really like. Read some of the books that have been written by people that saw her, and worked in the White House during Billary years. The woman is a witch.

[Tex]

There is a real reason why this is particularly damaging to Hillary, outside of the "everyone does it" defense being offered here.

She's got a reputation for being manipulative, controlling, and cold-calculating ... more so than the other candidates. Besides this story we had Drudge breaking a story about Wolf Blitzer being warned by the Clinton campaign to not "go Russert" on her; that is, to not ask tough questions.

Yesterday afternoon Hugh Hewitt had Jonathan Alter on his show, a VERY left Democrat reporter. Hewitt asked him a hypothetical, "Who would you rather cover, Obama or Clinton?" and Alter said Obama, partly because he's new and partly because she's hard to cover.

Then we have this from the New Republic, a leftist magazine (via Brit Hume):

Planted questions apparently are not the only way the Hillary Clinton campaign has sought to influence media coverage. Michael Crowley writes in The New Republic magazine that the Clinton campaign uses frequent rebukes, late-night complaint phone calls and the withholding of access as tools to control reporters.

Crowley writes — "Even seasoned political journalists describe reporting on Hillary as a torturous experience... Privately, they recount excruciating battles to secure basic facts. Innocent queries are met with deep suspicion. Only surgically precise questioning yields relevant answers.

"Despite all the grumbling, however, the press has showered Hillary with strikingly positive coverage. 'It's one of the few times I've seen journalists respect someone for beating the hell out of them,' says a veteran Democratic media operative."

So this goes beyond an "everyone does it" ethic where Hillary just happened to get caught. It serves to reinforce an image with the public that she would like to overcome.

[Sleeping in EQ]

Originally Posted by Tex

There is a real reason why this is particularly damaging to Hillary, outside of the "everyone does it" defense being offered here.

She's got a reputation for being manipulative, controlling, and cold-calculating ... more so than the other candidates. Besides this story we had Drudge breaking a story about Wolf Blitzer being warned by the Clinton campaign to not "go Russert" on her; that is, to not ask tough questions.

Yesterday afternoon Hugh Hewitt had Jonathan Alter on his show, a VERY left Democrat reporter. Hewitt asked him a hypothetical, "Who would you rather cover, Obama or Clinton?" and Alter said Obama, partly because he's new and partly because she's hard to cover.

Then we have this from the New Republic, a leftist magazine (via Brit Hume):



So this goes beyond an "everyone does it" ethic where Hillary just happened to get caught. It serves to reinforce an image with the public that she would like to overcome.

The fact that you think these things are "issues" only speaks to how badly Republicans are imploding. Keep living in your own spin, and you are going to lose--big time.

Real issues are not whether Senator Clinton is being aggressive and assertive (things that male politicians get away with without comment), or even if she's being unusually controlling (or "cold" like mama bear in Goldilocks?). Real issues are my health care premiums going up 70% in the last few years. Real issues are the K-12 education system needing a complete overhaul. Real issues are corporations trying to control the creation of content on the Internet. Real issues are the energy situation.

If, as your and Nor Cal's posts evidence, the Republicans stay in their partisan groupthink, their lunch will be eaten.

McCain and Huckabee are your best bets at a decent go of things. They might actually put forward some actual strategies to address real issues.

[JohnnyLingo]

So.... your position is "this happened but it's not a big deal."

I guess that's better than Cali's "La la la I'm not listening no she didn't and you can't prove it!"

You're acting as bad as Snipe here, Cali.

[Tex]

Originally Posted by Sleeping in EQ

The fact that you think these things are "issues" only speaks to how badly Republicans are imploding. Keep living in your own spin, and you are going to lose--big time.

Real issues are not whether Senator Clinton is being aggressive and assertive (things that male politicians get away with without comment), or even if she's being unusually controlling (or "cold" like mama bear in Goldilocks?). Real issues are my health care premiums going up 70% in the last few years. Real issues are the K-12 education system needing a complete overhaul. Real issues are corporations trying to control the creation of content on the Internet. Real issues are the energy situation.

If, as your and Nor Cal's posts evidence, the Republicans stay in their partisan groupthink, their lunch will be eaten.

McCain and Huckabee are your best bets at a decent go of things. They might actually put forward some actual strategies to address real issues.

It's not Republicans that are her problem right now, bro. If this "issue" is evidence of an "implosion" then it is among your Democrat brethren. Maybe you missed the fact that the "plant", Tim Russert, Jonathan Alter, and Michael Crowley are all Democrats?

Maybe you were too obsessed with Republicans to notice.

But to your point, if you think image is irrelevant to a presidential candidacy, then you are kidding yourself. It's not the only factor, obviously, but given that it already is not Hillary's strong suit, this incident only makes things worse.

[Tex]

Here's Camille Paglia, no Republican she.

Hillary's stonewalling evasions and mercurial, soulless self-positionings have been going on since her first run for the U.S. Senate from New York, a state she had never lived in and knew virtually nothing about. The liberal Northeastern media were criminally complicit in enabling her queenlike, content-free "listening tour," where she took no hard questions and where her staff and security people (including her government-supplied Secret Service detail) staged events stocked with vetted sympathizers, and where they ensured that no protesters would ever come within camera range.

That compulsive micromanagement, ultimately emanating from Hillary herself, has come back to haunt her in her dismaying inability to field complex unscripted questions in a public forum.

Remarkable, isn't it, that Paglia isn't writing about health care? or K-12 education? or net neutrality?

Perhaps she's a Republican plant after all. Everyone does it.

http://www.salon.com/opinion/paglia/...urce=whitelist

[tooblue]

Originally Posted by Cali Coug

Yes. And any suggestion that she definitely did know can't be supported by the evidence.

Well of course it can't in a court of law, but in the court of common sense

[Archaea]

Why do supporters of Hillary and Obama give them a pass on their lack of executive and leadership experience?

And why are you willing to allow somebody with absolutely zero executive experience to take on the most difficult executive position in the world?

If Republicans were supporting somebody that inexperienced, I'd understand the complaint. But that's the key, Democrats give anybody with a liberal card a free pass on ability or experience. Republicans do a terrible job, a terrible job, but due to the scrutiny, they usually put up persons with good experience, not always ability.

I was thinking about Supreme Court nominees. The process Bush has endured has ensured that most of his nominees have been good quality jurists. When Clinton was in office, all that mattered was the liberal litmus test and whether the person was of the correct gender. Ability had nothing to do with it.

And so we are here, with the two leading Democratic candidates with zero executive experience, and my well-schooled and otherwise level-headed co-posters here have no qualms giving the hardest job in the world to person of no demonstrable executive experience or skills. Even if you don't answer by a post, don't you feel just a wee bit uncomfortable with that decision?

I know it wouldn't fly in boardroom, except if one were merely seeking "juice".

It wouldn't fly in academia. Will a guy with no executive administrative experience be appointed as Provost of Harvard or Stanford?

Experience is the best teacher and why should the Presidency be a candidate's first executive training ground?

The Dems have candidates with experience, such as Richardson, but nobody has the good sense to back him.