The Trail: A Daily Diary of Campaign 2008


Hillary Rodham Clinton

Clinton's Iran Vote Prompts A Harsh Back-and-Forth

Randall Rolph said he came to New Hampton, Iowa, on Sunday to see Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-N.Y.) with an open mind about whether to support her candidacy. After a tough exchange over Iran, he left saying he had ruled her out.

Rolph was one of several hundred people who turned out in this small town in northern Iowa for Clinton's appearance. When she called on him for a question, he pulled out a piece of paper and read a question about Iran.

Rolph asked Clinton to explain her Senate vote Wednesday for a resolution urging the Bush administration to label the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps a terrorist organization. Rolph interpreted that measure as giving Bush authority to use military action against the Iranians.

"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, 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."

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."

The New Hampton audience gave Clinton a round of applause. Some said later that she was right to stand her ground.

When the event was over, Rolph was surrounded by reporters and said he felt the need to stand his ground when Clinton challenged him: "She tried to ... accuse me of using someone else's words and being stupid. And that offended me. I felt the need to defend myself in view of that kind of comment."

Had he come to the meeting supporting any candidate? "I came here with an open mind, that's why I had to ask this question. By asking this question, that was going to be the defining moment for me. But it has been a defining moment," Rolph said.

-- Dan Balz

Posted at 4:13 PM ET on Oct 7, 2007  | Category:  Hillary Rodham Clinton
Share This: Technorati talk bubble Technorati | Tag in | Digg This
Previous: Barack Obama, Social Networking King | Next: Across the Aisle,
on the Road in Iowa

Add 44 to Your Site
Be the first to know when there's a new installment of The Trail. This widget is easy to add to your Web site, and it will update every time there's a new entry on The Trail.
Get This Widget >>


Please email us to report offensive comments.

Posted by: nojunkmail00 | October 9, 2007 1:59 PM

This is harsh, Mr. Balz?

Why are you guys generating friction where none exists?

Here is a video of the actual exchange. Where's the "harsh?"

Posted by: nojunkmail00 | October 9, 2007 1:55 PM

I think the most interesting question is: Will anyone at any point during Hillary's campaign ask her a tough question without her going postal or, if a tough question is asked, she'll say it is a conspiracy just like her husband use to do.

Posted by: kaymad | October 9, 2007 10:48 AM

The bashing and trashing of HRC on WaPo, Fox Noise, Moonie Times and other wingnut's ragsheet never seem to take a break....See how the little rnc non-thinking robotic rodent footies are all over the place, spitting and biting as they've been programed to do! Poor little robots, when would you grow up and get a non-fox noise life?

With adulterous, inbreed, transgender dress loving rudy, polygamous romney, sleepy fred thompson, christo-taliban huckabee, nazi-tancredo, and more, one would have thought you'd be talking about your loser candidates instead of clinton and the democrats!

I am angry with clinton for that iran vote, and probably might not vote for her (I prefer Edwards, Richardson and Dodd). But I'd be damned if I allow rnc robotic robots bash or trash her. You repukelicans don't bash your own (see how you circled the wagons for disgusting convicted drug addict limbaugh and his equally disgusting lying wingnut loudmouth, o'reilly!

Posted by: dennydean | October 9, 2007 8:22 AM

Congratulations on your (mis)judgment of people, including politicians. That's why the most of you probably voted for Bush. If anything were dumber that sheep, it would be you. Instead of going by sound bytes, you must have the intelligence to "read" people and do your own research (can be hard work, not for the lazy)instead repeating and trying to outdo each other from what you heard on your "favorite" media.

Posted by: Petraarnheim | October 9, 2007 3:24 AM

I was disappointed that Senator Clinton supported the resolution and told her so. I'm sure many other people did too. It was a resolution and not a law, and it did replace one that had preceded it. Not to defend it, but we do not know all of what is going on behind the scenes, and it may help prevent an attack on Iran. I told her never to believe anything a Republican says, but in addition to being a candidate, she's also a Senator from the only state that was actually attacked (no matter who did the attacking). Having met her a few times, I trust her and will gladly support her if she gets the nomination.

Posted by: truffulaut | October 9, 2007 3:12 AM

THAT is confrontation??? nah, confrontation is what I do in my CONSERVATIVE music CD--none other like it.
Hillary, Ward Churchill, Gore and others get to hear their expolits put to music. Someone had to do it--I did!

Posted by: Truscott1 | October 9, 2007 3:08 AM

"Why is this a story?"

Two reasons are that Hilary is arrogant and paranoid. She said: "what you read to me, that somebody obviously sent to you", when that was at most a possibility.

What could be more dangerous in a president than this kind of arrogant and paranoid jumping to conclusions? It reminds me of Bush and even more of LBJ.

Posted by: jeregol | October 9, 2007 12:36 AM

Bravo Hillary!! You need to give it back to folks like Rolph. Remember that the Republicans are going to play more dirty and if you have to take them on, you need to stand your ground. This was a litmus test & you passed with flying colors.

Obama did not even have the courage to vote for this resolution!! I guess his policy is to avoid votes which require you to make a stand for your country(He ran away from the move on ad vote too). Edwards is not even in the senate to make any difference.

I'm as anti-war as much as the next guy, but ask yourselves one question - If Iran has opened a cold war with us in Iraq, are we just going to sit back and do nothing about it? The least we can do is hurt them economically through sanctions.

Posted by: timereader | October 8, 2007 11:07 PM

sunshine484848 may be right..they are both nothing but junior senators..

Posted by: NoRinos | October 8, 2007 10:42 PM

"[...] It's one group of people that control both parties and right now I think the people are getting disgusted with it and they're starting to wake up."


Hey POST: Why don't you reply to comments, specifically those which criticize your lack of analysis or laughable writing abilities?

Posted by: nnmscwrd | October 8, 2007 10:40 PM

I've got to say that I really don't trust Hillary to stand with the people, and that is why I support Edwards. This Iran vote shows that she is a war hawk, and sprinting down the same old path as she did when Bush was vilifying Iraq. Do we really need a leader who will look out for special interests over the wants and needs and what is best for the American people. I don't.

Posted by: kimberlyrae | October 8, 2007 10:21 PM

NoRinos: Actually Obama Hussein has the most empty resume!

Posted by: sunshine484848 | October 8, 2007 10:14 PM

Hilary is an angry SOCIALIST...

Posted by: sunshine484848 | October 8, 2007 10:11 PM

The range of neanderthalic idiocy in some of these comments is extraordinary! Senator Clinton may not make you feel like "having a beer" with her, but she is ahead in the polls because some of us actually believe that she has the toughness, determination and yes, INTEGRITY to become president.

Posted by: tmchacko | October 8, 2007 03:42 PM

Errrr....someone who calls outright absolute LYING a media strategy doesn't have what I'd consider intregity. She's ahread in the polls becasue she will stop at nothing to get what she wants...and that includes lying to anyone, taking money from anyone. That's ingregity?????

Posted by: margarite34 | October 8, 2007 9:26 PM

Why don't all of you who are so ready condemn her as "arrogant or angry" actually listen to the recording. She's even toned; she apologizes; she tells this man to go and talk to her campaign, that she will give him the text to the legislation, that she respects his research. She is more than fair; he on the other hand has already made up his mind before he opens his mouth, it sounds. Most of you are just looking for anything, anything to jump down her throat. Take a listen to the exchange:

Posted by: bbln | October 8, 2007 9:04 PM

As a Democrat and strong believer in grass-roots and bottom-up change, I can't help but be discouraged by the assumption that HIllary is an inevitable candidate: and what an innacurate claim! Most early-front runners deconstruct, as was the case for Howard Dean, Mario Cuomo, and many others.

I think that Democrats have a great opportunity this year to endorse a candidate that takes no money from lobbyists, and would really change the face of politics. I have no doubt that Hillary would make a good, perhaps great President. But ultimately if elected, she will not provide any real change for the system.

I'm supporting Senator Obama for a number of reasons, but first and foremost because he has the kind of experience I love: a civil rights lawyer, law professor, and community organizer. Not to mention: no skeletons in his closet. It's only a matter of time before Hillary's inevitability becomes a faded memory.

Posted by: spad0015 | October 8, 2007 8:54 PM

I cannot understand why Hildebeast is even seriously considered by the dems as a PRESIDENTIAL candidate. She has the most empty resume I have ever seen.

Posted by: NoRinos | October 8, 2007 8:37 PM

Hilary got angry, I think, because she does not have an answer to the question that democrats want to hear. Same with the Iraq War vote and her refusal to answer any "hypotheticals." I believe the media is pushing her down our throats for several reasons: 1. They definitely want to maintain a status quo that is good for them. 2. They want her to be the nominee because they believe that Rudy Giuliani will beat her. Now, there's a lot of negative stuff to be said about Hilary and Bill, both personally and in their roles as President and First Lady, then Senator. I think that all the dirty laundry should come out in the primaries, to allow democrats to nominate someone else, because it sure as hell will come out in the general election. Democrats do not want to attack Hil or Bill (ONe must take them together, because that is what we are voting for, the package)because after all we are all dems, and we don't want to give ammunition to the enemy. Believe me, the repubs already have enough ammunition to blow Hil's nomination sky-high. They are saving it for the general election when they can get rudy elected and keep the executive in repub hands. Transparency at this stage is a really good thing; for example, I would like to hear Gore's real thoughts and feelings about the clintons. This is a really important election and the dems must think about the repub strategy as relates to Hilary. If she is the nominee, she will not win. Too many people hate her and/or Bill and there will be millions of disaffected dems who supported Obama, Edwards and even Richardson, who just won't be able to hold their noses and vote for her. They will stay home or write in someone else. The real, progressive democrats can't stand how the clintons republicanized the Democratic Party. And how they seem to be tapping their old, shady, lobbyist friends for the money to steamrole back in. It will be Giuliani.And that would be just awful for America.

Posted by: anitapreer | October 8, 2007 7:33 PM

See "'s Nuze today for more typical views of this wonderful lady.

Posted by: alisonhynes | October 8, 2007 6:55 PM

While the United States bombing of Iran would be foolhardy for countless reasons, not least from the standpoint of strategic prudence, its imminence seems beyond question, viewed from the plausibility of its orchestration and justification as subordinated to a political calculation dominated by irrationality and absence of strategic clarity. And, while the surge-suppressed violence in Iraq has essentially receded to a considerable degree, the prospect of a renewed deterioration as well as the resumption carnage and its intensification should be a matter of concern. Moreover, the situation seems certain to get worse before it gets better, considering the absence of any effort inside Iraq to bring about political reconciliation rather than the piece-meal---albeit positive---short-term tactical accomodation between the U.S. miltary and Sunni insurgents in Anbar province, which is currently being peddled by the administration to convey a false sense optimism that, indeed, a political settlement in Iraq is at hand. Even though this accomodation seems unamenable as a model for transplantation elsewhere in Irag due dissimilarity of social conditions that brought about intra-Sunni conflict and attendant fall-out in the first place

Given the volatility of the Iraqi situation as compounded by the absence of trans-ethnic reconciliation, the social regression with escalating violence has never been as imminent, even in the face of the much-touted surge. In view of the inevitability of deterioration and concomittant violence underpinning the deepening quagmire, fundamental questions of consequential significance have not been adequadely addressed so as to understand the dynamics of the political situation that will ultimately determine the course of events in Iraq, instead the Administration has scapegoated of others and assigned blame without concrete evidence to substantiate its assertion against those whom it accused of stoking violence in Irag and killing American servicemen. Hence the vote by Hillary Clinton and her Democratic counterparts for a Republican bill declaring Iranian Revolutionary Guards terrorists has far reaching implications viewed within the context of its indisputable potential to authorize unfettered the Bush aggression against Iran. The wisdom of such an aggression is questionable at best, since any attack on Iran would undoubtedly yield undesirable consequences, as it has a good chance of leading to the inflamation of the situation that might stimulate a further deterioration, plunging American troops into a protracted quagmire that has the potential to generate into regional instability.

In view of the foregoing, then, it is difficult to find why the likes of Hillary voted for the bill if not for sheer opportunism on her part. Driven by political expediency, Hillary seems convinced beyond any shadow of doubt that the coming election is hers to lose, if only she could go beyond primary politicking and straddle to the political center of American politics. And it does not matter how she gets there because for her the end justifies the means.

Posted by: TSMMDA | October 8, 2007 6:34 PM

Sounds like Mr. Rolph may have decided he didn't like being challenged but that Hillary won over the crowd. Did Mr. Rolph's "research" consist of reading one of the blogs that posted "questions I'd like to ask Hillary" segments? Sounds like it.

Posted by: Tas1 | October 8, 2007 6:08 PM

Senator Clinton should NOT have voted for the Iran resolution. Her excuse for saying she voted for the Iraq War Resolution is that Bush said he would use diplomacy and she trusted him to do it. Can she not learn from her earlier mistake? One cannot give Bush ANY further power because he cannot be trusted to act responsibly. She should be ashamed of her vote and Bush/Cheney should be impeached for their crimes against America.

Posted by: AustinJulie | October 8, 2007 5:40 PM


I am greatly disappointed in the low level of defense that you provided for your candidate. Former president Bill Clinton had one of his staffers commit suicide! Now that's loyalty to the faith!

For the many challenges that conservatives have leveled against Senator Clinton, for the most part they can be backed up with facts that are documented. I don't mind if you want to attack me personally, but as a supporter and defender, you should have some non-emotional factual evidence to refute any challenges made against her fitness for candidacy for president.

You should be able to prove that we are lying and that it is a right wing conspiracy that makes her look like a lying hypocrite. She's so smart that conservatives were able to trick her into remaining silent about her husbands sexual harassment escapades. Conservatives were able to plant Norman Hsu, Sandy Berger and questions made by Mr. Rolph into her campaign. We successfully conspired to get her to vote for authorizing the use of force in Iraq, and now again to condemn the Iranian Republican Guard as a terrorist group.

If the right wing conspiracy is that good, you ought to be voting for it!

Posted by: Cdalealden | October 8, 2007 5:38 PM

Although I did not read all the comments, I think what has been glossed over is the fact that Hillary voted to label the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps a terrorist organization.

Historically a country's military has never been deemed a terrorist group before. The IRG is part of Iran's military and branding it as a terrorist group is unprecedented.

Considering Iran supports Hezbollah which is not a terrorist group as Bush claims, it is a militant group and the IRG, now branded as a terrorist group, established the casus belli. Theretofore that and whatever other manufactured intelligence Bush's uses will be his pretext to strike Iran. Granted it is flimsy at best, but with Bush's consistent fear rhetoric who knows.

Hillary's vote amounts to appeasing AIPAC. Nevertheless she should not have voted for it because immediately following 911 Bush was granted broad powers to use the US military against "terrorists" and state sponsored terrorism.

Hillary is a hawk. She has no qualms about war. She also believes Jerusalem should be Israel's alone. Currently it is split between the Palestinians and the Israelis. Her complete and utter support of Israel without concern for the Palestinians is disturbing. That is the big issue in the Middle-East. The need for a fair and neutral broker grows daily to stabilize the Middle-East. Apparently she is not willing to fulfill that role.

My vote goes to the presidential candidate who is willing to broker deals, negotiate and use diplomacy.

It will not be Hillary because Iam convinced she will follow in Bush's footsteps. Imagine a competent Bush. Notwithstanding we do not need another Bush-like war-mongering president.

The world has suffered enough.

Posted by: serena1313 | October 8, 2007 5:37 PM

It's my belief that she's probably still in shock that her Chinese government donations were found out and that she's been denied that source of funds. Who knows what other foreign source of money will be utilized and what favors she will owe them.

Posted by: Czechbikr | October 8, 2007 5:09 PM

Hillary Clinton is a Communist wanna-Be, and the media are all Bilderberger lap dogs.

Vote Ron Paul And of course we would not be surprised if some spineless shill that thinks selling out their country to globalists censors this post.

Posted by: sortie77a | October 8, 2007 5:06 PM


I was hoping that there was a brain-dead Hillary dead head out there! Ouch! I misspelled a word! Thank you for the correction and proof positive that you understood what I meant!

I also enjoy the personal insults of people that have run out of arguments and justifications for the conniving, lying Clinton media machinery. Such intellect is encouraging, like the tacit approval of the Clinton's for the traducers like Harry Reid carrying their water for them. Oh, and lets not forget Sandy Berger, who is now working for the Clinton presidential campaign (as the payoff for stealing top sercret documents and destroying them on behalf of the Clintons). They do know their way around Washington!

Is that all you have; accusing me of needed Rush or Ralph to get my thoughts from. Obviously Hillary has been teaching you well. It will make your tatooed prison inmate mamma proud! Oh, not that she is, but just an aspiration I'm sure that someone like you could appreciate!

Posted by: Cdalealden | October 8, 2007 4:43 PM


The real problem with Hillary is that everyone knows she's only in this for herself and any promises she makes now are Null and Void the instant she takes the oath of office on January 20th. If you doubt that just remmeber that she's the one who deducted Bill's used boxer shorts as charity on their 1992 tax return at $4 each. She has no problem throwing the rest of you to the wolves to save her skin, either.

Anyone who thinks she's going to be good for them or their cause if ehe wins is just kidding himself. His only value to her is how much he can contribute toward her Presidential Library.

Posted by: orionca | October 8, 2007 4:31 PM

All of you fans of Ralph Nader and Rush Limbaugh, to whom the name CLINTON gives the heebie-jeebies, get used to the fact that this is an accomplished, articulate, intelligent woman who has more presidential qualities in her little finger than Nader, Reagan, and the Bushies combined. (And she takes personal insults better than a professional paranoid like Nixon ever could!) Hillary is neither an embittered, self-centered old hag like Barbara Bush, nor a glassy-eyed, glossed-over kewpie-doll like Laura Bush.

Hey, "Cdaleadlden" (?), you'll be lucky if your daughters and granddaughters even come close to Hillary's level. For one thing, they'll have to rise above your spelling ability -- the word you tried to use is VACILLATE, not "vasilate"!

Posted by: tmchacko | October 8, 2007 4:22 PM


If Mr. Rolph is not a Democrat and was planted by someone, then it could be catagorically stated that Senator Clinton was not being divisive, but if Mr. Rolph is exactly whom he represented himself to be, then Senator Clinton attacked the character of a member of her own party and was unequivocally being divisive! She attacked a fellow party member without any evidence of wrong doing on his part. If things were turned around and Mr. Rolph had done the same thing to Ms. Clinton, you would be like an attack dog on a leash against his mischaracterizations.

You sound like the type of person that Hillary could take her tissue after blowing her nose and wipe it on your clothes and you'd consider it a privilege. She could have just as easily answered the man's questions than to assault his character, his honesty and integrity. Her nature appears to be to lash out against anyone that challenges her positions, and that is a very scarey knee-jerk reaction for someone that would be president. If she answered the man's question we might be talking about her wisdom rather than the "harsh back and forth" exchange.

Posted by: Cdalealden | October 8, 2007 4:05 PM


I don't think that any one of these posts would deny you the right to your religion and belief system in the integrity of HRC. At the same time, we are not sitting in our offices wringing our hands because you think that anyone is "neanderthalic" because of our discomfort with the conniving person that she has demonstrated herself to be. You may believe that when she lies (or distorts the facts), that she is justified in doing so for a good reason. Some of us just don't share that faith. Some of us see her as weak in the way she refuses to answer important, substantive and intelligent questions. We see her as dishonest in her approach to the issues. Some of us see her as cowardly in the way she has used the media and other forms of communication to intimidate her own party opponents, so that they are using their wives to attack her on the issues. Leon Trotsky was assasinated by his own party for attempting to communicate Stalin's true intentions. Hillary is a disciple of Saul David Alinsky and walks in those same footsteps, working to silence any and all challengers.

Posted by: Cdalealden | October 8, 2007 3:55 PM

Dan Balz starts this exercise in Hillary-hunting by taking for granted the fact that this man came with an "open mind" about whether to believe Hillary or not. I frankly doubt it. The question is just what is going around on the left side of the Democratic Party, so it's hardly an original question, and likely was exactly what Hillary was asked many times before. It's true, the non-binding statement she voted for was nothing like the original. I do, however, stand with Jim Webb thinking that it's unprecedented to call a part of the military of a foreign state "terrorists." If you call them terrorists, then Bush can invoke the Bush doctrine and say he's in hot pursuit when he calls for a commando mission into Iran, which would be an enormous provocation. Six months ago, every problem was caused by Al Qaeda in Iraq; now, it's the Iranians. Boogey-man of the week. Anything but the truth.

Hillary was not being "divisive" here. She was stating her position, and Balz and Mr. Rolph did their best to create a divisive moment. Poor Mr. Rolph: he accused Hillary of being a lying warmonger and was shocked -- shocked -- that Hillary got testy.

It's not Hillary who is divisive. Any Democratic candidate will be slimed relentlessly, in an attempt to make them "divisive." You'd think, after 15 years of being slimed by the right, that people would be over it. In fact, I think they are.

Posted by: jimhass | October 8, 2007 3:54 PM

The range of neanderthalic idiocy in some of these comments is extraordinary! Senator Clinton may not make you feel like "having a beer" with her, but she is ahead in the polls because some of us actually believe that she has the toughness, determination and yes, INTEGRITY to become president.

Posted by: tmchacko | October 8, 2007 3:42 PM

Please vote AGAINST those
politicians voting against funding the Iraq war operations
while also stating that they plan to have our troops there possibly until 2013.
This has actually happened in front of our eyes.

Posted by: smheart78 | October 8, 2007 3:37 PM

Mrs Clinton seems to be operating under some sort of bunker mentality. I presume that much of it is legitimate, considering the trash she and her husband had to wade through last century. But, to presume that the Right is planting these questions is paranoid on her part. It was an honets and appropriate question in light of her Iraq Reolution vote whcih took us to war. I am wary of a Hillary presidency if she continues to exhibit this behavior. Maybe she should ask Mark Penn what to do? It's all about PR and LIES anyway, isn't it?

Posted by: davidemck | October 8, 2007 3:23 PM


If you want to maintain the status quo and you think that a congress with an 11% approval rating is wisdom in knowing how to get things done, then your premise is correct!

I would suggest that you stop smoking the pages of your dictionary and read the word "bright" (along with other words). Skillfully conniving is not the same as being particularly bright.

Can you name one of Senator Clinton's successes (not a moral victory) before or since she has been in office? What exactly has she accomplished that makes her so bright and so qualified to be worthy of my vote as president of the United States?

If we were running a popularity contest, it wouldn't matter much to me, but some of us still believe that values, principles and integrity are just as much a part of being bright and knowing one's way around the Beltway as knowing how to move among the status quo!

Posted by: Cdalealden | October 8, 2007 3:21 PM

General and Republican President Dwight D. Eisenhower said 'I don't believe there is such a thing as a preventive war, and I wouldn't even listen seriously to anyone who came and talked to me about such a thing.' He warned about entities such as Halliburton, and he mourned the schools and hospitals that could be built with what we spend on arms.

Gen. Omar Bradley said: "War can be prevented just as surely as it can be provoked, and we who fail to prevent it must share the guilt for the dead." And in 2002 Gen. Zinni said we were about to do something that would unite a fuse in that region we would rue the day we ever started. But our arrogant president knows everything and did not need to listen to either past or present experts on war or the Middle East.

Even Douglass McArthur said: "I have known war as few men now living know it. Its very destructiveness on both friend and foe have rendered it useless as a means of settling international disputes." He also said the "fear" was always hyped so the Pentagon could get the "exorbitant" sums of money they demanded.

AND there is, of course, two time Congressional Medal of Honor Winner Smedley D. Butler's "War is a Racket" speech in which he says 'War is a racket. Fought by the many to benefit the very few. Of course it is not put that crudely in war time, but is dressed into speeches about patriotism... but the profits jump and leap and skyrocket and are safely pocketed.' If you have never read it, you should read both the one page version and hte 14 page version of it.

There are a few heroes in government -- Jim McDermot is one -- but not many.

This bunch of "conservatives" has spent more money than all other administrations combined. We are now 10 trillion dollars in debt. Former Republican Senator Marlowe Cook said: 'Lyndon JOhnson said we could have guns and butter at the same time, this administration says we can have guns, butter and no taxes. God help us if we are not smart enough to know that is not true.'

In my opinion there are 3 acceptable candidates for president. Dennis Kucinich, Ron Paul, and Mike Gravel. The second tier would be Joe Biden and Chris Dodd.

All I want is someone with enough integrity to put the people first and not sell out to any and all corporate interests.

Alas, the main stream media shills TELL US who we want, or who we must vote for in the primaries in order to have a "chance" to beat the big bad Republicans. We believe them and vote for who they say we must, when it is all hogwash.

The Republican slime machine will slime whoever would put the people first and whoever would be against profitable war as the "first solution" to any problem. That would include any of their own (Paul) who would do that. It is interesting that -- at one time at least, not sure if it is still true -- among military familes Paul had raised more money than any other Republican candidate.

God fobid we should demand really high fuel standards in cars so that we would not need Middle East oil (Molly Ivins wrote we have the capacity to build cars that get 500 miles to the gallon) but instead opt tofight a fuel-using war to steal other people's oil so we can continue driving cars that get 10 to 15 mpg!!

I have nearly given up on my government. I despise and detest the main stream media that tells us nothing. Thank God for the internet and channels like FSTV, Democracy Now and Amy Goodman and John Stewart. They are the only entities I learn much of anything from in depth. Also, thank God for Keith Olberman, but about 90% of talk radio or television is right wing. Our liberal media is a myth.

There are a few heroes in government -- Jim McDermot is one -- but not many.

This bunch of "conservatives" has spent more money than all other administrations combined. We are now 10 trillion dollars in debt. Former Republican Senator Marlowe Cook said: 'Lyndon JOhnson said we could have guns and butter at the same time, this administration says we can have guns, butter and no taxes. God help us if we are not smart enough to know that is not true.'

Lonna K

Posted by: jvanhorn | October 8, 2007 3:18 PM

Posted by: waretc:

"The other sad fact is that we are continually mislead with these national polls that news outlets like the Washington Post conduct. The media should conduct a state by state poll and then allocate electoral college votes to each candidate. I tell you Senator Clinton cannot win a single Southern or Rocky Mountain State and will lose the national election for the Democrats. Polls based on a state by state basis rather than national are more likely to show this."

Posted by: waretc

You are correct. And she can't win Florida or, most likely, Ohio, either. Both men and women are going to back away, in the last days before the election, from voting for a woman in "wartime".

Posted by: brian_smith | October 8, 2007 3:02 PM

Senator Clinton is a smart, experienced politician who knows her way around Washington, knows how things work there. If you were hiring someone for a job - any job - wouldn't it be a plus that they know how to get things done? There's no substitute for brains and experience and she's got both. (So does her husband. An added bonus.)

Nitpick all you want about small or large issues but we need someone wise enough to handle the mess we're likely heading into given the terrific set up we've had by the current leaders.

Posted by: brightbluegorilla | October 8, 2007 2:52 PM


Somehow it appears that you think the modern American woman with a well rounded liberal arts education is closed minded to wearing berkas for peace!

The feminists are not in support of the many women that have been liberated in Afghanistan and Iraq so that they can now participate in the discussion of women's rights openly and candidly without oppression or even loss of life.

The American hubris attitudes have been exposed to think that we could force liberty and understanding on those women that were content, or should have been content to practice a culture that kept them ignorant and happy berka wearing women.

The modern feminists are not angry that Hillary stood by her man when he was abusing women under the authority of the governor's office and later the presidency. They understand that the rights of certain women needs to be sacrificed for the greater goal of power! With such insight, a berka is truly a small thing and those who are enlightened will certainly understand and wear their head dressing with pride in the quest for peace and the advancement of the women's movement! LOL! LOL!

Posted by: Cdalealden | October 8, 2007 2:42 PM

Iam an [I]. If HRC is the Dem. nominee,I will be shopping for a Rep. to be President.

Posted by: nancyzubrod | October 8, 2007 2:42 PM

Dmortkowitz nailed it when referring to a choice between two enemies. For the first time in my long life, I'll be sitting out the next presidential election. Each of the final candidates would keep us in Iraq, talk tough about border security (but do nothing of substance about it) and further facilitate the shipping of more decent jobs overseas. Never before have our political leaders (Democrat and Republican) been so hell-bent on doing the bidding of the ruling class at the expense of the American people.

Posted by: ftro | October 8, 2007 2:41 PM

Bush, Clinton, Bush, ... ah do we really have to endure more? I propose a change of course, and no, I am not a 3rd party guy. I'm just asking, wouldn't it be great if our next president gave us something different than the nonsense of that last 19 years?

Posted by: kmenzies | October 8, 2007 2:23 PM

It seems to me that most Clinton supporters think that if her answers are not acceptable to others then there is something wrong with the messager (the plant!). I can't wait for the debates that will ask her the really hard questions ...the ones that will reveal how far left she really is....based on recent statements, she's farther left than Stalin!! To bad the left can't see the forest for the trees.....if this President or the next President does not contain the Iranian threat, by force, if nessesary, then we are all in for a devastating climax, that will take place in the east and in this country if we don't take an agressive stance. Stick your head in the sand, when you pull it out, the ladies might be required to wear a berka!

Posted by: tom.hahn | October 8, 2007 1:51 PM


I respect your right to speak the things that you believe, but I also hope that you can respect my right to ask you to prove what you say is true and not just platitudes!

If Senator Clinton is the "smartest woman in the world" we would like to see her demonstrate that fact by answering some very simple and direct questions!

She is not running against Bush or Cheney and we need to know what her plan and vision for the United States of America is and not how evil the people leaving the White House are. In just over a year, they'll be gone!

Hillary Clinton's senatorial record is now established and many of her speeches are on record, so we have the ability to see whether her actions, attitudes and behavior match the words that she speaks. I'm sure the women that were sexually assaulted by her husband are concerned about where she stands on women's issues since she felt it politically expedient to attack and assasinate their character, only to settle matters to keep from testifying in a court of law!

If this is the smartest woman in the world, it does not speak well for women! And it does not speak well to the hope of my granddaughters. I'm always concerned about the intelligence of those who portray themselves as smarter than everyone else in the room and presume the ignorance and stupidity of anyone that disagrees or challenges their position. People with good common sense can see through this wisdom of "Tom Sawyer" and will allow him to paint his own fence alone.

The smartest woman in the world gave a speech declaring what she knew about Sadam Husein, the danger he posed and the understanding that she had from her time working with her husband in the White House. She said that she studied the issue carefully before voting to authorize the use of force. Now the smartest woman in the world says that she didn't read all of the information prior to her vote and that she was deceived by the current administration, but Ms. Smarty Pants still will not admit that her vote was wrong! A 'Hood Rat' from Compton, Ca. isn't dumb enough to make that kind of a mistake, unless Hillary Clinton is the smartest woman in the world.

We need a woman or any candidate that is smarter than one who believes that the truly educated will understand her need to vasilate in order to get elected. I am insulted at the notion that my daughter and my granddaughters are not smarter than this kind of behavior that Hillary Clinton has demonstrated. I believe that my daughters and many other women are better than that!

Posted by: Cdalealden | October 8, 2007 1:49 PM

You forgot the most important reason to support Hillary! Think of all the fun we'll have as the White House and the Press try to ignore/cover-up all the philandering of our first First Ladies Man!! Hoo-ee, that will be a laugh a minute.

Kind of like those "Where's Waldo?" books. Where's Bill? Uh-Oh, he's in the shrubbery again... and with Hillary's personal secretary!! Oh, and now she's chasing him with a rolling pin... again! It will be sort of like "The Beverly Hillbillies" meets "Babe Watch." Fun for the entire family, AND the entire nation.

I can't wait. I've got my Tivo all set up!

Posted by: michaelsweeney | October 8, 2007 1:45 PM

We'd all better 'see the light' and elect this woman our new president. The nation needs her, the world needs her. She is the most intelligent woman in the world and only a woman like her can save us from the likes of Bush and Cheney. Their tax cuts have ruined our economy, even if the revenues have gone up drastically. Their foreign policy has estrnged us from the great nations of the world like France and Germany. Their homeland security policies have trampled on the "rule of law", even if no terrorist attacks have been successfully carried out on U.S. soil since 9.11.01.

This country is steeped in troubles and problems ranging from illegal immigration to decaying infrastructure and the only way out - the only solution - is that proposed by Hillary. Yes, we must raise taxes and raise them soon and raise them high if we intend to fix this great country. We need her to facilitate the government takeover of so many failed industries. Look at health care/insurance - a system that will only be rescued by more governmental intervention. And those oil companies! Give me a break. No company deserves to make those kind of profits without sharing them with the citizens who made them possible. This sharing should come in the form of government "taking" the profits (as Hillary has publicly stated) from the oil kings and forming new agencies that would ensure the money is used to explore new sources of energy.

We must initiate a new 'dialogue' with the Islamo-fascists in an effort to calm the rough seas that currently threaten to sink our lifestyle. The Iranians must be appeased in order to obtain their pledge to use nuclear energy for peaceful purposes in the same way that her husband achieved a similar pledge from North Korea. Can't more Americans see the tremendous value in another (potentially) eight years of the Clintons in the White House? Wake up, USA, wake up today!

Posted by: mstracka | October 8, 2007 1:14 PM

Dan Balz, the WAPO needs to present the following in order for each reader to determine the veracity of Ms. Clinton's response. First, we need to see the language of Kyl-Lieberman. Second, what is the nuanced intent of this Amendment? It clearly is the product of an earlier offering by Jo-Mentum who has argued forcefully for a pre-emptive strike upon Iran in a speech to the Christain Fundamentalist Regious Right (Rev. Chuck Haggee's flock). [For reference, please view the speech on Bill Moyers Journal from October 6; ]

So, I take excpetion to Ms. Clinton's response, because she wants to have it both ways - pander to AIPAC, be a Republican-NeoCon "lite" but "strong" on anti-terrorism, while telling Democratic voters she would never authorize a vote to start a war with Iran.

Ms. Clinton, the falsehood is in the words of your response - we remember the October 2002 vote which authorized George Bush to use all possible means, including military action, to persuade Sadaam Hussein to discard any WMD programs. Your sin on that vote was the same as 76 "Yea" votes on Kyl-Lieberman. Only a moron would ever give George Bush any inkling of an approval to use military force again.

Bush is looking for a reason to do something to furhter entrench the United States in a crusade in the Middle East. A pre-emptive strike on Iran is another step to our nation's further trashing on the world stage. Unlike Iraq, this time it would not be a "surgical" strike, but look for Iran to make enery prices unbearable.

Dan Balz, get off your duff and dig into this story. The same can be said for every reporter who covers Congress. Shall we all watch - once again - as our madman president drives the train off the track in to a ditch?

Posted by: AngryAmerican | October 8, 2007 12:22 PM

To chadcampbell:
Please be advised that neither John McCain nor John Kerry was awarded the Medal of Honor.

Posted by: GodofHellfire | October 8, 2007 11:52 AM

"The perfect diametric matchup would be Hillary Clinton vs. Ron Paul. The Republican peace and freedom candidate versus the Democratic supporter of military aggression and restrictions on rights."

I would feel safer with Obama vs. Paul. The electorate might choose Hillary. Couldn't happen, you say? They chose Bush. Twice. But there's another danger lurking besides Hillary. Three of them in fact. Giuliani, Romney, and Thompson. The most urgent matter at hand is to defeat those war mongers and nominate Ron Paul.

If you life in NH or NY, and you're registered Democrat, you have until October 12 to switch. Don't let us see Hillary vs. Giuliani. Please!

Posted by: jdadson | October 8, 2007 11:01 AM

For arguments' sake, lets assume that Mr. Rolph was a plant sent with question in hand to challenge Senator Clinton; what is the worst thing that could happen if she answered the question candidly and honestly?

Jesus was set up by some men who asked him what they thought was a "damned if you do, damned if you don't question":
"We caught this woman in the very act of adultery. The spiritual law says that she ought to be stoned to death, but what do you say?"

Jesus perceived that it was a set up, but he didn't accuse them. If they caught her in the very act, why didn't they bring the man with them too? They were looking for condemnation, not justice! He answered their question as he wrote something on the ground in front of them (probably the name of the man that helped them set the woman up), "I think that any one of you that isn't guilty of setting this woman up should be the first one to throw the stone!"

The problem throughout Senator Clinton's candidacy is that she's stuck in that episode of "Everybody Hates Chris" where the younger sister kept accusing her brother of things that he didn't do to get her way. She's accusting people of a right wing conspiracy instead of understanding that she's in a campaign and that she's going to be challenged. She's accusing people of being plants and getting their questions elsewhere. We need an adult in the room! Where are the feminists that should be holding her feet to the fire and demanding that she behave like a woman of character and strength? Why is she running from phantoms?

The woman is a high profile figure asking the people of this nation to vote for her, and she is running a campaign of diversion to avoid answering hard questions or being challenged on her ideas. She doesn't want us to have concrete understanding about where she stands on the issues that are important to us, and when anyone tries to find out, she assaults their integrity and intelligence, only to then turn around and say that is what the questioner was doing to her (like Everybody Hates Chris)!

All she has to do is answer the questions honestly and it wouldn't matter if she's being set up. I would be impressive if she would demonstrate that she is a candidate of substance and that the passion that she displays is really about the issues and not the salivating for power and excess!

Posted by: Cdalealden | October 8, 2007 10:55 AM

Having registered (and sharing) in this comment section the disgust by most of us for the current and former residents of the White House and fearing more of the same by the candidates of both parties, I suggest we citizens correct a mistake we made earlier and conduct a spontaneous nation-wide, grass-roots write-in campaign for Al Gore. His election in this manner would be a great triumph for good government, our future and against politics gone berserk. -A former Florida Republican.

Posted by: dcmanning | October 8, 2007 10:47 AM

So lemme get this straight:

She actually voted against this resolution before she voted for it?

That's not gonna hurt her in the debates against the GOP slime-machine, no way.

Posted by: seattle_wa | October 8, 2007 10:37 AM

This is all a dog and pony show. The voters will never know what is *really* going on over there, in the White House, Congress, with the candidates.... it's like astrology. We are trying to divine the future by reading the stars-- in this case the "stars" are the stars of the political stage. It's all hocus-pocus.

The only thing you can really be sure of with regard to these candidates is what they will or won't support in terms of domestic priorities of law enforcement and program funding. That is really what you have to ask yourself about. Do you like one candidate's tendency toward a set of domestic priorities over another's? By this I refer to program funding (ie, will Hillary support program X and do you support it? Will Obama support Program Y and do you support that over X?... etc.)

If you try to make your decision based on foreign policy at this juncture in American history, forget it... oil interests trump anything the candidates might say. That is 100% for sure.

Posted by: mcc99 | October 8, 2007 10:35 AM

To say the least I'm perplexed with the results of polls and the money trail. I thought people are looking for a President who is adamantly against the war and the engagement of Iran. So are polls wrong or are people throwing their vote towards the most likely candidate. Why would you support a candidate that is not truly against the war and potentially expanding the war into Iran? Do you support Hillary Clinton's position regarding the War and Iran? ------>


Posted by: PollM | October 8, 2007 10:10 AM

Come on people wake up and smell the coffee, Hillary Clinton has never done one good thing for this country when she was first lady, She has never done one thing for New York. The only thing these people care about is themselves, Bill proved that by being a cheating lousy husband and we all know Hillary was involved with Vince Foster and we know what happened to him.

Posted by: mhutchison | October 8, 2007 9:56 AM

Hillary is such a low life. Typical, someone asks a question that puts her on the hot seat and AUTOMATICALLY that person is a plant!

She's nothing but trailer trash with money.

Posted by: bitstorm | October 8, 2007 9:51 AM

How can anyone seriously be considering voting this Machiavellian shape-shifter into the White House? Can you imagine her grating attitude and lack of tact aimed at a head of state, not a regular American with a question to ask?

ABH - Anyone But Hillary.

Posted by: KYLECOPE | October 8, 2007 9:50 AM

It seems Clinton can never win. She takes on a questioner, who reads a carefully crafted question from a note (unusual - I stand up and ask one - but that's ok). Clinton answers, explains and stands her ground. Now she is offensive. She can't win, can she. If she gave a vapid answer then she is triangulating. If she is tough minded then she is rude. What does one want? So Rolph is dissatisfied. he knows where he can park his vote. The right to vote does not have to include the right to an answer he wants. Them's the rules of the game. If you disagree you know what to do. Feeding journalists superficial manure does not illuminate any discussion. The reporters are looking for negative stuff. It is in their genes.

Posted by: alan_bennett720 | October 8, 2007 9:45 AM

Returning to the original topic, the whole discussion is worthless without some information on what is really in the Kyl-Lieberman amendment. I think this is the final version, with the original sections authorizing military force deleted, as Hillary noted.

Posted by: chase-truth | October 8, 2007 9:42 AM

Hillary Clinton is a hopeless boor. It is difficult to imagine that a large percentage of this country thinks she would make a good president. What does this say about us?

Posted by: RightStuff | October 8, 2007 9:39 AM

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.

Posted by: mchristian | October 8, 2007 9:31 AM

My worry is, did Clinton READ the resolution she was voting for this time round or was it like in the Iraq war vote where she never read the security intelligence report?

Posted by: FebM | October 8, 2007 8:56 AM

Want to get away from all this?

Nicaragua offers an affordable, laid-back lifestyle; boasts the most beautiful and virgin real estate in Latin America; has low living costs and enjoys an excellent mix of tradition (architecture and culture), modernity (good highways between major cities, high-speed Internet and U.S.-style malls) and old-fashioned politeness and good manners.

Serenity Real Estate ( is your gateway, offering stunning beachfront property (from $30,000), gorgeous Spanish colonials (from $70,000), spectacular mountain views in cool climates (from $2300 per acre) and well located city and suburban lots in the best neighborhoods. We're focused on the spanish colonial city of Leon, the perfect mountain climates of Matagalpa and Jinotega and the beaches and fincas on the way to and around Corinto. We're the first professional real estate agency in Northern Nicaragua completely dedicated to the region.

We're international: Our agents are American, Nicaraguan and European and speak English, Spanish, French, Italian and Romanian.

Discover a new way of life.
Discover Nicaragua.
Discover Serenity.

promotional video:

Posted by: serenitywebmaster | October 8, 2007 8:39 AM

Whew! What a blast on both sides above. 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.

Posted by: NoMugwump | October 8, 2007 8:17 AM

I support President Bush on the war in Iraq. He is proving that the USA is not a paper tiger, unlike Bill Clinton. As for Hillary, don't we all know enough about her to realize that she's not presidential material? She is dishonest and is willing to destroy anyone in her bid for power. I would vote for any Republican and maybe even any other Democrat before I would even consider Hillary Clinton.

Posted by: vh3025 | October 8, 2007 8:15 AM

Mr.Baltz, you seem to write little but negative commentary on Clinton. Are you sure of your objectivity?

Posted by: msmellick | October 8, 2007 7:26 AM

Hillary is just following orders like Bush has been following orders for the past 6 1/2 years and all the presidents before him. They follow the Zionist Illuminati orders. It doesn't really matter who we vote into office, because we aren't really in control anyway. They are. Our leaders all take their orders from them. If you don't believe me, then research it, you may be surprised by what you read and find out that we are the sheep in this world. They worship a different god!

Posted by: paul.keffer | October 8, 2007 7:16 AM

The top 10 reasons why Fred Thompson should be the Republican nominee:

10. Because a review of Fred Dalton Thompson's voting record shows that he consistently voted for gun owners (the NRA called him a "staunch supporter of the Second Amendment"), against abortion, for business, against higher taxes, for a balanced budget, for a strong defense, for ANWR drilling, for capping foreign aid, for free trade, for private property rights, for personal retirement accounts, for the Iraq War Resolution and for welfare reform.

9. Because, among his interest group ratings, Sen. Thompson earned a perfect zero from National Abortion Reproductive Rights Action, a perfect 100% from the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, only 11% from the ACLU, 85% from the American Conservative Union, 86% from the Center for Security Policy, a perfect zero from the American Federation of Teachers, 6% from the National Education Association, 90% from the League of Private Property Voters, 97% from the National Tax Limitation committee, 88% from the National Taxpayers Union and a perfect zero from the liberal ADA. In a 1995 analysis, Project Vote Smart listed Thompson as having supported Contract With America items 100% of the time. The Club for Growth has just released a a report in which Club President Pat Toomey concludes, "Fred Thompson's eight-year record is generally pro-growth with an excellent record on entitlement reform and school choice and a very good record on taxes, regulation, and trade. His belief in a limited federal government is demonstrated by his numerous votes against government intrusion in the private sector and increased federal spending. His fondness for Tennessee pork aside, Thompson consistently voted against increased spending and new government projects, at times, one of only a handful of senators to do so."

8. Because under his Chairmanship, Sen. Thompson's Governmental Affairs Committee actively pursued an agenda aimed at producing a smaller, more efficient, and more accountable government. Of his efforts, the Kingsport Times-News wrote, "Sen. Thompson is to be applauded for keeping a watchful eye over Washington fiscal matters. There should be more like him." Chairman Thompson held hearings on improving the federal regulatory process; reforming the IRS; exploring ways to eliminate waste, fraud, and abuse; and a number of national security issues, including the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction and missile technologies. Thompson also investigated and successfully enacted solutions to information management problems such as government computer security.

7. Because as a member of the powerful Senate Committee on Finance, Thompson focused on reducing taxes, reforming the tax code to make it simpler and fairer, and restoring the Social Security and Medicare programs to long-term solvency. He advocated a balanced approach to trade and national security and pushed for an export control policy that protects our country's national security without unnecessarily burdening American industry with bureaucratic red tape. He also proposed legislation to curb the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction by China and other countries and to strengthen the United States' response to such activities.

6. Because when Thompson makes the rare mistake, he admits it and learns from it. Though he's rightly still not comfortable with the idea of people giving large sums of money to legislators and then coming before their committees to ask for the government's favor, FDT has owned up to the fact that that McCain Feingold was a poor attempt to solve the problem of influence peddling and just plain old bribery. He's learned that full disclosure might just be the best way to deal with the probelm. Fred has also admitted that his vote for the immigration reform measure which President Reagan signed in 1986 created an additional 12 to 20 million illegals. He's learned from that and has grown much tougher on the issue, advocating the securing of our borders before anything else is done and the deportation of illegals when they are captured.

5. Because Fred Thompson has been committed to federalist principles his entire political career and has brought federalism to the forefront of the current political dialogue. He has also been a voice in the wilderness speaking out about the coming entitlement and national debt crisis, calling for a frank discussion of how we must deal with it. Thompson stands apart from the other major Republican presidential candidates who have been for the most part silent on these issues.

4. Because Sen. Thompson has the admiration and respect of his former colleagues on the hill. As president, he would have the best chance of all the candidates to get the congressional cooperation required to advance his agenda. FDT has demonstrated this kind of leadership with his very successful shepherding of John Roberts through the political minefield that is the U.S. Senate.

3. Because he scares the devil out of leftists. Even the liberal Washington Monthly in a 1999 hit piece had to begrudgingly admit that as a Senator, Thompson worked hard to keep his campaign promises. Democratic strategist Bob Beckel revealed, in a discussion on Fox News' Hannity & Colmes program, that Fred Thompson for president would be their "worst nightmare" because of his communications skills and ability to appeal to swing voters. Many backers of Fred's GOP opponents attack him even more viciously than the Democrats do because he poses a major threat to their candidates now that he's in the race.

2. Because he doesn't scare independents and Reagan Democrats. Like Reagan, Thompson is that rare sort of conservative who can sell conservative ideas to moderates and independents. And again like Reagan, he may be the only potential candidate who can unite the factions of the Republican Party right now. No, Fred isn't Ronald Reagan, and he's the first one to say it. But he is one of Reagan's smartest students and most consistent disciples who has the same kind of media-savvy and commanding presence. Also like Reagan, Fred Thompson is much more than "just an actor."

1. Because he will beat Hillary Clinton like a rented mule.

Posted by: fkpaxson | October 8, 2007 5:56 AM

She is an evil, power-mad dictator in waiting who holds us all in contempt. She will do anything to seize power. She must be stopped.

Posted by: DorothyfromColumbus | October 8, 2007 5:23 AM

First of this is a set up to trap HRC to distort her intention of the vote. This must be set up by the GOP members,because the motives seems too familier. As of the vote of the bill, I see nothing in there to authorize Bush to go to War against Iran. I am puzzled, are we allowed to discuss that Iran is a bellicose country, therefore deserve attention of her millitery status, after all it is a threat to US. Are we really so paranoid about war after Irag that we can not even let the Congress discuss about these matters anymore. Come on,my dear country men, I beg of you, please don't let ambitious politicians to manipulate us. There is no fear but fear itself!

Posted by: johnycheng1 | October 8, 2007 4:32 AM

Just the latest nonsense from Dan "I hate the Clintons" Balz.
And why does every person who Dan interviews have an open mind but now will not vote for Hillary?
I detect a pattern...does anyone else?

Posted by: leider3676 | October 8, 2007 2:36 AM

Dennis Kusinich should definitely be in the EXECUTIVE BRANCH...

I agree...

he is the only one that actually had the stones to say, "let's impeach theDickCheenie,"

one of the reasons I believe Kerry took a dive, is that part of the reason he seemed to be running was to take it from anyone else that might have been a threat...

he smote Dennis K., with "You're a veegan aren't you?"

like that was some sort of weakness...

let's face it, if Kerry couldn't win over an alcoholic, coke snorting, draft dodging, illiterate, cheerleading, descendant of Nazi supporters and beneficiary from Slave Labor at Auschwitz...well, all I can say is he must have been riding his horse facing the tail.


.another thing, Bill Clinton does one thing well, if someone comes up with it and it's the truth....Bill Clinton will use it....

Perot handed the first election to Bill Clinton, Paul Tsongas, Ross Perot debate...

Clinton saw the truth of what Perot was saying and went with it...

Tsongas was eloquent in his honesty and full expression, that debate was a blessing for America...Tsongas passed two years later...

Posted by: afraidofme | October 8, 2007 2:01 AM

what do the five reasons for being in IRAQ all have in common?

MONEY....for bushCO and CRONYs...

1. money from war profiteering Bechtel, Halliburton/KBR/Blackwater, Carlyle Group...

2. money from ISRAEL...AEI, PNAC, JINSA, AIPAC, CSP, Richard Perle, William Kristol, Charles Krauthammer, Douglas Feith, Libby, Paul Wolfowitz, Bolton...

3. Sand Brothers money. UAE/SAUDI/Kuwiat

4. BIG OIL...BP, EXXON-MOBIL, SHELL, CHEVRON....payoffs, favors, nee Enron...

5. Money Laundering BCCI, DRUG MONEY, DRUG TRAFFICKING....IRAN CONTRA, CIA, Gary Webb, Parry... call me a liar and search on any of those entries...

grow up sheeple, get edu micated.

looks like you can't take the heat bobgraham4, you seem to get excited if someone has more camera time than your man...

what's that about?? camera envy???

F.O. punter.


Posted by: afraidofme | October 8, 2007 1:54 AM

at last there is a little truth coming out of IRAQ?

WTF, Paul Bremer flies a plane in loaded with 362 TONS of $HUNDRED$ $DOLLAR$ BILLS wrapped in plastic....

it disappears, without paperwork to trace it...

Halliburton has $9 BILLION DISAPPEAR, w/o reconciliation or punishment and

corruption is increasing?

there isn't even reliable plumbing and electricity, television, radio or working conditions....

how else would anyone get paid.

4 MILLION refugee's

PURPOSELY!!!!!!!!!!!! driving the people out, paying them to take advantage of their positions and find in bushCO and CRONYs favor.... or die

the people have been driven out, subverted, subjugated and give up so the new colonial government can move in...what a fricking surprise!


Posted by: afraidofme | October 8, 2007 1:51 AM

oh, so she knows the F word?

my aren't you precious? are you a p*ssy too? or do you just act like and smell like one???

you can watch my meet too, alongside of thunderstone.hank...he would like to hold hands with you..

Management of Iraq's oil revenue
Bremer was accountable to the Secretary of Defense for the actions he took. But, since his authority to spend Iraq's oil revenue derived from United Nations Resolution 1483, he was also accountable to the UN. The authority he derived from the UN to spend Iraq's oil revenue bound him to show that:

Expenditures were intended to benefit the Iraqi people.
The programs that were funded were decided upon, and supervised in an open, transparent manner.
Iraqis were invited to give meaningful input into how funds were spent.
The administrator of Iraq was co-operating with the International Advisory and Monitoring Board.
That proper fiscal controls were in place, so that it could be demonstrated that none of the funds were diverted, or mis-spent.
One of the concerns the IAMB raised repeatedly was that the CPA had repaired the well-heads and pipelines for transporting Iraq's oil, but they had stalled on repairing the meters that were necessary to document the shipment of Iraqi oil, so it could be demonstrated that none of it was being smuggled.

In their final press release[19] before the CPA's authority expired, on June 22, 2004, the IAMB stated:

The IAMB was also informed by the CPA that contrary to earlier representations the award of metering contracts have been delayed and continues to urge the expeditious resolution of this critical issue.
The CPA has acknowledged that the failure to meter the oil shipments did result in some quantity of oil being smuggled -- an avoidable loss of Iraq's oil that was Bremer's responsibility. Neither Bremer nor any of his staff has offered an explanation for their failure to repair the meters. Neither Bremer nor any of his staff has offered an explanation for why they misrepresented their progress in repairing the meters.

By failing to repair the meters, and failing to honestly report the lack of progress, Bremer violated UN Security Council resolution 1483, under which he was accountable to the International Advisory and Monitoring Board for his expenditures of Iraqi resources.

serendipity? or planning to not track the flow of oil out of IRAQ?

did it get resold as Saudi OIL?


Posted by: afraidofme | October 8, 2007 1:50 AM

Something isn't quite right . Either Ms Clinton is so egotistical that she thinks all citizens watch all of her interviews intently and jot down everything she says so as not to repeat a question , or she is calling the citizens dummies who cannot come up with good issues on their own . If it isn't one , it's the other , both pretty disgusting . Also , I'd like a president who had diplomacy 24/7 before calling on the RED PHONE and insisting others take action . If Clinton can't take the heat in a caucus or debate situation , how will she ever handle hot Hugo or sizzlin Ahmadinnerjacket across her desk or sitting next to her ??

Posted by: bobgraham4 | October 8, 2007 1:48 AM

"F**k off! It's enough that I have to see you s*it-kickers every day,
I'm not going to talk to you too!! Just do your G*damn job and keep your mouth shut."
(From the book "American Evita" by Christopher Anderson, p. 90 - Hillary to her State Trooper bodyguards after one of them
greeted her with "Good morning."

"You f**king idiot."
(From the book "Crossfire" p. 84 - Hillary to a State Trooper who was
driving her to an event.)

"If you want to remain on this detail, get your f**king *ss over here
and grab those bags!"
(From the book "The First Partner" p. 259 - Hillary to a Secret Service Agent who was reluctant to carry her luggage because
he wanted to keep his hands free in case of an incident.)

"Get f**ked! Get the f**k out of my way!!! Get out of my face!!!"
(From the book "Hillary's Scheme" p. 89 - Hillary's various comments to her Secret Service detail agents.)

"Stay the f**k back, stay the f**k away from me! Don't come within ten
yards of me, or else! Just f**king do as I say, Okay!!!?"
(From the book "Unlimited Access", by Clinton FBI Agent in Charge, Gary Aldrige, p. 139 - Hillary screaming at he Secret Service detail.)

"Many of you are well enough off that [President Bush's] tax cuts may
have helped you. We're saying that for America to get back on track,
we're probably going to cut that short and not give it to you. We're going to have to take things away from you on behalf of the common good."
(Hillary grandstanding at a fund raising speech in
San Francisco; 6/28/2004.)

"Why do I have to keep proving to people that I am not a liar?!"
(From the book "The Survivor," by John Harris, p.382
- Hillary in her 2000 Senate campaign)

"Where's the miserable c*ck sucker?" (From the book "The Truth About Hillary" by Edward Klein, p. 5 - Hillary shouting at a Secret Service officer)

"Put this on the ground! I left my sunglasses in the limo. I need those sunglasses. We need to go back!"
(From the book "Dereliction of Duty" p. 71-72 -Hillary to Marine One
helicopter pilot to turn back while en route to Air Force One.)

"What are you doing inviting these people into my home? These people are our enemies! They are trying to destroy us!"
(From the book "The Survivor" by John Harris, p. 99- Hillary screaming
to an aide, when she found out that some Republicans
had been invited to the Clinton White House)

"Come on Bill, put your d*ck up! You can't f**k her
(From the book "Inside The White House" by Ronald
Kessler, p. 243 - Hillary to Gov. Clinton when she spots him talking
with an attractive female at an Arkansas political rally)

"You know, I'm going to start thanking the woman who cleans the restroom in the building I work in. I'm going to start thinking of her as a human being"
-Hillary Clinton
(From the book "The Case Against Hillary Clinton" by
Peggy Noonan, p. 55)

Posted by: margarite34 | October 8, 2007 1:34 AM

hey, speaking of deadly arsenals thunderstone.hank, you can watch my meet for me...otay butwheat????

Posted by: afraidofme | October 8, 2007 1:33 AM

I've always been an Edwards fan, but I fail to see how this indicates a dictator-in-waiting, or the like. I was *not* present, as two of the commenters here claim to have been, but I can read, and it seems to me like she at least apologized and then made her case. I think her vote on the resolution was political CYA-ing, to be considered "serious" on foreign policy. It was a stupid vote in that you can't give the current president an inch, or he'll take you straight into Baghdad, and I wish she'd opposed it.

That said, frankly, I like her increasing sassiness as the campaign goes on. It's the polar opposite of Kerry. Though I'd much prefer Edwards, I'm starting to like her enough to be somewhat enthusiastic if she takes the primaries.

Posted by: salvadordalaillama | October 8, 2007 1:07 AM

if telling the truth is "polarizing,"

then some people need to be



Gary Webb, Parry, George H.W. Bush, DOJ Letter of Understanding

read the letter of understanding...

it has been giving the CIA the ability to drug traffick with impunity, since the early 80's in specific places


and get this, "not keep record of profit or transaction,"

how much is the world's COCAINE crop worth????

how about that AFGHANI OPIUM????

we are talking $BILLIONS$ of dollars in drug sales.......


you are.

stick the bill up theDicks a** and take away the bushfamilies holdings, they owe AMERICA everything they own....EVERYTHING THAT COULD BE CALLED THEIRS BELONGS TO AMERICA...

take it back.


Posted by: afraidofme | October 8, 2007 12:17 AM

speaking of charity for _illegal_ activities

let me point out something

unknowing General Public.

the George Bushes and Dick Cheney, apparently are involved in drug trafficking... how much do you think Heroin Addiction and crack cocaine costs the country a year? who pays for all of those emergency room visits or thefts or prison terms, law enforcement, judicial system...

the George Bushes ? thedick Cheenie? or you?

you do.

think I am crazy or partisan, making up sh*t? good

SEARCH on Gary Webb, DoJ, Letter of Understanding, Parry

read the letterof understanding.

it gives the CIA the right to drug trafffick without fear of prosecution or reporting of income from said enterprise...

in central and south america and AFGHANISTAN.

I unnerstan that profits from a record opium crop in AFGHANISTAN, could be as much as $342 BILLION FRICKING DOLLARS...that is untaxed/off_the_records profits, pen day hoes

SEARCH on Siebel Edmonds

Just as the Iran-Contra scandal evolved to include drug smuggling, the Iraq War also is closely related to drug smuggling. While the Bush regime has so far managed to keep the drug smuggling aspects of the war from reaching the media, evidence is beginning to emerge. The evidence comes largely from a former FBI translator turned whistle-blower, Sibel Edmonds. Hired to translate intercepted messages soon after 9/11 this Turkish lady first blew the whistle on the FBI for dragging its feet. She has state emphatically that she has seen documents that prove the Bush administration was fully aware of the terrorist attack before 9/11. While ATTORNEY GENERAL JOHN ASHCROFT, has imposed a gag order on her, this courageous lady has only been able to speak in generalized terms. However, she has repeatedly stated that when viewed as an international drug smuggling operation the picture becomes clear.

Sibel Edmonds has provided a huge clue in her generalized statements, a clue that points directly at the BUSH FAMILY and DICK CHENEY. Haliburton the oil services company formerly headed by CHENEY has a long history of involvement in drug smuggling and gunrunning especially through its Brown and Root subsidiary. Brown and Root also has a long history of providing cover for CIA agents.....

The Russian incident surfaced in 1995 after thieves stole sacks of heroin concealed as sugar from a rail container leased by Alfa Echo. Authorities were alerted to the problem after residents of Khabarovsk, a Siberian city became intoxicated from consuming the heroin. Alfa Echo is part of the Russian Alfa group of companies controlled by Mikhail Fridman and Pyotr Aven. The FSB, the Russian equivalent of the FBI firmly proved a solid link between Alfa Tyumen and drug smuggling. The drug smuggling route was further exposed after the Ministry of Internal Affairs raided Alfa Eko buildings and found drugs and other compromising documentation. Under Cheney's leadership of Haliburton, Brown and Root received a taxpayer insured loan through the Export-Import Bank of $292 million dollars for Brown and Root to refurbish a Siberian oil field owned by Alfa Tyumen. The Alfa Bank is also implicated in money laundering for the Colombian cocaine cartels.

so who pays for thegeorgebushes and thedickcheenie to getfree drug money? with no thought of how it impacts their fellow AMERICANS?

you do, welfare for bushCO and CRONYs...

wonder what kinda kickback they get from IRAQ? no-compete-contracts, freedom from prosecution for murder? jeeeze they sound like feudal lords eh?

hello serfs, remember the Magna Carta... you have rights.

exercise them.


talk to veterans, see how well they are being rewarded for their sacrifice.


22,000 current IRAQ war veterans have been denied disability for mental illness, because their mental illness was "preexisting," if it was "preexisting" how did they get inducted into the armed forces...

George W. takes care of his own, you_the_people, can go to hell, he's not sharing.




Posted by: afraidofme | October 8, 2007 12:16 AM

one of the most common things about "polls," and spin artists is the way they constantly try to get you "the public," to come to the conclusions that they want you to....

George H.W. Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Baker, Gates...have been involved in manipulating countries besides the United States for over 50 years....

there is no difference between Nicaragua, Venezuela, and the United States with these guys running around pumping out the conclusions that they want you to come to...

wanna know what is going on?

don't react to the framing.

pay attention. make them react to _your_ framing...

could they plant someone to bring Obama down?

could they plant someone/thing to bring Dan Rather down?

don't be simpletons...

they stand to lose BILLIONS, what do you think????


Guilliani, Edwards, Obama, Hillary....

it doesn't matter, run with your own people.

.look at who is advising you. and say, "do I trust this?"

it may make a huge difference, stay in the open and ask questions as well as answer them...


ps. if I were democratic candidates, I would be working together to chop some wood.

let's face it, whoever gets elected is going to have to deal with the same thieves as the people that don't get elected...if the thieves are gone, even the people who stay on as Congress people will have better lives....set brush fires together and blow the house down...turn the trash out,

especially that grep fellow that copies style as a way of avoiding being seen, as clueless......loser...

be a leader not a thief you little schwienhuntt...

SEACH on Bush Crime family, Nazis

for fun.


Posted by: afraidofme | October 8, 2007 12:14 AM

I am really over Hillary Clinton. She is just too polarizing. John Edwards has the best chance of winning states that Gore and Kerry lost. He is the Democrats best chance.

Posted by: cammo | October 8, 2007 12:05 AM

Since we will always need lubrication and petroleum to manufacture plastics. Would you rather be in Iraq now or have waited ten years when Hillary is President and have to kick Saddam out of Kuwait a second time and Saudi Arabia? Try doing it without petroleum reserves to fly your planes and float your boats. Try to get Russia and China to support a move like that when you have your back to the wall.

Posted by: jnbcressy | October 7, 2007 11:28 PM

WOW! What a great idea! Sanctions against Iran. Why didn't anybody think about that against Iraq? Maybe the U. N. could put 13 or 14 on them too.

That way too after 8 years of Queen Hillary ignoring everything the do, we can elect a Republican to solve. Then the Democrats and the liberal media can turn on him.

What does everybody think? sound like a great plan?

Posted by: ChrisIL | October 7, 2007 11:28 PM

I think Clinton voted this way on Iran because she believes she has the nomination sewn up and she is moving back to center. Her harsh words show why people don't like her and I predict people will test her again and again till someone gets it on tape. This is all the Repbulicans will need to win over her in the general election. That is what worries me.

Posted by: goldie2 | October 7, 2007 11:16 PM

HillBilly or Bill and Hillery are PROFESSIONAL white trash CON-ARTISTS. They have smug faces, talk in circles while saying nothing, and still want to leave soldiers in Iraq for "security" purposes. I admit Bush sucks but he is nowhere as bad as these dangerous people who would murder or rob anyone to get elected.
They get clapped for "standing their ground." What does that mean?
Hillery should STEP DOWN for corruption, but she will be voted out next term anyway. The loud liar will be silenced.
The democrats still have major corruption issues that need to be investigated.
Oil for food??? It's only the beginning and don't expect NPR to be helping there.

Posted by: Grep | October 7, 2007 11:12 PM

Posted by: m_nunziante | October 7, 2007 05:47 PM

"As far as her suposed "arrogance" in this situation, she was responding to a question which she had been asked three times, in three different locales."

followed by this rebuke:
"I guess you meant HUBRIS. Neocons aren't so good with English as Bush has demonstrated time and again. If you want to live in this country, learn the language!"


One could assume you were attempting to spell the word "supposed".
Or one might assume you are an elitest dunderhead who attempts to impress others with a loquacious spewing of your uninformed drivel.
I am inclined to believe the latter.

How sad.

Posted by: buckweat7 | October 7, 2007 11:04 PM

hello sheeple,


what does it mean?????

a draft.

what does that mean????

George W. Bush and bushCO und CRONYs get to keep IRAQ up and running, 'cause at that point it doesn't matter...

listen AMERICA, the drug money alone coming out of AFGHANISTAN is worth it to bushCO and CRONYs...

$BILLIONS$ of dollars....

he and theDICK want IRAN, to keep IRAQ supplied with troops....if IRAQ folds, bushCO and CRONYs loose $BILLIONS$

AMERICAN saves $BILLIONS$ but you won't hear that from his lying shiftyness....

ZIONISTAS write all the paper to obscure the underlying cause(s) for IRAQ...

all having to do with MONEY in bushCO and CRONY profits....

that $12 BILLION IN CASH THAT WENT MISSING in IRAQ, after Paul Bremer had it flown in, all 362 TONS of $100 bills.....

do you think the IRAQIs got all of it....

heh heh he....huh?

.or do you think some of it went in bushCO and CRONY pockets????

did Neil get a new hair piece? Who's paying for Jenna's wedding ???

you are AMERICA, that and some dead Auscwitz slave laborers...


Posted by: afraidofme | October 7, 2007 10:34 PM

At the outset of Bush's second term, Vice President Dick Cheney dropped a bombshell. He hinted, in no uncertain terms, that Iran was "right at the top of the list" of the rogue enemies of America, and that Israel would, so to speak, "be doing the bombing for us", without US military involvement and without us putting pressure on them "to do it":

"One of the concerns people have is that Israel might do it without being asked... Given the fact that Iran has a stated policy that their objective is the destruction of Israel, the Israelis might well decide to act first, and let the rest of the world worry about cleaning up the diplomatic mess afterwards," (quoted from an MSNBC Interview Jan 2005)

Israel is a Rottweiler on a leash: The US wants to "set Israel loose" to attack Iran. Commenting the Vice President's assertion, former National Security adviser Zbigniew Brzezinski in an interview on PBS, confirmed with some apprehension, yes: Cheney wants Prime Ariel Sharon to act on America's behalf and "do it" for us:

"Iran I think is more ambiguous. And there the issue is certainly not tyranny; it's nuclear weapons. And the vice president today in a kind of a strange parallel statement to this declaration of freedom hinted that the Israelis may do it and in fact used language which sounds like a justification or even an encouragement for the Israelis to do it."

The foregoing statements are misleading. The US is not "encouraging Israel". What we are dealing with is a joint US-Israeli military operation to bomb Iran, which has been in the active planning stage for more than a year. The Neocons in the Defense Department, under Douglas Feith, have been working assiduously with their Israeli military and intelligence counterparts, carefully identifying targets inside Iran ( Seymour Hersh, )

Posted by: afraidofme | October 7, 2007 10:24 PM

there is only one mad man you have to worry about...theDick...
Cheney mulled Israeli strike on Iran: Newsweek
Sun Sep 23, 2007 4:06pm EDT
Vice President Dick Cheney had at one point considered asking Israel to launch limited missile strikes at an Iranian nuclear site to provoke a retaliation, Newsweek magazine reported on Sunday.

The news comes amid reports that Israel launched an air strike against Syria this month over a suspected nuclear site.

Citing two unidentified sources, Newsweek said former Cheney Middle East adviser David Wurmser told a small group several months ago that Cheney was considering asking Israel to strike the Iranian nuclear site at Natanz.

A military response by Iran could give Washington an excuse to then launch airstrikes of its own, Newsweek said.

Wurmser's wife, Meyrav Wurmser of the neoconservative Hudson Institute think tank, told Newsweek the claims were untrue.

Wurmser left Cheney's office last month, the magazine reported. The steady departure of neoconservative hawks from the administration has also helped tilt the balance against war, it said.

Washington has been pursuing diplomatic efforts to persuade Iran to alter its nuclear program. It has refused to take military options off the table, even U.S. resources are taxed by having 169,000 troops in Iraq.

Although some intelligence sources say Iran is years away from nuclear capability, Israel believes that military action may be necessary as early as 2008, Newsweek said.

Israel has declined to comment on the reported air strike, while Syria has denied receiving North Korean nuclear aid and said it could retaliate for the September 6 violation of its territory.

Posted by: afraidofme | October 7, 2007 10:20 PM

And she lied to Congress.
Proven by signed time cards.
Is this a good trait for President?

Posted by: cyeager | October 7, 2007 10:18 PM

Obama is a great thinker and strategist as well as eloquent,

why is Obama a poor choice?

he doesn't know who he is up against.

he wants to be "friends,"

how does one make friends with alligators when you have a rotting chicken tied around your neck, and you are in the water with them....

you don't.

it's a waste of time, you get out your Tarzan knife and gut one of them and shove it at one of it's friends...

rip the chicken off and get out of the water....

Obama would still be talking while he was being swallowed,

about ethics and accountability....

you want accountability???

have bushCO and CRONYs arrested and then have that talk....

why would INSIDER WASHINGTON want you to chose Obama?

same reason, Bill Clinton or Jimmy Carter didn't look too bad, to the Washington INSIDERS, coming in...

the WASHINGTON INSIDERS, knew that the new presidents, w/o INSIDER WASHINGTON EXPERIENCE, would expect to be treated like


and before they figured out who was friend or foe, they would be drawn and quartered....

Obama, is a nice guy, it's not enough...

I would take Dennis K. over Obama, because he knows who and what the Washington INSIDERS are....


Posted by: afraidofme | October 7, 2007 10:13 PM

Hillary was correct in her vote.
Only a fool would take all options off the table at this point.
Especially when dealing with the mad mullahs of Iran.

Posted by: websterr1 | October 7, 2007 10:12 PM

Hillary's record clearly shows that she acted in concert with the administration, not sure she would lead the same way Bill did. Besides she's going to make it a point that her administration is different than her husbands. Time will tell but I'm more inclined to say that she's going to lead us in different direction, one closer to the conservative side.
Will Hillary Clinton's Foreign Policy be Hawkish or Diplomatic if she were to win the White House? ---->


Posted by: PollM | October 7, 2007 10:06 PM

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 and NBC stands for Nothing But Clinton.

Posted by: effoff1 | October 7, 2007 10:02 PM

Prithimp is right about Obama, who did skip the vote out of sheer cowardice.
Prabhata_dhyan is right about Clinton, who most definitely DID "authorise" force (though I doubt that war criminals can be "authorised" to make wars).

The US Govt definitely claims the right to attack any terrorist organisation with any level of force anywhere, regardless of sovereignty.

So if they designate part of another country's armed forces as "terrorists", they're claiming the right to attack them.

It's just one more example of why the US Govt, which has always been primarily obsessed with pushing around other govts, should not be given sweeping, lasting anti-terrorist powers by its citizens.

There really is no first-rank candidate who isn't a militarist. Obama also proposes increasing the size of the US army. Like, duh, why not try something else first, for example have you considered a policy of not invading other countries for no reason?

American politics is about money, and America's economy is a war machine. It's not oilmen, but arms dealers, who really pull the strings in Washington.

Many of the biggest military-industrial complex firms (like General Electric) also own the media who anoint the "leading" candidates. The Post is kept afloat with wall-to-wall Lockheed Martin and Northrop Grumman ads.

If they can't have another Republican, they'll settle for Hillary. She'll manage and divert the anti-war tide until it subsides...until the American people are in the mood for another adventure.

Posted by: Bud0 | October 7, 2007 10:00 PM

Two people posting here state to have been present when Mrs. Clinton and Mr. Rolph had their "Harsh Back-and-Forth."

Would seem to support the article as it reads.

(Now some Fun)

What if Mr. Rolph was a plant? Only one placed by the Clinton camp rather than what we are to believe?


(End of Fun)

At the time I began typing this post not one person took note of the two posters stating they were present in Iowa...

...doesn't anyone want to acknowledge the potential Mrs. Clinton dropped the opportunity to show a little diplomacy of her own?

Her character may be showing.

Posted by: dphflipper2 | October 7, 2007 9:56 PM

there is a consistent effort to paint Hillary with the same brush as bush...

and link bushes actions to her...

the same way they did the 9/11, IRAQ, WTC, terrorists

soundbite thing...

by saying things that are not true, while talking to, or about Hillary they try and make the link...


this is the newest form of

"Clinton did it too."

shine some light on it....


athoyle wrote:
I certainly hope we can do without another Clinton, frankly I have had enough of Bushes and Clintons, there are several qualified people to choose from in either party. Personally I think Hillary is as morally bankrupt as George.


just say what the trick is, soundbite linking...

....explain it, don't agree with it, or even engage in their twisting...identify it for what it is...

beat them to death with it....



Posted by: afraidofme | October 7, 2007 9:55 PM

hello sheeple,


what does it mean?????

a draft.

what does that mean????

George W. Bush and bushCO und CRONYs get to keep IRAQ up and running, 'cause at that point it doesn't matter...

listen AMERICA, the drug money alone coming out of AFGHANISTAN is worth it to bushCO and CRONYs...

$BILLIONS$ of dollars....

he and theDICK want IRAN, to keep IRAQ supplied with troops....if IRAQ folds, bushCO and CRONYs loose $BILLIONS$

AMERICAN saves $BILLIONS$ but you won't hear that from his lying shiftyness....

ZIONISTAS write all the paper to obscure the underlying cause(s) for IRAQ...

all having to do with MONEY in bushCO and CRONY profits....

that $12 BILLION IN CASH THAT WENT MISSING in IRAQ, after Paul Bremer had it flown in, all 362 TONS of $100 bills..... do you think the IRAQIs got all of it....

heh heh he....h?


Posted by: afraidofme | October 7, 2007 9:50 PM

Everyone ought to take a week off work go to Iowa and get behind any candidate but Hillary- if she's stopped in Iowa she can be stopped elsewhere. Hopefully she'll meltdown in the face of a loss, make the equivalent of a "Dean Scream," and trail off into our national unconscious.

Posted by: kolp999 | October 7, 2007 9:42 PM

let's be frank here...

sh*t is sh*t....

it doesn't matter what party anyone belongs to, anyone trying to sell you that perspective is interested in keeping the electorate dumbed down...

that being said, the current crop of Republicans are not AMERICANs...

using hate as a family value, they sold out and sold that too the blue collar manufacturing/trade...


and delivered them....NOTHING, not a fricking thing...

all manufacturing jobs got outsourced, UNION jobs got replaced with TEMP workers...

factories closed, people lost jobs by the 10's of THOUSANDS WEEKLY...entire towns without jobs...

and CONGRESS voted to change bankruptcy laws so that someone declaring bankruptcy couldn't be excused from that debt if it wasn't there fault....

previously, it was an automatic given, if someone got caught in a bind because of things out of their control....a debt was forgiven...almost automatically...

bushCO and CRONYs and COMPLICIT CONGRESS...passed laws to protect the corporate interests while ignoring the constituency...

the same thing happened with BIG PHARMA, bushCO and CRONYs and complicit CONGRESS, passed laws against shopping online for MEDS....seniors suffered.....then immediately after that....

bushCO and CRONYs whacked $30/month out of medicare meds payments to seniors to help fund the OCCUPATION OF IRAQ...

the republicans stand for one thing, selfinterest, greed, corporatocracy vs. the people....and DEEP STUPIDITY...

.plain and simple.

Posted by: afraidofme | October 7, 2007 9:38 PM

I would be curious to see a side-by-side comparison between the Iran resolution of last week with the 1998 Iraq resolution.

Posted by: wiley | October 7, 2007 9:38 PM

Let's examine this character....

Lioness1 impugned :

....Wake up, everyone. That is what the Clintons want you to think - that it is all a partisan battle - that any criticism of them MUST be part of a vast right wing conspiracy....

ARE YOU AFRAID OF ME? or just not very learned? RESPONDS:

hey fruit cake, how are you???

so you have never heard of the PNAC Letter to Clinton, or noticed that they people who have been advising/leading the whitehouse.... AEI are among the writhers of PNAC

part of a ZIONISTA team, that is writing to the paper to cover bushCO and CRONYs trail????

what are the five reasons we are in IRAQ/AFGHANISTAN????

what is the importance of the NCLB Act and the draft????

how does IRAN CONTRA have any relevance right now????

how long have Donald Rumsfeld and theDick Cheney been working together???

how long has the BUSH FAMILY been involved with the CIA???

don't know the answer???

then you can't possibly know who is the best person to lead the United States out of our current situation....because you don't know jack.

or you're trying to say, don't pay attention to the truth....

trying to herd the sheeple....

.wanna dance?..


Posted by: afraidofme | October 7, 2007 9:36 PM

I know Sen. Clinton is right on Iran. The only avenue available to the west is a sincere diplomatic discussion with the Iranian clergy. I am sure just as Chamberlain was sure we will have peace in our time.

Posted by: vanorea | October 7, 2007 9:35 PM

Doesn't she realize that people are concerned that Bush & Co. are just looking for a pretext to attack Iran? We are in a big mess already and Bush responded to the 2006 elections with a "surge." Who would put it past him to make it worse by attacking Iran?

Posted by: Malia2 | October 7, 2007 9:25 PM

Interestingly, Bush does not need a Senate Resolution to proceed as he wishes. It seems that should be the point for Mrs. Clinton. Regardless of the 'wording' of the resolution surely she should know by now not to TRUST anything this President does. I think that was at the heart of Mr. Rolph's inquiry.l

I'm stunned to see front page story today in the Times and WP that Hillary is now leading in the Iowa Polls after polling 399 PEOPLE! You've got to be kidding. How can a poll of so few be worthy of front page coverage?

Posted by: ljines1 | October 7, 2007 9:01 PM

Ok here is what HillBilly (Hills 'Cleavage' Clinton and Hubby Billy) will do should they return to office:

* raise taxes
* amnesty for all illegal aliens paid for by American taxpayers
* universal health care paid for by American taxpayers
* mortgage bailout for subprime lendees paid for by the American taxpayer
* open borders - the US becomes a Third World nation by 2050.
* far left-wing justices
* put the US under the jurisdiction of the International Criminal Court

Disclaimer: I am the original washpost but the suits at Wash Post changed my moniker to washpost3 as punishment for not being a liberal.

Posted by: washpost3 | October 7, 2007 8:46 PM

To follow Hillary's answer and even the train of thought of the person asking the question requires a willing suspension of logic.
Being a Democrat is akin to being a window licker.

Posted by: effoff1 | October 7, 2007 8:32 PM

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 reparte 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. I'm using snelson 648's computer to post this, but I'm jra1100 and I approve this message.

Posted by: snelson648 | October 7, 2007 8:31 PM

I think Hillary can already taste the Power that comes with the presidency.

Because let's be honest. She is not running to "help" the American people, she's running to obtain Power.

There is not a single candidate on either side that actually wants to cede power back to the PEOPLE. They all think they know what's best to us, and don't trust us, the American people.

Posted by: ExGiulianiGuy | October 7, 2007 8:28 PM

Ron Paul is the only anti-war candidate that is backed up by his voting record, policy and sound arguments. Even Obama is pro intervention.

Posted by: evans_simon | October 7, 2007 8:10 PM

thanks, prithimp.
I think the previous criticisms of the WAPO by other commenters remains apt--more light less heat.
as to her stance....I agree with your assessment that Congress should not be giving Bush verbage he can use to support the bellicose instincts of Cheney and his backers.
What we need is more response from Congress that is in line with American public frustration with an endless occupation that passees the bill on to our children and grandchildren.

Posted by: Pmwarren | October 7, 2007 7:56 PM

The text of the ammendment is available ..S.Amdt 3017 to H.R.1585
It was as Hilary says a watered down version of the original ammendment.However
in essence accepts that Iran is interfering in Iran and is a hostile power.
2.designates the Iranian Revolutionary gaurds as a terrorist organisation
3.supports the prudent and calibrated use of all instruments of United States national power in Iraq, including diplomatic, economic, intelligence, and military instruments with respect to the Government of the Islamic Republic of Iran and its proxies

It was passed 76-22 with 2 not voting.
Biden and Dodd voted against it.
Hilary Clinton voted for it. I disagree (bush seems capable of using almost anything to justify war)but at least she took a stand
Obama though declined to vote and thus take a stand one ay or the other.
Obama spoke out against the war but was not a senator when the resolution was passed in the senate and was therefore not tested on his commitment. After joining the senate he voted time and again to continue funding in effect supporting the war.
When given an opportunity to vote on the Iran resolution he actually declined to commit! Of course then he can now say that he never supported war against Iran. Obama needs to walk his talk of his no war rhetoric .
He also said that if he had actionable intelligence about Osama and General Musharaff did not act he would unilaterally send troops into Pakistan in effect endorsing the Bush doctrine of pre emptive war In fact that's exactly how we got into Iraq! Obama is simply a better salesman and seems to be succeeding in convincing people that he stands for change.
It is time to start putting Obamas antiwar credentials and his rhetoric of change under a micro scope .Does anybody know of any sustained efforts to stop the war after his now famous speech in the time before he entered the senate . Would really appreciate any real information

Posted by: prithimp | October 7, 2007 7:49 PM

I'm a Democrat who's ashamed of this blatant concubine. Slander and ridicule are now called "robust diplomacy?" Well, madame, if all the meat was taken out of the original bill, why did you bother to vote for it? Why didn't you shoot it down and start over? Or were you just trying to placate your trigger-happy neighbors, Kyl and Lieberman? Either way, the madame is a "pro". And this DOES NOT depend on what the definition of IS is.

Posted by: LucyLou1 | October 7, 2007 7:45 PM

while you are moderating this and making sure no one goes WILD; can you provide at least a link to your story or the NYTimes coverage of this resolution????
how about the resolution itself????
Or is this blog just one way street to seduce readers and not actual improve your product--which is providing light and not just more heat?

Posted by: Pmwarren | October 7, 2007 7:38 PM

The sad fact is the Democrats just don't have a good field this cycle. All the leading candidates have some connection to Washington - all are or were Senators. In 2008 people will want change and history demonstrates that when people want change they vote for candidates like Jimmy Carter, Ronald Reagan, Bill Clinton, and George W. Bush. None of those people served a day in the Senate, but were elected President. Unfortunately, the Republicans have three serious candidates who have not served in Washington either and if they campaign smartly in the national election people will see them as agents of change. The other sad fact is that we are continually mislead with these national polls that news outlets like the Washington Post conduct. The media should conduct a state by state poll and then allocate electoral college votes to each candidate. I tell you Senator Clinton cannot win a single Southern or Rocky Mountain State and will lose the national election for the Democrats. Polls based on a state by state basis rather than national are more likely to show this.

Posted by: VApolitics | October 7, 2007 7:36 PM

Mrs. Clinton is a grave disappointment. I do not look forward to her presidency, should she be successful. The best source of information on this dangerous move to make the revolutionary guard a "terrorist" organization is here:

Pepe Escobar says, "It's all about regime change in Iran"

Posted by: dianarelke | October 7, 2007 7:21 PM

Senator Clinton can deny and interpret the amendment she voted for all she wants, but the facts stand on their own. The amendment allows the president to designate the Iranian Revolutionary Guard as "terrorists". As Senator Webb explained, the designation is a back door to allow the administration to start a war with Iran because the U.S. Congress has given the president the ok to be at war with any terrorist organization. Clinton is a war hawk.

Posted by: prabhata_dhyan | October 7, 2007 7:19 PM

Unfortunately, as usual, the choice is between a bad and a worse: people, even collectively, have no control over the candidates who are primarily financed by the banks, real estate concerns and multi-national corporations, not to mention AIPAC. The Republican bosses begin a war and the Democratic warlords justify the continuation of the war. None of them have the desire to end the war in Iraq. They both promote wars, because they both benefit from it without loosing a limb.

Posted by: KlosRtoGod | October 7, 2007 7:05 PM

The perfect diametric matchup would be Hillary Clinton vs. Ron Paul. The Republican peace and freedom candidate versus the Democratic supporter of military aggression and restrictions on rights.

Posted by: ronpaul2008com | October 7, 2007 7:05 PM

Clinton = Bush jr - Cheney + advisors just as diabolical as Rove. She and her crowd must be stopped, either by Edwards, Obama or the least repugnent republican (Guiliani).

Posted by: kolp999 | October 7, 2007 7:03 PM

20+ Years of Bush / Clinton is enough for me... It's time to move on.

I get sick of HRC and her supporters.

And this comes from a lifelong democrat.

If you can swift boat both John Kerry, and John McCain (two men with the medal of honor), what do yout think the GOP will do to (B)illary with all the baggage that they carry...

The GOP does not play fair, they hit below the belt, and take no prisoners.

I will vote for a democratic congress and republican president if HRC is forced on me in the general elections.

Hillary stands NO chance in the south, even amongst democrats. I know this b/c I travel in the southern states frequently.

Her whole war hawk facade is garbage.

Between her husband's wandering pecker, and the dolt known as Bush I blame the two of them for the deaths of 3000 US citizens during the 911 attacks. Bill as well as Bush had their chances to deal with Osama. They both failed...

Two questions:

(1) If Hillary was such the strong leader why is she not front and center leading the Congress to deal with the man that killed 3000 citizens in her state, by burning them with jet fuel, and then having their bodies crushed by the falling debris of two 110 story buildings live on national television?

What kind of "leader" would let those people die in vain? She voted to send troops into Iraq, knowing that her husband failed to deal with the man that killed the people in the very state she represents. That my friends is disgusting. Osama is not in Iraq in case you did not know this.

(2) If she was such a strong "leader" why would she not divorce Bill when he was making a fool out of her, and fellow democrats, when he was dating the chunky chick? Not some Hollywood celeb, like JFK, but the lowly overweight intern.

If she was so strong, why would she stick around and take that abuse? So she could ride his coat tails in the future maybe? If she cannot defend herself from her husband's abuse & lies, and she will not be the leading voice in seeking justice for the 3000 that were brutally murdered in her own state, how can anyone label her a leader.

Leaders lead by example, not rhetoric...

Her Iran vote shows she is not a leader but a follower. She knows she made a mistake, another mistake I might add, which is why she then hastily co-sponsored Senator Webb's bill afterwards to save face.

And you call this leadership, please get a clue.

Hillary has sold out the 3000 dead in her own state, and sits ideally by while 3000+ more soldiers have been killed fighting a war in the wrong country.

If she can sell all of these people out, what makes you think that she will not sell you out either...?

She will sell you out faster than you can say Lincoln bedroom...

Posted by: UrbanEndeavors | October 7, 2007 6:59 PM

I think what scares me the most is that exchanges like this are news becasue they are the exception. People have become so used to the spoon-fed Q & Q sessions that we call Debates in this country that anything else seems note-worthy.

Even the candidates can't seem to believe there can be any real dialogue. Did it ever occur to Sen. Clinton that she has heard that question 4 times because her country is tired of being misled and we have started to pay a little bit of attention to things as important as whether or not we go to war?

Posted by: speedymarie | October 7, 2007 6:59 PM

Speaking of selling The White House as alleged by the first commentator, did Bill and Hillary sell the items they ripped off from The White House or are they at his Presidential Library, Harlem HQ, Chappaqua digs or elsewhere? Ms. Cinton is a power-mad phony. Why the Republicans haven't put up a decent candidate beats me.

Posted by: filoporquequilo | October 7, 2007 6:56 PM

Hilary may have voted for a watered-down version of the Resolution but that does not make it right. You would think that she would have learned her lesson voting for resolutions and such that give war-crazed Bush even the smallest justification for more war, more killing, more destruction, more draining of the Treasury. This is NOT the way to resolve our problems with Iran, and in my opinion, this was a sop for Clinton to appease the Israeli Lobby and to not appear "weak" during her presidential run. It was pure politics and nothing else. Disgusting.

Posted by: jl726 | October 7, 2007 6:47 PM

Clinton deserves points for voting on a politically difficult resolution that Obama skipped.

Posted by: effoff1 | October 7, 2007 6:47 PM

Being intelligent and hardworking while an advantage over some is simply not enough!
Sen.Clinton has thus far been unable to keep her husband in order much less Iraq, Iran or Afghanistan and we're already living with the results of the insurance catastrophe in part initiated by her alleged experience and one of the strong points of her husband's early campaign. In this instance Sen. Clinton sharpened her claws on Mr. Rolph and it was completely inappropriate. Such a lack of diplomacy, if the reporting is correct, is not what we need in the nation's highest office. Are we seriously considering the Clinton duo for another four years? We may as well elect the Sopranos - at least there was the potential of therapy. Enough is enough.

Posted by: Malwolf | October 7, 2007 6:44 PM

"Did it urge diplomacy exclusively without a force option"


No, it was grounded in reality.

Posted by: effoff1 | October 7, 2007 6:41 PM


It was my interpretation that one "moronic ideologue" is bad enough without getting a second in a row; not that what we have is good, and this would be worse, but we'd be going from bad to more bad.

I suppose it's too much to ask for that, before I die, I have a decent, honest person attempt to lead my and your country. Right now it just feels like I'm choosing between enemies, regardless of party line. How depressing.

Posted by: Dmortkowitz | October 7, 2007 6:38 PM

"PMwarren," asks a question of the Post, which I think deserves an answer. Forget the he said, she said crap. Was Mr. Rolph correct or was Ms. Clinton correct?

If Clinton had let this guy run roughshod over her, the media would have said she is not capable of being a commander in chief. On the other hand, she comes across as overly defensive. It seems lose, lose for Clinton. Does that mean lose-lose for the country? I'm not big on conspiracy stuff, but does anyone else fell this guy seems like a plant designed to shake things up? Not a big supporter of Hillary, but this feel's like a set-up.

Posted by: dspippin | October 7, 2007 6:35 PM

I agree with damsignups. In this particular instance, Senator Clinton's explanation was consistent with my understanding of the original amendment and the final one she voted for. I also understand her mood and appreciate her explanation. However, I still remember her saying back in January (February?) that the U.S. should be ready to do whatever it takes to prevent Iran from gaining nuclear capablity, and would not take nukes off the table.

Posted by: lessye | October 7, 2007 6:34 PM

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.

Posted by: snelson648 | October 7, 2007 6:29 PM

This is how the MSM slime machine, Russert, Balz, Broder, CeCe, Matthews, Drudge, all of Fox, etc. first went after Howard Dean when they decided he needed to be eliminated. They blew up a story about a single questioner in Iowa and blew it up to be the main campaign narrative for a week. When that didn't work they made a huge recurring story of the non-story scream. Good luck, Balz. I take it this is your opening shot.

Posted by: JimSheridan | October 7, 2007 6:25 PM

I know it's popular for everyone to think Iran is a threat but I don't see it. The "evidence" I've so far is minimal at best. It's a shame that the same people who say they fell for the "lies" of the Bush admin are falling for it again. After Bush starts a war with Iran based on her support of using the terrorism label is she going to use the same "I was mislead" excuse again?

Posted by: damnsignups | October 7, 2007 6:19 PM

Why is this a story? But let's all watch this guy, with his talking points, being asked to be a guest on Chris Matthews' Hillary-hating show in 3-2-1....

Posted by: bill7000 | October 7, 2007 5:58 PM


You are kidding, right?

We now have a moronic ideologue as commander-in-chief.

I look forward to having an intelligent, experienced, hard-working statesperson such as Senator Clinton as my leader.

Posted by: m_nunziante | October 7, 2007 5:53 PM

Clinton questioned about Iran in New Hapton

Posted by: david-goodner | October 7, 2007 5:53 PM

Excellent criticism, pmwarren. This is exactly the kind of useless, superficial political coverage that disservices the voters. I couldn't care less whether the questioner--who probably did get the question verbatim from MoveOn or some other liberal source--got his feelings hurt. That is wholly irrelevant to my vote. Relevant is the accuracy of Clinton's explanation of her vote. But this reporter preferred to focused almost exclusively on the theatrics instead of the substance.

Of course, I wouldn't trust the Wash Post anyhow, given its editorial board's obsessive support of warmongering.

Posted by: uh_huhh | October 7, 2007 5:51 PM

Given Mrs. Clinton's historical past, would you really want this creature as commander-in-chief of the deadliest arsenal in recent memory? When will you ever learn?

Posted by: thunderstone.hank | October 7, 2007 5:49 PM

There are many plants out there looking to hook Mz. Clinton or any other purported neo-commie liberal socialist baby killer. Mz. Clinton was right to question Rolph's efficacy. This is the reason I am beginning to like Mz. Clinton even more. She can and will bite back.

Besides she not only backed down, but apologized and gave a reasonable explanation for her attitude toward the question. Too bad Rolph can't seem to comprehend that the so called modest hazing he received seemed somehow measured and warranted in light of some of the low brow Rovian tactics we have all witnessed from the right to date. At least she doesn't screen her questions and her audiences prior to a Q and A like Mr. Bush does.

Posted by: myeyes | October 7, 2007 5:48 PM

I don't understand the antipathy towards Senator Clinton. She is said to be "polarizing", presumably because she espouses views that are anathema to some (read Right Wing) even as she is accused of saying anything so long as it gets her elected. The two seem mutually exclusive.

As far as her suposed "arrogance" in this situation, she was responding to a question which she had been asked three times, in three different locales. I have argued with some conservatives and they seem to be repeating certain talking points by rote, often reciting arguments verbatim.

I guess you meant HUBRIS. Neocons aren't so good with English as Bush has demonstrated time and again. If you want to live in this country, learn the language!

Posted by: m_nunziante | October 7, 2007 5:47 PM

Earlier today, I sent an e-mail to the Clinton headquarters, saying in effect that I have been, up until now, staunchly in the Clinton camp, but that this vote, along with her not giving straight answers to most of the questions being posed to her on issues over that last month or so, has me reconsidering where my vote will go.
This article, showing her arrogant, condescending attitude toward Mr. Rolph just may be the proverbial straw that broke the camel's back as far as I'm concerned.
I think it's time to start taking a closer look at Mr. Obama and Mr. Edwards.

Posted by: phineoust | October 7, 2007 5:20 PM

This is another example of Hillary Clinton's disturbing arrogance. Throughout her years in the White House, she showed the same rude tendency toward anyone who dared question her or her husband's policy. Do we really want someone with such a fatal hubrice in the White House? Any opposition to her will always be chalked up to "that right-wing conspiracy."

Posted by: saturniidae | October 7, 2007 5:17 PM

what did the Senate resolution on Wednesday say. Can someone who is a reporter for the POST do his or her job and let us know whether Clinton's response is factual or whether the questioner distorted the resolution.
Did the resolution do any of the following:
authorize force against Iran or elements of the Iran military,
Was it another blank check Bush can use to attack Iran or elements of Iran
Did it urge diplomacy exclusively without a force option.

Posted by: Pmwarren | October 7, 2007 5:09 PM

No, matter your political party affiliation, and setting aside your thoughts on issues. We all need to remember what it is to be an American Citizen. We need to make sure our elected representatives obey their Oath of Office and keep their Oath of Allegiance.

See Know whom you are voting for.

Posted by: DrColes | October 7, 2007 5:05 PM

Hillary will do anything or say anything, even sell her soul the white house and even the United States of America to get elected. Maybe one day soon Americans will stop being sheep and learn not to trust people like her. She cares nothing about anyone and only worships money.

Posted by: budswisr | October 7, 2007 4:59 PM

The comments to this entry are closed.


© 2009 The Washington Post Company