A story broke yesterday that revealed a little insight into the questionable tactics being used by the Clinton campaign. 19-year-old Grinnell College student Muriel Gallo-Chasanoff claimed she had been planted at a question and answer session held by the democratic front-runner. Gallo-Chasanoff also claimed she wasn’t the only one.On November 6, Clinton gave a speech on energy in Newton, Iowa, which Gallo-Chasanoff attended. While waiting for the speech to start, the college sophomore was approached by a Clinton staffer and asked if she would like to ask the senator a question. Gallo-Chasanoff had a question in mind, concerning how Clinton’s energy plans compare to the other candidates’, but the staffer didn’t think an impromptu question was a good idea. He then showed Gallo-Chasanoff a piece of paper with 8 questions on it. The first said “college student” next to it. This was the question Gallo-Chasanoff asked: “As a young person, I’m worried about the long-term effects of global warming. How does your plan combat climate change?”
Gallo-Chasanoff said that after the event she overheard another questioner talking about the question he was assigned. Since the revelation a third individual, Geoffrey Mitchell, has come forward and claimed that at a previous event the Clinton campaign planted him with a question about the Iraq War, but that he didn’t feel comfortable asking it.
Clinton campaign spokesman Mo Elleithee issued this response: "This is not acceptable campaign process moving forward. We've taken steps to ensure that it never happens again."
Are accusations of planting questions monumental? No. I’m sure it’s happened before and will happen again. It’s very possible (and likely) that other candidates in this race are doing the same thing.
But the fact that Clinton got caught will reaffirm voter perception that she’s slimy. She already faces the same problem that Bill had to overcome: people don’t trust the Clintons. They’re too slick, too polished, too mischievous (though seem to be terrible at covering their tracks). Every dishonest act that Hillary gets caught up in will further embed this idea in the voters’ minds.Most politicians are liars that let the public believe they are genuine, honest people. They give us warm fuzzies as we watch them hold babies in campaign ads and promise to restore the American Dream. Hillary Clinton is a liar that is either too prolific a liar or too bad a liar to let us believe that she’s not a liar. And I heard a rumor that she eats babies.
Mr. A, you raised an interesting question in yesterday’s comments section: What are we so afraid of?
Is it that Hillary’s a woman? A Clinton? A liberal (heaven forbid)? Speaking for the Zot, I don’t fear Hillary Clinton. I just don’t like her. As a voter, that’s my prerogative.
Thanks for reading.
Bonus Question of the Day: Why SHOULD we be afraid of the possibility of a President Hillary Clinton? (I’m sure there are a number of possible answers, but I’m looking for one in particular.)
12 comments:
I agree that having Hillary be President wouldn’t be the end of the world. My feelings are similar to yours, in that she is a “cold, calculating bitch,” and that “her disingenuousness goes above and beyond the call of duty.”
Does this mean I think she is incapable of being a good President? No. I just don’t want her to be. I don’t want to watch her address the nation because I will never get a warm fuzzy feeling when listening to her.
If I had to come up with reasons why we should be afraid of Hillary as President, at the top of the list would be that she doesn’t seem to have any real opinions on issues, and is too influenced by Washington’s feelings. She seems to be a flip-flopper with no new ideas. She votes for the war on Iraq, then criticizes Bush for it years later. She says we need to pull troops out of Iraq, but provides no timeframe for doing so. She belittles Obama’s maturity and understanding of politics after stating that he would meet with hostile nations w/o preconditions, then later says she would do it herself if the situation warrants it. The list goes on.
I think she is getting by, and leading the Democratic race because people are uninformed, and are influenced when she says “everyone is out to get me, because they know I’m the best candidate.” She hasn’t said anything for herself, she just dodges questions and acts like she doesn’t need to justify herself – because she’s a Clinton and has been in politics for a long time.
Another issue I have with her is that she seems afraid to compare her policies to those of her opponents. A perfect example is the energy speech in Newton. She is arrogant and believes herself to be better than the rest, but she has proved nothing to me…other that she has been around for awhile longer than Obama.
Wait, she has proved that she is secretive, unpersonal, an all her opinions are influenced by the “important” people around her. She hasn’t an ounce of charisma, and I don’t want to see her all over the news for the next 4 years.
She reminds me of that sleezy old lady type who wants to be close to you in a perverted way. And she trys to use humor to get close to you. Eeu.
She might as well call her campaign the "skirting the issue, then changing the subject and ripping on a republican."
When I was in SLC, a professor of mine had works with Hilary when he worked for CNBC. He said she is really very nice and delightful, but for some reason what we see in the public is something much different. SO is her true self coming out in public or when you arre face to face away from the cameras.
She is merely a puppet for whatever the far left is feeling. The far left ends up getting the most media coverage. And the far left refuses to hear out the whole story, they jump on one aspect of an issue, make movies and commercials and get tons of PR time for it. But they don't really set out to make the case for truth, just make the case for thier case.
That last picture in today's blog entry is enough to be afraid of her.
You want to see some good hillary pictures, check this out...
http://www.kqrs.com/goout.asp?u=http://zombietime.com/really_truly_hillary_gallery/
I mean, it seems the age of handsome middle aged white men might be over, but at least could we get an attractive woman as the first top woman candidate? I mean I would vote on looks with this crop of hopefuls.
I am in agreement with much of what has been said. Also I think the clinton/bush era should be over and we need some new blood. Senator Craig anyone... maybe jessica alba???
The damnedest thing of it is I feel like Bill's a respectable looking, charming guy. What could he have been thinking?
Any more guesses about why President Hillary is a scary thing?
Wow. This blog has really turned into a machine of Anti-Hillary propaganda! I usually try to play devils advocate for the sake of conversation. So let me give it a try...Um, ahh, err, well.........Nope, can't do it. I got nothing good...
But I do think Bill is a good guy! He does quite a bit of social action, working with George H.W. in non-partisan issues to bring about change in our country. I think that may be the test of a good politician. Are they willing to work with the other side? Or will they be too busy bashing them to do anything productive.
Hill seems to be more of a party-basher these days-wanting to win-rather than societies servant. If she gets the nomination I think this could be more gruesome than the last election. I do believe and predict that if Obama wins the nomination the party bashing will subside enormously. I guess I just have to wait and see if I have misconceived Obama's ways. I am hopeful, yet suspicious.
Well I got to say I am with you guys, I have had the same feelings since I knew her as the first lady during the Clinton years. I am sure Mr. A will have a rebuttle for this issue.
Like Kev had said, that last picture is enough to turn me off towards her. And you wonder why Bill chose her? Beats me. But I remember a time several years ago when he had enough of the Hill, so he found some young broad to help him get over all of his troubles. In the long run it didn't help him. He got caught and the worst of it, (in his mind) Hillary took him back and is still with him.
Some of the things I see on T.V. and the way she laughs whenever someone is debating with her, it drives me nuts. She starts every response with some silly laugh that tries to make it look like the other person hasn't a clue of what they are talking about. It doesn't work. It just makes me turn the channel to find someone worth looking at.
My number one reason I am afraid of Hillary is the fact that PC brought up. The Bush and Clinton family have been in control for just about our entire lifetime. We don't even know what it would be like to have some elses blood thrown in the mix. I am excited for a change and someone brand new. The things she says and the way she carries her self is very unsettling. I just have a strange feeling in my gut when I think about her being President, I don't want that. I like to have good feelings in my tummy. P Corcs, I will vote for you.
Well, you all knew this was coming.
I suppose I quite literally asked for all this.
This probably doesn't need to be said at this point, but (while I am a democrat) I am not a Hillary supporter. Pure and simple, a vote for Hillary is a vote for the continuation of divisive politics.
That being said, here's my defense for Hillary.
First off, she's placed at a much higher standard than anyone else in the field. NO, not because she's a woman, but because she's Hillary Clinton. If she's trying to be personable, people say she's pandering, if she's tries to be "all buisness", she's called an ice queen.
Yes, this happens with other canidates, but to the same degree? No way. The republican party has put serious effort turning her into a liberal cartoon character. Sometimes she's a communist, sometimes she's a flip flopping shill for the middle. It's similar to how the democrats try to paint Bush as being stupid. It's true to a certain extent, but overall Bush is not stupid. The myth goes far beyond the reality.
It seems like conservatives look at Clinton the way a lion looks at a pack of gazelles. They wait for her to screw up, they wait to pounce. Is it any wonder that she's calculating and hesitant? There's no question that the republican party has a hit squad. Karl Rove and his Swift Boat minions are example enough. One unfortunate soundbite, one speech where she minces her position on Iran, that's all it takes. Intent and context is a bygone political dream.
I'm going to go ahead and say it...as much as I don't like to point fingers...the right wing isn't entirely responsible for the current state of negative and misleading politics, but they are responsible for a huge chuck of it.
My point is that you guys can't have it both ways. You can't say she's a loony left wing socialist and then complain that she's a cold, calculating, politician's politician.
With regards to her party bashing, I think that's better defined as Bush bashing. I don't know where you guys stand on the Bush presidency. I consider myself to be a left leaning centrist, but I still could write pages upon pages outlining my outrage towards him and his inner circle. If a canidate wasn't making bold statements against Bush, I couldn't support him or her.
This is really more of a side note, but I would ask that you guys stay away from making jokes about her "hotness", calling her a bitch, ect. I know you're just joking, but even the appearence of reducing her to a "mere woman" is below us. Yes, there is a double standard. If you want to talk about that, I'd be more than willing.
Clinton is not my canidate. I strongly oppose her. However, she's not evil and she's more well intentioned than people give her credit for. In the general election, if she's on the ticket, she'll get my vote. She's better than the canidates on the other side who spend their time debating who can shove their foot up a terrorist's ass the furthest (my favorite line) and mock anyone who desires a plan for universal healthcare.
Reading over the posts today, I think we all could use some facts. I understand the Hillary disapproval, but there are a lack of facts in our dissaproving. Voting based on personality should be the last regard. Voting on the issues and who you think will get the job done best is more fruitful.
Some thought based on Mr. A's comments:
As much as I believe that the issues and the ability is what should be voted on, for me, gender and race would have an underlying appeal to my vote. If there were two candidates who had the same stances on the issues, and were of equal ability, yet one was a white male and the other was female or a minority race, I would vote for the woman or the minority.
Why? Because racism and sexism is still present in our society. I believe that a reverse racism is somewhat healthy. Think of all the issues a (most likely wealthy) white male simply cannot empathize with. Now, I do not mean to say that a white male cannot sympathize with feminism, or minority racism, but they simply have not been part of the oppressed class. To be clear, white males can sympathize (feel for) and work out of their sympathies, but, they cannot empathize (enter in). THey've never been there. A leader from an oppressed class has some esoteric knowledge and understanding that someone from the non-oppressed class does not have.
Moreover, could you imagine being a young black teenager in America who dreams of attaining the presidency? They have to think, "Realistically, how could I possibly be the first black president when there never has been one previously?"
Then, the historic mark of an African-American president comes to frution. That black youth probably sees the possiblities opening up. This would consequently give hope to the historically oppressed. What a motivation to those who are in oppressive situations to not give up. To struggle through their situations. It would make for a hopeful light at the end of the tunnel we call "life".
Who's with me?
Disclaimer: I am not suggesting we should vote on the basis of race or gender. I am merely suggesting that when the ability of two or three candidates is paralleled, a greater good would come in choosing the minority candidate.
I strongly disagree. I think voting based on personality and Character should be a huge part of our vote. This is the person that the rest of the world is going to see representing our nation. The stereotypes that the outside world is going to place on every single person in this country is going to be somewhat based off of how the president behaves, regardless of if it is there personal life (past, present, or future) or there business life. Also, policy is great and everything, but how many politicians stick to there campaigne claims (I mean actually pull through with all there promises)? The president of the US is the highest power in the world. There character and moral fiber is going to be tested over and over in big decisions, but also (and probably more often) in minor decisions that the public never sees or knows about. I want a president with integrity, which I define as what you do when nobody is looking, this is one of the major platforms I will be voting on.
As far as her being held to a higher standard... she should be. She is the supposed front runner by a 20 point margin last I checked. She should be under intense scrutiny to test her character. It isn't going to go away if she becomes president, in fact it will get worse as we have seen with Bush and every other president (it wouldn't be fair to us as a people if we were soft). That is just the way it is, the front runner is always the main target. If Barrack was 20 points ahead of Hillary I am confident you would see reversal of roles. The main Hillary supporters and the Barrack bashers would be trying to test him, make him slip in a way that destroys his chances (Mr. Dean anyone?).
If my link to the Hillary pictures was taken as bad taste I apologize. I wasn't in anyway attacking her as a woman. I think everyone in this group of guys is beyond sexism (at least I hope).
I don't disagree that she should be held to a higher standard, but I'm using that fact to help explain, in part, why she sometimes sounds like a robot. If she gave them an inch, they'd take a yard.
Obviously, personal character comes into play when choosing a representative, but I would warn against that being your main concern. Isn't that how we ended up with Bush? Didn't a certain percentage vote for him because they saw him as a guy they'd like to have a beer with?
I mean, look at the French. They elected Sarkozy, who is damn near open about the fact that he has a mistress, yet some say he's the most effective French president in the modern age. Kennedy spearheaded the civil rights movement and saved us from nuclear meltdown. Do I care that he fooled around on the side? I'm not saying that it doesn't come into play, because it does...but these factors should not determine who runs the country.
Hillary is scary because she knows there are x percent of people in the country who are ill prepared to make a logical decision/vote, and she does what is appropriate to secure those votes. Enough of those votes can get her elected, along with the votes of ther people that desire for Hillary to be elected for their own selfish reasons. Even my dog shows great sadness when he hears her name.
Post a Comment