The Offended

Sentient beings have been subjected during the past few days to the latest calumny against Hillary.

The current attacks alleged that Hillary Clinton was ‘rude’ during a town hall meeting in Iowa while answering questions from the citizens of Iowa. The attacks further allege that Hillary was evasive and rude when asked a question about her recent vote on a non-binding resolution designating the Iranian Revolutionary Guards as a terrorist organization (the Kyl-Lieberman non-binding resolution).

Hillary Clinton, the attacks alleged, did not want to answer questions about her policy nor her votes regarding Iran. Hillary Clinton, the attacks alleged, had a meltdown and attacked a questioner. Hillary Clinton, the attacks alleged, thought she was a ‘queen’ and was upset with questions from revolting peasants. Hillary Clinton, the attacks alleged, cannot handle ‘insightful’ questions. Hillary Clinton, the attacks alleged, was ‘patronizing’ and ‘disrespectful‘. Hillary Clinton, the attacks alleged, is too unstable to be trusted with diplomacy. Hillary Clinton, the attacks alleged, showed her true colors because she was exhausted. Hillary Clinton, the attacks alleged, called a tough and honest questioner a ‘plant’ from an opposition campaign. Hillary Clinton, the attacks alleged, was rude, imperious, thin-skinned, nasty. Hillary Clinton, the attacks alleged, had just issued a ‘Dean Scream’, and doomed her campaign. Hillary Clinton, the attacks alleged, had ‘lost touch’ with ‘real’ people.

Full out, undiluted outrage was the order of the day on the Big Blogs after the initial Big Media news reports arrived from Iowa. Instead of fighting the fake Big Media narratives of Hillary as ‘strident’ and ‘shrill’ and ‘calculating’ and ‘cackling’ – Big Blogs, contrary to their alleged principles, typically joined in the attack.

Big Media and Big Blogs just loved the crazed snippy woman narrative. The Head Kook himself pecked an anti-Hillary diatribe on his Chevron-paid-for-keyboard. Many Kookettes joined in the anti-Hillary clamor.

Here is the videotape (thanks to Big Pink commentor Kostner) of what actually happened in Iowa:

Hillary in the video is not ‘strident’ or ‘shrill’ or unpopular with Iowa voters, as the Big Blog and Big Media frenzy led many to believe. If anything, Hillary answered the question on Iran with grace and facts.

As to the substance of the question on Iran, Hillary explained she spoke out against an Iran attack in February of this year. Hillary further explained that there were earlier versions of the non-binding resolution on Iran that she would not have voted for and that the earlier version of the non-binding resolution was probably what the questioner objected to.

This is not the first time Hillary has answered questions about her non-binding Iran vote:

“I voted for this resolution in order to apply greater diplomatic pressure on Iran. This resolution in no way authorizes or sanctions military action against Iran and instead seeks to end the Bush Administration’s diplomatic inaction in the region.

“Iran has gained expanded influence in Iraq and the region as a result of the Bush Administration’s polices which have also rejected diplomacy as a tool for addressing Iranian ambitions. While the United States has spurned talks, Iran has enhanced its nuclear enrichment capabilities, armed Iraqi Shiite militias, funneled arms to Hezbollah and subsidized Hamas, even as the government continues to damage its own citizens by mismanaging the economy and increasing political and social repression.

“I continue to support and advocate for a policy of entering into talks with Iran, because robust diplomacy is a prerequisite to achieving our aims.

A few weeks ago, Jim Webb, the respected Senator from Virginia was the enemy on Big Blogs. Jim Webb, had used his best judgement and, among other votes, voted opposite Hillary on legislation regarding the FISA courts. On the non-binding Iran resolution Webb and Hillary again were on opposite sides. Now Jim Webb was the hero and Webb’s vote and judgment (previously scorned) were waved lagainst Hillary.

A formerly admired hero suffered a Webb-like reversal of fortune – for daring to support Hillary. General Wesley Clark, who runs a website called, wrote a defense of Hillary’s vote:

Fortunately, Hillary Clinton has been on the front lines in opposing any effort by the Bush administration to sidestep the Congress. Eight months ago, she took to the Senate floor to warn the President that he could not attack Iran without specific congressional authorization. She said then, long before other members of Congress stood up, “If the administration believes that any, any use of force against Iran is necessary the President must come to Congress to seek that authority.”

Last week, Hillary voted for a non-binding resolution that designates the odious Iranian Revolutionary Guard as a terrorist organization in order to strengthen our diplomatic hand. On Monday, she joined Senator Jim Webb in co-sponsoring a bill that would prohibit the use of funds for military action in Iran without specific authorization by Congress.

I support Hillary in both these votes. She is committed to ending the unilateralism of the Bush-Cheney administration. She is a strong supporter of direct nuclear talks with Iran, because she believes that direct dialogue with our adversaries is a sign of strength and confidence, and a prerequisite to achieving America’s goals and objectives.

Joseph Wilson, like Wes Clark a strong foe of an attack on Iran, also also suffered a Webb-like reversal of fortune for daring to support Hillary. Wilson wrote in defense of Hillary’s Iran vote on the non-binding resolution:

I was pleased to see that last Monday Hillary joined Senator Jim Webb in co-sponsoring a bill that would prohibit the use of funds for military action in Iran without specific authorization from Congress. Last week, Hillary voted to support a non-binding resolution that designates the Iranian Revolutionary Guard as a terrorist organization. As a former diplomat, I have had considerable experience in the use of such resolutions to bring pressure – diplomatic pressure – to bear on a regime to rein in rogue elements. And make no mistake about it, the Guards are not only in operational control of Iran’s policy toward Iraq and Afghanistan, where Iranian supplied munitions are costing American lives; they are agents of reaction and repression inside Iran. While it is a fact that the Bush administration’s duplicity should give all Americans pause, we cannot afford to lose sight of the fact that we have real enemies in the world, and that we must be prepared to exercise the appropriate levers of power in support of our interests. [snip]

In February, at the first sign that the Bush-Cheney White House was laying the groundwork for an unauthorized war against Tehran, Hillary drew a bright red line in a speech on the Senate floor when she warned the President that he lacked the authority to take the nation to war against Iran.

Hillary has been right in her strong criticism of the Bush administration’s refusal to talk directly to Iran about its nuclear program. She has deplored the refusal of the President to heed the counsel of senior statesmen like Jim Baker and Lee Hamilton to pursue diplomatic solutions. As President she will end the “shoot first, ask questions later” approach of this administration, aggressively support bilateral diplomacy and rebuild our alliances. I am confident that she will restore presidential leadership to the conduct of American foreign policy and exercise prudent statesmanship rather than instigate reckless wars.

It did not take long for Barack Obama (D-Rezko) fresh from his latest hypocrisy to join in the attack on Hillary – with a fresh new arugula garnished hypocrisy:

In an interview with ABC News’ Sunlen Miller today, Sen. Barack Obama, D-Illinois, criticized Sen. Hillary Clinton, D-NY, for voting for an amendment offered by Sen. Joe Lieberman, I-Conn., that states that Iran is causing a problem in Iraq and would designate the Iranian Revolutionary Guards as a Foreign Terrorist Organization.

Obama said he “oppose(s) that amendment because I think it potentially provides a slippery slope in how the president can use that language to engage in additional authority to engage in the war in Iran. And I think we should have learned our lesson in 2002. You can’t give this president a blank check and then act surprised when he cashes it.”

Obama, of course, did not even bother to vote on the non-binding resolution. Obama, typically, was AWOL on the vote that he now criticizes. A greater Obama hypocrisy however is that Obama co-sponsored a BINDING bill that (surprise!):

Some political observers pointed out that Obama in April of this year cosponsored a bill that would have designated the Iranian Revolutionary Guards as a Foreign Terrorist Organization.

The “Iran Counter-Proliferation Act of 2007,” which Obama cosponsored on April 24, 2007, states clearly that:

“The Secretary of State should designate the Iranian Revolutionary Guards as a Foreign Terrorist Organization under section 219 of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1189) and the Secretary of the Treasury should place the Iranian Revolutionary Guards on the list of Specially Designated Global Terrorists under Executive Order 13224 (66 Fed. Reg. 186; relating to blocking property and prohibiting transactions with persons who commit, threaten to commit, or support terrorism).”

Obama now says his objection to the Non-Binding resolution is due to another section of an amendment in the bill. But, as we have asked before about Waldo Obama – Where were you Senator Barack Obama? Why didn’t you stand up in the Senate and state your objections there and engage in debate in the Senate and VOTE?

Why did Senator Obama co-sponsor an actual bill (not a non-binding resolution) designating Iran’s Revolutionary Guard as a “terrorist organization” (the ” “Iran Counter-Proliferation Act of 2007” if he did not think that the Revolutionary Guard were engaged in “terrorist” activity; and further, where were the Revolutionary Guards engaging in the “terrorist” activity Obama wished to stop? 

Wouldn’t Obama’s binding bill give Bush a greater rationalization to attack Iran as Obama claims the non-binding resolution provides?

Is that why Obama was AWOL? Because he did not want to vote against a resolution whose main provision he has previously co-sponsored?

When it came time to vote in the Senate – when it came time to either VOTE or fundraise – where was Obama’s judgment?


81 thoughts on “The Offended

  1. Wow, talk about much ado about nothing. Hillary is answering the question just fine in this video. There is no snippiness, no attitute, she doesn’t even seem angry–a little exasperated perhaps. I would describe the questioner as obviously hostile and pushy. The MSM is something else. Some hack writes an article describing this exchange as “heated” and they just go wild from there. Charged words start appearing in every article on every website and everyone’s imagination fills in the blanks. Just yesterday MSNBC had a couple talking heads discussing how this event might affect her down the road. So much for fair and balanced journalism. DId they even watch the video before reporting it as news?

    Thanks to the internet these things can be proven false. Kudos to this site for being alert to all this misrepresentation. We are really going to need to be on our toes over the next few months (and beyond).

  2. This should be the Headline for the Day:

    “When it came time to vote in the Senate – when it came time to either VOTE or fundraise – where was Obama’s Concern for the Iran Vote?

    Especially, when he sponsored a similar binding Resolution in April 07′?


  3. admin,

    The MSM hacks are now trying the new line to attack Clinton. They claim Hillary did not do any field question in Iowa, did not hold news conference to satisfy their egos. This is completely B.S. NYT just comes up with another B.S. article, citing complaint from an OBAMA & KUCINICH supporter. What a bunch of losers. When Obama/Edwards clown can’t dent Hillary’s armor, the MSM is jumping in. Patrick Healy is a complete idiot an shrill.

    AMES, Iowa – As Hillary Rodham Clinton delivered her stump speech at a rally here on Monday night, Luke Gran stood among the throngs with his hand thrust in the air, eager for Mrs. Clinton to call on him to ask a question.
    Mrs. Clinton never did. Nor did she take any questions from average voters at her four other events Monday. Nor has she, with a few exceptions, since Labor Day.
    A review of Mrs. Clinton’s daily campaign schedules during the last five weeks says a great deal about her candidacy right now: She has mostly delivered speeches, attended candidate debates, forums, and fund-raisers, and headlined rallies. As Adam Nagourney points out in a story in The Times today, she is running a classic front-runner campaign, holding fewer unpredictable events where voters can lob bombshells at her – even though such events that were once a staple of her schedule, and are still common for rivals like Barack Obama and John Edwards.

    During Labor Day week, according to her schedules, she held rallies with her husband, Bill Clinton, in Iowa and New Hampshire; gave two speeches about senior citizen issues; spoke at the New Jersey Democratic convention; attended a rally on ground zero issues; and went to fund-raisers. Through the rest of September and early October, she attended debates and forums on Hispanic, African-American, and other issues; delivered a speech to the NAACP; unveiled policy on health care, science, urban issues, and the economy; headlined a series of fund-raisers, and held more rallies and functions.
    Mrs. Clinton, of course, does face questions and scrutiny at the debates, and she does grant interviews with individual reporters – appearing on the five morning talk shows one Sunday in September, for instance, and speaking to The New York Times (among others) about her plans for health insurance and scientific research.
    There have been a few question-and-answer sessions with voters, but hardly as many as she once held or as many as her Democratic and Republican rivals still hold. On Sunday, without much notice to the media, her “Organizing for Change” events in Iowa were turned into Q&As, raising questions among reporters about whether recent scrutiny of her front-runner strategy had led her to interact more directly with voters.
    These free-wheeling town hall meetings or press conferences – where curve balls can be common, and mistakes more often can be made – now seem like a rarity as the Clinton campaign savors and protects her lead in national opinion polls. She will take questions here and there that reporters toss her, but she has not held a full-blown news conference since January.
    While many voters who attend Clinton rallies appear fond of her and hardly seem ready to pounce, some voters – and supporters of her rivals – will probably turn more aggressive as the nomination fight intensifies, raising the likelihood that Mrs. Clinton could face hostile challenges from an audience member.
    The lack of dialogue is distressing to voters like Mr. Gran, a senior at Iowa State University, and his friend and classmate Adam Faircloth, who came to the Ames rally here together.
    “I could’ve just watched her speech on YouTube – what’s the point of coming to Iowa and giving the same speech over and over without taking questions from real people?” Mr. Gran said.
    “I believe in a public conversation where politicians actually engage with the public,” he continued, bringing to memory Mrs. Clinton’s promise, earlier in the campaign, to have “a conversation” with Americans about the future of the country. (At that same, she tweaked President Bush by saying that conversation had become “a little one-sided.”)
    For the record, Mr. Gran said he was an undecided voter who was drawn most to Dennis Kucinich and Barack Obama, as well as Republican candidate Ron Paul.
    While Mr. Gran said he wanted to offer a perfectly straightforward question about the environment, Mrs. Clinton did face the perils of unpredictable questioning on Sunday.
    At one of her events, she got into a sparring match with an Iowa man in the audience over Iran, and at one point accused him of being a plant for a rival campaign, according to videotape of the encounter. To some ears she sounded a little too hot, like someone who sees antagonists a bit too easily. When the man took offense and said he was not a plant – indeed, he had attended an Obama rally on Friday and spoke of Iowa as a “reality check” in the presidential process – Mrs. Clinton apologized to him.
    It brought to mind her edgy encounter in Las Vegas in August when an audience member (and, it turned out later, conservative Clinton critic) accused her of trying to foist socialized medicine on America. Under the gun, Mrs. Clinton was pointed and quick in defending herself – though she was also rather curt. At one point she said that if the questioner was “interested in being educated instead of being rhetorical,” she could put him in touch with her staff.
    It should be noted that Mrs. Clinton at least engaged the Vegas critic and the Iowan on Sunday, unlike some candidates who just cut off hostile questions altogether. I saw John McCain at an immigration event in New York City last year where he responded to a tendentious question from the audience by saying, “No – next question.”
    But, as Mr. Nagourney concluded in his piece today, her front-runner strategy will increasingly be put to the test – as will the patience of Iowa and New Hampshire voters who still want candidates to answer their questions.

  4. Boston Globe has an article ‘Many warming unexpectedly to Clinton’ describing Hillary’s increasing support in NH>

    A big name in NH democratic circle may endorse Clinton soon. NH is getting firmer and firmer…

    It looks like Kathy Sullivan is going to endorse Hillary Clinton pretty soon . That will be huge in New hampshire Hillary has basically locked up New Hampshire in terms of local endorsements and organizations.

    ” — Kathy Sullivan is a big fish who swims in a small but very important pond, and she is ready to be landed.

    The former head of the New Hampshire Democratic Party is a “prize political catch” well known for her grassroots approach to campaigning and willingness to get her hands dirty. Up until now, no presidential candidate has been able to win her backing. That is about to change.

    Sullivan told me she is getting ready to get back in the game and is committed to helping her candidate win the Democratic presidential nomination.

    “I am thinking, because we are getting into October, the election is three months away,” she said last week during a meeting at her law office. “So, if I want to have any fun in terms of getting involved in the campaign, I better hurry up.”

    The timeframe? “Probably the next couple of weeks,” she said.

    Sullivan said she is “leaning” towards one candidate, but is guarding that name until she is ready to publicly announce it. If you listen closely to Sullivan discuss what she is looking for in a candidate, it sounds as if the person she is “leaning” towards is Sen. Hillary Clinton, D-New York.

    “A lot of people talk about change. This is the change election,” she said. “What I am more concerned about isn’t change. My concern is more fixing and cleaning up. That we have had enough in Washington, and we have got to clean up a mess.”

    ….Sullivan was able to keep the candidates from calling her for most of the summer by telling everyone she was working to try and convince former Gov. Jeanne Shaheen to seek a rematch against Sen. John Sununu for his seat. Last month, Shaheen jumped into the race.

  5. When I follow that link, I don’t find Obama among the 325(!) co-sponsors listed. What am I missing? If I use this info to defend Hillary, I don’t want to be in error about my facts.

  6. Realist…The link showing is to the House Vote..

    I just posted the Senate the admin…wait a few and it will be put up shortly..

    Mrs. S.

  7. I was growing weary of all the vicious attacks against Hillary, distortions of her record, and blatant lies by her opponents and their supporters.

    I’m feeling better already this morning after reading :

    1) this great article in defense of Hillary by admin,
    2) a great diary posted by alegre at myDD, and
    3) a great front page diary by georgep

    I’m very much encouraged to continue the good fight. If any of you feel burnt-out, take a break, read these great diaries and you’ll get your courage back just as I do. 🙂

    I really love Alegre’s diary at myDD. She writes so very well, hitting the point home so very clearly. If you have time, please go over there and recommend her diary. Thanks so much.

    It takes a while to get URL posted here. I’ll post the link to Alegre’s diary in the next post.

  8. Dick Durbin, Obama’s friend, senior senator from Illinios, and obama endorser VOTED YES for the Kyl/lieberman amendment….

  9. 1) First, the big blogs, mostly old fashioned thinking men (no matter their age), want to portray Hillary with the “B” word. Of course, a guy saying the same thing is ‘tough’ ‘principled’, etc. (BTW, when will men get it, that for every woman who was/is ‘liberated’, a man was/is also.)

    2) Second, Hillary is the clear front runner and absolutely the most qualified (of either party), so the attacks are entirely predictable and expected.

    Third, Hillary and her staff have long dealt with 1 and 2, and are very ready to defend with intelligence, grace, and candor her principled and thoughtful views and opinions.

    Like Russert found out, don’t mess with nor underestimate Hillary!

  10. Check out this post from Josh Marshall on He’s favored Obama over Hillary, so these sentiments are pretty revealing.

    For months I’ve been quietly hoping that Barack Obama would at least make a race of it with Hillary Clinton. So I was more than a little disappointed when all the metrics of conventional wisdom (in the wise and foolish senses) started showing Hillary leaving Obama in the dust and becoming the dominant frontrunner and presumptive nominee.

    Folks who’ve been watching all this closer than I have, like Matt Yglesias, say part of the issue is that Obama just won’t come out and say what his campaign is about. Says Matt, “Watching the primary campaign, it keeps seeming to me as if Barack Obama is making arguments that, while fairly clear to me, must go over the heads of at least half of political junkies, to say nothing of normal people going about their lives.”

    But the whole thing kind of crystallized for me this weekend when I was reading Maureen Dowd’s review of Arthur Schlesinger’s diaries in the Times. And, yes, it makes me wonder about myself too that I’m picking up political insights from Maureen Dowd. But here goes. It’s her riff on Schlesinger’s pained (or perhaps self-indulgent reflection) on his defection from Adlai Stevenson to Jack Kennedy …

    Kennedy has not been “consecrated by inner conviction,” he writes, adding, “I also believe him to be a devious, and if necessary, ruthless man.” But he suspects that his friend Lauren Bacall is right that Stevenson has “a political death wish.”

    “The thought of power induces in Stevenson doubt, reluctance, even guilt,” he says. The diaries from the ’50s are an inadvertently hilarious record of the prissy Stevenson’s coy tango with his party. The year after Adlai loses to Ike, he has dinner with Truman, who urges him to take hold of the party. Adlai disingenuously demurs about a lack of qualifications. “Well, if a knucklehead like me can be a successful president,” Truman replies briskly, “I guess you can do it all right.”

    But Stevenson is stuck on the same mental pedestal that Barack Obama is on — “split between his desire to win and his desire to live up to the noble image of himself.”

    John Kennedy, by contrast, “takes power in his stride,” showing with the choice of Lyndon Johnson — unpalatable to Schlesinger and Bobby Kennedy — that he is “grasping the nettle.”

    I don’t know if she ‘gets’ Obama. But I think she’s on to some of what’s got his campaign stuck in second gear. And I think it’s what Matt’s talking about too. Obama isn’t so much running for the nomination in the sense of reaching out and taking it. He’s trying to show us how marvelous he is (and this isn’t snark, he’s really pretty marvelous) so that Democratic voters will recognize it and give him the nomination.

    But that’s not how it works in this country. I don’t know if it really works otherwise anywhere else. But you have to really want it, come out and say it, take it. I thought about qualities that describe what is at issue. ‘Toughness’ seems to bound up in meta-national security mumbojumbo. ‘Ruthlessness’ sounds too, well, ruthless. You have to want it enough that you reach out and take it. Which isn’t always pretty and admirable. But that’s what it takes.

    –Josh Marshall

  11. Josh Marshall is just another elite liberal, he has no clue. ‘Marvelous’? Those knee-jerk far leftists always like to fall into this trap. I can assure you Obama will be decimated in general election. Crazy ‘marvelous’.

  12. Josh Marshall maybe a bit of an elitist but he’s very middle of the road. No one would call him a knee jerk leftist.

  13. Y’all, Hillary did just fine in that exchange, of course. It’s part sexism and a lot just plain ole blowin’ stuff out of proportion to try and make up a story about what happened. I appreciate hearing part of Hillary’s response, though, because there’s absolutely nothing inappropriate that she did. She was explaining her vote and not being patronizing and attempting to defuse a hostile questioner. Traditionally, women in our culture are just suppose to “take” this sort of interrogation from men. And she has to stand up to accurately portray her point of view. If she was deferential people could rightly ask, if she can’t stand up to Mr. X how is she going to stand up to various world leaders? I doubt if her blood pressure was even raised by this exchange. She was not snippy or any of the other descriptors attached to this exchange. She was just making sure that the accurate account of her vote was presented for all to hear. mollyj

  14. Stupid DC elitists.

    On Sunday, Hillary Clinton took questions from an Iowa audience and got into a spat with a would-be supporter over her vote to declare Iran’s army a supporter of terrorism. The audience member compared the vote to her vote to authorize the use of force in Iraq and asked why she hadn’t “learned from your past mistakes.” Clinton then accused the man of being a plant, saying of the question, “somebody obviously sent it to you.” On Monday, Hillary took no questions at any of her four major events scattered throughout the state.

    This morning, her spokesman, Jay Carson, responded to speculation that the Iran exchange had caused the campaign to clamp down on audience interaction. The events yesterday “were rallies,” he explained, saying that “at some events we take questions, at some we don’t,” and that some situations are appropriate for questions, others aren’t. (The difference between a “rally” and an event where questions are “appropriate” maybe tone, but not content: The senator gave essentially the same speech Sunday as she did Monday.) Asked if the senator would take questions today — she is unveiling a proposal for a “universal 401K” — Carson said she would take question at the two events following her policy speech, but not this morning. (Mocking what he characterized as the press’ new-found concern over the issue, a staffer later joked that Adam Nagourney must be the “most powerful man in journalism.”)

    UPDATE: Hillary JUST announced that she would, after her speech, be “throwing it open to the audience” after all. Adam Nagourney is, indeed, the most powerful man in journalism.

  15. This whole video thing just goes to show that the MSM desperately is looking for something to, at least, slow her down. As there is no real issue, it is rather apparent they are grasping for straws.
    This video should be everywhere to punch back at the MSM.

    This whole story isn’t really bothering me, except the article where they wrote she acted ‘Snippy’ !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Excuse me?!!!!!
    Well, if anyone ever wondered if there really was a need for a woman President, just take a look at that headline!! YES, a woman needs to show every boy, man, husband and father that a WOMAN can indeed do the hardest/toughest job in the world, and do it as good as, if not better then the men so far has.
    Just change your perception, and tone of how you perceive a woman and consciously, OR unconsciously address a woman compared to how you address a man. And heaven knows many women needs to stand up for themselves more than they do. Many women also tend to think men are tougher and can be better at ‘running a business’ ‘running a country’ ‘being tough on terrorism’etc…

    But the problem really shows itself when you don’t even recognize it for what it was, a sexist headline! I hope the writer of the article got enough feedback to take needed notice. It is far to easy to let those things slip by when your too used to it to notice.

  16. admin,

    Congratulations!! The video is now on TaylorMarsh’s frontpage. She mentioned it’s from Hillaryis44!!!!


  17. kostner, mj is right about Josh Marshall. BTW, I like the comparison, indirect though it is, of Obama to Adlai Stevenson and Hillary to JFK. I knew from the beginning of this primary that no one would outwork Hillary. Obama is the choice of intellectual types who make up only a sliver of the Dem electorate.

  18. Hello everybody,

    Please go to TaylorMarsh and shower her with some love. She is speaking out foricifully for Hillary.

    I just left a message on her website!! She mentioned Hillaryis44!!

  19. With the blogs and media going after Hillary with her interaction with this fella, how about POUNDING Mitt Romney for his horrendous encounter with a man who has muscular dystrophy who asked Mitt if he would as President arrest him if he smoked marijuana.

    Imagine if it had been Hillary brushing off this man in this fashion! It would have ENDED her campaign!!!!
    Goes to show how uncaring men can be and get away with it by just having a ‘slick’ smile on his face. He truly does disgust me!

    Here is the link to the article and video:

  20. Obama, Edwards and Richardson are withdrawing from MI primary. What a bunch of cowards. Do they actually have balls??

  21. All:

    Matt Rolph, who it was speculated might be related to Randall Rolph, has written a comment here:

    Matt is not related to Randall Rolph.

    Matt sounds like a great guy and does not approve of Randall Rolph’s tactics. Matt supports Obama which is fine by us. We applaud his involvement and the involvement of other fine Obama supporters. Matt also recognizes we are all in this together and that eventually we will all unite to fight the RIPupblicans and rescue the nation.

  22. Gorto, we saw the CNN package yesterday on the guy asking the question on medical marijuana. Romney just kept moving along. You are right, if Hillary had done that….

  23. Romney looks like he has absolutely no compassion. Or maybe I didn’t see enough of the clip. mollyj

  24. Nope, you got it right on the first attempt molly, he has no compassion!
    But I guess I shouldn’t be surprised, as this is the same man who strapped his dog on top of his car!! jeezus!

  25. Sen. Hillary Clinton’s name is staying on the Michigan Democratic primary ballot.

    A campaign aide said this afternoon that Clinton will not follow four of her rivals by dropping out of the Michigan contest.

    “We will honor the pledge and not campaign or spend money in any state that is not in compliance with the DNC calendar, but it is not necessary to take the steps necessary to remove Senator Clinton’s name from the ballot,” said Howard Wolfson, Clinton’s communications director

  26. Mrs. Smith, The Realist: we updated the link on the Iran bill Obama co-sponsored. Thanks for the better, Senate related link.

  27. Good for Hillary on the Michigan situation. Stay on the ballot.

    It looks like Michigan will be Dennis Kuchinich’s big chance.

  28. My Matt Rolph, “speculation”, was due to mistaking Nashua Ia. with the OTHER Nashua. Glad to hear that Matt’s a good guy and NOT related.:)

  29. Ugh! Obama and Edwards are so f*****g stupid!!!!!!!!!!! They are going to lose us Michigan in the General Election! Sickening. That is 17 Electoral votes! Did they in Florida? No. What is the damn difference?

  30. celiff,

    I’m sure they’ll drop out of FL. They are just a bunch of male whimps. They can’t beat Hillary there so they dodge to try to buy some time.

    I’m just disgusted by these male whimps.

  31. Yup. I am so happy for Hillary in this though. She wins Michigan in the primaries, and keeps Michigan in our slot. But, they are just so stupid. We all know that though (:

  32. prominent DNC member from Michigan, Debbie Dingell, called the candidates’ decision “a coordinated effort in the last minutes available to pressure other candidates to take names off the ballot.”

    “This election is not for president of Iowa , it is president of these United States,” she said. “There will be a primary election in Michigan on January 15th, there will not be a caucus. Those candidates who do not even want Michigan voters to consider them have sent their message to Michigan about how they feel about Michiganders,” she said.

  33. Talking Points Memo is disgusting again. The headline over Hillary’s picture on the front page is “Clinton Defies DNC, Stays on Michigan Ballot”.

    TPM is misinforming its readers. Hillary is not “Defying” the DNC. She is playing by the rules. Josh Marshall needs to get his act together and stop these sub rosa attacks on Hillary.

  34. Oh, btw, good post by alegre on mydd. Those left wing hillary haters are the reasons dems lose elections.

  35. I really hope Hillary sticks to her guns here. Iowan’s like to be appreciated but this one reeks of opportunism and pandering. These guys definately made a calculation and knew they couldn’t beat her. I suspect Iowans will figure that one out.

  36. We will. Iowans won’t be stupified into these rediculous attacks. I can’t wait to ask the Edwards and Obama reps on the UDEMS exec. board what the hell is goin on? (:

  37. admin, The post on isn’t bad at all, and the headline when you click on the story is “Hillary and Dodd stay on Michigan ballot,” which isn’t nearly ad inflammatory as the one on the front. Here’s the post:

    While several of the Democratic candidates are pulling their names off the Michigan primary ballot due to the state’s rogue primary, it turns out that Hillary Clinton and Chris Dodd are staying in.

    “We will honor the pledge and not campaign or spend money in any state that is not in compliance with the DNC calendar,” said Hillary communications director Howard Wolfson, “but it is not necessary to take the steps necessary to remove Senator Clinton’s name from the ballot.”

    Dodd communications director Hari Sevugan has also explained their reasoning. “We are committed to the importance of the Iowa and New Hampshire going first, and we signed the four-state pledge to hopefully prevail upon the DNC and the state parties to add clarity to that situation,” he said. “However, it does not benefit any of us if we are the nominee to pull our name of the ballot and slight Michigan voters.”

    With Hillary Clinton as potentially the only top-three name on the ballot, she’s practically guaranteed to win the Michigan primary — with Dodd perhaps competing for second place with Dennis Kucinich, if he’s unable to catch on nationally between between now and then.

    However, the DNC will not be awarding any actual delegates to the primary, so it won’t help Clinton directly — but it could still help her indirectly to have a news headline saying she won the Michigan primary by a mile.

  38. Paula,

    when we write about Big Media and Big Blog narratives this TPM example is precisely what we oppose. An anti-Hillary narrative is that she thinks she is “entitled” to the nomination, that she is imperious, that she thinks she is a “queen”. The word “defies” tied to the picture of Hillary with her hand up, ties to the “queen” narrative.

    You are right the story linked to is not offensive, but that is because the facts are not offensive. The DNC, and Hillary is in full compliance, has asked candidates not to campaign in states that moved their primaries earlier than the DNC wanted.

    Most people will see the Hillary picture on the front page and what they will see is “imperial” Hillary again doing what she pleases and changing the rules to her benefit. The headline on TPM misinforms its readers. Hillary is not in defiance.

    If the headline on TPM was “Hillary Doesn’t Stab Michigan Democrats In the Back” that would be spin in a pro-Hillary direction. A variation of the jump page headline “Hillary and Dodd Stay on Michigan Ballot” would have been fine. How about “Hillary On Michigan Ballot”?

    TPM went with the “defy” headline because it feeds into their narrative. (Notice, no “Dodd defies DNC” or “Obama wimps out in Iowa fearful of defeat” – both would show a bias, just as the Hillary “defys” headline shows bias). TPM is misinforming its readers when it writes headlines like the one currently on their front page.

    Josh Marshall is not dumb and whoever wrote that front page headline knew what they were doing.

  39. One more bite on the Big Media narrative.

    Politico just posted the video of Hillary in Iowa which was posted yesterday in the comments and today in the front page.

    Politco uses this sentence as their caption “Here’s the video of Hillary getting testy with that Iran questioner in Iowa.”


    Only women and imperious women get “testy” and they also “cackle”.

    One gets “testy” with clumsy servants – that’s the Big Media narrative.


    We’re going to have to start posting all these guys’ email addresses as a matter of habit. Promise, will start doing that.

  40. I thought I had seen it all. From cleavage, to calculating, to snippy, and EVERY OTHER gender stereotype imaginable, not to mention people who are considered SERIOUS POLITICAL PUNDITS comparing HIllary Clinton’s laugh to the “Wizard of OZ” witch (Glen Beck)……But now the HATERS have hit a new low.

    The DRUDGE REPORT has a photo of HILLARY front and center, from years ago, Dressed up in a Halloween costume, as (you guessed it)….a witch! The headline? TRICK OR TREAT?

    I would like to THANK these SEXIST FOOLS for actually energizing me, and most likely many other supporters as well, in our support of HILLARY. The sexist diatribe, imo, invalidates the seriousness of any of their CASES against her.

  41. And, Sandy1938, the Hillary Witch picture captioned “trick or treat” is linked to a very positive story in the Boston Globe headlined “Many warming unexpectedly to Clinton.”

    The Big Media, Big Blog narrative marches on and we need to get out our counter-narrative.

  42. AND….

    What is up with Obama and Edwards unnecessarily taking their names off the MICHIGAN BALLOT? Since keeping one’s name on the ballot does not defy DNC rules, I have to wonder what on earth are they thinking?

    Thanks for handing MICHIGAN to Hillary. We appreciate it!!!!! LOL

  43. Sandy you make a good point, what these people achieve by their hateful attacks is nothing less than invigorating Hillary supporters to caucus and support more loudly for her then they already did!!

    They are most certainly not fooling anyone to cross the line over to supporting someone else.

    And admin that article over on politico with the headline ‘testy’, it just have the similar effect!! I just don’t get it tho….why they do it.
    Are they not aware of the sexism they flaunt?! *shakes head*

  44. sandy,

    It’s a strategy based on weakness and fear. The reason they have to pull out is to diminish any impact of a Hillary win there. When Hillary wins, they would claim it’s useless since their name is not on the ballot.

    At this rate, the entire Obama/Edwards campaigns have been reduced to Iowa. I’m even more convinced Hillary will have a decent win in Iowa.

  45. you know y’all, all this sexist stuff makes me think back in history to pivotal moments in this country. I am thinkin’ about all the hoopla before the King-Riggs match in the early seventies. If you don’t know what I am talkin’ about you missed one of the defining moments in women’s rights in this country. Before the match people were sayin’ the meanist stupidest things about Billie Jean King…and yes, sexist too. Hearin’ about the drudge report reminded me exactly of that sort of stuff that went on back then right before Billie Jean trounced the hell out of Bobbie Riggs. I remember it well; it was 1973. The stuff with Hillary is sexist, intimidation tactics. It comes up whenever a woman in this country is about to lead big change. If anybody still things Hillary isn’t the “change” candidate they need to pay close attention –mollyj

  46. Obama, Edwards and the rest should follow the principle they have now established and take their names off the ballot in Florida and every state that is not in compliance with the DNC schedule.

    We cannot possibly imagine that these gentlemen pulled out of Michigan for anything other than the highest of motives. We are sure that this was not done with the intent of fooling Hillary into getting out of Michigan as well. 🙂

    These brilliant gentlemen should now continue with the logic of their total abandonment of the voters in Michigan and remove their names from all the states the DNC is angry with. If these brilliant gentlemen really mean what they say they will abandon Florida voters forthwith.

  47. We will still need as much help as we can get here in Iowa with driving people to the caucuses. We will need help with that. Obama will bring in people from Illinois. We must win, and win big. And I know we can.

  48. Can someone explain this retirement plan to me? It seems as though a married couple who never has kids and makes 60k or less a year will get up to 1k in matching funds dollar for dollar of savings, however a single mom would never be eligible? I can’t for the life of me understand this.

  49. WASHINGTON – Two weeks after endorsing New York Sen. Hillary Clinton’s presidential campaign, Indiana Sen. Evan Bayh is heading to Iowa to help her out.

    Bayh is scheduled to travel to four Iowa communities Wednesday, talking up Clinton to Democratic activists.
    “We’re thrilled to have him coming out here,” said Mark Daley, a spokesman for Clinton in Iowa. “He’s spent a significant amount of time out here last year. He made some great friends and we hope that he can connect with them and share his personal connections with Sen. Clinton and why he believes she’s the candidate of strength and experience to create the change we need in America.”

    Other Democratic candidates are looking to Iowa, the first-caucus state, as the place to knock down Clinton’s front-runner image.

    Before deciding not to make his own presidential bid, Bayh traveled to Iowa more than 10 times. His political action committee also trained and paid for some campaign workers to help Iowa Democrats in last year’s elections.

    Bayh’s schedule Wednesday includes meetings with Democrats in Oskaloosa, Pella and Indianaola and a party at the Johnston home of Clinton supporters.

    The Senate is in recess this week.

    When Bayh endorsed Clinton last month, he said she has a “unique set of attributes to lead this country in a very challenging time.”

  50. From politico:

    Hillary is taking names in Iowa

    AMES, Iowa — To most people, it looks like just a rally.

    Several times a day, in rural outposts across Iowa, a local notable warms up the audience with a story, maybe the one about Bill’s marriage proposal to Hillary. The senator bounds onto the stage, pitches her candidacy and concludes by working the rope line until the crowd of several hundred thins out to a few dozen.

    Presidential Campaigning 101, right?

    Look a little closer.

    In what Clinton’s campaign believes will be the key to breaking out of a three-way race with John Edwards and Barack Obama, the primary focus at 10 stops this week in Iowa was not on stagecraft or even the very famous candidate on stage. It was to get commitments from potential caucus-goers — or at the very least the names, cell phone numbers and interest level of every man, woman and (voting-age) child who came to listen but will now likely be contacted repeatedly through January.

    Clinton may be ahead nationally, but in Iowa, she remains far from sealing the deal. And here that means the unglamorous political grunt work Iowans have always expected.

    “We know we have a lot of work to do,” said Teresa Vilmain, a longtime Iowa political operative who is Clinton’s state director.

    Iowa is about organization, locking in supporters in 1,784 precincts who will literally stand up for Clinton in a roomful of their neighbors on caucus night and try to persuade others to join them.

    This is all very new for Clinton. Her husband bypassed Iowa in the 1992 presidential campaign — favorite son Sen. Tom Harkin (D-Iowa) was in the race — leaving her to build a political network from scratch.

    By comparison, she got a late start. Edwards never left the state after his second-place finish in 2004, and Obama, who lives next door in Illinois, has already surpassed her in field offices. Clinton began organizing in the spring.

    The way up, as her campaign sees it, is through mobilization and what her aides call “Aha!” moments — the realization from voters after meeting her that her edges aren’t so sharp after all.

    At every stop, she tries for both.

    Clinton arrives at least 15 minutes before she’s scheduled to speak and withdraws to a private room, where Iowans identified as key community organizers wait to hear why they should go with her. She repeats the drill afterward with a different group.

    Her volunteers and staff surround the crowds like sentries, handing out and collecting pledge cards. The campaign doesn’t release its rate of return, but Vilmain said that at a town square rally in Marshalltown, 300 cards were collected.

    “Whenever 300 people in one hour sign up, that is success,” Vilmain said.

    Between visits, Clinton’s staff goes down its checklist. By the end of the summer, Vilmain said, they signed county coordinators, held 99 county organizing meetings, called thousands of homes and recruited “Hill-Leaders,” who pledge to bring in 10 more people to caucus for Clinton.

  51. I just want you to know, I’ve been reading your website for several weeks and look forward to your posts each evening.

  52. mj,

    we are still digesting the full proposal. The most extensive information we have found thus far is below. Regarding your specific question the sentence which appears relevant is “This matching tax credit will be available to ALL Americans in existing 401(k) type accounts as well as the new American Retirement Accounts.” :

    the first paragraph in the Key Components section is here:

    “Matching Tax Cuts to Help Middle Class and Working Families Save: This new proposal will provide a matching refundable tax credit—dollar-for-dollar—for the first $1,000 of savings done by every married couple making up to $60,000. The plan will provide a 50% match on the first $1000 of savings for every couple making between $60,000 and $100,000, which will be phased out after that. This matching tax credit will be available to all Americans in existing 401(k) type accounts as well as the new American Retirement Accounts. That means tens of millions of middle-class families will get matching tax cuts of up to $500 and $1000 to help them build a nest egg for retirement.”

  53. Watch the local TV coverage of Clinton’s Iowa bus tour.

    Wow. 1,500 showed up at a rally. This is pretty big in Iowa for any presidential candidate at this stage. I believe Team Clinton has done a great job in organizing and following up with those folks.

    It appears Hillary’s Iowa tour is extremely successful. I hope her team will arrange more in the upcoming weeks.

  54. Wow! You mean the media doesn’t say the whole story!?!?
    Good Lord, I wish reporters would remember the most important
    thing in journalism…….get the FACTS!
    Yes, I saw a portion of that libelous dirt at the end of a San Francisco Chronicle article on Hillary taking a solid lead in Iowa.
    Amazing, I think the whole way it was written was to lead the reader to that point and go “Gee, she wasn’t very nice…”
    So much for San Francisco journalism being “open” or “enlightened”.
    I wonder if ANY of these people can figure out (the ones who are democrats or progressive) that they are actually helping the Bush-Limbaugh-Savage-Rove crowd with these untruths.
    I think we should step up some rapid truth-responses when these come up.

    Cheers, Ken
    Teacher for Hillary, CA.

  55. TeacherforHillary,

    Welcome. I suggest you join mydd and dailykos to join our fight there to defend Hillary and get her message out!

    We’re getting stronger and stronger.

  56. I got a big kick out of the gentleman who wanted the world to know that his misunderstanding of the Iran legislation Hillary signed was based on “his own research”, rather than that of others. Such unabashed candor was refreshing, if not wholly intended, and best taken with valium. As usual, Hillary handled the situation well. As usual msm misreported it. So what else is new.

    Independent of that, I was sorry to hear about the accident involving Michelle Obama, and glad to see that she was not injured.

  57. Hey Jan and Ken, Welcome to the fold. I’m an ole ex-teacher myself, Ken, so it’s good to have another educator in the group. It’s a great site here, lots of good information and support. And an occasional laugh or two. mollyj

  58. Does MSM understand that we have three top tier candidates pursuing the nomination, and only one of them is simultaneously fulfilling senate obligations.

    Hillary shows up for every crucial senate vote; Obama ducks out on crucial ones; and Edwards talks about how he would vote if he was there.

    In essence, Hillary is the one true leader.

  59. Welcome, Jan and Ken! Now open your minds and let the mothership guide you… 🙂

    I’m doin battle on our OK atty site with a jackass who doesn’t understand that he’s a sexist. He doesn’t think “cold and calculating” is a sexist term. ?!? He’s also demanding proof. Yeah, right. Like there’s a sexism dictionary and that phrase is on page 179.

    I knew that sexim is alive and well, but the amount of BS denial out there astounds me. Our girl is proving women have to work twice as hard for half the credit. I’m proud she stood up to Rolph.

  60. The following is from a press statement issued by the National Organization for Women in response to the broadcast:

    What on earth is going on? The press, collectively, is already granting Barack Obama twice the coverage it gives Hillary Clinton by minimizing Clinton’s victories and ballooning Obama’s. But this particular snippet is far beyond the pale.

    Hillary is PIMPING her daughter? Why would a daughter’s support in this historic, glass-ceiling-shattering presidential race, be characterized as “PIMPING?”

    This awful name-calling is nothing short of abusive. When male abusers feel they are failing to reach their spouses, they often go after their children. Every day across the country battered women and their children suffer at the hands of abusers.

    Further, employers often use motherhood against women. Who is asked “how will you juggle family and work?” Thus children are used, across the board, as political footballs. The idea is that if a mother can be convinced her actions will hurt her child, perhaps she’ll be persuaded to back down. Now the media itself is adopting this batterers’ technique.

    Does Schuster understand that he is trashing the daughter of someone who may well be our next Commander and Chief? One can only guess what would have happened had he made this same statement about Obama’s daughter. Why surely we would be witness to another Imus moment.

    This Schuster remark speaks volumes about the larger picture for mothers and their children. It’s not just about hate speech; it’s about power and control.

    We of NOW-NYS, and our over forty thousand supporters, salute mothers everywhere, especially Hillary Clinton. And we thank Chelsea Clinton for her support and stand behind her one hundred percent, every step of this historic way.

    I love this response from the NOWNYS…because these boys with small penises that call themselve journalist and on tv are getting away with this crap from their bosses at work, on a publicly traded company that crap all over our daughters dreams and goals because they know it is alright to be SEXIST and SEXISM is rewarded.

    And the United States thinks they’re better then Saudia Arabia who is more honest then us?…..puhlease,

    MSNBC should have fired Chris Matthew and David Shuster right at the beginning and had fixed the enviroment over there…when you get grown men justifying this behavior and then blaming the Clintons for protesting and that disgusting turd David Shuster arrongantly saying He wasn’t sorry at all for saying Hilling is pimping her child and implying Chelsea in a prostitue in WRITING multiple times!!!!!!

    I know if I did that at my job and I’am a woman…I would get fired in two minutes flat and I work for a Health Insurance company. I don’t know anyone who is at work for a large corporation dealing in a public manner and with a customer base would use this kind of language toward 50% of their target base.

    Btw:The Hillary Clinton is a very fine lawyer and if you read those emails..MSNBC/NBC is in could be in big trouble because all this was done in the public eye and MSNBC/NBC has shown a pattern of abuse and offensive language….damn. Keep those emails and calls going this is sooooo important that we stop this blantant SEXISM that is being promoted in the media.

    And for our weak azz Democratic party leaders….they don’t get it either They should have step up to the plate as a core value of the democratic party. They are PATHETIC…they think the voters are stupid and dumb and don’t see that their crap don’t sink too.

  61. zogby: obama wins presidency, everybody can go home now
    zogby’s interactive online poll predicts sen. barack “to the future” obama will outpace john mcsame in the electoral college by a whopping 273 to 160.

Comments are closed.