Originally Posted By SingleParkPassholder <a href="http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/washington/2007/11/plants.html" target="_blank">http://latimesblogs.latimes.co m/washington/2007/11/plants.html</a> "Hillary Clinton stopped at a bio-diesel plant in Newton, Iowa earlier this week to see alternative fuels in the making and drive home the week's campaign theme of her energy plan. After a tour, the candidate took questions from the crowd. She called on a young woman. "As a young person," said the well-spoken Muriel Gallo-Chasanoff, "I'm worried about the long-term effects of global warming. How does your plan combat climate change?" "Well, you should be worried," Clinton replied. "You know, I find as I travel around Iowa that it's usually young people that ask me about global warming." There's a good reason for that, too. The question was a plant, totally rigged in advance, like a late-night infomercial. Just before the public forum a Clinton staffer had chosen the young woman, a student at Grinnell College, and asked her to ask that specific question." Snip "Tonight, as other campaigns chuckled and hypocritically spread the news far and wide, a Clinton campaign spokesman admitted sheepishly, "On this occasion a member of our staff did discuss a possible question about Senator Clinton's energy plan at a forum. However, Senator Clinton did not know which questioners she was calling on during the event. This is not standard policy and will not be repeated again.†Perhaps in large urban centers such stage-managed set-ups are acceptable, even expected. But in smalltown Iowa and New Hampshire, where even political opponents run into each other at the Dairy Queen after the high school football game, they take great pride in genuinely meeting candidates face-to-face in living rooms and diners for honest questioning. Rigging a show like this is extremely bad form and Clinton could take a real hit for it, especially since it suits her reputation for being calculating. But here's the catch. Although other campaigns are righteously denying it tonight, virtually every... professional presidential campaign plants questions. It's a routine part of preparation for the advance people staging every event. Not every question is planted, as you can tell from the weird ones that sometimes pop up. But enough are to ensure the campaign gets the necessary rehearsed sound-bite for the TV cameras on the day's theme. The candidate may honestly not know of the plants, but as soon as she/he hears the question, the answer carefully prepared by the political staff comes flowing forth."
Originally Posted By SingleParkPassholder Just trying to be fair and balanced, here. However, this is one of the problems I have with Clinton. Not that the question was a plant or whether she knew about it, but her answer. It even reads like a bad canned answer. Does she have a spontaneous bone in her body?
Originally Posted By ecdc This was pretty lame of her, I'll admit even though she'll probably get my vote. What's curious is that she's the front-runner because she's run a "textbook" campaign. The problem now is that everyone is pointing out and talking about her textbook campaign, so the very thing that got her the lead is making her vulnerable. She's giving Obama a huge opening, since he's much more authentic-looking and acting.
Originally Posted By JohnS1 "It even reads like a bad canned answer" If she doesn't win the nomination, Hillary should seriously consider working for Disney's PR department.
Originally Posted By barboy Hey SingleParkPass remember back 70 or more threads I chimed in about my disdain for Hillary---- I think that I called her the most shameless person in US politics today(or something equally strong and nasty) and you corrected me and made it clear that it is VP Dick hands down--- well this epitomizes what I feel and have long known about that disgusting human. Way back several posts I deemed her a phoney/poser due to her lack of substance and candidness. A stunt like this should automatically disqualify a candidate for the most powerful spot on earth based on poor character irrespective of one's stellar resume, formal stances on the issues, attributes or talents for leadership....... but it won't because too many die hard Demos will give it a pass or denounce it but yet turn around and vote for her anyway. (By the way you are still correct about Dick being the most shameless and despicable public character.)
Originally Posted By SingleParkPassholder "She's giving Obama a huge opening, since he's much more authentic-looking and acting." Yup, right out of central casting. Too bad he's not authentic, experienced, or tested under fire. He's running about ten years too early.
Originally Posted By SingleParkPassholder "Hey SingleParkPass remember back 70 or more threads I chimed in about my disdain for Hillary---- I think that I called her the most shameless person in US politics today(or something equally strong and nasty) and you corrected me and made it clear that it is VP Dick hands down---" Sure do. Cheney still rules and may be the all time king, although the competition is fierce for that title. As for Hillary, to me. she's still run of the mill politico. This race is turning out to be a disappointment on both sides. There's an opportunity to elect the first black president or the first woman president, and neither candidate seems tobe the real deal. Obama seems to get endorsements solely because he's black and Clinton because she's female. And the politically incorrect cynic would pipe up to say Obama's the whitest black dude out there and Clinton's gender is almost an afterthought.
Originally Posted By RoadTrip <<Clinton because she's female.>> Clinton gets endorsements because she is married to Slick and a lot of people (like me) would love to see him back in the White House... even if it’s as First Gentleman. Imagine that... Slick Willy a Gentleman?? LOL
Originally Posted By jonvn She's not a disgusting human being. She's an opportunistic politician (ok, maybe that is disgusting...). I simply have never understood her support. I don't know why people think she's so great, and I don't know why anyone would vote for her, other than she's married to Bill Clinton. She can't win, and the Democrats are idiots for backing her.
Originally Posted By vbdad55 <"She's giving Obama a huge opening, since he's much more authentic-looking and acting." Yup, right out of central casting. Too bad he's not authentic, experienced, or tested under fire. He's running about ten years too early.< right in IMHO in this assessment - coming from where I have been able to watch him-- there is not enough substance today once you get past the holloywood hype -- maybe one day - but not today
Originally Posted By vbdad55 <Imagine that... Slick Willy a Gentleman?? < maybe those specials on the History Channel are right - maybe Armageddon is near
Originally Posted By ecdc I actually don't see Hillary as inauthentic; I see her as just kind of a dork. She isn't suave or particularly personable. We've become so accustomed to politicians who enamor us or who we can "relate to" (that sure worked out well with the most recent guy, no?) that when someone like Hillary shows up, we accuse her of being inauthentic or people casually throw the "b" word around to describe what she is. Of course, it's a lose-lose situation with the Clintons. Bill was extremely personable, a great speaker, and had great rapport with people. So what did he get for all this? The label "slick Willy." So even when someone seems authentic, then it's an act. When they don't, they aren't authentic. Ever notice that the authentic ones miraculously agree with your own political views, and the ones that don't are just pretending or playing politics as usual?
Originally Posted By vbdad55 what's truly amazing is it seems this is the best candidate the Dems can roll out ...................... and yet the GOP doesn;t have anyone who can clearly beat her.. frightening on both counts
Originally Posted By ecdc >>what's truly amazing is it seems this is the best candidate the Dems can roll out ...................... and yet the GOP doesn;t have anyone who can clearly beat her.. frightening on both counts<< See, I must be REALLY disillusioned by George W. Bush. I hear these kinds of comments all the time, both here and just chatting with friends and colleagues. I don't feel that way. I actually look at the front runners in both parties and think, "Hey, they're competent. I can live with them." But I can also acknowledge that this is probably more my loathing of the current administration than an indication of the talents of the candidates. Here's how I view the candidates (since others seem to really, really hate some of them). Guiliani: Ran New York City fairly successfully; hates bin Laden and other terrorists, would probably catch them; keeps his head in a crisis instead of reading My Pet Goat for 7 minutes; is competent. Romney: Ran a very successful company; is liked as a leader; ran Massachusettes fairly well; is actually moderate and probably doesn't really believe the crazy things he says to appease the Christian right; is competent. Clinton: Is moderate and intelligent; has a former President living with her who can advise her; has realistic vision for the country; is well-liked as a Senator in conservative, upstate New York, not just the liberal city; is competent. Obama: Is inspiring and a great speaker; would most likely surround himself with intelligent, experienced people; is easily liked; would get along with other world leaders well; is competent. I'll give ya three guesses what I'm most looking for in a President As much as I despise Bush, I don't think he's evil. I think the one word that sums up his administration above and beyond anything else is, far and away, incompetent.
Originally Posted By vbdad55 competent is a far cry from extremely qualified which is how I would like my presidential candidates.... There isn't one among those you named that I view as being able to make a difference right now - put in a decent stewardship - yeah likely -
Originally Posted By ecdc Yeah, fair enough. But at this point, I'll take a decent stewardship any day. Again, I must be really disillusioned Actually, even though it's not at all a popular topic, the way John Edwards talks about the poor really resonates with me. If he were elected (won't happen) and he actually tackled it, I think that could make a huge difference. There really are two Americas - but one doesn't acknowledge the other.
Originally Posted By JohnS1 "I don't know why people think she's so great, and I don't know why anyone would vote for her, other than she's married to Bill Clinton." The fact that she's married to BC only tells me that she is prone to making bad decisions.
Originally Posted By SingleParkPassholder "Guiliani: Ran New York City fairly successfully; hates bin Laden and other terrorists, would probably catch them; keeps his head in a crisis instead of reading My Pet Goat for 7 minutes; is competent." And herein lies the misconception about Guiliani. He wasn't that great of a mayor. New Yorkers weren't that enthralled with him. 9/11 changed the perception because he did rise above the fray and took charge at the right time, more so than Bush. "Obama: Is inspiring and a great speaker; would most likely surround himself with intelligent, experienced people; is easily liked; would get along with other world leaders well; is competent." We'll disagree, strongly, I imagine.
Originally Posted By vbdad55 <Yeah, fair enough. But at this point, I'll take a decent stewardship any day. Again, I must be really disillusioned < also fair enough - competent would be good <Actually, even though it's not at all a popular topic, the way John Edwards talks about the poor really resonates with me. If he were elected (won't happen) and he actually tackled it, I think that could make a huge difference. There really are two Americas - but one doesn't acknowledge the other< The only thing that bothers me is that I know he sells he come from modest means - and he understands the plight of the working person - yet for some reason I just cannot buy it. I really don;t know why, maybe it's his delivery - I just don't know , but I always feel I was sold a bill of goods. like John I went to public school - and I came from much less means that he did, and a much tougher part of town - so to speak - so I would really like to buy into his story. anyone else feel the same way or am I just misreading something about him ?
Originally Posted By jonvn I like Edwards. I think he's the best person the Dems have got. I don't know why he's not doing better. Probably because there are a lot of really out of it people in the party and it's yanking them from the midstream, much like is happening with the Republicans.
