In a rare departure from her tightly scripted remarks, the former first lady lashed out at an audience member steamed at her Senate vote to declare Iran's Revolutionary Guard a terrorist organization.
Randall Rolph, of Nashua, Iowa, compared the vote to the one Clinton cast for the Iraq war resolution, asking, "Why should I support your candidacy . . . if it appears you haven't learned from your past mistakes?"
Clinton hit back hard, saying, "The premise of the question is wrong, and I'll be happy to explain that to you."
Then she suggested Rolph was a plant, saying his question was based on something "somebody obviously sent you."
She soon backed down, telling him, "I apologize. It's just that I've been asked the very same question in three other places."
Well maybe, Ms. Clinton, you keep hearing it because you've yet to answer it satisfactorily.
More importantly, it indicates that Ms. Clinton's paranoia is still alive and well. Now obviously everyone is somewhat paranoid and to some degree I'm sure that's healthy. And politicians should probably be granted a little slack on that anyway because there are certainly people out to get them. But Ms. Clinton, of VRWC fame, is more than just a little paranoid.
And, if the rumors are true, she's really more like what we saw in this little incident than the public persona she's trying to project during the campaign. Don't you love it when a politician is out asking for your vote, and then when you ask an honest question, your integrity is questioned and your premise is declared "wrong".
To Hil's credit she did apologize, but I think that was more of a function of the questioner refusing to back down and Clinton finally again realizing where she was and what was going on.
Still, Rolph, who says he is an undecided Democratic voter, was annoyed. "It really offended me with her response that those words are not my own," he said.
I don't blame him. But I'm not surprised to see what I consider the real Hillary Clinton popping to the surface here, at least for a minute or two. And, if anyone is paying attention, this should be "Republican gold" to be tucked away and trotted out again at the appropriate moment.
The irony?
Clinton's full-throttled reply comes as she is ramping up her TV ads touting her health plan and softening her image.
I can't help believing, given the grinding schedule and the length of the campaign the candidates have put themselves on, that the possibility of more of this is entirely possible. I've always held that Hillary Clinton's public persona is a front and that is why her public exposure and appearances are so tightly scripted and stage-managed.
Let's see if, in the spirit of the Rolph question, she can learn from a mistake. Of course that probably doesn't mean more self-control on her part, but instead even tighter scripting and stage-managing of events (can pre-screened questions be far off?).
She soon backed down, telling him, "I apologize. It’s just that I’ve been asked the very same question in three other places."
And if (god forbod) you become President, you’re going to have to answer the same question 3 times or more in a fricking single press briefing you stupid shrill witch. If you can’t handle THIS sort of thing, what good will you be in pressure situations against our enemies (foreign enemies dear, not the GOP)
She can talk about Bush’s faults as much as she wants, but she could never ever on her best day put up with the kind of inquisitorial treatment the current President gets.
More importantly, it indicates that Ms. Clinton’s paranoia is still alive and well. Now obviously everyone is somewhat paranoid and to some degree I’m sure that’s healthy. And politicians should probably be granted a little slack on that anyway because there are certainly people out to get them. But Ms. Clinton, of VRWC fame, is more than just a little paranoid.
Given that she’s heard the same question three times it smells to me like a nut-root operation.
This is a question from the left, which is maybe why she apologized. But certainly we see the talking points (both right and left) distributed pretty fast via the blogosphere.
I think that’s a good thing sometimes, like in this case, to hold her feet to the fire. But how hard would it be to answer that question?
I got in a political fight the other day on an MMORPG chat, no less, and as things were winding down (a well placed reference to Chuck Norris defused things nicely)one of the anti-Bush anti-this-war etc., arguers made a statement about how it would sure be nice if people actually thought things through and came to their own conclusions and had their own opinions.
I said, why is it that when my opinion is something that you don’t like, that it isn’t mine?
I’ve also been accused of being a little lady told what to think by men when I got into it with an I-am-not-a-feminazi.
Does the right (or even libertarian sorts, I suppose) do this same sort of "if you haven’t come to the right conclusion someone else must be dictating your opinions" thing? The "someone else told you what to think" bit?
Oh, I know there’s a lot of complaints of effective brain death toward liberals but I’m trying to think if the same "you’ve been told what to think" element is there.
Every time I see her on TV now I hear this in my head ’I’m slim shady, yes I’m the real shady, all you other slim shady’s are just imitating so won’t the real slim shady please stand up...’
