First Reactions To Oprah In Iowa

Was it me or was Oprah yelling?

 

She (Oprah) should stick to daytime gab fests instead of stumping for candidates — she is not good at it.

 

Her (Oprah) speech was not as good as the expectations that the campaign had built up.

 

I was left a little disappointed.

 

It also seemed that everyone in the audience was more interested in hearing Oprah and not Michelle or Obama.

 

What a flop! Obama’s speech afterward was so disjointed that I hope people did not watch.

 

For all the hype, I was not impressed. I hope they retool Oprah’s speech or scrap her appearances altogether.

 Are we so culturally degenerate that we need a talk show hostess (Oprah) to tell us who’s best qualified to run this once-great country? ” I am so tired of Politics.” Why then is she (Oprah) involved up to her eyeballs in it?  Good speeches by Michelle Obama, Oprah and Barack himself. As Michelle Obama’s been telling people on the campaign trail, “the game of politics is to make you afraid so you don’t think… We’re asking you, please *don’t* base you votes this time on fear. Base it on hope.”  

Why Black Women Prefer Clinton To Obama & Why They Love Bill

 Probably 80% or so of black women support Hillary?  Rather than the mealy reasons listed in the article below, the real reason is think they are re-electing Bill Clinton.  And what did Bill give black women that they don’t get at home?  Respect, that’s what.  And they don’t expect it from Obama.

One of the intriguing stories of Campaign ’08 is the popularity of Hillary Clinton with black women who might be expected to support Illinois Sen. Barack Obama, the first African-American to emerge as a serious contender for a major party presidential nomination.A series of CBS News polls show the New York senator has a 15-point lead over Obama among black women. Other polls have confirmed Clinton’s popularity with African-American women.Overwhelmingly, the most frequently stated reasons women give for favoring Hillary Clinton are that they have positive feelings about her husband and his administration and they think she’s got the best shot of any of the Democrats to win against the Republicans.“Most Black women simply believe Clinton can win,” said former Gore campaign manager and Democratic strategist Donna Brazile. “They loved her husband Bill and would like to see ‘a woman elected first'”Obama hopes to find the antidote to Clinton’s less-than-secret weapon – husband Bill – with a boost from talk-show queen Oprah Winfrey, who is campaigning for Obama in three early primary states: Iowa, New Hampshire and South Carolina.But beating back Bill won’t be easy.As much as African Americans may instinctively roll their eyes in exasperation when they hear Bill Clinton referred to as the “first black president”, it is undeniable he made an emotional connection with black America in a way that no other president has.Sheryl McCarthy is a columnist for USA Today and Newsday who often explores

http://www.wibw.com/home/headlines/12078026.html

Bill Clinton Just Doesn’t Get It

Is Bill Clinton biting the MSM hand that supported him and now supports Hillary?  His comments recently seem to make the case.  He went on to say the MSM is ignoring Hillary experience, what as First Lady?  Why doesn’t Bill release Hillary records as First Lady, then we can see the facts regarding her experience.

KEENE, N.H. (AP) – Bill Clinton said Tuesday that if reporters covered the candidates’ public records better, his wife’s presidential bid would be far ahead of her rivals. During a campaign stop on behalf of his wife, New York Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton, the former president said he can’t understand why so much of the media coverage of the campaign ignores her experience—and, without naming him, the relative lack of experience of her closest Democratic rival, Illinois Sen. Barack Obama. “One percent of the press coverage was devoted to their record in public life. No wonder people think experience is irrelevant. A lot of the people covering the race think it is (irrelevant),” Clinton said to students at Keene State College. Clinton referenced a study from the Project for Excellence in Journalism that indicated much of the coverage of the race is dominated by daily horse race reporting rather than about policy issues. “Sixty-seven percent of the coverage is pure politics. That stuff has a half life of about 15 seconds. It won’t matter tomorrow. It is very vulnerable to being slanted and rude. And it won’t affect your life,” Clinton said. Clinton also said his wife’s bipartisan work in the Senate proves she can accomplish her campaign’s message of change, and that records matter more than rhetoric. He said that when voters look at records and accomplishments, they will see clear choices between the New York senator and her rivals.

Hillary’s Willy Horton Moment? Soft On Crime, No Feelings for Victims

Hillary, Most Conservative?? I know this comes as a real surprise, Hillary is soft on crime, and now she has stated such.  If elected, she will push for lighter sentencing for many crimes, and make the guidelines retroactive.  This will result in the release of criminals, back on the street.  What, no feelings for the orginal victims?

DES MOINES, Iowa — The Democratic candidates for president were pressed from the left in two events in Iowa Saturday and Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton emerged slightly, but noticeably, as the most conservative in the field.

On issues ranging from drug crimes to immigration to relations with Cuba, Clinton took heat from liberal audiences for refusing — on emotionally charged issues — to tell them what they wanted to hear.Her stances could be read as a mark that she, like her husband, is the centrist of the race; or as an attempt to protect herself from Republican attacks in a general election.

One of the Democrats’ rare moments of policy disagreement came at the beginning of the Black and Brown forum Saturday night, the traditional venue for minority issues in Iowa where only 9 percent of citizens are members of minority groups.

Clinton, who said she supports a federal recommendation for shorter sentences for some people caught with crack cocaine, opposed making those shorter sentences retroactive — which could eventually result in the early release of 20,000 people convicted on drug charges.

“In principle I have problems with retroactivity,” she said. “It’s something a lot of communities will be concerned about as well.”

In an interview after the debate, Clinton’s pollster, Mark Penn, pointed out that the Republican front-runner has already signaled that he will attack Democrats on releasing people convicted of drug crimes.

A Few Random Thoughts from Thomas Sowell

 Those who are looking forward to a second Clinton administration should remember what they say about movies — the sequel is seldom as good as the original. And the original Clinton administration was not all that great. Of all the presidential candidates in both parties, Barack Obama is the best performer on stage. He has the most presence, the most command of his words, the most quietly dramatic style. What he actually says, however, is mostly warmed-over 1960s ideas that have been failing ever since the 1960s.Hillary Clinton’s main claim to the Democratic nomination is that she is invincible. But that claim cannot survive the first primary in which she gets vinced.http://www.townhall.com/columnists/ThomasSowell/2007/12/04/random_thoughts?page=1

Hillary Has A Trust Problem! Oh, Really?

Hillary has a very real trust problem, and Robin Gerber, a member of the Gallup Organization and author of “Leadership the Eleanor Roosevelt Way” and the forthcoming novel “Eleanor vs. Ike” blames us, that is, you and me, the public, the voters.  That’s right, we, the public are the reason Hillary has a trust problem, along with all her other character flaws, such as honesty, forthrightness, etc. Sen. Hillary Clinton has a trust problem. Polls in Iowa and New Hampshire show that voters give her very low marks for being trustworthy and honest. The media and her opponents have built and reinforced the charge.

But they’re blaming the victim. Clinton is running for president in a sexist culture that persists in seeing strong, capable women as suspect.

It’s not that voters and her opponents think Clinton’s experienced and competent, and they don’t like or trust her. It’s that they think she’s experienced and competent and that’s why they don’t like or trust her. 

http://www.newsday.com/news/opinion/ny-opger045486775dec04,0,7259476.story

First (Liberal) Negative Ad Against Clinton

Well, you knew it was coming.  The liberals hate Hillary.  Seems she’s too conservative for them.  Another surprise, they accuse her of being driven by polls, not convictions.  Well, this just proves it takes a liberal to know a liberal. 

WASHINGTON (AP) – Liberal activists plan to begin airing a television ad against Hillary Rodham Clinton in Iowa this week, the first non-Republican negative ad aimed at a Democratic presidential candidate. The group, Democratic Courage, has accused Clinton of making policy decisions on the basis of polls, not convictions. It planned to introduce the ad Tuesday. Glenn Hurowitz, the group’s president, described the spot as a modest buy that would run on cable only, meaning it won’t be seen as much as ads by Clinton and rival Barack Obama, who are spending hundreds of thousands of dollars on ads in the state. Democratic Courage is a political action committee, financed by contributions of no more than $5,000 per person. “We are concerned that she wouldn’t be the best candidate in the general election or the best president because she is so easily bullied by the Republican attack machine,” Hurowitz said. Republican presidential candidates Mitt Romney, Rudy Giuliani and John McCain have all run ads putting Clinton in a negative light. Hurowitz said the group does not plan to endorse any candidate, though he said it may run a negative ad against another Democrat in the field. He would not identify who that would be. He said the extent of the group’s advertising would depend on the amount of donations its first ad generates. Clinton is in a virtual three-way tie in Iowa with Obama and John Edwards. The Iowa caucuses are only one month away.

http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D8TA9J9O0&show_article=1

Obama – The Grinch That Stole Hillary’s Christmas

 Looks like the Hillary attack machine is going full force against Obama as he gains more and more support and she drops like a rock.  Hillary will go extremely negative over the next several weeks as she first loses ground to Obama, then surprise, she loses ground to Edwards, finishing an awful 3rd in Iowa.  Will Obama steal Hillary’s Christmas? CLEAR LAKE, Iowa (AP) – Hillary Rodham Clinton suggested Monday that Barack Obama has too little experience and perhaps too much ambition, pressing an increasingly aggressive campaign against her chief rival for the Democratic presidential nomination.

Both candidates were in Iowa, one month before the nation’s leadoff caucuses with new polls showing Obama had whittled away her early lead and they were virtually tied among Democrats in the state.

“So you decide which makes more sense: Entrust our country to someone who is ready on day one … or to put America in the hands of someone with little national or international experience, who started running for president the day he arrived in the U.S. Senate,” Clinton said.

Obama spokesman Bill Burton retorted, “The truth is, Barack Obama doesn’t need lectures in political courage from someone who followed George Bush to war in Iraq, gave him the benefit of the doubt on Iran, supported NAFTA and opposed ethanol until she decided to run for president.”

Robert Reich: “Hillary is Irresponsible”

The following from a true liberal’s liberal, Robert Reich, former Clinton cabinet member, asking why Hillary is stooping so low.  Reich should know, he took orders from HRC for several years during the Bill Clinton years. 

Monday, December 03, 2007

Why is HRC stooping So Low?

I’m becoming increasingly concerned about the stridency and inaccuracy of charges in Iowa — especially coming from my old friend. While I’m as hard-boiled as they come about what’s said in campaigns, I just don’t think Dems should stoop to this. First, HRC attacked O’s plan for keep Social Security solvent. Social Security doesn’t need a whole lot to keep it going – it’s in far better shape than Medicare – but everyone who’s looked at it agrees it will need bolstering (I was a trustee of the Social Security Trust Fund ten years ago, and I can vouch for this). Obama wants to do it by lifting the cap on the percent of income subject to Social Security payroll taxes, which strikes me as sensible. That cap is now close to $98,000 (it’s indexed), and the result is highly regressive. (Bill Gates satisfies his yearly Social Security obligations a few minutes past midnight on January 1 every year.) The cap doesn’t have to be lifted all that much to keep Social Security solvent – maybe to $115,00. That’s a progressive solution to the problem. HRC wants to refer Social Security to a commission. That’s avoiding the issue, and it’s irresponsible: A commission will likely call either for raising the retirement age (that’s what Greenspan’s Social Security commission came up with in the 1980s) or increasing the payroll tax on all Americans. So when HRC charges that Obama’s plan would “raise taxes” and her plan wouldn’t, she’s simply not telling the truth.

I’m equally concerned about her attack on his health care plan. She says his would insure fewer people than hers. I’ve compared the two plans in detail. Both of them are big advances over what we have now. But in my view Obama’s would insure more people, not fewer, than HRC’s. That’s because Obama’s puts more money up front and contains sufficient subsidies to insure everyone who’s likely to need help – including all children and young adults up to 25 years old. Hers requires that everyone insure themselves. Yet we know from experience with mandated auto insurance – and we’re learning from what’s happening in Massachusetts where health insurance is now being mandated – that mandates still leave out a lot of people at the lower end who can’t afford to insure themselves even when they’re required to do so. HRC doesn’t indicate how she’d enforce her mandate, and I can’t find enough money in HRC’s plan to help all those who won’t be able to afford to buy it. I’m also impressed by the up-front investments in information technology in O’s plan, and the reinsurance mechanism for coping with the costs of catastrophic illness. HRC is far less specific on both counts. In short: They’re both advances, but O’s is the better of the two. HRC has no grounds for alleging that O’s would leave out 15 million people.

Yesterday, HRC suggested O lacks courage. “There’s a big difference between our courage and our convictions, what we believe and what we’re willing to fight for,” she told reporters in Iowa, saying Iowa voters will have a choice “between someone who talks the talk, and somebody who’s walked the walk.” Then asked whether she intended to raise questions about O’s character, she said: “It’s beginning to look a lot like that.”

I just don’t get it. If there’s anyone in the race whose history shows unique courage and character, it’s Barack Obama. HRC’s campaign, by contrast, is singularly lacking in conviction about anything. Her pollster, Mark Penn, has advised her to take no bold positions and continuously seek the political center, which is exactly what she’s been doing.

All is fair in love, war, and politics. But this series of slurs doesn’t serve HRC well. It will turn off voters in Iowa, as in the rest of the country. If she’s worried her polls are dropping, this is not the way to build them back up.

http://robertreich.blogspot.com/2007/12/why-is-hrc-stooping-so-low.html

Chris Matthews On Hillary’s Dropping Poll Numbers

Chris Matthews explains why the Hillary campaign may write off Iowa in the last weeks before the caucus.  Internall, the top Hillary staffers know she tanked the last Democratic debate, and that Obama and Edwards are gaining while Hillary is losing ground. 

CHRIS MATTHEWS: I always assume that the professionals inside a campaign know more than I know. I have to assume that during the Philadelphia debate six weeks ago, Mark Penn and Mandy Grunwald and the other brains behind Hillary were looking at a focus group or looking at some kind of joy buzzer somewhere, and they’re watching their candidate crash. And they came out of there and they blamed the moderator, they blamed Russert, Tim Russert, coming out, then they blamed the opponents, then they blamed the third, the unaffiliated groups. They were attacking every single person in a way that made you think “my God, did Hillary do that bad that night?” 

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/mark-finkelstein/2007/12/03/chriss-conjecture-hillarys-aides-see-her-crashing

 

Rove’s Memo To Obama, “How To Beat Hillary”

Below is Karl Rove’s open memo to Obama, and perhaps the most objective and straight forward analysis of not only how to beat Hillary, but  of what’s wrong with Obama. 

Memo to Obama: win Iowa or lose the race

By Karl Rove

Published: December 2 2007 22:00 | Last updated: December 2 2007 22:00

function floatContent(){var paraNum = “3” paraNum = paraNum – 1;var tb = document.getElementById(‘floating-con’);var nl = document.getElementById(‘floating-target’);if(tb.getElementsByTagName(“div”).length> 0){if (nl.getElementsByTagName(“p”).length>= paraNum){nl.insertBefore(tb,nl.getElementsByTagName(“p”)[paraNum]);}else {if (nl.getElementsByTagName(“p”).length == 3){nl.insertBefore(tb,nl.getElementsByTagName(“p”)[2]);}else {nl.insertBefore(tb,nl.getElementsByTagName(“p”)[0]);}}}}

TO: Senator Barack Obama

FROM: Karl Rove

SUBJECT: How to Beat Hillary

Not that you have asked for advice, but here it is anyway: Iowa is your chance to best her. If you do not do it there, odds are you never will anywhere. You are way behind her in most national polls. The only way to change that is to beat her in Iowa so people around America take another look at you. You did a smart thing organising effectively in the early primary states. But you can take advantage of that only if you win Iowa and keep her from building an overwhelming sense of invincibility and inevitability.

The good news is you have again got “the buzz”. Polls are looking better for you in Iowa and the other early states. Your press is improving, with your performance at the Iowa Jefferson-Jackson dinner a big help. Hillary Clinton has made unforced errors. But she is still the frontrunner and there are several things you need to do quickly to win.

First, stop acting like a vitamin-deficient Adlai Stevenson. Striking a pose of being high-minded and too pure will not work. Americans want to see you scrapping and fighting for the job, not in a mean or ugly way but in a forceful and straightforward way.

Hillary may come over as calculating and shifty but she looks in control. You, on the other hand, often come over as weak and ineffectual. In some debates, you do not even look at her when disagreeing with her, making it look as if you are afraid of her. She offers you openings time and again but you do not take advantage of them. Sharpen your attacks and make them more precise.

Take the exchange in the Philadelphia debate about Bill and Hillary keeping documents hidden about her role as first lady in his White House. She was evasive. You spoke next. You would have won a big victory if you had turned to her and said: “Senator, with all due respect, you and your husband could release those documents right now if you wanted to. Your failure to do so raises questions among a lot of Americans about what you’re hiding and those questions would hurt our party if you were our nominee.” But your response was weak as dirty dishwater. Do not let other great opportunities pass by.

Second, focus on the fact that many Democrats have real doubts about Hillary. They worry she cannot win, will be a drag on the ticket and that if she got to the White House it would be a disaster. You know better than most what they are worried about; they have told you their fears. It is why you have done so well raising money from Bill’s backers and gaining support from Clinton administration officials. Talk about those doubts. Put them in a bigger context than just the two of you. Remind primary voters that these shortcomings will hurt Democratic chances.

Third, when you create controversies do not pick issues where you are playing the weaker hand. For example, you attacked her for lacking foreign policy experience. It is true she was first lady, not secretary of state, and nobody will ever mistake her for James Baker III. But your qualifications are even thinner; you were a state senator and lived in Indonesia when you were six. Big deal. Americans think she has more foreign policy experience than you – and she does.

Fourth, when you disagree with her be clear about what you believe. You cannot afford more garbled responses like the one you gave in Las Vegas on drivers’ licences for illegal aliens. Answer yes or no. Do not give voters evidence you are as calculating as her.

Fifth, you need to do a better job explaining what kind of change you represent. The change theme is a good one and Democratic voters know you were against the war and represent the idea of something fresh. But they do not know who you really are, what you want to do and where you want to take the country. Taking her down a few notches is step one; telling people who you are is the next. Both are necessary.

Sixth, find a way to gently belittle her whenever she tries to use disagreements among Democrats as an excuse to complain about being picked on. The toughest candidate in the field should not be able to complain when others disagree with her. This is not a coronation. Democrats do not like her sense of entitlement. She is not owed the nomination. It does not belong to her simply because her name is Clinton. So blow the whistle on her when she tries to become a victim. Do it with humour and a smile and it will sting even more.

Hillary comes across as cold, distant and conspiracy-minded, more like Richard Nixon than her sunny, charming husband. During the Clinton presidency she oversaw a disaster (the effort to sell Hillarycare) and argued hard against welfare reform, one of the promises on which he had campaigned. She is a hard-nosed competitor with a tough and seasoned staff.

But her record is weak, her personality off-putting and her support thin. If she wins the nomination it will be because her rivals – namely you – were weak when you confronted her and could not look her in the eye when you did. She is beatable but you have to raise your game. Iowa is your great chance for a breakthrough. Win it convincingly and you can build on it in the contests that follow. Lose it and victory becomes much more difficult.

The writer is former senior adviser and deputy chief of staff to President George W. Bush and advised on his 2000 and 2004 presidential election campaigns

Copyright The Financial Times Limited 2007

Hillary Down, Obama Up In Iowa Poll

With just a few weeks to go, Iowa voters have responded to the polls and are now putting Obama at 28%, Hillary at 25% and Edwards at 23%.  This puts Edwards within striking distance of Hillary, forcing her to exit Iowa in 3rd place.  Hillary has slipped the most in recent pollings, from 30% to 25%, a 5 point drop, which for her position as front runner is significant.  And Oprah has not added her voice to the push for Obama. 

Here’s how Political Night Train sees a possible Iowa scenario – Obama and Oprah storm the state for the next four weeks with a positive only message.  Hillary continues to go negative on Obama, but runs into a snag since they cannot be seen going negative on Oprah.  Edwards hits hard at Hillary on experience and character, and Iraq war record.  Sensing a defeat, Hillary abandons Iowa in last weeks before caucus to focus on New Hampshire and South Carolina.  She sends Bill out to spin his message, but he sucks up all the oxygen in the room, leaving none for Hillary.  Bill still believes 2008 is all about Bill and sees Hillary as his own re-election proxy.  Hillary’s campaign may have to do damage control to counter some of Bill’s off-the-cuff comments.  If Hillary comes in 2nd or 3rd in Iowa, Obama and Oprah will continue the positive campaign in New Hampshire and South Carolina.  Oprah will ignore Hillary.  Edwards will continue to hammer Hillary and she will have to respond with more negative campaigning.  Also, expect the Clinton dirty tricks to continue, behind the scenes.  Don’t be surprised if there are stories about Obama, his wife and Oprah and their connection with their church in Chicago.  Don’t be surprised to see stories about how Michelle Obama has a chip on her shoulder for whites.

Hillary FOR Citizenship for Illegals – Will Push for IT In 1st 100 Days!!!!!

Clinton Booed at Heartland Forum

Now we know Hillary’s position on citizenship for illegals and how she will deal with it in the first 100 days of her administration.  Americans, this is the single most important domestic issues in 2008 and over 70% of you are opposed to citizenship for illegals.  If you allow Hillary to get into office, she has now told you exactly what she will do, and you of course know the Democrats in Congress will go along.  If you really want to see what type of county we will be building for our grandchildren, look no further than the racial violence in France. 

The senator was asked if she would “make a decision to give undocumented immigrants a path to citizenship” during her first 100 days in office. Clinton responded saying, “I have been favoring a plan to citizenship for years. I voted for it in the Senate, I have spoke out about it around Iowa and the country and in my campaign. And as president comprehensive immigration reform will be a high priority for me.”

This was followed by booing, for a largely Democratic audience.

http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalradar/2007/12/clinton-booed-a.html

Hillary’s Inevitability? Maybe Not!

Hillary’s Inevitability by Robert Novak Old pro Democrats who had been in awe of Sen. Hillary Clinton’s perfect campaign believe she made her first serious blunder last Monday by indicating to CBS’s Katie Couric that her election as president is inevitable.

When Couric inquired “how disappointed will you be” if she does not win, Clinton replied: “Well, it will be me.” “Clearly,” the CBS anchor persisted, “you have considered” the “possibility of losing”? “No, I haven’t,” said the senator. “So you never even consider the possibility?” “I don’t. I don’t.”

A footnote: Bill Clinton, campaigning for his wife in Iowa the next day, stunned Democratic insiders when he claimed he had opposed the Iraq war “from the beginning.” In fact, shortly after the U.S. invasion of Iraq, the former president declared: “I supported the president [George W. Bush] when he asked the Congress for authority to stand up against weapons of mass destruction in Iraq.” 

http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=23718

Clinton News Network Plants Questions for Hillary

The Save the Debate coalition — a group founded by conservative bloggers Patrick Ruffini, David All, Soren Dayton, and Robert Bluey which sought to encourage the GOP candidates to participate in the CNN/YouTube debate — issued a statement harshly criticizing CNN:“CNN’s flawed editorial process in choosing the questions asked of the candidates marred an otherwise lively debate and betrayed the trust of the Republican candidates and the YouTube user community. In the most glaring example, a questioner affiliated with the Hillary Clinton campaign was given a soapbox to berate the Republican candidates at the debate — when even a cursory web search of the individual would have revealed his clear conflict of interest.
A YouTube debate should strive to minimize the media filter rather than highlight it. Instead the selection of questions for the Republican CNN/YouTube debate highlighted CNN’s selection bias.
We strongly encourage YouTube and other new media platforms to refrain from working with CNN on future debates.” RedState‘s Directors also issued a harsh statement: “This debate was not about Republicans asking the Republican candidates questions. This was about CNN abusing its position to push a Democratic agenda. This has all the markings of a set up and heads should roll at CNN.In the meantime:1.) Republican candidates for President should boycott CNN.2) Republican viewers should boycott CNN until they fire Sam Feist, their political director; and David Bohrman, Senior Vice President and Executive Producer of the debate.3) One or more of the Republican candidates should demand a do over wherein we can have a substantive debate about substantive issues that exclude CNN’s agenda, which is clearly out of touch with the Republican party, and the drivel we saw from YouTube.” Michelle Malkin sees a double-standard: “Had GOP candidates somehow been able to insert their operatives and supporters into a Democratic debate, and had, say, Fox News failed to vet the questioners and presented them as average citizens, both Fox and the GOP would be treated as the century’s worst media sinners.”Hugh Hewitt: “CNN is of course going to the mattresses, just as every MSMer does when the collision with their own bias and/or incompetence arrives. But like Rathergate, the YouTube/BoobTube debate is already a major milestone in the accelerating collapse of credibility of the MSM.”Human Events‘ Jennifer Rubin: “Not that many years ago, CNN was known widely as the ‘Clinton News Network.’ They apparently want to renew their credentials — or expand their services to the entire Democratic Party. This debate placed CNN in the role of director of Democratic media operations. Simply put, it is propaganda to represent the questioners as unbiased and unaffiliated voters when they are not.”Other conservative bloggers think that people are overreacting:Townhall‘s Matt Lewis: “Although conservatives are rightly outraged by the biased questions, I also believe some of the consternation is overwrought…Bad questions sometimes tell us more about the candidates than good ones do. For example, we learned that Mike Huckabee can take a bad question and still make lemonade (if he can do it now, imagine what he could do to the press corps).”Captain’s Quarters‘ Ed Morrissey: “CNN’s main failure, and the only real ‘plant’, was General Keith Kerr. They didn’t just allow his question, they flew him to the debate, and then allowed him almost as much screen time as Duncan Hunter to make a speech. Kerr serves on Hillary Clinton’s steering committee on GLBT issues, a fact that he apparently failed to disclose to CNN, who didn’t bother to use Google and spend ten minutes vetting him…The other questioners had ulterior motives in asking their questions…[but] the questions themselves weren’t outrageous and certainly can be expected from the campaign trail, especially in the general election. In this loose format, questions can come from anyone — just like a real town-hall forum — and candidates should be prepared to answer them.”Power Line‘s Paul Mirengoff: “I watched the debate last night and frankly didn’t have a serious problem with CNN except with respect to Gen. Kerr. The fact that a questioner once interned for Rep. [Jane] Harman or for CAIR seems immaterial. The questions reflected a cross section of points of view, some liberal and some conservative, and it was helpful for Republican voters to see how the candidates dealt with them (I thought they did well).”Meanwhile, NRO‘s Ramesh Ponnuru thinks that the controversy over questioners benefits [Rudy] Giuliani: “I said that yesterday was a good day for Giuliani, appearances to the contrary notwithstanding. I think today is another one. The buzz among conservatives is about CNN’s perfidy — and not about his answers on abortion and guns. If I were Giuliani, I’d make sure to denounce CNN myself.”http://blogometer.nationaljournal.com/archives/2007/11/1130_the_least.html

Hillary & Huma – A Dan Rather Moment?

If Dan Rather had reported the Hillary & Huma lesbian lover affair, it would sound something like this, “The facts are false, but the story is true”, sort of like his story on Bush’s National Guard service.Is there a Democratic sex “scandal”–no matter how bogus–that Mickey Kaus won’t promote? Today he’s plugging (albeit in a somewhat passive aggressive fashion) the ridiculous rumor that Hillary Clinton is the lesbian lover of her aide Huma Abedin. Here’s my favorite bit of Kausian sophistry:Let’s assume what is likely to be the case–that the Huma rumor is a) unprovable if true and b) un-disprovable if untrue. Under the old rules that means it would never be proved and would probably never surface. If it did surface –say because it was the subject of vicious campaign push-polling–a simple denial by both parties and it would be semi-officially “false.” In the new Webby post-Lewinsky world it’s more likely to surface, which makes the subsequent denial all the more important. Contrary to popular belief, it’s not impossible to issue a denial so convincing that even gossip-addicted bloggers drop a juicy rumor. (Here’s an example.) The trouble for Hillary is that when it comes to sex rumors she and her husband (unlike, say, John Edwards and his wife) have no credibility. They threw that away when the philandering charges they righteously denounced in 1992 and 1998 turned out to be basically true. 

The Iowa Debate Fix Is In?? Will Hillary Deny??

As Saturday night’s Brown and Black Presidential Forum in Des Moines draws near, concerns have emerged about the way it is being organized. The forum, which is the oldest minority-focused presidential debate in the country, is one of the great traditions of the Iowa Caucuses, but local activists and campaigns have been frustrated by this year’s planning and execution.The core group helping to organize the forum has been shrunk from previous years, according to Des Moines Realtor and Latino activist Joe Henry, who was involved with the forum in its early years during the 1980s and became involved again during the 2000 election cycle. Henry, who supports Sen. Barack Obama, was not invited to participate in the planning this year.“It’s pretty evident at this point that both Wayne Ford and Mary Campos — both old friends of mine — have undoubtedly aligned themselves with the Clinton campaign,” he said, “and the smaller, the better, for that.” Campos and Ford, both respected and long-standing activists, founded the forum together in 1984 and continue to operate it as co-chairs. Ford also serves in the Iowa House.http://www.hillaryproject.com/index.php?/en/story-details/reports_accusations_that_clinton_campaign_has_fixed_upcoming_iowa_debate/

Anti-War Groups Mistrust Hillary, Say She vacillates

When it comes to the Anit-War crowd, One thing they agree on, though, is mistrust of Hillary Clinton. Everett Fell, a former sportswriter from New Jersey who moved to Iowa as an organizer for AAEI, reflects a common view when he says, “I like all the other candidates, but I have a problem with Hillary.” “At least in Iowa, the peace community is thoroughly disillusioned with her,” says Jeremy Jansen, a young organizer from Wisconsin who moved to Iowa as part of AAEI’s Iraq campaign. On November 8 nine war protesters, led by Kathy Kelly of Voices for Creative Nonviolence, occupied Clinton’s campaign office in Des Moines for more than seven hours, placing Support the Troops, End the War signs out front and, once inside, reading the names of dead American soldiers and Iraqi civilians. It’s telling that they initially chose to target Clinton, along with the office of Rudy Giuliani. “We did this because Hillary voted for the war in Iraq and refuses to apologize for it, because her rhetoric…is not only imprecise but also contradicts her public comments that she won’t withdraw all the troops before 2013, because she voted for pro-war with Iran measures…and for her general hawkish foreign policy stances,” wrote David Goodner, a senior at the University of Iowa and a member of its antiwar committee. “She floats so quickly, vacillates so often, that I don’t think people have any confidence that she will expedite the end of the war,” says Ed Fallon, a former state representative and candidate for governor who has endorsed Edwards.

http://www.thenation.com/doc/20071217/berman

Gay General A Hillary Dirty Trick? Yes, Says Dick Morris!

 Hillary doesn’t like being compared to Richard Nixon, but when it comes to dirty tricks, she’s a good, maybe better than Dick.

. . . . .. Dick Morris, a Republican strategist who formerly advised President Bill Clinton, said the debate appearance by the general was a Nixon-style “dirty trick” orchestrated by Sen. Clinton.

“You know, listen, let’s put the blame where it’s due — this is a dirty trick by the Hillary Clinton campaign,” said Morris. The former consultant also said he believed Clinton was behind the recent story, broken by Politico, that Rudy Giuliani obscured security expenses to disguise an extra-marital affair during his tenure as New York mayor.

http://rawstory.com/news/2007/FOX_CNN_part_of_vast_leftwing_1130.html

Hillary’s Plant-Gate, Revisited, Again.

 Will Hillary point her finger and say, “I never told that gay General Kerr to call CNN with that question”?  At least this takes the focus off Hillary for a few days, and now with the writers strike, no more Democratic debates until the Iowa caucus.  Could they have planned it any better?

Hillary honcho Howard Wolfson has stated, “Keith Kerr is not a campaign employee and was not acting on behalf of the campaign.”Chris Matthews, a guest during the segment at the time, was unimpressed.CHRIS MATTHEWS: Well “employee” could be a weasel word, too. I mean, he’s not being paid? Well that’s not the question that was asked.Note also what Wolfson didn’t say. He didn’t claim the Clinton campaign was unaware of what Kerr was up to, nor did he say that the campaign hadn’t encouraged him to do this. “Not acting on behalf of the campaign” is a meaningless non-denial denial.

Editor’s Note (Ken Shepherd 08:18): It should be noted that CNN’s Anderson Cooper quipped in a recent interview with Townhall’s Mary Katharine Ham that “campaign operatives are people too,” justifying political hacks posing questions at debate forums.

This fits in with Novak’s reference to “Agents” of Hillary Clinton.