Hillaryville in a panic, Part #2.
Part #1 Can be found here, it was written yesterday and it lists some of the reasons why her campaign is in full panic mode, but I wrote it before I found out that Hillary Clinton is now planting members in her audiences with scripted questions because she does not care to answer "real" questions.
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.
Trouble is, the young woman told others and today her account showed up on the Grinnell website, including mention that the staffer signaled Clinton who to call on.
Last night, 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.”
From Fox:
"After her speech, Clinton accepted questions. But according to Grinnell College student Muriel Gallo-Chasanoff ’10, some of the questions from the audience were planned in advance. 'They were canned,' she said. Before the event began, a Clinton staff member approached Gallo-Chasanoff to ask a specific question after Clinton’s speech. 'One of the senior staffers told me what [to ask],' she said.
The Edwards Campaign jumped on this news:
“In light of a weak debate performance, not to mention a persistent inability to answer the tough questions, it appears the Clinton campaign has adopted a new strategy of planting questions,” John Edwards’ Communications Director Chris Kofinis said.
“It’s what the Clinton campaign calls the politics of planting.”
As we showed yesterday, Hillary was already having problems in Iowa, according to Zogby....does she think this latest stupid stunt is going to improve those numbers?
Rasmussen again showed that she was hemorrhaging points in NH...in September 18th, she held a 23 point lead, October 27th, that lead dropped to 16 points and November 7th, that lead dropped to 10 points.
That is a 13 point drop since September 18th, 2007.
Worse news, the latest Wall Street Journal/NBC poll that heads up against Giuliani, Hillary only enjoys a 1 point lead.
USA/Gallup shows married men do not favor Hillary.
Zogby shows trouble for Hillary in Iowa.
This next Rasmussen poll is no big surprise, since it is Texas, but added with everything else, my question yesterday about whether Hillary Clinton is losing that "shoe in" status becomes more relevant.
[...]
TODAY we see from The Atlantic.com that the bad news just keeps coming for Hillary, this time in NH:
I hope Zogby does another Iowa poll real soon because Iowans are not going to be happy about this at all.
As we witnessed in the last Democratic debate, Hillary isn't capable of answering unscripted questions without beating around the bush, avoiding a direct answer and when forced to give one, changing it, then changing it again they days later denying those original changes.
So the choices are clear...either she answers scripted questions by planted audience members or this:
Anyone still think Hillary is capable of honesty?
[Update] Within minutes of hitting publish on this piece, I received a comment from someone listing their homepage as Vote for Hillary Online, first I am going to show you the comment, then I am going to show you what her "supporters" think of her while still being willing to vote for her.
This is the funniest thing I have seen in a long time.
The comment:
This story has been way overblown. So what if she had a planted reporter asking questions? Hillary Clinton is our only hope to take back America and get it under control, and sometimes you have to do whatever it takes to win. The fact that people fail to realize this is simply shocking.
Vote for Hillary Online | Homepage | 11.10.07 - 12:40 pm |
My answer:
LOLOLOL, You really should take your meds, you obviously need them.
Hillary is a corrupt politician that has no problem planting people, avoiding answering real questions and flopping around the debate stage like a fish out of water so that she doesn't have to tell the truth of her socialistic agenda.
I suggest a good shrink for you, you need it.
Spree | Homepage | 11.10.07 - 12:44 pm |
Then of course, being a a freak about clicking links, I clicked on over to the Vote For Hillary Online site to find this:
Initially, the intent of this website was to promote Hillary Clinton and ensure that she is elected president in 2008. We were going to list her positions on this website, but because of how quickly her positions change on each issue, we simply don't have the staff to be able to keep up with all the updates.
That ladies and gentlemen is from people that "support" her lying, conniving, manipulative ways.
Hysterical.
Malkin compares to FEMA staging a press conference.
[Update] It seems that someone that commented on this post with the inane statement of "Geeez this story has been way overblown. So what if she had a planted reporter asking questions? Hillary Clinton is our only hope to take back
Go. Read. Laugh.
[Update] Also don't miss the video of the college girl explaining exactly how the planted question came about.
Clinton Campaigns try to control the questions of the next Democratic debate also. (At the link above)
.
