WAAAH! Russert Was a Big Meanie!

[Yonivore]

The armor cracks to reveal a glass jaw (http://thehill.com/leading-the-news/campaign-call-reveals-clinton-debate-concern-2007-11-01.html).


While one supporter voiced his concern that the Clinton campaign is not devoting enough money and staff to Iowa, lagging behind Obama, most supporters who commented on the call expressed their displeasure with what they saw as the moderators’ focus on Clinton.

One caller from Oklahoma City said that “the questions … were designed to incite a brawl,” and that Russert’s and Brian Williams’s moderating was “an abdication of journalistic responsibility.”

Another said Russert “should be shot,” before quickly adding that she shouldn’t say that on a conference call.

Penn and Mantz said they were hearing a lot of the same sentiment from other supporters, but they do not plan to engage the media or the debate’s moderators.

“We’re not challenging the media on that, but the sentiment you’ve expressed is obviously one I’ve heard,” Penn said.
I didn't watch the debate, but from the video clips I've seen of the Clinton-Russert and Clinton-Williams exchanges, the questions asked were not particularly confrontational or out of bounds. They were fair - certainly more fair than those asked of the Republicans by Chris Matthews.

The question of licenses for illegal immigrants, and Clinton's terrible answer (http://hotair.com/archives/2007/10/30/video-hillary-clinton-flip-flops-around-eliot-spitzers-licenses-for-illegals-plan/), has revealed much more than her position on this issue. It's revealed the snippy, unpleasant Clinton that we all know and love from the 1990s. It's revealed Clinton is shifty with her positions, but not nearly as good as her husband at hiding it.

And now it's shown that the Clinton campaign in general has a sense of entitlement regarding treatment from the media. I think they're truly shocked by the fact that Russert had the audacity to ask them tough questions. This reaction to criticism and Clinton's inability to maintain her composure in that environment creates an opportunity for the GOP. When it comes time to negotiate the terms of the presidential debates next fall, the GOP should ask for questioners such as Tim Russert and Brit Hume. No Chris Matthews, no Jim "why do you hate puppies, President Bush" Lehrer and definitely no Keith Olbermann.

Keep the pressure on, and the veneer of invincibility goes away really fast. Let's hope the GOP has the good sense to realize that, and exploit it.

[101A]

Problem is; I like Clinton more than Obama or Edwards!

I want her to be the nominee of the Democrats, because she is the hardest for them to elect...AND if we are going to have a Dem this time around, as hard as it is for me to admit it; I like her more than the other two.

[George Gervin's Afro]

I didn't see the debate either and I heard and read that she got pummeled. One of the instances constantly mentioned was her response, or lack thereof, to spitzer's license porgram for illegals. she was aksed if she supported it yes or no and she responded that this was one of those gotcha situations. She then went on to explain, quite well actually, how she supported the spitzer's attempt to deal with a problem that, predictably, was Bush's fault for not addressing comprehensive immigration reform. She was then asked again the same question and she again reiterated that she supported Spitzer's efforts to indentify who was in the country because we do need to know who's here. She was lambasted for not answering yes or no.

What I don't understand is how someone can support part of a proposal, or the idea that was proposed , but not support it in it's entirety and then answer yes or no. All politicians bounce around yes or no questions because most of the time the question is too complex to answer it in a yes or no way.

[Yonivore]

Problem is; I like Clinton more than Obama or Edwards!

I want her to be the nominee of the Democrats, because she is the hardest for them to elect...AND if we are going to have a Dem this time around, as hard as it is for me to admit it; I like her more than the other two.
You know, for all the rhetoric of the left, it is Clinton that understands the war on terror cannot be abandoned if a Democrat takes office.

It really doesn't matter who's elected, once they sit down in the oval office, the realities of this war will preclude them from acting rashly or in response to the nutter base. I'm convinced that even a President Paul or Kucinich would get a eye-opening revelation and have to disappoint those that put them in office.

Having said that, Clinton is the most dangerous because she'd be the most effective at disassembling our free-markets and running our economy into an abyss.

[Yonivore]

She then went on to explain, quite well actually, how she supported the spitzer's attempt to deal with a problem that, predictably, was Bush's fault for not addressing comprehensive immigration reform.
:lmao Quite well?

She basically said, a bad plan is better than no plan. At least the governor is doing something -- even if it will cause more problems than it will fix.

You call that quite well?

[George Gervin's Afro]

:lmao Quite well?

She basically said, a bad plan is better than no plan. At least the governor is doing something -- even if it will cause more problems than it will fix.

You call that quite well?


ok so you propose doing nothing.


well you can relate your silly response to bush's 'taking the fight' to the terrorists.. ' a bad plan is better tha no plan' right? even if it causes more problems than it will fix? This is why I believe you and people like ray are hypocrites. On one hand you crticize a dem for one thing and then defend a republican using the exact same logic..


so yoni is on record for doing nothing..

[Yonivore]

ok so you propose doing nothing.
No, I propose rounding them up and shipping them home.


well you can relate your silly response to bush's 'taking the fight' to the terrorists.. ' a bad plan is better tha no plan' right? even if it causes more problems than it will fix? This is why I believe you and people like ray are hypocrites. On one hand you crticize a dem for one thing and then defend a republican using the exact same logic..
That plan has worked out quite well. And, it was a good plan from the beginning. I don't know how you make the comparison.


so yoni is on record for doing nothing..
That being not true aside, I'm not running for President...Hillary Clinton is; and, her willingness to create more problems by just spinning the wheels of government, very expensively I hasten to add, should be troublesome to voters; even Democratic voters.

[xrayzebra]

I didn't see the debate either and I heard and read that she got pummeled. One of the instances constantly mentioned was her response, or lack thereof, to spitzer's license porgram for illegals. she was aksed if she supported it yes or no and she responded that this was one of those gotcha situations. She then went on to explain, quite well actually, how she supported the spitzer's attempt to deal with a problem that, predictably, was Bush's fault for not addressing comprehensive immigration reform. She was then asked again the same question and she again reiterated that she supported Spitzer's efforts to indentify who was in the country because we do need to know who's here. She was lambasted for not answering yes or no.

What I don't understand is how someone can support part of a proposal, or the idea that was proposed , but not support it in it's entirety and then answer yes or no. All politicians bounce around yes or no questions because most of the time the question is too complex to answer it in a yes or no way.

Ehhhh, GGA, Bush and Clinton and all the other libs were
on the same side on the "Illegal" immigration reform.
If I remember correctly there were "several" democrats
that helped the republicans to vote it down.

You have a faulty memory when it comes to Bush.

[George Gervin's Afro]

Ehhhh, GGA, Bush and Clinton and all the other libs were
on the same side on the "Illegal" immigration reform.
If I remember correctly there were "several" democrats
that helped the republicans to vote it down.

You have a faulty memory when it comes to Bush.


well apprently ray you have a comprehension problem. i was commenting that it was predicatable that she blamed bush. i know there were many democrats involved along with bush when it came to the immigration reform.

[101A]

You know, for all the rhetoric of the left, it is Clinton that understands the war on terror cannot be abandoned if a Democrat takes office.Yes, she has made that (the most) clear


It really doesn't matter who's elected, once they sit down in the oval office, the realities of this war will preclude them from acting rashly or in response to the nutter base. I'm convinced that even a President Paul or Kucinich would get a eye-opening revelation and have to disappoint those that put them in office.I can hope you're right, but I'm no so sure.


Having said that, Clinton is the most dangerous because she'd be the most effective at disassembling our free-markets and running our economy into an abyss.I see Edwards carrying that banner, based on his rhetoric; I assume Hillary would be more like her husband was; I might be misjudging things, however.