Posted on 11/11/2007 2:12:04 PM PST by doug from upland
“...and likened the practice to past campaign appearances by President George W. Bush, from which protesters have been barred.”
This is news to me. Anyone heard of this?
I’m not totally worried about the young airheads who will vote for hillary because she’s a woman, or because she’s married to billy. Most of those are concentrated in Liberal states already. Thank heaven for the electoral college system.
I would be a lot happier if college students didn’t find it so easy to vote both on campus and from their parents’ residence, though.
Do you think Bush or any other Republican would get a writeup that nice they did anything like that, or even appeared to?
My psycho liberal mother-in-law still insists that Nancy Reagan always mouthed the answers in press conferences to Ronald Reagan because he was too stupid to formulate the answers. Whenever I try asking her about the Hindenburg that Hillary is in a press conference, which is why she hasn't given one in 15 years, the subject changes faster than Hillary diving for a five dollar bill.
Thanks for posting this article.
I found the following qoute strange, and wonder why no one has noticed.
“John Edwards said the Clinton campaign’s use of a planted question was deceptively inconsistent with a free democracy, and likened the practice to past campaign appearances by President George W. Bush, from which protesters have been barred.”
likened the practice to PAST campaign appearances by President George W. Bush, from which protesters HAVE BEEN barred.
How did they ban protesters from something that occurred in the past?
Are they talking about him appearing on behalf of other Republicans? What protesters were barred?
It seemed like that statement was just a bash Bush remark by Edwards and/or the author of the article.
Someone else did notice.
Kudos.
Worlds smarmiest woman...................
This is news to me. Anyone heard of this?
I don't know. But I have spoken with witnesses of Bill Clinton, Al Gore and John Kerry campaign events who saw protesters physically assaulted by democrat campaign operatives. Signs ripped out of hands, pushed back and tackled to the ground kind of stuff.
Hey, you can’t peddle snake oil without shills in the audience.
According to my daughter who is in college, most babes are for Obama. She is a history/poli-sci major who will be attending law school when she gets her undergrad. The female under 25 vote does not care for Hillary whatsoever. To that group she’s the status quo. She represents every whacko roommate’s step mom who’s either cheated or been cheated on as some bad relationship codependancy posterchild.
On further reflection, I do recall a story of Republican staffers denying access to obvious disrupters (as is the right of ANY staff management), but that is completely apples v. oranges to placing shills in the audience to propagandize.
Who writes this stuff?!
Fact is that she is the kind of lawyer who is helpless without a brief. She was lucky to get into law school at a time when the profession was just opening to significant numbers of women. Before, only the top women could get in. Afterwards, women had to be head-to head competitive with male applicants. She was what they claim that Clarence Thomas was, an affirmative action type.
I don’t think there’s any chance she would pick Obama or Edwards anyway. She’s going to have enough trouble with the white male vote, so a ticket with no white males on it is less likely...a white male who could swing a state that Kerry lost her way would help the most.
I was wondering if the “sex scandal about to break” was going to be about Hillary and then the questions could get a little more harder. Of course, she would just lie or say something stupid like using the “gotcha” word or simply giving a non-answer - and she is skilled at non-answers.
Plants are nothing unusual. Usually they don’t rat.
If Richardson weren’t such an obvious k___A___, he might be chosen because he is Mexican with an anglo name. Who else?
What a great description!
I really think that this idea of Hillary being tough to beat is all wrong. If anything, she or any of the other Dem candidates right now (you don't know who might show up later) are amazingly vulnerable to defeat. Overestimating Hillary is every bit as dangerous as underestimating her. Whoever our Republican nominee is (and I hope it's Thompson), it would need to be a candidate who would buck the MSM establishment and staunchly and solidly insist on a free and open spontaneous debates, and refuse loudly, clearly, and eloquently any other terms of debate.
Certainly in that environment, Hillary would catch fire and blow up in such a way that the "Dean Scream" would be a whimper in comparison. I like the idea of Thompson being the one to so challenge Hillary because while the other Republican primary candidates were allowing themselves to be manipulated by so-called "moderators" Stephanopolis and Chris Matthews, doing everything on the liberal MSM's (and probably Hillary's) terms, Thompson remained aloof. The candidates who participated in those "debates" lost stature in my eyes for letting Liberals set the terms when they could have, and should have told those Liberals to pound sand if they didn't run them the way they as Republicans wanted to appeal to their Republican base. I like that Thompson calls his own shots.
Doug, our HERO! -- is certainly right, however, in that Hillary will have an insanely efficient (and corrupt) vote machine, including the solicitation of young stupid airhead college kids. She knows that the ONLY chance she has of not losing is through a third-party entry of a candidate that could take from Republicans, or massive vote mechanics and fraud (which isn't beyond the pale). The only other hope for her, IMO, lies in Giuliani, a candidate for whom many Republicans would never vote.
what sex scandal’s about to break? musta missed something but I DO have popcorn right now :)
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.