Reason Magazine
- reason.com
- reason.tv
- reason.org
- Donate
- Site Search:
Reason on Facebook
Reason on Twitter
Reason on YouTube
Reason RSSGet Reason E-mail Updates!
Manage your Reason e-mail list subscriptionsadvertisements
"She Bitch-Slapped Me"
Reporter Phil Klein was on the scene when Hillary Clinton sneered at an anti-Iran War voter.
During the question and answer period, Randall Rolph, a retired Democratic voter from Nashua, Iowa, confronted Clinton on her recent vote in favor of a U.S. Senate resolution calling on the Bush administration to declare Iran's Revolutionary Guard a terrorist organization. The measure has been greeted with suspicion by war critics who view it as a document that President Bush could use as a pretext to launch an attack on Iran.
"Why should I support your candidacy if you haven't learned from the past?" Rolph asked, referring to her 2002 vote to authorize the use of military force in Iraq.
Clinton first thanked him and then countered that, "the premise of the question is wrong." So far, so good. But after offering a description of what was in the resolution, Clinton smugly and dismissively accused him of having been fed the information, saying "obviously somebody sent [it] to you."
Rolph didn't let it pass. "I take exception, this is my own research..."
"Well, then let me finish telling you..." Clinton screamed.
"Nobody sent that, and I am offended that you would suggest it," Rolph snapped at her.
Realizing she had committed a blunder, she backed off. "Then I apologize," she said. "I apologize, it's just that I've been asked the very same question at three other places."
Shades of Dale Ungerer! Ungerer, as you don't remember, was the Iowa retiree who demanded Howard Dean stop being mean to Bush at a forum right before the 2004 Iowa Caucuses. The exchange was only memorable for Ungerer's use of the phrase "mean-mouthing" and Dean's telling him to "sit down" when he interrupted Dean's answer. Too mean to be president! And so, not coincidentally, he lost.
Hillary's tiff (which Rolph called a "bitch-slapping" when Klein approached him about it) isn't getting anything like the same attention. It's more revealing, though. Clinton, like plenty of establishment beltway Democrats, rolls her eyes at the anti-war left. With good reason, from her perspective: They're always creating litmus tests for people like her and her husband, but she keeps beating them anyway. This Iran thing's a good example: She knows the amendment was written to lay some groundwork for a possible action against Iran. But she imagines she'll be president in 15 months and she wants to have that groundwork lain. Democrats who don't like that? They can suck it up. They don't know the world like she knows it. (This is more reason I don't understand the lazy suggestions that Jim Webb should be Hillary's running mate. Andrew Jackson and John Calhoun had more in common.)
By the way, since the "elitist liberal scum insults Iowa voter" is a classic campaign story, why is Drudge still leading with Obama's "Kingdom of Heaven" speech? A Clinton II nomination (and presidency) is good for Drudge; an Obama nomination, less so.
Sort of related, here's Justin Webb on the Democrats piling on to the Clinton bandwagon for fear of their careers.
GILMORE|10.8.07 @ 10:30AM|#
I beg for a day when political posts here are actually something more than picky gossip
|10.8.07 @ 10:32AM|#
But she imagines she'll be president in 15 months and she
wants to have that groundwork lain.
More likely, she realizes she has a good chance of being president
in 15 months, is running against a war, and wants to protect her
credentials as a tough guy by being on record wagging her finder at
Iran.
anon|10.8.07 @ 10:43AM|#
How ironic that the "OMGBUSH IS GONNA NUKE IRAN!!!11!!1" have
become the bigger fear mongers than "Iran is irresponsibly pursuing
nuclear weapons"*
*Barack Obama
Dav Woycechowsky|10.8.07 @ 10:45AM|#
And so, not coincidentally, he lost.
Uh, yeah, sure that was it. I mean the only alternative would be
that senior Democrats in control of the party subverted the caucus
and turned it into some kind of "conspiracy" --
and I am sure that qualifies as crazy talk in
Weigs-world.
|10.8.07 @ 10:46AM|#
Gilmore,
Most political posts, anywhere, are picky gossip. Sadly, H&R is
better than some higher traffic blogs, like NRO or TNR.
|10.8.07 @ 10:53AM|#
joe,
You can wag your finger at a country without designating their army
as a terrorist organization. Seeing as Bush has authorization to
end terror wherever it rears its head this gives significant leeway
for an end around the legislative process. It also provides a nice
cop-out for those who voted for it. Kind of like the authorization
to use force on Iraq. Now those that voted for it can claim, "ZOMG!
I wasn't voting for war in Iraq, I though Bush was going to wait
until more evidence came in, it was his fault. Master plays
tricksies on us."
|10.8.07 @ 10:54AM|#
Clinton smugly and dismissively accused him of having been
fed the information
Vast
Right-wing
Conspiracy
|10.8.07 @ 10:57AM|#
Jackson and Calhoun actually had quite a bit in common at first. Both men were Southern slave owners and Jackson looked favorably on states' rights, but to Calhoun's chagrin, he was not willing to take this to the extreme of embracing nullification. Harrison-Tyler was probably was probably the most ideologically divergent ticket in history, as the Whigs learned when Harrison died and Tyler started vetoing Whig bills. Roosevelt-Garner is probably the most ideologically divergent ticket of the twentieth century.
|10.8.07 @ 10:58AM|#
You'd think that three separate people asking her the same question would make her somewhat more introspective or thinking about her position on Iran, but no, it's proof of conspiracy. DO NOT WANT>
Jozef|10.8.07 @ 11:00AM|#
Vast
Right-wing
Conspiracy
Left-wing. With the exception of Kicinich all Democrat candidates
are as right-wing as their Republican counterparts. It's those
pesky left-wingers who want to stop the war (well, libertarians as
well, but they're too inept to organize a conspiracy).
|10.8.07 @ 11:04AM|#
Mo,
Hey, don't look at me to defend the language of this
resolution.
But this was the Iran resolution that was put in front of her to
vote on, and she had every political reason in the world to vote
for it.
Also, there's a rather significant difference between this bill and
the Iraq AUMF - this didn't A and U of MF.
thoreau|10.8.07 @ 11:06AM|#
and she had every political reason in the world to vote for it.
Yes. Yes she did.
I don't think that carries quite the implications that you want it
to carry, joe.
|10.8.07 @ 11:12AM|#
A shill for ethanol? OH NO! I heard he's a vegetarian, too. And do you know who else was a vegetarian? You know who.
|10.8.07 @ 11:19AM|#
thoreau,
Out of curiosity, what "implications" do you imagine I "want" my
observation to "carry?"
|10.8.07 @ 11:51AM|#
You can wag your finger at a country without designating
their army as a terrorist organization.
True, of course, but it sort of begs the question of whether the
Iranian military is or is not actively aiding and abetting
terrorist organizations.
Any thoughts on the merits, or are we going to continue to obsess
over perceived political advantage and hypothetical scenarios?
|10.8.07 @ 11:53AM|#
deaniac conspiracy | October 8, 2007, 11:07am | #
The guy's a shill for ethanol. Still feel all warm and fuzzy for him?
So's the owner of the liquor store where I bought $60 worth of wine
for tonight's dinner.
thoreau|10.8.07 @ 12:06PM|#
joe-
Well, I took your post to mean that we should regard her vote on
the resolution as purely a political ploy rather than an indicator
of what her foreign policy would look like. But I think that if
she's willing to support this resolution, knowing the possible
consequences, then we should weigh that when considering what her
foreign policy might look like.
lunchstealer|10.8.07 @ 12:13PM|#
Out of curiosity, what "implications" do you imagine I
"want" my observation to "carry?"
Suprisingly, T's assuming that by carrying an implication, you're
secretly telling Hillary to "carry", which means OMG YOU WANT HER
TO KEEP THE BABY!
|10.8.07 @ 12:20PM|#
Damn joe, you seem to be picking a lot of fights today. Is
everything OK?
In related news: See joe get "bitch-slapped" on Kyoto starting
heir.
JBinMO|10.8.07 @ 12:22PM|#
I think they had another reason for passing the resolution declaring thr Iranian revoultionary guard a terrorist. Now any member of the Iranian millitary they capture anywhere can be called a suspected member of the guard. Because they are now suspected "terrorists", the geniva conventions do not apply.
|10.8.07 @ 12:45PM|#
It still confuses me why anyone would want to vote for
Senator Clinton. Even in the poor pool before us today, she's not
even in the top few Democrats that I'd vote for, if they were my
only option.
Of course, if you really oppose the war, vote for Richardson, or,
better yet, Paul.
Fluffy|10.8.07 @ 12:46PM|#
Joe -
This resolution didn't need to authorize the use of military force,
precisely because of the language in the dual authorizations for
the Afghanistan and Iraq invasions.
On the basis of earlier legislation, W has the purported authority
to pursue terrorists wherever they locate themselves
geographically. If Iran's military forces are declared terrorists,
Bush needs no additional legislation to justify attacking
them.
To believe Hillary's defense of her vote, you have to believe that
the Bush administration won't interpret their authority under the
law broadly. Since in every other instance they have pressed claims
of executive power to the greatest extreme possible, Hillary's
defense is not credible. She knew exactly what she was doing and
didn't give a shit, because she is a reprehensible political whore
and may as well be Bush in a dress.
|10.8.07 @ 12:52PM|#
True, of course, but it sort of begs the question of whether
the Iranian military is or is not actively aiding and abetting
terrorist organizations.
Any thoughts on the merits, or are we going to continue to obsess
over perceived political advantage and hypothetical
scenarios?
They're probably just as active as the Saudi government is. If this
is just a finger wagging exercise, it's a waste of time (just like
the Limbaugh/MoveOn fooferahs). If it's, as I suspect, a relatively
harmless wrapper with a dangerous middle, it leads us to a
dangerous place wrt military action w/ Iran.
The problem with ignoring the political reality of this resolution
is that these sort of seemingly semantic trivialities end up having
real world consequences.
Fluffy|10.8.07 @ 12:58PM|#
Thoughts on the merits:
Having bombed and invaded Iraq and choreographed the formation of a
government of our liking for Iraq, we don't really have any grounds
to assert that Iran is "interfering" in Iraq.
It's like burning down someone's house and then deciding that their
neighbor deserves to die for peeing on the ashes.
|10.8.07 @ 1:15PM|#
Having bombed and invaded Iraq and choreographed the
formation of a government of our liking for Iraq, we don't really
have any grounds to assert that Iran is "interfering" in
Iraq.
I gather Fluffy thinks its open season on Iraq and Iraqis
now.
Is there anything the Iranians could do in Iraq that we could
object to, Fluff? Anything at all?
|10.8.07 @ 1:22PM|#
She knew exactly what she was doing and didn't give a shit,
because she is a reprehensible political whore and may as well be
Bush in a dress.
I though it was Bush in a pant suit?
|10.8.07 @ 1:28PM|#
RC,
When hawks bang the drum for war vs. Iran, I often think, "You and
what army?" We can barely handle Iraq, how can we handle a better
armed, larger Iranian army?
|10.8.07 @ 1:30PM|#
I gather Fluffy thinks its open season on Iraq and Iraqis
now.
It is not open season on Iraq or Iraqis. But, the US has zero
moral-standing or credibility to be accusing Iran of interferring
in Iraq or of claiming that Iran is harming Iraq and Iraqis. I'll
bit a quarter that more Iraqis mind US interferance in their
country.
thoreau|10.8.07 @ 1:30PM|#
I gather Fluffy thinks its open season on Iraq and Iraqis
now.
Does that mean he works for Blackwater?
|10.8.07 @ 1:35PM|#
Mo,
To be fair, we beat the crap out of Iraq's standing
army.
And against the U.S. military, the Iranian Army would crumble like
the Seattle Seahawks yesterday (Ha!).
Unfortunately, we (the U.S.) don't seem to understand that
nowadays, once a standing army is defeated, the leaders don't hash
out a peace accord of tea and crumpets.
They form guerrilla resistance movements, making the whole concept
of invading a country implausible, and I would argue, obsolete.
Fluffy|10.8.07 @ 1:41PM|#
We could object to Iranian invasion of a sovereign Iraqi state,
if there, you know, were such a thing as a sovereign Iraqi
state.
Let's withdraw, then check back and see who's governing Iraq
organically in a year or two, and if Iran violates that new state's
sovereignty, I promise to join you in complaining.
TLB|10.8.07 @ 1:46PM|#
Is Phil Klein a real reporter? What about the rest of the press
corps covering Iowa? Shouldn't those "reporters" be the ones asking
questions like this, rather than leaving it up to regular
citizens?
In fact, the only real questions I've heard of the candidates being
asked were ones posed by regular citizens. The MSM and other
"reporters" are too busy reporting on cackles and the like.
If Ron Paul fans want to improve his chances, encourage those in IA
and NH to go to campaign appearances by the GOP and Dem
front-runners, ask the questions "reporters" won't ask, and then
upload the response to Youtube.
That way we can reduce the popularity of the front-runners at the
same time as we show just how corrupt the MSM is.
Fluffy|10.8.07 @ 1:50PM|#
TLB -
If Ron Paul supporters show up at another candidate's event, the
lackeys those candidates have in the campaign press report that
rude, mean, dangerous Ron Paul supporters were annoying people and
being disruptive. That's if they don't play the "Truther"
card.
Paul supporters are already peed on enough for not cooperating with
the media narrative for the Republican race.
|10.8.07 @ 1:59PM|#
Hey, don't look at me to defend the language of this
resolution.
But this was the Iran resolution that was put in front of her to
vote on, and she had every political reason in the world to vote
for it.
Also, there's a rather significant difference between this bill and
the Iraq AUMF - this didn't A and U of MF.
In response to which, I'd like to echo what Jake Boone said to joe
in the recent Kyoto thread, a reply that could be applied to many
if not most of joe's arguments:
You know, joe, the "purpose" of a law isn't all that important,
when you compare it to the outcomes actually created by said
law.
|10.8.07 @ 2:09PM|#
True, of course, but it sort of begs the question of whether
the Iranian military is or is not actively aiding and abetting
terrorist organizations.
Any thoughts on the merits, or are we going to continue to obsess
over perceived political advantage and hypothetical
scenarios?
Depends on how you define "terrorist organization". Quite a few
lefties would say that the U.S. military has aided and abetted
terrorist organizations -- such as, when we gave arms to various
groups fighting the Russians in Afghanistan, quite a few of whom
are in Iraq now killing U.S. troops. Wasn't Osama Bin Laden given
U.S. aid? I seem to remember Donald Rumsfeld shaking hands with
Saddam Hussein, and us supporting the House of Saud, despite the
large number of Saudis on the planes on 9-11.
Fact is, if you're pursuing anything but a completely defensive
foreign strategy, the kind Ron Paul advocates for, you end up
aiding all kinds of reprehensible people.
Gilbert Martin|10.8.07 @ 2:20PM|#
"They form guerrilla resistance movements, making the whole
concept of invading a country implausible, and I would argue,
obsolete."
If it's obsolete, it's only because the concept of total war has
been presumed to be obsolete as well.
guerilla resistance tactics only work if the opposing force that
that has the overwhelming military force advantage decides it is
obligated to handicap itself by making it's priority the avoidance
of civilian casualties rather than obliterating all means of
resistance - with nuclear weapons if necessary.
If General Curtis LeMay were still around and running the show,
that presumption would not hold.
|10.8.07 @ 2:26PM|#
"If General Curtis LeMay were still around and running the show,
that presumption would not hold."
You forgot to mention Genghiz Khan and Attila the Hun. Now those
guys totally knew how to run a war.
thoreau|10.8.07 @ 2:29PM|#
Gilbert-
I forget: Is this about spreading liberal values in the Middle
East, or not?
Syloson of Samos|10.8.07 @ 2:38PM|#
If we attack Iran* it may only strengthen their position in the
region.
*I assume such an attack would take the form of air strikes and
perhaps some special forces assaults on installations which are of
some concern.
|10.8.07 @ 2:53PM|#
In response to which, I'd like to echo what Jake Boone said
to joe in the recent Kyoto thread, a reply that could be applied to
many if not most of joe's arguments:
You know, joe, the "purpose" of a law isn't all that important,
when you compare it to the outcomes actually created by said
law.
But his heart is pure. Why cares about results when you start with
good intentions?
thoreau|10.8.07 @ 2:55PM|#
But his heart is pure. Why cares about results when you start with good intentions?
You say that about joe, but it could just as easily be applied to
people who still insist we were right to invade Iraq.
Episiarch|10.8.07 @ 2:56PM|#
Invading Iran would be a whole new order of magnitude of
stupidity. Which is why I am worried. Washington has so much stupid
they are capable of anything.
Unless Iran really, truly, for-sure has nuke capability and is
actually, for real, planning on messianically nuking Israel or the
US or giving it to terrorists, invading them is insanity.
Since a) I'm pretty sure the above is not the case, and b) Bush
& Co. has no credibility in terms of convincing anybody that it
is in fact true, an Iran invasion would be Iraq without even a
believable pretense of "WMD".
|10.8.07 @ 3:20PM|#
When politicians pick up the Bible and use it as a prop, I think about all the hell on earth that false prophets like Jim Jones, David Koresh, et. al. brought to their followers.
|10.8.07 @ 3:22PM|#
"Invading Iran would be a whole new order of magnitude of
stupidity. Which is why I am worried. Washington has so much stupid
they are capable of anything."
Ep;
I heard that Washington just got it's refill of stupid pills from
the local Walmart. Prescriptions are only $4, sweet!
Gilbert Martin|10.8.07 @ 3:22PM|#
"Gilbert-
I forget: Is this about spreading liberal values in the Middle
East, or not?"
Liberals are socialists.
Why would I want to spread their values in the Middle East?
TLB|10.8.07 @ 3:41PM|#
Fluffy says: If Ron Paul supporters show up at another
candidate's event, the lackeys those candidates have in the
campaign press report that rude, mean, dangerous Ron Paul
supporters were annoying people and being disruptive. That's if
they don't play the "Truther" card.
That's not what I'm suggesting. Unfortunately, many of those who've
tried to ask questions have been Truthers, and some have organized
rallies outside others' events.
What I'm suggesting is asking real questions in a pointed,
adversarial, albeit polite fashion during designated Q&A
sessions. (Contrary example: one video has something shouting
questions to Ruuuudy's back.)
|10.8.07 @ 3:48PM|#
Unless Iran really, truly, for-sure has nuke capability and
is actually, for real, planning on messianically nuking Israel or
the US or giving it to terrorists, invading them is
insanity.
If Iran is planning on nuking Israel, shouldn't Israel handle the
problem? I hear they have an awesome military, with nukes and
everything.
|10.8.07 @ 4:01PM|#
Unless Iran really, truly, for-sure has nuke capability and
is actually, for real, planning on messianically nuking Israel or
the US or giving it to terrorists, invading them is
insanity.
I think you meant to say that as soon as Iran really truly for-sure
has nuke capability, invading them will be insanity.
Nash|10.8.07 @ 4:08PM|#
You silly panty waists!! We're not going to INVADE IRAN. We're just gonna bomb em see? Just an extended bombing campaign to rile em up a little. Then they'll launch a terris attack on us since they hate us for our strippers. Then you're really gonna have sumthin' to cry bout understand?
|10.8.07 @ 5:00PM|#
A Clinton II nomination (and presidency) is good for Drudge;
an Obama nomination, less so.
I would think the "Kingdom of Heaven" speech would be good for
Obama. Its all part of the Jesus would be redistribution democrat
meme.
|10.8.07 @ 7:26PM|#
You say that about joe, but it could just as easily be
applied to people who still insist we were right to invade
Iraq.
Amen, brother!
|10.8.07 @ 7:34PM|#
Washington has so much stupid they are capable of
anything.
It appears to me that somewhere inside the beltway there exists a
Perpetual
Stupid Machine.
thoreau just might want to weigh in on the theoretical implications
of this.
|10.8.07 @ 10:02PM|#
I think you meant to say that as soon as Iran really truly
for-sure has nuke capability, invading them will be
insanity.
Is it sane now? Once again, I have to ask, "You and what army?" You
can't say let's invade Iran without f-ing manpower. Are you willing
to advocate a draft to invade Iran? Otherwise, you're advocating
military cold fusion.
|10.8.07 @ 10:04PM|#
well, libertarians as well, but they're too inept to
organize a conspiracy
Anarchists don't conspire. They hire a private contractor to carry
out whatever deeds they want done. And if the contract goes bad
then they hire .... oh wait, I forget what exactly happens
next.
I think you hire a paramilitary group and have them go in and kick
some real ass.
And geez, it just hit me. Bush must be a freaking anarchist at
heart. That would explain everything.
Site comments/questions:
Media Inquiries and Reprint Permissions:
(310) 367-6109
Editorial & Production Offices:
3415 S. Sepulveda Blvd.
Suite 400
Los Angeles, CA 90034
(310) 391-2245