Hillary Clinton

"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.

NEXT: From Reading to Writing the Genetic Code: Another Step toward Creating the First Synthetic Life Form

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. I beg for a day when political posts here are actually something more than picky gossip

  2. 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.

  3. 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

  4. 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.

  5. Gilmore,
    Most political posts, anywhere, are picky gossip. Sadly, H&R is better than some higher traffic blogs, like NRO or TNR.

  6. 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.”

  7. Clinton smugly and dismissively accused him of having been fed the information

    Vast
    Right-wing
    Conspiracy

  8. 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.

  9. 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>

  10. Hillary pisses off the lefties and that’s supposed to be a bad thing.

  11. 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).

  12. 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.

  13. 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.

  14. The guy’s a shill for ethanol. Still feel all warm and fuzzy for him?

  15. 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.

  16. “an Obama nomination”

    You can shorten that to Obamanaton.

  17. Make that Obamination.

  18. thoreau,

    Out of curiosity, what “implications” do you imagine I “want” my observation to “carry?”

  19. 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?

  20. 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.

  21. 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.

  22. 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!

  23. 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.

  24. 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.

  25. 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.

  26. 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.

  27. 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.

  28. “picky gossip” is what differentiates politics from policy.

  29. 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.

  30. 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?

  31. Obama nomination

    Oh, I see what you did there.

  32. 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?

  33. 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?

  34. 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.

  35. I gather Fluffy thinks its open season on Iraq and Iraqis now.

    Does that mean he works for Blackwater?

  36. 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.

  37. …over tea and crumpets…

    You get the idea…

  38. 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.

  39. 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.

  40. 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.

  41. 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.

  42. 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.

  43. “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.

  44. “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.

  45. Gilbert-

    I forget: Is this about spreading liberal values in the Middle East, or not?

  46. Hillary’s VP pick will be Wes Clark, not Jim Webb.

  47. 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.

  48. It would be like invading Jello.

  49. 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?

  50. Can’t we all just…get along?

  51. 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.

  52. 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”.

  53. 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.

  54. “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!

  55. “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?

  56. 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.)

  57. 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.

  58. 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.

  59. 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?

  60. 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.

  61. 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!

  62. 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.

  63. 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.

  64. 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.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.