November 10, 2007

The Secret Plant Life Of Democratic Frontrunners

I know Hillary Clinton sponsored federal funding for the Woodstock Museum, but who knew she took Joni Mitchell's song about the concert so literally? Apparently heeding the lyrical call to "get back to the garden", Hillary's team has plants popping up all over the campaign trail:

For the second time in as many days, Hillary Clinton's presidential campaign has had to deal with accusations of planting questions during public appearances, FOX News has learned.

In a telephone interview Saturday, Geoffrey Mitchell, 32, said he was approached by Clinton campaign worker Chris Hayler to ask a question about how she was standing up to President Bush on the question on funding the Iraq war and a troop withdrawal timeline.

The encounter happened before an event hosted by Iowa State Sen. Gene Frais on a farm outside Fort Madison, Iowa.

Clinton's Iowa campaign confirmed to Fox News that one of its staff discussed questions with Mitchell before her April 2 event, but denied attempting to plant a pro-Clinton question.

Mo Elliethee, spokesman for Clinton's campaign in Iowa, told Fox that Hayler and Mitchell "had a previous relationship" and that a discussion about Clinton arose out of a normal conversation between two people who knew each other well.

Mitchell denies having a previous relationship with Hayler. He claims that the two had never met before that campaign appearance, and that Hayler stopped talking with him when he refused to act as a plant. Instead, Mitchell says that Hayler started asking other people in the area if they would ask the planted question instead. In the end, Hillary ran out of time to take questions at that appearance.

After Fox got the Clinton denial, Mitchell refused to change his story. He told Fox that he stood by every word.

This will start getting more traction. Earlier today, I noted that no one else had yet come forward to tell a similar story, and that could mean that a staffer just went off on a flier. It now looks like a pattern of staging supposedly extemporaneous questions, which calls into question why Hillary's team lacks confidence in her ability to handle herself without fixing the questions. It goes beyond the dishonesty, which is bad enough, to how bad could Hillary be that the campaign feels it has to protect us from her.


TrackBack URL for this entry:

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference The Secret Plant Life Of Democratic Frontrunners:

» The Secret Plant Life Of Democratic Frontrunners from
You've been kicked (a good thing) - Trackback from [Read More]

Comments (118)

Posted by JSFM | November 10, 2007 9:39 PM

Alternatively, they're just making sure that they get to cover everything at those campaign stops. It's hard to fit the entire playbill into a speech; punctuating any lengthy event with questions makes fine sense. Why are you so sure the cause was fears of incompetence?

Posted by Del Dolemonte | November 10, 2007 9:43 PM

Hill n' Bill have been Joni Mitchell fans for ages. In fact, Chelsea was named after one of Joni's songs.

Posted by MagicalPat | November 10, 2007 9:44 PM

If she has time for questions, she has time to cover these items in her speeches. And if it's important enough to plant a question about, then it is important enough to include in the body of her talk.

Posted by GM CASSEL, AMH1(AW),USN,RET | November 10, 2007 9:51 PM

So, will this fertilizer help my lawn? I always figured the Hidabeast was full of it.

Posted by JZ | November 10, 2007 9:53 PM

Err, this is amusing and all, and no one savors Hillary bashing more than this guy, but really, before we get too worked up over this: Does anyone here really think this practice is exclusive to Hillary's campaign? Don't you think all the big budget campaigns--from Rudy to Mitt to Obama--are doing the same thing?

Posted by Stephen Macklin | November 10, 2007 10:12 PM

There's an old saying about sowing and reaping that seems to fit this story.

Also the movie title "The Constant Gardiner."

Posted by Jack Grontius | November 10, 2007 10:27 PM

Hillary could eat a baby on stage tomorrow and most female Democrats would still vote for her.

Posted by flenser | November 10, 2007 10:31 PM

Wait a minute - do we want her to implode at this point? Let's wait until she is nominated. Until then, I think we should stay quiet and not scare the Democrats off.

Posted by John F Not Kerry | November 10, 2007 10:41 PM

At least FEMA had the good sense to have the planted questions come from paid staff!

Posted by GarandFan | November 10, 2007 10:43 PM

Hell, everything Hillary! does is staged.

Posted by Bennett | November 10, 2007 10:56 PM

Why does this woman want to be President? Running for the office seems excruciating for her, she has no natural talent for campaigning, seems to have nothing new or original to say and can't seem to get out of her own way most of the time. From the Hsu campaign finance shenanigans to this latest fiasco, she just comes across as a bumbler with poor judgment and horrible political instincts. So much of the rap on her has always focused on how ruthless and calculating she's supposed to be, but really she's just a bumbler.

And maybe successfully bumbling her way to the White House, who knows? Frightening.

Can't we somehow just make her go away? Mommy, mommy...the weird lady is scaring me...

Posted by daytrader | November 10, 2007 11:39 PM


You are wrong in so many ways. To take Hillary down it's going to have to take something major or a lot of stuff that adds up to break the camels back.

We can't take the smug attitude we can break her at our choice of time. She has to large of a protection circle and a fawning MSM that is willing to sweep up after her.

Nope done play cat and mouse with her because if you mess it up then you will have to pay the piper. A complete discredit on the national stage and no half way measures.

Nuke her fast early and often don't let up until there isn't enough left to do body damage assessment.

Posted by daytrader | November 10, 2007 11:53 PM


If you think Hillary is going to tell you what she is going to do then you need only to look back at her past.

She will say anything to get elected and then do what she wants to do when she gets there no matter how much it differs.

Where are all those jobs she promised Ny during her senate campaign. She never even lifted a finger for them. Her senate term has been marked by naming a few Post Offices for people , jumping on as co-sponsors of bills to form an image and just trying to act like she was a senator to give some cred to this run.

How good was her word that she was only gonna be a senator from NY. You have a snake in the grass here that will not tip her hand as to what her real agenda is because if she did she wouldn't stand a chance of carrying the election. She will talk out of both sides of her mouth, throw up trial balloons of programs she never intends to do just to plant them in the memory of voters to get their hopes up that a measure they like MAY go forward, but it is only said to secure their support and vote. It's all a snake oil show.
Every thing that goes wrong in her campaign is dismissed as gee I didn't know that, but on the 10th or 12th time to the well it gets more than a little old.

Posted by Jeff from Mpls | November 10, 2007 11:54 PM

Question: “As a young person, I’m worried about the long-term effects of global warming How does your plan combat climate change?

What's with democrats manufacturing "children" to bitch about stuff?

Posted by Jeff from Mpls | November 11, 2007 12:08 AM

Bennett, you ask why dems are running someone so obviously unskilled and awkward as Hillary.

The answer is, our constitution technically requires a human being to be elected president. Democrats would just as soon put up a theory, or a document, or a committee, or an NGO, but in lieu of those, they put up Hillary, who's technically a human being. Her savvy voters utterly overlook the human being; they're voting for the collectivist plan. They know a vote for Hill means the place will be taken over by a hard-left central committee.

Can you deny this?

Posted by daytrader | November 11, 2007 12:21 AM

Hillary has a core group of supporters that are going to take major efforts to break through to convince otherwise. Even if you manage to break through all that which is going to be harder than talking to PaulBots or Members of the ChurchdeGore then you will still be fighting an uphill battle against their sense of well Bill will be there to catch her when she falls and fix it for us.

She has major funders who are just getting ready to start beating the drum for here for their own reasons. Soros and co has put the final touches on their game plan and they are just about ready to roll it out.

Any one who underestimates what it will take here needs to really rethink their position.

Posted by Del Dolemonte | November 11, 2007 12:35 AM

flenser said:

"Wait a minute - do we want her to implode at this point? Let's wait until she is nominated. Until then, I think we should stay quiet and not scare the Democrats off."

Wrong, wrong, wrong! First of all, a "smug attitude" is what caused the 2006 elections to cause the good guys to lose House and Senate seats.

And second, you have to remember that the allegedly "neutral and objective" national news media came within less than a thousand votes of getting their boy Al Gore into office in 2000, and in 2004 one of the media's own, Newsweak's Evan Thomas, admitted that the same neutral and objective national news media was in the tank for Jean-Claude Kerry and would in fact add 10 to 15 points to his final vote tally. Due to their efforts, which included almost totally ignoring the Swift Boat story, Kerry came within one state of being our Commander-in-Chief.

And since Evan and his colleagues are MUCH more in love with the Clintons than they were with Al Gore at the time he was running and Jean-Claude and Mama T in '04, they're certainly not going to go down without a fight this time, which means they will totally ignore this story and any other that stands a chance to harm their Goddess and her chances to throw White House dinners in 2009 which they know they will all get invited to as a reward. The stakes ARE that high for them. This is their last shot, and they don't want to go 0-3 in 8 years.

Translation: Be VERY afraid. In the past 15 or so years, ever since Mr. Bill came along, never in our history have we seen a press so biased to one side of the political aisle.

And why? Because for today's media, he's their John F. Kennedy. They're simply trying to relive their own childhoods and also relive their liberal parents' lives, when they should instead be living thru their kids, who will be the ones who will have to fight the bad guys after Mrs. Bill gets elected and gives them all an 8 year get out of jail free card.

The only chance we have, as daytrader says, is to keep carpet-bombing away.

I usually don't take too much stock in the more blustery statements made by some of the anti-Clinton people on talk radio and cable teevee, but I do agree with many of them one one point-this 2008 Presidential election is THE most important election in our lifetimes.

And currently, the polls say that if the election were held today, one of the people who was asleep at the switch in the White House ("we are the President"-Hillary actual quote from when she and Bill were co-Presidents) in the run-up to the deadliest attack in American history
will win the 2008 election.

I would think that putting aside totally silly concerns-like Rudy having 3 wives, or Romney being a Mormon-would be far preferable than letting the media elect someone who is totally unqualified for the job.

Posted by daytrader | November 11, 2007 12:39 AM


Really states what is going on here. This is not about Hillary and it is not about Bill either. It is the whole movement that is backing them and what their agenda is. What you are seeing is just a carefully planned out and coordinated plan to further that agenda.

Actually in the end analysis it is not going to be a frontal attack on that to carry the day. They have war roomed and game planed all things they think will come at her and how to deflect or defeat them.

What has to be done is what is beyond their control and that is to convince other voters of the issues at hand and get them to vote against her. There are more than enough to defeat her at the ballot box if they can be inspired to actually get out and vote.

Many people are not even registered to vote, her campaign will use others apparently not linked to her to create and inspire voter apathy. Simple registration and voting can carry the day. 50 or 60 percent turnouts won't do it. The voting booths will have to be used to the max to bring out voters who oppose what she and those behind her stand for.

It will be an up hill battle that all to many will underestimate and misjudge.

Posted by Carol Herman | November 11, 2007 12:51 AM

Oh, Day Trader, even if Hillary's "core group" is 10,000 strong, it's not enough to make a dent in how 40,000,000 to 60,000,000 people will vote.

Last Spring, I thought she didn't have a chance. And, that putting her on the top of the ticket, would convince people to vote for a republican president; and then send lots of democrats to Congress.

Splitting the ticket is nothing new. It's practically like picking lottery numbers, now.

But there's been a shift.

Or, as is more likely, the pendulum shifts, and starts swinging the other way.

IF this is true, then it has nothing to do with "individuals." And, much more to do with "moods." And, disappointments.

Today, Conrad said something in one of his posts, that really struck home.

He said, in America, during the Roaring 20's, things became rediculously euphoric. Especially, politicians. And, it led to America having its energy sucked out of it, till it was dry.

Conrad used the term "the vitality was sapped."

Are we there, yet?

No. But the Saud's keep shafting us in one direction, and then another. They get no bills. For them this is the cheapest victory, ever. And, now when winter comes, if people aren't pinched hard enough just keeping rooves over heir heads; then they'll get their heating bills.

While Irak fades.

I actually think we've turned the place into a "stage where the Americans are to believe they're busy building. And, then what you see are ghost buildings. 8 stories tall. And, nothing in them. But you've got window holes.

And, big talk about how these things will be future convention centers. Where people come to do business deals.

While Irak's a shambles. Oh, and Maliki is tight with Iran. And, Putin's baaack. Collecting countries to side with him. Just to rebuild what got busted when the soviets collapsed.

Of course, Bush doesn't tell putin to hold elections! Nor does he say this to Hugo Chavez!

It's as if everywhere you look, the only pressures are put on friends. Or places like Pakistan. And, Israel. If you prefer not to use the word "friend."

Lots of stuff, just frayed at the edges.

I just can't get worked up over Woodstock.

While, Day Trader, you mention George Soros. Well, he gambled. And, it looks like where he stood alone; and he looked stupid throwing money at what he was doing ... He's the one with the first horse galloping close to the finish line. Oh, like Maliki, I am sure George Soros also hates George Bush. Throw in the whole Bush Family.

And, Soros has made money on these kinds of bets, before.

Anyhoo. Whatever we do in Irak, now, we're not going to be winning over Maliki! So what's happened with that investment, huh? We dump $3-trillion; and the guy who heads the country, hates us. And, hates the Saud's. Which is why he hates us.

By the way, it has often been said about wars; when the battles start ... whatever plans you had ... on how things would work. They go up in the air. And, everything's just chaotic. I think that's where we are now. Hard times, ahead.

Not unusual to see changes made at the top. And, I think, to appease the right, there's a lot of stuff going on now that's gonna stick to Rudy's shoes.

Rudy's also a fighter. So, by definition, he's not tapping into Reagan's optimism. And, we're gonna need some of that!

If you're familiar with Taleb; where he talks about Day Traders he has known, he says many of them go along living high; until the "blow up."

Those "blow ups" burn more money in an instant; cancelling out all their years of good times, and profits.

If people can't seem to see why Hillary has a shot, all I'd like to say is to a large number of voters, they feel more positive towards Bill Clinton than they ever did to Bush. (You can't get more divisive than this opinion.)

And, that's part of Hillary's appeal. Bill. She was smart enough not to divorce him. And, she can't win without him. It's not a "dynasty thing."

It's more like FDR. People wanted him to be president. So he kept winning.

Now? In my opinion. Hillary's stock goes up in direct proportion of George W. Bush's stock, coming down.

Posted by Bill M | November 11, 2007 1:22 AM

It goes beyond the dishonesty, which is bad enough, to how bad could Hillary be that the campaign feels it has to protect us from her.

Or to protect her from us.

Posted by daytrader | November 11, 2007 1:42 AM

Latest news out is another potted plant attempt has been reported on.

Posted by daytrader | November 11, 2007 1:50 AM

In an of itself the potted plant thing is a non issue. Which is exactly why it was presented.

This gives the false impression that the press is on the job to fault Hillary when she does wrong, but it has to be something that is a cosmetic issue of no consequence.

Also it helps if they find something that "everyone does it" sounds good to say and I am sure other examples will show up to minimize this by that very method.

Posted by burt | November 11, 2007 6:09 AM

When will someone say something like the following? Mrs. Clinton, I have two questions; the first is why did your campaign worker Chris Hayler get me to promise to ask the second question which I will ask in a minute?

I come down on the side of daytrader's first post: things which would destroy most people and nearly all Republicans bounce off of Clinton's. For instance, the Sandy Berger travesty is one hundred times more important than this relatively trivial incident, but it is already forgotten. You have to take any little cuts you can and before they claim it's old news.

Del Dolemonte, wrote a fine comment at 12:35 AM with which I am in nearly complete agreement. The one statement which sticks in my craw is, "Translation: Be VERY afraid. In the past 15 or so years, ever since Mr. Bill came along, never in our history have we seen a press so biased to one side of the political aisle." I am very afraid; I have thought for several years that the next President would be a Democrat and probably Clinton. I don't believe the press has suddenly become more biased. I have been reading newspapers for six decades, and it seems to me that for that time period it's a wash. There are just more people, including Captain Ed, who are questioning the bias.

If I told you how much more important I really think the Berger security breaches are, most of you would think I'm hyperventilating.

Posted by Qwinn | November 11, 2007 6:24 AM

"Posted by JZ | November 10, 2007 9:53 PM"

"Err, this is amusing and all, and no one savors Hillary bashing more than this guy, but really, before we get too worked up over this: Does anyone here really think this practice is exclusive to Hillary's campaign? Don't you think all the big budget campaigns--from Rudy to Mitt to Obama--are doing the same thing?"

Any time a conservative is caught doing anything even remotely similar, they get raked over the coals. Remember the FEMA press conference? Remember Jeff Gannon? Especially the latter one, since as far as I know they never even found any evidence of planted questions - his only sin was actually asking critical questions from a conservative perspective instead of a liberal one.


Posted by docjim505 | November 11, 2007 7:00 AM

This is part of a broader pattern of deception that infests our culture right now. It's Madison Avenue on steroids. Anybody remember when Rumsfeld got tripped up when that reporter arranged an embarrassing planted question about troops having to dig in rubish heaps for armor? Michelle Malkin has recently written about ABC sending camera crews and actors to impersonate gay couples on Southern streets so they can get "candid, unscripted" footage of nasty ol' rightwing Christian bigot homophobe Southern redneck crackers looking disgusted by the sight of two men or two women playing suckface in the middle of Main Street. Just like the news sent actors dressed as Muslims to NASCAR events in the hopes of getting footage of some John Deere cap-wearing, tobacco chewing, inbred Southern redneck trying to beat them up.

It's a question of truth vs. Truth, i.e. what is factually accurate vs. the narrative, the greater Truth of the universe. The Hilldabeast is playing the game. Libs point out - with considerable accuracy - that GOP politicians play the same kind of games. Question is, do we accept it? Is the fact that the Hilldabeast, who promises to be different from the nasty, secretive, torture-mongering Bush, does exactly the same things that she claims he does make anybody on the left think twice about voting for her? Or can we all just agree that, "Well, YOUR side does it, too!" is a good enough defense to justify our positions?

Posted by Barnestormer | November 11, 2007 7:22 AM

I have it on good authority that Hillary's staff have developed a fix; don't be surprised if all her future "questioners" look like this guy.

Posted by daytrader | November 11, 2007 7:30 AM

I was on a lot of different blogs last night and one thing consistent on the potted plant threads besides the trolls was there seemed to always be someone coming up with the lets wait until after the convention to do something idea.

They are almost word for word like a cut and paste or a script.

Posted by Bitter Pill | November 11, 2007 7:45 AM

Psst, Carol.

The Sauds are eeeeevil. We get it. Eeeeevil.

Time to get a new schtick.

Posted by Ron C | November 11, 2007 7:48 AM

Nothing new...

A very REAL and dangerous candidate HAS to put on a fake front, use fake questions, and hawk fake policies to HIDE the real deal. Nothing new, just the SOS coming from the same old source.

The question is - are enough DEMS buying it this time. I think not.

Posted by MarkJ | November 11, 2007 8:16 AM

I suspect this is Hillary's personal motto:

"'Tis not enough to be fully in control. I must be sure."

Posted by MikeD | November 11, 2007 8:51 AM

If Hillary should, by chance, be elected in 2008 I suspect some nutcase will probably shoot her within a year. So I just don't worry as much as the rest of you.

Posted by swabjockey05 | November 11, 2007 8:53 AM

"The question is - are enough DEMS buying it this time. I think not."

Ron, how many Dems do you know? I know a lot of them. Most of them, I know too well being friends of my loving wife (honest!!). Dhimmi surrender monkeys to the end..

From my experience, many dems find the Hildabeast unsavory...but they'll vote for WHOEVER wins the Dem primary (as if there's any doubt who that will be). So you may be right that "enough DEMS are not buying it"...but regardless of what they're "buying", they'll still be lining up to vote for the Beast if/when she's on the ticket.

Our only hope is that there are enough non-dems who will vote for the Repub candidate (vice voting for the Beast or whomever she bankrolls to run as a “third party”).

Posted by arch | November 11, 2007 9:17 AM

Hillary Rodham Clinton was my senator for six years, replacing Daniel Patrick Moynihan.

Although I disagreed with most of Moynihan's reasoned political positions, I considered him witty, personable, eloquent, intelligent and honest. Rather than always towing the party line he spoke his mind. I liked and respected Moynihan.

Senator Clinton is none of those things. Watching her interrogate General Petraeus she came across as cold, vindictive, scripted, calculated and completely without conscience. Hers is a crusade to recapture the white house and nothing else matters. Obviously, I have neither affection nor respect for her.

Even Carol Herman can see the problem.


Posted by always right | November 11, 2007 9:37 AM

Oh my Gosh! "Hillary is gay"? Now you're telling me HRC is not even a woman?

"She" sure fooled me all these years.

Posted by vet66 | November 11, 2007 9:53 AM

One of the failings of those who trivialize Hillary's many small failures are typical of some in our culture. They reduce the problems of their candidate of choice to discreet data bits thus sanitizing them from the big picture, as it were. Connecting the dots becomes unnecessary to them as the questionable behaviors are atomized into the public ether of discourse. Thank God for freeze frame and instant playback!

The minions scurrying around Hillary's feet, like psychotic elves, worry me more than Hillary's lack of talent. Can you imagine these same elves running the White House with their hands perpetually up her shirt like deranged puppeteers?

Interesting that we never hear a peep from Chelsea! "Mommy Dearest" anyone?

Posted by daytrader | November 11, 2007 10:01 AM


IBD seems to think you need to revise your gameplan

In the past several months, the Democrat front-runner has received at least $2,000 from M. Yaqub Mirza, M. Omar Ashraf and Omar Barzinji, records show. Federal agents raided the Virginia homes and offices of the Muslim donors after 9/11, as part of a counterterrorism investigation targeting the so-called Safa group, a Saudi-backed conglomerate of Muslim businesses and charities.

None of the men has been charged with crimes. But their connections are worrisome enough that even Islamist-sympathizing lawmakers such as Moran and McKinney felt compelled to give back their gifts.

Mirza is said to act on behalf of Saudi millionaire Yassin al-Qadi, who's been designated an al-Qaida financier by the U.S. government, according to WorldNetDaily, which broke the story about the donations.

It wouldn't be the first time Saudi money has found its way to Clinton coffers. In fact, the "Royal Saudi Family" is listed as one of the top donors bankrolling Bill Clinton's presidential library in Little Rock.

Why would Wahhabists be putting chips on Hillary Clinton and her unofficial running mate? Running down their wish list, you'll find that Hillary checks off on just about everything — from promising to pull out of Iraq and the Middle East to creating a Palestinian state to closing down Gitmo. She also wants to stop interrogations and surveillance of jihadist suspects.

All this is spelled out in her foreign policy manifesto published in the latest Foreign Affairs magazine. Among other pro-Islamist sop, she argues that:

• "Getting out of Iraq will enable us to play a constructive role in a renewed Middle East peace process that would mean security and normal relations for Israel and the Palestinians . . . (and) a Palestinian state."

• "I will replace our military force with an intensive diplomatic initiative in the region."

• "We cannot support torture and the indefinite detention of individuals we have declared to be beyond the law."

• "We will have to talk about the consequences of our invasion of Iraq for the Iraqi people and others in the region."

• "We will have to talk about Guantanamo and Abu Ghraib."

Hands down, Hillary gets the Islamists' vote. Her sympathies lie with them and they know it. That's why they endorse her and even contribute to her campaign.

Her donor Barzinji, for one, argued in the bloody aftermath of 9/11 that President Bush should have focused more on changing his Middle East policies than going after the terrorists.

"It's fine and dandy to go out and get the people who did this," Barzinji grumbled to the Washington Post. "You can go out and kill all the bin Ladens. But it won't change anything unless we change our policies in the Middle East."

How did his and other Safa group donations slip through Hillary's new vetting procedures? Is this the type of background check we can expect her to conduct on White House appointees and guests? We're reminded of the drug addicts and criminals who were given unlimited access to the people's house in the 1990s.

It's not the first time Clinton has taken cash from terror supporters. During her 2000 Senate campaign, she was forced to return $1,000 from Abdurahman Alamoudi, then head of the American Muslim Council, when news got out that he voiced support for Palestinian terrorists.

She tried to disguise Alamoudi — whom she had hosted at the White House as first lady — as a curator rather than a terror supporter by listing his group in her FEC donor report as the "American Museum Council." But it didn't fool anyone.

Today, Alamoudi is doing time as a terrorist. In fact, the Treasury Department says he was one of al-Qaida's top fundraisers in the U.S. Alamoudi, whose brothers live in Saudi Arabia, also is closely tied to the Safa group suspects, who not coincidentally are now turning up as donors to Clinton's presidential campaign.

Now that their donations have been exposed, it will be interesting to see if the candidate will follow the lead of other Democrats before her and immediately return their donations — along with those of any other Islamists who are targets of federal terror probes.

Posted by Del Dolemonte | November 11, 2007 10:36 AM

Whiz said

"You crazies are funny. Do you realize how foolish your hatred of the Clintons makes you look?"

LOL! As opposed to you Bush haters? Type the word "Chimp" into Google, and instead of getting a bunch of hits about monkeys, 2 of the top 3 returns are:

Try typing "Bush" into Google, and some of the top 10 returns are

(this last one is called "George W. Bush Jr.-The Dark Side")

Now, type "Clinton" into Google.

You get the following:

Not a single anti-Clinton website at all on the first page of search results. Or the second page, or the third page, or the fourth page, or the fifth page.

Can I have some of what you put in your herbal tea this morning?

Speaking of Google, I nearly fell off my chair-they are actually honoring Veteran's Day this year, which is actually today, even though we celebrate it tomorrow. Good for them. It only took 5 or so years of negative publicity for them to cave...

Posted by Tom in Houston | November 11, 2007 10:56 AM


Next thing y'all will tell me is that Hillary murdered Vince Foster or that her marriage to Bill Clinton is a fruad and they'll get a divorce as soon as Bill leaves office.

Sorry, got to run now, I'm due at the latest Bush official presidential stop paid for with my tax dollars. And I've forgotton memorize all my lines for the Q&A, and remember my marching orders to smother anyone who shows up that disagrees with Bush, and arrest people for peacefully standing on a sidewalk with a sign.

Posted by Fight4TheRight | November 11, 2007 11:04 AM

always right said:

Oh my Gosh! "Hillary is gay"? Now you're telling me HRC is not even a woman?

"She" sure fooled me all these years. know, come to think of it...I've seen hundreds, perhaps thousands of pictures of Hillary all the way back to when Bill and her were in college, and I've never actually seen a picture of her pregnant with Chelsea. LOL

Wait. Really. I haven't. :wink:

Posted by hunter | November 11, 2007 11:23 AM

We should our on the sunlight and let the implosion occur as providence permits. The question is how much exposure can she stand? Who knows?
This is the woman who literally hid the properly requested billing records until just after the statute of limitations ran out. This is the same woman who was proudly at the center of the failed Hillary care debacle and who Bill now says what really not in charge.
This is the toughest woman in the world until she gets one medium strength question from a lefty reporter - then she is the victim of mean guys piling on.
I say turn up the heat.

Posted by daytrader | November 11, 2007 11:42 AM

You can always tell when you are striking a nerve, just count the trolls.

Posted by Ed Fairbairn | November 11, 2007 11:48 AM

How about agreeing to be a plant and then asking a different question - one that the MSM is afraid to ask. Here's one.

Mrs. Clinton, in 2002 and again 2003 when Saddam was captured you touted you vote to authorize operation Iraqi Freedom. In fact, in 2003 front of Code Pink you explained that you independently verified all the information you used to make your decision. Yet now you say that the Bush Administration misled you and the country. What is the exact reason for your vote.

Posted by Math_Mage | November 11, 2007 12:11 PM

Psychotic Elf: Hate her, no. Worried about her tendency to change with what's politically expedient (Iraq), to play the political-machine game from a hundred years ago more than anyone else (earmarks), to play T-ball (plants and the Daily Show "fiasco"), to let her husband take the heat for mistakes (Bill's recent speech) so she can stay "clean", to gloss over past incompetence while fostering the image of competence, to take money from shady sources that back her agenda (Hsu, the Saudis)...yes.

Posted by Math_Mage | November 11, 2007 12:16 PM

My apologies:
(plants and the DEBATE "fiasco")

Posted by G. Moore | November 11, 2007 12:22 PM

In politics, what you hear and see is seldom what is real. Especially with Democrats. Hillary's plants are just a variation of that. She is using the plants to manipulate reality.

Here's another example:

We all know that George Soros is helping bankroll the Democrats' attack against Bush, but what of this curious passage in "The Bubble of American Supremacy" by George Soros (2004, Orion)?

I quote: "Withdrawing from Iraq is not an option: It would hand victory to the terrorists and do irreparable damage to our standing in the world. Yet the clamor for it is bound to rise. This could lead to a catastrophic reversal, similar to what happened in Vietnam." (Page 187.)

Soros' position seems puzzling at first glance, but given his world perspective, it makes prefect sense. He wants the U.S. to lead in the fight for globalization, and it can lead only if it does not suffer defeat.

Now, turning to the Democrats, what are we to make of their push for withdrawal from Iraq, a stand that directly contradicts the position of their sugar daddy?

Well ... their stands on Iraq are not reality. The Democrats are saying what they think will get them elected, and then, once elected, they will pursue the Soros world strategy, which, incidentally, includes victory in Iraq.

What happens if a Soros Democrat (is there any other kind these days?) becomes our next president?

Globalization will reach full bloom, and you can kiss the Stars and Stripes goodbye.

Posted by Carol Herman | November 11, 2007 12:41 PM

The Internet is a bigger player than it has ever been, before.

But like in all wars, when you grow it big enough; you can get bogged down.

In other words? The biggest victory, so far, is Dan Rather's MISSTEP. See? It starts with Dan Rather. And, the obvious blooper of trying to pass off a Microsoft document as a typewritten record.

So, it was an easy overlay. And, it pulsed with life.

Dan Rather never recovered.

The Swiftboats, too, got the Internet putting out the story, where the democrats had their ears covered, as they were going "la-la-la." You don't get to be John Kerry "war hero," unless you duck the issue of his DISHONERABLE DISCHARGE. I know. I know. He never signed the "180." Does it matter? You think Nixon was a fool?

To get his "honor" back, John Kerry (whom I prefer to call 'Jon Cary, the gigolo man,')... had to go to Jimmy Carter FOR a "cleansing of his discharge record. (That's why Jimmy was on his stage "that" night ... Chasing after Teddy Kennedy. Looking for his "handshake.")

Puzzle pieces really fit together, even if you think the "colors are a mismatch." When it all has to do with "shapes."

And, shapes of things to come.

Up ahead? Well, the RIGHT would love it, if they can damage Hillary enough, that the Bonkey's have to look for someone else to run.

But what's the chances of that happening, now?

News travels in light-speed cycles. A story today, is off the edge of the universe, t'marra. And, where Hillary is concerned, you just know there will be a poll done, in a few days. And, she'll be holding her own, among those who are guaranteed to vote for her. (YES! There are such people, alive! And, they may represent 50% of the total. Give or take a percentage point. Or two.)

Makes the race very hard to call.

Then, you can add another factor. IF you're a democrat, and you know YOUR voters tend to split their votes. (Even when their choices are "nice men." Like Hubert Humphrey, George McGovern, and Mondale. Or? Humorless men. Like Dukakis. Or, a man who could tell a joke as well as Mort Sahl, so there's a CD out there proving this: Gene McCarthy. Or Eugene McCarthy. If you prefer full names to nicks.)

In other words: Affecting the "other side" now is not so easy. Why would Bonkeys want to run Obama? He's got nothing. A mere 12% of the audience. And, for those who have a sense of humor; he's a needle in Hillary's big fat arse. Can't win much, going forward with that one!

On the other hand? Irak's a mess. Pull-out, or no-pull out. It's heading into the Islamist's toilets. By far a better chance of this showing up as IRANIAN, and not Saudi, either. (Which is pushing the Saud's in two directions, now. ONE, Bush "should" attack Iran. And, TWO, they all want nukes. New countries on this list? Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Jordan, and Turkey. I'd add "syria." But syria just had an "accident."

And, things will heat up for November 26th. Bush's watch. And, the incompetent Condi. Promising not just to create a "palestinian terror state," but to carve off Israel's Golan Heights, too.

Can Condi fail?

Can Olmert lose his pants?

An Israeli woman, writing for the Jerusalem Post, gets the "line of the day, award." She said Olmert can "count on one hand all the possible gains he'll be getting out of Annapolis. And, his thumb is still free, so he can suck it, while he counts.)

Okay. Olmert holds on to his prime minister's chair by a thread.

By Christmas? Not only Pakistan has been told "go to elections," the Israelis may surprise you and do the same?

You call this American diplomacy in action?

I think you're due to get more suprised, ahead, than not.

And, it's laughable to think you can toss Hillary off the presidential nomination route that she is on.

Why does Bush just hand out opportunities to the other side, I dunno.

But for the Internet, all this stuff, absorbing it, and trying to challange at the periphery, will lead to a maturing process, as well.

Don't bet too early! Your horse can be scratched. (And, George Soros can end up winning.) Who knew?

Posted by Del Dolemonte | November 11, 2007 12:45 PM

Tom From Houston says:

"Sorry, got to run now, I'm due at the latest Bush official presidential stop paid for with my tax dollars. And I've forgotton memorize all my lines for the Q&A, and remember my marching orders to smother anyone who shows up that disagrees with Bush, and arrest people for peacefully standing on a sidewalk with a sign."

Tom, you may want to check out the comment about this subject I posted on the previous "Hillary planted questions" thread here. A leftist with a sign protesting Hillary was told she would be arrested for having her sign in what they called a "no-sign zone" at a Hillary rally here in New Hampshire. When she called the Mayor's office and police department the next day, she was told by both that there was no such thing as a "no-sign zone" for that rally.

Posted by Tom in Houston | November 11, 2007 12:49 PM

Del, if true her campaign should be condemned for it.

How bout your condemnation of Bush's antics? People were actually arrested for standing on a public sidewalk or not being dressed like good little Bushies. Not just threatened with arrest.

Posted by RD | November 11, 2007 1:00 PM

Daytrader: Seems like Hillary is planning on doing nothing but talk, talk, talk cuz in addition to your points she has said that sometime in the future we must talk about taking from the few to help the many. I thought that was what campaigning was about...where you lay out your plans, not winging it sometime in the future. I see where President BushI did a skydive...I wonder if either of the Clintons have the guts to do that...they seem to have more gall than courage.

Posted by Carol Herman | November 11, 2007 1:17 PM

Day Trader, you should know better! There are no trolls.

Just customers. In a very busy "mall." Walking about. Not necessarily interested in the same merchandise, displayed in windows, as you are.

The whole name-calling bit; which seems to be a carry-over from high school's "in-crowd," is a waste of time in the market place.

And, because Taleb wrote the book on "trades" ... where he spoke of Day Traders 'blowing up.' He explained there's really NO formula. Some people, do well in the market by dint of luck. And, being at the right place when the well starts spouting.

Then? He compares randomness to Black Swans. Which occur in nature. Without guarantees that any particular swan will birth one.

Since no one knows the future, you can only watch this stuff, going by. And, when you're a partisan, you can hope that your side wins. And, still life provides no guarantees.

As to whose "store this is?" Captain Ed Morrisey's. Of course. All of us, others, are merely people coming in and looking around.

As to this particular subject: When anger is shown towards Hillary, I think the first thing lots of people do is LOOK at whose doing the verbal cursings. Why? Because it's like watching a few people becoming rain-men. Doing dances to appease the gods. And, for some? It's a hocus-pocus performance that they came, especially, to see.

Doesn't bring the rains, though.

Doesn't change reality.

And, in spite of IBD (where it's worthless to take their stock tips, because the information's too old. And, it's already "outsider stuff.") The same holds true in politics.

Hillary is a formidable opponent. Whether she wins, or not, in 2008. She seems to be appealing to a lot of people who hate BUSH'S guts. Who see worse things with the Bush's and their stinking dynasty, than they do with her. As long as she's married to her husband. (And, the old team? Believe it or not. There are lots of people out there who'd like to see them all coming back.)

That's the weight your opposition carries, in terms of gravitas. While Bush? Is a mere feather in comparison. With a whole right side of the universe, unable to come to grips.

Reality, ahead, is gonna belong to someone.

Let's hope it's not "someone else."

And, enough with this name-calling bullshit. Even saying someone is a troll, just means you've decided not to listen to what's going on. When there are definitely at least two sides, here.

Posted by Carol Herman | November 11, 2007 1:25 PM

Oh, RD. That sky dive! Drudge has the photo. Top center.

And, what IF this is what the Bush's get? Sky diving down?

What's Hillary got to worry about, on the other hand?

No, "Don't Taze me, bro." That honor-iffic when to Jon Cary.

And, you bet. Without the Secret Service, Hillary's running a professional campaign. Where I wager you don't get a college student, hogging the microphone ... to the point where the college campus police ... show up and do a Keystone routine.

Posted by onlineanalyst | November 11, 2007 1:36 PM

Just the thought of Madame Hillary as president tapping another Janet Reno as AG gives me the willies (ooh, pun!) In fact, Bubba has said that Hillary's role in the choice of Reno was one of his regrets. Reno, now there was a respecter of citizen civil rights. Right!

I have yet to hear a Hillary supporter explain why she is presidential material. Has anyone else?

Posted by Math_Mage | November 11, 2007 2:01 PM

"she's run a principled campaign"
"she's been competent in her years as a NY senator"
Paraphrases from the Economist. Of course, that was before her campaign started blowing up in her face, so they can be excused for saying that.

I think "she's not George" is one of the big ones, tho. Lol.

Carol Herman: Conciseness is a virtue when trying to make a point. So is good grammar. I'm trying to read your stuff, because there's some stuff that COULD make sense, but I can't get a good hold on it because it's so random. Couldja please keep it short & sweet? Thanks.

Posted by Dawn | November 11, 2007 2:44 PM

I'm still looking for a "run hillary run!" sticker to slap on my front bumper.

Posted by Tom in Houston | November 11, 2007 2:48 PM

Jes' keep drinking the Hillary Hatorade. See how far it gets you this time.

Hillary's not perfect, and she'll make mistakes. But I really don't think this is a biggie. She got busted. And she deserved it. And it'll be over soon. And will have little if any impact.

The problem for the right this year is that you're going to have to do a little better than scream "liberal" or "gay marriage" or "brown people that don't speak English" or "dirty hippy" or "9-11, 9-11, 9-11, 9-11" to win an election.

Some free advice: Try and come up with some solutions to the following: The collpsing dollar, $100/bbl oil, a health care access crisis, plummeting financial markets, undeserved skyrocketing executive pay, an imploding housing market, poisonous imports, a non-existant consumer protection department, and a crumbling infrastructure. And more tax cuts are probably not the answer. Neither is tort reform (tried that - and we still can't get affordable coverage for a third of Americans).

If the solutions expoused by the GOP candidates is just another stinking heap of 'more of the same' that got us into this mess in the first place, don't be shocked if Hillary is what you end up with.

Posted by Del Dolemonte | November 11, 2007 2:56 PM

Tom in Houston says:

"The problem for the right this year is that you're going to have to do a little better than scream "liberal" or "gay marriage" or "brown people that don't speak English" or "dirty hippy" or "9-11, 9-11, 9-11, 9-11" to win an election."

I know sometimes news takes awhile to get to out outer planets, but Hillary's been using 9-11 in her ads for some time now. Proving once again that some politicians are more equal than others.

Posted by daytrader | November 11, 2007 3:39 PM

In some cases it takes a bunch of village idiots...just sayin.

Posted by Tom in Houston | November 11, 2007 3:40 PM

Del, So Hillary refers to 9-11. So what? She's known for healthcare. And I don't think it will hurt her because she actually does more and is more than 9-11.

All I've heard out of the GOP for the last six years has been:

"gay marriage" or "radical homosexual agenda"
"brown people that don't speak English"
"dirty hippy that hates America and our Troops"
"9-11, 9-11, 9-11, 9-11"

What else is there on your side? It appears to me to be the four quotes above plus 'more of the same'

Posted by Ron Beasley | November 11, 2007 3:55 PM

I guess I don't see what the big deal. For 7 years Bush has been speaking only before carefully selected cultists who were all given questions. The difference is that Bush still couldn't answer them in an intelligent fashion.

Posted by newton | November 11, 2007 4:02 PM

Tom in Houston, Psycho Elf:

Shut up, freaks!

Posted by Ray in Mpls | November 11, 2007 4:17 PM

"I guess I don't see what the big deal. For 7 years Bush has been speaking only before carefully selected cultists who were all given questions. The difference is that Bush still couldn't answer them in an intelligent fashion."

So, you're telling us that this is just "more of the same", right?

BTW, when it comes to actually answering questions, Hillary waffles and doesn't answer them at all. Remember the debates?

Posted by MAth_Mage | November 11, 2007 4:21 PM

Tom in Houston, I love how you boil down the Iraq and Afghanistan wars, the Iran issue, Syria's nuclear reactor, Israel-Palestine conflicts, Lebanon-Syria-Iran shenanigans, and other stuff into "brown people that don't speak English." Not to mention illegal immigration from Mexico and other issues. Says a lot about you that you trivialize these topics into a racist-sounding statement.

Also, I thought Hillary was known for her healthcare failure in the '90s. Funny how we trust her on that issue now. Or is it because Bill took the blame for her (as if it matters)?

And get your counting straight. That's FIVE statements up there, buddy. Six if you count the multiple instances of "gay rights".

Lastly, one of the reasons Democrats have more talking points than Republicans is because they contradict themselves on some issues. "Culture of Corruption" and "More earmarks!" "Support the troops" and "the war is lost." A good way to double the talking points, don't you think?

Psychotic Elf: If you can reassure me on the points I mentioned in my earlier post, you just might convince me that she's presidential material.

Posted by onlineanalyst | November 11, 2007 4:27 PM

Run for your lives. We have an infestation of Village People.

They seek the "wisdom" of the Crone.

Posted by Del Dolemonte | November 11, 2007 4:52 PM

"Be careful what you wish for, wingnuts."

Bwahahaha. An AP story from The Guardian? Please don't insult us.

Posted by vet66 | November 11, 2007 4:57 PM


I like the reference to Crone! Haven't heard that one in awhile. Makes me wonder what you get when a Crone goes to Wellesly: How about the Ovary at Delta Pi?

Could work!

NAAAH! We'd still have to protect the interns...

Posted by Del Dolemonte | November 11, 2007 5:14 PM

So, to recap...

When Bush or any other Republican gets a planted questions, it's "bad".

Yet when a Democrat is busted doing the exact same thing, her supporters don't say it's "bad", they excuse away it by saying "everyone does it".

Moral relativism at its finest. Just like their claim that felony perjury isn't a felony if it's perjury about sex. "I'd walk a mile for a Clinton".

Posted by Zelsdorf Ragshaft III | November 11, 2007 5:19 PM

This is for all the psychotics in houston. If Bill and Hillary took a boat ride and the boat capsized, who who be saved? The United States of America.

Posted by Zelsdorf Ragshaft III | November 11, 2007 5:46 PM

It takes a village in the world Hillary imagines. No more personal responsiblity. You are not up to the task. Just let the government do that for you dearie. Here just give us your paycheck. You will spend it foolishly dearie. She is Stalinist. A carpetbagger and a criminal enterprize. Only those who vote D are blind to the facts about Hillary. She does not believe in America or her people.

Posted by eaglewings | November 11, 2007 5:52 PM

Let's see the libs were calling for the head of FEMA for staging a news conference with staff playing the part of reporters. Will the LMSM call for Hillary to resign for planting these questions?

Posted by Ray in Mpls | November 11, 2007 6:01 PM

"The next president is going to be operating under the same Patriot Act as this one is"

Unless, of course, the next President decides not to implement said act in his or her policies, as you well know.

I hope that the next President DOES exercise the authority as provided in the Act in his or her policies. Unfortunately; I think that Hillary, if she does become President, will disregard some of the authority granted to her by that Act and will return to considering the threat of terrorism as her husband did, by treating it as a law enforcement problem. She will not take preemptive action and will wait until after something terrible happens to assert her authority in this matter, when it is too late and people have already died.

Posted by Deagle | November 11, 2007 6:01 PM

That is amusing JZ... I guess we just have to have longer speeches so that everything can be covered..heh. Any, funny response...Thanks.

Posted by Ray in Mpls | November 11, 2007 6:30 PM

"When it comes to lying, it's in for a dime, in for a dollar."

And Hillary is in for $30 million.

Posted by Bennett | November 11, 2007 6:34 PM

Who is this Psycho person and why is he/she obsessed with Hillary and her supposed gayness? Strange tangent in response to a post about planting questions from the audience. But then I haven't read all the comments.

And yes, I know I'm probably encouraging this particular commenter (who perhaps is a John Edwards staffer? hmmmm....)

Posted by Del Dolemonte | November 11, 2007 6:52 PM

Another Hillary "unscripted question" from here in New Hampshire:

Posted by Ray in Mpls | November 11, 2007 7:09 PM

Del Dolemonte,

Thanks for the link!

Posted by RD | November 11, 2007 7:40 PM

It looks to me like Hillary's latest strategy for evading an answer or not disclosing her plans is to say "We'll have to talk about that(implied is when she is elected she will tackle the issue...with the questioners and others help of course...somewhat like the listening tour only now she will be able to do what you want her to do.

Posted by Tom in Houston | November 11, 2007 7:47 PM

Amen Elf.

Didn't Hillary also murder Vince Foster, too?

Posted by daytrader | November 11, 2007 7:49 PM

If you are really bored and want to spend a couple of minutes cut and paste the names of the present trolls into Google blog search for a quick display of their brilliant patter.

Posted by Tom in Houston | November 11, 2007 7:59 PM


How is the daytrading going? Are you shorting George Bush's dollar or are you losing money?

Posted by Ray in Mpls | November 11, 2007 8:08 PM

Tom in Houston,

How is the blog trolling going? Are you felling self-satisfied or do you still have the need to call attention to yourself?

Posted by daytrader | November 11, 2007 8:09 PM


Well I'm up in the 8 figures before the decimal point this year so far after taxes.

How are you doing kid?

Posted by Tom in Houston | November 11, 2007 8:16 PM

Don't worry about me, my dear. I do a LOT better than you think I do. But again, I live in Houston, where things kind of run opposite the normal economic cycle.

So I guess you've been shorting the US Economy, right?

Posted by Ray in Mpls | November 11, 2007 8:30 PM

"So I guess you've been shorting the US Economy, right?"

Excuse me, but don't 'day traders' buy products that are sold here in America? Don't they take out loans and pay interest? Don't they have checking and saving accounts? Don't they pay sales and income taxes? Aren't they, therefor, contributing to the economy just like everyone else?

You can't "short" the economy by contributing to it. I think you need a new avenue of attack. But keep working on it, I'm sure you'll find one somewhere.

Posted by daytrader | November 11, 2007 8:32 PM


Last time I remotely did that was when I shorted 10k shares of Enron at 82 and covered at .34.

Dirty job but somebody had to do it.

Having more fun now using the Yen carry trade to go long on Dinars.

Posted by daytrader | November 11, 2007 8:34 PM

Hmmm didn't post right on Enron covered at 0.34

Posted by Ray in Mpls | November 11, 2007 8:40 PM

"Having more fun now using the Yen carry trade to go long on Dinars."

Damn, I've been hedging on Euro's! I'll have to dump them and buy Yen. Thanks for the tip!

Posted by Mark | November 11, 2007 8:49 PM

Hillary's campaign is well known for demanding a list of all questions before granting sit-down interviews, no exceptions. She did this while running for the Senate, and her campaign is doing the same thing now.

Should it surprise anyone here that her campaign would attempt to exercise that same level of control over what are typically impromptu affairs?

She is the purest form of political animal, right behind her "husband". She hasn't faced any hard questioning in any campaign to date. Given her performance at the debate last week, now we know why.

At this critical juncture of world events, we CANNOT afford another 4 years of a Clinton scandal-ridden administration in the White House.

P.S. For all of you claiming that Iraq is a disaster, I suggest you put down the newspaper and turn off the TV, and go read what the milbloggers are saying. We are winning, and winning big.

Posted by daytrader | November 11, 2007 8:56 PM


I doubt you have access to it but if you hold international accounts like I do the equivalent to broker call rates for the yen is almost borrowing at 0.5% and I have a spec position I am holding on the dinar there that has been working fine over the last two years.

Posted by daytrader | November 11, 2007 9:11 PM

Another play that has worked well is shorting the Venezuela Bolivar

Here is a recent outlook after being down 30% this past year

JPMorgan Chase and Merrill Lynch expect Chávez to devalue the bolivar 14 percent in the first quarter of 2008 after he introduces a new currency Jan. 1 that will lop three zeros off all denominations.

The new currency, to be called the strong bolivar, will have an exchange rate of 2.15 per dollar, the equivalent of the current rate, Finance Minister Rodrigo Cabezas said last week. Analysts forecast that the official rate will decline 13 percent by the end of 2008, according to a Bloomberg survey.

"We're not going to devalue, no matter how much they pressure us," Cabezas said last week. "The so-called parallel market doesn't dictate our fiscal, exchange or monetary policies."

Posted by Ray in Mpls | November 11, 2007 9:13 PM


I doubt you have access to it but if you hold international accounts like I do the equivalent to broker call rates for the yen is almost borrowing at 0.5% and I have a spec position I am holding on the dinar there that has been working fine over the last two years."

You're right, I don't have access to international accounts, but I wish I did. I don't see anything wrong in international currency trading, or any other form of trading for that matter. It's a little late for me to enter that market (My wife would not like me to start a new high risk career and I can't blame her for that, bless her heart), but if you're successful at it, more power to ya.

Posted by daytrader | November 11, 2007 9:23 PM

Another position that worked and could be gaining steam soon even though Iran tries to hogtie it is doing currency swaps from yen to Euros then shorting against the Iran Rial. Nice arbitrage since you work the rising Euro against the falling Rial giving a double compounding effect.

Posted by Math_Mage | November 11, 2007 9:33 PM

Psychotic Elf:
"I'm not even going to try to convince you MAth_Mage, because it's clear from your posting that you are a knee-jerk nutcase without any principles, just like the wingnut who publishes this blog."

Sorry, but you're simply wrong. I am perfectly capable of being convinced, but you have to actually provide know...evidence. Heck, if I'm wrong about what I posted, all you have to do is tell me I'm wrong and give me a good link. If you choose to insult me instead, I'm going to just stop listening to you. So will other people, except for those who share your views, in which case you can just sit there listening to the echoes.

I don't want that any more than you do - I WANT to hear your point of view - but if you refuse to engage what I say rather than what I am, then maybe there isn't any point to my efforts.

Oh, and I don't think it takes a village. I think it takes one person who is willing to do what is right. No more, no less. Unless you're talking about the Salem witch certainly took a village to do those. How about the collectivization plans in Russia and China and Cambodia? Those took an entire nation. Are they superior?

Looking at that AP article now...not seeing anything about Bush surveilling/torturing Dems...still not seeing anything beyond the usual wartime paranoia...nope, not seeing it. What's your point? Oh, and I was asking about Hillary, not Bush, so you really missed it here.

Posted by Math_Mage | November 11, 2007 9:36 PM

Sorry, ignore the bit about "not seeing anything about Bush surveilling/torturing Dems...", that was for Gee Whiz. It's hard to keep track of the people I'm arguing with.

Posted by Ray in Mpls | November 11, 2007 9:43 PM

I did try a little currency trading once, when I was stationed Germany. When I first arrived there in 1985, I exchanged $1,000 Dollars for German Marks at 3.43/dollar. I put that money away. Everyone thought I was crazy. Just before I was transfered back to the states, I exchanged them back at 1.60/dollar. I almost triple my money in just under 18 months! That showed 'em who was crazy! Heh.

Posted by Del Dolemonte | November 11, 2007 9:44 PM

Psycho Chicken says

"Bwahahaha. An AP story from The Guardian? Please don't insult us.

Oops, sorry. It wasn't from Wingnut Daily so it can't be true."

Sorry, Zippy, but even Wiki admits, and I quote:

"Editorial articles in The Guardian are generally in sympathy with the middle-ground liberal to left-wing end of the political spectrum"

"During the Afghanistan and Iraq wars The Guardian attracted a significant proportion of anti-war readers as one of the mass-media outlets most critical of UK and USA military initiatives."

"In October 2004 The Guardian published a humour column by Charlie Brooker in its entertainment guide, which appeared to call for the assassination of US President George W. Bush. This caused some controversy and the paper was forced to issue an apology and remove the article from its website"

As for AP, they're owned by hard-left Democrats, and several of their most prominent national US political reporters have direct connections to the Democratic National Committee. AP "reporter" Jennifer Loven, for example, is married to a DNC operative.

Nice try! Please have Paul Begala fax you some better material.

Posted by daytrader | November 11, 2007 9:50 PM

For the last year or so I have also been holding Euros v Pakistan Rupee

bought in at around 78 currently trading at about 89

Posted by Otter | November 11, 2007 10:55 PM

The next president is going to be operating under the same Patriot Act as this one is. We tried to tell you that it was a bad idea, but you wouldn't listen~ psychotic elf

Finally! A leftist who admits the Dhimmicrat who ends up in the WH will prove to be the true fascist, by abusing the Patriot Act.

Posted by I.M. Snooping | November 11, 2007 11:07 PM

Qwinn wrote: Any time a conservative is caught doing anything even remotely similar, they get raked over the coals. Remember the FEMA press conference?

Kinda hard to blame that on just some "conservative." Those were just FEMA bureaucrats pulling that stunt. It's not as if the White House directed them to do it.

Posted by SouthernRoots | November 12, 2007 12:12 AM

At a media event in Waterloo, Iowa, Clinton responded to a reporter's question about two separate incidents, one that occurred this week at a biodiesel plant in Newton, and the other in April on a farm outside Fort Madison, both in Iowa.

"Well it was news to me" Clinton said. "And neither I nor my campaign approve of that. And it will certainly not be tolerated."

Nice to know she is so well informed and that she has control over her subordinates.

Posted by Math_Mage | November 12, 2007 2:12 AM

Oh, well, no constructive comment from Psychotic Elf, moving on...

Del Dolemonte: Even if the story's true, just how far is it from past restrictions of civil liberties during war? All I know about are the Japanese interment during WWII and the imprisonment of Socialists during WWI. This is obviously a different situation; what's your take?

Posted by TokyoTom | November 12, 2007 2:35 AM

Ed, posts like this are a great way to get people NOT to take you seriously, but as just another partisan hack who cries when the oher side acts like yours does.

But maybe that's what you want to be?


Posted by Jose | November 12, 2007 3:10 AM

"Don't you think all the big budget campaigns--from Rudy to Mitt to Obama--are doing the same thing?"

Heck Fox does something similar their editorial staff tell it's reporters what stories to "look" for, how to frame issues, what talking points to use, etc.

Posted by Steve | November 12, 2007 4:03 AM

Hey Pysco Elf I see you running your mouth about how unhinged conservatives are about the Clintons. Of course we are nothing like the calm and rational debate you and the rest of America Haters..oops Democrats had about President Bush.

Posted by swabjockey05 | November 12, 2007 5:12 AM

More filthy, babbling trolls.

Anyone have a recommended varmint load?

Posted by ck | November 12, 2007 5:13 AM

The only way this post could have been seen as decent would have been if you put in: how you have been disgusted at the way this administration has been manipulating the press the past 7 years, and you can't believe Hillary is now planting questions too...
The way you put it makes it seem like this is one sided... You can't really think it is...

Posted by The Yell | November 12, 2007 6:16 AM

The only way this post could have been seen as decent would have been if you put in: how you have been disgusted at the way this administration has been manipulating the press the past 7 years, and you can't believe Hillary is now planting questions too...
The way you put it makes it seem like this is one sided... You can't really think it is...

Funny thing, decency. It not only tells Ed what to talk about--Hillary only in the context of the Bush Administration--but also what emotions to have --disgust and disbelief--and who to blame more.

Posted by Bennett | November 12, 2007 7:09 AM

" you have been disgusted at the way this administration has been manipulating the press the past 7 years."

Funny. Bush and co. have done a truly amazing job manipulating all the news coming out of Iraq the last 4+ years, for example, leading us all to believe it was peaches and sweet cream over there when the reality was totally different.

Yeah, George W. Bush, the master media manipulator, silver tongue devil that he is. And the meekly compliant press is to blame as well, falling over and over again for his evil deceits.
It's just because they love him so much.

As do we all, of course...because we've been tricked!

Posted by daytrader | November 12, 2007 7:32 AM


The worker bee's perceive the queen has been attacked even for a minor item.

So they swarm and like the smallest of ill behaved children have a tantrum in the aisle of the store.

They consider this a target of opportunity from googling their phrase of words of choice or consult the weblog awards for targets.

Simply shun them and don't give them the satisfaction. I answered mostly others in the thread except I believe in one or two bad choices.

The message is the same from so many of them I suspect possible sock puppetry. But it really does not matter.

It is their way of winning debate in the market place of ideas.

Sad really.

Posted by docjim505 | November 12, 2007 7:59 AM

swabjockey: Anyone have a recommended varmint load?

Unless we're talking about X grains of copper jacketed lead traveling at Y feet per second, can't help you. I CAN say with confidence that irony doesn't work. Nor does sarcasm. And don't EVEN try using facts. Varmints have great armor against all these things.


Posted by swabjockey05 | November 12, 2007 9:28 AM

Dr J. Yes at the risk of being OT, I was thinking of the lead variety. I used some "Accelerators" (30.06 with sabot) a couple months ago. Pretty flat trajectory.

In many States, for varmints, it's open season all season.

Posted by RD | November 12, 2007 11:04 AM

I have only been on posting on Captain's Quarters for a short time but I have noted that there are two standard troll posts (although done under different names)when they are feeling nicked. One is the one done on this thread by Gee Whiz where our (the usual poster's) hatred of the Clintons make us look foolish. The other done by Toykyo Tom is where posts like this (referring to Captain Ed) are the cause of people not to "take you seriously." Guess, they must take them seriously or why would they bother to come in. In other words they want you to leave Hillary alone. This makes me think these two (or maybe it is just one-two names) hit many blogs with these two standard put-downs. In this case several other nasties jumped in so I think they are nervous about such posts and comments. But like Scarlett O'Hara Hillary is thinking about and going to tackle all hard issues later-no specific plans to be bruted around now so don't bother to ask her. In the meantime, in between time these "trolls" will attack any who don't agree with her, some even gratis I imagine.

Posted by mark | November 12, 2007 12:21 PM

Can we please have a President from north of the Mason-Dixon line? Isn't everyone sick of these phony, unqualified hicks from the South wrecking our credibility all over the world? Enough of the Bush's and Clinton's. And all you Southerners, save it, I'm from Georgia. I just recognize the dire need for change. -M

Posted by old texas turkey | November 12, 2007 1:45 PM

Can we please have a President from north of the Mason-Dixon line?

Yes, lets keep Jews and Blacks out too, while we're at it. Halfwit.

Hill n' Bill have been Joni Mitchell fans for ages. In fact, Chelsea was named after one of Joni's songs.

Oh yes, I read about that in "Who gives a"

Some free advice: Try and come up with some solutions to the following: The collpsing dollar, $100/bbl oil, a health care access crisis, plummeting financial markets, undeserved skyrocketing executive pay, an imploding housing market, poisonous imports, a non-existant consumer protection department, and a crumbling infrastructure. And more tax cuts are probably not the answer. Neither is tort reform (tried that - and we still can't get affordable coverage for a third of Americans).

How about you come up with solutions and post them here? I see most of these are simple market forces responding to overly lax monetary policy in an inflationary environment. Here's a clue, most of those causes have everything to do with government policy. Where as your bromide would presumably be more government policy to throw upon previous failed government policy, I would tack the opposite direction and show public policy wonks the door. Then again, I'm strange that way, adjusting course to results and holding people accountable.

Please explain tort reform with health care coverage, especially for those who opt out? Do you make them take it under a universal plan, perhaps using provisions in the patriot act? So much so for the free man in that system, huh? Because you all know so much better than the rest of us, right?

Carol - been reading Taleb too. Very interesting stuff. If Hillary thinks she can waltz in and put Doc Rubin in charge to pump up the markets, she is in for a big surprise. We are only 1/3 to 1/2 way into the up cycle in interest rates. Cheap money is only gonna put salt on the wounds. You can recreate the past. Ain't cgonna happen. Nicolai Kondratieff was a real son of a bitch when it came to predicting commodity cycles. So much so that Stalin had him executed.

Posted by Math_Mage | November 12, 2007 2:15 PM

Mark: Yes, I can just see our former allies turning their backs now, as our credibility worldwide simply dies the way, do you read Don Surber?

In other words, no.

Bennett: He's complaining about Bush's tendency to speak at "town hall" partisan locations. But you know, if we decide that's a bad thing, every candidate's screwed. And it's different from planting questions.

Also, if you go find some liberal blogs you find something telling...they think the MSM is weak and conservative because they "helped con us into war four years ago", to paraphrase. How sad is that?

Psycho Elf: Yeah, because telling me what I do every day, and telling me that it's torture, is really gonna make me want to have constructive discussion with you.

Jose: That sounds more like Basic Journalism 101 than planting questions. Or is your complaint that these are Republican talking points and Republican ways to frame the issue? (But then, wasn't immigration reform supposed to be Hillary's talking point? And then she got slammed.)

Posted by RD | November 12, 2007 3:07 PM

"on the substance of the matter, I don't really care who the Democrats nominate. But for sheer comedy I'm pulling for Clinton." How telling! Most of us posting really care and we're serious about what happens to our country. But she is a laugh and a half, alright.

Posted by Math_Mage | November 12, 2007 4:05 PM

Psychotic Elf:
"I love it when the wingnut kneejerkosphere strikes the "rational pose." You don't even fool yourselves."

Except, you know, it's not a pose. It's just how I am - rational.

Whereas you obviously prefer to strike the psychotic pose. Surprise, surprise. (Or maybe it's not just a pose?)

I mean, heck, you're down to trolling now, and I was hoping to get something constructive from you only a few posts back. How much further can you go?

Oh, well. Time to start ignoring you again. Feel free to think it's because I can't refute your logical arguments and am running away instead. Then you can claim victory and pull out, just like you want to do with Iraq. (Or do you?)

Posted by TokyoTom | November 13, 2007 1:33 AM

docjim, am I a varmit? And can you tell me you take Ed seriously on this post, when George Bush's appearances from the 2000 campaign onward have been as tightly scripted as possible?

BTW, facts work with me - though unfortunately they don't seem to with most of our spineless Congresscritters (including Hillary), the political hacks in the Administration who are undermining our economy, liberty and long-term interests, and those on both the left and the right who see the other as unmitigated evil and that big government will turn out just FINE, as long as they are the party dispensing the pork.

Posted by TokyoTom | November 13, 2007 2:21 AM

RD, it's nice to be a caricature, isn't it? Saves you from too much thinking about what I actually wrote.

I'm perfectly happy for Hillary to be bashed, but I prefer that it be over matters of real substance. Trying to tweak the debate is nothing new, nor is what Hillary doing in that regard particularly egregious. Those on the right who latch on to trival points like this while ignoring that politicians on the right trade off credibility for empty partisanship. If that's what you prefer, fine, but I had thought that Ed cared more about substance - and am genuinely disappointed that he is debasing himself with this extremely weak and transparent hypocrisy.

My disappointment flows from my status as belonging to a third category of "troll" - a conservative who sees that both parties are addicted to an intrusive big government and both practice a greedy and self-deceptive meretricity, both about their own noble goals and the evil that only they can fight.

I call myself as a troll only because people like you tend to reflexively conclude that anyone who disagrees with you must be a "liberal". This is the mentality that the current crop of Republican politicians have encouraged and that has provided so much political coverage for their own misguded and inept governance, and blinds their supporters from seeing why they are losing political power.

Of course liberals are not much better, but an increasing number on both the left and right see that the game itself is rotten (spoiled by fighting over spoils), and even arch-liberals like Glenn Greenwald are throwing support behind Ron Paul (and agreeing with conservatives like Bruce Fein, Richard Vigurie, Bob Barr and Bruce Bartlett):

But go ahead, dismiss me as a Hillary minion.


Post a comment