Hillary Don't Ask, Don't Tell

[RMNIXON]

Clinton's "don't ask" policy

As she races through Iowa in the days before next week's caucuses, Hillary Clinton is taking few chances. She tells crowds that it’s their turn to “pick a president,’’ but over the last two days she has not invited them to ask her any questions.

Before the brief Christmas break, the New York senator had been setting aside time after campaign speeches to hear from the audience. Now when she’s done speaking, her theme songs blare from loudspeakers, preventing any kind of public Q&A.

She was no more inviting when a television reporter approached her after a rally on Thursday and asked if she was “moved’’ by Benazir Bhutto’s assassination. Clinton turned away without answering.

Her daughter, Chelsea, had the same reaction when a reporter approached her with a question.

Hillary Clinton’s no-question policy didn’t sit well with some of the Iowans who came to see her speak.

“I was a little bit underwhelmed,’’ said Doug Rohde, 46, as he left her a rally in a fire station in Denison. “The message was very generic -- and no questions.’’

Clinton campaign officials said that she may take questions in the coming days. But her focus is on seeing as many voters as possible before the caucuses next Thursday -- and spotlighting the messages she wants to deliver.

Spokespeople for her two main rivals in the Hawkeye State -– John Edwards and Barack Obama -– said the candidates would continue fielding questions as they troll for support.

-- Peter Nicholas

Top of the Ticket : Los Angeles Times : Clinton's "don't ask" policy


Is this a preview of President Hillary in action? Another poll driven scripted Whitehouse with each and every public activity of the Queen carefully planned to prevent an uncomfortable moment?

It sure does not spell CONFIDENCE!

[Thorgrim]

1993-2000 repeat...minus the sex scandals = good times

I couldn't care less if she wants to script things based on what her polling team is telling her...those polls are based on Americans

Unless you think Americans are mentally retarded

[RMNIXON]

Like Mother Like Daughter:



VINTON, Iowa (AP) - It's one thing for Hillary Rodham Clinton's campaign to turn down interview requests for the candidate's daughter, Chelsea. But can't a 9-year-old reporter catch a break?

Sydney Rieckhoff, a Cedar Rapids fourth grader and "kid reporter" for Scholastic News, has posed questions to seven Republican and Democratic presidential hopefuls as they've campaigned across Iowa this year. But when she approached the 27-year-old Chelsea after a campaign event Sunday, she got a different response.

"Do you think your dad would be a good 'first man' in the White House?" Sydney asked, but Chelsea brushed her question aside.

"I'm sorry, I don't talk to the press and that applies to you, unfortunately. Even though I think you're cute," Chelsea told the pint-sized journalist.

[RMNIXON]

December 31, 2007
Prominent Clinton supporter criticizes Iowa
Posted: 08:00 AM ET


Strickland campaigned with Clinton in Iowa over the weekend.




CEDAR FALLS, Iowa (CNN) – Just days before the Iowa caucuses, a prominent Hillary Clinton supporter criticized the state’s privileged role in the presidential nominating process, forcing her campaign to declare that she did not agree with the assessment.

Ohio Gov. Ted Strickland was quoted in Sunday’s edition of The Columbus Dispatch as saying that it “makes no sense” to grant Iowa the right to hold the first contest of the 2008 race for the White House.

[JaJae]

If she weren't down by like 8 points I'm sure it would make sense to hold it there...

[motivez]

It doesn't make any sense, we need to get rid of Iowa and NH as the first primary states, and move on to the battleground states that actually matter electorally.

It's ridiculous that such a homogeneous population of American citizens play such a disproportionately important role in selecting the next President.

[RMNIXON]

Originally Posted by motivez

It doesn't make any sense, we need to get rid of Iowa and NH as the first primary states, and move on to the battleground states that actually matter electorally.

It's ridiculous that such a homogeneous population of American citizens play such a disproportionately important role in selecting the next President.

How did this "Tradition" Start anyway?

I get the fact that candidates cannot be everywhere at once, so you want to spread the dates out, but why does anybody have a lock on first?

[JaJae]

Originally Posted by RMNIXON

How did this "Tradition" Start anyway?

I get the fact that candidates cannot be everywhere at once, so you want to spread the dates out, but why does anybody have a lock on first?

I believe the parties did it for self preservation. They need to select the best candidate early on and rally behind them. They can't have two candidates so they need to bring it down to one person. The sooner they can do it the better. National polls don't tend to tell the proper story as a full blown campaign in a primary or caucus state. Look at Hillary.. she does well nationally, but once she starts campaigning in a state and getting herself out there she starts to fall in the gutter. If they went by national polls and selected Hillary they would end up shooting themselves in the foot when they found out she can't compete on a more scrutinized scale.

[hsmith]

Love or hate Ron Paul, he would devour Hillary Clinton in a debate.

[motivez]

Originally Posted by hsmith

Love or hate Ron Paul, he would devour Hillary Clinton in a debate.

That depends largely on the platform, issues discussed, and time given to the candidates to explain their positions IMO

[Thorgrim]

Originally Posted by JaJae

I believe the parties did it for self preservation. They need to select the best candidate early on and rally behind them. They can't have two candidates so they need to bring it down to one person. The sooner they can do it the better. National polls don't tend to tell the proper story as a full blown campaign in a primary or caucus state. Look at Hillary.. she does well nationally, but once she starts campaigning in a state and getting herself out there she starts to fall in the gutter. If they went by national polls and selected Hillary they would end up shooting themselves in the foot when they found out she can't compete on a more scrutinized scale.

Romney has been dominating the air waves in Iowa, here is the general election match up in Iowa, a state Kerry lost:

[hsmith]

Originally Posted by motivez

That depends largely on the platform, issues discussed, and time given to the candidates to explain their positions IMO

So Hillary can not answer, but answer, every question given to her?

I don't think she has ever answered a question directly that i have seen.

[JaJae]

Originally Posted by hsmith

So Hillary can not answer, but answer, every question given to her?

I don't think she has ever answered a question directly that i have seen.

That doesn't matter in a debate though. What matters is how you present yourself and how well you can BS yourself. Hillary is pretty good at that. Also you have to take into consideration that most media outlets don't like Paul and some are extremely favorable of Hillary. For example, if CNN held the debate I wouldn't be surprised if they let a Clinton staffer moderate the damn thing. It really depends on the format of the debate. As far as knowledge goes, Ron Paul wins hands down no contest whatsoever. But his views take a while to explain and if you don't have a good understanding of politics/economics it's easy to accept the rebuttals you'd be getting from Hillary which would seem to make more sense.

[hsmith]

Originally Posted by JaJae

That doesn't matter in a debate though. What matters is how you present yourself and how well you can BS yourself. Hillary is pretty good at that. Also you have to take into consideration that most media outlets don't like Paul and some are extremely favorable of Hillary. For example, if CNN held the debate I wouldn't be surprised if they let a Clinton staffer moderate the damn thing. It really depends on the format of the debate. As far as knowledge goes, Ron Paul wins hands down no contest whatsoever. But his views take a while to explain and if you don't have a good understanding of politics/economics it's easy to accept the rebuttals you'd be getting from Hillary which would seem to make more sense.

I know.

As much as Hillary has double talked herself in the same debates and the media let it slide, we all know it wouldn't be any different.

Sad how pathetic our system is.

[RMNIXON]

Originally Posted by JaJae

For example, if CNN held the debate I wouldn't be surprised if they let a Clinton staffer moderate the damn thing.