Justice and Truth in the USA - Fact Check:

HRC's performance in the last debate was really bad.  Everyone except HRC die-hards and Hillary campaign staffers at MMFA are in agreement.

Friday, November 09, 2007

By Major Garrett

Clinton's critics have accused her of being a double-talker who refuses to answer tough questions specifically. Now her campaign has acknowledged planting at least one question.

Already her rivals have begun to criticize Friday's revelation.

“In light of a weak debate performance, not to mention a persistent inability to answer the tough questions, it appears the Clinton campaign has adopted a new strategy of planting questions,” John Edwards’ Communications Director Chris Kofinis said.

“It’s what the Clinton campaign calls the politics of planting.”

-------------- end quote -----------------

The Democrat Party is finally starting to realize what a looming disaster HRC is for the next election.  Foser's latest column, in all honesty, sounds like he's running for the Democrat version of Sean Hannity.

What's next?  A "Foser-itation" tour? 

You're a great American, Foser! 

Matthews isn't fit to clean out toilets...

at Sea World.

(My apologies to all janitorial professionals.) 

JusTruUs, you are pathetically boring. If what you do gets you off, the term get a life cannot be overstated.

How will MMFA spin the story about the Clinton campaign planting questions in the audience?

I can't wait to see the article here.

I can't wait to see the article that you have concerning this...please let me know where I can find that one.

Here:

 http://web.grinnell.edu/sandb/questions.html

 and here:

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,310316,00.html

Oh oh! Looks like this might be a pattern:

 http://cameron.blogs.foxnews.com/2007/11/10/another-question-planted-by-team-hillary/

In a telephone interview with Fox, Geoffrey Mitchell, 32, says he was approached by an operative for the Clinton campaign to ask a planted question about standing up to President Bush on Iraq war funding. The encounter happened before an event on a farm outside Fort Madison, Iowa. The Clinton event was hosted by Iowa State Sen. Gene Fraise.

Mitchell tells Fox that Clinton campaign worker Chris Hayler approached him and asked him to ask Sen. Clinton a question about how she was standing up to President Bush on the question of funding the Iraq war and a troop withdrawal timeline.

Mitchell told Fox the Clinton campaign wanted to contrast Clinton to Sen Barack Obama, who had recently said the president would probably prevail in the Iraq funding battle with Congress.

Mitchell said he refused to ask the question.

“I told Chris I had other issues I wanted to raise with Sen. CLinton,” MItchell said. Asked what those were, Mitchell said: “I wanted to ask her why she voted for the Iraq war and why she didn’t consider that a mistake.”

 Mitchel told Fox that Hayler, the Clinton campaign worker, was unhappy and moved on to others. “I know he tried to have others ask that question,” Mitchell said.

Ultimately, Mitchell said Clinton took no questions at the event.

You'll see the MMFA article on the plant right after they see you condemn the numerous plants of the Bush administration, so you don't look like a hypocrite while you accuse MMFA of being hypocrites.

MMFA might also want to wait until there's some conservative misinformation involved.  You know, their stated mission and all that.

I'll wait for the fox news expose on plants at caucuses from all candidates of both political parties before deciding.  I don't even know if what Clinton did was at all unusual.

If Clinton's campaign did a bad bad thing here, I'll weigh it against Obama's complete lack of knowledge on social security or Giuliani's insane warmongering.

Sorry, but we Hillary supporters have our excuses lined up around the block.  She'd have to do something really dumb, like shatter the budget deficit record or ram our military into quicksand for a decade or blow off the constitution or ignore terrorism threats, before she'll lose our support.

So are you for or against questions being planted in the audience?

 For the record I'm against it, no matter who does it.

Funny we didnt see you in here slamming Bush during the Gannon/Guckert fiasco. Its a cheap trick. I am suprised it isnt more common.

Why bring Bush up? Is Bush running for office? I'm not a Bush supporter.

So do you support having questions planted in the audience or not? Is it bad when Bush does it but ok when Hilary does it?

I answered that. Do you have reading comprehension problems? What part of its a cheap trick was too complicated for you to understand? Again you SAID you were against it no matter who does it yet I clearly remember a DEARTH of cons in here speaking against it when the Guckert/Gannon story was in the news and on these threads. THAT is a valid point which is why I brought it up.

You did say it was a cheap trick. You just didn't say whether you were for it or against it. For all I know you might be all in favor of using cheap tricks. You seem to support a candidate who has used this "cheap trick" on more than one occasion.

Sorry I wasn't here during the the Gannon fiasco. I didn't know this site existed then, therefore I didn't post here. I would be more than happy to state that that was just one of the many things the Bush administration has done wrong. I do not support him or the Republican party.

Maybe to ethically challenged rightwingnuts that would make sense. No it wouldnt calling it a cheap trick was perjorative. It is only your reading comprehension that is lacking. For instance laughably assuming I support Hillary. That is dumb. Hillary is FAR too conservative for me and this kind of thing is just like her. I guess you wingnuts get used to that simplistic thinking. Either/or Black/white. Its really dumb but then again I guess its what you have.

You seem to have some anger issues. Lot's of name calling and insults from you. "Ethically challenged, wingnut, lacking reading comprehension, dumb."

Do you talk to people like that face to face? If so I'd imagine you get into a lot of fist fights.

 Not very progressive of you.

I didn't say you supported Clinton, I said you "seem" to. Sorry for that.

You make alot of off base assumptions yourself.

Unlike you, I won't respond with name calling though.  

Oh please, the WWAAAHHH is silly. You were just as snarky as me. What was this again?

For all I know you might be all in favor of using cheap tricks. You seem to support a candidate who has used this "cheap trick" on more than one occasion.

Why would there be ANY assumption I am in FAVOR of cheap tricks? The term is obviously perjorative. I prefer honest hostility to this snarky mask of false civility. Go ahead and whine but I didnt call you any names anymore than you SAID I supported Hillary it was all implied. If you want to talk about the issues fine, do so, that would not include saying things like YOU might be in favor of cheap tricks. If you are going to be snarky then you dont fit on the high horse pedestal.

How should I know if you support cheap tricks or not? You didn't condemn it. You simply attacked me. 

Do what you will, makes no difference to me. I pretty clearly called out my position on planted questions. I'm against them, no matter who they come from. 

 You just attacked me for stating my opinion. 

Give it up. Calling it a cheap trick is perjorative. Your snarky implication I might be in favor of cheap tricks is an attack on my character. You are snivelling. Keep trying to pretend your saying I might be in favor of cheap tricks is innocent we arent that dumb. Either you are or you are being dishonest, and one thing you can be absolutly certain of is I will decide how I post.

Since you are so ignorant you dont even know the name of the largest political party in the United States there isnt any reason to take anything you say seriously.

"The Democrat Party..." By TruthandJustice

If you are so into fact checking, and all, please check the naming of the Democratic party. I know it's hard for you to possibly realize what an ignorant fool you sound like when using the incorrect name of the party you're trying to disparage, and it also tells me that you listen to radio talk shows, a lot. Since they are the ones who foist this misnomer out on a willing public most days.

This is just like the 2004 debates, when Bush TRUELY bombed (hard work). Right after most debates, Kerry would gain on Bush. However, after a few days of MSM spin, Bush would gain on Kerry again.

Give the MSM a couple of days and they will revise history in favor of the Republicans.

Justice and Truth in the USA - Fact Check:

I did a search of the news archives and found no reports of anyone claiming that Bush did a better job during the debates. 

In fact, the liberal MSM gave the first two debates clearly to Kerry, and gave Bush a draw on the last debate.

There was NO MSM rally for Bush.

Oh man...you do know there's this thing called "Fox News"? right?

What archives are you checking?

I watched one of the debates on Fox. Bush looked like a bumbling idiot and Gore was well spoken and appeared worldly and knowledgeable. After the debate, the commentators started by saying "Well that one goes for Bush..." and Bill Kristol said that Al Gore reminded him of that annoying kid in school, always raising his hand and knowing all the answers...and do we really want a guy like this to be our President?

Please don't feed the troll.

You could have stopped at "asshole."

Of course Russert didn't respond...

He got his ass caught in the cookie jar again.  I'd like to see him invite Bill Clinton on his little Sunday coffee clatch.

He hasn't got the balls to, of course.  He'd get his corporate ass pulverized, so he runs and hides behind the skirts at the RNC. 

At the time that the Dems were dealing with the idea of having debates on Fauxnooz, I had some mixed feelings; as much as the thought of lending legitimacy to a discredited propaganda outfit like Fox seemed out of the question, I had to consider what they would do if the Dems didn't agree to debate there, and the Fox yakkers just got to talk behind the Dems backs, as well as accusing them of being "scared" to face Fox.

In hindsight, after seeing Russert and others, I think the Dems were wise not to give Fox that opportunity to pretend to be a real news outlet.

What I can't take is Russert's "working class guy from Buffalo" act, and his literary canon about his regular guy Dad Big Russ (nothing against BR, but it's tiresome).

I wish Russert were scared. But he's not-- he's arrogant, he thinks he's right, he knows he's unbeatable. He doesn't care. That's the scary thing. The only weapon against his type is humor and ridicule-- but on what forum? They've got it all tied up.

Russert is stalking Hillary Clinton.

 This morning (11/10/07) Russert was supposed to questioning Obama on Meet the Quote Anomoly Analysis Press. Russert was more interested in talking about Hillary Clinton than anything else.  I counted from the transcript. Nine questions for Obama concerned Hillary. Russert mentioned Hillary 21 times. Compared to others: Bush three times, Edwards zero times, Giuliani one time.

Hillary is going to need a protection from abuse order if Russert doesn't cool out.

for justice and truth to claim the mainstream media "gave" the debates to kerry is  completely false.  what they did was report the polls, as in this one linked, that showed the public who watched thought kerry won, overwhelmingly in this case.

http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/10/03/election.poll/index.html

Justice and Truth in the USA - Fact Checking:

In fact, the first two debates were clearly "won" by Kerry.  And George Bush didn't do all that well in the third debate.

When I said that the MSM "gave" the debates to Kerry all I meant was that the MSM "judges" were like the judges on "American Idol" who give their opinions before the people vote.

The part that really kills the left is that the people didn't care that John Kerry was a better debater. 

Kerry won the debates and lost the elections. 

except for the fact that many of those polls were taken immediately after the debates before people had the time to be influenced by anyone.  and did it help kerry when andrea mitchell was on nbc right away blasting kerry for remarks he made about fed chairman alan greenspan in one of the debates?  without, of course, mentioning that she is mrs. greenspan.

Sorry, a bit late on this thread but how about the Ultra-liberal NY Times ( as it's called by the wingnuts here)?

Nice archive searching, JT.

Justice and Truth in the US - Fact Check:

When I checked google news archives I could not find ANY reports in print media or radio/tv that gave positive coverage to George Bush in the first two debates.

Finally, the NY Times is a part of the liberal MSM.  That fact is pretty much settled based on all the documentary evidence I can find. 

sure, we'll just take your word.

No its just settle in the conciousness of the Hivemind.

So, the "liberal" NY Times called the debates for Bush, and that supports your position that the mainstream media called the debates for Kerry?

OK.

The media is unbelievable. They are again trying to shape public opinion in the Presidential campaign.  They did it with Gore, and now they are trying to do it to Hillary.  The left wing of the Democratic Party is just as bad.  They have learned from the media, and are acting more like right wing Republicans. Every point you made in this article is so on the mark, but how do you stop this from continuing. The media never seems to see themselves as they really are.  Chris Matthews, and Tim Russert are two of the worst.  They are so biased toward Mrs. Clinton, and use their platform to misrepresent everything she says or does.  I have never seen a debate like the one in Philadelphia.  MSNBC definitely orchestrated a "Let's Get Hillary Night," and the candidates just fell in line.  Tim Russert was so outrageous in his questioning of Hillary, but I knew he would be from watching him at the debate when Hillary ran the first time for Senate. I want to thank Media Matters for stating what I have been feeling about the Media's distortion of what actually took place on that stage, and the aftermath.  The media is doing such a disservice to the American People at a time when the issues are so important.  They are responsible for Bush's election, and now they want to shove their choice, which from all indications would be Obama down our throats.  I just hope the American people are smarter this time out, and choose the best candidate, namely Hillary Clinton.  

Well, they should focus on the fact that her answers to the questions were more triangulation.

Hillary talks about wanting to revisit NAFTA then votes for the Peruvian Free Trade deal.   

More politics of triangulation from this woman.   And how can she be the candidate of women when he is giving them the shaft here and in Peru with another free trade deal?   

To her good fortune the media overlooks these truths.

It is no wonder that the young people I talk to today have no interest in politics.  They are only called upon to lay down their lives and limbs in a war zone but yet they cannot grasp what is really going on in the polical arena.  We all talk about the importance of values in this country ad nauseum but our reporters have trivialized the political system with biased and poor reporting.  They place more value on clapping, hair cuts, tips etc. than whether or not a candidate has a progressive program.  How can we get the pubic to see how perverted the media has become whereby they tweak questions to make a candidate appear incompetent.  If the media is "left" then they certainly wouldn't do the things that Russet and Matthews have done over the last few years.  We the people should stand up and take all the people that lie and expose them.  They have abused their political power in influencing the public.  This is the reason we have George Bush for president.  They can take the bow for that.

You and Eric really nailed it. Hillary Clinton is one tough cookie. She'll have to bring her hip boots to the next debate 'cause the sh*t will be that high. Richardson, Dodd, Edwards and Obama should be wary of "piling on" in hit jobs like this last debate, because this is the tactic that both the right and the MSM are going to be employing against them. The right and the MSM are going to be trying, at every instance, to turn pragmatic responses into general principles and then calling candidates hypocrites and flipfloppers when the two don't line up.

I can't believe Russert still has a job. And Brian Williams should be ashamed of himself. As usual, I rely on sites like this to get the real facts. Just tell it to me like it happened, boys.

Whichever Democratic candidate eventually wins the nomination, they're going to need a lot of support from the trenches to weather the sh*tstorm coming. Thanks, guys!

I really like the conclusion Foser draws, and the societal changes that would precipitate such a result:

"Imagine how much better off we'd all be if Anita Esterday had a television show on MSNBC, and Chris Matthews worked in a diner in Iowa."

 Now, that would be an America in which a Mukasey would be fortunate to be a janitor, and "torture" would be a quaint reference to something from the distant past.

A Report from XOF NEWS...where up is down, gray is blue and Right is WRONG.

Breaking News: Al Gore has decided to run for President on the Republican Ticket and Rush turns GREEN. Cheney again decides he is the best VEEP candidate available.

Breaking News: There is no more Truth and Justice Fact Reporting..it has been dicovered by XOF NEWS that the writer of Truth or Dare is ...............

JEFF GANNON.

More updates to follow.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qggO5yY7RAo

 How anyone could have watched that debate and not seen Hillary's performance as a train wreck is amazing. 

Glad to see that the organization who Clinton helped start (yet who claims they have no affiliation or attachment with her campaign) is out there defending her again, when she was downright awful. 

Also didn't see the quote from the unnamed Clinton worker who said the next day on a conference call that Russert should be shot.  MMFA must have just not seen that one. 

Here's your cookie, GRhino, Good doggie.

You might want to read the article again.  Pay particular attention to all the live reports from media members who didn't think the debate was a train wreck while they were watching it.

And if what you say is true, I'm sure Hillary polled at 0% after the debate.

One more hint:  when the whole debate is arranged to attack only one person, it will look like that person was attacked.  Another hint:  being attacked more than the other guys is not the same as losing.

And before you say that the frontrunner is always attacked like that, I don't see the republican frontrunner attacked like that.  And according to the media idiots, Hillary is both the frontrunner and in her last throes.

GRINO, That did it for me...Never again will I trust anyone running for office who have prearranged questions being asked. Of course, you will also agree the anyone who is President be scolded for the same thing.

G. R. Hino...

To put things into a more accurate perspective, Hillary could have fallen flat on her face throughout the entire debate and still not be as damaged as your current President and Vice President are. There are an amazingly stubborn 9% who still like the Vice President.

Furthermore, just take a look at the lineup of prospective Republican Presidents. Even many Conservatives are not very exited about that sorry lineup of candidates.

Good luck in the 08 elections. You’re going to need lots of luck to win that one. Bush will have to hide himself somewhere with the hopes that voters won’t remember how he created such a mess in Iraq. Vetoed healthcare for poor children. Etc. etc. etc.

Furthermore, just take a look at the lineup of prospective Republican Presidents. Even many Conservatives are not very exited about that sorry lineup of candidates.

 Any of the Republican nominees have 50% negative ratings??? Didn't think so.

"Vetoed healthcare for poor children. "

This is false.  Bush vetoed an SCHIP expansion to cover families making up to $62,500 (i.e. middle-class families).  Families currently covered under SCHIP (up to 200% of poverty level) are still covered.  Please stop making false and misleading statements.  No "poor children" are going without health care because of the veto. 

"You’re going to need lots of luck to win that one."

 We will if dishonest hacks like you keep spreading lies and misinformation.

according to this two day old poll, rudy has a negative of 47% and hillary leads him and thompson by 6 points.

http://rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/election_2008__1/2008_presidential_election/election_2008_clinton_vs_giuliani_thompson

I watched most of the debate.  Hillary held her own very well.  It's amazing to see how these things get reported, first in "real time" and then when processed thru all the filters; then we get a fantasy version of what took place.  Clinton did not want to answer certain questions (and this is typical politician) but she was poised throughout the debate and stuck to her own agenda, despite attempts to dislodge her.

The press has its own agenda, and its not objective reporting.  They develop a group point of view, and it's out of this mass mind that they report. 

The Democratic field of candidates is impressive.  I would like to see Kucinich's vision in the White House, and I think Edwards would be the best president.

"Hillary held her own very well. "

*But on specific issues I've come out with very specific plans.  With respect to Soc Security I do have a plan

*Personally I am not going to be advocating any specific fix until I am seriously approaching fiscal responsibility. 

 That's "holding your own"???  Giving completely opposite answers to a question. 

"I would like to see Kucinich's vision in the White House, and I think Edwards would be the best president."

Wow...I mean there's nothing more to say really.  Here we have a person wants to see the vision of a guy that completely bankrupted a major metro city in the 1970's and admits he has seen a UFO.  And thinks that a guy who spends all of his time talking about 2 America's (rich & poor) when he is clealry living in the RICH America would be the best president...Wow.  I'm literally speechless.

Wow.  I'm literally speechless.

Can we hold you to that?   Please?

Yes Mary!

"The Democratic field of candidates is impressive. I would like to see Kucinich's vision in the White House, and I think Edwards would be the best president." - Mary -

SO DO I Mary AND... that would be my favorite ticket: Edwards/Kucinich or Kucinich/Edwards.

I wonder who Hino likes from the sorry lineup of RepubliCan'ts? My guess would be Duncan Hunter, Darth Vader, Mrs GW Bush or Dick Cheany.

Just a joke Hino!

GRhino, pay attention. It's possible to have a plan and not act on that plan until it is feasible. Let me dumb it down for you.

I have a very specific plan for my next vacation.

I'm not going on vacation until I have the money saved up.

Are those completely opposite statements?Maybe to you, Rush and Hannity.Not to regular humans.

my sentiments exactly.

One simple question.  Did anyone ever consider that Hillary might have deserved the line of questioning she received from Russert?  She doesn't seem to ever be held accountable for anything and it seems as though this is the first time I've seen someone try to pin her down with something difficult to answer.  John Edwards youtube ad really showed this if anyone is wondering how bad it really was check this out - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qggO5yY7RAo

I hear pundits talking about Hillary's debate "meltdown." Just because you don't agree with the answers she gave doesn't mean they were bad answers. She made sense, even though I disagreed with her Kyl-Lieberman vote. But I haven't read the resolution and it seemed she was saying the President hasn't pursued negotiation and the resolution would push him to act on sanctions, and that though she didn't support a rush to war she thought we couldn't do nothing, that Bush already had the power to launch a pre emptive strike on Iran and didn't need authority from congress (Sec Rice reiterated this point on This Week.) And I thought her answer on illegal drivers licenses was good also, esp since Gov Richardson has instituted this program in New Mexico and has found it helpful. Why can't she support Spitzer and not take a definite position on driver's licenses? She's not running for governor. Of course that issue is going to slam you one way or another, and the current administration was blown out of the water when they tried to approach it. But it does seem like she's taking much more flack than any of the Repugs, esp Guiliani, who's fawned over and worshiped. I've grown to really like Hillary, and the issues the left has their panties in a bunch over are just what you have to deal with when you have to govern the WHOLE country. And from her perch as first lady she has a great understanding of what it takes to move forward.

"And I thought her answer on illegal drivers licenses was good also, esp since Gov Richardson has instituted this program in New Mexico and has found it helpful. Why can't she support Spitzer and not take a definite position on driver's licenses? "

 Are you retarded?? Seriously, the question was YES or NO do you support giving a drivers license to illegal immigrants.  How hard is it to answer that question?  Chris Dodd seemed to be able to answer it quite easily.  Apparently for her, it is quite hard though.  How can you honestly say that her pathetic attempt to dodge it was a good answer.  At the very least, she could have said something like "Well, that's a state issue and I work in the federal government so its really my area to comment on" 

Yeah, I'm retarded. I thought this was the retarded blog.  Sorry I bruised your towering intellect.

I/m very happy to see that SAG and Teamsters are supporting the WGA in this. This, IMHO, should always be the case, rank and file members need to toss out their own "fat cats" whenever they start putting their own lust for power and increased "turf", ahead of labor solidarity.

This is such a great article. It goes to the very heart of the media smear machine. It shows us how the "Liberal Media" monicker is the biggest lie perpetuated by the Right wing. Yet it continues. They are intentionally manipulating this whole society to suit their ideology. It is no longer about what would be best for we Americans. It's either their way or the highway, with us or against us, black and white... ...and as we had sat by before, not challenging these knuckle-headed fascists, we can all see how Clinton was impeached for "high crimes and misdemeanors" for lying about sex, Gore "invented the internet" for saying he helped to create it by losening it from the military and universities through legistlation, we need to attack Iraq because of "WMD and a threat to America because of Saddam's non-compliance".

They're all f*cking hacks. Russert, Kurtz and the rest of these jackasses are putty in there hands. No matter how many Glenn Becks, Bill Bennets, Kudlows, Tuckers, Savages, etc. you bring on, you will NEVER be "fair and balanced".

Which reminds me: How is David Horowitz' doing to [our education system] what [Fixed NoiZ has done for our "news"] going?

I always saw David Brock's "Media Matters" as a form of apology to the Clintons and to all of us whom lean a little to the left. His "apology" has turned out to be one of the most accurate "weapons" for truth we have... ...after repeated claims that the press is somehow "Liberal".

Is it any wonder that the media are held in lower esteem than congress?

They continue to do this country a disservice. Will they hold Rudy G. to task for lying about the survival rate for victims of prostrate cancer in England? Will Russert hold his feet to the fire?

I doubt it.