Hillary Learns From FEMA

[AFTiger 282]

Another Question Planted by Team Hillary?

by Aaron Bruns

From Major Garrett, a Fox News Exclusive:

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.”

Mitchell 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.

MItchell told Fox he is an Obama supporter but cannot participate in the Iowa caucus.

Mitchell is a minister in Hamilton and said he was reluctant to come forward because of the scrutiny he and his congregation might receive. “But I thought this was important to get out and I want people to know what happened.”

UPDATE: Hillary Clinton’s Iowa campaign confirmed to Fox that one of its staff discussed questions with Geoffrey Mitchell before the senator’s April 2 event near Fort Madison, but denied attempting to plant a pro-Clinton question.

Mo Elliethee, spokesman for Clinton, told Fox that Clinton staffer Chris Hayler talked with Mitchell before the event because the two knew each other from previous Democratic activities.

Mitchell told Fox he knew Hayler because Hayler had once been with Indian Sen. Evan Bayh’s campaign. “They had a previous relationship and were talking before the event and the topic of the senator’s position on Iraq came up, and Geoffrey said he had some questions,” Elliethee said. “Chris suggested Geoffrey ask a question.”

Asked if the Clinton campaign denied Mitchell’s unequivocal assertion that Hayler tried to plant a quesiton about Clinton trying to stand up to Bush on IRaq war funding, Elliethee declined.

“I’m not going to comment on what he said,” said Elleithee, referring to Mitchell. “They had a previous relationship, the subject came up and there’s nothing more to it than that. It’s not newsworthy. It’s innocent. It’s not yesterday.”

That was a reference to Clinton’s campaign admitting, first to Fox, that it planted a question on global warming at a Newton, IA event on Tuesday.

UPDATE #2: Geoffrey Mitchell just called Major to state he had absolutely no previous relationship with Clinton staffer Chris Hayler. 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.

“I had no previous relationship with him,” said Mitchell. “I knew his name and by name only as someone who worked for Sen. Evan Bayh. But we didn’t know each other and I had never met him before this event.”

[TitanTiger 20,511]

After having almost nary a hiccup in her campaign, she's not had a stellar couple of weeks since that last debate.

[TexasTiger 13,029]

This was bone-headed.

BTW, I've heard Major Garrett is really just a captain.

[Auburn85 432]

"BTW, I've heard Major Garrett is really just a captain."

haha , pretty good.

I wonder what Major Applewhite is?

[TexasTiger 13,029]

"BTW, I've heard Major Garrett is really just a captain."

haha , pretty good.

I wonder what Major Applewhite is?

Corporal.

[Tiger Al 0]

This was pretty stupid. You don't separate yourself from the republicans by acting like them.

[AURaptor 1,126]

Actually, Hillary has been using planted audience members going back to her 'listening tour', when she was running for the Senate.

[TitanTiger 20,511]

Yeah, I don't buy that this is her first time doing this.

[otterinbham 0]

I'm not really a paranoid Hillary basher. However, I can't shake the conviction that she is going to fade down the stretch going into primary season, chiefly because nobody seems to be terribly enthusiastic about her occupying the Oval Office. Maybe it's Clinton/Bush fatigue. Maybe it's that she really seems to possess no convictions. Maybe it's a combination of a lot of things.

On the other hand, we have Obama. He would make a much more attractive candidate. At the same time, his governing philosophies are somewhat murky. Nobody seems to be asking what the man will do if he actually won the presidency. Right now, everybody is in thrall to his symbolism as a viable black candidate and the fact that, from a personality standpoint, he's everything that Hillary Clinton is not. Yet as his economic ideas come under greater scrutiny, will he really last? And, considering what's at stake on the international scene, do we really want to trust a neophyte when it comes to foreign policy?

Personally, while I believe that the nomination will most likely go to one of the two candidates mentioned above, I wouldn't be surprised to see Bill Richardson or Christopher Dodd begin to make a serious run at it. Both have gravitas. Both have a great deal of working experience on both domestic and international issues. And neither, despite the bluster of the Limbaugh crowd, really occupy a far-left ideological position.

[AFTiger 282]

I'm not really a paranoid Hillary basher. However, I can't shake the conviction that she is going to fade down the stretch going into primary season, chiefly because nobody seems to be terribly enthusiastic about her occupying the Oval Office. Maybe it's Clinton/Bush fatigue. Maybe it's that she really seems to possess no convictions. Maybe it's a combination of a lot of things.

On the other hand, we have Obama. He would make a much more attractive candidate. At the same time, his governing philosophies are somewhat murky. Nobody seems to be asking what the man will do if he actually won the presidency. Right now, everybody is in thrall to his symbolism as a viable black candidate and the fact that, from a personality standpoint, he's everything that Hillary Clinton is not. Yet as his economic ideas come under greater scrutiny, will he really last? And, considering what's at stake on the international scene, do we really want to trust a neophyte when it comes to foreign policy?

Personally, while I believe that the nomination will most likely go to one of the two candidates mentioned above, I wouldn't be surprised to see Bill Richardson or Christopher Dodd begin to make a serious run at it. Both have gravitas. Both have a great deal of working experience on both domestic and international issues. And neither, despite the bluster of the Limbaugh crowd, really occupy a far-left ideological position.

Which is why neither will get the Moveon nomination. I don't think Dodd is very smart anyway.

[otterinbham 0]

I'm not really a paranoid Hillary basher. However, I can't shake the conviction that she is going to fade down the stretch going into primary season, chiefly because nobody seems to be terribly enthusiastic about her occupying the Oval Office. Maybe it's Clinton/Bush fatigue. Maybe it's that she really seems to possess no convictions. Maybe it's a combination of a lot of things.

On the other hand, we have Obama. He would make a much more attractive candidate. At the same time, his governing philosophies are somewhat murky. Nobody seems to be asking what the man will do if he actually won the presidency. Right now, everybody is in thrall to his symbolism as a viable black candidate and the fact that, from a personality standpoint, he's everything that Hillary Clinton is not. Yet as his economic ideas come under greater scrutiny, will he really last? And, considering what's at stake on the international scene, do we really want to trust a neophyte when it comes to foreign policy?

Personally, while I believe that the nomination will most likely go to one of the two candidates mentioned above, I wouldn't be surprised to see Bill Richardson or Christopher Dodd begin to make a serious run at it. Both have gravitas. Both have a great deal of working experience on both domestic and international issues. And neither, despite the bluster of the Limbaugh crowd, really occupy a far-left ideological position.

Which is why neither will get the Moveon nomination. I don't think Dodd is very smart anyway.

He's a smarter choice than either Obama or Clinton. Really, the Democrats think they're going to win the 2008 presidential election in a walk. I just don't see that happening, unless the Republicans screw up (which is always possible). If further progress is made in Iraq and the economy stabilizes, then Democrats will be in a much tougher position than they think.

[TexasTiger 13,029]

I'm not really a paranoid Hillary basher. However, I can't shake the conviction that she is going to fade down the stretch going into primary season, chiefly because nobody seems to be terribly enthusiastic about her occupying the Oval Office. Maybe it's Clinton/Bush fatigue. Maybe it's that she really seems to possess no convictions. Maybe it's a combination of a lot of things.

On the other hand, we have Obama. He would make a much more attractive candidate. At the same time, his governing philosophies are somewhat murky. Nobody seems to be asking what the man will do if he actually won the presidency. Right now, everybody is in thrall to his symbolism as a viable black candidate and the fact that, from a personality standpoint, he's everything that Hillary Clinton is not. Yet as his economic ideas come under greater scrutiny, will he really last? And, considering what's at stake on the international scene, do we really want to trust a neophyte when it comes to foreign policy?

Which Republicans do you think will be great in regard to foreign policy?

[otterinbham 0]

I'm not really a paranoid Hillary basher. However, I can't shake the conviction that she is going to fade down the stretch going into primary season, chiefly because nobody seems to be terribly enthusiastic about her occupying the Oval Office. Maybe it's Clinton/Bush fatigue. Maybe it's that she really seems to possess no convictions. Maybe it's a combination of a lot of things.

On the other hand, we have Obama. He would make a much more attractive candidate. At the same time, his governing philosophies are somewhat murky. Nobody seems to be asking what the man will do if he actually won the presidency. Right now, everybody is in thrall to his symbolism as a viable black candidate and the fact that, from a personality standpoint, he's everything that Hillary Clinton is not. Yet as his economic ideas come under greater scrutiny, will he really last? And, considering what's at stake on the international scene, do we really want to trust a neophyte when it comes to foreign policy?

Which Republicans do you think will be great in regard to foreign policy?

To be honest with you, I don't have a clue. I think Giuliani may prove to be rigorous enough on the subject of defense, but I'm concerned that he will not correct W's excesses. Thompson is about as empty a suit as there can be. Huckabee? Not a chance. I think McCain probably comes closest to sanity in this area, if the guy would actually run a coherent campaign. However, I think Giuliani and McCain will still be far more skilled than Obama in this arena. And I think Obama will actually prove better than Clinton. Clinton will prove so polarizing a figure in public office, that her major foreign policy initiatives will prove stillborn. Obama, at least, would probably have a fighting chance.

What's more, I really don't think the Republicans have the corner on foreign policy. Bill Clinton proved to be a far more adept diplomat than W. However, at the same time, he seriously downgraded our military capability (especially in intelligence gathering) during the 90s. If you ask me, Bush 41 was the best foreign policy president we've had since Roosevelt. If you look at what he handled in his four-year term, it's pretty amazing.

That being said, my chief concern right now is with economics. I think a Keynsian such as Obama and Clinton would be an awful choice for this country at this juncture. Despite the current credit issues in this country, we're in a strong economic position for the forseeable future. Unemployment remains very low, inflation is mostly in check, and a low dollar is actually beginning to contribute to an export boom--Not exactly a situation that demands the massive economic dislocation that will be caused by socialized medicine or tax hikes.