The Story Accusing Hillary of Calling a Questioner "a Plant" is a Lie

[Zandor]

I have seen the phrase 'a plant' used in quotations on the title of one thread. People are running with it. It's a lie.

[Tandalayo_Scheisskopf]

1. Do you have a link...

To a refutation of the story?

[Zandor]

2. She did not use the term 'plant' n/t

[depakid]

47. You know what that should remind people of?

Bill's quibbling over language re: "sex with that woman."

[petersjo02]

3. And your evidence is? n/t

[Zandor]

9. My reading comprehension

Read the stories. She did not use the term 'plant' or tell the guy he was sent by someone.

[Colobo]

4. She didn't say the word plant. She just suggested the guy was sent to ask that question.

[Zandor]

5. Did she even say he was sent to ask it?

I don't believe so.

[ruggerson]

6. Actually she suggested he was sent the info in his question

if you want to be literal about it.

[Zandor]

7. Exactly

Totally different than saying he was sent by someone or was a plant.

[Kagemusha]

10. Would you prefer, strapped with a belt of lies around his chest? Rush liked that one.

This is aggressive parsing.

[Zandor]

27. Nope

Important difference.

Political activists are sent information all the time - emails, etc.

Saying his info was sent to him doesn't equate to someone directing him to go and ask his question.

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

16. No, that's not right either

reading material "that you were sent."

Not an accusation that "you were sent."

[hedgehog]

8. I think it's clear she implied that he was coached by someone

from another campaign.

[Zandor]

13. Nope

She said he was sent information from somewhere else. That's different than being a plant or being sent by someone - lots different.

[saracat]

23. She insulted his intelligence.She implied he didn't do due diligence and was just

using someoneelse's work without checking.He called her on it. When she stated she had been asked the identical question 3 times in the same day, she was implying it was set up.Sorry.She was.

[emilyg]

39. nope

[daninthemoon]

11. The context is pretty clear that she is suggesting a conspiracy.

She offered a detailed description of the resolution, which she said stressed robust diplomacy that could lead to imposing sanctions against Iran, and then pointedly said to Rolph that her view wasn't in "what you read to me, that somebody obviously sent to you."

"I take exception," Rolph interjected. "This is my own research."

"Well then, let me finish," Clinton responded.

Rolph, from nearby Nashua, fired back that no one had sent him the material.

"Well, then, I apologize. It's just that I've been asked the very same question in three other places,"

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

20. Assuming this post is not a joke...

All of the campaigns are doing massive direct mailing in Iowa right now.

There's nothing very sinister about an Iowa voter being "sent" something.

[saracat]

12. She did not say he was a "plant' but she implied it and insulted his intelligence

by saying his research was not his own."Someone sent you that".She was clear she didn't like the question.She did not handle this well.She gave a halfhearted apology that was onlty to defend herself, when the young man stood up for himself.He may have quoted from the original bill instead of the one that was passed but he still should have been treated with more respect.This was reminicent of Bushco who also doesn't like to be questioned. It was very clear she doesn't need the votes of those who question and as the young man said , she isn't getting his.

[Zandor]

14. Then the posts should say that

Don't lie about what she said.

[saracat]

17. I never said she called him a "plant"'.But I have said she implied it.

[Zandor]

19. Not you

But one OP used 'plant' in quotations.

And that's different than saying someone else sent him information.

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

25. Insulted his intelligence? Is this some post-modern thing about respecting his

narrative or something?

SHE WAS AVOIDING CALLING HIM A LIAR.

She offered him the only gracful out, since she was obliged to say his question was based on a falsehood.

If the guy did his "own research" he is a moron.

If he was merely accepting some campaign literature on good faith he's just a normal guy.

[saracat]

30. That is the type of response along with hillary's response that turns people off her.

"Moron" because he disagrees with her or you? Wow. Bush lite in a snapshot right there.

[la la]

32. this is the type of thread

that shows that some posters are having a boring day and are looking for some excitement..........


:hide:

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

33. "Moron" because he disagrees with the wording of THE PUBLISHED TEXT OF A RESOLUTION

Nobody can be as dense as you pretend to be, so I am starting to view you as maliscious.

Off to ignore land.

[saracat]

43. Yay! What is malcious is calling a questioner/voter a moron.

[Carrieyazel]

35. This episode really shows Hillary's detestable arrogance.

And why someone this unlikable has no shot in a general election, unless the Repukes nominate a total loser. I hope this story has legs. Judging from what I've seen so far, it may have.

[emilyg]

40. And you just got through wondering why Hillary supporters

don't discuss things. Please.

[saracat]

42. emilyg this statement"'If the guy did his "own research" he is a moron" .

is insulting to all who question.The remark is just nasty.It is arrogant and it is uncalled for.And Yes that is the type of condecending reply that turns people and especially, me off.

[seriousstan]

15. "what you read to me, that somebody obviously sent to you." is the insult she had to apologize for.

She knew she crossed the line and pulled out her tinfoil VWRC theory. That is why she apologized.

[saracat]

18. Absolutely!

[Zandor]

21. She may have offended him

and was big enough to apologize.

That doesn't excuse lying about what she said.

[Inuca]

22. The answer to your question (actually statement) is...

... in the WP article linked in another thread. Here is the article http://blog.washingtonpost.com/the-trail/2007/10/07/clintons_iran_vote_prompts_a_h.html
and here is the quote

She offered a detailed description of the resolution, which she said stressed robust diplomacy that could lead to imposing sanctions against Iran, and then pointedly said to Rolph that her view wasn't in "what you read to me, that somebody obviously sent to you

[Zandor]

24. Thank you n/t

[noamnety]

26. If this is in response to "one thread"

then you should respond in that thread, rather than start a new one to complain about the old one.

[Zandor]

28. When the lie and it's variations are in several threads

Can't we have one that tells the truth?

[Tellurian]

29. All I can tell you is this..Hillary was right, Rolph's statement was wrong..

she corrected him and he seemed really put out about being publicly corrected in front of the crowd. She apologized. After she explained at length what the Amendment entailed...He went off in a huff as the fallen hero.

There are at least six different threads on the same subject matter. Know this, the more they attack Hillary for being right, the more her numbers go up! I look forward to another surge in the Iowa Polls this week.

Thanks, for your thread, Zandor.

[Zandor]

31. And that's what the story should have been

Thank you.

[noamnety]

37. Wow - that's pretty badly misrepresenting what happened.

She didn't apologize for "publicly correcting" him. You completely left out what she was apologizing for.

She apologized for implying someone obviously sent him that question to put him up to asking it.

"Rolph, from nearby Nashua, fired back that no one had sent him the material.

"Well, then, I apologize. It's just that I've been asked the very same question in three other places," she said."

It doesn't make much sense to do a fact-check thread that conveniently leaves out that exchange like it never happened, making it look like she was apologizing for something else entirely.

[Forkboy]

50. That's facts...Hillary supporter style.

[Carrieyazel]

34. She didn't use the term "plant", but she handled this terribly.

[emilyg]

41. I would have not been as gracious.

[saracat]

44. She was not gracious.See post below with the actual exchange.

It came across as arrogant.

[EVDebs]

36. Hillary's wrong interpretation of the Sept 2001 AUMF

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=3587801&mesg_id=3588138

Bush already thinks he has the power to attack Iran. The pretext is all that is needed and that seems to be in response to whomever, the Quds Force et al, "he determines" is a Terrorist Organization.

[beachmom]

38. Here are the actual words:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x3587719#3587799

"Well, let me thank you for the question, but let me tell you that the premise of the question is wrong and I'll be happy to explain that to you," Clinton began. She offered a detailed description of the resolution, which she said stressed robust diplomacy that could lead to imposing sanctions against Iran, and then pointedly said to Rolph that her view wasn't in "what you read to me, that somebody obviously sent to you."

"I take exception," Rolph interjected. "This is my own research."

"Well then, let me finish," Clinton responded.

Rolph, from nearby Nashua, fired back that no one had sent him the material.

"Well, then, I apologize. It's just that I've been asked the very same question in three other places," she said. Clinton then explained that she had gone to the Senate floor in February to state that Bush does not have the authority to use military action against Iran and that she is working on legislation to put that into law. Rolph once again challenged her recent vote, suggesting that it amounted to giving Bush a free hand..

"I'm sorry, sir, it does not," she said, her voice showing her exasperation. "No, no, let me just say one other thing because I respect your research. There was an earlier version that I opposed. It was dramatically changed ... I would never have voted for the first version. The second version ripped out what was considered very bellicose and very threatening language."


You are right that we should be exact with all of this. Otherwise it turns into Al "I invented the internet" Gore. However, I am really taken aback by how she treated this questioner, and I think this may become a problem for her.

[LeftCoast]

45. That's what the Clinton haters are going on about?

That's it? All the threads, all the gnashing of teeth and rending of clothing over...that?

Oy vey.

[saracat]

46. You don't see this as bad? Oy Vey yourself.

[Bluebear]

48. "that somebody obviously sent to you" - that is an accptable way to treat a questioner?

Oy vey indeed.

[saracat]

49. It certainly is not.Nor are the posters calling him a "moron"

[Forkboy]

51. What a gaffe!