look what the corporate media did about al gore's big house and electric bills.

why would he want that.

he should pick one of the dems and help them beat Hillary.

that's how he can accomplish his agenda

This guy is a plant, probably an Obama plant. We did some google search. He's very active on some sort of 'progressive blog' in Iowa. He is definitely a Hillary hater. His direct link to either Obama or Edwards campaign is yet to be determined.

NYT

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/06/us/pol itics/06iowa.html?hp

Oct 6th NYT

"The one thing about Iowa is that we always have the ability to bring a reality check to the country," said Randall Rolph, 56, who came with his son to see Mr. Obama, of Illinois, and plans to return Sunday when Mrs. Clinton arrives for a campaign stop.

Randall Rolph

[IMG]
http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/2007 /10/06/us/iowa190.jpg
[/IMG]

Some previous articles published by this plant
Randall Rolph.

http://state29.blogspot.com/2005/08/etha nol-is-harmful-to-ozone.html

http://www.blogforiowa.com/blog/_archive s/2005/3/16

http://www.blogforiowa.com/blog/_archive s/2005/3/16

Just do a simple google search. This guy is extremely active in local politics. There is no reason to believe he is simply a normal 'undecided voter'.

Haven't searched his donation history, and I wouldn't be surprised to find more stuff.

Randall Rolph

I wouldn't be surprised if this guy turned out to be a Hillary basher on dailykos who's been planning on this for a while.

Remember that notorious guy who heckled Clinton at YKOS and wrote some very dishonest recount on both myDD and dailykos.

the sign of a Clinton plant on MyDD? (rolls eyes)

The guy asked a perfectly legitimate question whether or not he is affiliated with any campaign.  

Just because he's active on a "progressive blog" doesn't qualify him as a plant.  He seems to be an informed citizen who asked a very pertinent question about a possible war against Iran, that Clinton may have voted to justify.

We need more of these questions, not less.  And when HRC accuses questioners of being "plants" instead of engaging in thoughtful debate, it shows contempt for anyone with legitimate concern over another Mideast debacle.

She hasn't stumbled much so far, but this could be a big mistake.

I regularly browse the UPI 'Emerging Threats' feed which had an interesting article recently about the threat of Iran and quotations from Dr. Mowaffak al-Rubaie, the Iraqi National Security Advisor.  In the story was also some background on recent US legislative activities in respect of Iran:

The Joe Lieberman, I-Conn., and Jon Kyl, R-Ariz., Senate resolution that declared Iran's Revolutionary Guards "an international terrorist organization" was widely interpreted as a response to the Israeli prime minister's plea last spring "not to tie the president's hands on Iran." It would presumably allow Bush to order strikes against Iran in defiance of legislation introduced by Sen. Jim Webb, D-Va., last spring that prohibits the use of funds for military operations against Iran without explicit congressional approval.

Arnaud De Borchgrave - UPI 5 Oct 07

Without addressing the mixed signal sent by her co-sponsorship of Webb's S759 recently, which is unlikely to become law, it seems clear that the sense of the Kyl/Kieberman legislation as enabling the options of the Bush administration on Iran is widely understood.  While many of the actors who brought us the war in Iraq have resigned, the rumblings over Iran continue, largely emanating from the office of the Vice President, as theorised in this article from the Observer describing Gordon Brown's special security adviser's official comments on the subject.

I am not suggesting that Hillary's is playing false on Kyl/Lieberman but cannot reconcile it with her February speech, her remarks on the Webb Amendment co-sponsorship, or her comments made when she voted for it.  I get it that she wants diplomacy but Kyl/Lieberman doesn't say anything about that, exactly (more on this later, I am considering a diary on the inconsistencies I am currently puzzling over in the Crocker quotes it contains in various versions of the text).  I am confused, is it any wonder the electorate is as well?

I wonder how many times Areyouready is going to post a picture of that guy... creepy as hell.

I could see Gore jumping in.  It would definitely shake up the race, that's for sure.  He might honestly be the only one who can stop a Hillary coronation.

This could wind up being a disaster for Clinton, if Bush does invade/bomb Iran, and suggests this vote as justification of getting congressional approval.

- be rest assured he won't attack iran before the primary is over.

Dem base on Iran?  I thought the Webb amendment was extremely inline with the Dem base.

Ummm... Steve Clemons argues that Bush doesn't intend to bomb Iran.

Link

I prefer to trust General Clark's interpretation and judgement on the Kyl-Lieberman amendment.  I'm sure he advised Hillary on this vote.  

He said Hillary is right with her Kyl-Lieberman vote.

General Clark's web site: StopIranWar.com

I think that by voting to call Iran's army a terrorist organization she did in fact vote for authorization for war with Iran.  If you read the AUMF its not hard to construe that interpretation of the vote.

(a) IN GENERAL- That the President is authorized to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons, in order to prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the United States by such nations, organizations or persons.

As I read that, the vote calling Iran's army a terrorist organization provides a congressional (though false) link to Al Qaeda and 9-11 and can very easily be construed as an authorization for war with Iran.