Rolph asked Clinton to explain her Senate vote Wednesday for a resolution urging the Bush administration to label the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps a terrorist organization. Rolph interpreted that measure as giving Bush authority to use military action against the Iranians.

"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."

"Look," she said, the chicken breast on her plate untouched. "I had, for five months, people sitting outside my home, going into my garden in San Francisco, angering neighbors, hanging their clothes from trees, building all kinds of things -- Buddhas? I don't know what they were -- couches, sofas, chairs, permanent living facilities on my front sidewalk."

Unsmilingly, she continued: "If they were poor and they were sleeping on my sidewalk, they would be arrested for loitering, but because they have 'Impeach Bush' across their chest, it's the First Amendment."

... even if you are promoting another politics forum

However, like hiring Berger and keeping a closet full of documents under lock and key, she can shoot herself in the foot all she wants, but nothing seems to phase her.

Once campaigning gets underway, the skeletons in her closet are going to come flying out like a machine gun. She's got a lot of junk in that trunk. It's going to be an interesting election year, next year.

..er..you rail about the Republican "Slime Machine", then you turn around and...slime her?

The Republicans aren't going to be manufacturing slime. The slime you're referring to is the slime the Republicans are going to pick up from around her feet and show to the American people.

Too bad when you say that it's going to be an interesting year, you don't mean that interesting policy proposals will be discussed.

When has an election EVER been about who has the better policy and not the most dirt?

What? I'm appalled! My own opinion that Chelsea is unattractive is bad? This site is an opinion site. It's not enough you guys are going after free speech on talk radio, now you want to go after opinion on opinion forums?

What? I'm appalled! My own opinion that Chelsea is unattractive is bad? This site is an opinion site. It's not enough you guys are going after free speech on talk radio, now you want to go after opinion on opinion forums?