Site Presented By
Saturday, Nov 7, 2009
AncientAssyrian
Published Letters: 769 Editor's Choice: 54
Disingenuous, thy name is AKA... -- Alas, we all know about the Clinton's parsing of phrases, the "Is" meaning "is" -- Bill's definition of sexual relations, and the "his" of the His and Her Clinton's weaselly way of saying he didn't actually do drugs bec. he didn't inhale. If you don't remember any of this, then perhaps you DID inhale...deeply?
You can try to be cute about it, but joining in the Clintonian parsing of verbiage won't help your girl do any better in the polls, or make her any likelier to be president.
Obama has nothing to be ashamed of by the photo, and frankly, in the grand scheme, I don't think it's going to hurt him a bit. Given the news today, it may actually be helping him, by creating even more disgust and distaste for Clinton, and backlashing against her.
Funnily, the folks who are so truly addlepated enough to think that a photo of Obama in Somali garb makes him an Islamic terrorist aren't voting for Obama. And as you suggest, and I agree -- those simpletons aren't voting for Clinton either. If Genghis Khan were on the ballot, or Dubya could have a third term, they'd have themselves a clear frontrunner.
Did Hillary's campaign disseminate that photo? I don't know if they did or not, but it certainly has all the stench and style of a last-ditch, desperation Clinton campaign tactic, and is consistent with their passive aggressive "Boo! He's black/he's Muslim" "let's frighten the bigots" undercover smear campaign.
But whoever disseminated that photo did it in order to pander to the lowest common denominator, to frighten the Neanderthal HennyPenny hysterics who think anything even remotely suggesting Islam is somehow an immediate threat to their very survival. That is clear.
is really sort of sad.
If she dialed it back a bit and acted halfway human, she could become the female Ted Kennedy -- hey, maybe even get a Supreme Court nomination -- and be a respected and revered former first lady and important political and governmental figure all on her own.
But ultimately, the Clintons are, if anything, truly and publicly self-destructive. We already saw Hillary squander her opportunities, by completely blowing her health reform effort efforts, mobilizing and inflaming the opposition, and then defending the indefensible actions of her husband. then like a phoenix, she got elected to the Senate, and AGAIN squandered her political capital by voting yes on the war -- the singularly worst decision of our generation.
Bill squandered his wealth of political capital away on a pathetic encounter with an unattractive, needy intern.
And now, Hillary too is squandering her substantial political capital trying to dethrone a genuine political phenomenon.
Unless she goes gracefully, and soon, she will be remembered as a hectoring, bureauratic, dirty-fighting and bitter wonk with no charisma, who thought the presidency was owed to her, and found out it wasn't.
He takes the high road, but doesn't let Clinton entirely off the hook for her campaign's potential hijinks and her nastiness of recent days.
He knows exactly how to handle attacks, and anyone who has worried that he can't should just watch how he has handled all of these recent hysteria episodes from Hillary and company...
@Slackie-- you've identified a chief complication in Hillary's campaign. Nearly every major platform, position, complaint, or "qualification" has an inherent logic issue or major inconsistency.
If "everyone is against her," who exactly are the hordes of Hillary supporters she believes will carry her to victory?
If she was so "inevitable" -- why is she now behind in the polls vs. Obama, and vs. McCain, and dropping?
If she believes the Democratic voters are just sheep in the thrall of Obama, why should they want to vote for her, given her low opinion of them?
If she has the solutions for health care, why did she bungle it so definitively and publicly the first time around?
If she is for change in Washington, why is she suggesting that we elect the wife of a two-term president, a Washington insider and politician of the highest order, and return her and her husband to the White House -- again?
If she is so prepared with her 35 years of experience, why is the vast majority of those 35 years of experience not as a governor or legislator in her own right, but as a political wife, and why is she running on her husband's administration?
If she is capable of being commander in chief, how could she make the singularly worst decision of her career in supporting Bush's war vote, and then do it again by supporting the Iran vote?
If she is so capable of managing the nation, why can't she even manage her own campaign budget, or staff?
If she is the "ready on day one" leader, why, when faced with adversity, does she resort to shrillness, name-calling, emotional outburtsts, and temper tantrums?
If she is a steadfast leader, why does her campaign message change from day to day, sometimes from hour to hour?
Jenna and Babs and the rest of the extended and multiplying cabal of Bush spawn will get ideas. Mary Cheney, anyone? McCain's dipsy daughter?
No.thank.you.
P.S. I'm sure Chelsea is a bright and accomplished young woman, but her breathy Marilyn Monroe sort of voice is not going to take her very far in politics. If she thinks she's going to have a political career, she's going to have to head for the nearest voice coach...pronto.
that's all. Just an idea...
Much of the initial coverage about Fort Hood turned out to be wrong. Is there anything wrong with that?
The accountability imposed by another country for the CIA's kidnapping and torture reveals much about our own.
Fox News' morning show plays to type, talking about whether Muslims in the Army should face "special debriefings"
The Maine fight was supposed to be the dress rehearsal for repealing California's Prop. 8 -- but gay marriage lost
Once one obtains Seriousness credentials in the Washington media, they are irrevocable no matter one's conduct.
Salon headlines in your mailbox
