Site Presented By
Sunday, Nov 8, 2009
"it is difficult afterwards to recall much that Obama said, but he consistently seemed in command while saying it."
Just the kind of politician I like to vote for!
I actually reread from transcript that section of the debate several times, feeling increasingly discouraged each time. Thank you for your take on it. I too think Bhutto's assassination was just as you believe.
However, I disagree with you a bit about her missteps. Responding forcefully is not the problem. Of course, many women's voices go up when they are angry -- just as many men's do.
I agree with you on the "it hurts my feelings" exchange.
No. Clinton's big problem is uncertain and equivocal speech. She needs to ban forever two phrases from her vocabulary that make her look wavery and quavery. The first is "you know." My god, where are her handlers? It there no one who has the guts to tell her that this a bad speech habit that begs the agreement of her audience rather than asserts her position? In one paragraph, I counted so many "you knows" that I wanted to scream. The other word is "just." It is a begging, wiggle room sort of word. Her only use of the word just should be connected to the word justice.
I think Hillary's problem has been weakness, not toughness, and I think her campaign should have been focused much more on her own individual achievements than that of the Clinton administration as a whole. She also uses the word "we" too much. She and Bill may be a team, but Clinton needs to run more as an individual.
I hope you had a delightful holiday season. Happy New Year :-)
I agree with most of what you wrote in your last post to me, and your criticisms of Clinton and her campaign strategy. But I wasn't arguing that her problem was with her forceful response. There are many ways one can respond to a criticism or argument forcefully and effectively. She could have handled that exchange in numerous ways that could have been strong and forceful but not damaging to her in the process. I've seen that clip played over and over again, and I stick by my contention that she did herself no favors with her agitated, angry response. It felt to me at the time, and it still feels to me, as if her mask slipped for a moment, as if she lost her cool--and if some wavering, undecided Democratic primary voters saw it the same way, given her well-known and widely-discussed negatives, that moment could hurt her.
And it's not a gender thing, either--there were similar moments in the Republican debate where Romney and McCain, especially, seemed to lose their cool and I don't think it helped them either. McCain, in particular, comes across as a touchy old crank--a quality that will hurt him in the general election if he's able to secure the Republican nomination.
What senator clinton said last night about senator obama's voting record is correct. That is justifiable critism. All voters should look into the candates voting record to find the truth. I've been yelling at the tv for months for someone to go after Obama's record. I researched it out,thats why i am now supporting Hillary clinton. The media has made Senato Obama into a boyscout or as stated a knight in shining armour. hillary speaks the truth. I'. not looking for inspiration from a president but one who will make smart decions for the country. I still believe in experience over change. because experience doesn't mean there won't be change.obama's following now reminds of an occult leader. be careful what you want you might just get it and regret it like President Bush. Who i recall,everyone liked!
I think her mask needs to slip. She has an authenticity problem because of the mask. Maybe that wasn't the time to let it slip, but, by God, she needs to be Hillary because Bill lite isn't working. I liked the way her face looked when she was angry (the voice is a whole other problem) because she seemed real. Real is in all instances better, but even if she doesn't win this election, she will be a better person if she learns to be more real.
It is not surprising that she is as guarded as she is. That effing First Lady position is about as distorting as any that one could hold, and she held it under the most trying possible circumstances. She would be better off as a woman, as a person, and as a candidate if she weren't enthrall to her husband and his presidency. He is the stone around her neck.
However, should she realize this, the shock would probably require a few years in therapy. Sad really.
Oh well. Parsing the nation's most famous marriage is a common activity. Forgive me for falling victim to that.
All right, Obama says nothing substantive. Maybe he doesn't have to. All he has to do is show up. And somehow, people who had given up, people who didn't want him to run and not succeed because they didn't want to be disappointed again, show up to vote for him.
I doubt that Hillary could win against John McCain. Certainly not on experience. Which of the 35 years of putative experience were as an elected official? Five years in my state. Zero years as an elected official in the White House.
And while a win for Hillary would be good for women, it would not be good for men.
For starters, her last name happens to be Clinton. For a substantial majority of what appears to be a tidal wave of young Obama voters in thier early twenties or younger, they apparently are fed up having never had a President in thier lives that hasn't been named Bush or Clinton and it's hard to blame them at this point. A "change" candidate probably shouldn't co-sponsor worthless flag-burning ammendments catering to the Republican faux-patriot divisive wedge issue narrative that waves of young voters are fed up with having to sit through. Nor should a "change" candidate let Rupert Murdoch host a fundraiser for her or accept and/or continue to solicit gigantic corporate special interest money contributions for her "change" campaign when those special interests have a proven and obvious track record of discouraging "change". One thing a "change" candidate really shouldn't do even if they are guilty of the above is hire a campaign manager with ties to huge "anti-change" corporate entities and have him start a negative whispering campaign in the media about how the favorite candidate of those young voters could never get elected because of his name. Probably not a real good idea for a "change" candidate to say things like "Lobbyists are people too."
Full disclosure here - I'm $4600 into the Edwards run and proud of how he's hung in there. That said, I do think Clinton can make a case that she has busted her ass on behalf of Americans. Before last nite's debate I watched her answer questions on C-SPAN at an earlier campaign event that afternoon for what seemed like 2 hours non-stop and it was the best I've ever seen her perform. She was engaging and was able to break complex issues down in a manner that people could understand while able to point to specific votes and legislation she either supported or tried to stop. Afterwards, she was on to another event for more of the same. That's the forum where she's really at her best and if judged solely on that type of venue I think she'd already have the nomination locked up. But after a long day of campaigning in an attempt to catch up to Obama, I think the stress started to show in her demeanor at times in the debate and her charges on Obama not only didn't score but only reinforced the notion that her campaign is getting more desperate.
As many qualities as she has or as deserving one thinks she might be, there's no getting around that her campaign has made some bad choices at the most critical times against two very skilled orators like Obama and Edwards. Whether one respects thier backgrounds and positions or not, there's no denying that both have demonstrated they are clearly more effective retail politicians on the debate stage. After this many face-to-face matchups and no success previously with the tactic, Clinton risked making it worse on herself trying to attack either or both of them when she had little margin for error. Her work is really cut out for her. She has to hope Edwards runs out of money to keep going and then pray Obama makes a big enough mistake that she can exploit, and even then I think voters may still be cynical of her.
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 survivor and author is upset about comparisons some on the right are making to genocide
Once seen as a lunatic fringe, reactionary anti-women groups are courting respectability
Salon headlines in your mailbox
