Site Presented By
Sunday, Nov 8, 2009
Christopher Hitchins does have a reputation for the drink and he was in disarray the night of his first interview in which he obviously coming off of a binge or had just gotten out of bed and had not collected his thoughts sufficiently to deliver a coherent argument in support of his position. I have listened to him many times before and, at times, he is quite coherent and able to present his case in a thoughtful, articulate manner. On this particular occasion, he was misfiring, saying whatever came into his head, and ran off with a series of personal affronts that displayed not facts that formulate an opinion but personal animosity. My dear, his British accent has nothing to do with anything. Too much alcohol affects anyone's speech, no matter what "accent" they may have and also affects the judgement behind the speech.
Michelle Bernard, no matter to whom she is married, or how many children she has, or of what she is president, cannot present as a professional when it comes to discussion of Hillary Rodham Clinton. She does revert to an immature level of sniping, personal attacks and imaginations that reflect her own worst insecurities that she reflects onto others. Her voice raises to a shrill, her eyes open wide, and there is just not enough time for her to relate her personal opinions based on her personal "feelings". I am sure, with all of the "qualifications" you relate, she could find a way to speak her mind in a more professional manner and maybe even be a bit more convincing. Am I to understand that because she is married to Joe Johns of CNN everything she says is credible?
Sarah Palin's physical appearance, as well as her actions, at week two post election was indicative of someone needing some rest and repair. I urged that people stop the presses and stop the hype because of what I saw as clinical symptoms of physical and emotional exhaustion. I am no fan of Sarah Palin's political ideology and do not believe she was qualified for the office she sought, but, I can tell from looking at her that this ill-begotten experience had taken a toll on her and continued Sarahmania would not serve her or anyone else well.
The physical appearance and the behavior of people are far more telling than the surface interpretation with which you have chosen to make a point that I do not understand.
Clinton's gender is not a factor. The fact that she has supported women's a family causes for decades is a factor, as it should be. Most international diplomacy completely ignores the 50% of the population that doesn't have a penis. I don't think Clinton will be able to dramatically change that tendency, but at least she will be aware of the special problems women face as a result of poverty and oppression.
You ARE a Clinton hater, even if you can't see it in yourself. You just repeated every false talking point about her as if they were the simple truth. You may have liked her at one point, but you no longer do. A lot of people became Clinton hater's because they believed lies and distortions spread by Obama's campaign and the right wing machine.
"...she had an international portfolio as first lady."
This statement as presentational evidence of Clinton as qualified to be SoS lies at the heart of dissent coming from what Ms. Walsh labels "Clinton haters." This is a weak argument as there is nothing in that "portfolio" that supports strength of diplomacy. If there were, the Clinton campaign would have pounded it over Obama's head during the primary.
Ms. Walsh's premise of trusting Obama in his judgment of selection of Clinton is flawed because it assumes Obama's judgment is flawless. While true he ran a tight-ship campaign, he was not without error (who amongst us would argue he should have held onto Rev. Wright longer)?
Obama's judgment, ironically, might similarly be called into question should he name Clinton SoS, given the lack of managerial skills exhibited during her primary campaign.
A question Ms. Walsh lets slide is: just why are there so many "Clinton haters?" First, I would rephrase that into the more accurate and less inflammatory "Clinton detractors."
Ms. Walsh had demonstrated an unyielding support for Clinton throughout the primary, not exclusively on her candidate's strengths but also on her opponent's weaknesses. For her to now support Clinton based on Obama's strength of judgment is disingenuously slanted to support her bias.
http://marcambinder.theatlantic.com/archives/2008/11/brennan_harding_slated_for_top.php
I am just opposed to anyone who had direct knowledge of torture and didn't actively oppose it being part of a Democratic adminstration. Moreover, Brennan is a Republican. I can understand that Obama wants to be bipartisan, but damned if I can understand why he would want to appoint someone with Brennan's history.
I hope it is not true, but Ambinder is on target more often than not.
There is an assumption that candidates actually run their own campaigns. Candidates are pretty busy during campaigns and have little time for day to day details. Their job is to give speeches, talk to the press, and raise money. Obama didn't run a tight campaign - Axelrod did. Penn ran a sloppy campaign for Clinton. You could argue that Obama was wiser in his choice of campaign manager's, but that is a different issue than whether Obama ran his campaign well.
Obama knows Hillary, now better than ever.
You don't.
Many in the press don't truly know Hillary. But they love drama. Love it with a press enhanced passion. They cherry-pick their choice of drama and negativity, invest in it, exaggerate it, twist it, exploit it - milk it in every way they can possibly come up with, and write as though they insist it's the truth. There is an article in New York Magazine where the author writes that there was real emnity btween the Clintons and Obama when they campaigned together recently in Florida. But he doesn't site any sources, "inside" or otherwise, to the "fact." Any objective, insightful observer could see there was no fervent "emnity" there - there was maybe a little initial awkwardness, but mostly real, palpable warmth, excitement, and a growing mutual appreciation and admiration society.
But that's not as much fun to write about. That's not as edgy, or juicy, or satisfying to those in the press who like high drama.
The Clintons were even very sincere during the Democratic Convention. Contrary to what most of their critics love to think, the Clintons are in politics for the right reasons - for the issues, and not their egos. Do they have egos? Yes. Do they work hard? Yes. Do they take defeats hard? Yes. Are they proud of all their hard work and accomplishments? Yes. I have yet to see any politician that does not have an ego.
It wasn't that the Clintons expected Obama to fawn all over them during the primaries, but the press wanted the Clintons to fawn all over Obama. Apparently nothing but praise and worship would do - or else the Clintons were all kinds of bad.
Same with Joe Biden's comment about Hillary being a good VP pick. It was not a gaffe. He was just paying her an honest compliment, while being humble himself. He knows they are both qualified VP candidates, just with different strengths. Here was an instance where the press took Biden too "literally."
The press needs to be less self-making-drama-indulgent, and more responsible, even if it's not as fun or exciting. Even if it's a little more balanced, informed, and enlightened. Who knows, if Maureen Dowd hadn't made such a fuss about the colors of Al Gore's suits, we might have had President Gore instead of President Bush, after all. Imagine the difference less shallowness can make for our future.
Any anyone in the press who insists the drama comes from the Clintons, just leave them alone, and find out how much drama they make without you.
I assure you, to them, it will probably feel like living on a sane, peaceful planet. Maybe even an entirely different planet than they're used to. But the planet they were inspired to work for in the first place.
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
