Letters to the Editor
-
weeping for brunnhilde
What this election is showing me once again, is the double standards used in favor of White Americans vs AA. I return time and again on the issue of affirmative action where women got a piece of the slice in hiring, etc.. The ones who benefited the most were white women. So it does not surprise me that a white woman will always trump a qualified black man. The ugly race that Hillary has run, proves that.
-
get a grip
Gotta love the Obama people here again. Oh the irony of calling Hillary a liar as they, you know, lie.
So where is the evidence she has said "repeatedly" she ran under sniper fire? Or that she's told this story "many times"? Let's see the evidence, please?
When this version first broke, my first post asked for a transcript and then a follow-up to the Clinton campaign since every other time she's mentioned this incident she's referred to "worries" or "concerns" about potential sniper fire. So what you have are dozens (at least) of times where the story is told one way and a single incident where it's told another way (in one sentence of the story). It was obvious to any reasonable person this was an aberration and likely mispeaking. I could figure even without my journalist decoder ring. Do I think she exaggerated her trip? Yes, slightly and probably half-consciously and half unconsciously just as every single one of you has in your lifetime at least once and I'd guess more like dozens of times at a minimum (and you're liars if you say otherwise). Just as Obama has exaggerated his stories. Or, you know, lied about Wright (or used "Clintonian" parsing)
But alongside my belief she is exaggerating somewhat is also the confirmation by others there that she was told to wear a flak jacket, that she was moved up to the plane. Do I think it reasonable that someone responsible for the safety of the First Lady, the President's wife and daughter, might err on the side of caution (or you know, cover their ass) by being overcautious and that some of that may have been conveyed to Hillary? It's more than reasonable; it's likely. (And do I also think that they could give a damn about Sinbad and so probably didn't convey any anxiety to him? Hell, I would have used him as a diversion for people to shoot at, so yes.)
But again, that's a reasonable view of the whole situation. I certainly wouldn't want to hold Obama people to that standard, so feel free to keep ranting and raving and screaming and frothing.
-
@billcap Did you watch the video?
If you watch the video, you will hear her speech describing the event, followed by footage of the event. According to the (always truthful) media, Hillary has repeated this same speech over the course of the last several weeks. It's hard to reconcile the two different pieces of footage. Let's just say it was a war story and move on.
-
Uncle Fester
"According to the (always truthful) media, Hillary has repeated this same speech over the course of the last several weeks. It's hard to reconcile the two different pieces of footage. Let's just say it was a war story and move on."
What I believe is true is that she has repeated the same "story" over the course of weeks, not the exact same wording. If that's been proven, I'll be happy to stand corrected. But the first report on this particular speech that day is the first time I ever saw it told this way and I've seen it told many times or reported on many times in the ways I mentioned--"potential", "worries", "concerns" etc. I find it hard to believe that for weeks, including just the week before, the media reported all those more innocuous versions and ignored the much more colorful, much more easy to dispute actual sniper fire. I mean, they've been covering her every single moment of every single day and yet for "weeks" they misreport what she's saying? I just find it hard to believe. But as I said, if you or anybody has evidence that she's been claiming for weeks to have run under actual sniper fire, I'll be happy to concede that it's pretty impossible believe that isn't a lie versus mere exaggeration.
As for moving on, I'm happy to once Obama people quit jumping up and down screaming "liar liar", "will say anything to get elected" blah blah blah. They at least could wait a decent amount of time after their candidate was caught in a worse lie (worse in that he's mis-recalling events from the past year while she's mis-recalling events from 10 years ago).
-
@ billcap
Listen, can we try an experiment?
For argument's sake, let's say Hillary didn't lie about the shower of bullets.
Ok?
The incident transpired precisely as she said. Benefit of the doubt.
Now, that said, so what?
How is that evidence of what she says it's evidence of, namely, "experience?"
Do you have any thoughts?
I'm not trying to bait you, I'm trying to get to the meat of the issue so we can ignore all the nonsense.
-
Deafening silence of Clinton supporters on Hillary's misspokeness
Can the indefensible be defended?
-
Brunhilde
You might be more believable on the whole "not trying to bait you" line if you had the courtesy to at least tell it as she misspoke it. But if you have her quote on "shower of bullets", I'd be happy to see it. As far as even given sniper fire, I don't think it shows anything. I think, as I said, it's a combination of truth, unconscious exaggeration, and conscious exaggeration on the more general point that she's been "other places". I think there's no doubt that Hillary has more experience in meeting with foreign dignitaries in both formal and informal settings, in both ceremonial (mostly) and substantive (far less often), than Obama. The bar is prett low on that. I think she has a better starting point than he does. Do I think it matters much? On the big scale, no. I think it's slight advantage to Hillary on that one. Not a completely unimportant facet, but not a major one, not a major advantage, and certainly not one that I believe Obama incapable of catching quickly up on (unlike Bush--who had no foreign experience but also lacked the sense of curiosity, empathy, or intellectualism to do anything about it). And also not one that will work in a general against McCain (though it does diminish his argument slightly more than Obama would).
Do I fault her for making it a point in the primary? Of course not, it's a campaign and in competition you pull out all your advantages. Just like I don't think Obama not being in Washington "as long" is a big advantage or actually any advantage, but I don't fault him for touting this non-factor. You make your distinctions where you can. Personally, I tip toward Hillary but find the two of them roughly 95 percent alike. Which is why, I'd argue, the party is pretty much split between them and why, as I've long said, I'd love to see the two run together with Hillary as Pres, if only due to age (because as mentioned, there's very little difference in my mind). I agree with you on ignoring the nonsense; unfortunately when two candidates have very little daylight, the nonsense tends to be what lights up the arguments. I have no problem with legitimate criticism of Hillary--I make it myself. I just can't stand the stupid. And ranting and raving about her "lying" on this as if it makes her the Evil Queen of the North qualifies as stupid.