Letters to the Editor
-
madamfauntleroy
"Deafening silence of Clinton supporters on Hillary's misspokeness
Can the indefensible be defended?"
Well, yes, if by "deafening silence" you mean except for the posts you ignore, like that hard to spot one posted an hour earlier right above your own. Or the one two hours before that.
And if by "be defended" you mean by other means than the posts you ignored.
Otherwise, you go girl
(of course, if you have some sort of Mars-kind-of-lag-time and your post was written before my own was posted though it appears an hour or three hours later, my apologies)
-
@ billcap
Thank you for responding.
Sorry, the "shower of bullets" line was just me being facetious, not about Clinton, but about the whole story and the way it's spun out of control. It was more a dig at the media than anything else. But point taken, I'll be more careful next time.
"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."
Fair enough, but again, down to the nitty-gritty, what is this experience worth, especially in light of the 3am phone call, which seems to suggest a skill-set beyond simply travelling and meeting with foreign dignitaries.
Is this a fair characterization?
"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)."
Thank you. This sounds honest and considered to me, and I agree.
But you see? You just wrote in that one paragraph something that should have dispelled this whole non-issue in two minutes.
That was my point: here we are dickering over nonsense because the media refuses to do its job instead of having a substantive conversation.
We get caught up in the bullshit because...because...why, exactly?
If we resist getting drawn into the bullshit, we can actually have meaningful conversations and attempt to choose a president based on legitimate criteria.
That's all my point is.
Thanks again for your response. It was thoughtful and I agree with most of it.
The one thing I'd suggest is that Obama's "inexperience," the not being in Washington thing might be more significant than you give it credit for being. It's legitimately arguable, at any rate.
See you around and thanks again for honest engagement.
-
@ billcap
Oh, and btw, in the interests of full disclosure, while I'm less inclined to be roused to indignation by some of this stuff, I do actually believe that "Clinton will say anything to get elected" or that she's more cut-throat than Obama or more nakedly driven by a thirst for power, or however you want to characterize it.
I try not to fall into knee-jerk responses where every little thing confirms my prejudices, but frankly, a lot of evidence has amassed and at this point I'm pretty convinced my assessment is basically accurate.
I'm willing to be proven wrong, though. I am an historian and as such, try to remain committed to empiricism and intellectual honesty, though of course I have my blind spots as we all do.
But you seem the kind of person who might help keep me honest, so I'll keep my eyes open for your voice in the future.
-
Clinton a liar? ...I'm Shocked!
That was sarcasm.
Misspeaking is saying you want cream in your coffee when you meant milk. This is a blatant lie. But the Clinton true believers will argue it's not, but they already drank the cool-aid, and up is down in their world.
-
As bad as Biden
Sen Clinton claiming that she got out of a helicopter under sniper fire and had to duck her head and run, when it is clear from video evidence that this didn't happen is as bad as Sen Biden's relating Neil McKinnock's life experience as if they were his own--which caused him to have to drop out of the Presidential race in 1988 (?).
The media should demand that she give an explanation as to how she could have "misspoken" about what would have been a vivid, traumatic experience. She should not get away with having her spokesperson explain this away for her.
Since the false (as in, not true) account of the landing in Bosnia was (i) contained in her prepared remarks; and (ii) differed from the account of the same incident in her book, she really needs to acknowledge that she simply exaggerated (as in, made up) what happened, or else she will be compounding the problem by lying about the lie.
Should this cause people not to support her candidacy? I don't know, but I do believe that she owes the voters and the superdelegates an explanation, and the truth.
-
Proof Clinton _IS_ Ready To Be President...
Well, whaddaya know... turns out Ms Clinton does have the "right stuff" to be President after all... she's able to look the American people square in the eye and lie to their faces without batting an eyebrow. Which is the most critical skill if you're going to be the President of the United States.
-
Stick a fork in it
This has made it to CBS:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8BfNqhV5hg4
-
brunnhilde
"the "shower of bullets" line was just me being facetious, not about Clinton"
Yeah, I should have just taken it that way. You just read stuff in the midst of all the other stuff and everything gets tainted by the same smell. I try to respond individually but admit to sometimes responding tone-wise to the last five posts I read in addition to the one I'm actually responding to.
"You just wrote in that one paragraph something that should have dispelled this whole non-issue in two minutes. That was my point: here we are dickering over nonsense because the media refuses to do its job instead of having a substantive conversation. We get caught up in the bullshit because...because...why, exactly?"
Sad, isn't it? I'm not sure exactly why. I've been wondering the last two weeks what sort of discussions we'd be having if the press had a moratorium on "reporting" press releases, spokespeople's words, or what any "surrogates" say. If they limited their "journalism" to the candidates themselves and their positions. Of course, I've also been wondering why the sky in my world is purple, the trees fuzzy and yellow and . . .
"is this a fair characterization?"
yep
"I do actually believe that "Clinton will say anything to get elected" or that she's more cut-throat than Obama or more nakedly driven by a thirst for power, or however you want to characterize it."
I don't quite buy into that, and I'm not sure there's all that big a difference between her and Obama on it. But I get less bothered by people believing that than by them believing it first, then filtering all they see/hear through that prism and thus ending up with self-fulfilling "evidence", such as her "lying" about facing sniper fire or suddenly overturning 35 years of living and becoming "racist". It seems a lot of it is like those mythical perpetual motion machines generating their own power continually.
"you seem the kind of person who might help keep me honest, so I'll keep my eyes open for your voice in the future"
thanks--it is always nice to meet a voice of reason on here. I'll add you to my list. Hm, there's you. And Xranadu. And . . . umm, wait, I know there's another . . . hold on . . . well, certainly not the next three posters after you . . . hold on . . . John somebody? . . .