[QUOTE=Marley23]
Sounds like a lie to me. And I don’t know why you think he wouldn’t lie. Some time ago he said he was against the Iraq war from the start, and that wasn’t true either. Among other lies he’s told.
[/QUOTE]
He usually doesn’t outright lie-- just shades the truth so that he has plausible deniability later. He tried pot, but he didn’t inhale. He didn’t have sexual “relations” with “that woman”.
[QUOTE=John Mace]
He usually doesn’t outright lie-- just shades the truth so that he has plausible deniability later. He tried pot, but he didn’t inhale.
[/quote]
I think the odds of that being true are close to zero.
For the sake of all we hold dear, I won’t comment on this. It’s bad enough that people were asking about her menstrual cycle upthread.
So we AUMF thing is untrue with a faint hook to hang it on. What about the ‘no difference with Bush’ thing?
[QUOTE=Marley23]
I think the odds of that being true are close to zero.
[/quote]
Well, I said “usually” not “always”.
Yeah, let’s not go there.
He’s a master of using language that is never quite completely false. Maybe Obama said there was no difference between Bush in him as far as supporting the troops, or something like that. Remember, Clinton is a lawyer. And lawyers are very used to picking their words extremely carefully.
[QUOTE=John Mace]
Well, I said “usually” not “always”.
[/quote]
So this may be another one of the “not usually.” 
Granted, the comment is probably based on something.
I think I finally found it! Only blogs - and a for-pay section on Salon, maybe - seem to have even part of the quote, instead of just repeating what Tim Russert asked him.
http://blogs.suntimes.com/sweet/2007/03/sweet_blog_special_at_harvards.html
-from July of 2004.
Obama said there was “not that much difference… at this stage” and Clinton is characterizing it as “no difference… on the war.” I’m going to go ahead and say this is a lie, because it’s a dishonest representation of what Obama said.
[QUOTE=Hippy Hollow]
I’d love to hear some perspectives from Brit Dopers about how HRC comes across to them. (And Dopers in other nations where women have been in charge would be interesting to hear from as well.) The reason why I ask is that I was a kid/teenager living in the UK when Margaret Thatcher was PM. Nobody seemed to like her.
[/QUOTE]
To me, Hillary Clinton is all the bad of Margaret Thatcher combined with the (lack of) charm of Norman Tebbit.
Maggie is one of my heroes. The best PM since Churchill. Sure she had her failings (and I personally suffered as a result, there being a recession when I entered the workforce) like the Poll Tax and her choice of successor, but they were vastly outweighed by the good she did.
[QUOTE=Marley23]
I think I finally found it! Only blogs - and a for-pay section on Salon, maybe - seem to have even part of the quote, instead of just repeating what Tim Russert asked him.
http://blogs.suntimes.com/sweet/2007/03/sweet_blog_special_at_harvards.html
-from July of 2004.
Obama said there was “not that much difference… at this stage” and Clinton is characterizing it as “no difference… on the war.” I’m going to go ahead and say this is a lie, because it’s a dishonest representation of what Obama said.
[/QUOTE]
Nice little piece of detective work!!
I won’t quibble about whether it was a lie or not-- I can certainly see your point. I’m a little more generous, I guess. He certainly wanted people to believe something that wasn’t true, so maybe there isn’t much difference between saying it was a lie, and just saying that he quoted out of context, knowing (or hoping) it would be misunderstood.
[QUOTE=Maureen]
Not to nitpick, but you did ask for two separate criteria in cites (please see your post# 91); you asked me for hard data or studies done on percentages, and you asked me for examples of the press making gender an issue. I gave you examples of both. The Post article may not have had hard data in it, but it was most assuredly an example of what the press feels is criteria for a female candidate.
[/QUOTE]
I’d have to quibble with that. It was subjective and anecdotal opinions on how the press sometimes operated. A cite on media bias would have to include some sort of analysis of, say, comparative language use across several newspapers dealing with several candidates and showing a pattern of bias WRT gender.
A real investigative piece, rather than infotainment (and remember the Post piece finished by saying that it was reaching no firm conclusion, and it was up to an individual’s bias to see things a certain way), might track how often female candidates are discussed in the context of being “tough” or not, versus how often men are. If 90% of female candidates are analyzed as to whether or not they’re “tough” enough for the job, but only 5% of male candidates are, that’d be significant. But we didn’t see analysis like that. The Post article was a puff piece, and they pretty much admitted that at the end. If anything, their conclusion stated that perceptions of media bias were, themselves, an indication of bias in those who were making the claims. The article just doesn’t support your contention.
But like I said, I’m curious about the topic and may have a chance to dig deeper in the next little bit.
[QUOTE=FinnAgain]
Now, maybe I’m missing something, and I’d be happy to admit if I’m wrong… but I don’t believe that Churchill was close to tears at any point when talking about how hard it was to endure the Blitz. Or that Lincoln was choked up at the Gettysburg address. Or that Golda Meir was close to tears when contemplating what to do about women being raped.
[/QUOTE]
You are missing something. This is 2008, and for better or for worse politicians are expected to go on Oprah and The View. I give it 10 years before the prez gets his/her own reality series (aside from the Address, of course).
[QUOTE=FinnAgain]
I also didn’t see her showing “appreciation and warmth”. I saw a person (doesn’t matter if they have a Y chromosome or not) on the edge of tears when asked a fairly simple question.
[/QUOTE]
The hair stuff aside (btw, that’s what she was referring to when she mentioned the bloggers and not having ‘help’ every day), I don’t find the question ‘How do you do it?’ that simple. I suppose she could have answered ‘One day at a time’ or ‘With a great team.’
[QUOTE=Cat Fight]
You are missing something. This is 2008, and for better or for worse politicians are expected to go on Oprah and The View. I give it 10 years before the prez gets his/her own reality series (aside from the Address, of course).
[/quote]
That’s a non sequitor.
The discussion was over whether strong leaders should be expected to crack under pressure and be close to tears, especially over a fairly simple question about freakin’ campaigning. Oprah and reality shows have nothing to do with that.
[QUOTE=Cat Fight]
The hair stuff aside (btw, that’s what she was referring to when she mentioned the bloggers and not having ‘help’ every day), I don’t find the question ‘How do you do it?’ that simple. I suppose she could have answered ‘One day at a time’ or ‘With a great team.’
[/QUOTE]
“How do you [keep campaigning] every day?” is a heck of a lot simpler than “What are your thoughts on the US’ economic, social, military and cultural roles in geopolitics?”
One is a question I expect asked of a candidate for POTUS, one is poolside chat.
Well, Mike Huckabee is saying he understands her reaction, he considers it normal given how much fatigue everyone is feeling at this point, she’s human, and everybody should cut Hillary some slack.
I don’t like his positions, but that’s a class act.
It’s ridiculous that Dean was hurt by being a little bit emotional in a campaign when he was excited.
I think this humanizes Hillary. She’s still my second choice, but not because of this.
Now if she wins NH and says “You like me! You really like me!” that’s another thing! 
[QUOTE=FinnAgain]
That’s a non sequitor.
The discussion was over whether strong leaders should be expected to crack under pressure and be close to tears, especially over a fairly simple question about freakin’ campaigning. Oprah and reality shows have nothing to do with that.
[/QUOTE]
Of course they do. Clinton ‘cracked’ (lthough I think that’s an exaggeration) over a question from an audience member over how she keeps so upbeat and how she keeps her hair so nice. I don’t think the situation was comparable to those you cited, and this is partly because, IMHO, talk shows, gossip blogs and celeb mags are reshaping the political landscape.
[QUOTE=Sitnam]
During the campaign Clinton has developed the reputation of ‘Ice Queen’ and America won’t elect a Thatcher. Awhile back The Daily Show had a series of clips of her laughing in interviews for no apparent reason (other than as an attempt to smooth over her image).
This was an act. It will work. Bet.
[/QUOTE]
I wish I could read minds like you can. :rolleyes:
[QUOTE=Marley23]
It’s bad enough that people were asking about her menstrual cycle upthread.
[/QUOTE]
That would be me, dumping on the premise of this thread as regrettable, ridiculous, and embarrassing. I see irony is indeed dead. I also see Sen Clinton has won NH this evening, despite the effort of all this thread’s gossips. Shame on all of you.
Oh noez! Mah effortz at derailing Clinton dun failed!
I are teh uber ashamed.
Can I haz your self righteousness?
Pit me.
Naw, I can mock absurdly silly posts right here.
Thanks though.
[QUOTE=Marley23]
For the sake of all we hold dear, I won’t comment on this. It’s bad enough that people were asking about her menstrual cycle upthread.
[/QUOTE]
Considering she’s 60, it was probably a joke.
It seems to me that the media, if trying to discredit her, failed horribly in their attempt. She was behind 10pts in NH before they kept airing her sad-faced video, and she ate Obama’s lead handily. Obviously they didn’t count on people being sympathetic to her.
Any bets on who they’ll next try to make look foolish by blowing something they do/say out of proportion?
[QUOTE=elfkin477]
Obviously they didn’t count on people being sympathetic to her.
[/QUOTE]
Never underestimate the power of name recognition, or free publicity. Or, for that matter, of people to vote in an election for someone to be the leader of the last superpower in the entire world, because they feel sympathetic towards them.