First of all, I’m a little curious how a Spanish man living in South America knows what was shown “nationwide” in a foreign country. Surely you don’t assume every shitty corner of the US gets International Fox News.
As I tried to pointed out to John Mace, the mainstream media is perfectly willing to drop ugly truths from the historical/contemporary transcript. Try to think for yourself.
Huh…ever hear of satellite TV? ya’ know, the dish thingie? I’ve got FTA which means I can even go to local feeds.
Shocking I know.
Always have, but the capacity for amazement still hasn’t left me.
I know I know…that must be shocking as well to someone as jaded as you are.
Oh and BTW, Keith made pretty much the same observation I did on Monday’s show…though I think I beat him to it in one of the GD threads. Methinks he has a satellite thingie as well.
Yeah, I’ve heard of satellite TV. You do realize that what you get on sattelite is incredibly different than what a local viewer gets, right? There are local Fox channels and a “National” Fox news that are quite different than the satellite feed.
Regardless, my main point was that John’s “exact quote” from the NYT was anything but. I was also a little insulted that he would quote what we were fucking talking about,like I hadn’t read/heard it myself. I don’t barge into conversations where I’m completely clueless.
I guess you missed the part where I wrote “I can even go to local feeds” which means I have about three Fixed News feeds…not that I watch any. But I do watch different feeds from the Big Three. Atlanta, NY and Chicago come to mind. CNN, MSNBC I just watch their national broadcast. Also watch a bits and pieces of the BBC and TVE international feeds. More when something happens locally. As in the bombings in Madrid and London or the upcoming Spanish election – though I plan to be there at the time.
Other than that, I do agree with you vis-a-vis the so-called verbatim quote from the NYT. It isn’t.
Additional info. My post was in direct response to John’s first. I did not bother with the rest of the thread till much later. IOW it was a strong reaction/agreement to something I perceived from Hill as well. I simply added that most people didn’t get to see the whole clip which is readily apparent from many a response to it both here and in GD. As shown it obviously got her sympathy. As it really happened, I don’t think it would have – or not to the degree that it appears to have had.
deleted double post
Not that long, actually. February 5, 2008 is the date this election ends. Twenty states are holding primaries that day. Because of how the primary delegates are given out, one candidate could win ALL those primaries but still only have a small delegate lead (and thus the nomination wouldn’t be sealed up mathematically), this would happen in a case where one candidate won all twenty primaries by small margins.
However, that wouldn’t matter–the delegate count really isn’t all that important. It’s that public perception of who has been crowned the nominee. Whoever comes away the winner on February 5th, even if they are only beating their opponent by a small number of delegates will be perceived as the person waiting to be crowned. Their campaign will balloon from there and by the time the last few states do their primaries the other candidate will no longer be considered a viable presidential candidate.
Maybe I did! So what!?!.. Just kidding.
Regarding your last 2 paragraphs, that all kinda falls in line with my last paragraph of my last post, so, “yeah!”.
Yes. Obama wants to put the CEV on hold to divert the funds to K-12 needs, which is incredibly shortsighted. Not that education couldn’t use more money, but it’s how he’s going about it. There’s oodles of overlapping student loan/grant programs, each with it’s own massive bueracracy, consolidating those programs would save money, as well as make it easier for people to apply for a grant or a loan. Additionally, NASA’s going to have to pay $500 million/yr for 5 years to keep the CEV “on hold.” At the end of those five years, there will have no doubt been so much change in technology as to necessitate a redesign of the CEV, which will further add to the cost of the program, as well as delay it even longer. (This is why the ISS is so damned expensive.) Does this strike you as a good idea? Even if no astronauts are killed?
Hillary, at least, has a comprehensive program as far as the space program and funding the sciences go. Ideally, the next president would double NASA’s budget (which has remained flat at around $20 billion since the 1960s) and scrap the CEV and replace it with something better. However, there’s simply no way that’s going to happen, so I’m going with the lesser of 2 evils. (Heck, even semi-privatizing NASA like was done with Post Office so that they could get creative with raising money would be an improvement over what Obama’s offering.) And yes, I have sent emails to both Obama’s and Hillary’s campaigns telling them how I feel.
But do we know if Bill will vote for her?
A question. Is voting anonymous at the convention?
cough
florida
cough
Personally, I was scared about a VP who had issues with gun control.
I think she is the same as pretty much every other politician running for nomination to be POTUS.
I suspect the distinction between “faking it” and “really felt” is almost meaningless in this case. Hilary’s husband seems to have basically two motives for everything he did since high school - “I’m entitled to this, and I can get away with it”, and/or 'this might move me up in the polls a few points". And he is advising her campaign. He told her to loosen up and show her feelings. And what she showed is that her real feelings are that she is entitled to win elections, because she is a better person than anyone else running against her.
She lost a primary, not to Bush, not to Karl Rove’s Evil Machinations®, but to Barack Obama. And listen to what she said about him and the other Dem candidates. “I’m right, and they’re wrong”.
Like I said in another post, if she was showing her real feelings, then she cares about winning elections more than her husband cheating on her, or her law partners commiting suicide.
And if these are her real feelings, and she tears up the first time she loses a primary, I look forward with evil glee to the melt downs she is going to pitch if she makes it to the general elections. Did she think she was going to sail all the way to the White House, because everyone was going to play touch football rules with the girl? I think not. If she thinks that was bad, I assure you, that was just a scrimmage. The real game starts after the conventions.
If she can’t stand the heat, she can go back to the kitchen.
Regards,
Shodan
It means the same as blah, blah, blah, i.e. Charlie Brown’s teacher.
What makes them mutually exclusive is steeling your courage in the face of ‘deeply personal’ topic. The hitch-in-the-voice, I-need-a-moment thing isn’t something someone hoping to be a sitting president ought to do when he or she is asked “So, how DO you do it?” The right answer in this case would have been something along the lines of "Y’know, it’s a struggle, but I’m doing what I think is right for my country, for my family, and for me (wonk, wonk, wonk). Yes, men have to stop being men when they get that office. They have to behave like the leader of the free world, solid, sure, courageous, forthright and, dare I say it, inspiring. This is true, man or woman.
All Hill’s “tears” were meant to do is appeal to Jane six-pack on her softest and most vulenrable emotional level, and it worked. It was a petty trick, a lie and I think we’re worse off for her having done it. I’m not saying she has to give up her femmininity to be president, hell, we could use a woman’s touch around the place, but seriously, I don’t think that’s gonna be an issue with her. It’s my opinion that when she’s boiled down to her roots, that all she wants is power. She’s the wrong choice. I think the right woman would be a great choice for president, and I think it would be a wake-up call to the world (that, or make us a target, I’m not entirely sure which) I just don’t think she’s that woman.
Don’t kid yourself. A president, or someone who hopes to be president, should, except in the most extreme circumstances, NEVER show what could be considered to be an emotion of weakness in public. This wasn’t a shuttle explosion, a terrorist attack, a horrible natural disaster, this was a question that was likely planted, about how “difficult” it is to campaign. She put that weepy inflection in her voice, to lay the bait for women who also have an actually difficult time doing the REAL work of the nation (working, raising kids, running companies, managing households etc) and they bit, hard.
“Jane Sixpack?”
If he doesn’t vote for her, he’d better hope it is. There are some things a wife can’t turn a blind eye to!
What is your basis for this assertion? What do you know about how she felt about her husband cheating on her or Vince Foster’s suicide?
She didn’t “tear up” or “melt down,” by the way.
She has exactly twice the National experience that Obama has. :rolleyes: