[QUOTE=Phlosphr]
Once we have our nominee we’re going to be a much stronger force than McCain and his minions. If he has any.
[/QUOTE]
I’m sure his buddy Joe “Zell Jr.” Lieberman can rustle up a minyan for him…
[QUOTE=Diogenes the Cynic]
This just sounds like a daughter not wanting to trash her mother in the press. It’s basically a non-responsive, “whatever my mom said, I support. Fuck off.” I would expect a Chelsea to show some family loyalty and refrain from publicly stabbing her mother in the back. That’s not politics, just human decency.
[/QUOTE]
The thing is, it’s possible for a person respond to something they don’t want to answer in an honest way. For example, she could simply have said that her mother had already addressed the issue and that she saw no reason to elaborate on it further…and then signaled the next questioner. Instead, she gave an evasive answer followed by a hollow statement about how she had been honored to have been there. Pure Hillary-speak!
To be honest, though, the main thing is that I’m disappointed in her. For some reason I’ve always liked Chelsea. I was turned permanently off of Rush Limbaugh because of cruel jokes he made at her expense.
As she’s grown, I’ve become more and more impressed with her. She seemed to have blossomed into an attractive, charming and classy person nothing at all like her parents. I suppose I had come to view her as pretty much a female version of JFK, Jr.
And now, to see her behaving little different from her mother and spouting platitudes that could have come word for word out of her mother’s mouth, is to me very, very disappointing.
I have never EVER exagerated or used hyperbole to make a story more interesting or cast myself in a favorable light.
That Hillary Clinton has done so has not just altered my opinion of her. It has shaken me to the very core of my belief system. If we cannot trust a politician not to color events in her favor, than what are we to trust? In such a world, does two plus two equal four?
The proverbial cat has been debagged. Never again will the phrase “Of course it’s true, a politician told me,” hold inarguable water.
The ramifications are staggering. Are we still to believe Al Gore when he says the Greenland Ice sheet will fall into the ocean and stop the gulf stream current while simultaneously flooding New York? Will we scrutinize the words of George Bush and even go so far as to doubt the existence of WMDs in Iraq?
Such a slippery slope leads inevitably to a precipice before an abyss. Life’s abyss and then you die.
Thank you Hillary Clinton for screwing up politics for everybody forever. Nice job! What am I gonna tell my kids?
[QUOTE=jayjay]
I’m sure his buddy Joe “Zell Jr.” Lieberman can rustle up a minyan for him…
[/QUOTE]
Do you think Lieberman is nosing for a Vip spot again? I’ve known Joe Lieberman for many years as a CT resident. He doesn’t scare me too much 
[QUOTE=starving artist]
As she’s grown, I’ve become more and more impressed with her. She seemed to have blossomed into an attractive, charming and classy person nothing at all like her parents. I suppose I had come to view her as pretty much a female version of JFK, Jr.
And now, to see her behaving little different from her mother and spouting platitudes that could have come word for word out of her mother’s mouth, is to me very, very disappointing.
[/QUOTE]
Don’t know if I’d go as far to say a JFK Junior…but I feel much like you do. I have a tough time watching her mimic mom it’s tough for me for some reason. She is always saying the same things: I’d love to have my mother as my president, I am very proud of my mother, I started working for a hedge fund to piss her off, I love my mother very much. 
[QUOTE=Phlosphr]
Don’t know if I’d go as far to say a JFK Junior…but I feel much like you do.
[/quote]
Yeah, I should probably have clarified that a little further. She has struck me as having some of the same qualities I admired in JFK, Jr.
[QUOTE=Phlosphr]
I have a tough time watching her mimic mom it’s tough for me for some reason. She is always saying the same things: I’d love to have my mother as my president, I am very proud of my mother, I started working for a hedge fund to piss her off, I love my mother very much.
[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=Jackmannii]
Yeah, he didn’t even get to lie about a meaningless photo op.
Obama just has no experience where it counts. :dubious:
Here’s an interestingly-phrased description of what Clinton will need to do to take the nomination - exercise the “Tonya Harding” option (the combined photos of Hillary and Tonya Harding on the abcnews.com main page are priceless):
*"What will she have to do to Sen. Barack Obama, D-Illinois, in order to eke out her improbable victory?
She will have to “break his back,” the (Democratic party) official said. She will have to destroy Obama, make Obama completely unacceptable.
“Her securing the nomination is certainly possible - but it will require exercising the ‘Tonya Harding option.’” the official said. “Is that really what we Democrats want?”*
I hope I’m wrong, but I think the Clintonians will be shoveling a lot more dirt in the weeks to come, both to try to bury Obama and cover up Hillary’s “minor blips”.
That would help dig the Democratic Party’s grave in November.
[/QUOTE]
Typical deflection by Obama supporters.
Misses the point entirely of her having been the first First Lady since E. Roosevelt to get flown into a war zone.
Instead, let’s focus on the semantics. She lied! Therefore Obama has more foreign policy experience! :rolleyes:
[QUOTE=Phlosphr]
If he can keep it close it mean sshe gets no closer to winning the nod. Should Obama continue on his course and win the nod quite a few Clinton Dems will back him. More than enough to beat McCain in the national election. GOP numbers for people going to the polls pale in comparison to the entire Dem croud that has come out for the simple primaries [not-so-simple]. A mere fraction would have to jump from supporting Clinton to Obama and he’s trounce McCain in November. I see more than just a fraction backing him to get a dem in the white house. The republicans know it too. Teetering on being even or slighly ahead of McCain in the naitonal polls means Obama has a lot of time to work a winning strategy and upping thos numbers by double digits before November. People should not underestimate the dems this year. Once we have our nominee we’re going to be a much stronger force than McCain and his minions. If he has any.
[/QUOTE]
**Twice **as many HRC supporters would defect to McCain if Obama is the nominee than the other way around. (Pew poll)
Little numbers can make a difference, look at Florida time before last.
[QUOTE=9thFloor]
Typical deflection by Obama supporters.
Misses the point entirely of her having been the first First Lady since E. Roosevelt to get flown into a war zone.
Instead, let’s focus on the semantics. She lied! Therefore Obama has more foreign policy experience! :rolleyes:
[/QUOTE]
The war was over for a year when she flew into Tuzla. There were no snipers. There was a welcoming ceremony. She either lied about something that should have been obviously easy to debunk or she deluded herself into believing she was actually being shot at. Neither one is a characteristic of someone I want to vote for.
[QUOTE=9thFloor]
**Twice **as many HRC supporters would defect to McCain if Obama is the nominee than the other way around. (Pew poll)
[/QUOTE]
Which makes it obvious that Clinton doesn’t give a damn about the good of the party. If she did, she’d recognize the writing on the wall and throw enthusiastic support to Obama, including trying to persuade her supporters to do the right thing in November. Instead, she’s going to run this thing into the ground, crippling the eventual nominee (who WILL be Obama) and the party itself for…what? Does she seriously think she has the slightest whisper of a chance of getting the nomination in 2012 if she ruins us all this year?
[QUOTE=Scylla]
Thank you Hillary Clinton for screwing up politics for everybody forever. Nice job! What am I gonna tell my kids?
[/QUOTE]
Tell them that when the shooting starts, they should hide behind the comedian.
[QUOTE=stolichnaya]
Tell them that when the shooting starts, they should hide behind the comedian.
[/QUOTE]
Or the little girl with the flowers.
[QUOTE=jayjay]
Which makes it obvious that Clinton doesn’t give a damn about the good of the party. If she did, she’d recognize the writing on the wall and throw enthusiastic support to Obama, including trying to persuade her supporters to do the right thing in November. Instead, she’s going to run this thing into the ground, crippling the eventual nominee (who WILL be Obama) and the party itself for…what? Does she seriously think she has the slightest whisper of a chance of getting the nomination in 2012 if she ruins us all this year?
[/QUOTE]
She’s not crippling anyone. Today Gallup has them at 47% Obama/46% Hillary.
Believe it or not, many people (of course they don’t post on this board) still think she is the better candidate and want her to continue.
The Obama (supporters) whine is becoming as annoying as Hillary’s cackle.
[QUOTE=9thFloor]
Typical deflection by Obama supporters.
Misses the point entirely of her having been the first First Lady since E. Roosevelt to get flown into a war zone.
Instead, let’s focus on the semantics. She lied! Therefore Obama has more foreign policy experience! :rolleyes:
[/QUOTE]
So you’re admitting she lied about it?
[QUOTE=kevja]
If she wins by 15%, how is her campaign a farce?
And if Obama can’t beat Hillary in PA in March, how is he going to beat McCain in Nov.?
[/QUOTE]
As has been covered several times, because that doesn’t get her far enough along that she can catch up in the popular vote, and fails to make a significant enough dent in her sizable pledged delegate deficit. Ending up at best over 100 behind in pledged delegates, behind in popular vote, with leadership that strongly endorses honoring a pledged delegate lead … equals a farce to continue as if it really was a race.
As to a match-up vs McCain there … results among the Democratic faithful do not necessarily reflect the results of a general contest. This offered with full understanding that polling this far out is of little value but to note that at a time when Hillary was beating Obama in polling for the Democratic nod by double digits, Obama was doing better than her against McCain there. I think either can win there against McCain.
[QUOTE=9thFloor]
Misses the point entirely of her having been the first First Lady since E. Roosevelt to get flown into a war zone.
[/QUOTE]
Except for
of course.
Sorry, not true. They actually flew into war zones, Hillary only misspoke she did.
[QUOTE=jayjay]
On the other hand, Pennsylvania has more colleges and universities than any other state, I think,
[/QUOTE]
Six behind CA last I heard. Pretty impressive given the population disparity. Though I think they stole California College…
[QUOTE=kidchameleon]
Six behind CA last I heard. Pretty impressive given the population disparity. Though I think they stole California College…
[/QUOTE]
Nah, my cousin went to California University. We had it first!
[QUOTE=jayjay]
The war was over for a year when she flew into Tuzla. There were no snipers. There was a welcoming ceremony. She either lied about something that should have been obviously easy to debunk or she deluded herself into believing she was actually being shot at. Neither one is a characteristic of someone I want to vote for.
[/QUOTE]
This statement by a now-retired general who was there at the time suggests another aspect of why this lie – this particular lie – could be devastating for Clinton:
Much has been made of Clinton’s advantage over Obama with working-class white men, and how that should help to swing the Pennsylvania primary her way. But how many of those men are veterans? How many of those veterans have actually been under fire? How many of that demographic will be disgusted with this fable of heroism and find something better to do with their time than vote for Hillary in the primary?
[QUOTE=RTFirefly]
I ask this in all sincerity: has Team Hillary provided any believable explanation for her “sniper fire” account of her landing in Bosnia in 1996? Does anyone else have a reasonable explanation or defense? Or is Team Hillary’s response to duck, say she “misspoke,” and hope it blows over?
IMHO, “misspoke” won’t do, because as the record shows, she continued to “misspeak” and attempt to cast doubt on the veracity of other witnesses, after she was initially called on her “misspeaking.”
[/QUOTE]
I think she remembered the incident incorrectly.
-FrL-
[QUOTE=Diogenes the Cynic]
Al Qaeda’s presence in Iraq is negligable, by State department estimates there are anywhere from 800-1000 aQ operatives in Iraq. Their numbers are insignificant and they are only there because we’re giving them American targets to shoot at. The Sunni insurgents don’t even want them there. If we leave, aQ has no reason to stay there.
[/QUOTE]
Which, in my opinion, demonstrates the problem with trying to explain away gaffes instead of simply saying “I misspoke” and moving on. Because if a candidate starts trying to show that a mistake is not really a mistake, that’s furthering a discussion that may or may not go as you wish.
It doesn’t matter for the True Believers; they will swallow whatever you put out. It also doesn’t matter for the True Un-believers - they aren’t listening either. The danger comes for the uncommitted. Suppose Obama responded as above. Leaving aside the first problem, that estimates of al-Queda in Iraq seem to be quite a bit higher than alleged (cite), it says that Obama did not know that al-Queda in Iraq numbers in the hundreds or thousands. And that can lead to other questions that are best left unasked, for the sake of the Obama image. Is al-Qaeda growing or shrinking in Iraq? Shrinking, by most estimates, and that seems to be due in large part to the surge. Did Obama support the surge? No. So Obama not only doesn’t know that al-Qaeda has already gotten a base in Iraq, but didn’t support the tactics that seem to be driving them out. And so on. All this can be avoided by either admitting the mistake and moving on, as McCain did, or simply avoided if you are like Obama and people don’t seem so eager to ask you hard questions.
It’s the same for Hilary. Her explanations are going to get more people to look at the YouTube video and see that she directly contradicts the known facts. And, since she doesn’t simply withdraw her statement, Chelsea gets sucked into this and put into the dilemma of supporting what her mother said, which is dumb, or repudiating it, which looks disloyal. It’s a no-win situation.
Regards,
Shodan