[QUOTE=Shodan]
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.
[QUOTE=EddyTeddyFreddy] 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]
Following this introduction is a long, detailed statement from a veteran who is outraged at Clinton’s aggrandizement at the expense of those – peacekeepers and citizens of Bosnia alike – whose real experiences, real perils, real suffering were hijacked for political gain.
The full text of Ms. Hertherington’s letter is at the cite.
[QUOTE=ArchiveGuy]
What do you know–she wastelling the truth after all!
[/QUOTE]
Wow.
I think that the collective SDMB was right, and I was wrong. I thought all the talk about “stick a fork in her” was wishful thinking by the Obamaniacs. 'Twasn’t.
Hilary Clinton will not be President of the United States of America in 2009.
Of course, given my record for picking nominees, this is all she needs to stage a major comeback.
Here’s a very telling interview with the Air Force colonel who piloted the plane Hillary was on (Caution: Some may find the questioner annoying, but the colonel’s comments are worth putting up with him). It appears that apart from the type of aircraft they were on, every single comment Hillary made in regard to this trip is fictitous.
[QUOTE=mlees]
Youtube is blocked for me at work. Can you summarize?
[/QUOTE]
It’s footage from one of the network stories last night, leading with her reciting her war story, then following with the Bosnian footage; while a pseudo-news anchor talks about her heroics (she landed the plane; she personally shot a sniper, etc.) the Bosnian footage runs with obviously fake explosions and such stuck into it.
[QUOTE=mlees]
Youtube is blocked for me at work. Can you summarize?
[/QUOTE]
It’s devastating. Someone has edited the footage of Hilary’s visit to Bosnia to have people getting their heads shot off standing next to her, as she smiles and greets people. There is a shot of Hilary whipping out a handgun and shooting a terrorist under a truck.
The combination of parody and video game violence makes it both excruciating and hilarious.
I almost said Hilary-ous, but I doubt she would think so.
[QUOTE=Starving Artist]
Here’s a very telling interview with the Air Force colonel who piloted the plane Hillary was on (Caution: Some may find the questioner annoying, but the colonel’s comments are worth putting up with him). It appears that apart from the type of aircraft they were on, every single comment Hillary made in regard to this trip is fictitous.
The total debunking in the interview is devastating. The mockery is devastating. Never mind a fork; get the tongs out and flip up the lid of the garbage can.
According to Wikipedia: The total debunking in the interview is devastating. The mockery is devastating. Never mind a fork; get the tongs out and flip up the lid of the garbage can.
[/QUOTE]
It sure looks bad when so much of her campaign is stressing her experience and ability to be commander in chief. Maybe she should put on a flight suit and tell it again.
[QUOTE=cosmosdan]
It sure looks bad when so much of her campaign is stressing her experience and ability to be commander in chief. Maybe she should put on a flight suit and tell it again.
[/QUOTE]
And THERE is the comparison that’s most devastating. The last thing any Democratic candidate (or sane Republican candidate, for that matter) should want is to be considered on a par with Commander Codpiece.
And here we have Bill (scrolling necessary), in his well-known finger-waving pose, explaining that after winning numerous primaries where she was predicted to lose (primaries which he specifically recalls), he vaguely states that she only started to lose all these ‘primaries and caucuses and things’ because, well, “she run outta money.”
(This grammar from an Oxford scholar, no less. :rolleyes: )
He also talks about how everybody knows they aren’t quitters in his family. (I should say so, given that the world-wide image of him in the Oval Office using a female intern as a humidor and shooting off all over her dress wasn’t sufficient disgrace for him to even consider leaving office.)
Then in the following textual description, he postulates: “Apparently it’s okay to say bad things about a girl."
Now, leaving aside the incongruity of referring to this sixty-year-old presidential candidate as a ‘girl,’ what kind of attitude is this?
Are men all of a sudden supposed to be polite and nice just because she’s a ‘girl’? Doesn’t this fly in the face of what the women’s movement has been telling us lo these many years? Once she’s in the White House, will he be running around lambasting foreign leaders for being ‘mean’ to her or not taking her seriously if they refuse to do what she wants because, after all, she’s just a girl?
We’ve seen her standing by her man…keeping her place in ‘his’ family…was she lying about not baking cookies, too? It’s beginning to look like that’s the kind of relationship they really have.
Why anybody wants these two back in the White House is an utter mystery to me.
At this point, I’m just numb. Nothing either Clinton says particularly outrages me anymore…so much of that water’s already washed over my head that more of it only adds to the weight I’m already carrying.
But man, that is NOT the way to talk up a campaign that’s supposed to be making feminist history, is it?
[QUOTE=Starving Artist]
he vaguely states that she only started to lose all these ‘primaries and caucuses and things’ because, well, “she run outta money.”
(This grammar from an Oxford scholar, no less. :rolleyes: )
[/QUOTE]
Everybody knows that the correct construction is “She done run out of money.”
