« Save La Bajada Mesa from Strip Mining | Main | Saturday: Celebrate César Chávez Day »
Tuesday, March 25, 2008
Hillary "Misspoke"
Why does she say things like this when it's so easy for people to check and get the facts? Maybe because she's said similar things in the past about her trip to Bosnia without getting called on it strongly by the media. If any number of other politicians were caught in the act like this, the video would be playing 24/7 on every cable news outlet.
The melodramatic version:
March 25, 2008 at 12:38 AM in 2008 Presidential Primary | Permalink
Comments
She didn't "misspeak" she lied. I think I would remember if I had been ducking sniper fire or not. Give me a break!!!!
Posted by: Sharon | Mar 25, 2008 8:59:57 AM
It's difficult to know who to support, if anyone - the choices are the Sniper Fire Liar, or Mr. Listens to Racists. Both are more than a little unpalatable at the moment.
Posted by: Socrates | Mar 25, 2008 4:19:49 PM
Gee Socrates,
I have had to listen to my racist parents all my life. They are pushing 90 years old. Does make me a racist? Just like me, Obama can think for himself without throwing the baby out with the bath water. Even old racists have plenty of wisdom to impart.
It is called critical thinking Socrates.
That idea that we should disown or discard other human beings due to their imperfections and human foibles is bullshit and you know it!
Stop buying into the media twisted propaganda and think for yourself.
The guy's preacher is not the guy pendejo.
Posted by: qofdisks | Mar 25, 2008 7:02:50 PM
You didn't choose your parents. Obama chose his church and pastor. Critical thinking includes being able to distinguish between apples and oranges.
Neither does it include namecalling.
Posted by: Socrates | Mar 25, 2008 8:45:29 PM
People with no experience at campaigning shouldn't criticize. When one's every remark is considered fair game for publication, it is difficult to keep from sounding silly.
I remember an article about the Clinton airplane flying back to the DC area after the TX victory. They encountered severe turbulance that caused people's dinner trays to be thrown out of their laps. The candidate? She was strapped in and slept through it.
Have you ever been that exhausted?
By the way, the U-Tube video would not play. I have a G4 iBook and use Safari. Can the webmaster please fix this site?
Posted by: nmaif | Mar 25, 2008 9:40:03 PM
Oh, and by the way, your immediate resort to the personal attack tells us a lot about your ability, or lack thereof, to actually engage in critical thinking. Perhaps you might want to consider just what it is you're displaying in public to your own detriment?
Posted by: Socrates | Mar 25, 2008 11:18:21 PM
"Socrates", you should consider another handle. To paraphrase Lloyd Bentsen, I've read Plato, and "Socrates," you're no Socrates.
"Critical thinking doesn't include name calling." You mean names like Sniper Fire Liar, or Mr. Listens to Racists?
How's the view from atop your own petard, "Socrates?" Or is that just a very high horse?
Everyone misremembers stuff. Even saintly presidential candidates. However, this memory lapse is odd: it's not like she remembered snipers in Bosnia and it was really Beirut, or that she thought it was snipers and it was a car bomb. I expect any day for the media to come up with a clip of the incident she meant to refer to, but since it hasn't happened yet, and she hasn't said, "Oh, wait: it was Darfur," then it does make me wonder.
But even if she lied through her teeth, I don't care. At least I don't care as much as I care about the facts that we use depleted uranium in our weapons, that we always have money for bombs but not much for health care or education or environmental causes, or that I can't travel to Europe or Japan because the dollar is the Incredible Shrinking currency. Hillary isn't perfect. Neither is Obama [gasp!]. I wish the media would find something of substance to fill the airwaves, instead of Obama's pastor (I've watched the extended videos on YouTube and find nothing to hyperventilate about) and Hillary's travel memories. How about discussing the erosion of the Constitution? Signing statements? A Congress that has hearings but does nothing about what they hear? A populace that would rather shop than raise their kids? A party whose members get apoplectic toward each other because one candidate is a different shade of blue than the other? A populace that whines over gas prices that are only 2/3 of what much of Europe has been paying for years, but still does little to conserve?
Clinton is Clinton. Obama is Obama. Vote for one or the other, and try not to think of them–or ourselves–as representing the Children of Light and the Children of Darkness.
Posted by: < | Mar 25, 2008 11:41:55 PM
well said Ms. Ann Thrope.
Posted by: mary ellen | Mar 26, 2008 7:05:47 AM
Well, guess what, holier-than-thou's, there's a big difference between speaking directly AT a person who is HERE in the conversation and talking about public figures who are not.
But obviously, that's too difficult for you to figure it out. Sorry to have bothered you with actually trying to discuss how these "candidates" are managing to screw up their respective campaigns.
Or is it that you just want to silence anyone who disagrees with you? Hmmmmmm? Of course, only misanthropic people would truly WANT to do such a thing, right?
Posted by: Socrates | Mar 26, 2008 8:57:16 AM
Socrates....why so angry?
Posted by: Mary Ellen | Mar 26, 2008 9:27:14 AM
What IS that big difference, "Socrates?" Is one inherently better than the other? Is someone who is virtually present more or less open to derision, than someone who is virtually absent, or who is a public figure?
And tell me which you would rather discuss: Obama's pastor and Clinton's uneventful trip to Bosnia, or the future of the Supreme Court, citizens identifying as consumers, water issues in developing countries, or what? My guess is that we will agree on 90% or more of just about anything, but instead we're letting the media yank our collective chains and dictate to us what we talk about and–what a shocker–they want us to talk about the 10% we _don't_ have in common. Because the media like fights better than concord, competition better than cooperation.
Posted by: < | Mar 26, 2008 9:39:09 AM
It's obvious Clinton lied to try to make it look like she has experience she doesn't have. No two ways about it. I think this is important because it demonstrates she will say anything to win and that's a very bad indication of her character.
I don't understand why Rev. Wright is "racist" by pointing out the truth of how African-Americans and other minorities have been treated in this country and still are in many cases. I also don't see how he's unpatriotic to point out the many horrible things the government has done saying they don't deserve any blessing for doing it.
Study up on what the U.S. did in places like Chile, Central America, dropping a second atomic bomb on Nagasaki, letting the Tuskeegee airman suffer with syphilis on purpose, and what the government is doing now with torture, rendition and shoveling money to corporations like Halliburton. Is it unpatriotic to notice? I think it's unpatriotic NOT to notice.
The real horrors going on today are being done by the neocons, international bankers and corporations, mortgage brokers, defense and homeland security contractors and rich elites setting up sweatshops and labor camps in many poor nations, not by Rev. Wright and others who see the handwriting on the wall.
Posted by: Truthteller | Mar 26, 2008 9:48:47 AM
Tell me, Mary Ellen, would you be angry if someone called you a "pendejo?"
Posted by: Socrates | Mar 26, 2008 10:24:23 AM
Truthteller, falsely accusing others of racist actions, like the false accusation that white America deliberately invented AIDS to kill of the black population, IS racist. Deal with it.
Posted by: Socrates | Mar 26, 2008 10:27:02 AM
Gee, misanthropic one, so sorry you're not able to apply enough intellect to figure out the difference between making a political point about presidential candidates and making a personal attack all on your own. Perhaps some remedial classes would help?
Posted by: Socrates | Mar 26, 2008 10:52:37 AM
"Socrates," look again: there is a typo there, but I think what was intended was to say, "The guy's preacher is not the guy['s] pendejo." Now I confess to not knowing what pendejo means in this context, but I'm confident (though not certain) that qofdisks was not calling you a pendejo.
As for your assertion that Wright is a racist, you have a lower threshold for that than I do. But never mind: tell me, "Socrates," which is more racist–making a fallacious claim about the origin of AIDS, or instituting, supporting and perpetuating policies that systematically keep one large segment of the population in jail? I think Wright has plenty to complain about validly, and he does so articulately. Most of the time. He misses some pitches. So do I. I'm guessing you do, too. But if you isolated one of the dumber things I've done or said, and proclaimed me an idiot because of it, I humbly assert that you'd be making a mistake.
I think a charge of racism is warranted when there is a pattern of racist actions or statements. I am not aware of such a pattern with Rev. Wright. I think he makes good points, but like most of us, he sometimes takes his favorite points too far.
One of my favorite points is that, while we have a responsibility to call a spade a spade and give both credit and blame where it's due, we need to remember that all the people we are charging or crediting are human, in the exact same way we are. Given that fact, a certain humility is always appropriate when attacking someone who is not here to defend themselves. We should be ferocious on the attack–why no one from Enron, for example, was tarred and feathered is beyond me–but we'd better be sure we have our facts straight before parroting criticisms we've heard.
By the way, "Socrates," there are a number of questions that have been directed your way that you haven't answered. I don't believe that they were rhetorical. If you want to discuss, as you have claimed, then a certain give and take is required.
Posted by: | Mar 26, 2008 10:53:02 AM
Socrates would never, ever have met a serious question, the answer to which would advance the conversation, with derision. Someone else might, but only if they did not have the respect or ability to answer the question.
Perhaps, oh Socratic/Sarcastic one, you might apply a soupcon on compassion and apply enough intellect to instruct me in the difference between making a political point about presidential candidates and making a personal attack. Your meaning was unclear before, and remains so. Step up.
Posted by: | Mar 26, 2008 10:57:17 AM
As a matter of fact, there is some evidence that AIDS may have started in Africa when the U.S. was testing a new live-virus polio vaccine and administering it orally to the native population. The vaccine was cultured in monkey tissue. Read this article that originally appeared in Rolling Stone:
https://www.whale.to/vaccines/curtis.htm
The point is African-Americans have every reason to be paranoid about the goals and operations of certain segments of the American government and other power blocs and criminal elements. How do you think heroin flooded ghetto areas in earlier eras? It's well documented that the FBI and other intelligence ops targeted African-American leaders and movements.
Bottom line is that preachers like Rev. Wright provide opportunities for their flocks to voice and vent negative emotions and thoughts and thus lessen their impact. The Revs. then guide the flocks' energies to more positive spiritual expressions. This helps America rather than hurting it.
Posted by: | Mar 26, 2008 11:20:06 AM
Note: lengthy comment here removed by webmaster
Posted by: ???? | Mar 26, 2008 11:37:36 AM
Perhaps, then, you should try asking a serious question that actually advances the conversation, instead of vainly attempting to be deliberately obtuse and insulting?
Posted by: Socrates | Mar 26, 2008 11:39:09 AM
Note: I removed a very lengthy comment by Socrates signed in as ???? above because it regurgitated right wing talking points issued by Judicial Watch, a known right wing group that has been involved in Clinton bashing and other smear efforts and is funded heavily by the Scaife family and other extreme right wing interests:
Comment threads are for discussing the topic of the post, not posting long screeds copied from right wing sites.
Posted by: | Mar 26, 2008 12:04:25 PM
For more on why Hillary's excuse that she was "sleep deprived" makes no sense, read this - click
Posted by: < | Mar 26, 2008 12:57:10 PM
God, I hate censorship in any form.
Posted by: Socrates | Mar 26, 2008 4:26:38 PM
"Socrates," why don't you ask some questions? It's what your namesake was good at. Of course, he would deign to answer the occasional question, too. And talk about censorship: Socrates had a real hard time with that himself. It's a tragic path you tread.
Posted by: | Mar 26, 2008 4:46:47 PM
Socrates hates censorship? Then why would he or she be a Republican? The rightwing zealots want to censor citizenship for GLBT people, censor bedroom behavior and censor the arts. Come now.
By the way, removing smear material from a site isn't censorship. It's a tip o' the hat to rational readers.
Posted by: Annie Oakley | Mar 26, 2008 5:04:42 PM
For whatever its worth Truthteller, the Tuskegee Airman (WW2 Army Air Corps, all-black combat unit), and the Tuskegee experiment, aka, Tuskegee Syphilis Study were two very different groups of people. Neither of which had anything to do with the other.
Posted by: VP | Mar 26, 2008 5:59:07 PM
I've been trying....but management here has deleted several attempts. Censorship.
Posted by: Socrates | Mar 26, 2008 6:52:47 PM
Socrates..you are angry. Maybe you should form your own church.
Posted by: Tie Breaker | Mar 26, 2008 8:20:25 PM
Yes, I did call Socrates a Pendejo.
I just thought his was a pendejo criterion for judging candidates in lieu of both truthteller's and misanthrope's remarks regarding the real issues of concern.
The topics of discussion involving both candidates are false issues contrived by the corporate media to distract the majority of idiots amongst us.
Socrates was obviously distracted.
Posted by: qofdisks | Mar 27, 2008 4:10:30 AM
