Senator Obama faced journalistic sniper fire over words, he himself never said. The video of Pastor Wright was played around the clock, news anchors were repeating the scenes over and over again and are still introducing the topic, whenever they can. Hillary Clinton’s farcical story about dodging sniper fire in Bosnia, told to underline her claim of experience and readiness to be commander in chief, has not received the same media attention at all.
Here’s what Hillary Clinton said:
Here’s what happened:
This deserves to be aired as much as the Wright sermons have. But where are “the best political team on TV and their colleagues now? This story merited four Pinocchio awards from the Washington Post Fact Checker, four Pinocchios represent a whopper!
70 Comments
March 22, 2008 at 5:39 pm
Did she make more than one trip to Bosnia? Cuz them looks like purty different stories.
Wow.
March 22, 2008 at 7:19 pm
You are connected to those you associate with – as in S. Obama case. This was his spiritual leader for over 20 years so I think he should have had some impact on the mans life. It’s just a good thing it wasn’t a white preacher talking about black people that way – Just like don Imus his head would have been handed to him for it.
I don’t agree with what Imus said, but the difference in the way people are dealt with in this country according to their skin color.
March 22, 2008 at 7:28 pm
Yeah babyfurniture, it’s stunning.
Read this to find out just how stunning it really is.
March 22, 2008 at 8:02 pm
Sure babyfurniture, people are always telling their ministers what to do. Of course you could watch the entire speech on this site and see that the preacher was actually quoting a US ambassador when he spoke. However I suspect you’d rather look at it the black man trying to keep white people down.
March 23, 2008 at 12:52 am
Maybe she’ll backpedal.
“Not Bosnia, Baltimore!”
March 23, 2008 at 1:55 am
No more Clintons or Bushes in the White House. 20 years is enough already! Let Hillary go back to dodging bullets.
March 23, 2008 at 7:53 am
As preposterous as it is that Mr Obama was called to answer for someone else’s statements (while Mrs Clinton is not being required to answer for her own), I think that in Mr Obama’s case, the negativity led to something positive. The speech he gave in response to those accusations was an opportunity to do something at once highly risky but also highly necessary: to demonstrate his personal courage and integrity, not *because* of his association with a church– as has seemed to be the trend in politics– but despite it. It afforded him a chance to be absolutely honest, and he took it and ran with it… and I’m willing to bet it won him a lot of converts. People are absolutely *starved* for simple honesty, and Mr Obama demonstrated that it’s a trait he possesses.
March 23, 2008 at 7:59 am
I agree, Nadine. Obama turned a bad situation into good. A lesson for us all. And a hint at what we can expect during his presidency–opportunities to transcend and transform the ills of our collective past.
March 23, 2008 at 8:05 am
Nadine said it right. Obama not only was honest about Rev. Wright, but sat down to interviews with both Chicago papers, one and a half hours each, to answer in complete detail about the Rezko matter.
When was the last time a person running for office ever did that? Both papers were so impressed, they said so publicly.
He really is something different in American politics, and it is really refreshing.
March 23, 2008 at 8:10 am
Hello Nadine, darvish, mlavoraperry,jaredude, welcome to The Zoo.
kidsandbabyfurniture, welcome,too.Dissenting views are welcome here, but make sure you don’t cross the line!
I really enjoy seeing all the new faces! I hope you’ll come here often.
March 23, 2008 at 8:52 am
Obama has gotten a free pass for far too long. He should have been investigated thoroughly months ago. Even if, as you would hope, he is unblemished, he is tainted by his MANY associations and the appearance of impropriety would disqualify him. As has been said correctly and it isn’t racist to say so, he has gotten off lightly and has been given his free pass because he is black.
Hank Roth
For articles about Obamamania – be sure to read these – go to http://inyourface.info/crypt/ It will open your eyes unless you are wearing blinders.
March 23, 2008 at 8:55 am
It’s a shame that the “professional” media outlets can do this…really doesn’t matter what side you are on they have a professional, ethical obligation to report the news on all candidates..There are a lot of naive people out there who believe what they say at face value..
Shame..
James
State of Man
State of Man’s Lead Single “Swallow Your Fears” hit #10 on the Billboard Charts (singles sales US). Download your… More» FREE copy at http://www.stateofmanmusic.com
March 23, 2008 at 9:14 am
hankroth, welcome to the Zoo! Do you really think Barack Obama would get through with such a blatant lie, or the one about NAFTA posted here as well. His campaign would be over by now, had he shown the performance the Clinton campaign has.
March 23, 2008 at 9:17 am
stateofman, welcome to The Zoo and thank you for the music.
March 23, 2008 at 9:50 am
cool face
March 23, 2008 at 11:47 am
The Wright-Obama donnybrook screams out one vital and challenging point, beyond this particular presidential race: We need to talk about race more, a lot more, not dodge it. We need a diversity of voices, and the media needs to highlight ALL of those voices, not just the ones that make hot copy.
BTW, if we shouldn’t hold Obama accountable for what someone else said, then the same applies to John McCain, Hillary Clinton, George Bush and everyone else.
Victor Kulkosky
http://outofmymindblog.wordpress.com
March 23, 2008 at 11:58 am
I agree, Nadine. I can’t remember a candidate in American politics, at least not in recent history, who has repeatedly shown such a high level of personal integrity as Obama has in the recent months. I converted from a Kucinich supporter to an Obama supported back in January and daily grow more pleased with my choice between the non-Kucinich candidates.
March 23, 2008 at 11:59 am
ohh puuuuhleease the media treats Obama has some kind of untouchable super hero,.. if he can’t take the heat let’s find out now before he gets put up against the republicans, we know Hillary can take the heat no problem, I’m not so sure about Obama.
March 23, 2008 at 12:03 pm
Can we ban the Clintons from politics? If not can we at least have Hillary run for senate in a state she actually lives in.
March 23, 2008 at 12:07 pm
I am not pro-Hillary but I am anti-Obama. He’s a fraud and a liar. He can’t just cut himself loose from 20 years of belonging to a hate church like he did. I see a Red Herring here!
March 23, 2008 at 12:11 pm
The term mentor has been used consistently to refer to the relationship between Jeremiah Wright and Obama. This has lasted for 20 years. Sometimes the lack of commentary speaks louder than speaking. Did Obama speak out against the hate speach of pastor Wright, 1,2,5, 10 years ago?
As documented by the NY Times, both Wright and Obama were concerned about the impact on his primary bid a year ago. Apparently Obama has lied about not knowing about the hate sermon. Obama has plenty of questions to answer and he is avoiding most of them.
March 23, 2008 at 12:12 pm
stuckmiddle,
If you think Obama’s church is a “hate” church, I’m thinking you’re just lapping up what the MSM is feeding you.
Read this.
March 23, 2008 at 12:17 pm
Does anyone here know the names of the Churches that the other two candidate go to? Perhaps the name of the pastor? Any video taped sermons?
March 23, 2008 at 12:24 pm
Well, John McCain just embraced Pastor John Hagee, and here is a wonderful video (not out of context) that shows what he preaches..
http://tpzoo.wordpress.com/2008/02/29/mccain-accepts-endorsement-from-pastor-john-hagee/
There is some interesting video in that post.
Hagee wants the US to bomb Iran and kill all Muslims in order to bring on Armageddon. After that, all Jews must come to accept Christ, or they’ll have to go too.
Doesn’t sound like a message filled with ‘love’ to me..
March 23, 2008 at 12:27 pm
Here’s a link to Hillary’s “Fellowship.” Yikes…
No wonder she’s been quiet on the Obama church flap…
March 23, 2008 at 2:30 pm
It’s often beyond belief what is left out of the evening news. We need to all be vigilant to make sure that details like this don’t get left out of the political discussion.
March 23, 2008 at 2:49 pm
Actually, Mccain’s pastor is a man by the name of Yeary- a white Baptist minister who preaches against homosexuality and abortions- however preaches love for the sinner. Seems very much in line with what the republicans, not all, have been saying for decades.
March 23, 2008 at 2:50 pm
The worse thing that the USA could do is vote in Obama, he’s a lier and is going to make a mockery out of the USA!
March 23, 2008 at 3:12 pm
I’m sorry to say, we, being the “World Power” that we were, can’t come up with one decent person that is qualified to run this country. Not one of these people has the country’s best in mind. Only self. Hillary had eight years to revamp the healthcare program under Bill and did nothing. Lowenski did more under Bill than Hillary did in eight years. Obama has not a clue and McCain is lost trying to be a cloaked Democrat. An ex prisoner of war, doesn’t want waterboarding? I guess we just give the terrorist a time out and all the illegals amnesty. OK. So much for the US.
Its dis-heartening for sure. What have we got to look forward to? A country speaking in tongues that no one understands what the other is saying?
March 23, 2008 at 3:32 pm
as a hispanic voter i was anticipating his speech on race with some optimism,expecting more of a “mea culpa” from him.to sit in those pews for decades listening to the rants and conspiracy theories put forth by wright and not challenge,or simply leave,is to implicitly agree with them.
but as the speech wore on i got the impression that it was turning into a “i was wrong…sort of,but you guys are wrong too(whites,anyone not black)”
i was particularly disturbed by comparing his grandmother’s fear of black men to his pastor’s lunatic rants to illustrate how all people are racist to some degree.what a slap in the face to an elderly woman who raised him after his biological father abandoned him.
growing up,i went to church every week until i was 18.first to a spanish speaking pentecostal church and later to a predominantly white lutheran church in the suburbs.i never heard a sermon even remotely like the ones wright gave.and i am positive my father would never continue going to or expose our family to a church that preached such b.s.
for barack to continue to expose his daughters to such racial propaganda speaks volumes about his judgement,or lack thereof.
March 23, 2008 at 3:40 pm
We welcome dissenting comments here at the Zoo, but please make sure you are not crossing any lines. We will not suffer hatemongers and racists here. Just sayin’
March 23, 2008 at 3:42 pm
Oh and try to stay on topic. This thread is about Hillary Clinton’s creative memories, not about Senator Obama or Pastor Wright!
March 23, 2008 at 4:11 pm
I am completely bewildered by the reaction some people have had to Barak’s speech. As soon as I heard it, I felt a rush of admiration for his courage, honesty, and insight. Why should he apologize for what someone else said? He condemned the comments, but not the man. That’s what parents do! I’m a mother – when my sons make a wrong choice, their actions are what I censure, not their very core as people.
I wrote an acrostic poem about Barak, simple, but heartfelt. I wish the newsmedia would open their eyes and ears to this authentic human being. He had my vote in the primaries, and I hope I’ll be voting for him in the general election.
March 23, 2008 at 5:14 pm
You’re right, these clips should get the attention that Dr. Wright’s Jeremiad got. Any similar footage of Sen. McCain should get wide air play as well. And I’m glad you agree that Pastor Wright’s excesses did deserve wide attention, as they pointed straight to the crucial aspect of Barack Obama’s background that the Senator would say anything to avoid revealing: the fact that he comes out of the Marxist tradition. The Obama Camp wanted the Press to discuss any compromising or awkward or even painful aspect of the controversy other than The Main Point, and the Press obliged Sen. Obama in that sense (all the while acting dogged and ultra-journalistic), rather than fulfill its obligation to the People under the Constitution.
March 23, 2008 at 5:18 pm
hughvic, the Marxist tradition?? Did you read Marx? I seem to remember his writings differently. Obama fits nowhere near that.
March 23, 2008 at 5:27 pm
Well, here is offering some food for thought with a different perspective on the words of Dr. Wright from Dr. Wilmer J. Leon III called “The Rev. Dr. Jeremiah Wright and the Audacity of Truth”:
http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/032208F.shtml
March 23, 2008 at 5:33 pm
europeanview, in the americanview he fits as near to that tradition—on the Left edge of the middling Congressional spectrum—as he can do and still survive in U.S. politics. Do you recall a phenomenon of the 1960s-’80s known as Neo-Marxism? Do you recall its expression in Liberation Theology. Well then, if you’re familiar with the various skeins of Marxist thought, you shouldn’t have any trouble placing either Dr. Wright or Mr. Obama in that tradition. Moreover, you’ll find in Mr. Obama’s own accounts his history of tutelage, since his teens, by admiring mentors of doctrinaire Marxist commitment. Jeremiah Wright is merely one of the recent ones.
The sophomoric trope about Marx spinning in his grave over the appropriation of his name notwithstanding, the historic movements and schools of thought built in his name ecclipse him in importance. And yet it is as though Barack Obama never got the message that it all went down in cataclysmic, bloody suffering and failure.
All of which is to say, his judgment sucks and his courage is lacking, since he’s afraid to say what he is and to stand steadfast for it.
March 23, 2008 at 5:39 pm
I’m Groucho Marx and I don’t approve this message!
March 23, 2008 at 5:45 pm
Obama’s demonstrated judgement, wisdom, level of understanding, and courage is outstanding and admirable. He’s earned my respect and my support. And, he had to earn it. He didn’t start out as my choice.
March 23, 2008 at 5:48 pm
Dang! from 1963 until now….every person has pimp themselves into that big white house and the “we the people” have sit on their a!! thinking nothing but jackass and elephants….not character. Think 1852 for a change…..300 million people and you people are stuck on three…..
March 23, 2008 at 6:01 pm
mlavoraperry said:
(March 23, 2008 at 7:59 am)
“Obama turned a bad situation into good. A lesson for us all. And a hint at what we can expect during his presidency–opportunities to transcend and transform the ills of our collective past.”
MLAVORAPERRY, I agree with you 100%. Your perspective is very simple, and logical, and easy to understand, but yet I have not heard a single news agency present your perspective. I also thought of your perspective about a week ago, and I have been trying to explain it to people, but they keep looking at me like I’m crazy. Many people seem to be locked into the binary perspective that you can’t be around negative things over a 20 year period without being corrupted by those negative things. Well, that binary perspective is only logical in reference to a person who is easily influenced by illogical negativity. I think it is a rational to assume that a courageous person, such as Barack Obama, would not be negatively influenced by illogical negativity, regardless of the period of time of his association. Why is it so difficult for the mainstream media to arrive at this same assumption? Or at least to consider this perspective? Is it because the mainstream media is so easily corrupted by their associations with negativity, that they assume everybody else is the same way?
March 23, 2008 at 6:20 pm
Barack’s pastor doesn’t bother me at all, If I had a dime for every person i’ve heard spew a little anger or racism from their mouths I’d be a millionaire. I’m not saying it’s okay, but in a world where the kkk is still thriving and racism is still fairly common in the south, how can we expect there not to be people preaching like that? What does bother me is that Obama’s campaign is based on being anti-war, but his own top adviser (the one who resigned) said that basically, his whole campaign position of being anti-war is meaningless, and he’ll craft a new plan that doesn’t involve immediate withdrawal when he gets into office. That DOES bother me.
March 23, 2008 at 6:32 pm
edtajchman, that was troubling.
But the truth is that most of what these three candidates SAY they are going to do will change after they get into the WH. They can’t just walk in and change things by giving orders. They have to work with Congress – both sides, build a consensus, getting support from all sides in order to accomplish anything. One will be the Commander in Chief, but will have to work with some pretty strong forces of a different sort of power when it comes to the Pentagon and the Military Industrial Complex.
Of the three candidates – one of which WILL be the president whether we like it or not – I think the best chance we have of getting out of this war and not starting another war with Iran will be Obama. McCain has already shown his support for staying in Iraq AND bombing Iran. Hillary is VERY connected to the ‘Corporate America’ elitists AND the Military Industrial Complex. They are doing quite well with the war in Iraq thank you very much, and I doubt she will do anything to precipitously cut off their gravy train. No matter WHAT she says. And, she is proving herself to be quite an accomplished liar.
I am betting the ONLY hope we have of getting out of Iraq any time soon will be with Obama.
March 23, 2008 at 6:47 pm
The third Pinnochio goes to the Washington Post for awarding this only two Pinnochios. What a whopper that one is!
I agree about Rev. Jeremiah Wright. I personally dig Dr. Wright, who reminds me of my old pastor. Now, what has that got to do with anything?
March 23, 2008 at 8:08 pm
hughvic says:
“The sophomoric trope about Marx spinning in his grave over the appropriation of his name notwithstanding, the historic movements and schools of thought built in his name ecclipse him in importance. And yet it is as though Barack Obama never got the message that it all went down in cataclysmic, bloody suffering and failure.”
Hughvic, you’re a moron and anyone with half a brain can see through your lame attempt at being an intellectual. Nice hedging, though, what with the whole “sophmoric trope…” bit. I thought about – briefly, I admit – replying meaningfully to your posts, but such a discussion with moronic pseduo-intellectuals would simply be a waste of time (and a headache).
I agree with you, mariacristina, but most of these people leveling said criticisms didn’t listen to the speech. If anything they listened to news clips and idiotic commentary.
March 23, 2008 at 8:11 pm
We posted Obama’s speech here:
I posted before the spin and dissecting got underway. I didn’t need someone else to tell me what I heard, or saw.
March 23, 2008 at 8:16 pm
sorry…by “most of these people,” I also was incorporating the general public outside this comment stream, including Dan Dowett and the rest of his ilk: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/03/22/AR2008032202205.html
March 23, 2008 at 8:23 pm
No problems whatsoever. I just thought I would throw out the link in case someone actually had NOT heard it yet.
I agree with what you had to say. I had to turn off my tv for a couple days after all the talking heads started going after what he said, trying to pick it apart like vultures fighting over a carcass, each talking head trying to out-think the other.
March 23, 2008 at 9:03 pm
Patrickgavin, what an odd way to be dismissive, this hurling of personal insults and indulgence in Soviet-style psychodebilitation to marginalize a correspondent with whom you differ. Whatever. I both viewed the speech, repeatedly, and read the transcript. Probably like many of us here, both the video and the transcript were attached to one of the email messages I receive at least daily from the Obama campaign. I’ve paid very careful attention to the speech, and its manifold evasions and curious moral equivalencies. All in all, an excellent example of a political address—a judgment I base on my many years of writing such stuff for politicians at every level of government.
Again, so what? The point of the speech, for Barack Obama, a very winning fellow whom I knew briefly when we were young, was what it DID NOT say. (The smokescreen effect is a fairly common objective of political speechwriting, incidentally.)
So you can engage in all the ad hominem assaults on the critics you like, but it doesn’t change the speech, or its prevarications and diversionary tactics. You can accuse a critic of being concerned about Dr. Wright’s notorious remarks (I’m not), or of misunderstanding the Black Church in America (I don’t), or of taking umbrage at the criticisms leveled by Rev. Wright against white people (I’ve said worse) or against the U.S. (he didn’t scratch the surface). Or, if you’re really at a loss, you can just call someone who saw through the speech a “moron” or a “pseudo-intellectual”, or both.
I may be a moron, but for decades now I’ve made my living as a scholar, and I can’t see why anyone would want to pose as an intellectual in a nation so resentful of persons who know a great deal about anything in particular. Come to think of it, however would one so pose?
Finally, you may find it interesting that when Barack Obama attended Harvard, that university offered a graduate course entitled “Strategic Misrepresentation”.
March 23, 2008 at 9:08 pm
I agree, nwmuse. It’s painful to watch. I’d die to see a good documentary on the benefits/drawbacks of 24/7 “news” channels.
I’d also die to see an American public that values true intellectual curiosity, education, and discussion. It’s almost too painful to care about anything anymore when you have all these neo-conservatives running the political landscape, bullying and tricking everyone into believing the crap that is broadcasted by the six companies that control 90% of our media. I cringe every time I hear the phrase “liberal media.” Yeah, Viacom, Disney, TimeWarner, NewsCorp, Bertelsmann AG, and General Electric push their liberal agendas on the US public…but I digress
March 23, 2008 at 9:26 pm
In my opinion that’s an urgently needed project, O Grand Poobah and Arbiter of Blog Truth. The bizarre misconduct of the media in this election cycle should be unpacked now, while it still counts, instead of deconstructed at book length after the race has been decided. It doesn’t matter whose side your on, the media should be the target.
But it isn’t corporations and their “agendas” that are pushed; it’s subtler than that. It’s ideology that does it on autopilot, so that the corporations and other powers seldom need to drop the hammer or spike a story. Select journalistic eunuchs according to a thousand ideological cues and bona fides, and they’ll do your bidding without so much as your even casual supervision, and you’ll be assured of an unmolested harem.
Usually, something as simple as a graduate degree in Journalism or Communications from the right schools (and many of the wrong ones also) is sufficient to ensure impotence and the proper degree of competent fecklessness and busy laziness required to keep a newsroom running like a top.
March 23, 2008 at 9:32 pm
Interesting at the least, but I would need a bit more information. I want to believe the time she is talking about is the same as the video that follows it, but… it’s just so different… from what she said. It’s like… why come up with such a strange lie when there is footage and living people who saw it otherwise.
Something just seems not right about the story…
March 23, 2008 at 9:44 pm
hughvic,
My calling you a moron had nothing to do with Obama’s speech, Dr. Wright’s sermons, or anything else you might have mentioned above. Why, then, did I call you a moron?:
the Left edge of the middling [U.S.] Congressional spectrum is pretty damn marxist, isn’t it?
holy shit…with Obama in office we might all be standing in bread lines…cause he obviously didn’t get “the message that [the non-marxist application of marxism] all went down in cataclysmic, bloody suffering and failure,” and would like to try and impose such non-marxist, marxist social programs on a public just itching for a chance to become neo-communists.
the utterer of such crap is begging to be called a moron.
Tone it down, patrickgavin. Thanks. Admin.
March 23, 2008 at 9:54 pm
ok, hughvic, i can pretty much agree with your last comment (9:26), but I wasn’t saying that corporations push any agenda (I was going for sarcasm there). but…when you put people like hannity, o’reilly, etc. on the air, you’re essentially pushing an agenda.
March 23, 2008 at 11:28 pm
Yeah, you are “pretty much” pushing an agenda, but you don’t have to formulate an agenda, as such, and make it known to a talking box like Bill O’Reilly, you just have to, for example, get it from a trusted clubman that “that O’Reilly fella’s OK”. Then you just set him up with a nice contract and a house in the Hamptons and let the guy run his mouth, trusting that he knows which side his bread’s buttered on. For a guy like that to run, you don’t even have to wind him up. He comes pre-wound.
I see what you mean about the sloppily drafted description of where Obama’s senate record falls on the Hill spectrum. My point was that were you a committed Neo-Marxist in the Senate, that’s as far as you could go and remain viable: to what is usually dubbed the “Left-liberal” category, which is where Barack carries a banner. The tradition from which he emerges, and to which mentor after mentor of his has hewn, is indeed the Marxist tradition. What bugs me about it—because it ain’t like I’m not on comfortable terms with past Regional Champions of More Radical Than Thou—is that he’s closeted, and hence contorted or perverted from who he is. I don’t think that Wellstone, for example, would have run a race of denial and concealment. (I know, I know; no one may be compared to Barack Obama. I got the memo.)
Barack could’ve buried Hillary by now simply by running to the left of her, relying on a deteriorating economy to bring his collectivist message to the undivided attention of Undecideds and pissed off working class and “dehoused” middle class GOP in the General.
Since these particular three candidates, in their contest to see who can be the more convincingly sincere, refuse to run as who they really are, then we ought to join forces and out them all—and in so doing, show the MSM for the disgrace they’ve become—and then just let the chips or chads fall as they may. I don’t want to spare Barack just because he’s the most appealing and the easiest one to like. We’ve got to take this more seriously than that. Beijing will.
March 23, 2008 at 11:48 pm
nwmuse –
what do you find troubling? The fact that both Obama and I agree – that like it or not – racism does still exist in the world and people of all colors will react to it? (which is part of why I think the controversial Dr. Wright has every right to voice his opinion and more power to him…) Or my stance that I don’t trust Barack to get us out of the war anytime soon? (based on that infamous interview his now resigned advisor gave in Europe.)
March 23, 2008 at 11:53 pm
Ed,
I’m not speaking for nwmuse, only myself — do you think Hillary or McCain will be getting us out of this war ever?
March 24, 2008 at 12:07 am
Zooey,
-no, but their not basing a lot of their campaign on their anti-war stance either though. Don’t get me wrong I like Barack and will vote for him over McCain, I just don’t think he’s as tough as Hillary is.
March 24, 2008 at 12:12 am
Hillary is tough like GWB is “tough.” We don’t need that kind of tough anymore.
March 24, 2008 at 12:18 am
I see your point about that Zooey, she’s definitely one of the last ‘old-school politicians’ that will run for president. To be honest, I am biased and simply want a woman to be president. I know this is unfair reasoning based on nothing, but I just don’t know when the next chance we’ll have is. The question for isn’t is America mature enough to elect Obama, but is America mature enough to elect a woman. Thanks for letting me voice my opinion by the way,…great blog.
March 24, 2008 at 12:19 am
*for me, (sorry)
March 24, 2008 at 12:23 am
I’d love to have a woman as president! It’s high time. But the thinking can’t stop there. When it became apparent that she was just going to try to be more of the same, but in a dress, she lost me. Her current antics have reinforced my decision not to support her. It’s very disappointing.
There will be another chance. The right woman will come along soon.
Thanks for coming by the Zoo. You’re always welcome.
March 24, 2008 at 1:02 am
“To be honest, I am biased and simply want a woman to be president. I know this is unfair reasoning based on nothing, but I just don’t know when the next chance we’ll have is. The question for isn’t is America mature enough to elect Obama, but is America mature enough to elect a woman.”
To be honest, I would simply like a good (and, yes, liberal) president. Whether he or she is black, brown, yellow, green, blue, christian, muslim, atheist, I don’t care. Did Canada or the U.K. go all gaga over the election of their first female prime minister? This is a real question, as I don’t know…although, i imagine those that did in the UK soon tired of Thatcher…
March 24, 2008 at 10:08 am
Hillary’s the liberal in the race. I mean, they’re all three no more than power maniacs, but Hillary’s the one whose default is set on “Liberal”.
March 24, 2008 at 11:16 am
haha, add this to what she said about ireland and the press SHOULD be having a field day! oh really, hillary? you helped bring peace to northern ireland?!
http://harmlesspine.wordpress.com/
March 24, 2008 at 11:21 am
hughvic,
Exactly how are you coming to the conclusion that Hillary’s “default” is liberal?
March 24, 2008 at 11:44 am
Didn’t you know? Obama was named the ‘Most Liberal for 2007′ by the National Journal. Kind of funny really..
http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2008/01/31/625886.aspx
March 24, 2008 at 11:46 am
In 2004, the national Journal named John Kerry as “Most Liberal”.
March 24, 2008 at 12:57 pm
Hillary is Jesus! No wonder she was able to dodge bullets so well…
http://blog.washingtonpost.com/the-talk/2008/03/richardson_scorns_clinton_aide.html?hpid=topnews
March 24, 2008 at 7:40 pm
“Exactly how”, Zooey? You mean, like it’s an exact science? I guess the answer is, by process of elimination. What I did not do was pay too much attention to the position statements on the poorly written (because in Third Person) campaign websites; I read them, and it struck me that, like Sen. Obama’s, they’d been cranked out by staff (probably Senate staff, over many months).
She’s in the habity of starting from the position of old-timey, post-New Deal programmatics (a.k.a. vote buying) and then jabs left or right from there—perhaps dodging bullets while she’s at it. I can’t say that there’s anything she believes in enough not to sell it out if that seems the thing to do on any given day. She’s no longer the ideologue of her youth; she’s a high-functioning political opportunist. That’s why I call her liberalism, liberalism by default.
As Hill politics go, Sen. Clinton stakes out territory at different points on the spectrum, from her island on the left side of it; while Sen. Obama stays hard against the left end (of what is admittedly a delimited spectrum), as though struggling to break out and return to his roots still farther left of anything seen on the Hill in recent memory.
Anyway, that’s my take. I also think that McCain is the most inveterate opportunist of the three.