IF YOU'RE NOT OUTRAGED, YOU'RE NOT PAYING ATTENTION!
Powerful stuff. I have to say, I've been put off by Hillary's apparent willingness to tell bald-faced lies. This was one example. Her twisting of Obama's "Party of Ideas" comment into "He said he likes their ideas" is another (and that one was completely gratuitous, as what he actually said was bad and wrong on the merits).Know what really struck me watching that video, though? YouTube is going to have a massive effect on this election. I mean, here's this woman with the authority to completely debunk a smear, and neither she nor the Obama campaign even had to do an ad buy. It's just out there now. Incredible.
What did she end with? I believe she said "it enraged me" that someone would lie and smear another candidate on an issue that is absolutely central to this woman's belief system.Backlash is a very appropriate title to this simple post. That's all HRC can expect if she keeps on her current course of misinformation. Given Youtube and teh internets, she will defeat herself. Obama didn't need to call anyone about this.
I gotta disagree with you on what Obama said in that interview. But agree about what he didn't say...Huh?What Obama said was essentially correct: In 1980 the country was ready for change and a transformational candidate and President. Reagan filled that gap. There is no arguing that. Reagan swept Carter aside in a blowout and was a larger-than-life figure, and a larger-than-party President. He dominated D.C. and set up a GOP domination that would last thirty years. All of which is true, and that is what Obama said. Granted, he should have made perfectly clear that none of that was good. He did not. Not because he was in favor of any of that or even paying homage to Reagan—he wasn't—this was part of a fifty minute interview for print, and I believe he was being a bit to literal/cerebral, and not stumping. But it takes quite a bit of editing and creativity to get his statements anywhere close to what HRC implies. Obama was not as clearly disapproving as he should have been, and likely would have been, if this was a stump speech or tv interview.He is correct that the Republicans "bucked the conventional wisdom." They did. they completely reframed terminology and branding of the parties, cultivated and solidified disparate bases and basically left an atrophied Democratic Party in its dust. He also dismissed the "party of ideas" as "nothing but tax cuts" and "we've all seen that doesn't work."He just failed to do it in soundbite form.I don't think it was in this interview, but another time, Obama contrasted the differences between what Reagan did with his power and popularity and what Bill Clinton did:Reagan rebuilt a reeling party from the ashes, and set it up for success for a generation. They have, of course, completely squandered that due to their own corruption and greed, but they built quite a house of cards while it lasted.What was Clinton's legacy? His Vice President—arguably the most qualified man ever to run for the office—lost to a fucking retarded dry-drunk business failure.Clinton lost both houses of Congress on his watch, and set back core Democratic principles for years. He presided over a booming economy and did a lot of good things, but he left things a fucking wreck. So, tell me again, where was Obama wrong? He wasn't. He was trying to illustrate how he can be not Reagan—but the anti-Reagan—a transformational Democrat who brings independants and disillusioned Republicans (and Reagan Democrats) back to the party and sets a new course that can last beyond his term.The Clintons took care of themselves as they left office, left Gore and the rest of the country hung out to dry and for seven years Bill Clinton hasn't gotten red-faced and angry about anything until somebody got in the way of him and his wife getting back in power.--And don't tell me I'm swallowing and regurgitating right-wing shit. I've heard that crap for years and dismissed it for the paranoid fantasy it was...Problem is, now, the Clinton's are convincing me otherwise.
Am I the only one who was distracted by the beautiful woodwork she used as her backdrop? Lovely decor, really.NPR did a nice little bit tonight about Hillary's "35 years of experience" that she keeps touting and made it pretty clear that she's just a little full of shit.
"Distracted" is a little too strong, but I DID notice it...
I was distracted by the fact that that women could have been Julia Robert's twin sister.I have been an Edwards supporter. While it is mathematically possible for him to win, I must be realistic. That is very unlikely. The horse-race media cannot handle covering 3 candidates at once and Edwards is probably too far behind in the individual state polls to come back. It may be time for Edwards to hang it up. I hope he does only because I think his support will go to Obama and HRC will be defeated.
Post a Comment