Author
|
Topic: Hillary Clinton and Language
|
|
|
|
|
|
Geneva
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3808
|
posted 02 November 2007 01:11 AM
a telling view of Democratic debate: http://tinyurl.com/2de444 Her fighting spirit was all the more impressive because so many of the positions she was defending were virtually indefensible. It’s not easy to try to make a matter of principle out of a refusal to say anything specific about Social Security. And you really need a spine of steel to stand up on national television and explain why it was a good idea to vote for a bellicose Senate resolution on Iran that has given George W. Bush a chance to start making ominous remarks about weapons of mass destruction again. “Well, first of all, I am against a rush to war,” she said. That would have been disturbing even if she had not attacked the idea of “rushing to war” twice more in the next 60 seconds. Being against a rush to another war in the Middle East seems to be setting the bar a tad low. How does she feel about a measured march to war? A leisurely stroll? and, a nice satire of same debates; http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/02/opinion/02brooks.html?_r=1&ref=opinion&oref=slogin TIM RUSSERT: Senator Edwards, let’s turn to you. Four years ago, you vowed to run an entirely positive campaign. Now you’re running a negative one. What changed? JOHN EDWARDS: My convictions, Tim. The American people want a president they can trust. Four years ago I went from being a centrist New Democrat to a left-wing populist because I wanted voters to be able to trust that I would stand up against the forces of opportunism in this country. Now I stand up to the megarich lawyers. I stand up to the hedge fund managers, the big spenders and the McMansion owners. Basically, I’ve been standing up to myself. And I don’t take money from Washington lobbyists. I take money from the people who hire Washington lobbyists, which means a savings of, like, 15 percent. RUSSERT: Senator Clinton? CLINTON: First, I want to pre-emptively agree with what everybody will say on all sides of every issue in this debate. That’s why the Republicans are so afraid of me. Second, I want to congratulate the Boston Red Sox. I’ve been a Red Sox fan my whole life ... [ 02 November 2007: Message edited by: Geneva ]
From: um, well | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Michelle
Moderator
Babbler # 560
|
posted 02 November 2007 06:30 AM
From the article: quote: A bit later Tim Russert, the other moderator, tried again: "Senator Clinton, would you pledge to the American people that Iran will not develop a nuclear bomb while you are President?" "I intend to do everything I can to prevent Iran from developing a nuclear bomb," Mrs. Clinton replied, in a formulation that would make her husband proud. "But you won't pledge?" Mr. Russert asked."I am pledging I will do everything I can to prevent Iran from developing a nuclear bomb," Mrs. Clinton repeated. Mr. Russert then tried a third time, with the same ambiguous result.
This is supposed to be "ambiguous"? That's stupid. She gave a good answer there, and it's very clear. When she's President, she'll do everything she can to stop Iran from developing a nuclear bomb. It would be stupid for her to promise that Iran will not build a bomb while she's President. Because if they somehow did it despite Clinton's best efforts to stop them from doing it, they'll claim she "lied". I don't like Hillary any better than any of the other Democrats, but it's pretty spurious to claim that her answer was "ambiguous".
From: I've got a fever, and the only prescription is more cowbell. | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Dead_Letter
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 12708
|
posted 06 November 2007 10:54 PM
quote: Originally posted by Cameron W: Clinton is slippery. The better one gets at that sort of politicking, the more slimy they appear.I always feel like I'm being taken advantage of when I ask a politician a hard question, and I get a comforting response that doesn't actually answer the question. I've seen political candidates deflect and doublespeak during elections, and it never fails to turn people off. The video shows that when she does more of this kind of speaking, it becomes even more offensive. She seems afraid to take a position, which I guess is the point of her communication techniques (never appearing to take an unpopular position) and the video that shows how she's using them.
What do you expect, though? If she says something which is unpopular, yet true, it will only cost her. Her opponents would use it against her. It's best to say something inoffensive on the campaign trail sometimes - take that Russert Iran question. She gave the politically smart answer and I can't fault her for it. If she had said, "Tim, I will nuke the shit out of them if they even think about it," that would be a clear, defined stance that would earn her much opprobrium from her opponents on the left. If she said, "Tim, Iran says they aren't building a bomb and while I wouldn't like to see them or anyone else get one, I won't send thousands of American men to die to prevent it if they don't attack us," it would be flashed all around the world that she's soft on Iran and the Republicans could go hawkish on that point if they face her in a general election. Instead, she gave a fair, reasoned, mild answer which tells us nothing about what exactly she would DO about it if Iran tried. Then again, on this particular point, you won't hear any candidate give a concrete answer. You can take more hard stands when you're elected. When you're trying to get there, it doesn't hurt to brush off people when they're trying to make you look stupid on a subject as Russert was to Hillary on Iran.
From: Vancouver | Registered: Jun 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
|