babble home
rabble.ca - news for the rest of us
today's active topics


Post New Topic  Post A Reply
FAQ | Forum Home
  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» babble   » current events   » international news and politics   » Hillary Clinton and Language

Email this thread to someone!    
Author Topic: Hillary Clinton and Language
Sven
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9972

posted 01 November 2007 10:12 AM      Profile for Sven     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
If nothing else, a President H. Clinton will be linguistically entertaining...
From: Eleutherophobics of the World...Unite!!!!! | Registered: Jul 2005  |  IP: Logged
josh
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2938

posted 01 November 2007 10:17 AM      Profile for josh     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Talk about chutzpah! The Wall Street Journal complaining about Clintonite obfuscation when it is a supporter of the biggest liar who ever sat in the oval office, George W. Bush.
From: the twilight zone between the U.S. and Canada | Registered: Aug 2002  |  IP: Logged
Sven
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9972

posted 01 November 2007 10:26 AM      Profile for Sven     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by josh:
Talk about chutzpah! The Wall Street Journal complaining about Clintonite obfuscation when it is a supporter of the biggest liar who ever sat in the oval office, George W. Bush.

That being said, it will be fun to see the left defending those antics, and the right turning around and attacking them, when HRC's in office (and, yes, she will be president).

"It depends on what the definition of 'is' [slight pause] is" is probably the most classic line that President B. Clinton ever uttered.


From: Eleutherophobics of the World...Unite!!!!! | Registered: Jul 2005  |  IP: Logged
josh
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2938

posted 01 November 2007 10:32 AM      Profile for josh     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
The left? The left is no friend, or defender, of Clintonism or the Clintons. But I'd rather debate the definition of "is" than the defintion of torture.
From: the twilight zone between the U.S. and Canada | Registered: Aug 2002  |  IP: Logged
Sven
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9972

posted 01 November 2007 10:42 AM      Profile for Sven     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by josh:
The left? The left is no friend, or defender, of Clintonism or the Clintons. But I'd rather debate the definition of "is" than the defintion of torture.

Well, don't kid yourself about H. Clinton. You'll have plenty of debates about torture and all of the other issues we're debating today. As I've said many time, there will be a negligible difference between Bush II's foreign policies and H. Clinton's foreign policies. Count on it.


From: Eleutherophobics of the World...Unite!!!!! | Registered: Jul 2005  |  IP: Logged
Geneva
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3808

posted 02 November 2007 01:11 AM      Profile for Geneva     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
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      Profile for Michelle   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
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
josh
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2938

posted 02 November 2007 06:33 AM      Profile for josh     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Tim Russert's an asshole. An expert in "gotcha"/"when did you stop beating your wife" questioning.
From: the twilight zone between the U.S. and Canada | Registered: Aug 2002  |  IP: Logged
josh
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2938

posted 02 November 2007 06:40 AM      Profile for josh     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:

a nice satire of same debates

I eagerly await lightweight Brooks' satire of the Republican field, involving such notable hypocrites as Rudy "Did Mention 9/11?" Guliani and Mitt "I was For Choice and Gay Rights Before I was Against It" Romney.


From: the twilight zone between the U.S. and Canada | Registered: Aug 2002  |  IP: Logged
Vansterdam Kid
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5474

posted 02 November 2007 10:46 AM      Profile for Vansterdam Kid   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
I agree that it was a stupid question. It reminded me of the Fox "News" Republican debate question asked by Chris Wallace that presented a '24'-like scenario to the candidates - where Tom Tancredo actually said that the US needs Jack Bauer(!). I'm pleased she didn't fall for it, because there are plenty of other examples to show how she's ambiguous and dull at best or dangerous and principle-free at worst. So trying to trick her there is stupid - and I think she actually did look "presidential" in answering that question and dealing with Russert's stupid little trick.
From: bleh.... | Registered: Apr 2004  |  IP: Logged
Vansterdam Kid
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5474

posted 02 November 2007 01:15 PM      Profile for Vansterdam Kid   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
The politics of parsing.
From: bleh.... | Registered: Apr 2004  |  IP: Logged
josh
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2938

posted 03 November 2007 03:45 AM      Profile for josh     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Yep, great job by the Edwards people on that one.
From: the twilight zone between the U.S. and Canada | Registered: Aug 2002  |  IP: Logged
Michelle
Moderator
Babbler # 560

posted 03 November 2007 04:47 AM      Profile for Michelle   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Oh, that was by the Edwards camp? When I watched it last night, I thought it was by republicans!

Too bad Edwards didn't throw in a clip of his wife slagging Hillary for not being feminist enough.


From: I've got a fever, and the only prescription is more cowbell. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Vansterdam Kid
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5474

posted 03 November 2007 03:01 PM      Profile for Vansterdam Kid   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
I think the Democrats had better be smart and not pick Hillary to lead them come 2008, otherwise the Republicans will attack her for "flip flopping" and what not. Granted, that criticism from Edwards is kind of ironic. But still the Republicans managed to make Bush look like a "strong leader" and get Kerry on it so they're obviously going to do it to her. And really she's giving them every opportunity.
From: bleh.... | Registered: Apr 2004  |  IP: Logged
Cameron W
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 10767

posted 06 November 2007 08:29 PM      Profile for Cameron W   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
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.


From: Left Coast | Registered: Oct 2005  |  IP: Logged
Dead_Letter
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 12708

posted 06 November 2007 10:54 PM      Profile for Dead_Letter     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
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

All times are Pacific Time  

Post New Topic  Post A Reply Close Topic    Move Topic    Delete Topic next oldest topic   next newest topic
Hop To:

Contact Us | rabble.ca | Policy Statement

Copyright 2001-2008 rabble.ca