Sen. Clinton in RI mocks Sen. Obama

[samsonite]

I think it's playing a little fast and loose with the language to equate vagueness with deception. Being vague means being non-specific to the point that the language has lost meaning, while deception is a willful attempt to impart false meaning. Not the same.

It reminds me of Clinton saying Obama has no health care plan, then five minutes later accusing him of stealing her plan. She can't have it both wasy.

As far as not being specific goes... I suspect this is a minority opinion of mine, but telling the country "exactly" what he plans is unrealistic and foolish.

1) No plan a candidate proposes will go into law exactly the way the candidate plans. That's not the way our government is set up. Laws originate in the House or Senate, then it goes to the other body, and there's a whole lot of horse trading before there is a final version of the bill. In other words, telling people "exactly "what they plan to do is the true deception, because everyone knows that version would never survive the legislative process.

2) Circumstances change, and Presidents change plans on the basis of those changing circumstances. If a candidate is too specific, they run the risk of "breaking a promise" simply because they were wise enough to change plans when circumstances warrant.

3) Specific plans merely give opponents fodder for negative campaigning.

In short, I always vote for the 'big idea' candidate that will have the flexibility to make responsible decisions based on the needs of the moment, rather than a candidate saddled to overly-specific plans proposed more than a year before they even have a chance to enact them.

Excellent post!

 

[seamusnewwest]

Jack, you can tattoo the answer to his question on his forehead and he'll still claim he can't find Obama's accomplishments.

Hillary sinking in the polls has her supporters in shambles too.

Typical pro-Obama post. You attack the poster...but you never did say what his accomplishments were. And it hasn't been answered in "post after post." Not ... at ... all.

 

[seamusnewwest]

Of course not. Her version of the Democratic Party is built of a collection of special interests held together by the fear that if they stand up for themselves and on their own they won't get any more tidbits tossed to them.

You mean special interests like those unions that are supporting Obama, that tried to make the voting places for Las Vegas the only voting places?

Or the money for unions and special interest groups for the Obama campaign?

Look at the video. It's clear what Hillary is saying ... that you can't make the special interests magically go away. But her speech and her tone make it clear that she supports change - to try to represent the video any other way, well, it's unethical. Because it's so clearly a lie.

 

[seamusnewwest]

I think it's playing a little fast and loose with the language to equate vagueness with deception. Being vague means being non-specific to the point that the language has lost meaning, while deception is a willful attempt to impart false meaning. Not the same.

It reminds me of Clinton saying Obama has no health care plan, then five minutes later accusing him of stealing her plan. She can't have it both wasy.

As far as not being specific goes... I suspect this is a minority opinion of mine, but telling the country "exactly" what he plans is unrealistic and foolish.

1) No plan a candidate proposes will go into law exactly the way the candidate plans. That's not the way our government is set up. Laws originate in the House or Senate, then it goes to the other body, and there's a whole lot of horse trading before there is a final version of the bill. In other words, telling people "exactly "what they plan to do is the true deception, because everyone knows that version would never survive the legislative process.

2) Circumstances change, and Presidents change plans on the basis of those changing circumstances. If a candidate is too specific, they run the risk of "breaking a promise" simply because they were wise enough to change plans when circumstances warrant.

3) Specific plans merely give opponents fodder for negative campaigning.

In short, I always vote for the 'big idea' candidate that will have the flexibility to make responsible decisions based on the needs of the moment, rather than a candidate saddled to overly-specific plans proposed more than a year before they even have a chance to enact them.

Hmmm. Well, in the past, it's usually been the right wing that has not revealed how they will govern or what they will do. And Democrats of all stripes used to hate that, and consider it sneaky and dishonest.

 

[Twisted06]

She's right... but American's don't want politicians to tell them the truth. People want lies and fairy tales.

when u say something like that plz do everyone a favor state most americans or , a great number of the population. cuz i for one am sick and tired of lies and fairy tales. i rather have the truth then the bs thats been going on

 

[Twisted06]

Watch the video. Very amusing no matter what side you are on.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/02/24/hillary-clinton-mocks-bar_n_88194.html

i just actually watched this right now and ill admit that is pretty damn funny lol

 

[Zingerific]

Well, in the past, it's usually been the right wing that has not revealed how they will govern or what they will do. And Democrats of all stripes used to hate that, and consider it sneaky and dishonest.

Democrats may have considered it sneaky and dishonest, but I remember the main Democratic reaction as frustration and disbelief. (SNL had a skit in '88 where Dukakis says "I can't believe I'm losin' to this guy!") That frustration came from the fact that while the Democrats are clearly superior (IMO) in policy, the just plain suck at politics.

I am frustrated by the Democratic party. Stevenson in '52 and '56, Humphrey in '68, Dukakis, Gore, and Kerry, we always have candidates who are too bureaucratic and are happy to go down with the ship in a noble defeat, saying "at least we had better ideas." I'm tired of moral victories. They are always talking about competence and experience -- I can't think of a single election where that was an effective message. It's as if they are running for top bureaucrat, not President.

There is no rule that says eloquence and competence can't go together -- and no rule that says experience equals competence. There would be no New Deal without the fire side chats.

 

[NickCole]

"You're not going to just wave a magic wand that's going to make the special interests disappear." -Hillary Clinton

Well at least now we know where you stand, bitch.

And I guess we know where you stand.

Hillary is telling the truth.

Hillary Clinton knows that problem situations don't get taken care of by hoping or with a magic wand. Problems get taken care of through action.

 

[NickCole]

She really nailed that one right on the head.

However, I think this kind of messaging has hurt her campaign. He is selling hope; she is selling no hope. Who wants to vote for NO HOPE?

That being said, I agree with her about Obama's message, but I'm not running for office. She's supposed to be trying to win....she needs to OUT HOPE him .

She can't out hope him.

Hillary's past that. Way past it. She learned a long time ago that hoping for change doesn't make it happen, and she's right to offer Americans genuine plans and a forthright message: let's roll up our sleeves and get to work on health care and energy and immigration and foreign affairs.

Hugging and singing kumbaya isn't going to fix the economy.

And it's a mistake to copy someone else's message. It may give short term gain but ultimately it's false and it'll turn on you. If she loses at least she'll lose being true to herself.

 

[NickCole]

Media coverage​

Defending Obama:

Democrat Barack Obama tried to use humor to cut down rival Hillary Rodham Clinton before Saturday's presidential caucus. His "Iowa nice" approach gone, Obama debuted a biting political standup routine Thursday night that mocked his rival, and employed it again on Friday. ...

Humor is a tradition on the Las Vegas Strip and in presidential campaigns because it's a way to score a point without sounding too negative. President Bush used it to skewer John Kerry in 2004 as fancy and soft on terrorism, while Ronald Reagan was one of the best at wielding one-liners.

No More Mr. Nice Guy: Obama Mocks Hillary In Stand Up Routine

Attacking Hillary:

Hillary Clinton's campaign is on its last legs after suffering a string of defeats to her rival Barack Obama. Clinton made the decision to go negative in an effort to halt Obama's rising momentum. On Saturday, she also accused Obama's campaign of using negative tactics "right out of Karl Rove's playbook" in mailers that misrepresent her positions on NAFTA and healthcare. Obama called the mailings accurate.

Today, Clinton was at a campaign rally in Providence, Rhode Island, and she mocked Obama and his message of hope and change in a very theatrical, over-the-top manner.

Hillary Clinton Mocks Barack Obama During Campaign Rally

 

[jetsonboy]

Typical pro-Obama post. You attack the poster...but you never did say what his accomplishments were. And it hasn't been answered in "post after post." Not ... at ... all.

Thank you, seamusnwwest for rationally observing the Obama cult members and trying to bring them to the reality of the facts: Hillary Clinton has done more good for this country already than Barack Hussein Obama has given himself the chance to. Mr. Obama has served one incomplete term in the Senate as opposed to Hillary's two in addition to her experience and knowledge acquired during her husband's eight years as President. No one can deny the fact that this lady has the knowledge, experience and support necessary to get to work readily and with less obstacles than Obama as President of the United States.

 

[naked gent]

Hillary Clinton knows that problem situations don't get taken care of by hoping or with a magic wand. Problems get taken care of through action.

Nick can we have enough of this action vs. hope crap. First off they are not mutually exclusive and as Mrs. Clinton can attest from her first go at healthcare action alone often ends in failure.

Hope and soaring words alone won't produce any solutions either but it is much easier to achieve them if such tactics are part of the equation.

Those tactics also suggest an inclusiveness which, had Mrs. Clinton used them, might have produced a more successful healthcare plan than she managed to produce on her own.

If intellectually finding the right answer was sufficient it wouldn't be called politics.

 

[iman]

Nick can we have enough of this action vs. hope crap. First off they are not mutually exclusive and as Mrs. Clinton can attest from her first go at healthcare action alone often ends in failure.

The problem is there is no indication that Obama knows much about getting anything done. If he is elected the Republicans will be licking their chops waiting to roll him and he is not that popular among many Dems and not well liked in the Senate. He gives the impression that he plans to use a populist approach talk up support with the electorate. That is not an approach that has had much success in America, outside of Louisiana's Huey Long, that is.

 

[iman]

In short, I always vote for the 'big idea' candidate that will have the flexibility to make responsible decisions based on the needs of the moment, rather than a candidate saddled to overly-specific plans proposed more than a year before they even have a chance to enact them.

What's the Big Idea? Hope? Obama does not have to be specific, but with no record to judge him by, we should have some idea of where he wants to go. George Bush was Uniter, too.

 

[tmb1]

What's the Big Idea? Hope? Obama does not have to be specific, but with no record to judge him by, we should have some idea of where he wants to go. George Bush was Uniter, too.

If you dont know the differences in a Bush presidency and what a Obama presidency would look like, no wonder none of your posts make a lick of sense here.

 

[Twisted06]

If you dont know the differences in a Bush presidency and what a Obama presidency would look like, no wonder none of your posts make a lick of sense here.

i actually think his post made enough sense.

 

[Zingerific]

All House seats are up each election (every two years). This time, 35 Senate seats are up (a little more than a third).

but with no record to judge him by, we should have some idea of where he wants to go. George Bush was Uniter, too.

That's not a bad point about George Bush, although I'd say the big differences are 1) Bush was the party of the establishment; he was never running against the system. 2) Bush did have a record as a uniter; he brought together Democrats and Republicans in the Texas legislature. In this case, a candidate did the opposite of what his record indicated. His record misled voters as to how he would govern. So why is experience the be all end all of this election?

 

[tmb1]

i actually think his post made enough sense.

Surprise! Surprise! Surprise!

 

[Sammie13]

All House seats are up each election (every two years). This time, 35 Senate seats are up (a little more than a third).

2) Bush did have a record as a uniter; he brought together Democrats and Republicans in the Texas legislature. In this case, a candidate did the opposite of what his record indicated. His record misled voters as to how he would govern.?

Of course, a Texas state Democrat is just like a Republican, so there wasn't a lot to unite. I always thought that was bull when W would say "In Texas, I was a uniter, not a divider". It works that way alot in the south, a rural Democrat is a Republican except in party name...so, not much to unite.

 

[tmb1]

This post works with your avatar. Who is that in your avatar, anyway?

LOL I dont know, just some fun pic I found.