dagblog - Comments for ""Don't buy this book; don't read it!" Slate's advice on Hillary's latest opus..."

I agree with your comment as

CVille Dem — Mon, 16 Jun 2014 13:43:01 +0000

In reply to Often a gaff is a political

I agree with your comment as far as the nitpicking aspect of it goes, but I have always thought that you can get a good glimpse of a person by noting their seemingly off-hand comments. Hillary's response to Terri Gross demonstrates a precision that she has had to hone...she knows everyone will dissect her every word and ascribe whatever meaning they can get away with. I didn't find her to be prickly; just someone who wanted to be specific about the subject (which is a weighty one, and on which most people's thoughts HAVE evolved).

Mitt Romney, when he let his guard down, sounded so very ordinary. Both examples you cite are not gaffs, I agree. The time he bragged that he fired a landscape company because he realized that they had "illegals" working, and he was "running for office, for Pete's sake!" was yet another example of how unthoughtful a person he really is.

Pretty much every word out of GW's mouth demonstrated what an intellectual light weight he was/is.

If you want to get to know someone, I think you have to get off of deep subjects, where they often have very organized and thoughtful expressions of their beliefs. We are all that way. But when we get into small talk, without the practiced explanations and lose our filter, that is when we really show who we are. That is true of all people, including politicians, and I think that deep inner core is an important thing to know about someone...whether choosing a friend, or deciding to entrust them with a vote.

That said, I don't think we get very many examples of Hillary with her guard down. This is not a criticism; just an observation.

Often a gaff is a political

ocean-kat — Sat, 14 Jun 2014 10:43:09 +0000

In reply to "Don't buy this book; don't read it!" Slate's advice on Hillary's latest opus...

Often a gaff is a political issue invented by partisan hacks to make an emotional argument for stupid people. I hate when democrats get involved in that sort of stupidity.

For example, "I went to a number of women's groups and said 'Can you help us find folks?' and they brought us whole binders full of women." —Mitt Romney, on staffing his cabinet while he was governor of Massachusetts, presidential debate, Oct. 16, 2012

This was nothing more than a slip of the tongue. Clearly he meant "binders full of names and resumes of many qualified women" The real issue here is that according to those women groups Romney did not seek them out but they came to him with these binders full of resumes to attempt to pressure him to appoint more women.

Yet many democrats spent days mocking him over his slightly mis-spoken comment. Does any one really think those endless moronic jokes helped at all. It was the lowest moment for democrats in the election imo.

Or "When you have a fire in an aircraft, there's no place to go, exactly, there's no -- and you can't find any oxygen from outside the aircraft to get in the aircraft, because the windows don't open. I don't know why they don't do that. It's a real problem." –Mitt Romney, suggesting it would be a good idea to crack a window at 35,000 feet, Beverly Hills fundraiser, Sept. 22, 2012

Romney isn't an idiot and likely knows all kinds of scientific facts and trivial. He just didn't know that air gets thin at 35,000 feet. I read science too but I don't know how my propane refrigerator can produce ice by heating up liquid in a tube with a flame. I think it hurts us when democrats mock and laugh at republicans over this type of trivia.

I don't think Hillary has made any mistakes and I don't think she needs to do better. Of course there have been a couple of political issues created by partisan hacks to emotionally sway stupid people. There will be many more of those, its inevitable, simply because there are numerous partisan hacks. I don't think those type of "gaffs" are anything that should be paid any attention to.

Hillary claimed she evolved on the issue of gay marriage. I accept her word on that. The interviewer suggested her views 20 years ago were contrived and political and attempted to get her to admit it. She refused to back down. Frankly I think she did just fine.

You know Obama claims his views on gay marriage evolved too. He claims his daughters convinced him to change his mind. Was he lying too? Did he not just lie but include his daughters in that lie? Should interviewers pressure Obama to admit his views didn't evolve and that he involved his daughters in his lie? Perhaps they should attempt to interview Shasha to see if she will admit that they didn't help their dad evolve and that he's a big fat liar?

As for the nonsense that Hilary is freezing out other dems by refusing to admit she's running. Let's look at Rand Paul. His basic answer is, "I'm thinking of running but I haven't decided yet." Santorum, "I'm thinking of running but I haven't decided yet." Cruz, "I'm thinking of running but I haven't decided yet." Jeb Bush, "I'm thinking of running but I haven't decided yet." Hilary, "I'm thinking of running but I haven't decided yet."

Somehow only Hilary is constantly being pressured to admit she's running and somehow only Hilary is hurting her party and freezing out other candidates by playing it coy. Why is that?

I think all these questions about Hilary running are too early. I hope no one will ever announce their presidential candidacy before the midterm elections.

Meta lesson: Limbaugh steals

jollyroger — Sat, 14 Jun 2014 06:20:46 +0000

In reply to "Don't buy this book; don't read it!" Slate's advice on Hillary's latest opus...

Meta lesson: Limbaugh steals material from Josh Marshall. Who could'a node?