You knew it was coming. After letting Barack Obama twist in the wind over some of the sermons of his pastor Jeremiah A. Wright, Hillary Clinton decided to add her two cents. Sitting down with reporters from the Pittsburgh Tribune-Review, she was asked to comment on the whole scene and Clinton noted the embattled minister would not have been her spiritual guide.
“You don’t choose your family, but you choose what church you want to attend,” she said.
Team Obama predictably pounced—whatever happened to the perfect phrase “no comment—- accusing Clinton of playing politics with the Wright mess. Yes you read it right. A spokesperson for the Obama campaign accused Clinton of playing politics. It gets better though. After bemoaning her use of politics, this same spokesperson, a guy named Bill Burton, goes for the game himself and gives Clinton grief for creating the sniper fire in Bosnia tale.
Is there a political operative more deserving of a dope slap today than Burton?
And by the way: Clinton’s excuse for her sniper tale is pure howler.
Digg This
I understand that this is a blog and perhaps the "Jerry Springer" of the internet world - but if people write columns (I'm not referring to this one) - that are frequently patronizing, condescending, one-sided etc. - then "Visible Vote" is in essence "talking down" to its readers and they will no doubt return in kind.
I don't think it is enough to say - oh well, we have X numbers of writers representing X number points of view and so this is a "fair" representation if the writer representing one point of view is mostly professional and fairly balanced and the writer of even more columns of another point of view is arrogant and condescending.
While I'm no big fan of "contemporary expressions" such as "got's me some" - that is an individual style of writing.
I wasn't able to read/respond to what I wrote you last week about "free writers" etc., so I've no idea what you replied, if you did reply - but it seems to me that the bar could be raised a bit - even if the writing is free.
Good morning. Man you are on a roll! I guess I could explain myself but the post speaks for itself. I've taken both sides to task equally. Sorry you don't think so. As for the stupid and/or incompetent charge, I've been both in the past. Will probably be both in the future.
Be well. Thanks for reading and making comments. Please continue.
Sincerely,
James
Calling someone "stupid" is inappropriate on this board. Please refrain from the name calling.
First warning. Thanks.
James, whatever! Take you pick: You're either biased or incompetent. No other pundit lashed out at an Obama spokesperson for pointing out the obvious: that Hillary's deliberately re-stoking of the Rev. Wright issue was pure politics - a pathetic attempt to distract for the news of her baldface lie about Bosnia. If you don't want to be labeled biased, fine. How does "stupid" feel? After all, you're the one who also bizarrely devoted your post on Obama's race speech exclusively to surveying what various right-wing nuts thought about it. By independent, you apparently meant to say "not too bright."
After Obama's speech I felt better about the controversy and Obama. He really needed to address the issue for once. I think both Clinton and Obama will make a great president. That is just me.
Christy Brown
I disagree with your conclusion that there is little difference between Obama and Clinton.
First, Clinton is more hawkish than Obama, and is more likely than Obama to resort to bombs as a knee-jerk response in answering the 3:00 AM call. In contrast, I think Obama is more likely to think things through before calling in the troops. The candidates differences on whether to invade Iraq is a prime example of this.
Second, Obama is much more progressive on criminal justice issues. For example, he worked exhaustively in the Illinois State Legislature to reform the capital punishment guidelines, and at one point even called for the decriminalization of marijuana possession. In contrast, Hillary is tough as nails on capital punishment, and supported her husband's 1992 execution of a mentally retarded black man in the midst of their first presidential run in order to show the meat-eating Americans how tough on crime they were.
Third, Obama believes in more ethics reforms in Washington, including the requirement of stricter disclosure and more transparency in government. Accordingly, Obama does not accept federal lobbyist money or special interest money in his campaign. In contrast, Hillary is swimming in dirty money, and understandably, does not want to disclose her & Bill's tax returns for the last year nor the donor list to the Presidential Library in Arkansas.
Fourth, Obama carries little baggage with him in the race for the White House, whereas Hillary carries a lot of dead weight: travelgate, filegate, Whitewater, Monica's blue dress, and Bill with his record as a sanctioned perjurer who was suspended from the practice of law for 5 years in his home state for his crime.
Finally, perhaps the biggest difference between Obama and Hillary is that Obama is focussed on the democratic process, and Hillary is relying upon the Democratic machine.
One of the reasons I enjoy writing for VisibleVote is that depending on the day I'm accused of being pro Clinton or Obama. I've also been tagged with the right-wing label, which confuses me because I'm supposed to be for either Clinton or Obama. I'll repeat what I've said many a time here. There is really no difference between the two and Democratic partisans should be happy with either one in the general election. As an independent, I have no dog in the Clinton/Obama slugfest.
Thanks for reading and making comments. Please continue.
Sincerely,
James