You know, I'm not going to get into hypotheticals and make pledges, because I don't know what I'm going to inherit, George.She's talking to George Stephanopoulos there.
I don't know and neither do any of us know what will be the situation in the region. How much more aggressive will Iran have become?..."The withdrawal of ... the Iraqis who have sided with us." See, that's the thing. The Iraqis don't get to withdraw. So why do we, unless we can defend the condition in which we leave them -- unwithdrawn?
What will be happening in the Middle East? How much more of an influence will the chaos in Iraq have in terms of what's going on in the greater region? Will we have pushed al-Qaeda in Iraq out of their strongholds with our new partnership with some of the tribal sheiks or will they have regrouped and retrenched?...
I don't know, and I think it's not appropriate to be speculating. I can tell you my general principles and my goal. I want to end the war in Iraq. I want to do so carefully, responsibly, with the withdrawal of our troops, also, with the withdrawal of a lot of our civilian employees, the contractors who are there, and the Iraqis who have sided with us."
We have a huge humanitarian refugee crisis on our hands. We have millions of Iraqis who have been displaced, some internally, some into other countries. The problems we're going to face because of the failed policies and the poor decision-making of this administration are rather extraordinary and difficult, and I don't want to speculate about how we're going to be approaching it until I actually have the facts in my hand and the authority to be able to make some decisions.That's basically what Kerry said back in '04, except he couldn't straightforwardly say he wasn't going to tell us what he would do. But whatever it was, it was going to be careful and competent and just so darned better than what the other side would do.
The linked piece, by WaPo's Anne E. Kornblut sounds really irritated by Hillary's windy blabbiness: "Above all, though, in a morning of appearances that yielded virtually no news, Clinton illustrated her ability to talk. And talk. And talk."
Mmmm. Kerryesque!
पोस्ट्स
७१ टिप्पण्या:
When Bush is this mush-mouthed, the blogs light up with derision of his idiocy.
Hillary sounds like Chauncey Gardner here.
It's a lot easier to say "Stay the course" or "We won't surrender to terrorists" or "Pull out now" without having to explain what any of those statements really mean.
As opposed to any of the Republican candidates who are going to do...what? Stay there and talk about not cutting and running. Two sides of the very same tarnished coin.
You know, I'm not going to get into hypotheticals and make pledges, because I don't know what I'm going to inherit
Also there's traditions to consider. You inherit traditions, too.
Traditions are both a usurpation and a choice. You don't have a tradition unless you have both.
She's not too strong on the reason for the war, though. She is in fact saying that she doesn't know what it is.
Pogo: All we are asking, is give Chance a chance.
I'm gonna have to find me a Chauncey Gardiner '08 sticker.
“Hillary Clinton is like a box of chocolates... you never know what you're gonna get.”
AllenS Gump
I forgot to add: As the election draws closer, I expect the inherited situation to become clearer, so answers like I don't know what I'll inherit will seem more and more like a dodge, from either side of the aisle, however inelegantly articulated.
I don't expect any of the Republicans to say anything new or different now.
Hilllary wants to position herself as not too far out of the center, and having more or less secured the nomination, she can start babbling. What she's saying is really only clear to the Move On/Kos crowd; whether she agrees withn them or not, she's doesn't need them now.
Hillary, like Kerry, is going to speak to those 'wascally' islamist fundamentalists in her most stentorian voice! She will be secure in the hope that they wilt under her glare and command of political double-speak accentuated by the furrowed brow of disapproval.
That is democratic foreign policy as taught at Columbia University and practiced by east coast brahmins from their gated communities.
Ahmadinejad can outtalk Hillary and Kerry any day of the week. His lips move but he says nothing. If he had laid a wreath at ground zero it would have been for the hijackers who died there.
I am reminded of how Nixon ran in 1972.
Ann:
What Hillary Clinton is saying about Iraq reminds me a bit of what Eisenhower said about Korea in 1952 and Nixon said about Vietnam in 1968.
Eisenhower promised that he would go to Korea and that he would bring a rapid end to the war there. Ike's credibility was so enormous and his military credentials so impeccable that he could get away with what was, after all, a rather vague formulation. He did end the conflict there within six months, much to the relief of the American people, who had become disgusted with the conflict.
Although Nixon is often cited as saying he had secret plan to end the war, he never specifically said that. He spoke of achieving "peace with honor." He also frequently alluded to how Eisenhower, under whom he served as vice president, had quickly wrapped up the Korean War, implying that he would do something similar in Vietnam. Voters, disgusted with the management of the war, suspicious of the bases on which the US became engaged in it, yet still not in favor of immediate withdrawal, gave Nixon a mere 300,00-vote victory in the November, 1968 election.
Hillary Clinton's formulations are reminiscent of those of Eisenhower's and Nixon's. They needed to convince voters that they would manage their inherited conflicts better than the incumbents. But for both political and sound strategic reasons, they wanted to avoid divulging specific plans. (It's unlikely that either had such plans anyway.) Clinton who, as you say, is at least divulging more of her thinking than John Kerry, faces similar political and strategic imperatives.
But one thing that makes Clinton's discussions of Iraq today different from those earlier discussions is the existence of a large "withdraw now" contingent within the Democratic Party. Neither Eisenhower or Nixon had to placate such sentiments within the Republican Party of their days. Many Republicans, far from favoring withdrawal from either Korea or Vietnam, would have preferred deploying more troops, going nuclear, or doing anything to achieve "victory." There isn't a victory caucus in the Democratic Party.
Eisenhower could, politically, get away with a rapid end to the Korean conflict because he was a general and was massively popular. (Arguably the most popular public figure in the US since George Washington.)
Nixon though, had to play to his base, which is why his "peace with honor" formula was so shrewd. Everybody wanted peace. But "with honor" let his base--and the rest of the country which still overwhelmingly opposed precipitate withdrawal from Vietnam--know that the allegedly "new Nixon" was no peace-at-any-price pol.
It's interesting that Clinton, who served as a lawyer for one of the congressional Watergate committees and was a functionary of the 1972 McGovern campaign, appears to be attempting to swipe from Nixon's 1968 playbook.
Whether this will work for her or not, I don't know. Though she's trying to be Nixonian, the fact that she's Democrat, as much as the substance of what she's saying, may be a big reason that she's sounding like John Kerry to you these days.
Mark
Mark Daniels--great summary and analysis. I think any candidate that tells what they are going to do in the event of a future hypothetical situation is a fool. Other than a statement of general principals, all candidates should respond exactly as Ms. Clinton has done with respect to foreign policy issues. To do other wise is only going antagonize your friends and your enemies.
A bit off topic: Celinda Lake's august poll has HRC running 10 points behind Rudy in a matchup. Suppose that has anything to do with what appears to me to be her evolving hawkishness? (and lest anyone ask me for a cite, Google "Celinda Lake Clinton Giuliani"
Because of our time feeds on our cable provider, i caught most of 4 of the interviews.
She spoke well and consistently. She, unlike President Bush, understands that every nuance is watched and digested - that's why little things like "bring 'em on" and "kicken' their ass" - not merely inelegant and as out of place as an unwelcomed backrub - spread the world over and not always to our favor.
Further, it is absolutely true; what will Iraq or the Middle East look like a year from now. Bush certainly doesn't know yet the neo-geo-p'rs want Hillary to lay out a plan on a course of events and philosophies that are just one endless moving target...like when did we go from "democracy" to "victory" to "success"?
Maybe part of the problem here is that it has been 7 years since anyone heard an American president utter a complete sentence without either him or the listener smirking and making sounds like a cat coughing up a furr ball.
Whether Hillary was overly blabby (I agree she was) is less significant than the substance of what she had to say. Blabbiness is a refuge for most politicians when they get in a tight spot. So cut her a little slack here.
But I think it's unfair to Hillary to say that she is revealing some significant Kerry-esque resemblance here. The fact is that Kerry had no idea what he wanted to do, or even why he was running for President. He never got past his own image in the mirror; he was mesmerized by the voice that wanted to keep repeating "Genghis Khan." Hillary is a much more serious and substantive sort.
As for her "wait and see" answer, it's the only honest answer she could give. Remarkably, she's the only Dem candidate willing to give it, given the pressure in the Dem ranks for a cut-and-run solution. So it took some political courage to answer as she did. It was also an indication that Team Hillary is already looking past the primaries and the nomination.
Her obligation as a candidate is to spell out her "general principles and [her] goal." Ann agrees but critizes her answer -- basically, Hillary wants to arrange a "careful" and "responsible" withdrawal of US forces along with "the Iraqis who have sided with us." That answer doesn't tell you anything about "principles" or "goals;" I think it's Hillary's way of trying to appear to say what her base wants to here, without committing herself to anything. After all, it's hard to be against "careful" and "responsible" policy of any sort, and she did frame her answer around the magic word "withdrawal." Immediately before, however, she gave a more sensible indication of the "principles" she would be guided by: what will things look like in 2009; what will the implications of any withdrawal be for the internal situation in Iraq, the Middle East more generally and the wider struggle with al-Qaeda; etc. In short, she wants tactics to be guided by sensible longer term strategy.
Hillary is far and away the most serious candidate the Dems have put forth in a long time. I doubt that I could ever support her, but she definitely bears watching.
Hillary is far and away the most serious candidate the Dems have put forth in a long time. I doubt that I could ever support her, but she definitely bears watching.
She will be a formidable opponent for any of the Republican contenders for the nomination.
The candidate that doesn't take her dead seriously will lose to her decisively.
Ann,
Maybe the Iraqis who have sided with us do get to withdraw. Almost a million Vietnamese ended up here as refugees. Then again, I would guess that your readers who reject the idea that we should get out of Iraq in a careful and responsible way don't take kindly to the thought of absorbing a million or two Iraqi refugees. But what's the alternative to careful and responsible withdrawal? I asked that recently, and the answers were essentially: fight for 10 to 40 years to establish a stable democracy. Is that your alternative, Ann?
Gedaliya said...
"The candidate that doesn't take her dead seriously will lose to her decisively."
That is an extremely well said, well put, and observant sentence. Well done. Very well put.
The bartender at Pete’s had the best description of Hillary when he compared her with Pamela Anderson...one is a cleavage baring ball buster with a husband who probably gave her every STD in the book....and the other one was on Baywatch.
Actually, Hillary, people are moving back into the Anbar. The insurgency has been defeated there. So you're a little behind the curve.
When Wallace asked her about health care for illegal immigrants, her body language was telling: her head bobbed up and down in yes, while she answered no. A little like the head spinning in Exorcist!
She will be a formidable opponent for any of the Republican contenders for the nomination.
Perhaps but I'm not convinced she's the Goliath of the Dem party that everyone thinks she is.
Perhaps but I'm not convinced she's the Goliath of the Dem party that everyone thinks she is.
You're right. She is, in fact, the David of the Democratic Party, and the Goliaths of the Republican Party better not underestimate her (more importantly Bill's) ability to count votes.
The Celinda Lake poll had Obama running better against Giuliani than Clinton--it is in Ms Clinton's interest to protray herself as inevitable. Time will tell.
Hillary uses the successful salesperson technique of phrasing as if the sale is a foregone conclusion "When I'm President...", not "if I'm President"
Hilary bad republicans good , got it
The Republicans have taken Hillary dead serious since 2000 when she was elected to the senate. They will need to make sure those with their head up the ass of social conservatism don't destroy their chances before they get started.
I think its fair to distrust her because she can afford to ignore the hard core democrat base in the elction process from here on out. She does not need their money and can therefore go after the moderates. Once elected, I'm sure the base will be quite happy with her.
You're right. She is, in fact, the David of the Democratic Party, and the Goliaths of the Republican Party better not underestimate her (more importantly Bill's) ability to count votes.
Heh...good point.
Then again keep in mind Bill won with 42% of the vote in 1992 and barely got 50% in 1996. Bush accomplished at least that much and he is hardly as popular as Clinton. Hillary's negatives are a lot higher than Bill's ever were so I'm not sure I would even give her 'David' status.
I think its fair to distrust her because she can afford to ignore the hard core democrat base in the elction process from here on out.
Clearly this is not yet the case. Her vote on the Senate resolution to condemn MoveOn.org indicates she is still maneuvering on the left. I suspect she won't veer right until next Spring, when her nomination is all but inevitable.
This will, however, cause her much grief in November '08. Even so, if Republicans think they can take her defeat for granted due to these leftist dalliances they are foolish indeed.
Then again keep in mind Bill won with 42% of the vote in 1992 and barely got 50% in 1996. Bush accomplished at least that much and he is hardly as popular as Clinton. Hillary's negatives are a lot higher than Bill's ever were so I'm not sure I would even give her 'David' status.
Bill got less than 50% in 1996 and still won the election. That's why we (Republicans) should fear his uncanny genius for vote-counting.
Hillary will portray herself as David against the Republican (Goliath) "noise machine." We will underestimate her on this matter only at our own peril.
She talks a lot. But she doesn't answer questions. Tim Russert presented her with the following: 1. Her own statements saying anyone who calls for a definite timetable for withdrawal is an irresponsible terrorist-lover; and 2. Her own campaign literature from last week saying "Hillary will call for a definite timetable for withdrawal to end the war in Iraq." The implicit question is, Which is it? Are you a hypocrite or are you an irresponsible terrorist-lover? And Hillary blathered on about nothing, vaguely mentioning that conditions on the ground had changed in some fashion. That quite clearly is a nonresponsive and absurd answer. If you think this kind of filibustering is Presidential, then we simply have different ideals of what a President should be.
Peter,
"fight for 10 to 40 years to establish a stable democracy"
Works for me. You got something better?
I stopped watching Tim, George, Bob, Chris and Wolf years ago. Can't stand 'em. Can't stand the utter lack of drama as all participants do nothing but haul out their memorized talking points. These shows seldom make news anymore. It took Hillary showing up on all five in one day (wow! what a coup!) to make anyone pay attention to what she said.
That said, I kind of like her Middle East answers as quoted in the print coverage. There's a big difference between Hillary and Kerry. Kerry was lazy, and he said what his flacks told him to say. Hillary perhaps isn't offering a lot more substance, but she's laying out the issues she'll have to consider in a reassuringly comprehensive way. She's obviously schooled herself.
It's all going to come down to the matchups. She'll have a disadvantage against Rudy, who is the clearest and most distinct of all the GOP candidates. You know what you'll get with Rudy on foreign policy. She will come off as mushy compared to him.
The reverse is true with Thompson, as far as I've seen. He speaks in platitudes. He will make Hillary seem smart and engaged by comparison.
Romney will also be roadkill for Hillary. He stands for nothing other than his supreme fitness for the office. The rap on Hillary is that she'd do or say anything to get elected, but Mitt Romney makes that issue moot, because that rap is doubly applicable in his case. Plus, he makes her look warm by comparison.
McCain, however, would throttle Hillary. Getting the nomination is an almost impossible task, but if Rudy self-destructs, or if his liberalism on social issues proves to be a fatal flaw, I think smart Republicans are going to look at McCain again.
My underlying premise for all this is the "out-now" caucus is going to be down to about 30 percent of the electorate by next year, most of them Democrats, most of them a problem for Hillary because she needs their votes but doesn't want to commit to their cause.
It's a bit of a hoot that everybody is ceding the nomination to her, when actual voters casting actual realtime votes is still months away. Four years ago Howard Dean was in the same catbird seat that Hillary! is in now, and John Kerry's candidacy was moribund, on life support and fading. Howard was da man! Then when the time to actually vote finally came in January 2004, the Dem voters seemed to wake up all at once and collectively shouted "YIKES! We can't nominate that," Dean shrieked, and we all know what happened next. One interesting twist is that this year both the 1st and 2nd running candidates have that YIKES! factor going on with them. I'll agree that it now looks like Hillary! will get the nomination, but I'm thinking that the last chapter on that may not have been written yet.
Clearly this is not yet the case. Her vote on the Senate resolution to condemn MoveOn.org indicates she is still maneuvering on the left.
Yeah, but I don't think it cost her to throw them a bone. A symbolic vote she can easily defend voting against.
Do I have something better than to fight for 10-40 years to establish a democracy? I don't think that outcome is very likely. Nor, given its unlikeliness, do I think we can support it for that length of time (either politically or economically). What do I think is better? 3-way partition -- if we don't make it happen, they will anyway.
Peter,
"Nor, given its unlikeliness, do I think we can support it for that length of time (either politically or economically)."
I'll grant you the political will, but as far as economically--ever heard of the Cold War? That went on for longer than 40 years, at comparable expense, with little diversion in places like SE Asia bumping up the figures for a decade or so.
And I was going to tweak you about the silliness of predicting the future 40 years out, but then I remembered: you are the guy who, on hearing the news of Hiroshima, said, "Not to worry, within 40 years the Japanese will be cleaning GM's clock", right???
Mark D, you forgot that Ike didn't withdraw from Korea and Nixon had a secret plan to end the war. Hillary has a secret plan to lose the war, which is what any Rep opponent will accurately call it.
The bulk of the American voters may not like what's going on in Iraq, but who really thinks 51% are prepared to lose it? Let's ask former President McGovern.
She talks a lot. But she doesn't answer questions.
How does this differ from any other politician?
"The withdrawal of ... the Iraqis who have sided with us" only means Hillary! is reconciled to defeat.
There is no other way to interpret that statement, given that Hillary! is the absolute smartest, most articulate person who has ever spoke. If she meant to qualify the statement, she would have.
She didn’t.
If you want to ensure defeat in Iraq, vote for Hillary!
Her problem with Clinton is that Clinton, while on a talk show actually talked! What insipid reporting!
Anne Kornblut is a terrible reporter. No mastery of facts, an obsession with spin and style over reality. And she vigorously injects her own biases and version of reality into her reporting, despite what the facts would say.
She should really stick to a gossip column.
How does this differ from any other politician?
Very true, esp. in regards to our lovely congresspersons.
But, with that said: as bungling as Bush is in front of a microphone, he has made his position clear enough for most democrats to hate and/or condemn him. Whereas, Hillary is sort of dancing around the issue... I used to believe she was being very tough and stand-up about Iraq, and her vote to go in. I was impressed, though I don't like her much otherwise. But then she started backtracking so fast, her position has become unclear. Or maybe it's really not; maybe she just does want to pull out ASAP but doesn't want to say so outright. In either case she has changed positions, motivated by political convenience instead of national security. Kerry-esque indeed.
And I'm not crazy about the fact that she's already sniping about what she's going to "inherit." Lots of presidents inherit crappy situations and its very unpresidential for her to whine about it.
As a woman she should be especially careful about that kind of behavior. It makes her look weak.
Also: when you're President, people expect you to come up with a plan whether you can see the future or not. If this seems unfair of them, perhaps the Presidency isn't the job for you.
I suspect the US is much less in control of events, both foreign and domestic, than any president would like to be. For that reason alone, candidates would be wise to stick to generic principles, and avoid responding to hypotheticals.
Hoosier Daddy: Then again keep in mind Bill won with 42% of the vote in 1992 and barely got 50% in 1996.
Clinton never broke 50%.
From 1996 POPULAR VOTE SUMMARY FOR ALL CANDIDATES LISTED ON AT LEAST ONE STATE BALLOT
Candidate (Party Label), Popular Vote Total, Percent of Popular Vote
Bill Clinton (Democrat), 47,402,357 , 49.24%
Am I the only one who rolled his eyes at having George Stephanopoulos interview Mrs. Clinton? What, did Chelsea decline the opportunity to interview her mother?
How does this differ from any other politician?
It differs from a lot of politicians. Bill Clinton actually answered questions at town hall meetings. Bill Bradley answered questions in depth. Calvin Coolidge and John Kennedy gave open press conferences and addressed substance so much so the press covered up their personal foibles as a way of returning the favor. Rudy Guiliani changed his image in NY by giving open press conferences where he actually answered questions. John McCain had the Straight Talk express. Howard Dean said whatever was on his mind, to his own fault. Al Sharpton and Dennis Kucinich and Ron Paul have the courage of their convictions. Newt Gingrich talks about substance in depth quite often. He even answers call-in questions on Washington Journal on C-SPAN. Romney does radio shows where he gets improper questions about his religious faith, and debates his faith extemporaneously. Obama does small meetings and answers random questions extemporaneously. Not every politician is an overscripted filibusterbot. Hillary is.
How does this differ from any other politician?
You really think other politicians call themselves irresponsible and get away with it?
"Clearly this is not yet the case. Her vote on the Senate resolution to condemn MoveOn.org indicates she is still maneuvering on the left."
"Yeah, but I don't think it cost her to throw them a bone. A symbolic vote she can easily defend voting against."
Her defense "I couldn't risk offending Move On since they give more money to the Democrats than the NRA gives to the Republicans." Easy yes, effective not so much.
as bungling as Bush is in front of a microphone, he has made his position clear enough for most democrats to hate and/or condemn him.
Yet look what he talked about as a candidate (Compassionate conservatism, no nation building, etc.) vs. what's happened since his election! Some of that has of course been thrust upon him. Even if Hillary! answered all questions put to her -- that is no guarantee that the answer will not change because of some unforeseeable event.
Calvin Coolidge had personal foibles? You mean that story about the rooster, the hens, and Mrs. Coolidge wasn't just a joke? I just can't picture him chatting up a bimbo like Bill.
Am I the only one who rolled his eyes at having George Stephanopoulos interview Mrs. Clinton?
Yeah. I like George Stephanopoulos, but he's the first thing I think of when liberals get upset about Fox News (implying thereby that the other networks are objective).
He was Clinton's Chief of Staff for god's sake and not even that long ago. How he and ABC can pass that off as objective is beyond me. His isn't even an opinion show like O'Reilley or Olbermann.
Calvin Coolidge had personal foibles?
There was the extreme depression and the subsequent bungling of the economy because he was sniffly and weepy in a wing of the White House all day long.
Even if Hillary! answered all questions put to her -- that is no guarantee that the answer will not change because of some unforeseeable event.
true
http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/prem/200312u/pp2003-12-31
On Coolidge's depression.
Even if Hillary! answered all questions put to her -- that is no guarantee that the answer will not change because of some unforeseeable event.
true
Except the point here is that no unforeseeable event actually justifies her changing answer to the question Russert put to her. But she used the excuse, anyway. She'll invoke unforeseeable changed circumstances even if nothing has changed or the changes are irrelevant to how she has contradicted herself.
Hillary! Clinton Bumper Sticker:
Triangulate in '08!
I knew Coolidge was upset about his son's death, but I would argue Hoover and FDR did more damage to the economy by raising taxes and tariffs. How could he (or any President) have stopped a stock market bubble?
This is what Hillary! and the Democrats are so anxious to surrender:
http://www.michaeltotten.com/archives/001519.html
I would argue Hoover and FDR did more damage to the economy by raising taxes and tariffs. How could he (or any President) have stopped a stock market bubble?
Well, the argument now is that Hoover was only in a position to screw up so badly because Coolidge dropped the ball, thereby creating the structural conditions. The precise argument (related to press conferences) is that Coolidge was very, very savvy on financial and economic issues, so much so he chatted about it in-depth with reporters, but he disengaged after his son's death and took little interest in economic matters. That's when trouble started a-brewin', because he was asleep at the wheel. He could have taken corrective action earlier on, but didn't.
Disagree with Stodder about how John McCain would throttle Hillary. McCain is old, and is habituated as a Senator so much he is just a semi-right version of John Kerry.
Not that Mr. Open Borders will get the nomination. He has years of arrogant backstabbing the Base on votes. The guy is judged treacherous, untrustworthy and gets a portion of the by jingo vote split with Mr Tough Talk, and the POW-worshippers, but he ain't got a shot.
And Stodder - She'll have a disadvantage against Rudy, who is the clearest and most distinct of all the GOP candidates. You know what you'll get with Rudy on foreign policy.
Yeah. Rudy is running as "Bush Plus" on foreign affairs. Whatever Bush wants, Rudy does only twice as much. That is why he is clear and distinct - you've heard it all before from Bush - Rudy is just more articulate. Rudy is also the past and has many flaws and skeletons that the press so far has given "America's Mayor and the Hero of 9/11" a pass on.
The real idea people now running that want a renewed, reinvigorated Party (leaving the unlikeable Newt out) are Ron Paul, Mitt Romney, and Mike Huckabee. Paul is contrained by the size of his libertarian audience and his dream that America could be best if only we were smaller, more primitive in development, and people could wear white powder wigs and worship the Sacred Parchment. Huckabee just started to small without a national organization. He has true power. Romney, so far, has shown the brains, has the organization and the money, and has done well in debates - he just has not shed his "plastic" effect and been able to connect like better-groomed, longer in public service guys like McCain has in knowing the "Aww schucks, Joe Everyman, I drip sincerity until I go behind close doors with by good Democratic friends like Teddy" effect.
What are you people talking about?
I saw Hillary on a number of news shows and she carried herself quite well. Some of her answers were better than others, but the commentators asked her a wide variety of questions that had to be answered on the spot and she did a good job.
I can understand most here not wanting her to be President, but your criticism is ridiculous, especially considering the vague and disjointed answers we usually get from others on both sides of the aisle.
I've read a number of articles relating to her appearances and no one takes her to task like this. Almost all say she was knowledgeable and as direct as one can be while still campaigning.
At least you could understand what she's saying, without requiring a Republican translation...as we do every time G.W. opens his mouth.
(The master of the abstract metaphor.)
*Oh, and by the way...Mandela says hello.
rhhardin said..."Also there's traditions to consider. You inherit traditions, too."
Now, that is really...profound.
And exactly what is the "tradition" G.W. Bush is leaving behind...for whoever follows to "inherit?"
John Stodder said..."I stopped watching Tim, George, Bob, Chris and Wolf years ago."
What a shocker!!
And can we guess what you DO WATCH?
Does it start with an "F" and end with an "X"??
vet66 said..."Hillary, like Kerry, is going to speak to those 'wascally' islamist fundamentalists in her most stentorian voice!"
And what has Bush done to those "wascally" Islamic fundamentalists...other than throw out inane "dead or alive" or "mission accomplished" or "bring' 'em on" comments?
You know...the Islamic fundamentalists who plan attacks like 9/11...or anthrax killings and continue to produce the videos promising more?
It really takes some balls to bitch about Hillary when Bush has done so little.
Now iz ze time on Shprockets when LOS will not shtop dancing.
Yes...as soon as LOS makes his nasty appearance the thread's death knell tolls.
Pogo said...
Now iz ze time on Shprockets when LOS will not shtop dancing.
LOS sounds like he supports an attack on Iran. Until Bush attacks Iran.
Luckyoldson said...
John Stodder said..."I stopped watching Tim, George, Bob, Chris and Wolf years ago."
What a shocker!!
And can we guess what you DO WATCH?
Does it start with an "F" and end with an "X"??
LOS, you moron, "Chris" was obviously a reference to Chris Wallace. Host of...wait for it...FOX News Sunday.
John Stodder said..."IChris" was obviously a reference to Chris Wallace.
BULLSHIT.
"Tim" Russert, Meet the Press, NBC
"George" Stephanopolous, ABC Sunday show
"Bob" Schieffer, Face the Nation, CBS
"Chris" Wallace, Fox News Sunday, Fox
"Wolf" Blitzer, CNN Sunday show
The five shows Hillary appeared on Sunday. The subject of the post.
But hey. Don't let it stop you. Cuss me out. You're really making quite an impression.
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा