After a long and exhausting day at work (we moved heavy furniture as part of a relief effort for victims of an apartment fire), I did not have the strength to wait in those long lines to vote. I drove over there, but could not bring myself to stand for what promised to be a few hour ordeal, minimum. I would have voted for Clinton, so was gratified that the outcome was as I wished it to be. Part of my reasoning was, Obama is acceptable to me. I can vote for either without holding my nose too much.
Lola wrote:So who's got the mo now? Go Hillary!
Losing twelve primaries in a row and winning two is not momentum. Obama will win the Texas Caucus then Wyoming and Mississippi and continue his momentum. Obama still leads in pledged delegates and the popular vote.
Roxxxanne wrote:Lola wrote:So who's got the mo now? Go Hillary!
Losing twelve primaries in a row and winning two is not momentum. Obama will win the Texas Caucus then Wyoming and Mississippi and continue his momentum. Obama still leads in pledged delegates and the popular vote.
Still it was a good and necessary win for Clinton. Obama can take solace in cutting Clinton's lead in Ohio a bit and for almost erasing it in Texas, but Clinton has developed a couple of good counters for the rest of the states. One, she's neutralized her bad press coverage. The reason she's been getting bad press is not her campaign's questionable tactics in the early states, Bill Clinton's offensive comments, her team's lack of focus and planning, etc, it is due to a press bias. Second, the 3AM add is getting good play both as an ad and as a media discussion point. Time to see how Obama responds.
Her bad press coverage???????????????? WHere have you been the last week?
"I went [to Northern Ireland] more than my husband did. I was working to help change the atmosphere among people because leaders alone rarely make peace. They have to bring people along who believe peace is in their interests. I remember a meeting that I pulled together in Belfast, in the town hall there, bringing together for the first time Catholics and Protestants..."
--Hillary Clinton, Nashua, N.H. Jan. 6, 2008.
Hillary Clinton has repeatedly cited her White House years as key to why she has the ability to serve as president from "Day One." Both she and her husband have pointed to her "independent" role in bringing peace to Northern Ireland as an example of her foreign policy experience. Her critics, notably former Clinton pollster Dick Morris, have poured scorn on her claim that she was "intimately involved" in the peace process. So who is right?
The Facts
It is true that Hillary visited Northern Ireland more times than Bill. By my count, she went there six times between 1995 and 2000, while he went four times. But she accompanied her husband as first lady on those four occasions, so they were hardly "independent" visits. (She would sometimes fly in a day early to give a lecture.) She made two visits by herself to the province, in May 1999, when she was the keynote speaker to a women's conference, and a 12-hour trip in October 1997, when she gave a lecture at the University of Ulster.
These visits provide a useful insight into Clinton's first lady experience, and how helpful it will be to her if she makes it all the way back to the White House as president. I just spoke to Senator George Mitchell, the Clinton administration's leading Northern Ireland peace negotiator, who said that Hillary was "not involved directly" in the diplomatic negotiations that led to the landmark April 1998 Good Friday agreement on power-sharing. On the other hand, Mitchell credits Clinton with taking an intelligent interest in the issues and getting acquainted with many of the key players.
"She was very much involved in encouraging the emergence of women in the political process in northern Ireland, which was a significant factor in ultimately getting an agreement," Mitchell told me. Mitchell believes that Clinton's time in the White House enabled her to become "personally acquainted" with world leaders, which will help her if she becomes president.
Chris Thornton, a political reporter for the Belfast Telegraph, said that Hillary Clinton's visits to northern Ireland contributed to the "mood music" that made an eventual settlement possible, but were hardly key to reaching an agreement. "Would we have reached a settlement without that kind of stuff? Yes. Would we have got one without the intervention of Bill Clinton and George Mitchell? No."
Hillary is making a lot more of her Northern Ireland role on the campaign trail than she did in her memoir "Living History." As the Boston Globe recently noted, her stories of bringing Protestant and Catholic women together have become more dramatic with each retelling. The claim that she brought Catholics and Protestants together "for the first time" seems dubious. This would not be the first time that she has mixed up her chronology.
The Pinocchio Test
Hillary Clinton seems to be overstating her significance as a catalyst in the Northern Ireland peace process, which was more symbolic than substantive. On the other hand, she did play a helpful role at the margins, by encouraging organizations like Vital Voices, a women's group that takes a stand against extremism. One Pinocchio for exaggeration.
(About our rating scale.)
She is a liar and it is this personal trait that she has 35 years of experience.
Your paste is from the WP. Here's the link...
http://blog.washingtonpost.com/fact-checker/2008/01/clinton_and_northern_ireland.html
As it notes at the bottom, they give her 'one pinocchio. That's defined by them as follows:
Quote:Some shading of the facts. Selective telling of the truth. Some omissions and exaggerations, but no outright falsehoods.
"no outright falsehoods" contradicts your claim at the bottom that she's guilty of lying here.
That gets you a minimum of two pinocchios, according to the same scale.
blatham wrote:Your paste is from the WP. Here's the link...
http://blog.washingtonpost.com/fact-checker/2008/01/clinton_and_northern_ireland.html
As it notes at the bottom, they give her 'one pinocchio. That's defined by them as follows:
Quote:Some shading of the facts. Selective telling of the truth. Some omissions and exaggerations, but no outright falsehoods.
"no outright falsehoods" contradicts your claim at the bottom that she's guilty of lying here.
That gets you a minimum of two pinocchios, according to the same scale.
Selective telling of the truth is selectively telling a lie.
Therefore, take your pinocchios and sit on them.
Just popping in to say congrats to the Hillary supporters. She pulled it off last night. That's something to be proud of.
engineer wrote: Second, the 3AM add is getting good play both as an ad and as a media discussion point. Time to see how Obama responds.
Yep. I was thinking last night that there is something I wanted to hear him say. Something along the lines of: we knew this wouldn't be easy, they're fighting hard to retain power, they'll continue to try to play on our fears, but don't be afraid. The "they" should not be further narrowed because, beautifully, it's interchangeable for Clinton and the Republicans. He should call attention to the attacks and draw parallels between the new ads and the arguments that Republicans made in 2004 and will probably make in 2008. He should hammer home that they're trying to make us afraid.
This is good for him in the long run. If he can overcome this argument from Hillary then there is nothing left for McCain to argue. Hillary will have done us a huge favor if Obama turns out to be the nominee (and if he handles this well).
FreeDuck wrote:Just popping in to say congrats to the Hillary supporters. She pulled it off last night. That's something to be proud of.
very gracious of you... no sarcasm intended.
BBB
We live in interesting political times. Congratulations to Clinton and Obama.
BBB
Congrats to all Hillary supporters.
http://www.funnyordie.com/videos/6c3a6204d3
Hilarious..........I'm with Tina Fey.......get on board women and men, boys and girls.......stop apologizing and embrace proud bitchhood. We're bitches, wanna make something of it?
Bi-Polar Bear wrote:Lola please join me in a glass of virtual champagne for our girl...
POP!!!! Let's have another bottle, shall we Bear?
Roxxxanne wrote:Lola wrote:So who's got the mo now? Go Hillary!
Losing twelve primaries in a row and winning two is not momentum. Obama will win the Texas Caucus then Wyoming and Mississippi and continue his momentum. Obama still leads in pledged delegates and the popular vote.
And? Have you been following the coverage on the Michigan and Florida delegations? It's not over, so hold on tight. We'll see how well the Obama campaign continues to do, playing dirty without being called on it. Oh, and Obama's campaign advisor thinks Hillary's a monster.......so we're so surprised.
As Paul Begala said on Tuesday night on CNN, this has not been a negative campaign. He said he knows, he's run negative campaigns and this is nothing. We all know what's coming from the Republicans.
The real villian in this the media. Their biased reporting only feeds those who want to believe what they already believe. Which includes most of us to some degree. So we're all a bit villanish......
Flagged on the TNR blog:
Quote:Jaw Dropper
Hillary
spent $7 million in South Carolina? She lost it 55-27, remember.
Sure a recurring theme - the way Camp Hillary has just been wasting money left and right. Dates back to Hillary's Senate campaign too. Maybe things have improved since Solis Doyle left.
nimh wrote:Quote:Clinton: Caucus is a 4-Letter Word
ABC News Blogs
Jake Tapper
March 07, 2008
In Wyoming today,
per ABC News' Eloise Harper, Sen. Hillary Clinton, D-NY, set expectations low for her performance in the Caucuses there Saturday.
She said some folks said she was wasting her time in a caucus.
"I said, 'Well you know what, I'm going to go to Wyoming anyway - I know it's an uphill climb, I'm aware of that," Clinton said, "But, you see, I am a fighter, and I believe it's worth fighting for your votes."
Clinton talks about caucuses like there's something inherently discriminatory and wrong with them, like organization and enthusiasm in supporters is to be disdained.
There have been caucuses (cauci?) in Iowa, Nevada, Washington, Louisiana, and Maine, among others, from sea to shining sea. She's even won a couple of them. They are a fundamental part of our democracy, dating back to 1796.
Before Iowa, Clintonistas were even spinning that she'd win that one because of all the seniors.
If she's really the most electable Democrat, the one who can win important states and rally the party, how come she can't get enough people to devote an evening or a Saturday afternoon to fighting for her?
Or is the problem one of organization -- and she can't organize the state sufficiently to win?
I've attended caucuses - these things are not packed with the effete Ivy-educated latte-drinkers she and
her supporters make it sound like. There are plenty of working people, old people, poorer people. [..]
I wonder then why Obama wins almost all the caucuses. My 25 year old daughter went to a caucus in Dallas on Tuesday night. She said the Obama people were extremely loud, pushy and white male college types, "prepies," she called them. My daughter is also a college type, but she said that the Hillary group would say, "we're here to support Hillary" and the Obama supporters would shout OBAMA OBAMA OBAMA so loud they couldn't say more. That's just her experience in one Dallas (big time North Dallas -- North Dallas being where the money is) caucus on Tuesday. I have no idea if it's representative.
Still I suspect that caususes favor Obama because it takes a lot more time and most older Americans can't stand in line for hours, as many Wyoming voters are doing today, waiting to be allowed into the hall to participate. It's odd however that Hillary won the primary, but the caucus went for Obama.....there must be a logical reason. Caususes most likely favor the young. But I don't really know. I'm curious to hear other's opinions.
