nimh wrote:Lola wrote:You've attributed some meanings to what I've said that are not there.
I merely responded directly to where you wrote, quote,
"If there are [any flaws of character to be considered as you suggest], we should consider them in any candidate. However I haven't heard any valid example of character flaws in any of the democratic candidates so far. [b]Manufactured character assassination [/b]is a dirty trick of the Republicans .. These dirty tricks will come soon enough from the Republicans, we don't have to help them out before they get started."
That was really pretty straightforward - a conflation of the character flaws other libs like me have suggested with the dirty tricks from the Republicans. So I responded that I thought such a conflation was wrong. You have since explained that that's not how you meant it, which is fine, but there shouldnt be any puzzlement about what I was responding to.
Lola wrote:Quote:This is what primaries are for: to weigh each and all candidates on their merits - primarily policy-wise, of course, but yes, also personality/character/whatever-wise. And that includes discussion of whether people are comfortable with their candidates as a person: is he honest, is she trustworthy, does he have the drive, does she have the scruples?
Why do you keep repeating this to me? Do you think I don't know it or don't agree? I must be misunderstanding you because it couldn't possibly as condescending as it sounds. Maybe we could go out and come back in again and start this conversation over and then we could both get off our high horses and have a respectful conversation.
Maybe I'm repeating myself because
pretty much every time someone here criticizes Hillary for her personal traits, strategies, modus operandi or whatever, either Blatham or,
this last time, you seem to come out to sternly speak to us about how we should be wary of Republican character smears. It's
that which is condescending, as has been said here several times before.
Well, I think you've misunderstood me. And you may be conflating my opinion with Bernie's. We live together, but we don't speak with one voice. I was and have been all along referring to what I consider to be the
manufactured character assassination from the Spitzer question and that incident alone. I so dislike that type of manipulative campaigning that it has negatively affected my evaluation of Edwards. And I like Edwards, especially for his position on universal health care.
As for my "sterness," I think we all write sternly when we're addressing something about which we feel strongly. I'm not sure why you single out my contributions to the discussion as more stern than others, your's for example. I can see how you might have lumped my postings in with Bernie's since I did seem to be supporting his previous post. I didn't recognize that there may have been other discussion about other doubts of Hillary's character before I most recently joined in. I assumed, perhaps wrongly that others were reading my posts and understood that I was speaking of this one incident. But if you'll notice, I have not defended Hillary "every time" someone here critisizes her. I have seen no other criticism of her on this thread other that the one related to the "politics of parsing" Spitzer one.
My apologies for not reading the entire thread since the last time (several months ago) I posted. I did read quite a few pages back when I made my first recent post on this subject, but I didn't have the time to decate to reading every post. I know I can be argumentative especially when I'm annoyed. So I apologize for stern writing and otherwise condescending communication. But I can't promise to never do it again.
And I know what you mean about Bernie's stern talking. Whenever he does it with me, I sternly speak to him about it.
