Best Pro-Hillary Video Ever:
A short video statement from a friend of mine, whose family lived, and still lives, one block from the World Trade Center. She describes Senator Clinton's role in asking the tough questions about air quality near the WTC in the weeks and months after the attack. The video is a powerful, personal, and credible testimonial to the best side of the detail-oriented Senator Clinton.
She could have images of Obama "Clowns to the left of me"
and McCain "jokers to the right", and pitch herself as the sane one "stuck in the middle with you", namely, the voters.
Actually, I'm not a supporter of hers, but someone can get YouTubular with the idea.
As for the rest of youse, yeah, too bad she wasn't biting the arms of dead hijackers or whatever you think our heroic Rudy was doing. No friggin appreciation, is what's wrong with you people.
I can't understand how the MSM doesn't push her on this issue, and why it is not the first question asked of her in any debate.
You like N. Pelosi's tactics on FISA? I don't question your patriotism. I question your sanity.
I fully believe that the air around Ground Zero was full of nasty particulates and vapors, but -- so? What are you going to do, have the EPA send Osama a cease-and-desist order? Cover midtown with a tarp? Manhattan is an island, the pollutants will blow off by themselves, and there isn't a lot you can do about in the meanwhile.
Oh,and I really dislike her and her policies.
Do you like lima beans? I don't question your respiration, just your functionality.
It is quite amusing to see people equate any criticism of a Democrat with "poison" or "hate." "Poison" or "hate" would be saying nasty things about the candidate personally, as opposed to being critical of her priorities.
Yea Michael, as unbelievable as it sounds, it was. I guess right after she fined "whomever" for violating "clean air" standards in NYC, she was going to "prosecute" them for illegally entering NYC airspace -- or something like that.
Fight back, pffft, can't be doing that kind of thing -- we've all gots to git along, ya know...
Maybe they both were parodies. These two certainly stand low on support of the 2nd Amendment as Dave understands it.
[DK: There is no chance that I would vote for Hillary Clinton unless she were running against someone like Farrakhan or Sharpton. The only time I ever voted for a Clinton was in the 1996 Democratic primary, when the only other candidate on the ballot was Lyndon LaRouche. That said, Senator Clinton obviously was an excellent leader on air quality issues around Ground Zero, and her hard work on the issue was very important. She was the leading political figure asking the questions that had to be asked. My friend Catherine's heartfelt video was a very clear demonstration of Senator Clinton's good side. I happen to think that Senator Clinton's negatives far outweigh her positives. But it's ridiculous to try to convince oneself that the positives don't exist. The video ought to help an anti-Clinton person understand why someone who strongly supports the New York Senator can have very good reason for doing so.]
Fastest. Godwin. Ever.
Absolutely. My comments on the other Hilliary vs Obama seating the Florida and Michgan delegates lawsuit to come thread (Zawicky) is a MUST read.
It also reeks of blaming people that are easy to get at rather than the ones who are actually responsible. I'd rather have a President who will keep that from happening again rather than one who will lead the cleanup crew. That's not a President's job.
What the video told me is that Clinton was a legislator who did good casework. That's not primarily what executives do.
A must read for those who enjoy unintentional humour...
Yup. The video is fine, more than fine, in terms of what it addresses it would certainly be a great promo for a state house legislator or even a natl. legislator if the backdrop had not been 9/11 and all it reflects, from the post-Cold War, Clinton named "peace dividend," to WTC '93, to OBL and other factors as well. But for a POTUS focus, post-9/11? The incongruity seems apparent enough and am not sure why any cynicism is being suggested for calling attention to that fact.
Nevertheless, I was particularly bothered by this video. It reflects the sad state of American politicking. Why should testimonials from some average citizen make any difference to me? Have we really sunk so low that personal testimony about concrete instances of "the Hillary I know" would actually make any difference to anyone? What about her principles? What about the fundamental values she holds that would guide her decision-making as president? These are what should matter (though maybe she doesn't have principles or fundamental values), not some particular instance of where she got really detail-oriented and solved some particular problem. I don't need a detail-oriented problem-solver as president. I find these people to be the worst of an already bad breed, politicians. They tend to think that everything that causes anyone discomfort is a problem that some government agency can solve through the application of a farrago of bureaucrats to the problem. I see needlessly wasteful government studies and reports and commissions from "detail-oriented" pols.
On another note, did anyone notice the unstated implication of this approach about "the Hillary I know"? It is this, at least to me: "you may think that Hillary is cold, power-lusting, and an all-around cur, but I know her softer side." Doesn't this concede a bit much to the widespread negative perception of her? You don't need to reveal the personal side of a candidate available only through testimonials if your candidate doesn't already have a public reputation of nastiness.
What about the implication that Hillary is a pol who gets people things? Watch the other vids—it's all about how Hillary the super-pol can get anything for anyone, regardless of whether it is the proper function of a government to do so. It all smacks of the notion that government is a big nanny that fulfills all your desires and watches after you. (See videos by Greinsky, Moore, Marzelli, Ward, Volk, and Mallozzi for more examples.) It is all rather sickening to me.
It's a good thing the administration's pre-911 warrantless wiretapping saved us all from any terrorist attacks.
Malvolio:
Here's the weird thing about us New Yorkers. After the tragedy of 9/11 a lot of people were volunteering with the cleanup. Actually, I can't just credit New Yorkers with that. There were people from all over the nation and around the world. We trusted the government (bwahahaha) to tell us the truth about the nasty particulates and vapors. I'm no Clinton fan, but she was on the right side of this issue.
Anyone care to defend the administration's behavior?
Says it all right there, I think.
--PtM
Why weren't they focused on attacking the terrorists in, say, the weeks and months before 9/11? Too much brush to clear at the ranch during the month-long Crawford vacation?
BTW, the adjective form is "Democratic." Is English your second language?
brushtail to chaseat the ranch during the month-long Crawford vacationin the oval office?There. Fixed it for you.
"If only my predecessor hadn't received a BJ, I could've prevented 9/11!"
come on, PC. a cataclysm had occurred. of course there was all sorts of nasty crap in the air. how could there not be? there is all sorts of nasty crap in the air after a simple house fire.
you assume that the govt could have issued a dispositive report immed afterwards. I'm no expert but this strikes me as highly unlikely. as does your assumption that those who rushed to help would've stayed away had any such conclusions been possible and been aired.
procrastinator is a good monicker. we waited and waited and waited to do anything.
The proper word in that sentence is adjectival, is it your second language as well?
Gotta love it when a grammar snob gets a grammar smackdown!
"If only weeds didn't grow in Crawford, I could've prevented 9/11!"
Just as ridiculous, no?
LOL, you got me. The Law of Internet Grammar Nazism strikes again!
It was obvious there was all sorts of nasty crap in the air. I was working on Canal St. at the time and there was an acrid stench that hung around a month later. It still doesn't excuse the White House for saying "nothing to see here folks! Everything is fine!"
I'm not sure where you are seeing that I made any such assumption. All we wanted was a little honesty about the situation. Obviously the air was horrible on 9/11. But how long should we wear our N95 masks? A week? A month? If only we had some agency that could test the air quality and let us know...
And:Heck, I've been spelling it "DemocRat." Is that incorrect?
/ i keed!
I believe the correct form is Lieberal DemonRat.
hth
hand
The candidates are not running in a vacuum; they have to respond to an environment of other candidates and beliefs and myths among the media and the voters. There exists a body of assertions against Mrs. Clinton, such as that she cares only about her own political future, or that she doesn't connect well with real Americans. Testimonials from average citizens can help undermine these ideas.
None of us can ever know all there is to know. (This is why we hire lawyers: because even the lawyers among us don't know all there is to know about the law.) Testimony from others, as in this video, is one of the ways we can learn something about a candidate's leadership. It is more meaningful and informative than Bear in the Woods (Reagan, 1984).
So would I. That is why I want our government to focus on domestic safety, rather than provoking anger in the Islamic world through our activities in Iraq.
None of the 19 hijackers came from Iraq. Iraq had nothing to do with the attacks of September 11, 2001. Al Qaeda was not involved in Iraq at that time either; the U.S. State Department has acknowledged this fact. Furthermore, Iraq didn't have weapons of mass destruction, which was the pretext (lie) told by President Bush to convince Congress, the media, and the voters that this war was necessary. This war has not made us safer; it has made us less safe, and it has resulted in the loss of thousands of American lives, hundreds of thousands of Iraqi lives, and hundreds of billions of U.S. taxpayer dollars.
The sentence under discussion is: "BTW, the adjective form is 'Democratic.'" Usage of "adjective form" is entirely correct. In English, nouns can be used before other nouns in this manner. Examples include: car door, horse manure, wine snob, carrot peeler, house sitter, bicycle chain. A closer analogy to "adjective form" is "noun phrase."
In short, Taltos is simply wrong to criticize the usage of "adjective form." This is a deliberate red herring to change the subject raised by Procrastinator, which is that ithaqua's usage of "her Democrat supporters" is incorrect. Ithaqua's usage is incorrect; this construction is used by President Bush and others, mainly Republicans, for the purpose of belittling and annoying Democrats.
You chose Bill Clinton over Lyndon LaRouche? I can almost hear the "tsk, tsk"-ing from some of the commentators above who also, I'm sure, refer without a hint of irony to Bush Derangement Syndrome.
You just showed that "Democrat" (a noun) is a perfectly good way to modify "supporters" in the original sentence that Procrastinator (incorrectly) criticized.
Thanks for playing!
Nice try, but wrong. Some nouns, such as "adjective," can be used to modify other nouns, as in "adjective form." But not all nouns work this way. One speaks of a Scottish musician, not a Scot musician or a Scotland musician. "Democrat supporters" is as incorrect as "Scot musician."