Clinton tears up (again)...

[Lanny_MacDonald]

Originally Posted by Table 5

With the current guy more or less being the perfect baseline for "disaster presidency" in many people's eyes, do you really think it will be as bad? I dont think any candidate is perfect, but honestly how can it not be a step up?

Exactly. There are dead people who would have a better chance of running the country in an effective manner.

One thing that still concerns me is who the running mates could be. Bush is a moron, but Cheney certainly doesn't help. His direct link to some of think tanks (PNAC, AEI, JINSA, CFR, etc.) certainly means that policy has been set outside of the confines of the White House and the administration. These think tanks have become havens from the political elite and allow for a continuity of government that have no oversight nor have any accountability to the voters. This is where the seat of power is shifting to in Washington, and only those who are insolated from the think tank establishment stand a chance of setting a new course.

[Devils'Advocate]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IK2j8vVu4eo

I would have though FOX NEWS!!!!! would have been pushing this as 'staged' and 'manipulating'.

Personally, I prefer Obama's cult of personality over Clinton's "Lobbiests are people too". But I think there are a LOT of people who are trying to find reasons not to like her given that she is female. She gets called a "cold fish" for treating politics unemotionally, like most men do, and she gets slammed for it. She acts emotional once and gets slammed again for it.

I think we will see a homosexual muslim male as president before a woman. Because women have to act very un-womanlike to get ahead in politics and that just makes people reject her.

[blankall]

Originally Posted by Devils'Advocate

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IK2j8vVu4eo

I would have though FOX NEWS!!!!! would have been pushing this as 'staged' and 'manipulating'.

Personally, I prefer Obama's cult of personality over Clinton's "Lobbiests are people too". But I think there are a LOT of people who are trying to find reasons not to like her given that she is female. She gets called a "cold fish" for treating politics unemotionally, like most men do, and she gets slammed for it. She acts emotional once and gets slammed again for it.

I think we will see a homosexual muslim male as president before a woman. Because women have to act very un-womanlike to get ahead in politics and that just makes people reject her.

I think this is very well put. I won't be able to watch this newest video until i get home, but the last time Hillary supposedly "cried" it involved her voice barely cracking. People jumped all over her for it, despite male candidates often showing similar outbursts of emotion.

That being said, I still think Hillary will take this one, but I would love to see either democratic candidate in office. Just not McCain or Ron Paul. Both are just way to right wing on certain issues for me. I like Ron Paul's general attitude, but he tries to get away with some ridiculously right wing stances under the guise of Libertarianism. I really don't see how cracking down on immigration or banning abortion amounts to libertarianism.

[Iowa_Flames_Fan]

Originally Posted by Devils'Advocate

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IK2j8vVu4eo

I would have though FOX NEWS!!!!! would have been pushing this as 'staged' and 'manipulating'.

Personally, I prefer Obama's cult of personality over Clinton's "Lobbiests are people too". But I think there are a LOT of people who are trying to find reasons not to like her given that she is female. She gets called a "cold fish" for treating politics unemotionally, like most men do, and she gets slammed for it. She acts emotional once and gets slammed again for it.

I think we will see a homosexual muslim male as president before a woman. Because women have to act very un-womanlike to get ahead in politics and that just makes people reject her.

Excellent point. As blankall said, there was a lot of exaggerating going on about her supposed "crying" before the N.H. primary. I haven't seen the video, but from what I've read the context makes this particular incident seem pretty different. I wouldn't be that shocked if Clinton just lost her voice for a second and that was enough for the media pile-on.

What I've learned from 10 years of watching politics pretty closely is that perception=reality. If CNN and Fox say she cried, then, well, darn it, she cried! If the talking heads say the candidates were "at each other's throats" in the last debate, then by gosh, that must be true too.

For my money, I can't think of anything less important than whether or not Clinton got emotional for a second at a rally. Seriously--there were issues in this election at one time. I miss those days.

[Devils'Advocate]

Originally Posted by Iowa_Flames_Fan

What I've learned from 10 years of watching politics pretty closely is that perception=reality. If CNN and Fox say she cried, then, well, darn it, she cried! If the talking heads say the candidates were "at each other's throats" in the last debate, then by gosh, that must be true too.

When "I Hate Myself For Lovin' You" Joan Jett was on George BigLongGreekName's show, The Hour, I didn't think that was going to be the topic, but it was. Apparently Joan was a big Howard Dean supporter and was there the night of the "scream". At the time that Dean was hooting and hollering, it was right for that moment. She thought nothing of it. It was entirely appropriate until CNN and FOX said it wasn't. In context Dean did nothing out of the ordinary. But played out of context, perception = reality.

Some are comparing this second "crying" to Dean's "screaming". And from all the people condemning Hillary without even seeing the video and putting context to it, it could well be.

[Iowa_Flames_Fan]

Originally Posted by Devils'Advocate

When "I Hate Myself For Lovin' You" Joan Jett was on George BigLongGreekName's show, The Hour, I didn't think that was going to be the topic, but it was. Apparently Joan was a big Howard Dean supporter and was there the night of the "scream". At the time that Dean was hooting and hollering, it was right for that moment. She thought nothing of it. It was entirely appropriate until CNN and FOX said it wasn't. In context Dean did nothing out of the ordinary. But played out of context, perception = reality.

Some are comparing this second "crying" to Dean's "screaming". And from all the people condemning Hillary without even seeing the video and putting context to it, it could well be.

The list goes farther back than that. Remember Al Gore's "sighing" and "eye rolling" during the first debate with GWB in 2000? I watched that debate, and I can tell you that there was precious little that was out of the ordinary. It was a scandal manufactured by spin doctors and the media.

Another, lower-profile example: Democrats in Minnesota held a memorial service for Sen. Paul Wellstone, who died in the middle of his re-election campaign in a plane crash. It was a tasteful and appropriate ceremony (I watched it--not many actually did, but I was living in Iowa and it was pretty big news) which made some references to politics--you know, because politics was what Wellstone's life was about. A day or two later, GOP talking heads start wagging their fingers about how "inappropriate" it was that the Dems "turned a Memorial service into a political rally." Suddenly, that was the story, and Walter Mondale (Wellstone's replacement on the ballot) lost to Norm Coleman, who's been one of the most underachieving Senators in the entire Senate.

One of the things that makes politics such a circus in the U.S. is the attention of the 24 hour news media, which is a decidedly double-edged sword. They manufacture stories, distort facts, take events out of context--and what's worse, half the time they don't even seem to realize they're doing it. These are the same jokers who were telling us McCain was "done" just a few weeks ago. Now he's a "frontrunner," in spite of having no money and with only 8% of delegates decided.