Hillary Breaks Through

Remove all ads!

Finally, finally - A Democrat draws on the foundation principles of this country. How refreshing - it's pure music...

This is from conservative Andrew Sullivan:

One can only hope.

http://time.blogs.com/daily_dish/

 

If only the speech writers were running for office....

 

If only the average modern American citizen even remembered (let alone cared about) our country's founding principles...

 

If only my country had any founding principles...

 

If only pigs could fly then beggars would be founding principles... no, wait...

IMO, it's great to hear clearly-stated, forceful arguments on this from the democratic machine. Hopefully the rest of the democrats, and republican moderates as well, will rally around this argument so we get away from this "yer either with us or agin us" nonesense.

 

Interesting you should say that. Let's take a look at that notion of yours in reality. This story broke today:

That right? Well, guess what?

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15063977/

Politicians are not often what they appear, as you correctly point out. But rather than get into a debate over "appearance and reality," I would rather focus the debate on the issue in regards to which political party is on the "right" side of the issue at hand. To be sure, Hillary has decided to draw a sharp distinction between the two parties in regards to the values we decide to defend as a nation and project to the rest of the world. And almost as importantly, Hillary has taken a strong stand in opposition to the current regime's policy. And she has done it in an eloquent and very effective manner.

 

I said:

BTA - Exactly. I'm glad you got it, since I made a point of commenting that it helped to "prove your point." But I'm glad that I flushed out your real feelings, which were really only directed at Hillary rather than politicians in general. I know that you find it hard to believe that someone would dare to take a position opposite that of the beloved King of America. And that your only comment would be that it just can't be true (maybe too good to be true). Nor can you refute the excellent points made by Hillary, so you just try to pass it off as if she really doesn't mean to disagree with the current administration anyway, which I find pretty weak. I'm really disappointed by the poor quality of the rebuttal crafted by the supporters of the current regime. It only proves the strength of Hillary's position on the issue.

BTW, it's not a big news flash to everyone that there are actually speech writers for these guys.

 

If only the average voter even listened to political speeches, regardless of who wrote them.

 

Err...What? My feelings were quite plain, as you correctly point out in that I was very impressed by Hillary's statments.

That's not quite true:

I took that to mean that you were regarding politcians in general with your remark, hence the reason I posted the thread on Foley, which only supported your claim and helped to prove your point. I have yet to see where on this thread you have addressed the issue of Hillary's stance regarding the King's policy of torture, which is what Hillary spoke out so effectively against, and which still remains without any rebuttal by you. You chose to attack the person, rather than the comments made by her. That is a very recognizable tactic....

 

Chandos, you seem to be implying that Hillary is the lone brave soul to speak out against your 'King George' (by the way King George is George Strait) and you have entirely overlooked the fact that a republican was the first to speak out against the entire torture issue. What you have deemed a republican stance is mearly the stance of the president and the party is divided on it.

It is easy to quote the founding fathers and point fingers and say 'what would they think.' It is laziness on the part of the politician doing so. Using the founding fathers in place of imagination and clear direction is a ploy too often used.

As far as Hillary is concerned I have three words: Health Care Reform.

 

Yes, she was ahead of her time on this issue. And the time is coming...George Bush is the leader of the Republican party at the moment, and thus represents (largely) its views to the American Electorate.

It's not just about what the "Founders would think," but the principles and values we stand for as a people and a nation. There is nothing "lazy" about drawing on our rich history and heritage in crafting policy. In fact, if we have more who were willing to study it and examine it from all its many facets, the country would be a lot better off. The lazy, simpleminded approach is to say, "there's evil in the world and we have to kill it," since one can "imagine" enemies and evil in every closet and under every bed. Good luck.

 

I suppose it appeared "hidden" to those with limited reading comprehension skills. Let me break it down for you in simpler terms, which may help you out a bit.

Think of it this way: Someone feels a particular way regarding an issue, say like the current administration's position on torture. One hopes that the opposition party may become effective in mounting a counter policy, as I - and the quote by Andrew Sullivan - "finally the opposition has found a voice," which may bring change. Are you with me so far? Good. Now, You commented that you were able to figure out the title of the thread: "Hillary Breaks Through." Much the same way Sullivan feels, I feel that Hillary has helped the opposition party find an effective argument against the policy of torture, one based on the founding principles of the nation. What that means of course, is that it is both an endorsement of Hillary's current stance on the issue and her as a potential president. Check out Sullivan's remarks: "The kind of speech a potential president may make. And it may have been" (I am paraphrasing here). Are you still with me?

Thus, since she and I share that same view, it then follows that this thread was an endorsement of both her, and her - in Sullivan's words - "great speech." To avoid any confusion, I am not saying that a conservative such as Sullivan is endorsing Hillary, only that she impressed him with her accomplishment this week. And although Hillary is not a liberal, and I am one, I still consider her someone I would vote for. I am really for Al Gore, who I consider a real liberal. I hope the last part did not confuse you. All things are not Hillary - at the moment.

[ October 01, 2006, 22:38: Message edited by: Chandos the Red ]

 

Eh, I can understand Chandos. To finally hear something so forceful and clear from a mainstream democrat ... makes you giddy . Not to say that there are no other democrats who take a clear stand against King G... , erm..., president Bush's ( ) policies (torture and such stuff) Feingold is one, but for some reason they are considered radical leftists.

As about speechwriters being responsible for the speech: that's partly true, but the political person has to approve of it, and be willing to give it. To put it other way, it doesn't matter how good Bush's speechwriter it, the ideas behind the speech will probably be, let's say, questionable.

 

Please don't make me laugh -- I've had a hard weekend and my ribs hurt. She failed miserably at health care reform because she lacked foresight and the ability to gather support. She couldn't get support because she only included attorneys on her committee -- no doctors, not insurance companies, in fact no one with even mediocre medical knowledge. The least she could have done was put C. Everett Koop on the committee (who was a major proponent of health care reform and the most respected doctor in America at the time).

Hillary had a chance to improve health care and instead chose to network. I guess it's paid off for her. But still the biggest issue she has ever had anything to do with was a complete bust. And it was her fault. In my mind she has already proven she cannot lead effectively.

Also, I find her integrity in question just from 'her' most recent book. She won't even acknowledge a ghost author (even though it is painfully obvious she did not write her 'Living History'). That she will not give credit where credit is due is yet another personality flaw which, in my opinion, is not a trait I want in a president.

And I am truly ashamed that a Texan would abuse George Strait's well earned nickname to slander a politician. It is reprehensible that you would slander Mr. Strait by confusing him with a politician.

 

If this were a rare occurance I would agree with you, but many public figures who use ghost writers fail to acknowledge them. In fact, it's easy to write that into a contract in exchange for more money. It's far more common than people realize. This is hardly exclusive to Hillary.

Still - do you have any proof that she did in fact use a ghost writer? I'd be interested to see it. I haven't read her book, but I know several people who have (and have read several reviews) and you're the first person I've ever heard bring that up. When you say "painfully obvious" it seems to suggest you've read the thing...