Hillary Resorts to Semantics


Please, Hillary supporters, concede this point: She is getting rather ridiculous and desperate, isn’t she?


~ by Matthew Frederick on March 5, 2008.

16 Responses to “Hillary Resorts to Semantics”

  1. I don’t think that was all that bad. Here’s a question for you. What does Obama mean when he says there was no “formal” offer of help from Farrakahn? I would say they are both “parsing” words.

    And no, I don’t think she’s getting “ridiculous and desparate” (and I would have said that yesterday … before Ohio, Texas and Rhode Island). I would concede that she seems very tired (as does Obama).

  2. Alright, I am going to watch the video later (as I am not in a sound-able environment,) but let me just say that I waited in line and then caucused, spending about 4 hours to vote for Obama after being really torn over the things I do like about Clinton, and then, after she urged people to caucus, she claims victory before the caucus votes have been counted, claiming foul on the whole under-used process. In a precinct caucus (mine) that historically gathers 10 people, 1000 people were there yesterday (90% for Obama.) That pisses me off. She won the popular vote, I hear, but Obama will win the caucus/ delegate vote likely and that puts her further away from the nomination. Do not sit back and watch Gore lose the popular vote to Bush’s delegate votes and then sit in the Senate for 8 years doing nothing to reform the election process and then act like the system that elects people is not the system that you have to win to become president and insult our difficult choices by pulling the media ploy that it was a big ‘ol victory. That’s only because she’s counting on the supers who are going to turn on her in the end. You lost in Texas (or shall by the end of the day,) Hill. You should have waited until every vote was counted to claim your victory. I would have respected you more. I just had to rant that, and knew I could come right on over to Jonestown to do it.

  3. Why can’t it just be 1 person, 1 vote? All this caucus, delegate, and superdelegate stuff smells like some orchestrated methods of manipulation left over from the 1800’s.

  4. I meant Gore’s winning the pop. vote, and I agree, DED. Voting for American Idol is more democratic than our political elections.

  5. Very true DED. However the ‘superdelegate’ concept has only been around since 1984. Although it does harken back to the days when office-holder were essentially chosen by a bunch of old guys sitting around in the proverbial ‘smoke filled’ rooms.

  6. “What does Obama mean when he says there was no “formal” offer of help from Farrakahn?”

    He means that Farrakahn has not contacted the Obama campaign and offered to financially sponsor Barack Obama or to publicly campaign on Barack Obama’s behalf. In essence, all Farrakahn has done, to this point, is indicate that he finds Obama less repulsive than he finds Clinton. Thus there is nothing whatsoever for Obama to “reject,” but he robustly “denounces” anti-Semitism.

    It seems, Anita, that you concur with Mrs. Clinton that there is some profound difference between “rejecting” and “denouncing,” that by ONLY denouncing anti-Semitism, Obama is insinuating his secret goal to destroy Israel.

  7. Freida Bee-

    Couldn’t agree more about the super-delegate nonsense. It’s amazing to me how many Liberals, who never stopped bitching about Bush’s win in 2000, continue to support Clinton’s staying in the race.

    Barring some unforeseen, major blunder by the Obama headquarters, its virtually impossible for Clinton to surpass him in the popular vote. Close victories such as those in Texas and Ohio won’t cut it. She needs to make up the ground she lost during her twelve-state losing streak. If she is unable to surpass Obama in the popular vote, she should concede the nomination and reimburse the super-delegate whose endorsements she has purchased. Either that or admit that she is on-board with the anti-democratic rationale that handed George W. Bush the 2000 election.

    How will she and her uneducated supporters we deal with that disparity??

  8. actually, i do think there is a VERY big difference between “reject” and “denounce”:

    reject – refuse to accept or acknowledge
    denounce – speak out against

    one can be done passively (reject), the other is requires action (denounce)

    semantics, though you may mock them when it comes to the clintons, matter.

  9. Hi Anita-
    Thanks for the clarification. Now that you’ve reminded us of the distinction between “denouncing” something and “rejecting” it, Clinton seems even MORE ridiculous, doesn’t she?

    Remember, Obama had already “denounced” Farrakhan when Clinton blasted him for not using the word “reject.” By your definitions, in other words, Obama had done that which “requires action” when Clinton criticized him for not doing that which “can be done passively.”

    To me, an active denunciation is more powerful than a passive rejection. Given that he had already taken the stronger course, semantically, it was superfluous for Clinton to dictate that he ALSO take a weaker one.

    If I actively state that I “hate” and “despise” something, isn’t it safe to assume I “dislike” it as well? Or must I bust out the thesaurus and rattle off every synonym just to be sure that there are no doubts?

  10. ha ha ha … you got me there MFV !!! i actually had forgotted that he had denounced before he rejected !!!

  11. forgotteN, that is.

    now i’m really embarrassed.

    *slinks away*

  12. Meanwhile we have McCain happily snuggled up to george bush. Jesus, if the dems lose this one, I give up.

  13. this whole super delegate and now Michigan and Florida thing is really sickening. win at ALL costs, even if it alienates the people and splits the party. change rules in the midstream, use un-democratic tactics and spin spin spin to justify. i really dont know if i can actually push the lever for her

  14. We have one humanoid, one vote when it comes to township councilmen, but not, presumably, the most important office in the land. Now where’s my stogie, I have to go twist some arms.

  15. Her proxies and staff seem more desperate. Oy. Can they shut the fuck up already? Onward with the campaign, but enough of the negative.

  16. It’s a wonder Mr. Zeifman ever got his account of firing Hillary into the light of day. As you may know, Jerry Zeifman fired Hillary Rodham for her unethical practices during the Watergate Investigation. Mr. Zeifman’s story is important. Not only does it go to character, it goes to a lifelong pattern of lying and obfuscation on the part of Hillary Rodham Clinton. And, it took Zeifman twelve years to get it aired. A candidate must be vetted; before being elected or appointed to a position of trust; and it is this awareness, to which every white-collar criminal fine-tunes his or her antenna. After Watergate, Zeifman could not recommend Hillary for any subsequent position of public or private trust, nor furnish her with a letter of recommendation. Should anyone doubt Mr. Zeifman’s veracity: http://theseedsof9-11.com

    Why exactly was Ms. Rodham fired? “Because she was a liar,” Mr. Zeifman said in an interview last week. “She was an unethical, dishonest lawyer. She conspired to violate the Constitution, the rules of the House, the rules of the committee and the rules of confidentiality.” “The Clintons corrupted the soul of the Democratic Party.” -Henry Ruth, lead Watergate courtroom prosecutor.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: