So... to make up for my absence, I've compiled some gifts of random, interesting goodies. Enjoy!
Gift #1
Gift #2
Gift #3
Gift #4
Gift #5
Monday, April 21, 2008
Sorry for slacking on the posts... I was busy sitting here.
So... to make up for my absence, I've compiled some gifts of random, interesting goodies. Enjoy!
Gift #1
Gift #2
Gift #3
Gift #4
Gift #5
Tuesday, April 15, 2008
Who are you calling elitist?!
Using her last muscle fiber in her cold, pitiful grip, Hillary continues to milk the "bitter" comment Obama used days ago in reference to how Americans feel toward their leaders and how they tend to vote. Distorting his meaning to the point that you'd think he punched a blind elderly lady, she continues to cast him as an elitist among the dreaded San Franciscans. With so much slimy, political crap spewing from her venomous mouth, it of course makes my fingers itch to go on a rant...
Cambridge Dictionary's definition of
elite: group noun [C]
the richest, most powerful, best educated or most highly trained group in a society
Keep that in mind.
First thing's first. She's drowning. Hillary's campaign has been one of the most fascinating train wrecks in political history. Keep this in mind: Hillary Clinton, in January of 2007, had all the toys in the sand box. We're talking about the mighty Clinton machine. She had everything. She had double-digit poll leads nationwide, a huge jump-start of super-delegates, name recognition - I mean, she was the first lady of one of the most successful presidents in decades for christ's sake. She had all of the "best" advisers, fund-raisers, supporters, organizers, networks and cohorts. So, why on Earth is she now desperately screaming and name-calling about one poorly worded, easily understandable statement about a fact that no one seems to want to admit: people vote on single issues (like guns or religion) because they feel as though their elected officials won't fight for the real issues they're suppose to be fighting (the economy, the housing crisis, unemployment, health insurance - basically the real issues that effect the average American) causing bitterness about the voting process?
It's because she knows very well where she stands in this race. She knows she has a less than 15% chance of convincing the super-delegates to go against the voice of the voters and hand her the nomination. She's desperate. She knows she has to win Pennsylvania by huge margins to even begin to have an argument worth arguing in regards to the nomination. And as we all know, when Hillary gets desperate, Hillary gets angry, ugly, immature and downright embarrassing. This is not the confident, collected, calm Hillary of Jan.-2007. This is a primal Hillary; throwing every last thing she has at Obama since nothing else has seemed to work. Forget the kitchen sink. That was thrown weeks ago. She's throwing herself with claws out.
Her behavior sustains the reason why so many Americans dislike her: power hunger. By choosing to put her campaign message on hold to attack so aggressively against a fellow Democrat in this fashion shows how much she couldn't give two shits if a Democrat gets elected as long as that Democrat is her. Does anyone really see her bowing out gracefully in June and pretending to back Obama? I can just see her locking her jaw for a grin and forcing her hands to clap at the convention. There's no line anymore with her. There's no grace. No class. No backup plan. No responsibility. It's all about her and not the party and its values. It's sad.
Now, I'm not saying that Obama can't take it. He and his campaign are gearing up for these kind of petty attacks from McCain and the GOP. These low tactics are, in fact, generally found in the GOP playbook. But as it's often said, there's ways to fight your enemies and there's ways to fight your family. Hillary seems to fight the Obama camp like an enemy. Hillary supporters are always quick to use the old "If you can't handle the heat, stay out of the kitchen" card, but that's irresponsible. Hillary fights as recklessly as she organizes in her campaign, and to desperately go after one ill-worded statement and twist it's meaning like that, only hurts the Democratic party than help her campaign. And here's why:
Hillary has lately gone into great length trying to paint Obama as an elitist - a big reason why many Americans felt disengaged from Kerry and Gore. She's trying to sink to the lowest of the low - if she can't win, no one can. Hillary was probably one of those kids who'd knock over the checker board if she realized she was about to lose.
Hillary, herself, is an elitist. Who in the hell does she think she's trying to portray herself to be? Does she expect us to forget how much richer she is than Obama? Oh, lets say 110 times richer?? Does she really expect us to believe that the single-parented, broken-homed, black candidate with the south-side Chicago community organizing background named Barack Hussein Obama is really the candidate of the two who could be labeled as "elitist"? Are you kidding me?! Does she really believe that? Apparently... because now she wants us to believe that she's a gun toting, God-fearing small-towner full of rage over the fact that someone could possibly have made such an assumption. Bull shit. That's almost as hard to swallow as how she can't seem to understand how Obama would view many Americans as "bitter" with the state of the country. Maybe it's hard to understand their bitterness when you're busy swimming in $110,000,000 from you and your husband's book and speech deals, selling the presidency.
Who's really out of touch here?
What Obama said (in admittedly rough terms) was that many Americans are frustrated and bitter with the state of the country and it's leaders to the point that they turn to the only things they feel are being heard such as guns, religion, etc. when going to the voting booth; single issue voters. My father is one of them. He figures that all politicians are alike when it comes to the financial, economic issues - that they won't look out for him. So, instead, he votes based on which candidate has the loosest policy on gun control instead of the candidate who is best qualified for serving the country and all (and I do mean all) of its people. This is a fact. And here's another fact for you: Millions of other voters feel that way too. Be it gun laws, abortion, same-sex marriage - you name it, these people will vote solely on those specific issues - and that is a big issue when running a campaign. These voters lose sight of the grander picture because they feel as though those are the only issues the president has any interest in pursuing. You got to hand it to Karl Rove during the last election - Keep the voters' minds off the economy or failed war. Keep their minds on abortion and guns and homophobia. Millions and millions of Americans are bitter that they can't afford their house or send their kids to college or afford health insurance or save for retirement. That is a cold, hard fact. And for Hillary to act shocked and pretend to misunderstand that fact is obviously misleading and is yet another lie to add to her pile. And for her to spin this around as if Obama was actually talking down about small-town Americans while calling him an elitist is revolting and slimy.
And above all of this, she repeatedly evokes the name of the city where Obama made the comment: San Francisco - knowing full well the connotation that comes along with that city and its citizens. I'm sure every San Franciscan is really appreciating being called elitists. I'm also sure she wouldn't be as crass if the California primaries weren't already over. And what's with her - and quite a few commentators - feeling like it's ok to label higher income, college educated voters "elite" or "the latte-sipping" voters (his strongest voting bracket)? Because heaven forbid Obama - or said commentators - label lower income, undereducated voters "dregs" or (let's be not-so-P.C. and say:) "racist white-trash" (her strongest voting bracket). It's somehow ok to label and name-call those who've been able to educate themselves but not the other way around.
But here's the reality: Obama has the ability to look beyond that. He sees that not every college educated American is a "latte-sipping" citizen. He also sees that not every undereducated American is "racist white-trash". He understands that this country is full of "elites" and "dregs" and "everything-in-betweens" and that they range in differences in religions, races, ideas, backgrounds, sexual preferences and education - but most importantly: They all are equally American. So as Hillary slings her new found guns and religion, Obama will continue to clarify what he meant by continuing to tell the truth - something Hillary's been having a hard time grasping.
Whew... my fingers are tired now. I needed that.
elite: group noun [C]
the richest, most powerful, best educated or most highly trained group in a society
Keep that in mind.
First thing's first. She's drowning. Hillary's campaign has been one of the most fascinating train wrecks in political history. Keep this in mind: Hillary Clinton, in January of 2007, had all the toys in the sand box. We're talking about the mighty Clinton machine. She had everything. She had double-digit poll leads nationwide, a huge jump-start of super-delegates, name recognition - I mean, she was the first lady of one of the most successful presidents in decades for christ's sake. She had all of the "best" advisers, fund-raisers, supporters, organizers, networks and cohorts. So, why on Earth is she now desperately screaming and name-calling about one poorly worded, easily understandable statement about a fact that no one seems to want to admit: people vote on single issues (like guns or religion) because they feel as though their elected officials won't fight for the real issues they're suppose to be fighting (the economy, the housing crisis, unemployment, health insurance - basically the real issues that effect the average American) causing bitterness about the voting process?
It's because she knows very well where she stands in this race. She knows she has a less than 15% chance of convincing the super-delegates to go against the voice of the voters and hand her the nomination. She's desperate. She knows she has to win Pennsylvania by huge margins to even begin to have an argument worth arguing in regards to the nomination. And as we all know, when Hillary gets desperate, Hillary gets angry, ugly, immature and downright embarrassing. This is not the confident, collected, calm Hillary of Jan.-2007. This is a primal Hillary; throwing every last thing she has at Obama since nothing else has seemed to work. Forget the kitchen sink. That was thrown weeks ago. She's throwing herself with claws out.
Her behavior sustains the reason why so many Americans dislike her: power hunger. By choosing to put her campaign message on hold to attack so aggressively against a fellow Democrat in this fashion shows how much she couldn't give two shits if a Democrat gets elected as long as that Democrat is her. Does anyone really see her bowing out gracefully in June and pretending to back Obama? I can just see her locking her jaw for a grin and forcing her hands to clap at the convention. There's no line anymore with her. There's no grace. No class. No backup plan. No responsibility. It's all about her and not the party and its values. It's sad.
Now, I'm not saying that Obama can't take it. He and his campaign are gearing up for these kind of petty attacks from McCain and the GOP. These low tactics are, in fact, generally found in the GOP playbook. But as it's often said, there's ways to fight your enemies and there's ways to fight your family. Hillary seems to fight the Obama camp like an enemy. Hillary supporters are always quick to use the old "If you can't handle the heat, stay out of the kitchen" card, but that's irresponsible. Hillary fights as recklessly as she organizes in her campaign, and to desperately go after one ill-worded statement and twist it's meaning like that, only hurts the Democratic party than help her campaign. And here's why:
Hillary has lately gone into great length trying to paint Obama as an elitist - a big reason why many Americans felt disengaged from Kerry and Gore. She's trying to sink to the lowest of the low - if she can't win, no one can. Hillary was probably one of those kids who'd knock over the checker board if she realized she was about to lose.
Hillary, herself, is an elitist. Who in the hell does she think she's trying to portray herself to be? Does she expect us to forget how much richer she is than Obama? Oh, lets say 110 times richer?? Does she really expect us to believe that the single-parented, broken-homed, black candidate with the south-side Chicago community organizing background named Barack Hussein Obama is really the candidate of the two who could be labeled as "elitist"? Are you kidding me?! Does she really believe that? Apparently... because now she wants us to believe that she's a gun toting, God-fearing small-towner full of rage over the fact that someone could possibly have made such an assumption. Bull shit. That's almost as hard to swallow as how she can't seem to understand how Obama would view many Americans as "bitter" with the state of the country. Maybe it's hard to understand their bitterness when you're busy swimming in $110,000,000 from you and your husband's book and speech deals, selling the presidency.
Who's really out of touch here?
What Obama said (in admittedly rough terms) was that many Americans are frustrated and bitter with the state of the country and it's leaders to the point that they turn to the only things they feel are being heard such as guns, religion, etc. when going to the voting booth; single issue voters. My father is one of them. He figures that all politicians are alike when it comes to the financial, economic issues - that they won't look out for him. So, instead, he votes based on which candidate has the loosest policy on gun control instead of the candidate who is best qualified for serving the country and all (and I do mean all) of its people. This is a fact. And here's another fact for you: Millions of other voters feel that way too. Be it gun laws, abortion, same-sex marriage - you name it, these people will vote solely on those specific issues - and that is a big issue when running a campaign. These voters lose sight of the grander picture because they feel as though those are the only issues the president has any interest in pursuing. You got to hand it to Karl Rove during the last election - Keep the voters' minds off the economy or failed war. Keep their minds on abortion and guns and homophobia. Millions and millions of Americans are bitter that they can't afford their house or send their kids to college or afford health insurance or save for retirement. That is a cold, hard fact. And for Hillary to act shocked and pretend to misunderstand that fact is obviously misleading and is yet another lie to add to her pile. And for her to spin this around as if Obama was actually talking down about small-town Americans while calling him an elitist is revolting and slimy.
And above all of this, she repeatedly evokes the name of the city where Obama made the comment: San Francisco - knowing full well the connotation that comes along with that city and its citizens. I'm sure every San Franciscan is really appreciating being called elitists. I'm also sure she wouldn't be as crass if the California primaries weren't already over. And what's with her - and quite a few commentators - feeling like it's ok to label higher income, college educated voters "elite" or "the latte-sipping" voters (his strongest voting bracket)? Because heaven forbid Obama - or said commentators - label lower income, undereducated voters "dregs" or (let's be not-so-P.C. and say:) "racist white-trash" (her strongest voting bracket). It's somehow ok to label and name-call those who've been able to educate themselves but not the other way around.
But here's the reality: Obama has the ability to look beyond that. He sees that not every college educated American is a "latte-sipping" citizen. He also sees that not every undereducated American is "racist white-trash". He understands that this country is full of "elites" and "dregs" and "everything-in-betweens" and that they range in differences in religions, races, ideas, backgrounds, sexual preferences and education - but most importantly: They all are equally American. So as Hillary slings her new found guns and religion, Obama will continue to clarify what he meant by continuing to tell the truth - something Hillary's been having a hard time grasping.
Whew... my fingers are tired now. I needed that.
Monday, April 14, 2008
Sunday, April 13, 2008
Friday, April 11, 2008
If Hillary was a marshmallow: Part II
Just when you thought it was about to be nothing but a mere memory - Bill brings it back! This is a tag-on to a recent post of mine about Hillary's fictitious embellishment about her "landing amidst sniper fire" in Bosnia and why I felt the media served her nothing short of a slap on the wrist. The real problem, in my mind, is how she handled it. Yes, telling lies or embellishing untruths is wrong and screwy - and the media came down on her for it. But how she handled it is what I'm so disgusted about and what I'm concerned with. It was her wide open opportunity to show some real, honest leadership and apologize for stretching the truth about something that never happened; owning up to a mistake - being a real, fucking human being and taking responsibility for it. The American people are smarter than she treats them. This is exactly what is so off-putting about her. This is why she needs huge crews of strategists and advisors to figure out a way to somehow soften her image and show her "human" side. This is why she had to conveniently shed tears the day before the New Hampshire primaries - ultimately getting New Hampshire women to come out of the woodwork to vote for her out of pity. One would be stupid to believe that was a coincidence. It was calculated. But that's just the point - and this is what gives me hope about Americans - they catch on. Usually....In this instance, however, H-bomb's excuse was one of the lamest, calculated explanations you could serve to the public. The clinical term "misspoke" is a slick one and sadly, I felt like the Americans who followed it bought the cheap excuse with a mere shrug - prompting me to write the first installment of this now two-part saga. But then Bill came along and shot off his yap as he does oh-so well to Hil's distress - countering the accusations of lies dealt to his wife with... what else - more lies!! - not to mention a healthy dose of down-playing and misguidance.
Please read the article by the AP.
My favorite quote comes from Hil to Bill: "You don't remember this, you weren't there. Let me handle it." What is this?! The Godfather? Ha! It's as if they're tag-teaming who's going to calculate and handle damage control over their campaign atrocities. Yikes...
And to be quite honest, how could anyone look at this and not fear the foreshadowing of such an embarrassment of an administration. I can just imagine Hillary handling presidential pressure from the media on the White House lawn and seeing Bill get off his ass from the couch, wiping the potato chip crumbs of his sweat pants, and embarrassingly defending her every mistake...
Bill has been the blessing and the curse - the ointment and the burn. He never seems to know when to shut up. Though without him, she wouldn't have had as high of a profile as she needed to enter the national stage; with him there as defender and commentator, he's proven to be quite the hinderance.
Who else is tired of not just the lies, but the calculating cover ups and cheap, lame explanations? Who's over the pathetic image struggle this woman is having? One day she's crying, the next day she's holding up boxing gloves. She seems to never know who she wants to portray. It's sad. And as an actor, it's thrilling to imagine the complexities of image control that must plague her everyday. Yes, it must be hard to be a woman in her position. I'm sure she feels the need to project the fighter image, but what the world needs now is a uniter not a fighter.
So, Hillary...
a.) Stop lying.
b.) Stop embellishing.
c.) Shut your husband up and run your own campaign.
d.) Fess up to your mistakes like a responsible adult.
e.) Don't expect the public will buy your cheap excuses.
f.) Relax and be a human being. Other human beings tend to like that.
g.) Be a uniting presidential figure and not an angry, fighting senatorial figure.
And yes, I am an Obama supporter, but a large reason why I'm such a passionate supporter is due to the fact that she serves as such a contrast to him. Although he may not be perfect, he's at the very least, the first to admit it and the first to confront it - and I find that admirable. For instance: In the aftermath of the Wright controversy, he decided to not merely downplay it and politically attempt to write it off (this would be the politically safe things to do). He instead decided to examine it on a broader scale and ultimately challenge Americans to look at each other and our culture differently. He took his embarrassment and found the opportunity to not only accept the responsibility of the fact that he was a member of this church, but also examine why Wright acts and speaks the way he does; without necessarily defending what he said and not demonizing him as well. That, to me, is a valuable gift to have as a leader: the ability to understand those he/she/we disagree with, no matter how strongly, and address it without justification per se, but without writing him/her/them off as evil as well (i.e. Bush's "Axis of Evil"). I look at Hillary's campaign (the train wreck that it is) and I thank God there's another option. Obama '08!
Thursday, April 10, 2008
Wednesday, April 9, 2008
Tuesday, April 8, 2008
Ah, the history of political fear mongering: kids edition
What better way to scare up some votes when your campaign is in the shitter?! Go after the kids of America!
Monday, April 7, 2008
On the road again... but where to?
The cast and I are about to hit our southern leg of the tour and I'm pretty excited about it. Along the way, I'll be able to see my cousin in DC, my sister in Florida and numerous friends scattered across the southern states. Though I'll miss the city desperately, I'm looking forward to warmer weather and relatively later call times.
I do, however, keep thinking about what's next. I find myself doing that alot - consistently looking forward to the next job, living situation or project. It's a bit frustrating because I've set my sights on August; completely skimming past my tech directing gig in Italy during the months of June and July. Not that I don't look forward to Italy - I do - but I guess I'm looking forward to that time when I'm no longer living out of my suitcase. This year has been just that: "The Year of the Suitcase". I've been bouncing all around with my belongings still stowed in my Chicago storage unit since I moved out of the apartment on Janssen Ave. in Chicago after graduation. My poor cat has had three temporary homes since then and my luggage has seen better days. Hotels have recently been the norm for me while my daily routines are far from routine. I'd sure like some stability (or at least consistency) in my life.
When I get back from Europe, I plan on staying here in the New York for a long while - only taking jobs here in the city. I want to take classes and devote myself to my craft. I want to hold down a nice apartment and focus on me for a while. I may need to get a temporary side job in order to do that but I'll cross that bridge when I get there. Hopefully I'll be able to find some quick tech work while I get situated and stable enough to hit the auditions. However it works out, I'll be good. I'll be happy.
I am quite happy in my life right now and I do enjoy the adventure that this year has proven to be. Come May, I'll have spent my first year out of college supporting myself almost completely on professional theatrical gigs from acting to stage managing to scenic/lighting designing. I'm now in the Actors Equity Association (I just got my card in the mail!!). I can't complain. But like I've said before, I would sure like to step out of that shower and not have to pull my clothes out of a suitcase... But until then, my cat and I will have to be patient. I think he's got that one down just fine...
Sunday, April 6, 2008
Wednesday, April 2, 2008
Tuesday, April 1, 2008
If Hillary was a marshmallow, I'd make s'mores...
Politicians make mistakes. They do. They are in fact human. Not only are they human, but they are under a social microscope, and under great pressure. Every waking second is scrutinized. That is why they tend to speak broadly and carefully when addressing issues they are supposed to know. And from time to time, they stumble. They stumble and the people therefor react. Now, the reaction can vary depending on how severe the mistake was (Iraq, anyone?), whether or not the politician had foul motives, or whether it was an innocent mistake (i.e. stupidity, naivety, misinformed or ignorance). The politician is therefor expected to address his/her mistake with an explanation in order to quell any offenses, fears or misunderstandings. And finally, the people in turn, react to this explanation based on how they gage the politician's honesty and situation.Hillary Clinton had recently been exposed by CBS and Michael Dobbs from the Washington Post (giving it "4 Pinocchios" no less) for making up a story of how she landed in Bosnia amidst "sniper fire" during her years as first lady. This is what she said:
"I remember landing under sniper fire. There was supposed to be some kind of a greeting ceremony at the airport, but instead we just ran with our heads down to get into the vehicles to get to our base. But it was a moment of great pride for me to visit our troops"
You can read the Post article here and view the CBS report here and here.
Hillary should've been roasted for this one.
Point number one: It was her. This is her speaking; not someone else, not some crazy campaign affiliate, not her pastor, not a family member - her. These were spoken by her.
Point number two: It was scripted. The reporter in the video is asking for clarification of her January stump speech when she was taking on Obama's assertion that being first lady isn't exactly the actual elected, presidential experience she's made herself out to be holding (and now that we are finally getting a glimpse of her newly released first lady records, we can now take that assertion as fact. Conveniently and "coincidentally" for her, they were released after the Ohio and Texas primaries). She originally made this claim, along with a string of others, in scripted, prepared, typical, stump-speech format. This wasn't just speaking off the top of her head. This was scripted. In the stump speech, she was careful enough to say "Somebody said there might be sniper fire" (even though all who were with her don't remember any mention of sniper fire or even the threat of it). But to follow up with her clarification that there was, in fact, actual sniper fire is a bold and stupid move.
Point number three: The clarification was not just a slip of the tongue. This isn't like Sen. George Allen and his "Mucaca" slip. This was a multi-phrased, embellished story. She starts it with "I remember landing under sniper fire."
But this is where it gets good for me.
The media took her false clarification and slammed her on it with the aforementioned article and CBS news report. It ends up getting millions of views on YouTube - topping the amount of hits received by video of Obama's controversial pastor and rivaling video of his speech on race. She made her mistake and the people responded. But what's truly precious about this whole episode is her explanation: Misspeaking.
She said in response:
"Now let me tell you what I can remember, OK -- because what I was told was that we had to land a certain way and move quickly because of the threat of sniper fire. So I misspoke...I went to 80 countries, you know. I gave contemporaneous accounts, I wrote about a lot of this in my book. you know, I think that, a minor blip, you know, if I said something that, you know, I say a lot of things -- millions of words a day -- so if I misspoke, that was just a misstatement."
Aside from the fact that no one involved recalled telling her or hearing someone tell her anything pertaining to sniper fire - and the fact that the war was over and that they were in the safest area of that region, I'd like to examine the wording here. I examine it because this was her prepared response. She had time to consult her advisers on how to best handle this flap - days in fact. And this is the word she chose to use in her explanation.
The word "misspeak" is the safest political word for lie. NPR did a great episode examining the meaning of the word. A lie is nothing short of an untruth and that is exactly what Hillary did. She spoke an untruth. Now, did she speak this untruth by simply "misspeaking" a word or phrase? Did she "misspeak" a word that she accidentally used incorrectly in a phrase or sentence? Did she "misspeak" because she was misinformed on the topic? Did she "misspeak" about a topic she did not fully understand out of simple ignorance?
No. She did none of these.
This is not "misspeaking". It's, in fact, what real people call a lie. Now, I'll be kind. I don't think it merits the ultimate burning at the stake. It's not like she lied under oath (she learned that lesson from her hubby). But a lie is a lie is a lie.
What she did was fictitiously embellish. She was under pressure to make herself seem like she was as qualified as she was trying to feed us. And in doing that, she lied. But this is what makes me worried: This is the amount of pressure it took for her to lie to us? And not only that, she had to craft out a word like "misspeak" in order to save face - further misleading the public. Now, I know it's not like she lied about something like weapons of mass destruction in order to invade Iraq (no, she just declined reading that bill and voted for it anyway; costing thousands of lives and billions of needed dollars in order to appear strong politically on foreign policy), but it just shows how much she'll do to project whatever she needs to project in order to win votes - even lie to us if she needs to. And it deserves, at the very least, a roasting. It does make me question her honesty - especially in her particular situation: the campaign trail where we are to examine the candidate for the most important job in the country - if not world.
I'm sorry, but I'm sick of it. I'm sick of the lies, the side-stepping, the constant calculative maneuvering. I want transparency in my candidate. I know that Obama isn't absolutely perfect. He's one of those human politicians who make mistakes like any of them, but he at least supports transparency and asks the voters to hold him accountable. It's just one more reason why I'm throwing my support his way. I'll take truths over "misstatements" any day.
"I remember landing under sniper fire. There was supposed to be some kind of a greeting ceremony at the airport, but instead we just ran with our heads down to get into the vehicles to get to our base. But it was a moment of great pride for me to visit our troops"
You can read the Post article here and view the CBS report here and here.
Hillary should've been roasted for this one.
Point number one: It was her. This is her speaking; not someone else, not some crazy campaign affiliate, not her pastor, not a family member - her. These were spoken by her.
Point number two: It was scripted. The reporter in the video is asking for clarification of her January stump speech when she was taking on Obama's assertion that being first lady isn't exactly the actual elected, presidential experience she's made herself out to be holding (and now that we are finally getting a glimpse of her newly released first lady records, we can now take that assertion as fact. Conveniently and "coincidentally" for her, they were released after the Ohio and Texas primaries). She originally made this claim, along with a string of others, in scripted, prepared, typical, stump-speech format. This wasn't just speaking off the top of her head. This was scripted. In the stump speech, she was careful enough to say "Somebody said there might be sniper fire" (even though all who were with her don't remember any mention of sniper fire or even the threat of it). But to follow up with her clarification that there was, in fact, actual sniper fire is a bold and stupid move.
Point number three: The clarification was not just a slip of the tongue. This isn't like Sen. George Allen and his "Mucaca" slip. This was a multi-phrased, embellished story. She starts it with "I remember landing under sniper fire."
But this is where it gets good for me.
The media took her false clarification and slammed her on it with the aforementioned article and CBS news report. It ends up getting millions of views on YouTube - topping the amount of hits received by video of Obama's controversial pastor and rivaling video of his speech on race. She made her mistake and the people responded. But what's truly precious about this whole episode is her explanation: Misspeaking.
She said in response:
"Now let me tell you what I can remember, OK -- because what I was told was that we had to land a certain way and move quickly because of the threat of sniper fire. So I misspoke...I went to 80 countries, you know. I gave contemporaneous accounts, I wrote about a lot of this in my book. you know, I think that, a minor blip, you know, if I said something that, you know, I say a lot of things -- millions of words a day -- so if I misspoke, that was just a misstatement."
Aside from the fact that no one involved recalled telling her or hearing someone tell her anything pertaining to sniper fire - and the fact that the war was over and that they were in the safest area of that region, I'd like to examine the wording here. I examine it because this was her prepared response. She had time to consult her advisers on how to best handle this flap - days in fact. And this is the word she chose to use in her explanation.
The word "misspeak" is the safest political word for lie. NPR did a great episode examining the meaning of the word. A lie is nothing short of an untruth and that is exactly what Hillary did. She spoke an untruth. Now, did she speak this untruth by simply "misspeaking" a word or phrase? Did she "misspeak" a word that she accidentally used incorrectly in a phrase or sentence? Did she "misspeak" because she was misinformed on the topic? Did she "misspeak" about a topic she did not fully understand out of simple ignorance?
No. She did none of these.
This is not "misspeaking". It's, in fact, what real people call a lie. Now, I'll be kind. I don't think it merits the ultimate burning at the stake. It's not like she lied under oath (she learned that lesson from her hubby). But a lie is a lie is a lie.
What she did was fictitiously embellish. She was under pressure to make herself seem like she was as qualified as she was trying to feed us. And in doing that, she lied. But this is what makes me worried: This is the amount of pressure it took for her to lie to us? And not only that, she had to craft out a word like "misspeak" in order to save face - further misleading the public. Now, I know it's not like she lied about something like weapons of mass destruction in order to invade Iraq (no, she just declined reading that bill and voted for it anyway; costing thousands of lives and billions of needed dollars in order to appear strong politically on foreign policy), but it just shows how much she'll do to project whatever she needs to project in order to win votes - even lie to us if she needs to. And it deserves, at the very least, a roasting. It does make me question her honesty - especially in her particular situation: the campaign trail where we are to examine the candidate for the most important job in the country - if not world.
I'm sorry, but I'm sick of it. I'm sick of the lies, the side-stepping, the constant calculative maneuvering. I want transparency in my candidate. I know that Obama isn't absolutely perfect. He's one of those human politicians who make mistakes like any of them, but he at least supports transparency and asks the voters to hold him accountable. It's just one more reason why I'm throwing my support his way. I'll take truths over "misstatements" any day.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
