Judy, there's way too much to argue about with you and that's why I didn't reply to your earlier posts, nor will I reply to you anymore after this. As you said last week, you enjoy going at it "hammer and tongs". I don't, and I won't with you. I argue by profession but, unlike yourself, not for enjoyment.
In my post I chose certain things to comment on; but you are "appalled" that I didn't comment on more or make points that you agree with. I chose to make a point, *my* point, regarding Clinton's use of the Rocky Balboa analogy, but you believe I didn't understand her use of it. I did, of course, but chose to point out a humorous (or tragic) flaw in it. (And, yes, there are thousands of "true" stories that echo and parallel the "untrue" story that Senator Clinton chose to repeat many, many times. That was an error made by her, a judgment flaw made by her; and one that will be magnified and amplified by the media. She should have known better.) You are, and unfortunately so in my opinion, an endlessly disputatious individual. You apparently thrive on disagreement and dissent. Furthermore, you are ungracious and vindictive with anyone who doesn't agree with your point of view. It's an ugly trait. There are so many more holes in your arguments in reply to my post (below) that could be addressed. But I won't. And not because I don't have the intellectual chops, Judy, or the discriminative ability, but rather, because I don't share your peculiar emotional makeup and wish to involve myself in endless disputes. You won't be pleased with this response, I'm sure, but let me suggest that there's no need to insult me anymore or be further appalled by my intellectual dishonesty, or my dirtyness, or whatever you would prefer to call it. There'll be no need for further discussion between us. Marek ** --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Marek Reavis" > <reavismarek@> wrote: > > > > Judy, that was a fine speech by Senator Clinton, and except > > for a couple of things, very much the same sort of speech that > > Senator Obama would have made to the same group. > > > > Of course, he wouldn't have made the reference to Rocky Balboa > > because Rocky lost in 15 rounds to a charismatic black man. > > You missed the point of her Rocky reference. > > He wouldn't have > > told the tragic story about the uninsured pregnant woman > > because that story turns out to have been false, too. > > At least, that's what the hospital claimed (which was > never named by Clinton, BTW). > > True, there was a young > > woman, she and her baby did die, but it turns out that she > > was insured and she was not refused treatment. > > Turns out that's what the hospital says, right. > > Senator Clinton's campaign didn't > > check the story to find out if it was true or not, unfortunately, > > According to them, they attempted to vet it but > couldn'[t. > > > and so the story, again, is that Clinton was caught in a lie. > > That's the *story*, yes. Nobody's yet been able to > get hold of the woman's family, who apparently told the > story to the deputy sheriff who talked to Hillary. > > > Unfortunately, the meta narrative that such misstatements > > support is that Senator Clinton is a habitual liar. The > > truth is no doubt more prosaic -- her staff just didn't bother > > to verify the story she told, and left it to the media, many of > > whom have no reason to like her, to "catch" her, once again, in > > another "lapse". How many lapses does it take before her > > leadership credentials are more questionable than her > > reputation for honesty? > > So we should just give in and lie down and let the media > determine the agenda and pick our priorities--and our > candidates, and ultimately our president--for us? > > The thing about the story of the woman and her baby > who died is that there are thousands of similar stories > that are entirely true. It makes zero difference--except > to her family and friends, of course--that *this* > woman's story wasn't actually one of them. The larger > story--that people die because of the state of health > care and health insurance in this country--is horribly, > disgracefully true. > > But we're going to let the media *overlook* that story > and instead impugn Clinton's honesty because her staff > didn't follow up one woman's story? We're really going > to simply accept that addition to the "narrative" and > say, Oh, well, she might as well just quit now, since > the media has decided to portray her as dishonest (and > at the same time has decided to ignore a very > substantial number of lies the Obama campaign has told, > in particular some exceedingly vicious ones about her)? > > I'm appalled that you would read that speech and think > the woman's story and the Rocky bit were the only two > points worthy of mention. > > > And that's where I agree with your position in this campaign, > > but in a backhanded sort of way; your argument is that > > Clinton has been so bloodied in the past that essentially > > there's nothing more that the GOP can possibly uncover about > > her, but that there *might* be "something" that we don't know > > about Obama yet that will come out later, after he's already > > been nominated to torpedo his candidacy, and then the Democrats > > will go down in his sinking ship. > > That's hardly my only point about Hillary vs. Obama. > > > That's certainly possible, of course, but so far nothing like > > that has occurred except for the Reverend Wright tempest; and > > Obama turned that to his advantage, giving what many people > > described as one of the great speeches in American history. It > > didn't convince everyone, but the subject being what it is -- > > racism -- it would be impossible that it could. > > You might want to read the Loury essay about the speech > that I quoted and linked to in post #17203. He's a black > progressive intellectual, just for the record. He agrees > that it was a fine speech but sees a number of implications > that go beyond just a chance to feel good that somebody > is actually talking about race. > > Beyond that, Obama certainly turned the Wright situation > to his advantage with the speech--among some people, at > least enough that he probably won't lose the nomination > over it. But he hasn't eliminated Wright as a factor in > the general election, not by a *long* shot. > > I refer you to my original position, that the Wright > situation reflects desperately poor judgment on Obama's > part. I responded in detail to your second post on this, > after you'd apologized for your error about my minefield > metaphor, but I guess you didn't see it, or chose not to > respond. > > > But the argument that there's nothing worse that can be used > > against Clinton is entirely unfounded. Clinton is an > > extraordinarily polarizing figure and everything that has ever > > been leveled against her will be reprised a hundredfold should > > she gain the nomination. Her nomination would galvanize and > > energize the currently disheartened Republican base that can > > barely tolerate John McCain. Her 110-million dollar income > > these last 8 years > > Her and Bill's income, you mean. That's a little under $7 > million a year, average, for each of them. How much does > the typical CEO of a big company make these days? > > And I notice you don't mention that they gave almost 10 > percent of that income to charity, or that they paid > more income tax than most who make similar incomes. > > and Bill Clinton's troubled dealings > > with Yucaipa will be trumpeted endlessly. Senator Clinton > > hasn't begun to be pilloried and demonized and this argument, > > accepted without any substantiation, but merely on faith or > > her say so, that she's already been vetted is basically a > > pile of shit. > > And I say Obama has the same problem, maybe far worse. > We'll see. At any rate, the Democrats have hardly begun > to go after McCain and vet *him*, and there's a whole lot > to vet, real substantive issues about how he'd run the > country, not just about his wife's fortune and business > dealings. Not to mention good, solid answers to the > canards that will be put forth about Hillary's and > Bill's income and everything else they'll throw at her. > > Sorry, but I'm simply not willing to allow the media > and the right wing to have its way without a fight. > Whatever else she may be, Hillary is a fighter, whereas > Obama claims to disdain fighting. > > > Senator Clinton is a fine senator and it goes without saying > > that she would be a president heads and shoulders over the > > carbuncle currently in office; but she is a hopelessly flawed > > candidate, and I stress the hopeless. She offers more of the > > same; better but only in degree, not better in kind. > > You sound like an ad for Ralph Nader. > > If you can't see the *gigantic* in-kind difference, I > have no faith in your political insight. > > Hillary Clinton herself is not a "hopelessly flawed" > candidate. That's the media's portrayal of her, not > the real person. And you've bought into it. > > > You may be correct and Senator Obama may be less than many > > hope him to be, but we may hope that the spirit that he > > enkindles in many, many people's hearts -- that *we* can be > > better than we have been, as a nation and as a people -- is > > worth hoping and working for. > > It's not worth the risk of agonizingly cruel disappointment. > You have to keep that spirit burning after it's enkindled, > or it'll sputter out and plunge those hearts into profound > disillusionment. > > > I'm encouraged by your words that should Obama claim the > > Democratic nomination, you will fight for his election. > > I'll be right alongside you. > > I'd rather fight for him alongside my fellow Clinton > supporters, thank you very much. >
