The Politics of Parsing... B E A UTIFUL....

[ddeclue]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qggO5yY7RAo


This says it all about why I don't like or trust Hillary Clinton!

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:
:rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:
:rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:
:rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:
:rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:
:rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:
:rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

[ChairmanAgnostic]

1. too bad. only 146,000 people have seen it so far.

I love watching the Hillarites get their Victoria panties in a twist. Since now they use the gender card. No one else was talking sex before. SHE raised it. She is using it, and she bitches about her sex when people complain about her policies.

great video

[Think82]

2. check out this article in the NY TImes by Brooks:

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/02/opinion/02brooks.html?_r=1&oref=slogin

[ddeclue]

4. Cute... n/t

[Rageneau]

5. Brooks is a born-again wingnut. Everything he says is a lie.

If we Democrats start using the words of Republicans like Brooks against our own candidates, we deserve to lose (again.)

David Brooks is the enemy. There is no point reading or listening to a word he says. And it is suicidal to carry an adder like him around with you in hopes it will bite one of your (oterwise honorable) political opponents.

And by the way, I didn't see anything in that You Tube piece that looked "parsy" in HRC's answer. She was trying to answer a difficult and multi-faceted question truthfully. Those who want to criticize her can twist her answer to make it look deceptive, but that doesn't mean she was trying to BE deceptive.

Had she been trying to BE deceptive, there are much simpler, more pat, answers that she could have offered that would have left Russert and his new Dem wanna-be friends no way to criticize.

[ddeclue]

6. Oh give it a rest... she was very obviously trying to take two sides of the argument..

in the You Tube piece.

She can't give you a straight answer to whether the sun rises in the East....

These questions were simple "YES" or "NO" questions... just answer them that way.... We don't need to see Hillary or any other candidate "dazzle" us with their ability to double talk... I want to know where the candidates stand YES OR NO..

And Russert is far more fair than you let on... I saw him moderate the Bill Nelson Katherine Harris Florida Senate Debate at UCF in 2006 in person and he held Krazy Katie's feet to the fire over and over again... for the alleged Republican shill you accuse him of being... he certainly didn't look it when I saw him moderate that debate live in person.

Doug D.
Orlando, FL

[Rageneau]

15. Yes or no -- Do you dislike Hillary personally?

Don't equivocate.

And don't lie.

I saw the You-Tube piece and I read the Brooks article and everything I said in my first post stands.

Hillary was not trying to equivocate. She said she understood that SOMETHING had to be done in NY about licenses, and so she could understand why Spitzer was doing what he is -- but that she might not do the same thing. Trying to force people into giving 'yes or no' answers is a Limbaugh trick. It is an attack tactic used by simple minds, which is what's got us in this mess.

There isn't an issue on earth that Smirk and Snarl cannot quickly give you a 'yes or no' answer to.

Are they more trustworthy in your eyes because of that?

And David Brooks is TOO a wingnut -- one whose 'cover' is moderate Republican.

[Think82]

7. I would say Brooks is a moderate Republican. far from a nut. I don't agree with himon everything but

think you should bother to read people's views that might differ from your own.

[hfojvt]

9. right, he was only mocking our candidates

because all of our candidates suck. In his opinion, but rather than make a substantive criticism of some of their proposals, he makes alot of smarta$$ comments and pretends that the candidates said them or should have said them if they were being honest.

And of course, we should trust and respect the opinion of somebody who thinks that poor people are poor because they are stupid and lazy and that Republican 'tough love' is really better for them and for society.

[NMMNG]

3. Does she ever give a straight answer?

:shrug:

[OneBlueSky]

8. what? . . . she should give a gay answer? . . . n/t

.

[Perry Logan]

10. "The time has come for decisive action to eliminate...Hussein’s weapons of mass destruction."

"My position is very clear: The time has come for decisive action to eliminate the threat posed by Saddam Hussein’s weapons of mass destruction. I am a co-sponsor of the bipartisan resolution we’re currently considering." --John Edwards October 2002

[mmonk]

11. The video was a hoot.

I try not to offend people during the elections with their candidates unless its a Lieberman whereby I don't care. But I did laugh with this video. My feeling on parsing is that is what the democraitic party is doing wrong in regards to policy in general these days (as well as their votes at times).

[win_in_06]

12. RNC will cut and paste this one next Fall

The work has been done.

[Debi]

13. Because they don't have their own opposition research working on each

of the Democratic candidates records and appearances? To think that Democrats are doing the republicans work for them is naive.

[itsrobert]

14. Why would they take out an ad against Hillary?

When she won't be running anymore?

[Lucinda]

16. You find it beautiful and I found it to be deliberate misrepresentation

And no longer support Edwards.
Which saddens me...I don't find this funny at all.