[ | | | 2 interested person(s) ]

So this past week marked the first time according to Hillary that she misspoke in 12 years. Does misspeaking about misspeak count as a misspoke? Does telling the wrong story multiple times count as misspeaking once? Here is what she said:

"I made a mistake and, you know, I had a different memory," she said at a news conference. "It proves I'm human, which for some people is a revelation."
Well...don't you think you'd remember if you got off a plane to people shooting at you versus a kid coming up and shaking your hand? Sure people make mistakes and remember things differently but this seems to be VERY different. ALSO she pushes her foreign experience as a plus over Obama. Yet, she is obviously exaggerating her experience or simply is delusional about the level of experience she has. Lets not forget she approved one of the largest foreign policy blunders in the last decade.

She also made a misstatement by saying that this was the first time in 12 years she had told a story wrong. Lets be real here. You can't speak in absolutes like that. How hard are you going to have to dig before you find another misstatement. It's not unreasonable for any human to make misstatements, what is unreasonable is that you think you can pass off a statement that you have never mispoken in 12 years. Come on.

David Brooks in his article, "The Long Defeat" states Clinton's shot at winning the nomination. She is slowly fading. It will be interesting to see if she steps aside and lets Obama and the Democratic party surge into the election against McCain. Will she continue to beat up on Obama and the in the long run hurt the party? Its believed that Clinton last week had no more than a 10 percent chance of getting the nomination. Now its believed its down to a 5 percent chance. Brooks summarizes the Clinton campaign and the Senator perfectly in stating:
"No wonder the Clinton campaign feels impersonal. It's like a machine for the production of politics. It plows ahead from event to event following its own iron logic. The only question is whether Clinton herself can step outside the apparatus long enough to turn it off and withdraw voluntarily or whether she will force the rest of her party to intervene and jam the gears."
Here attacks are viral and you can see how both her and Bill are desperately clinging to what little scrap of political power they still have. And why wouldn't they? They don't really know any other type of life. They don't know what its like to not be in front of a stage giving empty promises and canned speeches. How do you change decades of political life into the life of an average citizen of this country. Here is a start...step down when you know you can't win. Let the party flourish and bring in new thoughts, new ideas and bring back a motivator, a charismatic leader. That is what this country needs and that is what she should do.

The latest is that Senior Senator and respected member of the Democratic Party, Patrick Leahy is also adding that Clinton needs to step down. In my opinion anything less is selfish of her and will help ruin a run by Obama that has the possibility of really turning this country around.

More News:
Is Hillary broke? (Chicago Sun Times)

2 interested person(s)

Eric said... @ 3/29/2008 05:00:00 PM

Great post. Obama 08.

susan marie said... @ 3/31/2008 07:17:00 AM

Well spoken. And of course you are correct in saying that the only noble and decent thing for Hillary to do would be to step down, and give Obama and this nation a chance at some badly-needed change. And of course she won't, because she does not care a fig for anything but her own personal agenda of power and victory. She would rather see McCain win against Obama, so that she can try again in '12.

Post a Comment