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. He wouldn't have told the tragic story about the uninsured pregnant woman because that story turns out to have been false, too. 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. Senator Clinton's campaign didn't check the story to find out if it was true or not, unfortunately, and so the story, again, is that Clinton was caught in a lie. 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? 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 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. 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 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. 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 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. 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. Marek ** --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "sandiego108" <sandiego108@> > wrote: > <snip> > > Hillary on the other hand seems tired and combative- not much of > > the old fire and true principle I used to see in her. > > Take a look at the speech she gave a few days ago to > the Pennsylvania AFL-CIO: > > http://www.hillaryclinton.com/news/speech/view/?id=6866 >
