OK, the next time that someone complains about President Bush politicizing something

[ripleysmom]

"We don't know for certain how he would handle, but based on his statements and his history in the Senate, we can certainly hypothesize."

Can we? I don't believe that we can, not with any certainty of accuracy (just in case anyone is interested in accuracy).


"Though I disagree with her, I admire her for standing by what she believes in. But I think it was the wrong time and place to do it."

Gee so was using 9/11 to invade another country but that seems to be acceptable.

 

[AirForceRocks]

People use personal tragedy to push through an idea they feel passionate about all the time. How different is this from the father of Megan Nicole Kanka pushing for Megan's Law. Everytime a child is killed by a released convict Megan's law is brought up. Is that an inappropriate time to remind people how important sex offend registration is. What about the Amber alert? Is it wrong, when a child goes missing, to remind people how important it is to support the Amber Alert system? What about John Walsh? He has used the tragdey of his son's death to support countless important causes. Do you think that enviromentalists wouldn't use an oil spill to drum up support for a pro-environment candidate? How about the death of an innocent man being used to fight against the death penalty?

I think there must be something wrong with my computer, because while I can read everything I wrote, others apparently can't. Let me re-post what I wrote earlier, and maybe this time it will show up on everyone's screen the way it does on mine.

I think she could have made the exact same point, at a different time, in a different venue (such as a political rally, during a campaign speech, etc), and I would have thought it was a great way to get the point across in a personal way. But to say it when and where she did...like I said, I think it was in very poor taste.

Or is this another time that republicans only find it wrong when a democrat is the one doing it but manage to find no flaw when a republican is doing (or has done) the exact same thing.

As I've said ad nauseum, for me, it's about time and place. If there were a terrorist attack tomorrow, and President Bush were to come on TV to speak to the nation and put in at the end "This is why you need to re-elect me", it would bother me every bit as much.

Besides....you might not be thinking too clearly if you just found out your husband, who you thought was healthy, needed major heart surgery. It just might cross your mind that it's a damn good thing you have the insurance to cover it and you might blurt out something that has been a major compassionate cause for you for over 12 years...that everyone deserves good health care!

I don't believe that Senator Clinton would ever "blurt out" anything. She's much too smart for that, and this was her second appearance of the day on this subject. She seemed very relaxed, calm and confident, so I don't believe that this was something that just came out.

 

[AirForceRocks]

Can we? I don't believe that we can, not with any certainty of accuracy (just in case anyone is interested in accuracy).

I respectfully disagree. I certainly have an opinion on how Senator Kerry would react to a 9/11-type event, and that's why I can't in good conscience vote for him.

Gee so was using 9/11 to invade another country but that seems to be acceptable.

As I've said many times, it's about time and place. Had President Bush called for an invasion of Iraq when he gave his address to the nation on 9/11, with no evidence that Iraq was involved, I would have thought that wrong, and I would say so. But of course, that isn't what he did, is it?

 

[Gupsmom]

think there must be something wrong with my computer, because while I can read everything I wrote, others apparently can't. Let me re-post what I wrote earlier, and maybe this time it will show up on everyone's screen the way it does on mine.

I read everything you wrote... I didn't misunderstand. I just don't agree.

Jess

 

[kpgclark]

AirForceRocks-- wanted to let you know that I know you didn't say anything about her attitude during the speech. I added that. I do completely agree with your original statement that it was the wrong place to make a political statement. I still think she was very cold and lacking emotion during her speech. She was probably thinking that it serves him right after all of his cheating!

 

[cati]

xx

 

[rcyannacci]

AirForceRocks- you can't can't see your insensitivity on this subject, then, to quote you, "I can't help that." But it certainly stems from your negatively pointed critique against a woman faced with a family crisis. And your exploitation of positions that are obviously coming from emotional places.

Certainly your OP does not directly criticize anyone that has been through a major surgery or illness lately- but the tone speaks volumes above the carefully chosen words placed there.

Congratulations to you. You have an amazing gift for rhetoric, something that should be celebrated. I'd love to see you use it to support your candidate rather than drag down others, but I fully admit that "that's my problem."

I've expended as much energy as I will trying to explain my reaction to your post and my beliefs on the issue of health care. If you wish to further criticize my position, my lack of logic, my emotional position, please proceed.

 

[inaminute]

I guess I'm just not understanding her point. Of course, she and her huband both have excellent insurance--paid for by the taxpayers.

Is that what she wants for everyone? The same insurance she and her husband have? Paid for by the taxpayers? Sorry, I can't support that.

And, I have to say--she's a much better woman than I if she can think so clearly about her job when her husband has just undergone such serious surgery. I'd only be able to express my thanks to those who helped him and ask for prayers. Then, I'd be on my way to be as close to him as I could.

 

[kpgclark]

Just to clarify-- he hasn't had the surgery yet. He was in the hospital awaiting surgery that I think will be early this week.

 

[Elwood Blues]

Originally posted by shortbun
WTH is this supposed to mean? You don't think HC is capable
of loving her husband?

To put it bluntly, no, I don't think she loves him.

 

[Gupsmom]

she's a much better woman than I if she can think so clearly about her job when her husband has just undergone such serious surgery.

So, in other words, maybe it wasn't politcally motivated at all? Maybe it's just something that could come out of the mouth of a lady, under a great deal of stress, that just found out her husband is going to need major heart surgery. Especially at a time (face with hospital/suregry bills) where health care (a very important issue for her even in healthy times) might just be on her mind.

Jess

 

[Hagred]

Originally posted by inaminute
And, I have to say--she's a much better woman than I if she can think so clearly about her job when her husband has just undergone such serious surgery. I'd only be able to express my thanks to those who helped him and ask for prayers. Then, I'd be on my way to be as close to him as I could.

Which is probably why she has a job with a great deal of responsibility representing her people. If she flew apart when a crisis happened, she wouldn't be a very good candidate for the position she holds.

I suspect your remarks (and others made here) were meant to convey that Sen. Clinton is lacking in the emotional department. You're basing her actions on that which you think YOU might do if in that same situation. However, it must be remembered that Sen. Clinton is used to handling stressful situations on a daily basis while everyday people aren't in those situations.

(I might add that her calm, cool, professional demeanor is one of the reasons I admire her)

That said, I guess this thread can now get down to the real purpose of Hillary bashing. Same stuff, different day.

 

[inaminute]

Maybe it's just something that could come out of the mouth of a lady, under a great deal of stress, that just found out her husband is going to need major heart surgery. Especially at a time (face with hospital/suregry bills) where health care (a very important issue for her even in healthy times) might just be on her mind.

Honestly?

No. I don't believe Hilary would just "blurt" anything. She's too calculating to ever allow that to happen. She's power hungry and will do whatever it takes to keep herself in politics, including using her husband's illness to make a political point. I do not believe that Hilary Clinton cares about anyone but herself--least of all the husband that made her a joke in front of the entire country.

This was, plain and simple, a perfect opportunity for her to campaign for Kerry. And. in typical Hilary fashion, she took it.

 

[inaminute]

Which is probably why she has a job with a great deal of responsibility representing her people.

Right. I'm sure New Yorkers appreciate being "her" people. So, what are they called? Clintonites? We'll see if she's re-elected.

I suspect your remarks (and others made here) were meant to convey that Sen. Clinton is lacking in the emotional department.

That's exactly what I was trying to say.

However, it must be remembered that Sen. Clinton is used to handling stressful situations on a daily basis while everyday people aren't in those situations.

You are making assumptions. How do you know what types of stress I face on a day to day basis? I run my own business. If I don't work I have no money. But, you're right. Making a living to pay the bills isn't nearly as stressful as Hillary's job. It can't be easy to keep an eye on a cheating, lying husband, can it?

 

[TnKrBeLlA012]

I remember thinking, as Hillary gave her comments on her husband's surgery,how calm and cool she looked. A whole different look then my mom and my sisters had when we Knew our dad would be having bypass surgery. Yes we had insurance,but that was the last thought on our minds.W e only wanted prayers for my dad. I guess thats called love. The Clintons are two different people staying together for different reasons,probably political. Did she use this chance to put in a little dig? You bet. I just wondered ,if these two we so effective in office why wasen't the heatlh insurance problem solved?

 

[Elwood Blues]

Originally posted by Gupsmom
There are many families touched personally by the tragedy of 9/11 that didn't like President Bush using what happened to their love ones as a platform to build support for a war that has nothing to do with 9/11.

Iraq had nothing to do directly with 9/11. That's a known fact.

But there is a common link between the two.

Terrorists and regimes that support/aid terrorists.

It's also a known fact that Iraq supported and harbored terrorists.

Hence the war on terrorism is one of the reasons we went after Iraq.

 

[Peter Pirate]

TnK, do you suppose she looked cool and collected because she lives her life in a fishbowl and has learned to react to all situations this way???

AFR, while it's nice of you tell me that I simply don't understand what 'character assasination' is, it is also arrogant at the same time. I know what constitutes the term in my mind and obviously you have an opinion in you lexicon, but because my opinion differs from you, I'm wrong? Remember that in academic discourse nuance and inference is something to factor in and your inference was that HC was somehow inferior for her decision, thus character assasination.

 

[JetMom]

Originally posted by Hagred
I think what's truly bothering conservatives about this particular 'political' statement is that it happens to be true. Bill Clinton IS lucky to have insurance to cover this procedure. 43 million Americans do not.

I guess this falls under today's politically correct agenda:

It's not WHAT you say - it's when, where and how you said it.

If you can't take issue with the absolute truth of a statement, go after when, where, and how the statement was issued as well as attacking the character of who made the statement in the first place.

Well said!

 

[JetMom]

Originally posted by Elwood Blues
Iraq had nothing to do directly with 9/11. That's a known fact.

But there is a common link between the two.

Terrorists and regimes that support/aid terrorists.

It's also a known fact that Iraq supported and harbored terrorists.

Hence the war on terrorism is one of the reasons we went after Iraq.

we "went after" Iraq for primarily financial reasons. terrorism was just a way of making it an emotional issue.

 

[crazyforgoofy]

Originally posted by JetMom
we "went after" Iraq for primarily financial reasons. terrorism was just a way of making it an emotional issue.

If "we" were truly after the terrorists who did harm to our country wouldn't "we" have attacked Iran?