You are viewing an obsolete version of the DU website which is no longer supported by the Administrators. Visit The New DU.
Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Reply #48: Good evening Texas Hill. Thanks for taking the time to answer me. [View All]

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) Donate to DU
Willo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Apr-11-08 09:11 PM
Response to Original message
48. Good evening Texas Hill. Thanks for taking the time to answer me.
Just so you know, I haven't read the responses in this thread yet.

After reading your OP here, I had to remember why I picked you (from among the Hillary supporter posts) to try to have a dialog with.
You had posted a speech Hillary had given. It was positive...nothing to criticize. There were a lot of negatives posted the other day and it seemed to me, that you really wanted to show or even prove, Hillary's good side, her worthiness.

What struck me though, was how little I cared, to even bother, listening to the speech. My thought was, "Why would you think we would care anything about that now?" I'd like to try and understand why some of you so fiercely support her. It boggles my mind. Thus, my questions.

I'm not going to try to sell you on Obama and I'm sure you know you won't be able to sell me on Hillary. :) I simply want to try to understand you as a Hillary Supporter. So we can feel comfortable discussing this, knowing we don't agree. Okay by you?

I listed those three things because, in addition to being the current "Hillary problems", I feel those issues would seriously make me consider who I was supporting and why. Looking at them individually I might still stand by her, but I certainly couldn't do so without also admitting she was seriously flawed.

Bosnia lie: I hate lies for so many reasons. One thing about lies is they usually contain truth. Actually, the best told lie contains the most truth. That's the deceptive and dangerous charm. But, not that I'm saying this was a good lie.
The problem with the Bosnia lie was not the many parts that were true but the few parts that weren't. Those parts created a story of danger - ducking from being shot at. The truth was far the opposite - smiling and waving. I don't disagree that stress could impair the memory. But, there was no stress here. This you know for a fact.

So, that puts you in the position of supporting her despite the lie or to make excuses for her. You opted for her misremembering.
Fine. I understand. The problem, though, is twofold:

1) She told it at least four times publically. Once, with a little chuckle, that really did add to the reality of the story. So since she repeated the same lie consistently each time, it is safe to say she actually, remembered it, vividly in this way.

This leads to the second problem:

2) Her story was given to support her own designed, threshold for the Commander in Chief position. She is saying, I would make a good CIC because of how I handled the Bosnia situation. That leaves the door open to say as CIC she could conceivably forget or has already forgotten, how other situations (foreign and local), actually occurred. This could include meetings - public and private, group or one-on-ones -- where negotiations, promises, threats, peace and danger are discussed.

The door is also open to question her ability to recall; to question whether it was isolated or triggered and; whether it has become further impaired by time or lack of treatment. In short, to say she misremembered this event in this way, is to say she may also be losing her mind. Can you see, this is not me accusing Hillary any further? This is me working with the facts, within the parameters you gave me.

To opt for misremembering, then puts you in the harder position of supporting something far worse about her or admitting it was a complete lie made to pad her experience.

But you do come around, somewhat when you said
And even if she lied, I dont really care. It is a stupid thing to care about.


On her finances: In and of itself not a big deal, but it can be another small weight on the scale against her.
I definitely agree it is being blown up, maybe even out of proportion, but not for political reasons. It's like when someone brags overmuch, you find yourself looking for and exploiting their weaknesses. Looking for the dirt near a neat freak, a hair out of place on the model, etc. However, to not pay these people (especially the Moms & Pops) in a reasonable amount of time does not and will not look good. Especially compared with the money paid out to staff and consultants.


Colombian ties:
First, I dont see the Columbian trade deal as massively important... well, because it's not. It is a minor issue that has become a major issue because everyone, MSM included, wants to nail Hillary on something... anything. It is ridiculous.
From what I'm understanding...this is a really big deal. Quite a big conflict of interest at the least. But, I'm going to reserve speaking on it further for now because I want to be sure of all the factual reasons why it is (or isn't). Let's research it in the meantime.


Anyway, so that is why these things don't bother me. And honestly, Barack doesnt bother me either. The reason I support Hillary is because I believe that as shady as the Clinton's may be, Barack is every bit as shady. You DO NOT get out of South Side Chicago politics being a golden boy. Sorry, just doesnt happen.

2. The Clinton's shady has been raked over the friggin coals for 20 years now. It is getting pretty old. People will bitch and complain, but the time for ire and outrage is long past.
This I understand. It's in my opinion, the picking the best of the worst. The reason I dislike politics and politicians. I have intentionally left Barack out of the conversation for now. Which for this very point I would love to use. :)

But I disagree with you that the time for ire and outrage is long past. One, it sounds like the Clinton shady is old and new, or just long and continuous; Two, because an election is just for that purpose, to make a choice. And three, if the option is in picking the least shadiest, why would I not have the right to be outraged? If my options are slim, are you saying I should accept the doom and gloom because it was an expected outcome?

This is helpful to me because I don't want to have a problem with Hillary's supporters without good reason.
I can't respect Hillary. I guess I also like her less because she isn't living up to the loyalty and defense she has in her supporters. But my feelings for her as a candidate should be separate from my thoughts of her supporters.

I've booked mark this thread. I'll answer questions about Barack if you have any. I left Barack out because I wanted to stick to the point, you and your support of Hillary without comparisons.

Looking forward to continuing.


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC