Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
About Me
- Natalie
- Reader: especially of 19th and early-20th century literature and attendant books of history and criticism. Writer: of magazine articles (freelance), and--when I get time--of short stories, plays, this blog and that blog. Avid magazine subscriber.
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-Share Alike 2.5 License.
5 comments:
Nice to see you back and bloggin'.
Thanks!
Hey, did you get a chance to look at that Slate article? I'd be interested in reading what you thought about it.
I read the Slate article. By years of service, he may be statistically correct. I believe there is likely a bit of experience gleaned through daily life in the Whitehouse and daily insights, coaching and interviews with the President. Having an ex-president coach you and support you might also lend additional efficacy to Hillary and her camp.
It is a strong likelihood she has a clearer understanding on the daily operations of the Whitehouse and more influence to get things done.
Do you believe that experience is really THE concern? Bush and Cheney are very experienced. Hmmm. Success?
This article is like most I see regarding the election. He speaks of peripherals that have little bearing on what is occurring. Everything is broken down into a false dichotomy of red team/blue team, black/white, man/woman. This guy is twisting statistics and feigning outrage. Whatever. The same useless drivel is being printed in our papers and pumped over the airwaves.
The candidates aren't speaking of their true ideologies, actions and intentions... they create persona avatars that are then distributed through the media. Why should they change their ways? Their constituencies are asleep or willing to acquiesce!
The "candidates" who speak to real legislation in real terms are provided with no mouthpiece to the public and disappear early in the "election process".
Timothy appears to be a propagandistic smear guy with no real message.
I may not vote for Hillary, but it certainly won't be because of ANY of the reasons in the article.
You asked. ;)
No, I don't believe experience is the issue--not at all in fact; however, I do believe that a number of people within the Clinton camp (and, to be fair, some without it) tried to make it the issue for a while there.
Frankly, though, I'm surprised at just how little real issues--policy issues--are figuring in the primaries. Of course that's a blanket-statement; there are flashes of genuine engagement every once and a while. But the whole circus seems more concerned with showcasing the bons mots and pot-shots of speechwriters--the past week and a half it's been all about Obama's alleged "plagiarism"--than anything else.
I posted the Slate article because, though it has its flaws, I thought it at least did a good job of drawing attention to the fact that "experience" was being used as a smokescreen.
True...the experience issue is a smoke screen...always has been. George Bush has lots of experience.
Hillary's attempt at the plagiarism claim has been very poorly received here. Plus, speaking to a large crowd the other evening...she lifted 3 or 4 sentences from her husband's campaign. (gave me a giggle) I was going to blog it, but I'm so sick of all of this.
Everything is a smoke screen. There are very few candidates who have talked about anything real from a point of substance. They are typically chased out by the media as radicals...no matter which side they represent.
I'm soooooooo tired of this election, I'm tired of the country/world being so distracted. Sure...Bush is one of the worst diplomats the world has ever seen and I will be happy to see him gone (prefer to see him tried), but the real problem is with those who empower him. That problem will likely continue with the next president.
Post a Comment