<p>“I watch Obama carefully choose every word he says.”</p>
<p>Obama’s hammering and stammering is really starting to get on my nerves. It’s gotten to the point that I mute the tv when he starts to talk. Seriously.</p>
<p>
Hillary brought up the RFK assasination before this interview. </p>
<p>
Neither.</p>
<p>
Agree.</p>
<p>First off, this was not just some unfortunate choice of words. She said precisely the same thing re: RFK on March 6 to Time magazine. She again said almost the identical thing on May 7 in two different speeches.</p>
<p>Her reference to her husband is not unlike her Bosnia claim. Bill had the nomination “wrapped up” weeks before California, the CA primary was just icing on the cake, so her comments are not even factually correct.</p>
<p>It is simply that she is hoping for something, ANYTHING to happen so she can be President, even if that something is some catastrophe to her opponent. </p>
<p>It is further an example of how she has poor judgment, is completely self focused, and quite as simply, that she is willing to do anything to gain what she wants, with the boorish stubbornness of George Bush and such conduct has lead to why:</p>
<p>she essentially offended all factions in attempting to gain healthcare reform when she was First Lady.</p>
<p>at least half of the Bill Clinton cabinet has supported Obama.</p>
<p>why she is one of the least liked members of the Senate.</p>
<p>why she went from being the presumptive candidate at the start of the campaign and to the place she is now.</p>
<p>why she has a poorly run campaign, tens of millions of dollars in debt.</p>
<p>why her credibility ratings are a joke; and, </p>
<p>why she has absolutely no business being the President of this country</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Interesting. Although I wish that people were able to express themselves fluently, in complete paragraphs, without any dangling modifiers or other stylistic infelicities, I wish even more that they were thoughtful, insightful and addressed the questions that are posed to them instead of using the questions as a launching pad for more electioneering rhetoric.</p>
<p>That was my reaction when I watched the Compassion Forum hosted by CNN some time back. Obama did speak sometimes haltingly, but he treated the questions (from the audience) as an opportunity for dialog. His answers were brief and to the point. Clinton treated each question as a reason to engage in campaign-style oratory. Her delivery was smooth. But she repeated herself, not out of tiredness, but in order to make sure her point came across, and to talk more about herself and to lay out her religious credentials and her claims to support than to answer the question.</p>
<p>Substantively, there was not a great deal of difference between the two of them. In terms of style, Obama seems to have won over the audience despite not insisting as much as Clinton on his faith; he garnered a lot more applause than Clinton, who seemed to beat the audience over the head with her repetitions. This was an audience of religious leaders, well-educated, but she seemed to treat them as somewhat dim folks who needed every possible i dotted, every t crossed not just once but several times over. </p>
<p>Give me hammering and stammering over her smooth but smothering delivery any time.</p>
<p>It amazes me the uncanny abilities of Hillary Haters to disconnect vital body functions like brain, eyes and ears and channel all energies to mouth (fingers) for yelling (typing) the messiah devotion.</p>
<p>when Bush hammered and stammered it was bad.</p>
<p>when Obama hammers and stammers it is so thoughtful.</p>
<p>Simba:</p>
<p>No. It’s what comes out of their mouth that is either bad or thoughtful. Bush is lampooned not for hammering and stammering but for butchering the English language. That does not apply to either Obama or Clinton.</p>
<p>Did you watch that forum? I was not the one who did the applauding.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Change Hillary-haters to Obama-haters and you’ll have an accurate self-description.</p>
<p>^ your typed a mini essay on hammering and stammering.</p>
<p>So? Does explaining my reasons for preferring Obama’s substantive if imperfectly delivered answers to Hillary’s smoother but less meaty answers turn me into a Hillary-hater?<br>
I admire Clinton’s ability to express herself fluently. I am more critical of the content of her speeches. And who knows? The audience at the Compassion Forum was exhausted by her repeated professions of faith with little substantive content. Perhaps that’s why she did not get as much applause as Obama… Were they Hillary-haters, too?</p>
<p>Are people who claim they are tired by Obama’s hammering and stammering Obama-haters? I have no idea how they will vote. But I doubt that his hammering and stammering will affect their vote. I respect their intelligence too much to think so.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Yeah, I watch Olbermann sometimes too, but more and more, he’s getting on my nerves with his self-important tirades. Even when he’s right, he’s entirely too obnoxious about it:rolleyes:</p>
<p>I think the poster who said that Hillary was making the point that she will still be standing by if something happens to Obama is totally in touch with what she’s thinking. I think this is one of those occasions when a politician told the truth by accident. On a purely personal note, I’m loving the descriptions of Olbermann because it’s usually only the right that is aware of his outrageousness. I find him a disgusting pig most of the time.</p>
<p>There is a process to address the “standing by” issue that is followed by the DNC/delegates such as when Thomas Eagleton was replaced on the ticket in 72.</p>
<p>This isn’t about standing by, Hillary wants that nomination at any cost and wants it now and if it takes a catastrophe to get it, so be it, she couldn’t care less and it is obviously on her mind that such an event is possible, if not welcomed by her. Her camp keeps saying it, anything can happen.</p>
<p>As far as this is just a tired candidate misspeaking, she is the one that keeps saying she is ready on day one, ready at 3 a.m., etc. Apparently though, like with her Bosnia claim, when she’s tired, it is ok not to be “ready”. Further, she has now made the RFK reference at least 3 times dating back to March (and the Bosnia claim was maded repeatedly).</p>
<p>Her references to RFK are further misplaced as previous primary schedules were not as they are this year (June is not the same as June once was). More to the point, if using any appropriate judgment, she could have referenced the various primary campaigns that went to floor fights at the convention. But, that would not serve her well as every time that happens, the party in that position loses. </p>
<p>To that end, rather than the RFK reference re: 68, the more appropriate reference would be the fiasco that happened at that convention and the RFK and McCarthy supporters abandoning the Humphrey ticket and allowing Nixon to win. I sure don’t see that pitch being made to the superdelagates but that is the true dynamic she is putting into play here ultimately and clearly she does not care. She will relent until she prevails for this nomination or the alternative is to drag Obama down, allow McCain to win and take another shot in 2012.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>ROTFL…! Actually Simba, it’s obvious to even the most casual observer, that your hatred of Obama is at least as disconnected from “vital body functions like brain, eyes and ears”, as that of any potent Hillary hater on these forums.</p>
<p>Mr. Pot, meet Mr. Kettle…:rolleyes:</p>
<p>Zoosermom:</p>
<p>That was my first exposure to Olbermann and you can be sure it’s going to be my last. The man sounded unhinged to me!</p>
<p>Marite and Zoosermom - my wife agrees with both of you. I showed her the earlier (Bush gives up golf) clip and her response was “He’s just like Rush Limbaugh and those others. That’s the last thing we need!”</p>
<p>“Unhinged”…Yeah, that’s a good word for it. I saw the tirade against Bush’s claim of having given up golf in respect for all those “mother’s of dead soldiers”, too. I understood his indignation somewhat, but good God!:eek:</p>
<p>“Mr. Pot, meet Mr. Kettle…”</p>
<p>hey Ms. Pot, be creative. Invent your own insult for Obama bashers. Then we talk.</p>
<p>poetsheart and razorsharp: pay attention!
There is a reason that Olbermann is winning increasingly more viewers in his time slot: he speaks to the point about important issues and is UNAFRAID to battle so-called conventional wisdom. Frankly, Keith is refreshing. He is an apologist for no one (including Obama!) and captures the spirit of current political discourse far better than anyone else in today’s frenzied 24 hour news cycle…
If the two of you don’t get it, just keep watching the inimitable Billo!</p>
<p>BarristerDad, I’m on Olbermann’s side, and I’m glad that he’s there, but I do think that he is over the top sometimes with his commentary. I wish he would keep it shorter - we get the point without the long diatribe. </p>
<p>Sorry – I think he says good things, but I think that Jon Stewart can get the same points across in a far more effective and often far more damning way with a single remark…</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>There’s also a reason that he is regularly trails about 5 other cable news shows.</p>
<p>Barrister, given the fact that you are obviously one of the new kids in town, you can’t possibly know where I am on the political spectrum. So, it’s entirely inappropriate for you to assume I’m a fan of Bill O’Riley:eek:. Just because I think Keith Olbermann’s tirades are often tedious examples of a self-important blowhard, doesn’t mean I’m any more tolerant of Bill O’Reilly’s idiotic spew. Do you draw conclusions without adequate evidence in you law practice, too?</p>