Re: [MLUG - DISCUSSION] Pssst...do something...

[Mike Miller <EMAIL:PROTECTED>]

On Thu, 8 May 2008, Jim Locke wrote:

> On Thu, May 8, 2008 at 1:10 PM, Mike Miller <EMAIL:PROTECTED> wrote:
>       On Thu, 8 May 2008, Jim Locke wrote:
>
>             I think Hillary is trying to win this thing still at any and all costs. Journalists have mentioned before the Clintons believe in using any possibly tactics,
>             whether ethical or not, to accomplish their goals. Then, they apologize.
>
>
> Do you have any examples of that?
>
> Examples of tactics include:

These aren't examples of unethical tactics for which the Clintons have 
apologized.


> - Agreeing to the Democratic rules, which mean the MI and FL delegates won't count.
> Now, she wants to count them because she's losing, even though Obama's name wasn't on the ballot in one of the states.
> This is a blatant political tactic.  People are taught then they're young that you should play by the rules.
> Some, possibly including Obama (but not sure) have suggesting dividing the MI and FL delegates even-Steven.  I think this is the only fair way to go right now.

Obama's proposal is in Obama's favor.  Clinton's proposal is in Clinton's 
favor.  Clinton was on the ballot in both states, so I'm not sure which 
Democratic rules she was following.  I'm not seeing anything unethical in 
this nor do I see an apology.


> - The Bosnia/sniper attack story.  She or Bill mentioned she said that one night late when she was tired.
> She actually said that on multiple occasions, and it was obviously not true.
> She either has bad recollection when she's tired (not great for 3am phone calls), or was straight out fibbing, multiple times.

There was an apology, and if she had been lying, this would be an example 
of unethical behavior, but where is the evidence that she was lying?  She 
knows that people track every word she says, so if she was going to lie, 
she'd have to lie about something where she couldn't be proved wrong.  It 
seems unlikely to me that she was lying.  She probably just remembered it 
incorrectly.  There was probably somewhere on the trip where she was told 
of a danger of sniper fire, but it wasn't at the airport.  When a first 
lady goes into a war zone, there is no doubt that she is in constant 
danger and is being warned frequently by her bodyguards.


> - Saying she has been consistently against NAFTA from the start.
> Documents revealed she has actually been pro-NAFTA on multiple occasions.

Why says that she was pro-NAFTA?  Not her biographers:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/02/14/did-hillary-clinton-reall_n_86674.html

Her husband supported NAFTA and she did not publicly oppose her husband's 
policies.

If you find something different, let me know.

Mike

_______________________________________________
discussion mailing list
EMAIL:PROTECTED
http://mlug.missouri.edu/mailman/listinfo/discussion