Three Times Is Not A Gaff

[AuntPatsy]

But Nor Is It Always A Threat

I've thought about this for a long time, all through the night and all through the morning....

And people are right, its not....

Why is it that not one political candidate on the campaign trail does not veer from reciting almost word for word the same speeches time after time?

Why is it that candidates rely on the man or woman behind the curtain to tell them what to say, to write it down for them?

Why is it so hard to desire and demand a candidate simply speak from the heart, only barely look at cliff notes to ensure their desire to talk about a certain issue is not forgotten in the short time most get to speak to the public?

You know why........because people tend to make mistakes say the wrong things, forget what they really wanted to address and sometimes,they just have no idea about the subject that is being discussed and needs another to research it simply because they don't have all the time in the world to accurately claim a full knowledgeable discussion about a certain issue..

Though the practice is obviously needed to a degree, since people are so quick to judge on first impressions rather than delving deeper into someone's Psyche, it has its bad points too.

I don't feel that particular quote was decided by Sen Clinton herself. She is an intelligent woman regardless of the fact that others disagree, sour grapes and bad manners cause people to shout such nonsense..

But NO one is above making a mistake, no one is above not realizing a mistake until long after the mistake was made...

There is not one politician that I have ever listened to in my lifetime that has not made a gaff in his or her lifetime...

Is it wrong to use these mistakes for political gain? Frankly it is wrong but such a practice will always be used..I've used it myself and would again I have no doubt when attempting to win an argument..

Your right, three times is not a gaff, it is a repeat of your speech writers memos...nothing more nothing less.

People claim they not exactly why such was stated...

I say to you, no, you really don't. I'm not sure Sen Clinton did at first either, It is easy to justify why it was used and if there is no one to tell you at the time when you are tired and overworked and exhausted both mentally and physically that it probably is not a good idea to bring up than you simply go with it as this small statement is but one of hundreds that are being used as campaign material...

If you don't want Sen Clinton to win the nom, that is fine, we have many great candidates in our ranks, much much more than the Republicans and we should be extremely proud of that fact...but there is no need to throw her to the lions for lunch...would you decide so easily do the same to a loved one that expressed something you did not agree with?

I don't love Sen Clinton, I don't love Sen Obama, I don't truly know them but I do admire them both, I am not so naive as to believe it is all so cut and dry when being such a public figure and having to deal with so many different issues and or people, sometimes you will be made to do something that goes beyond your sense of right and wrong. Sometimes you will have to make a decision that in another time and place you might never make in the same way...

Sometimes pleasing all of the people all of the time is downright impossible and you must make a decision knowing full well not everyone will be happy, and if we cannot make allowances for such people who are in such demanding positions that how in the world do we expect them to do the same?

Even many of us here on Du supposedly on the same side have different needs and wants and have a very hard time getting along because of that, how in the world can we demand a president do what we ourselves cannot accomplish?

I am not telling anyone to give her a break, I am not telling anyone what to think do or say, I am just asking that we try to be more fair given the circumstances that what comes with that job is not always as black and white as some people believe it to be.

Peace....:dem:

[Rosa Luxemburg]

1. Bosnia was 4 times

again, anyone who speaks to such a large audience should be careful what they say. This has gone worldwide.

[PoliticalAmazon]

2. Sorry. No excuse for using assassination as a campaign strategy...

Regardless of who writes the speeches, it is the responsibility of the candidate regarding what comes out of their mouthes.

Obama's choice of the word "bitter" was a mistake, but you cannot compare that to Hillary's lies about sniper fire and her use of assassination as a campaign strategy.

Most people cut candidates some slack because they understand what the election race process is all about, and that candidates are stretched to the limit.

But, as KO said in his special comment, we've forgiven Hillary Clinton for major screw-ups (like pandering to bigots) many, many times. But using assassination as a reason to stay in a political race--it's so fucked up, I think she should be treated as an inpatient in a hospital. That is TRULY fucked up.

And her intent was quite clear. After working the bigots up into a self-righteous frenzy, such that they proudly announced to TV cameras that they are bigots and base their votes on race, to then use the assassination prompt--hello? Why didn't she just run an ad in the NYTimes, "WANTED: One Assassin to Help Me Win the Race" and be done with it?

There is no turning back from this. It wan't a threat, but it was intended to introduce into the American collective consciousness the possibility of Obama being assassinated, and I believe it was intended to be a prompt to the hate-filled Hillary supporters who either are now proud to act out their bigotry (first in the voting booth, perhaps as assasins next) or who are the insane supporters who see sexism in every criticism of Hillary Clinton.

[dkf]

3. Exactly, it was designed to remind us that Obama could be killed.

I honestly do think that was the intent.

[PoliticalAmazon]

4. I wish on Hillary the Wiccan concept of ten-fold:

May what she wished for come back to her ten-fold.

[Political Heretic]

5. Sometimes I'm with you; Sometimes I think its a calculated message for SD's

McCaulife has been saying some similar things to the media as well.

I don't think its a threat, but in the continuing theme of the Clinton campaigns early "Obama is risky, I'm the sure thing" arguments, I think they want SDs to be feared by the reminder that he will be shot.

[Perry Logan]

6. See your therapists. If it wasn't a gaffe one time, it isn't a gaffe a thousand times.