Two days ago I did a post on ABC News desperately staging the news.
Today, it's about Hillary staging questions in the audience at a campaign event in Iowa. Questions she wants asked and has already rehearsed answers for.
Hillary staging her campaign event. by planting people in the audience with the right questions, now there's an idea.
Choreography is upon us in the truest sense of the word.
Friday, November 9, 2007
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
15 comments:
Web, does this make you equally outraged? Why am I even asking, I already know the answer...
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/11/09/cbsnews_investigates/main3481008.shtml
If you think that choreography of campaign, press and other political events starts and ends with Hillary Clinton, you've not been paying very close attention for the past 6 years.
Adding your 2 cents worth, Vienna, only adds to the fun.....and I don't by any stretch think it's only lefties...we live in an increasing age of staging....
How did you like Bush staging his 'town hall meetings' and his teleconferences with the troops when it was found that Allison Barber, deputy assistant defense secretary, carefully coached and selected the troops that would be interviewed by the president?
To top it all off, we find that Bush used gay prostitute Jeff Gannon Guckert as a fake reporter and question-planter in presidential news conferences.
http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/HL0502/S00178.htm
Surely your readers would like to know about that. In comparison, what Hillary's campaign did was much ado about nothing.
We all need to be aware that this goes on on all sides.
Thank you Ellen. I was going to include those examples in my post as well.
Web, if you acknowledge that all politicians stage events, why make the post seem as if what Hillary did was shocking and outlandish? If anything, it's tame compared to the shenaningans we've been sbuject to over the past 6 years.
Because, my dear, it's my blog and much more fun to focus on Hillary. But your points are well taken.....
Fair enough.
Never mind the implosion in Pakistan, the deadliest years for American troops in Iraq and Afghanistan, oil nearing $100 a barrel, the housing crisis and the stock market tanking.
Those things are not nearly as important as a (gasp!!) staged question for a political candidate. Shocking!
vienna
your liberalism is showing...
most of the things that you mention are exaggerated and one of them (oil prices) can not be helped (unless we had more drilling and refineries) gasp!!
as for "the deadliest years for American troops in Iraq" you must have your head in the sand, because even the MSM has had to admit that military casualties are down since the surge began
see the links below
http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/iraq/2007-09-30-deaths_N.htm
http://www.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/meast/10/30/iraq.main/index.html#cnnSTCText
Well, I'll do my best to remember that the whole gas thing is being exaggerated and can't be helped while I'm paying over $3.00 a gallon for gas.
I never said anything about the surge. It seems to be having some good results, which I'm pleased with, since my husband has about a 50% chance of heading to Baghdad next year.
2007 is, however, the deadliest year in both Iraq and Afghanistan. It's your right not to believe the MSM. Facts, like deaths, however, don't lie.
Pick whichever link you'd like. I'd put a Fox News link up, but oddly, they don't seem to have covered this part of the story. Hmmmmmm......
http://www.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/meast/11/06/iraq.main/index.html
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20071106/ap_on_re_mi_ea/iraq
http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D8SO9AJ00&show_article=1
http://www.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/asiapcf/11/10/afghanistan.nato.clashes/index.html
http://www.boston.com/news/world/middleeast/articles/2005/07/03/us_endures_deadliest_year_in_afghanistan/
http://washingtontimes.com/article/20071111/FOREIGN/111110037/1003
the gas prices could be helped if we were able to drill for more of our own oil and refine more of it
why cant that be done?
im glad to see that you admit that the surge is working. do you think that we should retreat immediately now that we are seeing signs of progress?
when i did a search for "deadliest year for US troops in iraq" on foxnews.com, the fifth result is shown in the link below.
http://www.foxnews.com/wires/2007Nov06/0,4670,Iraq,00.html
I guess you didnt look too hard.
Hmmmmmm...... Perhaps you should try again?
its funny that i didnt see anything about the info in the following link in the MSM last week
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,305683,00.html
No thanks, advcomps. I don't have any interest in reading more stories about the deaths of American troops. You seem like you've got that pretty well covered.
And no, I don't think we should withdraw immediately from Iraq. I think we should maintain the same number of troops for as long as it takes. With a caveat that the United States imposes a military draft on eligible healthy, heterosexual men and women between 18-42. If we're there to win, then the time has come for everyone to pay their share.
But that's a dead horse that's been beaten many times 'round these parts, and it's best just to move on.
i simply disputed your statment about how foxnews didnt cover the high number of deaths in iraq
(and i proved myself correct)!
it sounds like you enjoy focusing on the high number of deaths in iraq (you brought it up) instead of any success made as a result of the pertaus/bush surge
oh, you would like to see the draft re-instated? so that you could use the tired vietnam arguments about how the poor blacks were forced to fight "the man's" war
this is a VOLUNTEER army and when anyone has signed up in the past 3 years, they knew that they would be going to the war in iraq or afganistan
you want to move on? just like moveon.org was founded to change the subject of mr clinton and monica's blue dress? now i see...
Well, let's take a trip down memory lane. I mentioned that this was the deadliest year for American troops in Iraq and Afghanistan since the wars began. You said I "must have my head in the sand" to believe that. I listed 6 online stories that proved that, sadly, it is the deadliest year. I take no pleasure in any casualty suffered in either place. I personally think that we should show the faces of every American Soldier, Sailor, Airman or Marine killed in battle so that what is now simply a number on the national news becomes an image of what war really means - the loss of a real person, with real family members who loved them, who volunteered to give the ultimate sacrifice.
I don't have any interest in bringing up some 60s throwback for re-instituting the draft. On the contrary, I think it should be re-instituted because I think it is high time we all sacrifice for the war effort. I watched the Ken Burns PBS series on WWII and saw how virtually every family was affected in some way by the war - either working in a defense type industry here at home, sacrificing items like rubber, gas, and sugar so that the troops would have plenty, growing their own food, collecting scraps to recycle or use in the production of needed equiptment, and of course, volunteering for mlitary service. I simply don't see that now. Most people have no connection to this war, we haven't been asked to sacrifice anything (beyond a few extra bucks at the mall) and there's no call for national service. I think that's a mistake. I think it would make us a more unified force if we were all fighting together for a common goal. But that's probably just my anti-Americanism doing the talking.
And friend, you don't need to remind me this is a volunteer military force - my husband volunteerd 19 1/2 years and 2 wars ago. But thanks for the tip.
vienna,
im sorry to have implied that you were incorrect about this being the deadliest year for our soldiers.
i should have said that yes, with more troops in battle and on the offensive, there will be more casualties.
but i wanted to point out that you (like the MSM), didnt mention that after the inital surge there has been a dramatic drop in both mil and civ casualties
as a non-combat veteran, i respect yours and your husbands service but i wanted to point out some facts that were missing from your comments
concerning sacrifice, this is a much different type of war than WWII (or any other war) and as we are starting to see, it can be fought successfully with fewer combatants and and resources from home
there isn't the need for civillians to sacrifice like they did in WWII, but i do wish that there were less complaining about how "tired" people are of this war
to show the faces of dead military on the news only helps the enemy propaganda effort, just the way that CNN did when they showed our soldiers cut down by enemy snipers
compared to these issues, any political campaign tricks are truly insignificant...
Wow. If you really think that showing the faces of American soldiers is helping the "enemy propaganda" effort, then you and I are on completely different pages. I couldn't possibly agree with you any less.
But, in the spirit of your comment, by all means, please completely ignore the dead and wounded from OIF/OEF. The last thing our troops need is our attention, lest Osama find out that we really care and admire their sacrfices.
You're right - we are fighting this war with fewer people and fewer resources. Our military - overstretched as it is - has been asked for 6 years to do more with less. I would think that in a nation like ours that might be an embarrasment. Sadly, the general population seems to take some perverse pleasure in that. I think that's wrong. If there's anything we shouldn't scrimp on, it's America's war fighters.
But that would require everyone ponying up, and neither the age we live in nor the leaders we have ever encourage that, so off we go, living our lives, happily oblivious to the pain and suffering in the wars - on both sides. The really sad fact is that we seem to like it that way.
Post a Comment