pageok
pageok
pageok
Best Pro-Hillary Video Ever:

A short video statement from a friend of mine, whose family lived, and still lives, one block from the World Trade Center. She describes Senator Clinton's role in asking the tough questions about air quality near the WTC in the weeks and months after the attack. The video is a powerful, personal, and credible testimonial to the best side of the detail-oriented Senator Clinton.

GV:
Makes you wonder why someone who is so "detailed oriented" didn't bother to read the classified National Intelligence Estimate on Iraq before the war began. (That document contained the State Department dissent on the Iraqi nuclear program, the Department of Energy's dissent on the aluminum tubes, and US Air Force intelligence dissent on the purpose of Iraqi flying drones.) I guess those sort of details don't really matter.
2.14.2008 6:04pm
Dom:
Senator Clinton's #1 skill: nagging!
2.14.2008 6:24pm
dre (mail):
I'm sure Senator Clinton would be asking the same questions at question time in British parliament in 1940. Talk about a 1960's navel gazer.
2.14.2008 6:27pm
Imp (mail):
If I was Hillary, I'd do a video with the Steeler's Wheel classic "Stuck in the Middle with You".
She could have images of Obama "Clowns to the left of me"
and McCain "jokers to the right", and pitch herself as the sane one "stuck in the middle with you", namely, the voters.
Actually, I'm not a supporter of hers, but someone can get YouTubular with the idea.
2.14.2008 6:30pm
rlb:
Outtake: "Now, if only her husband had taken bin Laden out back when he had the chance..."
2.14.2008 6:38pm
dearieme:
rlb: spot on. Her husband's dereliction of duty was unpardonable.
2.14.2008 6:47pm
Michael A. Koenecke:
Is this a parody? I mean, really: just after 9/11, Hillary's big preoccupation was... air quality?
2.14.2008 6:47pm
Adam J:
Michael A. Koenecke- you're right, damage control in her home state was such a silly thing for her to be concerned with.
2.14.2008 6:57pm
glangston (mail):
A blind squirrel and an acorn come to mind.
2.14.2008 7:14pm
PersonFromPorlock:
There are people whose character makes competence a bad trait.
2.14.2008 7:51pm
josh bornstein (mail) (www):
Wow, what a bunch of poisonous people Here, she did something that (almost) no one could complain about [but bravo, Michael, for trying], and still people whine, bitch, and moan. Why not just say, "I really dislike her, or her policies, for a number of reason, but she was really out front of this issue, and her voice was helpful in addressing the situation." When people are so blinded by hate (and it's hard to find a different world to describe this level of animus), you really lose credibility. GW Bush has been a pretty awful president in many many ways, but only a fool would claim that *nothing* he has done has been helpful. I have no idea if this unrelenting refusal to acknowledge anything positive about Mrs. Clinton is due to intent, or cognitive dissonance, or something else. But again, we are veering into Ann Coulter territory. (Although now that A. Coulter is promising [threatening??] to support/vote for Senator Clinton, I may be forced to use another name as a stand-in for the lunatic Right.). By the way (sorry for going off-topic), who is the stand-in for the lunatic Left? Al Franken? Michael Moore??
2.14.2008 8:35pm
bittern (mail):
I'm with Kopel. That's a great testimonial. Thanks for putting it up, David.

As for the rest of youse, yeah, too bad she wasn't biting the arms of dead hijackers or whatever you think our heroic Rudy was doing. No friggin appreciation, is what's wrong with you people.
2.14.2008 8:38pm
MMF:
Did she explain why she "declines" to release her tax returns? Doesn't it seem obvious that especially as half of a couple who were infamous for sleazy, self-serving financial doings she would have to bend over backwards this time to show they are squeaky clean? And since she cloaks herself in the mantle of the Clinton Administration, she has claimed at least some ownership of that era's mistakes as well as its successes.
I can't understand how the MSM doesn't push her on this issue, and why it is not the first question asked of her in any debate.
2.14.2008 8:55pm
dre (mail):
"Here, she did something that (almost) no one could complain about"

You like N. Pelosi's tactics on FISA? I don't question your patriotism. I question your sanity.
2.14.2008 8:58pm
TRex (mail):
When you post the "best pro-Hilary video ever," you have to expect a bit of back-lash. Just don't get me started by posting the "best pro-McCain video ever."
2.14.2008 9:01pm
Bpbatista (mail):
No doubt Hillary and the Dems would be great at cleaning up after a terrorist attack. To bad they would not lift a finger to prevent the attack in the first place.
2.14.2008 9:03pm
bittern (mail):
Too bad the Republicans didn't pick up the ball either.
2.14.2008 9:22pm
Malvolio:
Why not just say, "I really dislike her, or her policies, for a number of reason, but she was really out front of this issue, and her voice was helpful in addressing the situation." When people are so blinded by hate (and it's hard to find a different world to describe this level of animus), you really lose credibility.
Speaking as one who is in fact blinded by hate, I don't understand how even a supporter would consider her focus on a peripheral and transient issue (at the expense of attention to a serious and long term one) constitutes a strength.

I fully believe that the air around Ground Zero was full of nasty particulates and vapors, but -- so? What are you going to do, have the EPA send Osama a cease-and-desist order? Cover midtown with a tarp? Manhattan is an island, the pollutants will blow off by themselves, and there isn't a lot you can do about in the meanwhile.

Oh,and I really dislike her and her policies.
2.14.2008 9:24pm
bittern (mail):
dre -

Do you like lima beans? I don't question your respiration, just your functionality.
2.14.2008 9:25pm
bittern (mail):
You have to expect backlash? What? Why? Are blog-responders chimpanzees?
2.14.2008 9:26pm
bittern (mail):
Malvolio, how do you figure that trying to assess whether a hundred thousand New Yorkers are getting their health wrecked comes "at the expense" of your worries about the next wave? Compared to, say, questioning Roger Clemens? EPA was telling everybody it was fine to breathe that shit, and people apparently believed them and stayed. I wouldn't, but hey. I don't much like her either, but you! Your blindness makes you ugly and hurts the country.
2.14.2008 9:35pm
Bender (mail):
Adolph Hitler came across as a really great guy in Sieg des Willes and he did a lot for Germany (the Autobahn, Volkswagen, and German economic recovery.) I also understand he had a really winning way with children. Obviously he'd make a great president.
2.14.2008 10:31pm
bittern (mail):
There's the winning contribution, right there. Sleep tight, Bender.
2.14.2008 10:34pm
Michael A. Koenecke:
I don't "hate" Hillary Clinton. I was serious: I thought the video seemed like a parody. I think being concerned about air quality is a good thing, but what in particular was affecting the air quality at that point was a ton of smoke and debris from a terrorist attack. It really seemed like a joke: "We just suffered the worst terrorist attack on U.S. soil in history, and Hillary Clinton's big concern was the temporary affect on local air quality." Note "temporary." Strange priorities, especially in what to emphasize to the public.

It is quite amusing to see people equate any criticism of a Democrat with "poison" or "hate." "Poison" or "hate" would be saying nasty things about the candidate personally, as opposed to being critical of her priorities.
2.14.2008 10:54pm
Mark H.:

Is this a parody? I mean, really: just after 9/11, Hillary's big preoccupation was... air quality?



Yea Michael, as unbelievable as it sounds, it was. I guess right after she fined "whomever" for violating "clean air" standards in NYC, she was going to "prosecute" them for illegally entering NYC airspace -- or something like that.

Fight back, pffft, can't be doing that kind of thing -- we've all gots to git along, ya know...
2.14.2008 10:58pm
glangston (mail):
I'm sure Dave Kopel has his own reasons for putting forth a positive notion of Hillary and not long ago of Barack Obama, saying he sounded presidential in a certain speech.

Maybe they both were parodies. These two certainly stand low on support of the 2nd Amendment as Dave understands it.
2.14.2008 11:06pm
Malvolio:
Malvolio, how do you figure that trying to assess whether a hundred thousand New Yorkers are getting their health wrecked comes "at the expense" of your worries about the next wave?
When you worry about one thing, you don't worry about something else. It's a zero-sum game.
EPA was telling everybody it was fine to breathe that shit, and people apparently believed them and stayed.
And kept breathing? Whereas the EPA should have told them to simply hold their breath for the next few months? Well, I guess it would have been more practical -- and safe -- than trying to evacuate one of the largest metropolitan areas in the world.
2.15.2008 12:09am
mea:
Thank you Bittern. Malvolio, I assume that you do not do work that requires knowledge of risks from air pollution and health effects of even short-term asbestos/air toxins exposure. I do. New Yorkers and Americans from all over the country are living with serious life-shortening health effects from the asbestos-laden air of ground zero. Before it "blew away", people poured into New York to help and lots of firemen and salt-of-the-earth types who wanted to do something practically lived at ground zero for days and weeks after the attack -- a long enough time to have shockingly high exposure that result in serious and lasting health problems. And in way too many cases they worked without protective equipment because they believed the dishonest statements of EPA that the asbestos and toxic filled air was safe to breathe. That was such a dirty trick on the folks who rushed to help! And then there are all the New York residents told to return to the area around ground zero to live and work. Those buildings were FULL of asbestos and other toxics and the terrorist attack spread those poisons in forms easy to inhale so that the toxins could cause serious and lasting health effects (although often delayed for cancers). Since Senator Clinton voted in support of Bush's rush to war -- not just the sensible attack of Taliban in Afganistan but also the Iraq distraction -- seems like she was being supportive of a strong American reaction. I find it very perplexing that people are so quick to dismiss as unimportant the critical focus on why additional PREVENTABLE injuries happened due to unsupported statements about air quality from the EPA. Our government should not be helping the terrorists to cause more harm to American citizens. EPA let us all down in a serious way, and many of the folks who rushed to help at ground zero will pay with shorter and less healthy lives. Senator Clinton was doing her job, and one that desperately needed to be done.


[DK: There is no chance that I would vote for Hillary Clinton unless she were running against someone like Farrakhan or Sharpton. The only time I ever voted for a Clinton was in the 1996 Democratic primary, when the only other candidate on the ballot was Lyndon LaRouche. That said, Senator Clinton obviously was an excellent leader on air quality issues around Ground Zero, and her hard work on the issue was very important. She was the leading political figure asking the questions that had to be asked. My friend Catherine's heartfelt video was a very clear demonstration of Senator Clinton's good side. I happen to think that Senator Clinton's negatives far outweigh her positives. But it's ridiculous to try to convince oneself that the positives don't exist. The video ought to help an anti-Clinton person understand why someone who strongly supports the New York Senator can have very good reason for doing so.]
2.15.2008 1:19am
ericmess (mail) (www):
5:04 p.m. to 10:31 p.m.

Fastest. Godwin. Ever.
2.15.2008 1:50am
Mary Katherine Day-Petrano (mail):
"When you post the "best pro-Hilary video ever," you have to expect a bit of back-lash."

Absolutely. My comments on the other Hilliary vs Obama seating the Florida and Michgan delegates lawsuit to come thread (Zawicky) is a MUST read.
2.15.2008 4:08am
Cro (mail):
Uh, I think the event that caused the decline in air quality in Manhattan is a little more important than the health issues associated with the aftermath. It's a case of not seeing the forest for the trees.

It also reeks of blaming people that are easy to get at rather than the ones who are actually responsible. I'd rather have a President who will keep that from happening again rather than one who will lead the cleanup crew. That's not a President's job.

What the video told me is that Clinton was a legislator who did good casework. That's not primarily what executives do.
2.15.2008 7:39am
Brian Mac:
"My comments on the other Hilliary vs Obama seating the Florida and Michgan delegates lawsuit to come thread (Zawicky) is a MUST read."

A must read for those who enjoy unintentional humour...
2.15.2008 8:01am
Michael B (mail):
"What the video told me is that Clinton was a legislator who did good casework. That's not primarily what executives do."

Yup. The video is fine, more than fine, in terms of what it addresses it would certainly be a great promo for a state house legislator or even a natl. legislator if the backdrop had not been 9/11 and all it reflects, from the post-Cold War, Clinton named "peace dividend," to WTC '93, to OBL and other factors as well. But for a POTUS focus, post-9/11? The incongruity seems apparent enough and am not sure why any cynicism is being suggested for calling attention to that fact.
2.15.2008 10:31am
Amalica (mail) (www):
No, way - THIS is the best Hillary video ever. I've seen this a thousand times and it still cracks me up.
2.15.2008 10:37am
Cliolexiphile:
I can understand about those who claim that this video seems misplaced given the context of the event. Yes, focusing on air quality seems a bit, eh, picayune, when the more important task of a senator should have been to help guide good decision making about how to eliminate the terrorist threat. Others, though, are right that this aspect of the tragedy was a potential public health crisis and that Hillary was stern in her dedication to addressing it.

Nevertheless, I was particularly bothered by this video. It reflects the sad state of American politicking. Why should testimonials from some average citizen make any difference to me? Have we really sunk so low that personal testimony about concrete instances of "the Hillary I know" would actually make any difference to anyone? What about her principles? What about the fundamental values she holds that would guide her decision-making as president? These are what should matter (though maybe she doesn't have principles or fundamental values), not some particular instance of where she got really detail-oriented and solved some particular problem. I don't need a detail-oriented problem-solver as president. I find these people to be the worst of an already bad breed, politicians. They tend to think that everything that causes anyone discomfort is a problem that some government agency can solve through the application of a farrago of bureaucrats to the problem. I see needlessly wasteful government studies and reports and commissions from "detail-oriented" pols.

On another note, did anyone notice the unstated implication of this approach about "the Hillary I know"? It is this, at least to me: "you may think that Hillary is cold, power-lusting, and an all-around cur, but I know her softer side." Doesn't this concede a bit much to the widespread negative perception of her? You don't need to reveal the personal side of a candidate available only through testimonials if your candidate doesn't already have a public reputation of nastiness.

What about the implication that Hillary is a pol who gets people things? Watch the other vids—it's all about how Hillary the super-pol can get anything for anyone, regardless of whether it is the proper function of a government to do so. It all smacks of the notion that government is a big nanny that fulfills all your desires and watches after you. (See videos by Greinsky, Moore, Marzelli, Ward, Volk, and Mallozzi for more examples.) It is all rather sickening to me.
2.15.2008 10:40am
Houston Lawyer:
2.15.2008 11:11am
PC:
Bpbatista:
No doubt Hillary and the Dems would be great at cleaning up after a terrorist attack. To bad they would not lift a finger to prevent the attack in the first place.


It's a good thing the administration's pre-911 warrantless wiretapping saved us all from any terrorist attacks.

Malvolio:
I fully believe that the air around Ground Zero was full of nasty particulates and vapors, but -- so? What are you going to do, have the EPA send Osama a cease-and-desist order? Cover midtown with a tarp?


Here's the weird thing about us New Yorkers. After the tragedy of 9/11 a lot of people were volunteering with the cleanup. Actually, I can't just credit New Yorkers with that. There were people from all over the nation and around the world. We trusted the government (bwahahaha) to tell us the truth about the nasty particulates and vapors. I'm no Clinton fan, but she was on the right side of this issue.

Anyone care to defend the administration's behavior?
2.15.2008 11:17am
anonthu:
I agree that air quality concerns were important and admirable after the attacks, but if this is the "BEST PRO-HILLARY VIDEO EVER" I think her efforts to become commander-in-chief are in serious trouble.
2.15.2008 12:12pm
ithaqua:
So, in "the weeks and months after the attack [on September 11]", while Bush and the Republican Party focused on attacking the terrorists, Hillary Clinton (and her Democrat supporters) focused on attacking the United States government.

Says it all right there, I think.
2.15.2008 12:46pm
Phantom (mail):
What do we expect the government to do in the event of a dirty bomb?

--PtM
2.15.2008 1:07pm
Procrastinator:
So, in "the weeks and months after the attack [on September 11]", while Bush and the Republican Party focused on attacking the terrorists

Why weren't they focused on attacking the terrorists in, say, the weeks and months before 9/11? Too much brush to clear at the ranch during the month-long Crawford vacation?

BTW, the adjective form is "Democratic." Is English your second language?
2.15.2008 1:51pm
anonthu:
Why weren't they focused on attacking the terrorists in, say, the weeks and months and years before 9/11? Too much brush tail to chase at the ranch during the month-long Crawford vacation in the oval office?

There. Fixed it for you.
2.15.2008 2:06pm
Procrastinator:
Right, it's Bill's penis's fault that W didn't pay attention to the 8/6/01 PDB...

"If only my predecessor hadn't received a BJ, I could've prevented 9/11!"
2.15.2008 2:24pm
ellisz (mail):
"We trusted the government (bwahahaha) to tell us the truth about the nasty particulates and vapors."

come on, PC. a cataclysm had occurred. of course there was all sorts of nasty crap in the air. how could there not be? there is all sorts of nasty crap in the air after a simple house fire.

you assume that the govt could have issued a dispositive report immed afterwards. I'm no expert but this strikes me as highly unlikely. as does your assumption that those who rushed to help would've stayed away had any such conclusions been possible and been aired.
2.15.2008 2:54pm
ejo:
are we going to re-debate the Clinton "laser focus" on terror again. we know it's not true and we know the 9/11 hijackers were here prior to Bush and were happily plotting away both here and overseas prior to Bush.

procrastinator is a good monicker. we waited and waited and waited to do anything.
2.15.2008 3:06pm
Taltos:
BTW, the adjective form is "Democratic." Is English your second language?

The proper word in that sentence is adjectival, is it your second language as well?
2.15.2008 3:22pm
Virginian:

BTW, the adjective form is "Democratic." Is English your second language?

The proper word in that sentence is adjectival, is it your second language as well?


Gotta love it when a grammar snob gets a grammar smackdown!
2.15.2008 4:00pm
anonthu:
Sheesh. It's a joke.

"If only weeds didn't grow in Crawford, I could've prevented 9/11!"

Just as ridiculous, no?
2.15.2008 4:03pm
Procrastinator:
The proper word in that sentence is adjectival, is it your second language as well?

LOL, you got me. The Law of Internet Grammar Nazism strikes again!
2.15.2008 4:09pm
PC:
come on, PC. a cataclysm had occurred. of course there was all sorts of nasty crap in the air. how could there not be? there is all sorts of nasty crap in the air after a simple house fire.


It was obvious there was all sorts of nasty crap in the air. I was working on Canal St. at the time and there was an acrid stench that hung around a month later. It still doesn't excuse the White House for saying "nothing to see here folks! Everything is fine!"

you assume that the govt could have issued a dispositive report immed afterwards. I'm no expert but this strikes me as highly unlikely. as does your assumption that those who rushed to help would've stayed away had any such conclusions been possible and been aired.


I'm not sure where you are seeing that I made any such assumption. All we wanted was a little honesty about the situation. Obviously the air was horrible on 9/11. But how long should we wear our N95 masks? A week? A month? If only we had some agency that could test the air quality and let us know...
2.15.2008 4:54pm
Smokey:
bittern:
No friggin appreciation, is what's wrong with you people.
Yep.

And:
BTW, the adjective form is "Democratic." Is English your second language?
Heck, I've been spelling it "DemocRat." Is that incorrect?

/ i keed!
2.15.2008 5:52pm
PC:
Heck, I've been spelling it "DemocRat." Is that incorrect?


I believe the correct form is Lieberal DemonRat.

hth
hand
2.15.2008 6:17pm
eyesay:
Cliolexiphile: "Why should testimonials from some average citizen make any difference to me?"

The candidates are not running in a vacuum; they have to respond to an environment of other candidates and beliefs and myths among the media and the voters. There exists a body of assertions against Mrs. Clinton, such as that she cares only about her own political future, or that she doesn't connect well with real Americans. Testimonials from average citizens can help undermine these ideas.

None of us can ever know all there is to know. (This is why we hire lawyers: because even the lawyers among us don't know all there is to know about the law.) Testimony from others, as in this video, is one of the ways we can learn something about a candidate's leadership. It is more meaningful and informative than Bear in the Woods (Reagan, 1984).
2.15.2008 6:55pm
eyesay:
Cro: "I'd rather have a President who will keep that [terrorist attacks on the United States] from happening again"

So would I. That is why I want our government to focus on domestic safety, rather than provoking anger in the Islamic world through our activities in Iraq.

None of the 19 hijackers came from Iraq. Iraq had nothing to do with the attacks of September 11, 2001. Al Qaeda was not involved in Iraq at that time either; the U.S. State Department has acknowledged this fact. Furthermore, Iraq didn't have weapons of mass destruction, which was the pretext (lie) told by President Bush to convince Congress, the media, and the voters that this war was necessary. This war has not made us safer; it has made us less safe, and it has resulted in the loss of thousands of American lives, hundreds of thousands of Iraqi lives, and hundreds of billions of U.S. taxpayer dollars.
2.15.2008 7:08pm
eyesay:
Taltos: "The proper word in that sentence is adjectival, is it your second language as well?"

The sentence under discussion is: "BTW, the adjective form is 'Democratic.'" Usage of "adjective form" is entirely correct. In English, nouns can be used before other nouns in this manner. Examples include: car door, horse manure, wine snob, carrot peeler, house sitter, bicycle chain. A closer analogy to "adjective form" is "noun phrase."

In short, Taltos is simply wrong to criticize the usage of "adjective form." This is a deliberate red herring to change the subject raised by Procrastinator, which is that ithaqua's usage of "her Democrat supporters" is incorrect. Ithaqua's usage is incorrect; this construction is used by President Bush and others, mainly Republicans, for the purpose of belittling and annoying Democrats.
2.15.2008 7:29pm
LM (mail):
David Kopel,

The only time I ever voted for a Clinton was in the 1996 Democratic primary, when the only other candidate on the ballot was Lyndon LaRouche.

You chose Bill Clinton over Lyndon LaRouche? I can almost hear the "tsk, tsk"-ing from some of the commentators above who also, I'm sure, refer without a hint of irony to Bush Derangement Syndrome.
2.15.2008 8:13pm
A Guest:
eyesay @7:29pm -

You just showed that "Democrat" (a noun) is a perfectly good way to modify "supporters" in the original sentence that Procrastinator (incorrectly) criticized.

Thanks for playing!
2.16.2008 2:32am
eyesay:
A Guest: "You just showed that 'Democrat' (a noun) is a perfectly good way to modify 'supporters' in the original sentence that Procrastinator (incorrectly) criticized."

Nice try, but wrong. Some nouns, such as "adjective," can be used to modify other nouns, as in "adjective form." But not all nouns work this way. One speaks of a Scottish musician, not a Scot musician or a Scotland musician. "Democrat supporters" is as incorrect as "Scot musician."
2.16.2008 1:56pm
LM (mail):
More to the point, the name of the party is the "Democratic Party." At times it's been called the "Democratic-Republican Party" and even "The Democracy," but never the "Democrat Party." "Democrat Party" is simply a dishonest epithet, hiding beneath false equivalence. Whether that falseness extends to grammar is academic.
2.16.2008 3:16pm