Hillary losing ground...

[des]

The Insight article proves nothing. What happens with this sort of news
is a very minor outlet (Insight) finds a story, and then the story is picked up by a larger outlet (Fox). Perhaps it was picked up by some other outlets as well, but I haven't seen them, except...

I saw the CNN story which discussed Obama's supposed extreme Islam connections. One reporter visited the school Obama went to at age 6.
It totally discounted the story.

I didn't see the stories were at all the same.

As for smears, I think this one was pretty low.
CBS was wrong, and someone with a good record as a journalism was pretty much ruined on the basis of this single story. I think that's quite a consequence. I doubt anythign at all will happen for Fox's shoddy story. It was arguably a much more serious "charge" against an individual. CBS' was that George Bush is a slacker essentially. Fox's is that Obama is an extremist Muslim. Mind you this all doesn't defend CBS's story. I just don't think it was quite in the same league. Now if they had claimed that GWB was a closet Nazi or KKK member, that would be in the same league.

I have seen bad journalism on other networks-- though I think the biggest problem of journalism these days it isn't bold enough. The run up to the war in Iraq was a major problem. I think most of the journalism was very timid.

--des

 

[jeffrey]

There is a reason why they don't let here-say pass as evidence in a court of law. Do you know what that reason is?

So, let me get this straight. According to you, the only information you should rely on is what you know 1st hand. Throw out the history books, the bible, and everything you have ever seen on TV. So tell me. How is Hillary these days? (Seeing according to you, you will only go on 1st hand information)

 

[PureX]

So, let me get this straight. According to you, the only information you should rely on is what you know 1st hand. Throw out the history books, the bible, and everything you have ever seen on TV. So tell me. How is Hillary these days? (Seeing according to you, you will only go on 1st hand information)

No. According to the legal system of the united States, here-say has been found to be far too inaccurate and biased to be useful in any attempt at passing a fair judgment on our fellow citizens. There are millions of people who hate Hillary Clinton for being this, that, or the other when in reality they haven't a clue about her, or what she's done or hasn't done, because they've never even met her. Not that their meeting her would clear any of this up, in even the least way.

She's a powerful and outspoken women. That, alone, is enough to draw the hatred of countless people. She's a democrat and a politician. That, too, is enough to draw the hatred of countless people. Yet none of this really condemns her in any way, except in the prejudiced eyes of people who hate powerful women and democrats, and politicians. Oh, she's also a lawyer, I'm sure that, too, will be enough to draw the hatred of countless people, as well. And I have met many of these countless people who hate Hillary Clinton. And not one of them has any real knowledge of the actual woman. All their hatred is based on their own imagination, and on prejudice, and on the imagination and prejudice of their peers.

 

[CaptainXeroid]

...All their hatred is based on their own imagination, and on prejudice, and on the imagination and prejudice of their peers.

and by the same token, all the people who think she is the greatest thing since Abraham Lincoln, FDR, and JFK rolled into one are basing their 'love' on their own imagination, and on prejudice, and on the imagination and prejudice of their peers...that is, except for the few who have worked with her and have gotten to know her personally.

I don't hate Hilary. I'm just not a Democrat, and therefore my politics don't line up with hers. The fact that she might lose some ground in these extremely early polls has nothing to do with the fact that she's a powerful woman or a Democrat or anyone's prejudices. All it indicates is that it's way to early to inagurate the next President much less one party's front runner.

 

[PureX]

and by the same token, all the people who think she is the greatest thing since Abraham Lincoln, FDR, and JFK rolled into one are basing their 'love' on their own imagination, and on prejudice, and on the imagination and prejudice of their peers...that is, except for the few who have worked with her and have gotten to know her personally.

I agree with you. My mom is like that. She hates George Bush, which I can certainly understand. He has left a whole trail of horrible words and deeds in his wake upon which one could base a very strong antipathy. But in truth she doesn't know much at all about Hillary Clinton. Certainly not enough to warrant her degree of admiration for Hillary. But mom is mom. There ain't no telling her anything. *smile*

 

[lilithu]

and by the same token, all the people who think she is the greatest thing since Abraham Lincoln, FDR, and JFK rolled into one are basing their 'love' on their own imagination, and on prejudice, and on the imagination and prejudice of their peers...

Hi CX,

I honestly do not know anyone who feels that way about her. Doesn't mean they don't exist but I don't know them in my circles. Many people are so excited about a woman candidate who has a real shot at being nominated that they're willing to ignore any other considerations. (I am not one of them.) But that doesn't mean they think she's that great.

I don't hate Hilary. I'm just not a Democrat, and therefore my politics don't line up with hers.

Makes sense to me.

 

[jeffrey]

No. According to the legal system of the united States, here-say has been found to be far too inaccurate and biased to be useful in any attempt at passing a fair judgment on our fellow citizens. There are millions of people who hate Hillary Clinton for being this, that, or the other when in reality they haven't a clue about her, or what she's done or hasn't done, because they've never even met her. Not that their meeting her would clear any of this up, in even the least way.

She's a powerful and outspoken women. That, alone, is enough to draw the hatred of countless people. She's a democrat and a politician. That, too, is enough to draw the hatred of countless people. Yet none of this really condemns her in any way, except in the prejudiced eyes of people who hate powerful women and democrats, and politicians. Oh, she's also a lawyer, I'm sure that, too, will be enough to draw the hatred of countless people, as well. And I have met many of these countless people who hate Hillary Clinton. And not one of them has any real knowledge of the actual woman. All their hatred is based on their own imagination, and on prejudice, and on the imagination and prejudice of their peers.

True, and you are basing your "Pro" feelings on the same ground as you are telling others with "anti" feelings not to do.:sarcastic

 

[PureX]

True, and you are basing your "Pro" feelings on the same ground as you are telling others with "anti" feelings not to do.:sarcastic

What "pro feelings" are you referring to?

 

[Mercy Not Sacrifice]

lol ok. Show proof it was the Republicans. You liberals love to blame everything on conservatives and you never ask for proof. You never defend the claims you make. But, if someone dares to insult a liberal, its all out war. Liberals only care about logic and argument if it suits their agenda. Otherwise, logic is bigotry. Facts are "hate-speech". It's disgusting.

No offense, can you please rephrase that without all the unsupported accusations and strawmen? It's hard to read what you're trying to say.

Ane what major network doesn't practice shoddy reporting / tabloid journalism? Or are you going to protect your liberal spin machines?

Ditto.

And the liberal denial continues.

Ditto.

Don't get me wrong, fellas: I don't mind debating this topic with you. But when you make comments such as these, it only reinforces the stereotype that conservatives choose not to understand their moderate and liberal counterparts. Please show us a little more respect, and I think you'll get a little farther with us.

 

[spacemonkey]

Look, all I know is that if Hillary were to get elected president that would mean that there would have been either a Bush or Clinton in office for at least the last 24 years (possibly 28). I'm sorry, but you can't tell me these are the only two families qualified to give us a president. Why don't we just change the country into an alternating monarchy?

 

[Radio Frequency X]

No offense, can you please rephrase that without all the unsupported accusations and strawmen? It's hard to read what you're trying to say.

No, I'm sorry I cannot. I wasn't making an argument. I was stating what I thought. It wasn't meant to persuade you to agree with me. It was simply meant as an expression about how I feel regarding the hypocrisy of liberals.

 

[Mercy Not Sacrifice]

No, I'm sorry I cannot. I wasn't making an argument. I was stating what I thought. It wasn't meant to persuade you to agree with me. It was simply meant as an expression about how I feel regarding the hypocrisy of liberals.

But if this is all you want to see us for, how can we reconcile anything political?

 

[Radio Frequency X]

But if this is all you want to see us for, how can we reconcile anything political?

I make many good logical arguments. But that isn't going to stop me from offering feelings or impressions.