CNN is quoting a Hillary "regret" statement where she claims that she only mentioned Bobby because the Kennedys have been on her mind so much this past week. BUT she made the exact same statement in her comments the night of the Indiana primary...

Posted at May 23, 2008 5:21 PM in response to Keith Olbermann Says It All On RFK Assassination and Hillary

Yikes,
Just realized the follow up is that Hillary's pick for the Kentucky Derby was the second place horse that had to be euthanized after the race. Not saying it as humor or satire, I am just amazed at how astoundingly bad sports metaphors can turn out...
Ouch.

Posted at May 9, 2008 11:15 AM in response to Game Changing Game Changes and the Gamers who Change'em

Yes,
I do know what you mean. I guess what I'm getting at is that even though a "shell" game (pardon the oil pun) is being played with expectations in Iraq (more violence --we gotta stay, less violence we gotta stay), we should avoid being painted into the corner the propagandists are trying to put us in.

The idea is supposed to be that anyone who wants to bring the troops home is some kind of cowardly surrender monkey, etc...
Nope, we're not going to dance that way for you, Iraqi forces making arrests is progress (yes someone could lie about it, or it might turn out to be the wrong guy, but who cares?).
I'm not sure why you think the comment is irreverent, I'm saying that even if the Iraqis are trying to make it look like they are getting control it is a good thing.
Don't get me wrong, I think the claim is probably b.s., but maybe its time to take some of the b.s. and say "Ok, I'm gonna hold you to that..."

Posted at May 9, 2008 11:08 AM in response to Tangible Progress in Iraq?

Doesn't every skilled politician pause before saying something they might regret? Isn't that sort of high on set of skills required for the job?
[sorry, just wondering]

Posted at May 8, 2008 5:34 PM in response to A Question for the Community: To Hack or Not To Hack?

It was not meant to be a "value judgment" and I was not using the term "sociopath" pejoratively, I meant it technically. As I said, by not engaging emotionally, a tactical advantage is realized. Just the nature of the beast as I see it. (Also, I consider it probable that sociopathic behavior occurs within a continuum of behavior even in non-sociopaths, so yes, the issue is the level of empathy and how it relates positively and negatively to decision making).

Posted at May 8, 2008 5:12 PM in response to A Question for the Community: To Hack or Not To Hack?

"Liberal" and "Conservative" are being thrown around like hate speech (who started it? I don't know, but I do know a few network personalities that do it A LOT!). Of course, hate speech is often answered with hate speech, which leads to an increase in VOLUME which leads to loud hate speech...

I use a trick when separating substance from "hate" (I intentionally use "hate" instead of "inflammatory" because hate is what is fostered by this type of discourse): Take a diatribe, substitute the "action word" du jour ("these far left..." "radical leftist..." "radical socialists...""socialist","left") with a known racial epithet and if the sentence still sorta works, it's hate speech (try it with a Bill O'Rielly rant). If, once the substitution is made, it sounds like a speech given by someone with Tourette syndrome(should make sense but why is THAT word in there?) then the person was at least trying to make a logical argument.

Fun with words, hahaha ;-)

Posted at May 8, 2008 4:10 PM in response to A Question for the Community: To Hack or Not To Hack?

I didn't say devoid of emotion, I said without emotional engagement, which as you correctly point out is another way of saying empathy (without sounding all "tree-huggy" ;-))
Of course, I feel that you were more interested in insulting me than engaging the discussion, so I may be biased...(just kidding of course, or not)

Posted at May 8, 2008 3:54 PM in response to A Question for the Community: To Hack or Not To Hack?

Well, a sociopath has a distinct advantage in this area, as they are able to study content without emotional engagement in subject matter.
This means that a speaker, whose intent it was to silence grassroots opposition, can intentionally infuse inflammatory rhetoric into their argument. Those who already have (even a slight) bias towards their argument tend to ignore or forgive the inflammatory stuff. Those that are biased against the position are prone to having an emotional response elicited that impairs or NEGATES their ability to respond.
This type of rhetoric is specifically designed to build exclusion not consensus. It is in effect a political weapon of mass destruction, non-nuclear perhaps (lol) --kind of a political bioweapon.

Posted at May 8, 2008 2:15 PM in response to A Question for the Community: To Hack or Not To Hack?

I've come to think that the key to a "Karl Rove" is the ability to sift through what the other group is saying and then be able to attack it from the inside out. I find I can't get to the end of the page or listen to complete exchanges without being nauseated/infuriated. That is a serious weakness and why I'm not in the business, lol. Of course, we are not talking about an academic discussion where I have to look at an opposing viewpoint, this rhetoric is DESIGNED to make the "other" peoples heads explode, so they won't engage, therefore they don't present a counter argument, therefore the "base" is hermetically sealed.
Yay!George Orwell.

Posted at May 8, 2008 1:31 PM in response to A Question for the Community: To Hack or Not To Hack?

Just finished watching the last part of CNN's webcast of Hillary speaking in Washington. A few interesting points, BUT --she refered to Bill wrapping up the nomination in June, and then awkward made a reference to Bobby Kennedy after his California win? WTF? She's staying in the race in case something happens to Obama? Wha?

Anyone else see it? What was that about?

Posted at May 7, 2008 7:18 PM in response to More Calls For Hillary To Drop Out, But Some Congressional Backers Stand Firm