Comments on: Beneath Contempt

By: Clinton Is Her Own Worst Enemy « Liberty Street

Clinton Is Her Own Worst Enemy « Liberty Street — Sun, 25 May 2008 02:22:18 +0000

[...] this is exactly what I suggested here yesterday — if the rumors are true that Clinton is angling for second place on the Democratic [...]

By: Clinton Is Her Own Worst Enemy | Comments from Left Field

Clinton Is Her Own Worst Enemy | Comments from Left Field — Sun, 25 May 2008 02:05:13 +0000

[...] this is exactly what I suggested here yesterday — if the rumors are true that Clinton is angling for second place on the Democratic [...]

By: Kathy

Kathy — Sat, 24 May 2008 16:21:11 +0000

Thank you, DrGail, Dan, Chief!

By: DrGail

DrGail — Sat, 24 May 2008 14:56:40 +0000

I’m with Dan — she never said “I was wrong to say that” or “that was a stupid thing for me to say”. THAT would have been an apology. Instead, she really did deflect blame onto others, which is not exactly what I want in a president or, for that matter, much of a change from what we’ve got right now in the administration.

It’s the sheer calculation of it that is so galling. She has made a habit of making some statement that (to those who are paying attention) is clearly calculated, then plays innocent when she’s called out on it. Again, how different is that from what we’ve got right now? Hmmm?

You pointed it out so clearly, Kathy, that it really crystallized the incident for me.

By: Dan

Dan — Sat, 24 May 2008 12:27:42 +0000

Kathy, you wrote “Which, of course, puts the responsibility for being offended on her audience’s sensitivity”. Thank you for hitting on a major irritation of mine – No proper apology contains the word “if”, for just that reason. “I’m sorry if” puts the offended party on the defensive, “I’m sorry for” acknowledges that offense was given and expresses regret. I am extremely careful to note that whenever I hear an “I’m sorry” either in my private life or someone in public. “I’m sorry if” is NOT an apology!

By: Chief

Chief — Sat, 24 May 2008 11:05:17 +0000

Okay. I see.

Your line “She could have said, “Bobby Kennedy won the 1968 California primary in June.”” makes a distinction that I can understand. I like your explanation better than Olbermann’s last night. It is shorter and now I know how her choice of words could have been better.