The Captain says, "... Clinton campaign decided this makes Hillary look presidential." How exactly do you justify this comment? If the media decided to write puff pieces on Clinton, good for her but how exactly do you think that her campaign dictated the coverage? Of course she had to come out and give a statement. If she had not, there would be even more winger conspiracy theories out there than there are currently.
This was a bad situation which Hillary handled appropriately. Sure the press might have gone overboard in their praise, but so what? It will all blow over in a day or two.
KarenT
· 2 years ago
The Captain says, "... Clinton campaign decided this makes Hillary look presidential, at least to Larry Sabato and the AP."
To me, Captain Ed's comment means that some in the media made so much of Clinton's response that they seemed like part of the Clinton campaign. Even you called them "puff pieces". It will be interesting to see if these reporters continue to "puff up" Hillary as the campaign progresses.
captained
· 2 years ago
Of course she had to come out and talk about what a great job she did in bugging -- her word -- the people trying to resolve the standoff, because otherwise her silence would have formed another conspiracy theory!
That's about the lamest rationalization I've heard.
Teresa
· 2 years ago
Try looking at the comment sections on Free Republic or Michelle Malkin or even Politico where they are all convinced that the Clinton campaign staged this. Then talk to me about how there are no conspiracy theories.
What would you have said if she had not come out and gave a statement, that she was a cold hearted bitch. Please tell me how any GOP candidate would have handled this differently. Oh, maybe Rudy wouldn't have used the word "bugged'. He would say, "We stayed in constant communication with the police." Wow. Talk about parsing.
unclesmrgol
· 2 years ago
Or even the comic above, which characterizes the hostages as the real people Brig. Gen (CA) whatzisname replaced.
Fight4TheRight
· 2 years ago
Teresa,
I'm concerned about your blood pressure! You are mentioning blogs like Michelle's and of course the Captain's here...perhaps if you hung out at Huffington Post and DailyKos and DU you'd find it calming!
I guess you have come to that difficult decision....submit yourself to the "hate" you find here (as you mentioned above) or go back to HuffPo and the rest and submit yourself to the Stepford mentality.
Decisions....decisions.....
docjim505
· 2 years ago
"I knew I was bugging these people," Clinton told the AP, but she wanted to know minute-by-minute what was happening, so she could tell her staff and be prepared for whatever assistance she could lend.
This is the stuff of movies: the police have a bad situation on their hands, they're working furiously to keep it from getting worse, and have to deal with a hungry politician concerned with votes and image calling them every five minutes, demanding info and perhaps a chance to inject himself (herself, in this case) into the situation to get a little free publicity.
Her partisans in the MSM and the chattering class may think this makes her look "presidential", but I think that most people will see her crowing for what it is: a shameless effort to take advantage of a bad situation for her own self-aggrandizement.
Bah.
Teresa
· 2 years ago
Oh please.... those police officers were standing around chit chatting most of the time that we saw them on TV. They sure didn't seem too busy to take a phone call. I'm sure these kids' parents were very worried and calling Clinton constantly for updates. If that had been my daughter I sure would have been. Clinton had a responsibility to keep those families informed and act as a conduit of information. I'm sure the police would have preferred talking to one person instead of four different families.
Ray_in_MPLS
· 2 years ago
"I'm sure the police would have preferred talking to one person instead of four different families."
Yes, and I am sure that the "one person" they wanted to talk to was the man holding people hostage and not some politician who "wanted to know" what was going on every few minuets. Hillary's just trying to take credit for something she wasn't really involved in. That makes her an opportunist. Not a good image to be portraying during her campaign.
"Clinton had a responsibility to keep those families informed and act as a conduit of information."
Wrong, it was the responsibility of the police to keep the families informed, not Hillary. The only responsibility Hillary had was to keep herself out of what could have been a deadly situation. Who elected her as the spokesperson for the police? Who elected her as a family counselor? What right did she have for inserting herself in a situation like this?
Law enforcement officers are the only ones who should be involved in negotiations with hostage takers and trained counselors (or other family member and close friends) are the only ones that should involve themselves with the families of the hostages. Introducing a third party, especially a well known public official, into a hostage situation is not a very good idea as it introduces an uncontrolled element into an unstable situation. That's a recipe for disaster. Hillary could have made the situation a hell of a lot worse by adding "star power" to the man's credibility which could have destabilized the entire situation. By involving herself in a situation when she had no reason to, she has shown the entire world that she doesn't even care for the people involved and only wished to use them in her campaign. Bad move on her part.
Teresa
· 2 years ago
Give me a break. How did her talking to someone at police headquarters "inject" herself inot the situation? She did not go to New Hampshire and stand outside the office, she released only one statement during the day saying they were aware of the situation and monitoring it, and when it was all over she came out and gave a brief statement.
She NEVER contacted the hostage taker. Of course the families of those campaign workers called Hillary. Should she have told them, "I'm not going to talk to you. Go talk to the police if you want information"? Of course not. That would have been cold hearted in the extreme.
Please tell me how Mitt or Rudy or any GOP candidate would have acted any differently than Hillary did. She handled the situation competently. If other people want to give her credit, then that is up to them. Your hatred of her blinds you to the truth.
hunter_123
· 2 years ago
They would not have been acting like Hillary.
unclesmrgol
· 2 years ago
Why didn't she? The hostage taker did demand to see her.
Ray_in_MPLS
· 2 years ago
"How did her talking to someone at police headquarters "inject" herself inot the situation?"
It's simple. By continually calling the authorities for information during the crisis, she tried to involve herself in what was going on. How can you say that she did not? How can you say that she handled the situation "competently" when her very actions highlights her incompetence when it involves a crisis like this? People not directly involved in a crisis like this should stay the hell out. All her involvement did was complicate the situation for everyone involved, including the family members of the hostages.
She should have done the right thing by issuing a statement in support of the hostages and the families and kept herself out of the rest of it. Did she do that? No, instead, she saw a political opportunity and tried to capitalize on the misfortune of others.
You only support her in this because she's Hillary. How would you feel if it was Cheney, for example, constantly calling the authorities and contacting the families and trying to become an unneeded "conduit of information" like Hillary did?
Face it, she tried to insert herself into a situation where she wasn't needed and shouldn't have been involved. She should apologize to everyone for her blatant disregard for police procedure (they have public relations people who hand out information, they don't need Hillary badgering them for information), for her general lack of common sense (you never harass law enforcement for information during a crisis, it just makes a complicated situation more complex and it is VERY annoying for the people involved), and for her complete violation of, and respect for, the privacy of the families involved (you don't call people simply because their family members are involved in a crisis and try to act as source of information. People NEED privacy in situations like this as these situations are VERY traumatic and need to be handled by people trained in handling traumatic situations. Hillary has no such training).
Hillary screwed the pooch on this, big time, and I hope that it keeps coming back to here time and time again during her campaign.
docjim505
· 2 years ago
Ray_in_MPLS : Face it, she tried to insert herself into a situation where she wasn't needed and shouldn't have been involved.
BINGO!
Teresa, the Hilldabeast is a private citizen like you or me. Yes, she's much better known, but she has no authority and, as Ray points out, no training to deal with this sort of situation. By her own admission, she was "bothering" the police during this time. Your sneers that "those police officers were standing around chit chatting most of the time that we saw them on TV" doesn't give her (or anybody else) the right to badger them and set herself up as the de facto public information office or counselor for the families.
Had she simply issued a statement of support for the police, the hostages and the families and otherwise stayed out, she would have looked far more mature and sensible. Instead, she looks at best like an insufferable busybody and at worst like a shameless self-promoter taking advantage of a horrible situation to try to give herself some creds as a "leader".
docjim505
· 2 years ago
Teresa: Please tell me how Mitt or Rudy or any GOP candidate would have acted any differently than Hillary did.
You keep waving your hands with this hypothetical "all the other candidates would do it, too!" to excuse what the Hilldabeast DID do. Well, since hypotheticals carry the same weight as reality, let me give you some:
--- Fred, relying on his acting skills, would have personally taken over the negotiations and not only gotten the hostages released in five minutes, he also would have gotten the madman to confess on national TV.
--- Rudy would have galvanized the local police into action and personally led them in an assault that would have rescused the hostages and killed / captured the madman in the first five minutes.
--- Mitt would have gotten the bomber to give up the hostages, surrender AND read the free literature just to get Mitt off his porch.
etc, etc, etc
Now, if you think that Hillary! did such a great job, why not just say so? Why try to convince us to agree with you by trying to get us to believe in events that never happened?
MagicalPat
· 2 years ago
She looked Presidential????? What is their fascination with how things look?
And if Hillary really wanted to show how she would handle a crisis with a foreign power, then she would have gone to that office and talked with the man. Since she claims that we need more 'diplomacy' why didn't she go talk to the local madman? Or will she only talk to the ones that threaten other Americans besides her? Threaten the Queen and the full force of American power will come down on you.
She doesn't look Presidential. She looks like an opportunist and a hypocrite.
AngryDumbo
· 2 years ago
Off topic already. Great piece in NRO on how Dems are increasingly reliant on non-believers for support. It seems the godless are liberals after all. No wonder Hillary is not dressing up like the church lady anymore. Religion is so 2004. ; ))
Further, secularists are by far the most politically active liberals at the grassroots level. In the 2005, the Maxwell Poll on Civic Engagement and Inequality revealed that those who never attend religious services are just 11 percent of the adult population in America. But they are 21 percent of self-described liberals, 27 percent of liberals who contribute money to political causes, and 33 percent of liberals who attend political rallies and events. The bottom line is that the Democratic party — at least at the national level — depends critically on nonbelievers. They have influence over American liberal politics that extends far beyond their actual numbers in the population.
Bah! I assume that you remember when the bible belt was the most consistent Democratic regeion in the country.
lfox
· 2 years ago
I see a Fine Italian Hand here - I have a hard time believing that as scheming a person as Hillary either manipulated a situation, or somehow had an underling arrange this event. A little suggestion, a little prodding, and a confused man goes over the edge.
No Hillary-fingerprints on the premises. No need for denials. Just a murky reality.
ich_dien
· 2 years ago
No scheming? Pardon my French. Why did she shut down all of her offices in . . . in a . . . in Iowa. How far awaty is Iowa in miles? A lot, but very close in terms of primary. She didn't shut them down in Massachusetts, did the schemer. No. . . in Iowa. Good on you.
Teresa
· 2 years ago
Um... because they probably don't have an office in MA. This was a prudent response to an unknown situation and probably advised by the police and secret service until they knew what they were dealing with. NH and Iowa have been the two states mentioned again and again in the news and would be reasonable targets had this been a wide spread plot rather than an isolated nut case.
GarandFan
· 2 years ago
Hillary! better watch it. She milks this any more, and the loons will be coming out of the closet to get their 15 minutes of fame.
Having delt with local politicans during critical incidents, we always gave them a phone number to contact us. Then we NEVER answered that phone. :o)
burt
· 2 years ago
There is no germane reason for this to boost Hillary, but it will for two reasons. She will get a sympathy boost. She will also get all of the very small current amount of coverage of her campaign corruption out of the media. It is a coup for her.
Otter
· 2 years ago
She not only canceled a speech, she RAN for home and the protection of a score of security agents.
Notice that ALL the Democrat offices shut down, the Republicans stayed put.
Does that sound familiar?
'KERRY: I was in the Capitol. We'd just had a meeting -- we'd just come into a leadership meeting in Tom Daschle's office, looking out at the Capitol. And as I came in, Barbara Boxer and Harry Reid were standing there, and we watched the second plane come in to the building. And we shortly thereafter sat down at the table and then we just realized nobody could think, and then boom, right behind us, we saw the cloud of explosion at the Pentagon. And then word came from the White House, they were evacuating, and we were to evacuate, and so we immediately began the evacuation.
+ + Kerry: "Nobody Could Think"
For the record, it was about 40 minutes between the when the second tower was hit and when the Pentagon was hit. For 40 minutes, Sen. John Kerry, a sitting member of the Senate Intelligence Committee, sat in a room with Senate Leader Tom Daschle.
In Kerry's own words, "nobody could think." '
Yep, sure does!
Teresa
· 2 years ago
The other offices were close to the event. The Obama office was two doors down. I doubt they had the choice in whether to close or not since the police had cordonned off the downtown.
Hate really makes people say idiotic things on here.
Otter
· 2 years ago
Then stop talking and spare us the hate.
clever_hans
· 2 years ago
I wonder if John Kerry is having sentimental memories of his Christmas in Cambodia, what with the snow falling and magic in the air.
MarkC
· 2 years ago
Then Kerry ran home to make sure his wife's money was ok.
Swede
· 2 years ago
“This was an instance of the White House experience of this campaign. They knew how to handle this.”
Obama, take it away.
Swede
· 2 years ago
“This was an instance of the White House experience of this campaign. They knew how to handle this.”
What, her husband took care of it?
Scrapiron
· 2 years ago
Sabato made an idiot of himself during the last election cycle. Why is anyone paying attention to his 'wrong' and biased idea's again? The MSM can always be disregarded when it comes to a Clinton, they should all be known as the Clinton news network. They are as Dumb as a box of rocks and stink like a sack of manure. Do 5% of the American people still believe anything they read or hear from the fools? Not one person I know does.
FedUp
· 2 years ago
Easy to be grandiose when you aren't one of the hostages! Glad she could make politcal hay out of an otherwise frightening event.
John
· 2 years ago
Sounds like micromanagement to me, particularly inappropriate in that she had no control over anything.
Bithead
· 2 years ago
Well, look, Ed; let's give Larry a little credit here. For you and I, and about half the country, looking presidential, means a vastly different thing, then it does to the other half. To the half containing you and I, looking presidential means there's some substance there. To the other hand, not so much. Put another way, some of the people are easier to fool with appearances, than are others. Hilary knows that, and so does Sabato.
So I think from a strictly clinical point of view, Larry is quite right. She played this one just that she had to. He knows, as you and I do, that most of that kind of thing doesn't have to involve any substance at all. It's all about perception, and positioning.
Hillary Clinton canceled a speech, simply because the appearance at a news conference in Rochester was going to give her more news exposure than that speech would have. She knows full well that the press is going to be speaking of her actions , whatever they were, in reverent tones , and her loyalists outside the press were going to be lapping that message up. And in that sense, who can argue his point?
I agree there is no substance there. Then again, that wasn't Larry's point.
Bennett
· 2 years ago
I think Hillary bugging the cops and other officials every 5 minutes is the perfect response. I can imagine the police and everybody else were like, "geesh, let's get this over with so we don't have to keep taking phone calls from this woman." Very effective.
I've often thought that Bill never took the kind of hit he should have for his cheating on Hillary because everybody --everybody, men and women-- could kind of understand it, being married to her. It's like the man really had no choice. It was either homicide or infidelity.
So yeah, she's presidential if presidential is being Cruella de Vil without the charm.
Del_Dolemonte
· 2 years ago
Bill Clinton as Al Bundy? Too funny.
Neo
· 2 years ago
It's good to know that Hiliary can handle a dunk who likes to make calls to CNN. Maybe that will qualify her to deal with Putin, but almost nobody in a (dry) Middle East.
coldwarrior415
· 2 years ago
At one point during one of her statements to the press, Hillary said something along the lines of "we have a threat, and we have to let the professionals take care of it." So, she calls constantly for updates and to give advice? Talk about micro-management.
If elected and there is a real threat outside our borders, or heaven forbid, within our borders, and she dispatches the military [professionals] do you think for a moment that she will let the professionals take care of "it?" I doubt it. She'll be on the phone constantly, much like Carter was during the aborted hostage rescue in 1980, and eat up time and lives as she tries to finesse each and every detail. A real President would tell the C-JCS "We have a problem. Take care of it. Report back when you've taken care of it," and eschew trying to micromange or get on the phone and "bug" the professionals at every turn. This incident certainly suggests a propensity for Hillary getting in the way.
Teresa
· 2 years ago
Please point to any report in which she "gave advice." You people are outrageous. You just make stuff up in order to make yourself feel better. Of course the woman called for updates. The families of the hostages were calling her for updates.
If it was reported today that she never bothered calling, you would be the same person calling her a cold hearted, uncaring bitch and saying, "That just proves how evil she is. A real leader would have been in constant communication with the police in order to make sure her campaign workers were taken care of." Hillary can't win with some of you haters.
Swede
· 2 years ago
"..a cold hearted, uncaring bitch .."
Finally! Something we can both agree on.
Bennett
· 2 years ago
Teresa, give it up already. You've now made the same point of three or different threads here. So okay you thought she was a giant among pygmies here, strapped into her chair serial dialing the men with guns and then telling us afterwards how she felt --so very Oprah-esque of her, so sensitive and just what we want in a President, a blow-by-blow of every passing emotion as she stared danger down through the TV screen-- we get it already.
Teresa
· 2 years ago
No. I think she did what every other candidate would do.
Otter
· 2 years ago
Run for home and hide behind a score of security guards?
Bennett
· 2 years ago
No male candidate would have gone out and started talking about confusion and bewilderment and how it meant so much more to him as a Mom. Come on, now. We're supposed to think she's tough enough to handle her emotions (like a man would) but never forget that she's a woman, gentle and true. Just another Mom, worried about the kids. But a two-fisted a** kicker kind of mom. She can aim that telephone like a real sharpshooter.
There may be women who can carry that combination off but she's not one of them.
Ray_in_MPLS
· 2 years ago
Any other candidate would have done the right thing by not involving themselves in it.
Do bank presidents continually request information form law enforcement when a robber holds hostages in their banks during a robbery? No, of course not. They stay out of it and let the authorities do their jobs.
Do business owners call the families involved when a gunman holds people hostage in an office? No, of course not. They let people trained in crisis management counsel the family members.
clever_hans
· 2 years ago
Well, she certainly didn't hesitate to play Psychiatrist.
"It appears he needed help, and he went about getting attention in the very wrong way,"
Of course, we assume that by "he" she was referring to this perpetrator, I mean the perpetrator at the campaign office, and not, you know, some other perpetrator in her acquaintance if you get my drift.
Moneyrunner
· 2 years ago
Teresa,
Where did you get the idea that the families were calling Hillary? Did they have her phone number? Do you?
Swede
· 2 years ago
Hillary! Clinton, REPORTING FOR DUTY!!
Neo
· 2 years ago
Now we know she can handle a harmless drunk who can call CNN.
onlineanalyst
· 2 years ago
...and who can solicit the help of Hillarycare II in order to afford the mental health care that he desperately needs.
Michael van der Galiën
· 2 years ago
"The normally clear-headed..."
It's her beauty. She's got a spell on me.
jrc22
· 2 years ago
In her response last night, I found it interesting that Ms. Clinton could not get herself to say law enforcement officials. The talked about professionals, etc., but Hillary would never be able to thank 'law enforcement.'
The whole 'incident' was just too coincidental. The 'nut' barges into the campaign office, and a hostage is immediately available to call the police. CNN is called by the 'nut.' A desperately mentally ill man would just happen to call CNN? And on, and on, and...........
KarenT
· 2 years ago
Ann Althouse makes some interesting points about the fawning press coverage of Hillary, post-crisis. She also asks about Hillary's 'as a mother' statement:
"Is that what you want in a President? Someone who feels extra confusion because she's a mother?"
A commenter, George, said:
"What male presidential candidate would say anything remotely resembling that? A guy would say something like, 'Well, it was a pretty rough time. I thought the police handled it very well. It's a matter now for the courts, and that's all I can say. And, yeah, I'll be visiting those folks up there who had that experience. They held up well, and I'm proud of them.' "
The dhimmies are so desperate for anything that looks like a leader it is laughable. Now they think a candidate cruising in after the minor crime is completely cleaned up, standing around with police and talking about how her campaign is cooperating and supporting law enforcement is leadership? What a friggin' joke. I look forward to video of Hillary rolling her eyes and looking completely bored during the President's first post 911 speech in 2001.
RB
· 2 years ago
While the Hillary-taking-the-limelight schtick is oh-so-predictable, it is nevertheless disturbing in light of the incessant abuse GWB has taken for his countless alleged character flaws (evil, Nazi, etc.). But one of the most vivid memories I have, and will have, about GWB's two terms is his pre-9/11 handling of the incident involving U.S. flyers essentially taken hostage by China. While I don't remember the details of the actual incident between U.S. and Chinese military aircraft, I do recall that "cowboy" Bush actually used diplomacy to secure their release...and when the pilots/crews returned to the States (somewhere in Pacific Northwest, I think), Dubya declined to fly in to greet them--specifically to avoid taking the attention away from those who merited that attention. I'll never forget that classy act.
I didn't realize that New Hampshire had this hierarchy of police organizations. Here in California we have a sane hierarchy -- my city police department reports to its chief, and the chief reports to the city council. My department does not report to the Sheriff's Department (a county jurisdiction), nor to either the California State Police or the California Highway Patrol (both state authorities), nor to the FBI, the ATF, the Coast Guard, nor any other of the myriad of Federal authorities with guns. Yup, Hillary sure was bugging people, but it sounds like the wrong ones. By the way, when a person repeatedly bugs me and I'm not the right person, I begin to think they are hysterical. Hysterical; presidential. The words do sound alike -- sort of like flaunt and flout.
Ray_in_MPLS
· 2 years ago
Since Hillary is claiming that her actions during the New Hampshire hostage situation is an example of her competence in handling a similar crisis, I wonder if anyone will ask Hillary about her involvement in the Waco crisis? Did she continually contact the Justice department for information regarding the standoff? Did she contact the family members of the Branch Davidians and offer to act as a "conduit of information" as she did in New Hampshire? Was she worried "as a mother" about the children involved and who were burned to death when the Justice department decided to force their way into the compound using tanks and teargas? Inquiring minds want to know.
Del_Dolemonte
· 2 years ago
Or how about her involvement in the OK City bombing?
Ray_in_MPLS
· 2 years ago
I don't remember that as a hostage situation, do you?
Ray_in_MPLS
· 2 years ago
BTW, I wonder how Hillary got the names and addresses, or phone numbers, of the family members? That's private information and it is NEVER released to the public, or even the press, during a crisis like this. This type of information is kept private in order to protect the family members and to keep them from being used as bargaining chips during negotiations. Remember that, at the time, no one knew what this man was capable of and no one knew if he was working alone or with outside help. Policy dictates that the names of the hostages and their families are not released in order to safeguard the family members. By releasing the names of the family members, it is apparent that someone violated that policy. An investigation should begin as to how this private information was released to Hillary.
Also, Hilary needs to explain why she requested information she should know is kept private. She needs to explain how she obtained the names of the families involved and why she felt their privacy didn't need to be respected.
Del_Dolemonte
· 2 years ago
I would think that her organization has contact info for all volunteers and paid staff?
If not, maybe she just checked her treasury of FBI files.
Ray_in_MPLS
· 2 years ago
So, someone in her campain organization decided that the privacy of the families was not a consideration and decided to release personal information to Hillary about paid staff and/or volunteers without their permission? I don't think that the hostages gave someone the ok to giver Hillary their phone numbers. They were probably a little to busy for that. That means that private, personal information of volunteers and staff are not as private as people believe when it comes to Hillary and her campaign offices. That's not a good image to be portraying during a campaign.
skatz51
· 2 years ago
Sorry, but I think it was somehow staged or planned by the Hillary campaign; just my 2 cents worth.
kreiz
· 2 years ago
Couldn't disagree more, Ed. To be sure, the episode wasn't 9/11 or Katrina. But my eyes were opened after Katrina, where I witnessed several supposedly professional pols (Bush, Blanco, and Nagin) become overwhelmed by the crisis. The President's performance went a step beyond that- he was out of touch, aloof, factless. By the new standards of established in Katrina, Clinton's performance was solid and capable. She proved to me that, if elected, she'll be in touch and cool in times of crisis. This doesn't seem like a big deal- frankly, it shouldn't be. But in a post-Katrina world, we can no longer take basic competence for granted.
Math_Mage
· 2 years ago
This situation didn't need to involve Clinton at all. Therefore, what she did was not out of "basic competence." And since when were Blanco and Nagin "professional pols"? The only thing they were professional at was embezzlement and corruption. And didn't Blanco refuse federal offers of FEMA help? Considering the impediments of state and local incompetence, it seems like Bush didn't do too badly.
Del_Dolemonte
· 2 years ago
Bush declared an emergency before Katrina had even come ashore, and asked Blanco and Nagin to evacuate New Orleans. Both refused. You can't blame Bush for that. You also can't blame Bush for the decades of Democrat corruption that made New Orleans a disaster waiting to happen.
FEMA has always told folks that after a major disaster, they're on their own for the first 72 hours. The local and state agencies are ALWAYS the first responders in a case like Katrina. On your world, New Orleans was the only place the hurrican hit, because that's the only place where the response was screwed up.
By the way, in those first 72 hours after Katrina when the state and local powers were supposed to be doing the heavy lifting, a branch of the US military, namely the US COast Guard, rescued over 10 THOUSAND people. Since Bush is their Commander in Chief, shouldn't he get credit for that from you BDS sufferers?
kreiz
· 2 years ago
Voted for Bush and served active duty in the military for 3 years. So cool the BDS talk. As for the President's sterling Katrina performance, the polls speak for themselves.
Otter
· 2 years ago
I'm a Pole and I think Bush did just fine.
docjim505
· 2 years ago
kreiz: As for the President's sterling Katrina performance, the polls speak for themselves.
So... You're basing your assessment of Bush's Katrina performance on polls? I can't speak for anybody else here, but I don't normally go through my life asking other people to tell me what to think.
kreiz
· 2 years ago
This is politics, doc- where perception and image are everything. If 66% of people think that the President's Katrina performance was poor (that's the last stat on I could find online), then that's political reality- regardless of what you choose to believe or what, in fact, is true. I don't know if Mike Dukakis was a lightweight in real life- but that was certainly my perception in 1988.
docjim505
· 2 years ago
kreiz,
So... Reality is totally maleable for you when it concerns "politics"? If you can be persuaded that enough people believe in a thing, this is enough evidence for you to believe it, too?
Why not simply say that, "I think that Bush is an incompetent idiot AND that X% of Americans surveyed agree with me"? That's a very weak way to support your position (though very common for libs, who seem to have a sheep-like need to cite polls to "prove" that they are right because EVERYBODY else agrees with them), but it makes you sound LESS like a mind-numbed robot than saying, "I think that Bush is an incompetent idiot BECAUSE X% of Americans surveyed say that he is."
"You are a slow learner, Winston", said O'Brien gently.
"How can I help it ?" he blubbered. "How can I help seeing what is in front of my eyes ? Two and two are four."
"Sometimes, Winston. Sometimes they are five. Sometimes they are three. Sometimes they are all of them at once. You must try harder. It is not easy to become sane."
George Orwell 1984
kreiz
· 2 years ago
Doc, I do understand that facts never much bother partisans, so it's futile to try to convince you that the President wasn't hands-on during Katrina. As for polling, suffice to say that at some point, those polled become voters- and that IS political reality. In the run-up to the 2006 elections, national polling reflected severe dissatisfaction with the GOP. That reality was reflected in the election results. That's what EVERYBODY ELSE decided- irrespective of what you chose to believe. It's the essence of elective politics, and it's why pols (Dems and Reps) take polls.
As for substance, let's just say that It's difficult for me to believe that a President who brags about not reading newspapers or watching tv news was/is a hands-on leader. (See E. Thomas' Newsweek article entitled: "Katrina- How Bush Blew It"). Thomas had WH sources to document his position, but I suspect that won't sway you either. He's a liberal, Newsweek's liberal... on and on.
kreiz
· 2 years ago
Sid Blumenthal, a thorough Clinton partisan, to be sure, provides this lovely quote: "Four days afterward, Bush's staff considered him so ill-informed on the basic facts [of Katrina] that they prepared a video of network news reports for him to watch as Air Force One carried him back to Washington." Let's assume this is true. Is it evidence of a hands-on president? Or do the facts matter?
kreiz
· 2 years ago
Or another favorite, Sen. Corker (R. Tn) "underwhelmed" by the President's knowledge on Iraq:
“I was in the White House a number of times to talk about the issue, and I may rankle some in the room saying this, but I was very underwhelmed with what discussions took place at the White House,” Corker said.
I'll stand by the decidedly unradical view that the President's Katrina performance was detached at best.
kreiz
· 2 years ago
My real complaint is this- Corker's not a liberal or a BDSer. Neither am I. Reasonable minds can differ about whether Bush is hands on, whether HIllary's press conference was presidential, etc. In the context of our debate, "lib" and "BDS" labels are unconstructive and dull.
docjim505
· 2 years ago
kreiz,
May I suggest that you learn to express yourself more clearly? Seriously. You start out criticizing Bush's Katrina performance, presumably to try to make Hillary! look good in comparison. When other commenters argued that Bush didn't do so badly in his Katrina response, you countered by claiming that you thought he did badly because X% of people surveyed said that he did. As I noted before, it's kind of sad that you apparently structure your conception of reality on what OTHER people think.
I will say, however, that your more recent posts do a lot more to support your initial position, though I'm still not sure why Katrina is relevant in this situation.
In summary, trying to defend your position by claiming that some poll shows that lots of other people agree with you is not very effective. Indeed, it makes you look like a sheep who is incapable of thinking for himself.
I would also urge you to read NahnCee's response very carefully. There are things that the president is supposed to do... and things that he ISN'T supposed to do. Perhaps you want the president to be a micromanager who will also shove local and state authorities aside because he doesn't think they're doing their job, but I think you'll have to rewrite the Constitution a little for that.
kreiz
· 2 years ago
A valid criticism in terms of my early reliance on polling- frankly just an intellectual shortcut that could've been avoided by documenting support in another manner.
Math_Mage
· 2 years ago
Yeah, but you know, that doesn't mean you should ignore the truth and believe only the polls OR the pols. And we're talking about your personal beliefs here. Here's what you wrote:
"To be sure, the episode wasn't 9/11 or Katrina. But my eyes were opened after Katrina, where I witnessed several supposedly professional pols (Bush, Blanco, and Nagin) become overwhelmed by the crisis. The President's performance went a step beyond that- he was out of touch, aloof, factless. By the new standards of established in Katrina, Clinton's performance was solid and capable." (emphasis mine)
NahnCee
· 2 years ago
I've never understood why Katrina was suppose to be the President of the United States' problem to begin with. Isn't the hierarchy local, county, state and then federal? Why on earth would a hurricane become the province of the President to solve in this one instance when it never, ever, had been previously?
The President doesn't involve himself in local affairs UNTIL he is asked to involve the resources of the Federal government by the locals; in the case of Katrina by Blanco and Nagin.
Just because the residents of New Orleans choose - repeatedly - to elect idiots does NOT make it Mr. Bush's fault when those idiots were then too stupid to do ANYthing right, including asking the Federal government for help.
In putting blame for the response to Katrina on Mr. Bush, I think you're really scraping the bottom of the barrel for reasons to dislike him. If you can show me one single other instance of a President involving himself in an earthquake, a volcano, a flood, a wild fire, or a tornado before the local politicians requested it, I'd be very appreciative.
kreiz
· 2 years ago
Can't name a single incident- because state authorities always invite the federal gov't to intercede. Gov. Blanco was an anamoly, withholding or obfuscating a federal intervention invitation. But your analysis incorrectly assumes that the US Constitution's Supremacy Clause did not provide the ability of the federal government to trump Blanco's intransigence. That power existed constitutionaly.
But this isn't particularly germane to the issue- which is- was the President ill-informed during the Katrina crisis? Apparently the President's staff thought so.
kreiz
· 2 years ago
You might want to carefully consider this Administration official's statement before responding:
"The only mistake we made in Katrina was not overriding the local government." Karl Rove
kreiz
· 2 years ago
Besides, it has nothing to do with blaming the President. I thought he was ill-informed and disconnected. Whatever her faults (and there are major ones), Senator Clinton will never been ill-informed, ill-prepared or disconnected- in ordinary times or in times of crisis. (Neither will John McCain- and if the GOP had any sense, he would be the nominee). :)
Math_Mage
· 2 years ago
He was informed enough beforehand to request that Blanco and Nagin evacuate before the hurricane hit. Then the Coast Guard (which is formally under Bush's control) went above and beyond the call of duty during the first 72 hours of chaos. I believe Del_Dolemonte mentioned this to you. He was prepared enough for the disaster before it occurred, despite that the federal government isn't required to get involved for 3 days after the incident.
You quoted Blumenthal - I'll go ahead and run with the fact of Bush's staff assembling some network news reports for him to watch on Air Force One, sounds like a reasonable thing to do. Where does Blumenthal show that this is because his staff considered him ill-informed on the situation? How am I supposed to know if that isn't Blumenthal projecting his wishful thinking onto the facts to warp them to his preordained conclusions? I'd want to know what the networks were saying regardless of how well-informed I was on the situation to begin with.
As for overriding the local government, that could mean anything from "Bush didn't know s*** about the situation so we couldn't get involved" to "we didn't anticipate just how incompetent Blanco and Nagin were going to be." I'd want to see something solid before assuming that the actions I know about (warning Blanco and Nagin beforehand, and the heroics of the CG) don't mean Bush didn't know what was going on.
Meanwhile, over in Rochester NH, something was going on that didn't involve Hillary at all, except that it was a building she used sometimes. So her involvement is as much or more an indication of how involved she thinks a Presidential candidate should get in day-to-day affairs of individual citizens as it is of her "leadership skills." I'd have to see something more substantial, given that she hasn't shown much leadership anywhere else, before I credit Hillary with substantial leadership.
Math_Mage
· 2 years ago
Oops, error of proofreading: "I'd want to see something solid before assuming that the actions I know about...mean Bush knew what was going on." Double negatives ftl, lol.
Del_Dolemonte
· 2 years ago
LOL, sorry, but Bush's Katrina poll numbers are rubbish. It's common knowledge that after the Dems screwed the pooch in responding to the hurricane, they enlisted the national media to cover their shortcomings by shifting the blame to Bush.
The fact that despite your military service and voting for Bush you fell for their Katrina deception shows just how well they accomplished their mission.
kreiz
· 2 years ago
Uh, Del, I voted for the guy. So let's not throw the BDS bomb, ok?
Del_Dolemonte
· 2 years ago
Really? I would have never guessed, based on you comments over at the Gazette:
"She stepped up and delivered in a crisis situation. She was calm, deliberate and strong."
"She gave a timely press conference, responding cooly and informatively in a moment of crisis."
"her performance becomes dazzling by Katrina standards. "
As I said in my post above, you've been had by the media. The only people saying Bush performed poorly after Katrina are the Democrats in Louisiana whose own incompetence and corruption caused most of the problems, aided by a willing national media.
poodlemom
· 2 years ago
Del,
I'm with you. If the folks in LA thought Bush was at fault for the mess after Katrina I'm sure they wouldn't have elected Bobby Jindal.
kreiz
· 2 years ago
You omitted that I praised Rudy's 9/11 performance, which was nothing short of marvelous- something a BDSer would unlikely do. I also criticized Blanco's dismal performance- shock, a Democrat. I'm not buying into the revisionism that the President was hands-on in Katrina. He wasn't. And I would further venture that any number of past Republican presidents- including Reagan, Nixon and Bush41, would've made political hay out of a relatively easy national crisis by intervening much earlier.
And I really like John McCain.... so maybe am a radical leftist. :)
quickjustice
· 2 years ago
We prayed for the safety of those hostages, and N.H. law enforcement acted like the angels sent from above. And now, with this wonderful outcome, Hillary Clinton gets all the credit in the media for her meddling?
Would this be a good time for her to get struck by lightening? ;-)
hunter_123
· 2 years ago
no time like the present! ;^)
Kyle
· 2 years ago
"She certainly looks considerably less presidential today in trying to take credit for the professional work done by the Rochester PD yesterday."
Wait a minute. Nothing cited in your post has her trying to take credit for the police's work. Your post is all about how AP and Larry Sabato depicted Clinton, choices they made but that you mysteriously attribute to the Clinton campaign ("the Clinton campaign decided this makes Hillary look presidential, at least to Larry Sabato and the AP"--one of the oddest constructions I've come across outside student writing).
Del_Dolemonte
· 2 years ago
Speaking of spin, WMUR channel 9 here in New Hampshire had the following caption on-screen during last night's 11 PM news:
All Comments
This was a bad situation which Hillary handled appropriately. Sure the press might have gone overboard in their praise, but so what? It will all blow over in a day or two.
To me, Captain Ed's comment means that some in the media made so much of Clinton's response that they seemed like part of the Clinton campaign. Even you called them "puff pieces". It will be interesting to see if these reporters continue to "puff up" Hillary as the campaign progresses.
That's about the lamest rationalization I've heard.
What would you have said if she had not come out and gave a statement, that she was a cold hearted bitch. Please tell me how any GOP candidate would have handled this differently.
Oh, maybe Rudy wouldn't have used the word "bugged'. He would say, "We stayed in constant communication with the police." Wow. Talk about parsing.
I'm concerned about your blood pressure! You are mentioning blogs like Michelle's and of course the Captain's here...perhaps if you hung out at Huffington Post and DailyKos and DU you'd find it calming!
I guess you have come to that difficult decision....submit yourself to the "hate" you find here (as you mentioned above) or go back to HuffPo and the rest and submit yourself to the Stepford mentality.
Decisions....decisions.....
This is the stuff of movies: the police have a bad situation on their hands, they're working furiously to keep it from getting worse, and have to deal with a hungry politician concerned with votes and image calling them every five minutes, demanding info and perhaps a chance to inject himself (herself, in this case) into the situation to get a little free publicity.
Her partisans in the MSM and the chattering class may think this makes her look "presidential", but I think that most people will see her crowing for what it is: a shameless effort to take advantage of a bad situation for her own self-aggrandizement.
Bah.
Yes, and I am sure that the "one person" they wanted to talk to was the man holding people hostage and not some politician who "wanted to know" what was going on every few minuets. Hillary's just trying to take credit for something she wasn't really involved in. That makes her an opportunist. Not a good image to be portraying during her campaign.
"Clinton had a responsibility to keep those families informed and act as a conduit of information."
Wrong, it was the responsibility of the police to keep the families informed, not Hillary. The only responsibility Hillary had was to keep herself out of what could have been a deadly situation. Who elected her as the spokesperson for the police? Who elected her as a family counselor? What right did she have for inserting herself in a situation like this?
Law enforcement officers are the only ones who should be involved in negotiations with hostage takers and trained counselors (or other family member and close friends) are the only ones that should involve themselves with the families of the hostages. Introducing a third party, especially a well known public official, into a hostage situation is not a very good idea as it introduces an uncontrolled element into an unstable situation. That's a recipe for disaster. Hillary could have made the situation a hell of a lot worse by adding "star power" to the man's credibility which could have destabilized the entire situation. By involving herself in a situation when she had no reason to, she has shown the entire world that she doesn't even care for the people involved and only wished to use them in her campaign. Bad move on her part.
released only one statement during the day saying they were aware of the situation
and monitoring it, and when it was all over she came out and gave a brief statement.
She NEVER contacted the hostage taker. Of course the families of those campaign workers called Hillary. Should she have told them, "I'm not going to talk to you. Go talk to the police if you want information"? Of course not. That would have been cold hearted in the extreme.
Please tell me how Mitt or Rudy or any GOP candidate would have acted any differently than Hillary did. She handled the situation competently. If other people want to give her credit, then that is up to them. Your hatred of her blinds you to the truth.
It's simple. By continually calling the authorities for information during the crisis, she tried to involve herself in what was going on. How can you say that she did not? How can you say that she handled the situation "competently" when her very actions highlights her incompetence when it involves a crisis like this? People not directly involved in a crisis like this should stay the hell out. All her involvement did was complicate the situation for everyone involved, including the family members of the hostages.
She should have done the right thing by issuing a statement in support of the hostages and the families and kept herself out of the rest of it. Did she do that? No, instead, she saw a political opportunity and tried to capitalize on the misfortune of others.
You only support her in this because she's Hillary. How would you feel if it was Cheney, for example, constantly calling the authorities and contacting the families and trying to become an unneeded "conduit of information" like Hillary did?
Face it, she tried to insert herself into a situation where she wasn't needed and shouldn't have been involved. She should apologize to everyone for her blatant disregard for police procedure (they have public relations people who hand out information, they don't need Hillary badgering them for information), for her general lack of common sense (you never harass law enforcement for information during a crisis, it just makes a complicated situation more complex and it is VERY annoying for the people involved), and for her complete violation of, and respect for, the privacy of the families involved (you don't call people simply because their family members are involved in a crisis and try to act as source of information. People NEED privacy in situations like this as these situations are VERY traumatic and need to be handled by people trained in handling traumatic situations. Hillary has no such training).
Hillary screwed the pooch on this, big time, and I hope that it keeps coming back to here time and time again during her campaign.
BINGO!
Teresa, the Hilldabeast is a private citizen like you or me. Yes, she's much better known, but she has no authority and, as Ray points out, no training to deal with this sort of situation. By her own admission, she was "bothering" the police during this time. Your sneers that "those police officers were standing around chit chatting most of the time that we saw them on TV" doesn't give her (or anybody else) the right to badger them and set herself up as the de facto public information office or counselor for the families.
Had she simply issued a statement of support for the police, the hostages and the families and otherwise stayed out, she would have looked far more mature and sensible. Instead, she looks at best like an insufferable busybody and at worst like a shameless self-promoter taking advantage of a horrible situation to try to give herself some creds as a "leader".
You keep waving your hands with this hypothetical "all the other candidates would do it, too!" to excuse what the Hilldabeast DID do. Well, since hypotheticals carry the same weight as reality, let me give you some:
--- Fred, relying on his acting skills, would have personally taken over the negotiations and not only gotten the hostages released in five minutes, he also would have gotten the madman to confess on national TV.
--- Rudy would have galvanized the local police into action and personally led them in an assault that would have rescused the hostages and killed / captured the madman in the first five minutes.
--- Mitt would have gotten the bomber to give up the hostages, surrender AND read the free literature just to get Mitt off his porch.
etc, etc, etc
Now, if you think that Hillary! did such a great job, why not just say so? Why try to convince us to agree with you by trying to get us to believe in events that never happened?
And if Hillary really wanted to show how she would handle a crisis with a foreign power, then she would have gone to that office and talked with the man. Since she claims that we need more 'diplomacy' why didn't she go talk to the local madman? Or will she only talk to the ones that threaten other Americans besides her? Threaten the Queen and the full force of American power will come down on you.
She doesn't look Presidential. She looks like an opportunist and a hypocrite.
Further, secularists are by far the most politically active liberals at the grassroots level. In the 2005, the Maxwell Poll on Civic Engagement and Inequality revealed that those who never attend religious services are just 11 percent of the adult population in America. But they are 21 percent of self-described liberals, 27 percent of liberals who contribute money to political causes, and 33 percent of liberals who attend political rallies and events. The bottom line is that the Democratic party — at least at the national level — depends critically on nonbelievers. They have influence over American liberal politics that extends far beyond their actual numbers in the population.
http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=MmZlMjc1Mz...
No Hillary-fingerprints on the premises. No need for denials. Just a murky reality.
Having delt with local politicans during critical incidents, we always gave them a phone number to contact us. Then we NEVER answered that phone. :o)
Notice that ALL the Democrat offices shut down, the Republicans stayed put.
Does that sound familiar?
'KERRY: I was in the Capitol. We'd just had a meeting -- we'd just come into a leadership meeting in Tom Daschle's office, looking out at the Capitol. And as I came in, Barbara Boxer and Harry Reid were standing there, and we watched the second plane come in to the building. And we shortly thereafter sat down at the table and then we just realized nobody could think, and then boom, right behind us, we saw the cloud of explosion at the Pentagon. And then word came from the White House, they were evacuating, and we were to evacuate, and so we immediately began the evacuation.
+ + Kerry: "Nobody Could Think"
For the record, it was about 40 minutes between the when the second tower was hit and when the Pentagon was hit. For 40 minutes, Sen. John Kerry, a sitting member of the Senate Intelligence Committee, sat in a room with Senate Leader Tom Daschle.
In Kerry's own words, "nobody could think." '
Yep, sure does!
Hate really makes people say idiotic things on here.
Obama, take it away.
What, her husband took care of it?
So I think from a strictly clinical point of view, Larry is quite right. She played this one just that she had to. He knows, as you and I do, that most of that kind of thing doesn't have to involve any substance at all. It's all about perception, and positioning.
Hillary Clinton canceled a speech, simply because the appearance at a news conference in Rochester was going to give her more news exposure than that speech would have. She knows full well that the press is going to be speaking of her actions , whatever they were, in reverent tones , and her loyalists outside the press were going to be lapping that message up. And in that sense, who can argue his point?
I agree there is no substance there. Then again, that wasn't Larry's point.
I've often thought that Bill never took the kind of hit he should have for his cheating on Hillary because everybody --everybody, men and women-- could kind of understand it, being married to her. It's like the man really had no choice. It was either homicide or infidelity.
So yeah, she's presidential if presidential is being Cruella de Vil without the charm.
Maybe that will qualify her to deal with Putin, but almost nobody in a (dry) Middle East.
If elected and there is a real threat outside our borders, or heaven forbid, within our borders, and she dispatches the military [professionals] do you think for a moment that she will let the professionals take care of "it?" I doubt it. She'll be on the phone constantly, much like Carter was during the aborted hostage rescue in 1980, and eat up time and lives as she tries to finesse each and every detail. A real President would tell the C-JCS "We have a problem. Take care of it. Report back when you've taken care of it," and eschew trying to micromange or get on the phone and "bug" the professionals at every turn. This incident certainly suggests a propensity for Hillary getting in the way.
If it was reported today that she never bothered calling, you would be the same person calling her a cold hearted, uncaring bitch and saying, "That just proves how evil she is. A real leader would have been in constant communication with the police in order to make sure her campaign workers were taken care of." Hillary can't win with some of you haters.
Finally! Something we can both agree on.
There may be women who can carry that combination off but she's not one of them.
Do bank presidents continually request information form law enforcement when a robber holds hostages in their banks during a robbery? No, of course not. They stay out of it and let the authorities do their jobs.
Do business owners call the families involved when a gunman holds people hostage in an office? No, of course not. They let people trained in crisis management counsel the family members.
"It appears he needed help, and he went about getting attention in the very wrong way,"
Of course, we assume that by "he" she was referring to this perpetrator, I mean the perpetrator at the campaign office, and not, you know, some other perpetrator in her acquaintance if you get my drift.
Where did you get the idea that the families were calling Hillary? Did they have her phone number? Do you?
It's her beauty. She's got a spell on me.
The whole 'incident' was just too coincidental. The 'nut' barges into the campaign office, and a hostage is immediately available to call the police. CNN is called by the 'nut.' A desperately mentally ill man would just happen to call CNN? And on, and on, and...........
"Is that what you want in a President? Someone who feels extra confusion because she's a mother?"
A commenter, George, said:
"What male presidential candidate would say anything remotely resembling that? A guy would say something like, 'Well, it was a pretty rough time. I thought the police handled it very well. It's a matter now for the courts, and that's all I can say. And, yeah, I'll be visiting those folks up there who had that experience. They held up well, and I'm proud of them.' "
That sounds about right to me.
http://althouse.blogspot.com/2007/12/did-yester...
What a friggin' joke.
I look forward to video of Hillary rolling her eyes and looking completely bored during the President's first post 911 speech in 2001.
Ah...found a link: http://archives.cnn.com/2001/US/04/01/us.china....
Also, Hilary needs to explain why she requested information she should know is kept private. She needs to explain how she obtained the names of the families involved and why she felt their privacy didn't need to be respected.
If not, maybe she just checked her treasury of FBI files.
FEMA has always told folks that after a major disaster, they're on their own for the first 72 hours. The local and state agencies are ALWAYS the first responders in a case like Katrina. On your world, New Orleans was the only place the hurrican hit, because that's the only place where the response was screwed up.
By the way, in those first 72 hours after Katrina when the state and local powers were supposed to be doing the heavy lifting, a branch of the US military, namely the US COast Guard, rescued over 10 THOUSAND people. Since Bush is their Commander in Chief, shouldn't he get credit for that from you BDS sufferers?
So... You're basing your assessment of Bush's Katrina performance on polls? I can't speak for anybody else here, but I don't normally go through my life asking other people to tell me what to think.
So... Reality is totally maleable for you when it concerns "politics"? If you can be persuaded that enough people believe in a thing, this is enough evidence for you to believe it, too?
Why not simply say that, "I think that Bush is an incompetent idiot AND that X% of Americans surveyed agree with me"? That's a very weak way to support your position (though very common for libs, who seem to have a sheep-like need to cite polls to "prove" that they are right because EVERYBODY else agrees with them), but it makes you sound LESS like a mind-numbed robot than saying, "I think that Bush is an incompetent idiot BECAUSE X% of Americans surveyed say that he is."
"You are a slow learner, Winston", said O'Brien gently.
"How can I help it ?" he blubbered. "How can I help seeing what is in front of my eyes ? Two and two are four."
"Sometimes, Winston. Sometimes they are five. Sometimes they are three. Sometimes they are all of them at once. You must try harder. It is not easy to become sane."
George Orwell
1984
As for substance, let's just say that It's difficult for me to believe that a President who brags about not reading newspapers or watching tv news was/is a hands-on leader. (See E. Thomas' Newsweek article entitled: "Katrina- How Bush Blew It"). Thomas had WH sources to document his position, but I suspect that won't sway you either. He's a liberal, Newsweek's liberal... on and on.
“I was in the White House a number of times to talk about the issue, and I may rankle some in the room saying this, but I was very underwhelmed with what discussions took place at the White House,” Corker said.
I'll stand by the decidedly unradical view that the President's Katrina performance was detached at best.
May I suggest that you learn to express yourself more clearly? Seriously. You start out criticizing Bush's Katrina performance, presumably to try to make Hillary! look good in comparison. When other commenters argued that Bush didn't do so badly in his Katrina response, you countered by claiming that you thought he did badly because X% of people surveyed said that he did. As I noted before, it's kind of sad that you apparently structure your conception of reality on what OTHER people think.
I will say, however, that your more recent posts do a lot more to support your initial position, though I'm still not sure why Katrina is relevant in this situation.
In summary, trying to defend your position by claiming that some poll shows that lots of other people agree with you is not very effective. Indeed, it makes you look like a sheep who is incapable of thinking for himself.
I would also urge you to read NahnCee's response very carefully. There are things that the president is supposed to do... and things that he ISN'T supposed to do. Perhaps you want the president to be a micromanager who will also shove local and state authorities aside because he doesn't think they're doing their job, but I think you'll have to rewrite the Constitution a little for that.
"To be sure, the episode wasn't 9/11 or Katrina. But my eyes were opened after Katrina, where I witnessed several supposedly professional pols (Bush, Blanco, and Nagin) become overwhelmed by the crisis. The President's performance went a step beyond that- he was out of touch, aloof, factless. By the new standards of established in Katrina, Clinton's performance was solid and capable." (emphasis mine)
The President doesn't involve himself in local affairs UNTIL he is asked to involve the resources of the Federal government by the locals; in the case of Katrina by Blanco and Nagin.
Just because the residents of New Orleans choose - repeatedly - to elect idiots does NOT make it Mr. Bush's fault when those idiots were then too stupid to do ANYthing right, including asking the Federal government for help.
In putting blame for the response to Katrina on Mr. Bush, I think you're really scraping the bottom of the barrel for reasons to dislike him. If you can show me one single other instance of a President involving himself in an earthquake, a volcano, a flood, a wild fire, or a tornado before the local politicians requested it, I'd be very appreciative.
But this isn't particularly germane to the issue- which is- was the President ill-informed during the Katrina crisis? Apparently the President's staff thought so.
"The only mistake we made in Katrina was not overriding the local government." Karl Rove
You quoted Blumenthal - I'll go ahead and run with the fact of Bush's staff assembling some network news reports for him to watch on Air Force One, sounds like a reasonable thing to do. Where does Blumenthal show that this is because his staff considered him ill-informed on the situation? How am I supposed to know if that isn't Blumenthal projecting his wishful thinking onto the facts to warp them to his preordained conclusions? I'd want to know what the networks were saying regardless of how well-informed I was on the situation to begin with.
As for overriding the local government, that could mean anything from "Bush didn't know s*** about the situation so we couldn't get involved" to "we didn't anticipate just how incompetent Blanco and Nagin were going to be." I'd want to see something solid before assuming that the actions I know about (warning Blanco and Nagin beforehand, and the heroics of the CG) don't mean Bush didn't know what was going on.
Meanwhile, over in Rochester NH, something was going on that didn't involve Hillary at all, except that it was a building she used sometimes. So her involvement is as much or more an indication of how involved she thinks a Presidential candidate should get in day-to-day affairs of individual citizens as it is of her "leadership skills." I'd have to see something more substantial, given that she hasn't shown much leadership anywhere else, before I credit Hillary with substantial leadership.
The fact that despite your military service and voting for Bush you fell for their Katrina deception shows just how well they accomplished their mission.
"She stepped up and delivered in a crisis situation. She was calm, deliberate and strong."
"She gave a timely press conference, responding cooly and informatively in a moment of crisis."
"her performance becomes dazzling by Katrina standards. "
As I said in my post above, you've been had by the media. The only people saying Bush performed poorly after Katrina are the Democrats in Louisiana whose own incompetence and corruption caused most of the problems, aided by a willing national media.
I'm with you. If the folks in LA thought Bush was at fault for the mess after Katrina I'm sure they wouldn't have elected Bobby Jindal.
And I really like John McCain.... so maybe am a radical leftist. :)
Would this be a good time for her to get struck by lightening? ;-)
Wait a minute. Nothing cited in your post has her trying to take credit for the police's work. Your post is all about how AP and Larry Sabato depicted Clinton, choices they made but that you mysteriously attribute to the Clinton campaign ("the Clinton campaign decided this makes Hillary look presidential, at least to Larry Sabato and the AP"--one of the oddest constructions I've come across outside student writing).
"CLINTON CAMPAIGN HOSTAGES'
Hillary Clinton Draws Boos at Iowa Campaign Event, 1 Day After Hostage Situation.
Looks like the folks in Iowa did not get the memo about Hillary being a national hero.