On Feb 28, 2008, at 2:30 PM, Kristyne McDaniel wrote:
> I did not say the subcommittee is being neglected.
No, you said that the subcommittee had oversight over the conflict in
Afghanistan. That is what is patently wrong.
> I said *Obama* is neglecting the subcommittee. Surely he could have
> managed to actually
> *serve* as a senator before deciding to occupy a seat as a senator and
> neglect his duties.
Perhaps, but that is true of nearly every senator who has tried to
run for President before. Hillary is doing a better job of juggling
the two than most, but this was a huge issue for Kerry in '04 and
McCain in '00. It was also a big "issue" with Kennedy in 1960.
> Any time someone mentions a problem with Obama or his campaign,
> infatuated
> folks like you call it a cheap shot.
Oh, right. "Infatuated" is an example of high-level discourse.
The "cheap shot" is the supposed connection between Obama and our
Afghanistan policy, when he heads the subcommittee on Europe. I
guarantee you that had Obama held several meetings, you would be
accusing him of trying to inflate his importance by upstaging Biden
and Kerry when he is only on the Europe subcommittee.
If the charge had simply been that he is neglecting his duties in the
Senate due to his campaigning, that would be fine. What is a "cheap
shot" is your specific choice of Subject for this thread. Reminds me a
lot of the juxtaposition of Iraq and 9/11 that tricked most of the
people in this country to support an invasion: they never actually
*said* that the two were linked; they simply repeated the two in the
same sentence to make it seem that way.
-- Ed Leafe
©2008 Ed Leafe |
