Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : View from the Center and Left -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: ChinuSFO who wrote (55475)	3/22/2008 5:47:33 PM
From: Lane3	Respond to of 542221

No teleprompter here. So how then was Fox to blame for her omitting the word "really'? "clearly shows that FOX news doctored the video" Or are you speculating. I am speculating. Joe was reporting from what he heard, which was Michelle omitting the "really" as she did in her first speech. His staff, the folks who put up the graphic, used the second speech, the one with the "really" and Joe didn't notice. I can't think of any other likely explanation for the discrepancy between what he says and the graphic. It would be so very easy for anyone, no matter how conscientious, to not recognize that there were two different speeches that I think Occam's Razor most likely applies.

To: ChinuSFO who wrote (55475)	3/22/2008 5:59:42 PM
From: wonk	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 542221

Chin, you are misinterpreting the data. There was the first speech, in the morning, in Milwaukee. She did not use the word "really." There was the second speech, later in the day, in Madison. She did use the word "really." Your video link shows that clearly. It doesn't appear to me to have been doctored. youtube.com There was the third link that has been passed around, of the Madison speech, the second speech, where someone DID doctor to obscure the word "really." What is obvious is that this was a prepared speech. Either it was in the prepared text in the morning and she didn't read it completely. Or it wasn't in the prepared text, and she recognized that the text left a bad impression. If the former is true, it is just a flub. If the latter is true, one's interpretation comes down to their predisposition. This whole controversy still isn't worth a bucket of warm spit. Let's assume for the sake of argument, that she didn't have the word "really" in the text and corrected it. Somehow people are arguing this is a window into her soul. But even if so, is it good or bad? Heck is this not the DESIRED outcome: that the seeming success of her husband's campaign and the support its gotten nationwide has helped to make one proud? That the the promise of America is not just words? Again, there is not enough data to draw anywhere close to the conclusion that she "really" has never been proud of her country, but even if we ASSUME the worst case, this is a pretty good outcome. But of course, everyone is spinning like mad. Anyone want to have a discussion about how many angels can dance on the head of a pin?