Hillary v Condi

[Pablo]

http://www.nationalpost.com/search/site/story.asp?id=560F3EEE-0591-43AF-86BA-EC2296DEE530

[Lepton]

Typical Canadian editorial, but I like the overlying idea - that Rice rocks and Clinton sucks. I doubt that Condi is the only person that could win an election against Hillary.

[casinopete]

Is that a serious newspaper?

'Cause that's awfully poor writing to appear in a serious newspaper.

[Lepton]

The first sentence/paragraph is kinda . . . long, if that's what you mean. This is rather a serious paper indeed. It's perhaps our version of your NY Times or Washington Post, although given far less credence for reliability as a news source by it's down-to-earth readers.

[casinopete]

That's the beginning of what I mean. In addition to merely being long, it is halting, and more difficult to follow than it should be.

Then, that second sentence, the bold declaration, sounds like / should be the focus of his article, yet he fails to stick to it at all - he just says, "Hillary sucks, Hillary sucks!"

The, uh, "review" of the book is childish and pointless.

The list of offenses is too long to be taken seriously, and most of them have to do with Bill, not Hillary, which I would hope would make a difference in an article about Hillary.

His little "from the Bushes" question is out of place. Again it adds nothing to the article.

His rationale for her being a poor role model is not anything negative that she's done, but rather that she's undergone shame. This I find reprehensible.

This line about Rice: "And more importantly than anything, she got to the White House the hard way. She earned it." is ridiculous. How could anyone possibly say Hillary didn't earn it? Complain that she's immoral if you wish, but at no point does he even begin to question her qualifications for a political career.

This line about Rice: "It is she who must be the first woman president." is even more ridiculous. How on earth can you declare that any person must be president? I can't even phrase the rest of why this is stupid.

This line, near the end: "In 2008, she is the only person who can beat Hillary Clinton." is quite simply false.

That's all I've got for now because I've gotta jet.

[Lepton]

Well, as long as your problems are with how that editorial was written and not the actual content...

[Bicho the Inhaler]

Yeah, as long as we're bashing the editorial, the numerous attacks on Bill did not contribute to her argument against Hillary.

By the way, casinopete, I'm fairly sure that Elizabeth Nickson is a woman