As stated many times, I don’t mind when people disagree with me. All I ask is for civility and professionalism. Apparently, this is asking too much from certain Internet users.
Comments are emerging as the last refuge of negative decorum. Some people not only are using the annonymity of the Internet to take pot shots at bloggers, but to add insult to injury, doing so without contact information. Like a driveby shooting, they take aim, fire, then flee into oblivion.
My last responsive comment at BlogCritics clearly states I will no longer respond to comments. I have, however, taken the time and trouble to respond to people privately. Yesterday, someone using the moniker “SamI Am” respectfully criticized the basis for my article, but did not provide any contact information. Likewise, my article about the hostage situation at Clinton Campaign headquarters drew a scathing comment from “Anonymous.”
For the record, if SamI Am and Anonymous had the courtesy to comment with contact information, I would not be writing this article. Anyone who virulently attacks an author should at least have the decency to provide contact information. People who take pot shots in the dark are cowards. My readers deserve better.
On the other hand, my readers also deserve not to slog through this babble. For those of you who prefer something with more flair, might I suggest a woodsy merlot.
Okay, let's get started. SamI Am comments at BlogCritics:
If I used "old attacks" to criticize She Who Should Not Be Named, did it ever occur to SamI Am that maybe -- just maybe -- there are some substance to these attacks? Why do so many people attack the Clintons in this manner? Could it be because the attacks are true? Heaven forbid, the attacks are old! My attacks are not recycled hash, merely restated facts to support my position. Hillary Clinton is not fit to be President. Other candidates are not taken to task for every reason stated in my article. I challenge SamI Am to provide links showing otherwise. Yes, maybe one could level one or two of the attacks at certain candidates, but all seven of my points?! I think not.
I have no idea what "'Arkansas Project' fantasies" are. My article merely cites testimony from numerous witnesses about the Clinton track record of intimidation, marginalization, and fear of elimination. Is everyone lying except the Clintons? I suppose everyone was also lying except O.J. Oh, but then he went ahead and wrote that confession. Just when it looked like he might actually get away with whatever he claims not to have done unless he did it.
I don't think SamI Am read my article. It says nothing about ambition or being overly ambititious. Instead, Clinton is portrayed as a do-nothing junior senator who used the State of New York as a stepping stone to the office of President. She has never lead any major organization or company. Contrast that to Bill Richardson, Governor of New Mexico and former Secretary of Energy; Joe Biden, Chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee; Chris Dodd, Chairman of the Senate Banking and Finance Committee; or Dennis Kucinich, former Mayor of Cleveland. Clinton has a failing record on the only major project she ever ran, her lamentable attempt to rehaul national health care. Also, if recovery from stumbles is the way to measure candidates, then Clinton rates a big fat zero. Other than her own self-serving accomplishments such as attending prestigious universities and winning election to the U.S. Senate, I challenge SamI Am to reference any position of leadership maintained by Hillary Clinton.
At least SamI Am is civil. I admire that. I humbly accept the label of "shallow" for my intense dislike of this candidate. However, my article is not shallow. On the contrary, the first five reasons for my opinion are supported with numerous factual examples. Additionally, SamI Am's criticism does nothing to discredit my opinion. Hillary's marriage to Bubba is in name only. His numerous affairs and womanizing practically scream "sham marriage" whether or not SamI Am cares to admit it. Likewise, Hillary's desire to transform America into a socialist nation is blatantly apparent in her book, It Takes A Village. This drivel reminds me of utopias gone bad. The idea sounds good in theory, but in practicality, all socialist societies are on the way to or eventually become dictatorships. No thank you.
Items and ideas long since dealt with and dismissed as the product of political enemies? Hoo boy! Does SamI Am honestly believe in the whole "vast right wing conspiracy?" If so, there's a bridge in Brooklyn for sale. No other Democratic candidate has suffered so many individual eye witness accounts of immorality, vicious behavior, cover-ups, outright lies, and deaths of close associates. One or two disgruntled employees with an axe to grind? Dismissed. Three or four political enemies with an agenda? Also dismissed. Over twenty-five dead people, missing archives, five or six campaign financing lapses, at least five examples of two-sided issue support, coupled with at least three reputable non-biased non-agenda driven accounts of mistreatment and ruthless behavior? Sorry. Not dismissed. Worthy of credibility.
SamI Am needs to wake up and smell the coffee. If it looks like a duck, walks like a duck, talks like a duck, and takes a dump like a duck, it's a duck. SamI Am would prefer to think of it as a turkey, I suppose, perhaps one deserving a pardon. No can do. No Thanksgiving pardons until after the election.
Restating truthful facts originally articulated by others is not a bad thing. Restating the truth prevents the Clinton machinery from reshaping itself into something respectful and worthy of support. If SamI Am wishes to dismiss the truth, that is SamI Am's perogative. SamI Am can believe whatever SamI Am wants to believe just as children are allowed to believe in Santa Claus and The Toothfairy. Also, the article was not sexist. Believe me, I think the same thing and worse about hubby Bubba.
I will part from the SamI Am commentary by reminding anyone who has read this far about the gist of my article. It was not written to support any particular candidate, rather, I wrote the article to prod Americans to vote their conscience in the primary election. A hop on a Hillary bandwagon -- when in fact there is no bandwagon -- is misguided and ultimately destructive to the principles of democracy.
On to Anonymous: Sweetheart, whoever you are, you really have issues.
Anonymous commented on an article unrelated to Hillary's polling problems. Instead, the article provided a summary report about the developing hostage situation at Hillary's campaign headquarters in Rochester, New Hampshire.
"Hillary knows she's got trouble in the latest polls. That's why she's in Vienna, Virginia today for a Democratic pow-wow rather than her campaign headquarters in Rochester, New Hamphire." That is all the article said about Hillary, her presence in Vienna, Virgina, and her recent polling results.
For this, Anonymous tries to rake me over the coals for taking "cheap shots" and "manufacturing false logic." How far off a limb should one sink to get so down and dirty? Anonymous takes the art of low to a whole new level.
What other Democratic candidates were at the strategy session in Vienna, Virginia? Does Anonymous even know? Anonymous does not link to any sources. I hereby send out a challenge to anyone for proof of other Democratic candidates presence at this meeting. Did a majority of them attend? Find the facts and ye shall be rewarded.
No one can dispute Hillary's recent problems in the polls. I, for one, place no reliance in polls because they are notoriously incorrect. Nonetheless, the statement is factual and supported with a link to facts. Hillary's numbers are sinking and therefore, they are troubling. To her. Prove otherwise, Anonymous, I dare you. Can't? Didn't think so.
Cheap shot, indeed.
