Yes...yes...I know. Y'all are trying your darndest to be evil, calculating, evil, hard hitting, critical advocates, shills, tools, and partisans for your preferred candidates.
But deep down 'neath that evil, hard edged, critical, contrary exterior y'all are good people with big hearts who are more than willing to help out a fellow Kossack, or human, in need. And it's because of those big hearts that everyone around here is working their darndest to see that the person they think will best represent us gets into the big white house at one end of Penn. Ave.
But because of all the heart, passion, criticism...and sometimes blindered vision...we sometimes miss some things that we might not normally miss.
For example, there is a diary currently at the top of on the Wreck List that has me, for one, seeing flashing red "Danger Will Robinson" lights.
It's not the personal testimonial aspect of it. I'm sure that if the diarist actually called the Obama camp and talked with someone, that person was genial. Though I do wonder about someone answering the phone and saying that
Obama would not raid medical marijuana patients because "resources are wasted going after the sick."
I don't buy it. First off, there are too many different legal implications involved. And though I'd like to think that any of our presidential candidates would advocate for a shift in the law with regards to the bullshit that's been going on in the Justice Department with regards to medical marijuana, I just can't see any staffer fielding a legal question without first asking higher up.
I mean yeah...I was pissed when Ashcroft initiated Operation Waterpipe back in the early days. And I think that the whole focus on shutting down medical marijuana shops is a waste of resources.
But I do not think that any staffer/phone answerer could possibly guarantee that a presidential candidate would advocate shifting DOJ resources in such a manner.
If the diarist actually made that phone call and asked that question, no wonder the Clinton staffer/phone answerer said they'd have to call back. That's a policy question with legal ramifications.
I have to confess though...my alarms went off in the first paragraph when the diarist, one with 1 diary and 7 comments (as noted by Step Beyond, 1 comment from a bit ago...and 6 comments related to that piece referred loosely to as a diary) under his/her belt states:
The issues of those FBI files she said she never saw only to have her fingerprints on them forever changed my perception of her. (my emphasis)
Here's the problem.
There were no indications that the First Lady ever touched the files in question. Indeed, as the NY Times reported on the FBI's findings then
November 3, 1996
Tests Find No Proof First Lady or Top Aides Touched F.B.I. Files
By DAVID JOHNSTON
A fingerprint analysis, requested by Senate Republicans, of personnel files improperly obtained by the White House turned up no evidence that Hillary Rodham Clinton or top Presidential aides had handled the records, law-enforcement officials said today.
The Federal Bureau of Investigation's laboratory compared known fingerprints of Mrs. Clinton and the Clinton aides with fingerprints found on the documents in the F.B.I. personnel files obtained by the White House, the officials said. The analysis had been requested last month by the Senate Judiciary Committee. Republicans on the panel contended that the White House might have obtained the files to compile dossiers on potential political adversaries.
The analysis found that the files had been handled by Craig Livingstone, the former personnel security chief, and others who conducted the files search, like Anthony Marceca, the civilian employee of the Army assigned to the White House for the project. But the analysis did not find the fingerprints of senior White House officials.
Law-enforcement officials said a report on the fingerprint analysis, which has not been made public, was submitted on Wednesday to the Senate Judiciary Committee.
There were no fingerprints...and it took me seconds with a google search.
But for someone who claimed that the fingerprints thing turned her/him off only to later point out that
cynicism does no good...I was supporting Edward because I was wary of Clinton's history. I gave her a fair shot though after my man Edwards dropped out.
I am quite skeptical of what's going on in that diary. Something's not sitting right.
Now...I understand the desire to support any of the Democratic candidates currently out there. And I'm good with passionate advocacy...though I'd prefer a whole lot less name calling as it hurts people's feelings and makes them even more defensive.
And as a No Fucking Clue/Carnacki supporter, I encourage everyone to sign the Carnacki Petition.
But please...can we use the reality-based critical thinking skills that we've got in spades?
Can we rationally look at the diaries that we are reccing to make sure that they represent the best for the candidates as well as the best for us Kossacks?