Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

The Man Who Guards Clinton's Wikipedia Entry

kdawson posted more than 6 years ago | from the lonely-vigil dept.

Democrats 395

Timothy found a profile in The New Republic of Jonathan Schilling, a 53-year-old software developer from New Jersey who works to keep Hillary Clinton's Wikipedia entry clean and fair throughout the election season. "After he started editing her page in June 2005, Schilling became consumed with trying to capture her uncomfortable place in American culture, researching and writing a whole section on how she polarizes the public... [T]he attacks on Hillary's page mainly take the form of crude vandalism... It's different on Obama's page, where the fans — no surprise — are more enthusiastic, the haters are more intelligent, and the arguments reflect the fact that Obama himself is still a work under construction... The bitterness of the fights on Obama's page could be taken as a bad sign for the candidate. But it may actually be Hillary's page that contains the more troubling omens. Few, if any, Hillary defenders are standing watch besides Schilling. In recent days, the vaguely deserted air of a de-gentrifying neighborhood has settled over her page..."

cancel ×

395 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Losing my faith in politics (5, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22919778)

Maybe I'm just getting older, but this election is really making me lose my faith in the political process. Elections seem to be nothing but bitter slander now. Sure, it's always been that way to some degree, but at least Bill Clinton's first run in the early 1990s, for all the debate and polemics involved, managed to be entertaining (remember Primary Colors [amazon.com] ?). This whole process, on the other hand, is just sad.

Re:Losing my faith in politics (5, Interesting)

morgan_greywolf (835522) | more than 6 years ago | (#22919864)

No, I think you're just getting older. Read about the U.S. presidential election in 1828 [wikipedia.org] between John Q. Adams and Andrew Jackson. They really brought out the mudslinging: Jackson's marriage got attacked while Adams was accused releasing an American servant girl to the Czar of Russia to appease his sexual appetite.

The thing is that bitter mudslinging is good for the process in some ways -- the First Amendment allows us to talk trash about the political candidates and some might be true, some not, but in the end, the real truth usually surfaces.

Re:Losing my faith in politics (5, Insightful)

Targon (17348) | more than 6 years ago | (#22919968)

The problem with the mudslinging is that if you do not follow the process on a daily basis, you may hear about falsehoods spread, but do not hear when those falsehoods are proven to be wrong. The same goes for these small clips that are all over the place that can easily be taken out of context.

There really isn't a lot of press coverage for when baseless accusations are proven to be nothing, but there is a ton of coverage when those initial accusations are made.

Re:Losing my faith in politics (5, Insightful)

morgan_greywolf (835522) | more than 6 years ago | (#22920198)

That's not the fault of the First Amendment or of the U.S. political process. That's the partially the fault of the media's sensationalism and everybody's short attention spans. But there is press coverage when baseless allegations are proved false and, IMHO, the ultimate responsibility lies on the voters -- if you're not paying attention, maybe you shouldn't vote. *shrug*

Re:Losing my faith in politics (3, Funny)

galego (110613) | more than 6 years ago | (#22921098)

if you're not paying attention, maybe you shouldn't vote. *shrug*

Bingo! If parent wasn't a 5, I'd say mod it up. Voting is a privilege, not a right as some would have us believe. It should not be granted or denied based on irrelevant factors such as race or gender, but I worry about the effect of our cluelessness and lack of perspective when voting in America.

Admittedly, I have been guilty of clueless voting in the past.

Maybe there should be a quiz to get to the polls, replete with being cast off of a cliff (Monty Python style ... Holy Grail) for trying to vote w/o being informed on the issues. ;) Thing is ... I'm certain we'd lose those administering the quiz, just like in the Holy Grail. :O

Re:Losing my faith in politics (2, Insightful)

AlfieJ (660051) | more than 6 years ago | (#22920834)

The problem with the mudslinging is that if you do not follow the process on a daily basis, you may hear about falsehoods spread, but do not hear when those falsehoods are proven to be wrong.

Which is one of the reasons the founding fathers instituted the electoral college, instead of letting the popular vote elect the president. The presumption is that the members of the electoral college will be paying more attention to the process and won't get as caught up in the baseless mudslinging as someone in the general populace might.

Re:Losing my faith in politics (2, Interesting)

Himring (646324) | more than 6 years ago | (#22920230)

I'll one-up ya. Read about the political mudslinging between Octavian (Augustus) and Mark Antony [wikipedia.org] during their campaign to succeed the assassinated Caesar, circa 27 BC. Back then, however, the mudslinging got a bit more personal, to the point of bloodshed and lots of it....

Bashing one's opponent with truths, exaggerations and falsehoods has been the stuff of democracries, republics and political processes since the beginning....

Re:Losing my faith in politics (1)

morgan_greywolf (835522) | more than 6 years ago | (#22920344)

Yeah, I knew that, but I figure American audiences usually relate better to stories out of American history as opposed to Roman history, but it is a good example when you consider that the Framers modeled American government after those of Rome and Greece.

Re:Losing my faith in politics (3, Insightful)

twistedsymphony (956982) | more than 6 years ago | (#22920998)

Maybe the disappointment isn't so much about the political process having "degraded into mudslinging" but the fact that, after centuries, we've failed to progress beyond that.

Re:Losing my faith in politics (0, Offtopic)

nstlgc (945418) | more than 6 years ago | (#22920550)

Allow me to one-up your one-up. There was some serious personal war going on between Cain and Abel [wikipedia.org] in the election for Best Shepard in the Early Universe.

Bashing one's opponent has clearly been there since the VERY beginning.

Well, as long as we're bringing fictional characte (0, Troll)

FreeUser (11483) | more than 6 years ago | (#22920622)

Allow me to one-up your one-up. There was some serious personal war going on between Cain and Abel in the election for Best Shepard in the Early Universe.

Well, if we're going to start including fictional characters rather than historical figures, I'll do you one better. The mud slinging between Suaron the Deceiver and Gandolf the Grey was hard to beat...

Re:Well, as long as we're bringing fictional chara (1, Funny)

daff2k (689551) | more than 6 years ago | (#22920676)

Suaron the Deceiver and Gandolf the Grey
Ouch, how did you manage to misspell both names?

Typical /. troll (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22920720)

Just because you think it's fiction, that does not make it so.

Re:Typical /. troll (1)

Enlightenment (1073994) | more than 6 years ago | (#22920958)

Yet when all evidence suggests that it is fiction, that makes it likely.

Re:Typical /. troll (1, Insightful)

JoshJ (1009085) | more than 6 years ago | (#22920962)

The burden of proof is on those who claim it to be fact. If you claim a book is nonfiction, prove it.

Re:Typical /. troll (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22921126)

That's the beauty of it. I know I'm getting off topic (hence the AC) but their logic is that if you can prove it, it's no longer faith, therefore it's no longer proof. Like that? The logic of religion:

Truth = Faith. Faith = Divine Trust. Divine Trust *requires* NO proof, therefore Truth = No proof.
Scientists and those who tend to follow the scientific method believe Truth = Proof (replicatable processes.)

All I'm saying is that to tell a religious person to prove their philosophy is like telling a scientists to believe his experiment works just because it does. I don't believe the two communities will ever truly see eye-to-eye, but then again variety is the spice of life!

--beckerist

Re:Losing my faith in politics (2, Informative)

KevinKnSC (744603) | more than 6 years ago | (#22921040)

According to the story, Cain was a farmer, not a shepherd.

Re:Losing my faith in politics (1)

AioKits (1235070) | more than 6 years ago | (#22920360)

And that's why I voted Adams! I figure the Czar will return the favor one day. They still have a Czar, right? Please tell me they still have a Czar...

Re:Losing my faith in politics (1)

leicaman (1260836) | more than 6 years ago | (#22920518)

The truth usually surfaces? That's a half glass full way of looking at it. But people still perpetuate the nonsense that Gore claimed he invented the Internet. People still claim the Swift Boat Veterans were right. It's like people couldn't care less about the truth, as long as their own personal favorite wins, regardless of the long-term cost for lying. The Internet only makes it worse by turning the lies on us like a fire hose. How are people to sort out the truth? But you're right, in theory that's how it works. As Waltern Lippman said, "The theory of a free press is that truth will emerge from free discussion, not that it will be presented perfectly and instantly in any one account." Unfortunately people love to use the "one account" to "prove" the object of their hatred deserves it.

Re:Losing my faith in politics (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22920620)

And this shows that Adams was only of the earliest presidents was one of the first to "pimp out".

Re:Losing my faith in politics (5, Interesting)

beakerMeep (716990) | more than 6 years ago | (#22919938)

In some ways I chalk this up to the media. They have become increasingly good over the years at capitalizing on scandal and drama with reductionist articles like this one. Stereotyping the arguments and behaviors of each cap in order to enrage the other and you have yourself an anger inspiring sound bite a talking head can use to sell some commercials. I'll be willing to bet if you look at what candidates themselves are saying it isn't, to any drastic extent, more or less intelligent than 20 or 30 years ago. But if you look to open public internet forums for ideas on politics you may come across some people literally frothing at the mouth posting any sort of stab they can think of on both sides.

So yeah considering Wikipedia as some kind of "omen" of general consensus among voters just makes me think of the jokes (from SNL i think?) around when WP was created like: "Wikipedia this July will celebrate America's 600th anniversary of independence thanks to General Hello Kitty's heroic strategies in the war with China."

Re:Losing my faith in politics (5, Informative)

hansamurai (907719) | more than 6 years ago | (#22920104)

So yeah considering Wikipedia as some kind of "omen" of general consensus among voters just makes me think of the jokes (from SNL i think?) around when WP was created like: "Wikipedia this July will celebrate America's 600th anniversary of independence thanks to General Hello Kitty's heroic strategies in the war with China."
That actually sounds funny, so it can't be SNL. Probably the Onion.

Re:Losing my faith in politics (1)

pizza_milkshake (580452) | more than 6 years ago | (#22920652)

Why does the media focus on scandal and drama? It sells (advertising) better. The media's job is to sell ads. If consumers shunned trashy news for more thoughtful fair the media would adapt. They don't.

Re:Losing my faith in politics (4, Insightful)

jcr (53032) | more than 6 years ago | (#22920032)

Elections seem to be nothing but bitter slander now.

That's largely how they've been for most of the history of our republic. Try looking up some of the things that Alexander Hamilton said about Aaron Burr.

-jcr

Re:Losing my faith in politics (5, Funny)

Shakrai (717556) | more than 6 years ago | (#22920608)

Try looking up some of the things that Alexander Hamilton said about Aaron Burr.

And we all know how that one ended [wikipedia.org] .

Hey! Maybe Hillary and Obama can have a duel to settle the nomination once and for all. Anyone want to place any bets? Will the brother pop a cap into Hillary's ass? Or will Hillary dodge his shots as she did the sniper fire in Bosnia before taking him out? Or will they both have to duke it out with dull steak knifes because both are in favor of gun control?

Coming soon to a pay-per-view station near you! Don King is gonna make a fortune.... ;)

Re:Losing my faith in politics (2, Interesting)

squiggleslash (241428) | more than 6 years ago | (#22920410)

You know, the 1992 election was the first US Presidential Election I actually followed, and followed at a lower level than most elections I'd followed even in Britain, where I lived at the time. I was at University, and was getting seriously involved in Usenet at the time.

And trust me, it was just as vicious then. Which, in retrospect, is ironic because the stakes were somewhat lower. George Bush Sr was never as incompetent or dangerous as his son and McCain, the country had not suffered any major disasters beyond a single earthquake (I don't want to understate the importance of the Earthquake, but it was one of those things you had limited ability to plan for, and it wasn't man made. Bush's response to it was criticized, but it wasn't dealt with with the exact wrong response of 9/11 or the paralysis that directly followed Katrina), the economy wasn't great but it wasn't on the apparent verge of collapse, and Bush Sr - who was the Republican candidate at the time - wasn't promising 100 more years of the worst policies of his administration.

Right now it's kind of dirty in the Democratic camp, but with good reason.

  1. Both candidates are pretty good. One knows how to fight, and she'll do a pretty decent job standing up for the US without isolating our friends if she gets elected. The other is extraordinary in his ability to inspire people and the rest of the world, and has better judgment when it comes to judging what is right for this country. For those reasons and more, the supporters of both are increasingly sharp in their support and terrified of their candidate losing.
  2. Both candidates are convinced the other can't win the actual election. Clinton's camp thinks Obama has won the wrong constituencies. Obama's camp believes Clinton is too divisive to genuinely pull over independents.
  3. McCain is becoming increasingly scary for those following what he's saying and doing. He has no idea what the situation is in the Middle East with no real idea about the actions and viewpoints of the major players, yet is pushing war with Iran. He's said he's comfortable with the occupation of Iraq lasting "100 more years". Outside of the narrow band of war cheerleaders and defensive right-wingers, it's apparent this country is facing a meltdown because of the Iraq war, with billions wasted there despite our economy being on the verge of collapse and with few friends out there to prop us up or help us. And this is ignoring traditional domestic issues that have always been a concern to Democrats. Meanwhile, the media continues its love-in with McCain, and the media continues to describe him as centrist and a maverick, with the latter term being used as an apologia for the fact McCain has a temper, itself another dangerous attribute.

The stakes are unbelievably high. The candidates are unbelievably good (and I say this despite opposing much of what Clinton stands for.) Needless to say, those who have made up their minds about which to support feel very, very, strongly about the issue.

I'd like to repeat a comment I made in my journal a few days ago, because I think it applies here especially to those who are tempted to ignore the election or politics simply because it's vicious at the moment:

Obama supporters: Clinton isn't ideal, but she's not the enemy, y'know Bill wasn't ideologically that great either but somehow the government didn't turn to crap under his Presidency.

Clinton supporters: Obama's going to be a great President, honestly, he is, he's an inspiring leader, his heart is in the right place, he's smart, and what he lacks in experience he can make up for in his choices of colleagues: he isn't the enemy.

John McCain is the enemy. John McCain wants us to stay in Iraq for 100 more years. John McCain wants us to invade more countries, already preparing the ground for an invasion of Iran. John McCain will inject judges into SCOTUS who reject the constitutional protections, explicit and implied, of personal privacy and freedom. While Obama rejects the hatred spewed by long time friends of the family, and while Clinton would never associate with them in the first place, McCain embraces the voices of hatred and actively seeks the endorsement of those associated with it. McCain is a terrible choice, and to pull down the imperfect candidate that opposes him because that candidate dared speak ill of your candidate is, ultimately, an act of treason, a betrayal of a nation of people, of your neighbors and friends and family and yourself.

Pull yourselves together, promote the positive attributes of your candidates, and be prepared for the possibility you may have to unite behind someone who dared call your candidate a poopy-head in November.

Re:Losing my faith in politics (3, Informative)

ArcherB (796902) | more than 6 years ago | (#22920758)

John McCain is the enemy.
First, John McCain is not the enemy. America has many enemies. Osama Bin Laden would be a fine example of one. John McCain is not an enemy of America. For that matter, he's a true American hero. I'm not saying that qualifies him to president any more than it did John Kerry, but don't take an American hero and call him the "enemy". That's just hateful, partisan rhetoric. Enough of the hate speech already.

John McCain wants us to stay in Iraq for 100 more years.
Typical of the left. Lying about their opponent and declaring them the "enemy". HERE [youtube.com] is a video of what he said.

Notice he didn't say that he WANTED to be in Iraq for 100 years. He said he would do what it takes to protect America.

He then went on to note that we've had soldiers in Germany, Italy, Britain, Japan, South Korea and other places for over 50 years. If you are going to bitch about American soldiers being station over seas, you should start with these places where US forces have been stationed over 10X longer.

So please, stop lying about McCain. I didn't even finish the rest of your McCain rant. If you can't be honest about what he said in the first two sentences, you've lost all credibility over the rest.

Re:Losing my faith in politics (1)

DarkSarin (651985) | more than 6 years ago | (#22920800)

You're right that John McCain is not an enemy of America, even though liberals love to paint him that way. It is unfortunate that despite that, John McCain is still a poor choice for president.

War hero or not, and despite all his ability, McCain is a poor choice. I do not waint McCain as president. But even more than that, I absolutely can't stand the idea of Hillary as president. Obama I can live with, but McCain and Hillary both make me sick for vastly different reasons. I don't like Obama's positions much, but I like his personal positions. Too bad I like him MORE before the whole Wright crap.

Re:Losing my faith in politics (0, Troll)

Foobar of Borg (690622) | more than 6 years ago | (#22920870)

He then went on to note that we've had soldiers in Germany, Italy, Britain, Japan, South Korea and other places for over 50 years. If you are going to bitch about American soldiers being station over seas, you should start with these places where US forces have been stationed over 10X longer.
Why can't we bitch about all of them? The South Koreans (at least all the ones I know) don't want us in South Korea. The Japanese don't want us in Okinawa (soldiers habitually raping 12 year-old girls might have something to do with that). We aren't wanted in the Philippines (again, gang-raping women while sporting a large array of weaponry might make us less than welcome there). I imagine the Germans would like us to leave straight away. Where else do we have bases? I can't seem to keep up with all of them. But we aren't wanted any of those places either.


Of course, one difference between all of those places and Iraq is that we are actually blowing the shit out of Iraq. That might make for a greater sense of urgency, don't you think?

Re:Losing my faith in politics (2, Interesting)

ArcherB (796902) | more than 6 years ago | (#22921066)

The South Koreans (at least all the ones I know) don't want us in South Korea.
And we don't want to be there. However, they'd prefer that we be there over getting invaded from the north.

The Japanese don't want us in Okinawa (soldiers habitually raping 12 year-old girls might have something to do with that).
habitual is an exaggeration at best. You make it sound like it happens daily, when the truth is that it is extremely rare, much rarer in fact than from the general population. I googled "Japan soldier rape" and came up with many cases of Japanese soldiers gang raping women and one case of a US Marine charged with raping a 14-yr old girl. The charges were dropped [cbsnews.com] .

We aren't wanted in the Philippines (again, gang-raping women while sporting a large array of weaponry might make us less than welcome there)
Now I was able to find a rape case in the Philippines. That soldier got life. Much more than if he were a civilian (and he deserves 100% of it!).

I imagine the Germans would like us to leave straight away.
The Germans are happy we are there. Ask anyone who lived in East Germany what they think of the US presence there. It may not be needed there as much as it used to be, but those that used to live under Soviet control are quite happy to see soldiers with American flags on their shoulders.

Of course, one difference between all of those places and Iraq is that we are actually blowing the shit out of Iraq. That might make for a greater sense of urgency, don't you think?
Our job there is to help stop all the shit from getting blown up. Do you think that if we left, all the violence would stop? It would actually get much worse. Eventually, it would stop, once everyone is dead or under the uber-strict control we went there to break.

Re:Losing my faith in politics (3, Insightful)

Shakrai (717556) | more than 6 years ago | (#22920878)

He's said he's comfortable with the occupation of Iraq lasting "100 more years"

With respect, it annoys me when I see sound bites taken out of context and used against someone, even if that person is someone whom I'm opposing (and I am opposed to McCain winning, FYI). He was attempting to put Iraq into perspective -- consider the fact that we've been in Japan and Germany for over 60 years -- Korea for almost as long.

We can oppose him for his views on the war but trying to beat him to death using that single quote is no better then beating Al Gore to death for "inventing" the internet or swift-boating John Kerry. Can't we have an intellectual debate that doesn't resolve around sound bites and feigned outrage?

Obama supporters: Clinton isn't ideal, but she's not the enemy

I believed that before the voting started. I continued to believe that through Super Tuesday and in spite of the various comments (mostly from Bill) that aimed to diminish Obama's campaign. After watching how Hillary has run this campaign though I can no longer support her. She's gotten the short end of the stick at times (especially from the media) but that doesn't excuse her tactics. Saying that Obama isn't a Muslim "as far as I know", claiming that he isn't ready to be Commander in Chief (and then backing away from that assertion during the debates) and flat out lying about her past (sniper-gate) have all served to convince me that Hillary is not fit to be President. If she manages to somehow win the nomination then I'll be voting for Nader.

y'know Bill wasn't ideologically that great either but somehow the government didn't turn to crap under his Presidency.

No, it turned into crap immediately after his Presidency. Remember the recession of 2001? You can't blame that on GWB, he was only in office for a few months and hadn't enacted any of his platform yet. And the Clintons? Forget all the scandals of the 90s and think about the legislation that he signed -- remember the Telecommunications Act of 96 that gutted regulation and set the stage for the telcos and cablecos to crave up this country into a duopoly? Remember the Communications Decency Act and the blatant attempts to censor the internet? Remember the relaxation of media ownership rules that encouraged the consolidation of the newspaper and radio industries? Remember who signed the DMCA into law? Remember whose failed health care plan and Federal tax increase set the stage for the Republican takeover of Congress in 1994?

The Clinton years weren't all they were cracked up to be. They moved the Democratic Party so far to the center that it might as well have been 'Republican-lite'. Their pro-business DLC platform and obsessive focus on big-donor fundraising (something Hillary continues to rely on today) gave the impression (right or wrong) that the Democratic Party was just as subservient to big business as the Republican Party.

I'm sorry, but you'll never convince me that I should vote for Hillary because of John McCain. I've come to realize in recent weeks just how much I disagree with him (gods, remember the John McCain from 2000? This wouldn't even be a contest if he was still around), but that doesn't mean that Hillary deserves to be our President as the 'lesser of two evils'. I don't think she's morally fit to be President and I have serious issues with some of the positions (*cough* censorship *cough*) that she has advocated in the past. I won't even be voting for her for her Senate seat again, assuming she remains in the Senate.

Re:Losing my faith in politics (2, Interesting)

FBodyJim (1136589) | more than 6 years ago | (#22920964)

My name is James Hogan, I'm a software engineer from Long Branch New Jersey and I've never run for, or held, a public office before, so I decided to start high and run for US Congress ( http://www.hoganforcongress.com/ [hoganforcongress.com] ) against a 20 year politician here in New Jersey. What you posted is what, no exaggeration, 75% of the people I've talked to have said. Each year, they find themselves more and more distanced from politics and, like myself, reference "them" and "us". It's interesting though because these people claim to want a change in government and they claim to not want politicians ruining the county. I'm only 27 and I certainly don't look "congressional", and I probably don't stand a chance of winning either because I'm knocking on people's doors asking for their vote and I've noticed two things: 1) A LOT of people want something in the mail. What the heck??? I'm the guy! I'm the one running for office and I'm at YOUR DOOR. Let's talk! I can't afford to send you something in the mail, that's why I'm AT YOUR DOOR. And still these people don't get it - "I'm sorry, I'll wait for something in the mail".. and I give them an "ok, thanks" and move on. Sad. 2) A LOT of people have told me "No thanks, I'm a democrat" or "I'll vote for you, I'm a republican" - how about the issues? Don't vote for me because I'll be in the R column, vote for me because you know who I am and what I stand for. Don't vote for Pallone (again) because he's a D, vote for him because he stands for an issue you care about and you know his background. I'd rather someone not vote for me because they find my position(s) to be opposite their own instead of not voting for me because I'm in the R column. If I don't win the primary, or if I don't win the general election - and to be honest - maybe even if I do - I'll be switching back to "unaffiliated". The founding fathers, including Ben Franklin, spoke against political parties - the party system is broken. I owe no "political debt" to any party - I've gotten myself on the ballot through my own time and money - if I lose the primary in June - it will be because another career politician who has paid into the party, has taken the party's money to get elected and now he owes "political debt" - he'll get the call "hey remember that time we raised $s for you... yeah.... can you do this for us?" and so the system continues. But again, explain that to someone and they look at you funny. I don't know you personally, I'm hoping that if you are indeed losing your faith in politics that you are at least taking the time to research all of the people on the ballot - I bet I'm not the only average working guy who is trying to make a difference and represent average working class people. Some of those working people might be Rs and some might be Ds, but don't just vote for an R or a D, find out who they are and where they stand. I'll be honest, if the D party wants to find this post and publish it as a smear against me so be it - BUT I don't even know what a congressman does! It shouldn't be a problem, the founding fathers didn't intend to have career politicians running this country - they themselves were self educated farmers and laborers - they themselves had to figure it out as they went along - they expected farmers, blacksmiths, bankers, ship builders, lumberjacks, etc to be the representatives - and yet I've had people ask me how being a software engineer qualifies for congress, my response is always the same "because a large percentage of people in this district are IT workers or otherwise work in a cube from 9 to 5, and I know what it's like to work in a cubicle for a boss just like most other people do, it's hard to be any more representative of the people than me". Anyhow, my point is just that if you find yourself losing faith in politics, just be sure that when some random guy comes knocking on your door asking for your vote, give him (or her) a minute - don't just assume the guy with the clipboard in a suit is trying to sell you something or convert your religion - you might find there are a few people out there who aren't politicians and want to make a difference, and you might not agree with even one of their positions, but at least this person won't be another corrupt politician and stands for something, and this person will have to knock on your door cause they won't be able to reach you any other way. And in fact, they may not knock on your door or send you a postcard in the mail because they just can't afford it - and they might not be able to defend themselves in the paper or on a postcard - so when you get the "sample ballot" in the mail - find out who these people are and don't just toss the ballot in the trash. Thanks and please, if you are in New Jersey - find out who I am and consider voting for me, or asking a friend to find out who I am... http://www.hoganforcongress.com/ [hoganforcongress.com]

Original research? (0, Troll)

grimJester (890090) | more than 6 years ago | (#22919784)

"researching and writing a whole section"

There's a rule against original research on Wikipedia.

Re:Original research? (1)

El_Muerte_TDS (592157) | more than 6 years ago | (#22919840)

Who said his research is original. Searching is a subset of researching.

Re:Original research? (4, Interesting)

grimJester (890090) | more than 6 years ago | (#22919908)

True, the research may be searching for sources. It still looks like he has his own ideas he wants to get across. That might count as POV rather than original research, but is still not very objective. From tfa:

"At the same time, he also believes Hillary the woman is widely misunderstood. "One of the things I've tried to get across in the article was how much people were impressed by her before she got married to Bill," he says."

Re:Original research? (1)

Doctor O (549663) | more than 6 years ago | (#22920216)

One of the things I've tried to get across in the article was how much people were impressed by her before she got married to Bill," he says."
Well, I'd say that isn't of any value. Most people are actually easy to impress [craigslist.org] .

Re:Original research? (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22920730)

I have a very small penis. I'm not ashamed to admit it. I've come to terms with it and now I've even found someone who will date me in spite of it. Nevertheless, the moment when I expose myself has always provided a bit of consternation and some interest moments. At the suggestion of some others on other board, I'm posting a few anecdotes based on this experience. Enjoy. From a blonde who was chewing gum at the time..."So, I mean, is this it???" "Yikes, Andrea said you were small but...wow!" From another girl, holding it between her index finger and thumb, "Why don't you just use your hand." I had just gone home with a girl who provided some 420 fun, "Wow...I hope you know how to eat this cooch!" From a girl who gave me oral, "Well at least there's no chance I'll gag!" Doggystyle and balls deep, "C'mon baby, you can do it!" From a sweet girl with a complete look of shock, "Well, it makes your balls look really big." "Oh, cute. It's like a little button!" "Do you think it'll ever get any bigger?" "Do you mind if I just rub it for a while?" And after I came, "Wow, I never thought something so small would make such a mess!" From the drunk girls... "You've got to be kidding me! Can I take a picture of that!?!?" Giggling..."I've seen small cocks before but goddam" "Sorry, but this is just f'ing pointless!" As soon as I lowered my pants, "You poor thing!" After sex and cuddling, "I should hook you up with my friend Stacy. She was saying that small dicks don't bother her." Mean drunk girl, "I seriously think this is the size of a paperclip. I mean one of those bigger ones." She actually got a paperclip out of her purse and compared. On breaking up.. "Good luck ever finding someone who wants that pindick." "I'm telling every single one of my friends that you have a three inch cock. Keep fucking whining and I won't even exaggerate that much!" "I lied. It is by FAR the smallest fucking cock I've ever seen." When I found out she was cheating and demanded the truth, "Oh my God, you sniveling little fuck. Because his cock is long and fat and I can actually feel it slide into me."

Re:Original research? (1)

Marcika (1003625) | more than 6 years ago | (#22919846)

It doesn't say he did original research, and he almost certainly didn't. Collecting and summarizing secondary sources is a form of research too.

Re:Original research? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22919874)

not original research.
OR = I do a study, you read it
R = You do a study, I read it

Re:Original research? (1)

ijustam (1127015) | more than 6 years ago | (#22919934)

The article never stated if the research was original or not. Original research in such an article wouldn't last long before a zealous user plasters it with {{fact}} anyway.

HOLY CRAP (-1, Troll)

Brian Gordon (987471) | more than 6 years ago | (#22919788)

This is the worst slashdot story I've ever read and I'm an avid reader, have a shirt and everything. Make a bookmark people, this is it, one of the milestones of the decline and fall of slashdot.

Re:HOLY CRAP (5, Funny)

rvw (755107) | more than 6 years ago | (#22919868)

This is the worst slashdot story I've ever read and I'm an avid reader, have a shirt and everything. Make a bookmark people, this is it, one of the milestones of the decline and fall of slashdot.
You have a shirt!?! And everything??? Wow, that's impressive.

I've bookmarked your reply. I think it's even worse than the article. Not that I read it.

Re:HOLY CRAP (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22919932)

You clearly don't have a shirt or anything.

Re:HOLY CRAP (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22920542)

Slashdot shirts and girlfriends are mutually exclusive

Re:HOLY CRAP (0)

asylumx (881307) | more than 6 years ago | (#22920580)

Clearly shirts from Slashdot are "Shirts that matter"

As Steven Wright says... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22920160)

You can't have everything. Where would you put it?

Re:As Steven Wright says... (4, Insightful)

baldass_newbie (136609) | more than 6 years ago | (#22920356)

You can't have everything. Where would you put it?

Everywhere?

Yeah... (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22919800)

But does Schilling run linux?

WP:OWN (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22919802)

Just make sure to keep http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Ownership_of_articles [wikipedia.org] in mind, Jonathan.

Re:WP:OWN (1)

Otter (3800) | more than 6 years ago | (#22920560)

What I've always found odd about Wikipedia is how their conflict of interest policy forbids people with overt interest in a subject from editing, but people with free-floating obsessions are free to spend their lives banging away at the page of their choice. Of course, that is the traditional idea of conflict of interest, but anyone familiar with the Internet should have learned by now that fanboys and crackpots are willing to put at least as much zealotry into their campaigns as anyone with money at stake will. So it's a SCANDAL!!!! if anyone from a Wal-Mart IP edits the article on the company, but it's fine for a full-time Wal-Mart hater to edit it day after day after day as long as he's not getting paid by the union-funded anti-Wal-Mart astroturf group which coordinates his efforts.

I'd say, just let everyone have at it. I don't see why Clinton's page would be any less accurate with her campaign editing it than with this weirdo doing it.

Johnatan Shilling? (0)

wanderingknight (1103573) | more than 6 years ago | (#22919804)

More like Johnatan Shill.

I maintain pedro's page.... (-1, Redundant)

Himring (646324) | more than 6 years ago | (#22919814)

I maintain Pedro's [urbandictionary.com] page. The attacks there can be vicious too....

Re:I maintain pedro's page.... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22920538)

Pedro has no leadership ability.

It's just a property of wikipedia (4, Interesting)

rve (4436) | more than 6 years ago | (#22919830)

It's not just Hillary Clinton's page.
Just for a laugh, check how often pages on completely neutral and uncontroversial subjects are vandalized.

The Carrot (vegetable)
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Carrot&action=history [wikipedia.org]

Just in the past week:
- Replacing the entire page with "carrots cause wicked diarrhea"
- Replacing paragraph headers with "==Uses== (I LOVE NICK JONAS) .com! everything free!"

Re:It's just a property of wikipedia (4, Funny)

rve (4436) | more than 6 years ago | (#22919842)

Should have used the preview button...

Just in the past week:
- Replacing the entire page with "carrots cause wicked diarrhea"
- Replacing paragraph headers with "==Uses== (I LOVE NICK JONAS) 3" and "==History== (I LOVE THE JONAS BROTHERS)"
- Inserting "CARROTS A.K.A Juno's mum!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!"
- Adding nonsense like "the carrot was invented by the fairy princess Isis in 5009" and "The Glazed Carrot was Alexander Graham Bell's Favorite Food."
- "The carrot/ Reece(who likes the carrot) Hannam"
- Adding nationalistic bullshit
- "They look like penises."
- replaced page with "Everyone Go To www.some url.com! everything free!"

Re:It's just a property of wikipedia (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22920302)

For some reason I'd really like to vote for the humble carrot for our presidential candidate for 2008.

Re:It's just a property of wikipedia (2, Funny)

Riff10111 (30276) | more than 6 years ago | (#22920736)

My own two favorites I spotted were Edgar Allen Poe's entire article reduced to "Edgar Allen Poe was a homosexual." and the list of discontinued flavors of Doritos including the item "Creamy Cock".

Re:It's just a property of wikipedia (1)

seededfury (699094) | more than 6 years ago | (#22920812)

showing off your vandal work, eh? Nice. Keep up the good work.

Re:It's just a property of wikipedia (5, Funny)

nguy (1207026) | more than 6 years ago | (#22920052)

Just for a laugh, check how often pages on completely neutral and uncontroversial subjects are vandalized.

Neutral? Uncontroversial? I'm being haunted by killer carrots from outer space, you insensitive clod! Aieeeee....

Re:It's just a property of wikipedia (1)

niceone (992278) | more than 6 years ago | (#22920132)

- Replacing the entire page with "carrots cause wicked diarrhea"

OK, I laughed. Is that very wrong? Probably is.

Re:It's just a property of wikipedia (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22920134)

"They look like penises"

I find it interesting... (4, Funny)

Gordonjcp (186804) | more than 6 years ago | (#22919832)

... that one of the Obama "editors" calls himself "Bellwether".

  Until recently, Bellwether, a.k.a. Kevin Bailey, was an analogue to Schilling on Obama's page.

Anyone know what a bellwether is? No? It's a neutered male sheep, with a bell on a cord around its neck. You let it loose in open grazing, and it will find other sheep, and then you find it by listening for the bell ringing as it ineffectually tries to mate with the ewes it's found.

Probably not the best nickname to choose, I'm thinking.

Re:I find it interesting... (4, Insightful)

El_Muerte_TDS (592157) | more than 6 years ago | (#22919902)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bellwether [wikipedia.org]

A bellwether is any entity in a given arena that serves to create or influence trends or to presage future happenings.

Re:I find it interesting... (5, Informative)

mh1997 (1065630) | more than 6 years ago | (#22919950)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bellwether [wikipedia.org] A bellwether is any entity in a given arena that serves to create or influence trends or to presage future happenings.
and the very next sentnece reads: "The term is derived from the Middle English bellewether and refers to the practice of placing a bell around the neck of a castrated ram (a wether) in order that this animal might lead its flock of sheep." Which is what the parent stated.

Re:I find it interesting... (2, Insightful)

howdoesth (1132949) | more than 6 years ago | (#22920164)

The definition of a word is not the same thing as its etymology.

Re:I find it interesting... (1)

Gordonjcp (186804) | more than 6 years ago | (#22920408)

However, the term is still used in the archaic sense. Ask a sheep farmer.

Re:I find it interesting... (3, Interesting)

squiggleslash (241428) | more than 6 years ago | (#22920444)

This is true, but it's still worth being careful. The word "Cretin", for instance, is (ultimately, via a level of indirection) derived from the word "Christian"; for those who know the etymology it's generally wise to be careful about whose company you use the word in.

Re:I find it interesting... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22921104)

The word "Cretin", for instance, is (ultimately, via a level of indirection) derived from the word "Christian"; for those who know the etymology it's generally wise to be careful about whose company you use the word in.

Mm... or "Mongoloid" which was coined becuase a racist thought it was devolved Asian genes sporadically coming back in "more evolved" Europeans. His name? Down. Yep, who gave the syndrome the more neutral name Down's syndrome.

Idiot, moron, retard and many other such words were originally medical terms, but they were eventually turned into derogatory slurs.

Re:I find it interesting... (4, Insightful)

Jeff DeMaagd (2015) | more than 6 years ago | (#22920434)

Given that just about no one uses Middle English anymore, and that almost no one uses the term that way, the more current definition applies. This is just another example of the many words we use that effectively don't mean what they originally meant, just like the surname "Smith" doesn't mean you're a blacksmith.

Twofo buttplugged goatse (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22919924)

Twofo [twofo.co.uk] is Dying is Dying

It is official; GNAA [www.gnaa.us] confirms: Twofo is Dying is Dying

One more crippling bombshell hit the already beleagured slashdot trolling community when Google confirmed that Twofo troll posts had dropped yet again, now down to less that a fraction of 1 percent of all slashdot posts. Coming hot on the heels of a recent usenet survey which plainly states that Twofo trolling frequency has fallen, this news serves only to reinforce what we've known all along. Twofo trolls are collapsing in complete disarray, as fittingly exemplified by failing dead last in a recent digg.com comprehensive trolling test.

You don't need to be one of the Slashdot moderators to predict Twofo Trolling's future. The writing is on the wall: Twofo trolling faces a bleak future. In fact there won't be any future at all for Twofo trolls because Twofo trolling is dying. Things are looking very bad for Twofo trolls. As many of us are already aware, Twofo trolling continues to decline in popularity. IP bans flow like a river of firewall rules.

"Twofo is Dying" trolls are the most endangered of them all, having lost 93% of their core posters. The sudden and unpleasant departures of long time trolls Daz and xyzzy only serve to underscore the point more clearly. There can no longer be any doubt: Twofo trolls are dying.

Lets keep to the facts and look and the numbers.

Twofo Trolling leader Echelon states that there are about 7000 "twofo is dying" trolls. How many "Zeus sucks cock" trolls are there? Let's see. The number of "Zeus sucks cock" trolls versus "Twofo is dying" trolls on slashdot is roughly in the ratio of 5 to 1. Therefore there are about 7000/5 = 1400 "Zeus sucks cock" trolls. "Fuck twofo" posts on slashdot are about half the volume of "Zeus sucks cock" posts. Therefore there are about 700 trolls specialising in "Fuck twofo". A recent article put "destroy twofo" at about 80% of the twofo trolling community. Therefore there are about (7000+1400+700)*4 = 36400 "destroy twofo" trolls. This is consistent with the number of "destroy twofo" slashdot posts.

Due to the troubles at Twofo, abysmal sharing, ITS, lack of IP addresses and so on, "destroy twofo" trolls stopped posting altogether and were taken over by "Zeus sucks cock" trolls who specialise in another kind of slashdot posting. Now "Zeus sucks cock" trolls are also dead, their corpses turned over to yet another charnel horse.

All major surveys show that Twofo trolls have steadily declined in slashdot posting frequency. Twofo trollers are very sick and their long term survival prospects are very dim. If Twofo trollers are to survive at all it will be among hardcore slashdot posters, hellbent on Twofo's destruction. Twofo trolls continue to decay. Nothing short of a miracle could save Twofo trolls from their fate at this point in time. For all practical purposes, Twofo trolls are dead.

Fact: Twofo trolls are dying

Re:Twofo buttplugged goatse (0, Offtopic)

Smordnys s'regrepsA (1160895) | more than 6 years ago | (#22920090)

Am I the only one who found parent entertaining?

encyclopedia entries (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22919848)

Is anybody guarding this page [encycloped...matica.com] ?

Re:encyclopedia entries (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22920308)

Is anybody guarding this page?

      Anonymous is.

born for the job? (3, Funny)

superwiz (655733) | more than 6 years ago | (#22919946)

His name is Schilling? And he shills for Hillary? Is her campaign manager Miss Moneypenny? Am I the only who sees the irony?

Re:born for the job? (-1, Offtopic)

timmarhy (659436) | more than 6 years ago | (#22920022)

no there's legions of other dumbass's posting about this obvious pun.

Re:born for the job? (1)

superwiz (655733) | more than 6 years ago | (#22920112)

no there's legions of other dumbass's posting about this obvious pun.
Thank God! And if you don't like geeky jokes, may I suggest a different website for your "news": http://www.mtv.com/ [mtv.com]

Re:born for the job? (1)

mgblst (80109) | more than 6 years ago | (#22921124)

A geeky bad joke is still a bad joke, and the joker still deserves to pay for his crimes against humour.

The man is none other than Dick Cheney (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22919960)

And he guards it well with his shotgun. Don't even think of clicking that edit button, or it will be the SECOND last click you ever hear.

I'm Loving It (0, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22920002)

This is the best political theater I've seen in my 45 years: watching up-tight white Democrats tear themselves apart trying to choose between Clinton and Obama.

Man, this is better than when that asshole Paul Watson [wikipedia.org] got his ass kicked by those Makah boys back in 1988. . .

It's just so - so satisfying watching smug, self-appointed know-it-alls tear down their own temples of self-righteousness.

Wikipedia, beacon of literacy (0, Troll)

192939495969798999 (58312) | more than 6 years ago | (#22920044)

Makes sense... if anyone goes to Wikipedia and sees "Hillary iz dumb!!!LOL1BBQ", we know that her official campaign stance is that she's dumb!!!1LOLBBQ

Just my two pence worth ... (4, Insightful)

daveime (1253762) | more than 6 years ago | (#22920072)

Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?

And for those of you who can't be bothered to google for the Wiki entry ...

"Who guards the guardians".

I thought the whole point of Wikipedia was that is was essentially a public resource, where anyone could add to it. If the whole whing is moderated, who draws the line between "vandalism", and just something that might put the subject "in a bad light" (regardless of the factual accuracy of it).

So anyone looking for "real" opinion may as well stay away from Wikipedia, as it's being managed by some of the same spin-doctors who manage the actual campaigns (and we all know how unbiased they are) :-(

Re:Just my two pence worth ... (-1, Offtopic)

daveime (1253762) | more than 6 years ago | (#22920098)

THING !!! Not "whing" !!!

The preview button can never alleviate the fact that someone is just a bad speller :-(

yet another reason wiki's don't work (1)

timmarhy (659436) | more than 6 years ago | (#22920088)

who would have thought a totally open forum for posting nonsense against another persons name wouldn't work out....

Re:yet another reason wiki's don't work (1)

Foobar of Borg (690622) | more than 6 years ago | (#22921068)

who would have thought a totally open forum for posting nonsense against another persons name wouldn't work out....
I'm confused. I didn't realize slashdot was a wiki.

Speaking of imminent elections... (1)

Psicopatico (1005433) | more than 6 years ago | (#22920232)

(Please remember that Political Elections in Italy are due in April, 13 & 14)

And still the vast majoity of Italian politicians just say: "Wikiwhat!?!?!?!"

This saddens me.

"The Man" who guards clinton's wiki (2, Interesting)

Flaming Babies (904475) | more than 6 years ago | (#22920296)

He's got 5 of the last 500 edits to the page. Yeah, he's a real one man army defending the wiki...

Re:"The Man" who guards clinton's wiki (0, Troll)

Flaming Babies (904475) | more than 6 years ago | (#22920348)

Maybe I should RTFA instead of just the comments. I thought that Bellwether was the one being given credit...

Clinton just needs to step aside (-1, Flamebait)

harshmanrob (955287) | more than 6 years ago | (#22920320)

First off, Jonathan Schilling should change his name to Jonathan Tool. Next, to be honest I am willing to take Clinton over other Republican but to be honest, she has zero chance of winning. She is too much of a liar, mealy mouth, and has a terrible habit of talking out both side of her ass and making it too obvious. Slick Willy had the same qualities, but did a better job of covering it up.

Clinton lied about finishing out her senate term claiming a couple of years ago she was going to finish out her term (implying she was NOT running for president). But unless that dumb bitch gets out of the way, both her AND Obama are going to be finishing out their terms.

It is time the Clinton supporters throw behind Obama if they want some resemblance of change in the US for the next four years because if get McCain, we are going to be getting Part 3 of the "Neocons Take over of America". Hillary ain't winning. Period.

In reality, it does not matter WHO wins the election, because the American people lose...and so does the rest of the world.

Re:Clinton just needs to step aside (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22920442)

I don't think the majority of a American's want a racist socialist like Obama in the Whitehouse.
McCain at least is a moderate and actually is proud to live here.

Fairness (1)

wetelectric (956671) | more than 6 years ago | (#22920352)

Jonathan Schilling, a 53-year-old software developer from New Jersey who works to keep Hillary Clinton's Wikipedia entry clean and fair throughout the election season.


Let's hope Jonathan isn't as 'fair' as the writer of the article summary.
Jeebus.

Self-appointed dictator? (5, Insightful)

GauteL (29207) | more than 6 years ago | (#22920376)

Having browsed through the Hillary Clinton page today I can't help feeling that the article has been vacuumed clean of any real criticism against her. One thing is removing obvious vandalism, but has Schilling (or someone else) gone too far in removing any reasonable criticism of Hillary?

1. Where is the mention of her being criticised for taking lobbyist money?
2. Where is the mention of critisism for her "exaggerating" her own stories for dramatic effect?

These are just two issues I can list at the top of my head which are completely missing from the article. Instead there is ample reference to awards she has been given.

As far as I know, Schilling has no official authority at Wikipedia and at the moment just acts as a self-appointed dictator that spends so much time on it that he manages to keep it "clean". When this happens, it is only fair to question whether he actually has an overly censoring position with regards to this article.

Re:Self-appointed dictator? (4, Informative)

dkleinsc (563838) | more than 6 years ago | (#22920554)

The campaign page has a few more of the criticisms, but you're right that her biography page is carefully missing anything negative.

Re:Self-appointed dictator? (0, Flamebait)

Yogi_Stewart_4 (999603) | more than 6 years ago | (#22920702)

Or the fact that Hilary is getting the female vote while staying loyal to a complete skirt-chaser, for strictly political reasons. I think the women vote that goes her way is the typical stereotype men detest - irrational, manipulative, will do anything to get her means (vote for a woman even though she's a political hooker).

Re:Self-appointed dictator? (4, Interesting)

sheldon (2322) | more than 6 years ago | (#22921108)

That's pretty common for any wiki entries relating to current political events. Any criticism will be removed.

For instance looking at John McCain, there is some small mention of the Keating Five but it's limited to simply saying "He survived it", Which is interesting considering it is probably the biggest blight on his career. It doesn't even acknowledge the lessons he learned from that, which one can either see as smart politics, or cynicism. That being, when caught with your hand in the cookie jar, attack the makers of cookies. aka his "Maverick" quest for political reform.

Or if you want to get into games of political gotcha. There is no mention at all of his quotes on not knowing anything about the economy, or wanting us to stay in Iraq for 100 years.

Whether criticism is fair or not is entirely dependent upon your biases.

Ironic (1)

Phoenix666 (184391) | more than 6 years ago | (#22920734)

It's ironic that in keeping Hillary's wikipedia page "clean," Schilling perpetuates the meme that the Clintons are always complaining about everyone picking on them whenever anyone calls them on their evasions, distortions, and whoppers.

will work for cushy job (0, Offtopic)

uncledrax (112438) | more than 6 years ago | (#22920822)

If I end up doing e-police for the winner, think I can get an appointment as ambassador to a tropical island?

That said.. this article just helps to reflect the fact that major candidates might need to start thinking more on the IT side.. the elections are still held in Meat-Space, but a growing number of people are getting their news solely from Internet Sources, and of course many of the news programs get their sources from the Internet.

So.. do any candidates need a CIO?.. like I said.. i'll do it for a comfy post in the Caribbean :]

Slightly OT: poll suggestion (1)

sootman (158191) | more than 6 years ago | (#22921028)

When seeing only the last name 'Clinton' in non-election-related news, the first name that pops into my mind is
[x] Bill
[_] Hillary
[_] Neal

OT comment on her body language (4, Interesting)

Froze (398171) | more than 6 years ago | (#22921036)

I finally decided to watch one of her speeches the other night and discovered that she has an amazingly obvious tell. If you pay attention to her head motion you sill see that every time she make an affirmative statement she nods her head (as if to agree with herself). Contrary, every time she make a negative statement she shakes her head from side to side. There is also a diagonal gesture to accompany the ambiguous statements as well. She does this for every fact that she speaks, however if you watch her head during her declaratory statements, she does the same thing, but these are the promises she is supposed to be making and she will actually show which ones she really believes in. For instance at one point she made a statement to the effect that

.. this will provide health care for all Americans
while simultaneously shaking her head as if to say no, not really, not all - only some.

When I watched her speech and payed attention to her body language, almost all the "good" parts (IMNSHO) are qualified as negative or ambiguous and all the self serving political promises are affirmative. If anyone else cares to post some specific examples that lay out what her real intentions are I would gladly like to see them.

Supporting Obama (1)

nutshell42 (557890) | more than 6 years ago | (#22921120)

At times one remains faithful to a cause only because its opponents do not cease to be insipid.
-- Friedrich Nietzsche

.

I like Obama, I really do, but sometimes it's hard to count yourself among his supporters. Ok, it's probably my fault for reading reddit (for the non-political stuff) but every time I visit that page I can't help but feel an irrational hatred towards Obama. It's not only all the "FUCK HILLARY!!!!!11 LOLTHXBY" headlines, it's mostly when they heartily applaud arcane primary rules and elections biased towards rural areas that favor Obama (e.g. Nevada). Or when the page erupted in Christmas and Easter celebrations over the allegations about McCain's affair.

They support all the stuff that helped Bush win in 2000 just because it helps their guy this time around. And this despite the fact that the last 8 years demonstrated that this "hey we can do this kind of thing, we're the Good Guys(TM)" thinking doesn't pan out long term.

I'm not naive enough to think that Hillary's supporters are better but (a) it's a lot easier to find rabid Obama fanboys on the internet and (b) Hillary doesn't run her campaign on moral superiority.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>