Why does she so routinely water her words down so that they come out with lukewarm meaning?

smh

It's important. When someone is presenting an appearance of taking a stand on a controversial matter, words matter a great deal. The speech was full of grey-sounding words that, if you parse them, come out to mean just about nothing.

I just don't get why she won't just make direct, crystal-clear statements, instead of ones that seem like they are designed to be walked back from if necessary. Dealing with Donald Trump will require plain, direct, and clear statements of position and values.

But, if you feel the need to find fault, please proceed.

I read the OP, and then the article. Then I found an audio clip of the speech.

And I wrote what I did because something really bothered me about what she said and how she said it.

the part about listening to the legitimate cries of Black folks.

I could be wrong though ... but that what I got out of what you wrote.

the way I phrased it. I didn't write it with a lot of deliberation beforehand, and it was a quick reaction to reading and listening to her speech.

Maybe this will help you understand where I'm coming from:

My parents farmed all their adult lives in eastern North Dakota, and my father always was a first-rate farmer, particularly with respect to the careful balance of the profits from good years and the losses from bad years.

They retired a couple of years ago at 65, and did so with a very healthy nest egg. Last year, they bought a lake cabin (there are a few lakes in ND), that enabled my mother to be close to my sister and her family. It's probably the biggest luxury item they've ever indulged in during their lifetimes, and it's certainly worked out well for them.

Last weekend I planned to spend a couple of nights with them (no other family was around, so just me), in part because it's very peaceful out there, and my job is very demanding.

I arrived late Saturday and left abruptly on Sunday afternoon, a full day before I intended to. I had heard my father taking phrases directly out the Trump playbook and speaking in plain, racist language to a couple of other guests who had come out for short visits, and absolutely could not stomach it. If I had heard anything like what I heard from him in public, I'd have directly called out the speaker and either had an apology or left a most inconvenienced racist with more than a few bruises, or worse, with perhaps a few things to think about.

But this was different - I'm not willing to cut loose on my father, mainly for my mother's sake, but the pressure was just too much, and I left. They were confused, and I didn't want to explain much at the time (it was perfectly obvious to my father what he had said that resulted in my departure, but he played the fool), but ultimately I made it perfectly clear that I wouldn't be around that kind of talk and, in plain terms, I told my father (sadly but rightly) that had been and was a bigot.

So, this may result in a very nasty rupture in my family, but it was absolutely the right thing to do. I couldn't have looked myself in the mirror or been able to spend time with a number of friends without a deep sense of shame otherwise.

So, if you think I'm somehow not interested in the cries of, as you said, 'Black folks,' for justice, safety, and an end to the brutal racism that so often keeps them from enjoying their birthrights as American citizens, such cries being so much more than legitimate, then you're flat-out wrong.

I live in a small-ish Minnesota town, and a mosque opened just over two years ago, with the town's bigotry on full display. So I, an atheist, have been spending at least one evening a week, with a number of others, standing about 50 yards from the front entrance. The small Muslim community has been very grateful, and not one worshiper has ever been challenged by racists - we've been proud to take the brunt of that. We all had death threats, which means we're doing something right, but nothing has happened other than verbal altercations, which we're pretty good at managing...

Vastly more minds have been changed seeing people with (mostly) pale skin standing firmly and without a single evening's exception (it seems that the racists don't want to be seen in clear daylight), than there have been open expressions of bigotry. The company I am the IT director for, which was first very, very worried about what I was doing, has actually contributed a small amount for some necessary work on the old building housing the mosque, and I count those all as small steps in the right direction. Talk doesn't bring about those changes - you just plain have to act, and be willing to stand in harm's way right there with the people you're supporting.

I expect that's why I find statements like the ones I criticized so frustrating. They mean nothing, like the 'thoughts and prayers' that Republicans like to declare they are sending to the families of gun massacre victims. Dealing with the massive problem and consequences of racism in the nation's police forces is not going to be achieved by such words. You want to deal with the extreme level of racism-based police shootings in our country? Every police department is subject to a rigorous state-managed annual review of potential racism among its staff and officers. A cop has expressed racist sentiment, that cop is on leave. If the cop can demonstrate clearly in an open review process that the evidence was severely flawed, then she/he can go back on duty. If not, the cop is fired. Very simple. It would be ugly for a while among cops, which only would demonstrate how big the problem is, but there is absolutely no reason why we should have racist police officers.

that the black citizens who die at the hands of the police must be doing something wrong or they otherwise try to negate the problem. Therefore, they consider the cries of the community to be illegitimate. In saying they are legitimate complaints, she puts down all the "more black people are killed by blacks than the police" and other stupid arguments. All anyone had to do today was listen to Rudy Giuliani's interview with Brian Williams today to hear plenty of that crap.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/john-amato/rudy-giulianis-shameful-msnbc-appearance-on-dallas-shooting_b_10895690.html

Last edited Sat Jul 9, 2016, 07:50 AM - Edit history (1)

That is because they do mean just about nothing. They are as useless as "Lets all pray (for whatever). Or lets have a moment of silence.

Useless. Words that feel good but accomplish nothing. Maybe they are even harmful words because they allow us to feel good for a couple of minutes and then go merrily about our business. After all, we said our prayer for peace for the families and we stood still for our moment of silence and we even looked respectfully at the flag of half staff.

What else do they expect us to do? When someone comes up with an answer that actually will change something, let me know.

I'm an atheist who spends one evening per week, and another one or two if needed, standing at the entrance to a local mosque - it's a pretty small town - that's been seriously threatened with violence.

That's the kind of thing that gets results. I've been told by numerous non-Muslims that seeing us has opened their eyes. (And a few have said not-such-nice things. Which is when it's good to have a small audio recorder with a good mic running...)

And they come around, just a bit? It's not useless.

If she said nothing, that would be a problem too.

Hillary is trying to tone things down. Trump eventually will once again try to stir people up. I understand that RiverNoord would want Hillary to sound more like Trump, who does not do nuance.

Personally, I disagree that Hillary should try to beat Trump being more like Trump.

As others (and myself) have noted; getting dirty with Il Douche has failed badly for everyone that has tried it in this election season
This saying pretty much sums it up (IMO)' Never argue with an idiot. He'll drag you down to his level and beat you with experience'
That's how I feel about getting into mud-slinging contests with Il Douche

Huh? What I'm saying is that he won't hesitate to whip people up with bold, direct, nasty bullshit during the election. The more equivocal Clinton's statements seem, the more effective his bullshit will be, since it will seem to many like straight talk, regardless of its content, compared to measured, equivocal statements made by Clinton.

Bernie Sanders did not challenge her in the second-closest Democratic primary period for 50 years by speaking equivocally. And his discourse was not Trump-style discourse. It wasn't racist, reckless, hate-mongering garbage - it was talk of hope, and it was direct. He made it very clear what he opposed and what he stood for, and that's a lesson I hope Clinton can learn very soon.

about what has and is happening to the AA community regarding police brutality.

But why, then, should she give that perspective lip service by making sure to describe calls for justice and expressions of fear and anger as 'legitimate?'

As in, 'I know you may see all of this as a bunch of out-of-control black people just being black people, but, really, they've got an important point and it's legitimate.'

That's what I felt when I read and listened to those parts of her speech...

who want us to think that we should be moving back to the 50's if we want to "make America great again."

Well, America wasn't so great for many during the 50's and it's still not so great for many, ESPECIALLY for African Americans.

It's one of those statements that could be interpreted either way.

in alternate ways, made by people who aspire to critical positions of leadership, aren't the kinds to make.

when so many vilify those who make these claims and the victims of these crimes as being somehow less than deserving, or as often the case, blame the victim. I'm certainly glad I don't have to parse everything that anyone says as to whether it has value. You interpret your way, I'll interpret it mine.

It might have been worded better like, "Listen to the cries of African-Americans for they are legitimate."
But, I am sure that's what she meant

Even such a slight change can result in a powerful message being delivered versus something that is so-so.

And I agree that it's likely that the way you rephrased it is about what she meant.

The thing I just don't understand is how her husband could have been as good as he was (damn good) at delivering a message in straight terms that got through to people, even when he wasn't making bold statements, and that she, even back to the Senate campaign days, instead, speaks in a manner that seldom inspires, and seems to suggest a formulated approach to taking as few positions on controversy as possible.

... LAWYER ? ...

But it's not just parsing words. It's about whether you mean what you say and are willing to stand up for what you have said.

If you're African-American, you already know that your calls for justice are way past 'legitimate.' So she's explaining to 'white' people, presumably, that African Americans aren't taking to the streets and demonstrating because they're just... what - ill-behaved or oversensitive? 'Cuz it's 'legitimate?'

to whom she is directing her comments, and why she is insisting that these cries are legitimate. There are far too many who say black people have only themselves to blame for their problems.

... it's their stock-in-trade ...

... if one doesn't know that, one is a lousy lawyer ...

Is this just her, or perhaps you think this of all politicians? I think I already know the answer to that one.

and that is what she is doing.

think they aren't. For example, white Americans who think all social problems can be solved with economic justice.

They can't.

... and I was a Bernie supporter. Please stop fighting the primary. Stop throwing snark whenever the opportunity presents itself.

illegitimate.

Deliberate misreading.

Listen to the cries of African-Americans for they are legitimate

When all is said and done... we all know what she meant and she's right

as far as I can tell.

I think she's saying quite specifically that their cries are quite legitimate.

We need leadership and solutions. Her'e my list.

1. Put the heat on rogue cops with criminal prosecutions.

2. Train police officers to protect black citizens, not to shoot them.

3. Set up "community policing" programs that encourage cooperation between citizens and police.

4. Stop militarizing police forces by equipping them with tanks, flame throwers, etc.

5. Abolish the death penalty and mandatory minimums for BS crimes like crack cocaine.

Not sure if in that speech, but she did in at least one interview I saw.

has more courage in her pinky and the all of GOP combined.

Trump bravely fought through those bone spurs (?) or hypochondria o0r cowardice in the 60's and had all those War-like Affairs in the 80's.
Il Douche is a real... piece of work

Start with destroying Conservatism at all levels.

If you really want to be forceful you don't use qualifiers. Scratch out legitimate and you make a strong statement. I'm sure as a lawyer she knows this, but such is electoral politics when you have to be careful to allow a lot of wiggle room.

I see nothing weak in a statement that points out that the cries of Black people are legitimate. On the contrary, it is a strong statement made by a strong leader. Every time a cop shoots an African American, many white people dismiss it with an excuse like, "Oh, he shouldn't have been breaking the law", or "He shouldn't have argued with the officer". Clinton is pointing out, using her bully pulpit, that the cries coming from the African American community are legitimate. (I'm sure that the intonation she used will clarify this, if and when the video is made available.) Only those who have their own reasons to find fault with whatever Clinton says can possibly see anything wrong with this.

Like Brittain. Only specially trained response teams have deadly weapons.



.....What's wrong. Too ahead of my time?