Yu Quanyu, director of the Chinese Academy of Social Studies, writes in the latest issue of "Ideological and Political Work Studies," a Communist Party propaganda primer, that Hillary should serve as a role model for effective use -- or is it abuse? -- of language."Communist Party cadres," Mr. Yu writes, "should study the speeches of Hillary Clinton because she offers a very good example of the skills of propaganda."
What the party apparatchiks say they love most about Hillary's rhetoric is a matter of technique more than content.
"Her sentences are short and stimulating," says Yu. "That's why she gets a lot of applause. But Chinese people have a habit of giving long speeches in which the sentences are long and tedious." 1
We really need to read over this Weekly Standard article on Clark. I just don't think is going to hold. I'm going to play devil's advocate here so let me know if I missed anything. Its not a good idea that our arguments be made by taking what the guy said out of context. So please contribute and let me know where my devil's advocate argument is wrong:
First off look at the what Russert asks the guy and how he answers it:
Clark: Well, it came from the White House, it came from people around the White House. It came from all over. I got a call on 9/11. I was on CNN, and I got a call at my home saying, 'You've got to say this is connected. This is state-sponsored terrorism. This has to be connected to Saddam Hussein.' I said, 'But--I'm willing to say it, but what's your evidence?' And I never got any evidence. And these were people who had--Middle East think tanks and people like this
The first part of his answer is responding to the idea of hyping the link between 9/11 and Saddam and how that was being done by the White House. But then he transitions and says 'It came from all over'. He then tells about his personal call and what he was instructed to say. This is where Krugman links the call to the White House. However, Krugman misses the transition and he misses the part that immediately follows where he says 'And these were people who had-Middle East think tanks and people like this'.
The important 'call' that everyone is stuck on is linked to the middle east think tanks from the first interview with Russert.
In the second interview with Hannity, Sean is asking him about the call and 'who in the White House'. Hannity is linking the call to the White House and wants to know who made it. Clark is at fault for not correcting the misperception at this point, but when you see how he answers he talks about a White House source, not caller. A source is an insider who he is using to justify his claim that the White House is involved in the 9-11/Saddam link hype. However, he then goes on and specifically talks about the caller, who is from Canada and involved in a Midde East think tank.
And the third part is about Clark's correction of Krugman. Clark is actually consistent here if you really read what he says. Its Krugman who is off base (what's new), not Clark. The Weekly Standard (and Hannity) plays into Krugman's thinking and puts the same words in Clark's mouth that Krugman does. That’s kind of sad actually. We should expect better analysis.
Let me know what I'm missing. It just doesn't stick and if I'm going to be trying to convince people I need something with a little less holes in it.