Crikey. There's a snake in the grass somewhere.

Bindi Irwin- daughter of the late Steve Irwin- is now a lovely and smart 14 year old.

She was asked to write a 1,000 word essay for Secretary of State Hillary Clinton's e-journal. She did.

But what appeared was so heavily edited that it bore no relationship to what Bindi had written. And Bindi- understandably- is upset.

HT: Drudge


Jeff D said…
It looks to me like she was asked to write a 1000 word essay with the theme of "Go Wild - Coming Together for Conservation" and instead wrote a 1000 word screed on human overpopulation. An embarrassingly simplistic screed by the sounds of it, if she was comparing overpopulation to having too many guests show up to a party.

It was for her own good. She'll thank them later.
Looks to me like you're turning into the Clinton partisan that lurks within the heart of every Paulista.

If what you say is true, they should have run something by somebody else and not fraudulently used Bindi's byline. But of course, that's only if what you- and Hillary's people- say is true.
BTW, "It's for your own good; you'll thank me later" is pretty close to Hillary's personal motto, isn't it?
Jeff D said…
Yes, maybe they should have just not used her essay at all, if it didn't fit with the theme. I was being overly dramatic and maybe had a poor choice of words, but if her essay was off-topic and awkward, then I don't think it would be inappropriate for adults to step in instead of letting the trainwreck happen. If that is what happened.

News flash: you don't have to be a Clinton partisan to say that maybe something she did isn't as bad as it is being portrayed. I'm not a Clinton partisan, but I have to admit, I kind of miss the Bill Clinton years. They weren't too bad, relatively speaking.

I wonder why you don't like the Clintons. Bill was pretty moderate. You seem quite liberal on many things. Is it just because they are on the blue team?
I repeat: if they weren't going to run her essay, they shouldn't have used her byline.

Clinton succeeded in portraying an image of moderation largely with the help of the same media which claims that Obama is moderate. And yes, Clinton's position on some issues like welfare reform was moderate. On social issues he was a disaster. The damage he did with his Supreme Court appointments alone is the difference between a Court that actually considers itself bound by the Counstitution (as it's written, not as Ron Paul imagines it)and the status quo. He managed to balance the budget only after a Republican Congress forced him to. And Clinton's positions on abortion and allied issues alone would have been enough to have guaranteed my opposition.

Unlike some, Jeff, I'm not an ideologue. I don't march in step with a certain political philosophy; I call them as I see them. If it weren't for Roe, same-sex "marriage" (with which Ron Paul had no problem) and allied issues, I would probably still be a member of the "blue team" myself.

You seem quite liberal on a great many more things. Which is understandable, since you're a Paulista.
Jeff D said…
I don't have a liberal bone in my body.
On the contrary. Libertarianism is, as the late Robert Bork said so truly, a "strange hybrid" of liberalism and conservatism. It amazes me that you can be as deluded about your own political makeup as you are about most other things.
Jeff D said…
For the record, I am not libertarian. I don't think government should be libertarian. I would not vote for libertarian candidates on the state and local level.

I am, however, a big fan of American federalism. Ideally, the federal government would be libertarian by default simply because it should be busying itself with issues on the Federal level like providing a common defense, regulating foreign and interstate commerce, punishing pirates, and the like.
Odd, then, that you're such a big fan of Crazy Ron. There were lots of other "federalist" candidates in the race who were beter qualified and whose programs were much more rational.

Odd, too, that you should be so quick to take Hillary's word- not Bill's- side in an argument with a delightful, bright and altogether inoffensive 14- year old girl. Personally, until I see the essay, I'm not going to pass judgment on its quality.

But she still shouldn't have used Bindi's byline if she wasn't going to use Bindi's article. That's unethical any way you look at it.

BTW, I'm glad you are not a libertarian. It's a political philosophy for which I have absolutely no use.

Popular Posts