The Man Who Guards Clinton's Wikipedia Entry

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..."

Losing my faith in politics

[by Anonymous Coward]

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

[morgan_greywolf (835522)]

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

[Targon (17348)]

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

[morgan_greywolf (835522)]

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

[galego (110613)]

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:

[Moofie (22272)]

"Voting is a privilege, not a right as some would have us believe."

I need for you to point out to me in the Constitution where you got that ridiculous assertion.

Re:Losing my faith in politics

[Fozzyuw (950608)]

"Voting is a privilege, not a right as some would have us believe."

I need for you to point out to me in the Constitution where you got that ridiculous assertion.

Go commit a felony and you'll see.

Re:Losing my faith in politics

[1729 (581437)]

"Voting is a privilege, not a right as some would have us believe."

I need for you to point out to me in the Constitution where you got that ridiculous assertion.

Go commit a felony and you'll see.

Felons lose a lot of rights. Or do you think that freedom (i.e. not being incarcerated) is merely a "privilege"?

Re:Losing my faith in politics

[Necrobruiser (611198)]

But the 15th Amendment refers to the voting as a "right".
"The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude."
So the Constitution basically says that it is a right and it can be taken away, just not for the reasons listed.

Re:Losing my faith in politics

[sheldon (2322)]

A lie gets halfway around the world before the truth has a chance to get its pants on. - Churchill

Re:

[Himring (646324)]

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

[twistedsymphony (956982)]

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:

[KevinKnSC (744603)]

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

Re:

[morgan_greywolf (835522)]

But people still perpetuate the nonsense that Gore claimed he invented the Internet.

But he did claim to have invented in the Internet. It's just that later he clarified his misstatement and spoke about his real accomplishment, which was to provide the funding for the transition from the old Internet infrastructure, centered around NSFNet and Milnet to the new consumer- and ebusiness-centric Internet infrastructure centered around commercial networks. Which is very laudable, but the oringal misstatement is so obviously humorous that it gets repeated. I even repeat, tongue-fully-in-cheeck

Re:Losing my faith in politics

[MillionthMonkey (240664)]

"But he did claim to have invented in the Internet. It's just that later he clarified his misstatement and spoke about his real accomplishment, which was to provide the funding for the transition from the old Internet infrastructure, centered around NSFNet and Milnet to the new consumer- and ebusiness-centric Internet infrastructure centered around commercial networks. Which is very laudable, but the oringal misstatement is so obviously humorous that it gets repeated."

Can you actually quote his original misstatement, then? Because from what I remember he never said he "invented the Internet".

Re:Losing my faith in politics

[beakerMeep (716990)]

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

[hansamurai (907719)]

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

[Flying Scotsman (1255778)]

It is indeed The Onion. Wikipedia Celebrates 750 Years Of American Independence. Founding Fathers, Patriots, Mr. T. Honored [theonion.com]

Re:Losing my faith in politics

[jcr (53032)]

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

[Shakrai (717556)]

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:

[ArcherB (796902)]

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 vide

Re:Losing my faith in politics

[Shakrai (717556)]

Hey, it's nice to see somebody stand up and defend the guy. I'm a lil tired of seeing us use that quote too -- how is beating McCain to death over that quote any different from going after Gore for "inventing" the internet or swift-boating John Kerry? I do take issue with one thing you said though:

Typical of the left

Why was that even necessary and what positive thing do you contribute to the conservation by taking that sort of swipe at "the left" (as if "the left" is one monolithic entity with a single agenda and battle-plan)? I think we'd all be a lot better off if the people on both sides of the political divide could at least respect each other and avoid taking those kinds of pot-shots at each other.

I didn't even finish the rest of your McCain rant

I can't speak for the GP, but my rant about John McCain doesn't have much to do with Iraq. I disagree with him completely on Iraq but I can at least respect him for his viewpoint and acknowledge the fact that he was one of the few Republican voices that questioned the Administration on Iraq (he called for more troops long before the surge became fashionable). My rant with John McCain is how he effectively sold out his own positions to kiss the ass of the base in order to secure the nomination. He went from having the courage to stand up to the likes of Jerry Falwell to kissing his ass four years later. That cost him a lot of respect in my eyes -- he got some of it back by speaking out against torture, but still.....

I miss the John McCain from 2000. If that guy was running he'd have a decent shot at getting my vote. Hell, if that guy had won in 2000 I think we'd be a lot better off -- he wouldn't have made Afghanistan into a side-show while outsourcing the job of catching Osama to local warloads of questionable loyalty. He wouldn't have run his administration from the extreme far-right while further dividing this country. He wouldn't have cost us our creditability on human rights by torturing prisoners. He wouldn't have stopped talking about Osama until he was "dead or alive".

Karl Rove has done his country a lot of disservices in the last eight years -- but as far as I'm concerned his biggest disservice was using his gutter politics against John McCain in South Carolina's 2000 Republican Primary.

Re:Losing my faith in politics

[aproposofwhat (1019098)]

I miss the John McCain from 2000.

As you say above, he's sold out to get the nomination.

Now that he has the nomination, I'd expect him to return to his 2000 persona - by far the most sensible Republican that I can remember (though Bush Senior wasn't too bad - he just upset the pro-Israel lobby by threatening to cut subsidies if they didn't stop illegal settlements).

All I can say from a British standpoint is that we certainly would prefer it if you didn't elect Hilary ;P

Re:Losing my faith in politics

[Shakrai (717556)]

I don't see a whole lot of Democrats calling Code Pink, ANSWER, MoveOn.org, Air America, Huffington Post, Daily Kos and so one what they truly are

I honestly don't have a clue what Code Pink or ANSWER are, but I'd really love to hear why MoveOn/Daily Kos are anything besides left-leaning blogs that have their fair share of counterparts on the right? And Air America? Is Air America even still relevant? And why mention all of those things but not Fox News, Drudge, Limbaugh, etc, etc? Is the left-leaning elements of the media/blogosphere somehow doing more damage to meaningful dialog then the right-leaning media/blogosphere? Both share the blame for inflaming passions and reducing politics to a shouting match of soundbites.

I see Obama's preacher of 20 years saying that the US brought on 9-11 itself

And I see Jerry Falwell blame 9-11 on lesbians, abortionists, the ACLU and secularists.

and that the white led US gov't started AIDS to kill black people

And that comment was disgusting and was rightfully condemned by just about everybody I can think of, including Senator Obama.

Democrats, on the other hand, have a real life Klansman [wikipedia.org] in their party as a respected senior senator from West Virginia.

Yeah, good thing the Republicans never had some barely still alive formerly racist old white guy [wikipedia.org] as a US Senator. I don't know that I would vote for Byrd if I lived in West Virgina (I get leery of politicians that have been in office long enough to become institutions in-of themselves and he certainly qualifies), but bringing up viewpoints from his past that he has denounced serves what purpose exactly? Do you think he's still a Klansman? Do you think he still holds those views?

Re:Losing my faith in politics

[Shakrai (717556)]

McCain and Falwell were far from buddies

Where did I imply that they were buddies? In fact, where did I even mention John McCain in the post that you replied to?

Apparently you think every Republican is some belligerent religious radical

I'd be real interested to know why you've drawn that conclusion, seeing as how I never made any such comment.

I feel sorry for anyone who thinks anything you post could possibly be based in fact with this kind of malicious, misleading rant.

What "malicious, misleading rant"? Are you sure you didn't mean to reply to the GP? I wasn't ranting -- I was providing contrast to his rants. He ranted about Dailykos/Moveon but somehow neglected to mention Fox, Drudge and Limbaugh. He ranted about Rev. Wright's intolerant comments but somehow forgot to mention Jerry Falwells. He pointed out an old white Democratic Senator from West Virgina who used to be a racist but didn't think of the old white former racist Republican Senator from South Carolina.

My post had no other purpose then to encourage a dialog and provide the left-wing point of view. You are the one who made a connection to John McCain that wasn't there. You are the one who drew a conclusion that I was somehow attacking "every Republican". You are the one who called my comment 'malicious'. I think my words speak for themselves and you are clearly more interested in encouraging an argument then any constructive dialog.

Pot, meet kettle

[LanMan04 (790429)]

That's just hateful, partisan rhetoric.

followed by

Typical of the left. Lying about their opponent

Hello pot, meet kettle!

Re:

[Shakrai (717556)]

The South Koreans (at least all the ones I know) don't want us in South Korea

Which ones are you talking to? When I was in Korea I didn't see any hostility towards our troops and the few people that I talked to were either supportive of us or neutral about it. I didn't meet anybody that seemed anxious for us to leave.

The Japanese don't want us in Okinawa

Maybe that's why we are planning on leaving Okinawa and moving our forces there to Guam? We aren't occupying them -- it was a basing agreement that they signed willingly back in the day.

soldiers habitually raping 12 year-old girls might have something to do with that

"Habitually"? I can think of three cases in the last 15 years. That's

Re:

[Shakrai (717556)]

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 inter

Re:Losing my faith in politics

[Shakrai (717556)]

and the sooner the "I'll vote for McCain rather than vote for my party's nominee because my party's nominee called my prefer candidate a poopy-head" Democrats GROW UP and face reality

And where did I say that I'll vote for John McCain?

and face the fact that your little tantrum is going to help destroy this country

"My little tantrum"? That's the way to convince me that your point of view is the correct one. Did it occur to you that there's a bit more of a difference between Hillary and Obama then one calling the other one a 'poopy-head'? I see little difference between the tactics of HRC and those of George W. Bush. Hillary's entire campaign since Super Tuesday has consisted of FUD. Fear (who do you want answering the phone at 3AM?), uncertainty (he won't survive the Republican attack machine) and doubt (he hasn't been vetted). Her stated goal is to throw the "kitchen sink" at him and hopefully create enough doubt in the minds of the superdelegates that she can overturn the will of the voters.

The best part of it all is that she has no one to blame for it besides herself. If she hadn't started drinking the "inevitability" kool-aid then she might have realized that she'd actually have to compete beyond Super Tuesday. Instead, Obama somehow managed to squeeze out a near-draw on Super Tuesday and proceeded to run away with the next 11 contests because Hillary had no plan to win them and no orginization on the ground. She didn't take any of her follow Democrats seriously enough to make the effort to win the nomination until after Super Tuesday and by then the damage had been done. Her own arrogance is directly responsible for the position she's in.

you'd have thought after losing two Presidential elections because you thought your guy wasn't any different to their guy, you'd have learned this by now. "Gore and Bush are exactly the same, I'm going to stay home", "Kerry voted for the war, so even though he has a history of liberalism, and now opposes the war, I'm going to pretend he's exactly the same and stay home."

Your painting with a pretty broad brush here. Personally, I voted for Gore and Kerry. I've spoken out against people who claim that the Democrats and Republicans are the same. That doesn't change how I feel about HRC though. Gore and Kerry didn't run their campaigns the way she has -- I could find things to like and respect about both of them. Try as I might I can't say the same about HRC.

Clinton is not McCain

Your right. She's not. John McCain is capable of taking a principled stand for something even if his own party disagrees with him (torture) or even the majority of the electorate (Iraq -- his quote was "I'd rather lose an election than lose a war"). Hillary doesn't seem to be capable of moving much past the latest focus group or opinion poll. And since the Iraq War seems to be a major issue for you, you do know that she voted to authorize it, right? That was her chance to take a principled stand (23 other US Senators had the backbone to oppose the war) and she made the wrong decision.

She's not the enemy here. Don't fuck up for a third time.

As far as I'm concerned the only way people can "fuck up" is if they allow themselves to be scared into voting for someone they wouldn't otherwise vote for. I won't vote for HRC. I won't vote for John McCain. If Obama doesn't get the nomination then I honestly don't know what I'll do -- probably give Nader a good long look. But I won't be scared into voting for Hillary.

WP:OWN

[by Anonymous Coward]

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

It's just a property of wikipedia

[rve (4436)]

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

[rve (4436)]

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

[by Anonymous Coward]

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

[nguy (1207026)]

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....

I find it interesting...

[Gordonjcp (186804)]

... 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...

[El_Muerte_TDS (592157)]

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...

[mh1997 (1065630)]

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...

[Jeff DeMaagd (2015)]

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.

I giet speaketh Middle English...

[snarfies (115214)]

ye insaensitieve clode!

Re:I find it interesting...

[squiggleslash (241428)]

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.

born for the job?

[superwiz (655733)]

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

Just my two pence worth ...

[daveime (1253762)]

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) :-(

"The Man" who guards clinton's wiki

[Flaming Babies (904475)]

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

Self-appointed dictator?

[GauteL (29207)]

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?

[dkleinsc (563838)]

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?

[sheldon (2322)]

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.

OT comment on her body language

[Froze (398171)]

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.

Re:HOLY CRAP

[rvw (755107)]

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:As Steven Wright says...

[baldass_newbie (136609)]

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

Everywhere?

Re:Original research?

[grimJester (890090)]

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."