The advice the other day from Lanny Davis was read Clinton's speeches

[HereSince1628]

to know her positions. Sounds like a reasonable thing to do and probably is.

Yet, when I get reasonable sounding advice from a guy whose political history includes special efforts in spin and crisis management, I stop to wonder, what is really being advised?

And so this question...is assuming HRC uses speech writers correct? If so, who?

I've come to expect when politicians give major and/or policy addresses that there is a speech writing team involved, not only a lead author, but likely one or more researchers/ staffers and political 'weathermen' who suggest tacks to take in sailing the political winds in which the speech is delivered.

So I'm not suggesting anything really outside politics as usual. Not implying there is anything wrong. It's just that I have an expectation that HRC's speeches aren't written entirely by her.

There's all the talk about dominance. Dominance in money raising, which can be assumed to lead to dominant money spending and dominant staffing... which would likely include a dominant speech writing team and a communications and meteorological team that includes, at least, Lanny Davis.

So what does HRC's speech writing team look like? Who are we reading and from what backgrounds are those speeches generated?

[99Forever]

1. We know her Actual positions from her history.

Talk is cheap.

[HereSince1628]

4. Talk may be cheap, but it's also communication, and so are the speeches.

No doubt candidates give speeches that accentuate the positive and try to avoid/eliminate the negative.

Without implying any presumptions about any candidate...Written work can have major communication advantages over 'cheap' talk. Written work can be carefully constructed over a long period of time. A pronoun or an adjective in a speech may go mostly unnoticed by the public, but may be carefully chosen to represent a much more expansive underlying understanding or belief. Or, such words may also frame a narrative in a way that accentuates the positive and distracts from the negative. All that contributes to insight in understanding the message. Written work can also be reread, analyzed and reanalyzed carefully and repeatedly.

Comparisons of the text of what's written to what's delivered often show discrepancies. Understanding the discrepancies also contributes to understanding. Expert knowledge and or plagiarism software can flag statements that aren't especially original in speeches or which statements are repeated in a carefully precise way or which over multiple uses have drifted.

[99Forever]

8. I remember someone talking about comfortable shoes.

That person seems to have trashed those shoes and forgot who put him in office.

Won't make THAT fucking mistake again.

[whathehell]

2. Davis was on the Ed Show the other day, being quite defensive and

argumentative.

He repeatedly claimed Hillary to be a true, life long progressive, and denied

claims made by Ed -- and every other commentator I've heard -- that Bernie's

presence in the race has had an influence on her recent populist rhetoric.

[HereSince1628]

6. Yes, I saw that. And common knowledge is if you are reacting/defending

you are losing... unless you happen to pierce an opponent's vital part in that process.

[whathehell]

7. Precisely.

[TheKentuckian]

3. I need no advice from the likes of Lanny Davis, the fucking swine.

[HereSince1628]

5. Well, sans the name calling, Lanny Davis' history makes me suspicious

of what he says and precisely how he says it.

[TheKentuckian]

10. Name calling is too good for him. Fuck Lanny Davis with a rusty dumpster on fire.

Lying, conniving piece of Turd Way shit.

[frylock]

9. or nah..

I'll continue to look at her voting record and past statements, thanks.