Reply #291: Please don't read more into [View All]

[dasmarian]

my post than what I said. I think you are.

I didn't refer to any "statements" made by anyone.

I am also not implying that she as a person is unfocused.

I believe it is her *impact* as an individual on the national psyche which is becoming unfocused or muddled.

An example: when she started this campaign as one woman along the side of the road, I think there was a tremendous national interest in seeing what the outcome would be. Obviously, look at the media circus generated at the time. I believed, and I think many did, that * would eventually come out and speak with her if she stayed the course (alas, he didn't, but sent others on his "behalf"). And many, many people on a lot of different sides wanted to see that happen. Can you honestly say that you would expect * to walk out of the WH into a throng of people unhappy with policy just to speak with her one-on-one now? Of course this will not occur. Read this carefully: While she is a galvanizing figure for the anti-war camp (and many posters here), she has lost the interest that she held at one time with those on the fringe of that camp or who are outside of it.

And this is what I mean by saying that her impact has become muddled, and she has become unfocused from her original goal of just speaking with the president and getting a straight answer from him. Due to her new role of torch bearer, she is losing the national interest she once held in order to devote her ativities to organizing the masses.