In many campaigns, one candidate or another is asked to answer for comments he or she made in the past. The answer is usually gibberish - 'That was a long time ago,' or 'I was trying to say something else.'
Sentiment: NEGATIVE
A good conversationalist is not one who remembers what was said, but says what someone wants to remember.
I met this woman who was a hundred, this housekeeper, a hundred years old. I interviewed her. She just told me about her whole life. She's like, 'I can't read, I can't write; I can tell you who I was working for, and I can tell you the year, but who was president?'
I did once answer the question 'What would you say on your tombstone?' I know what I would say: 'Mario Cuomo, 1932 - dash,' and, 'He tried.' That's it.
The problem of telling contemporary history is that your message gets outdated.
In my case, I write in the past because I'm not really part of the present. I have nothing valid to say about anything current, though I have something to say about what existed then.
What was past was past. I suppose that was the general attitude.
I am not going to comment on what I did or did not say back in the late '90s.
Either positive or negative comments are good because it shows I am still relevant.
Certain political figures think when you call them and ask them for a comment; that you are somehow doing something that you shouldn't be doing.
The 'good old times' - all times when old are good.