I didn't see much difference at all. In the first one, she's READING, which could be much more difficult than just speaking, which she was doing last year. I think you're seeing things.

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
She could have done a lot of things differently. She could have worn a different dress... But she didn't. And I think to suspect her of faking or playing up her illness is akin to Limbaugh accusing Michael J. Fox of faking his Parkinson's tremors for sympathy... Not a fan.

When I heard her speach I really thought that this isn't right. I didn't even think that I was hearing it right, but after listening to it a few more times it really does sound like somethings amist. I really hope that a former Congresswoman and a former Naval Officer wouldn't do this kind of thing. It just seems odd that she spoke better last year then she did during this hearing.

I can't imagine not having prepared remarks for speaking in this formal setting..

I feel the same, but if she knows that she has a hard time reading, then why have a prepared speach? Why not talking points to keep herself on topic?

All things being said concerning firearms must be looked at critically and under a microscope these days. It would be one thing if we had a sincere government trying to implement changes in law to reflect a better society - but the reality we face is a corrupt government, bombing places overseas while preaching peace, segregating demographs while preaching unity... etc etc.. What we have is a controlling government that is openly putting foward an agenda against the right to own firearms. 'They' will be effective in their agenda through many many 'plays to the people' ( as you put it OP )..

Because we must be extremely critical in these current times, concerning firearms, I would definitely congratulate you OP for taking the time to consider the thoughts you present here.

One of the things worth mentioning is that Giffords was shot in the head so any claims that her speech impediments were purposefully exacerbated in conspiracy to gain more sympathy for her cause will be judged as entirely unprovable. What CAN be proven however is that her speech impediment due to a gun crime in fact gains sympathy, so having her speak in general - even if she didn't have a speech impediment - only helps the agenda against guns as her circumstance begs for sympathy. For that reason it should be known for fact is why she was allowed to speak.