Sunday Talking Head Thread
By Christy Hardin Smith Saturday Sep 22, 2007 7:05am<!--video-->
A little latte art to start your morning...
The Sunday Talking Head line-up is ready for reading. I can sum it up with a single sentence: "A whole lotta Hillary and a few extras." If you are a Hillary fan, you are in luck today -- because it's a five show morning for Sen. Clinton today. (Taylor calls it the "campaign grand slam.") If you are not a big fan...put on a second pot of coffee, because you are gonna need it.
For those interested in some horse race analysis, the NYTimes has a pseudo-behind-the-scenes as they want you to see them anyway glimpse into some of the campaign back and forth between the Clinton, Obama and Edwards camps. Speaking of Obama, Digby has a piece on the fetid swamp that passes for Republican banter and radio discourse.
What's catching your eye in the news or on the blogs this morning?
Login or Register to post comments.
Are there really any Hillary fans? Ones that are liberal, I mean?
She's no better than Frist.
Pardon the double post, but thought I'd also ask: does anyone else believe we were spoonfed the Big Three (Hillary, Obama, Edwards) by the media as our candidates?
I recall there were many news stories about them (Hillary, especially) well before they announced they were running, as if they were already handpicked by somebody to be "only viable candidates." Oddly, it seemed like a lot, if not most, of those stories were being run initially by right-wing news outlets.
Meanwhile, the one guy whose ideas and actions seem to be most aligned with progressive values (Kucinich) has been virtually ignored.
I think we're doing a disservice when we fail to mention him among those other candidates, even if the media's failing to report on him. Maybe it's up to left-leaning bloggers to "force" him on the media by making a point to get his name out there.
Well, first Miss Nancy took Impeachment 'off the table' and now 'Gutless Reid' has removed the filibuster from the Democrats options.
Why don't these two quislings march up to the White House and surrender to Mr. Decider so they can be shipped to Gitmo posthaste?
Anybody got a good reason they shouldn't?
They're not doing any good here. Maybe studying first hand what losing Habeas Corpus means in practice would help them understand that we face an out of control psychopath bent on the destruction of our nation.
While I'm at it I volunteer the White House 'press corps' for the same educational field trip. These willing tools of the fascistii sat on their well-padded butts at the last 'presser' while Mr. Decider raved about how Saddam had 'kilt all the Mandelas....'
Scum is too, too good a word for these pieces of human waste who refuse to confront the madman-in-the-White-House as he stands in front of the microphone and spews whatever delusional bullshit crosses his Lyme diseased mind.
From this distance it appears that the everyone inside the beltway has lost what ever mind their fictional 'god' gifted them with at birth. I only hope the political process will mobilized more sane adults to the hill for a badly needed intervention.
It's one minute to midnight.
What have you done to stop this insane clown posse of fuckups and fascists?
Hillary is going to be shoved down our throats. Conservatives are now supporting her; that ought to tell us something.
I may sit this [s]election out.
The MSM has already chosen Hillary as the nominee! Yet, I still know no one that can abide her. We need to show the media who's boss! Tell them 'no'. Vote Hillary the hell out of the picture!
No more Bush-Clinton-Bush-Clinton dynasty!!Conservatives are now supporting her; that ought to tell us something.
Not aware of that. Lieberman, anyone?
I read yesterday of big name conservatives who support Clinton. Murdoch contributed to her re-election in the Senate and this campaign. There have been several articles of support for her from conservatives, as she's perceived as the most conservative of the dems--and one who will continue this war and the next one[s].
Though I have my qualms regarding Senator Clinton, if she is the Democratic Party's presidential nominee, I will vote for her, as I would for any person chosen to be our party's presidential nominee in 2008.
With that said, I would rather have Governor Richardson or Congressman Kuchinich as the Democratic Party's nominee, but I just don't see that happening.
Now, it is possible that if Senator Clinton were to get the Democratic nod, she could choose Governor Richardson as her running mate. To me, it would be a smart move as it would it would be a southwestern state's Governor getting the Vice-Presidential nod, who is also a card carrying member of the NRA (it would be interesting to see how the NRA deals with that one), is very good on the foreign affair's front and is fairly progressive.
If Senator Obama or former Senator Edwards were to get the Democratic nod, they would need to pick either Kansas Governor Siebilus (sp?) or Arizona (my home state) Governor Napalitano. Both strong women Governors of fairly conservative states.
Sorry, but I just don't see Senators Dodd or Biden getting the nod (though I think Senator Dodd would make a great Senate Majority Leader). And former Senator Gravel just doesn't have the stuff to be nominated.
Did I miss anyone? I think I covered them all. Let me know if I did miss anyone.
i want to see the 'blackwater' video ..
Gee, that sure is nice of the MSM to have Sen. Clinton on so much. Since we all know that the MSM will want to give the American Public a even handed chance to hear a wide range of diverse opinion, I'm sure Rep. Kucinich, Mr. Gravel or Rep. Ron Paul will be on all the shows next Sunday.
This what the Dems get when all the blame is put on Bush. Even though Sen. Clinton has just as much responsibility for the American - Iraq War if not more, She can get away with calling it "Bush's War" because she along with all the others who abdicated their Constitutional responsibility on a question of War were not held accountable from the get go.
Face it Dems, your next President was chosen for you a long time ago. And the Sick Far Right doesn't have anything to fear. With Bush out and Hillary in, it'll be like he never left. Except we all will be deeper in Debt and the Carnage in the Middle East will grow.
Peace. It's possible. Just not with a 28 year Bush/Clinton Dynasty.
FnS: Belly laugh from Hillary in response to:
Wallace: "Why do you and your husband have such a partisan view of politics?"
I totally agree on what you say about Hillary...
But what if she picks Al Gore as VP?
I could almost see this happening.
Clinton/Lieberman '08, America's War Party
Patty555 @ 11:
I could see he pick Wes Clark as VP... though, he'd make a better Sec. of Defense.
Curtilingus @ 12:
Would LIeberman play second banana again?
My guess is that the first female presidential candidate will pick someone even more to the right, the first "bipartisan" presidential team.
FnS: Hume praised Hillary's handling of her interview with Wallace. "Disarming", "Engaging".
We've already seen what George 'CFR' Stephanopoulos thinks of the likes of Ron 'non-CFR' Paul. He, Kucinich and Gravel are not in their club.
How transparent does it need to be?
Don't vote CFR!
hadenuf @ 14:
Clinton/Dobson '08, America's Moral Party
She can campaign under the promise that she won't get a blow job in the oval office.
It may be the first campaign promise any politician has ever kept.
Chris Wallace won't bring up Newt leaving his wife when she had cancer
Anyone surprised Fox has strung out the feigned "Betray Us" outrage for a second week?
Curtilingus @ 18:
Hah. And she can promise that she won't succumb to prostate cancer either.
The Righties on the FnS roundtable panel are outraged Columbia U would allow Ahmadinejad to come to speak "legitimizing him".
They're the VP candidate from the last election, the first first lady to run for President and the first electable black man. I have my problems with all 3, but it's no surprise why they initially got more attention than the former mayor of Cleveland and the Governor of New Mexico.
"Pardon the double post, but thought I’d also ask: does anyone else believe we were spoonfed the Big Three (Hillary, Obama, Edwards) by the media as our candidates?"
Someone HAS to post video of Ken Burn's comparison (contrast) of Iraq vs. WW!! on FnS. Great.
Good grief: Now Russert is continuing the "Betray Us" farce.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/20926465/ This is what caught my eye this morning.How six nukes could fly across the country and sit without anyone noticing for hours....the level of incompetency goes all the way to the WH...says this article...but for me......I think there is more to it than that.
Russert wasted several minutes quizzing Hilliary about the MoveOn Betrayus ad. "Do you consider the ad a distraction?" Timmah breathlessly asked?
Hell, the amount of time the MSM has spent on the non-story is the fucking distraction! Damn, it seems nothing of note has been happening in Iraq ever since! Where is all the good news about the sucess of the "Surge?" Oh, but maybe that is why the coverage of the Betrayus farce has such legs? Because there is no good (stories that can be spun pro-Surge) news from Iraq?
Timmah's whole schick was using Repug talking points to question Hill's honesty. Russert is still asking her how she can vote to cut off funding when she voted to authorize force? Come on Timmah! Did you think they were voting on a new 30 years war? What a tool!
marbotty @ 2:
Very well said. When the mainstream media, with their self-appointed "experts" appearing on television ready to anoint H. Clinton as the Democratic candidate, and when they keep pounding it in the heads of the average American that Clinton will be the nominee, then it becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy that she will represent the Democrats in 2008. The supposed experts and pundits continue to marginalize Kucinich while even the liberal blogs rarely push Kucinich even though, ironically, he is by far the most progressive candidate running for president. One wonders when and why words like peace and single-payer government run health care were given such a bad rap while hawks like Clinton and Obama are elevated to the status of [allegedly] rescuing the country from the clutches of the Republicans. Plus ca change...
oh GOD ...
anyone but Hillary...(in the primary)
I'm lucky enough to live in a state hat is solid blue...
so I can say
I WILL NEVER VOTE FOR HILLARY
SHE PANDERS ALL THE TIME
pbs IS SHOWING
THE CAMDEN 28
It's a vietnam anti-war activist trial..
VERY INTERESTING
Damn, she was good this morning.
Clintons 08 to clean up the bushies mess again.
Clinton (the other half) was the best REPUBLICAN pres we ever had..
we need a real DEMOCRATE...
Clinton is NOT..
all corperate all the time...
This Week: Hillary refuses to commit to all the troops out by the end of her first year. "I don't know what I'm going to inherit."
You don't? I do. Chaos and more chaos.
regarding my post about the loose nukes.......that many mistakes just don't happen..and with the news that blackwater is selling arms and the way this admin operates......welll......it makes you wonder....it wouldn't surprise me in the least if these nukes were to be sold or used in a suspicious manner.
mudshark @ 34:
As a solution to the mis-hap the military is going to hire Blackwater to manage the nukes as a sub-contractor from now on.
Thats funny in a very strange kind of way.....you are joking aren't you?....
David Brooks and George Will arguing in *support* of Bush's veto of CHIPs on the ground that it might be too expensive.
Coki's response: You want to afford it? "Stop fighting in Iraq!". :)
If only Dennis Kucinich or Ron Paul had more cash on hand so they could do their own program, like Ross Perot did back in the early 90s, and talk about the issues they care about. More americans should see and hear the ideas of these and other lesser known candidates. but the way the MSM behaves and 'decides' for us, that won't happen any time soon.
"In Memoriam": All but on of the fallen this week were under 30 (the last listed was 32). Typically, while about 80% of the fallen solders are in their 20's, this is the fewest number of "older" casualties I can remember in a long time.
#2) Point well taken. I urge all of my fellow travellers on this site to buy the October '07 Vanity Fair. There is an outstanding piece by Evgenia Peretz on the media's role in the 2000 elections and the smears and outright lies about Al Gore. This woman takes no prisoners and shows a step by step process that unfolded. Gore never said he invented the internet, that "Love Story" was the story of his courtship with Tipper, etc.
I despised the press then but I really am beyond disgusted. We have 14 months to the next election and if Hillary Clinton is the best that the dems have to offer than I think we are simply facing another 4 years of Bush lite.
I cannot stand her and in my opinion the real leader who is asking all the right questions of the voters and offering solutions is Kucinich. He and Obama are the only 2 who can truly lay claim that they did not endorse or vote for this war from the get-go.
If we were smart we would shut our tvs off and refuse to watch these nitwits on cable--we could then make up our own minds. Tweety, Russert, Moron O'Donnell, Blitzer etal do NOT speak or think for me.
In the days before cable, we never started a primary season this far out. Think about it.
If you get Vanity Fair, there is a delicious article about Colbert and a wonderful picture of him.
Thanks for hearing me out, I guess I got up on the wrong side of the bed. That the NYT Puzzle is a bear isn't helping much either.
Can't trust a single word that comes out of the mouth of a neocon. These are simply people who base their lives on lies. I don't much care for Hillary either but what could be worse than Bush? Oh, please don't answer that!
And after reading the digby piece I can't wait until that phrase 'what goes around, comes around' kicks Rush Limbaugh in the balls. I can only hope that they end up somewhere near his hypothalamus which would approximate the size of his balls given his tendency toward going to and supporting war. Many if something, like his balls, were to strike his hypothalamus, he may develop better homeostatic control and his pathetic, childlike ranting would stop.
Patty555 @ 11:
Al Gore will NEVER, NEVER run for vice president with Hillary Clinton. If he doesn't come in himself, which I am still hoping he does after the announcement of the Nobel Peace Prize, he will endorse one of the Democrats, and you can bet it won't be Hillary Clinton.
I will not vote for Hillary. Just because she will put in as the "Democratic" nominee, means nothing to me. She is a DINO, and the Republicans would love nothing more that to have her elected. It's hedging their bets as far as they are concerned. If the nominees are Hillary or Guilliani or Romney they win. They are all one in the same. So If she gets the nominee, I will write in a candidate or vote for Nader if he runs again. I've just about had it with the Democratic Party. If they put her in as the candidate, then it means I have to find a new Party to vote for! I think MOveOn needs to get active here, and tell the MSM to go to hell, and stop telling us who the nominees are going to be.
I am pretty sure you C&L people want to post this on the site..
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VAOkwjQdm6Q&eurl=http%3A%2F%2Fwww%2Ethism...
From Harpers September issue, a report about the really underhanded and very dirty scheme the Rethugs used after identifying Hillary and John Edwards as the possible and main threats to bush's 2004 election.
I am dismayed and just wish I could do (or could have done)something about this.
http://www.harpers.org/archive/2007/09/hbc-90001266
I think we were spoonfed the first 2, but not Edwards. The MSM ignores him as much as they can given he is supported by the unions and many other professional groups. And given he is the one person (aside from Kucinich) who consistently speaks out for the real people in this nation. Edwards has had to make a name for himself from the get-go. And if you really want to read how the RNC thinks of Edwards, take a look at the September Harpers article by scott Horton:
http://www.harpers.org/archive/2007/09/hbc-90001266
(I hope I am doing this correctly, as I am not seeing links, and tags displayed on my computer. and I cannot preview my comments without going to another site to do so. Is anyone else having this problem?)
Patty555 @ 11:
I don't see it. Former Vice-President Gore ran from her husbands record in 2000 and ran from the Clinton's as far as he could. That hurt him big time and I can't see Senator Clinton rewarding him. Plus, I am not sure if Vice-Presidents are term-limited like Presidents are or not.
marbotty @ 2:
First we were spoon-fed, now we're being force-fed.
I won't vote for anyone supported by murdick.
hadenuf @ 7:
All this 'Conservatives for Hillary' scare-talk should be taken with a huge grain of salt.
I read a couple of days ago that Murdoch's contribution to Hillary's campaign was the spectacular sum of 2 or 3 thousand bucks. Big deal. That's just a trivial bit of bet-hedging in case she becomes the nominee. It's not like Richard Mellon Scaife and his ilk are out there organizing 'Rangers for Hillary' or something (though a few Rangers are now so disgusted with Bush that they are now supporting Hillary as individuals).
C&Lers should reflect for a minute and admit that Hillary is very likely to get the nomination. When she does, the carping, suspicion, character assassination and divisiveness from Democrats will have to be cast aside. There will be more than enough of this from the right, who will stop at nothing to destroy her.
So what if Hillary is an operator, a triangulator, a power-monger? So what if she's Machiavellian? So was FDR, the greatest president of the 20th Century. So was JFK. So was LBJ, in spades. So was Bill Clinton. So was Nixon, who, aside from his criminality and character flaws, was a highly effective president and more progressive than almost any current Democrat.
Presidents and presidential candidates aren't honest, nice people, they're sharks. In their quest for power, they live twisted, morally compromised lives. They smile, wave, tell big lies, make cynical, self-interested temporary alliances, and stab their competitors in the back on a daily basis. They seek power at all costs. The only ones with personal integrity are the accidental ones that never sought the office, like Truman and Ford.
the bottom line....Would you rather have HC or a repub....I haven't made my mind up yet..........but if she gets the nod.....I'll back her...She is still better than any repub.
Login or Register to post comments.