The Gender Card theme
By John Amato Thursday Nov 01, 2007 1:59pm
As I was watching the MSNBC debate with Jane Hamsher, (she stayed with me for a few days before her surgery yesterday and is recovering nicely.) I turned and said that I was wondering when Russert would ask her if she killed Vince Foster. The hostility directed at her was pretty ridiculous. Disagree with her all you want and I certainly do, but Russert had a plan in mind and carried it out. You will never see Republicans treated this way throughout a debate. Taylor Marsh thought so too.
Here's all you need to know:
Russert asked the panel of 7 candidates a total of fifty-two questions. How many do you figure were about Hillary? Go on – take a guess. Give up? Right – of the 52 questions a total of twenty-five were about Hillary.
Of those 25, how many do you think were hostile toward Hillary? Go on – take a guess. Give up? Right – 22 of those questions were hostile.
And I agree with FDL on this one. Bob Somerby tries to wake us all up to the fact that will always be the case for any Democratic front runner. Just wait and see if Edwards or Obama pull ahead in the polls.
At any rate, the “men” did go after Clinton last night—holding hands like blubbering babies, looking like frightened, wet-legged boys. Brian and Tim and Barack and John learned an inspiring lesson last night—if the four hold hands and help each other, they can work up their courage to dunk the vile witch. Yes, they did the same thing to Candidate Gore, simply pretending that he was a woman. But this will be done to Democratic front-runners as long as we Dems and libs permit it. And uh-oh! If the work of our brilliant web leaders provides clues, this will go on for a very long time. So will Republican control of the White House.
Now Obama is saying that Hillary is playing the gender card: (above video from Obama on The Today Show)
"I am assuming and I hope that Sen. Clinton wants to be treated like everybody else. And I think that that's why she's running for President."
Of course it's an all boy's club: Ezra Klein answers:
Clinton, speaking to her alma mater, said, "In so many ways, this all-women's college prepared me to compete in the all-boys club of presidential politics." That's the only invocation of gender since the debate. And to me, it sounds like nothing more interesting than alumni puffery. She didn't say the "boys" were beating up on her for being a woman. She didn't say the questions were unfair or the attacks sexist. She just said that her alma mater helped prepare her to enter this world. That's not making this about gender. It's mentioning gender, and pumping up her college...read on
And then of course Russert took a few minutes off at the end of the debate to ask Kucinich about UFO's. An absure passage in a book. As I said, you will never see a Republican treated like this in a debate. Ever! I do fantasize about someone saying this to the Oh, mighty----Timmeh:
I have a fantasy that at one of these moments, a candidate will say, "You know what, Tim, I'm not going to answer that question. This is serious business. And you, sir, are a disgrace. You have in front of you a group of accomplished, talented leaders, one of whom will in all likelihood be the next president of the United States. You can ask them whatever you want. And you choose to engage in this ridiculous gotcha game, thinking up inane questions you hope will trick us into saying something controversial or stupid...read on
Login or Register to post comments.
first woohoo
Taylor was really good on Dan Abrams last night even though Dan was going crazy
hail satan!
As far as KUCINICH is concerned, he's really in trouble, FOR ISSUING PILOT’S LICENSES TO UFOs!
I had this conversation with my husband. Russert was a disgrace, one. Two, as far as the notion of equality has come since I've been alive, as tough as Hillary Clinton is, a gang of men all coming at a woman at once is a distasteful, unpleasant thing to watch. She handled it far better than I would have. The situation made her an object of sympathy and served to humanize her...which can't hurt her given how stiff and uptight she is normally.
I still emphatically abhor the Bush, Clinton, Bush, Clinton possibility. America needs someone new.
Look, I have said this before but now I really mean it. I am done with Chris Matthews. He is an absolute disgrace. The constant Hillary Clinton bashing and Rudy defense. The debate was a disgrace, but we shouldn't allow them to set the narrative. She was the unbeatable candidate, now she's in trouble and saying the boys are being mean. We need to stop watching cable news, except maybe for Olbermann. They have such a great opportunity to convey news from all over the world, even news no one hears about, over a 24 hour period. However, they use that extra time to invent stories, set narratives, and generally be wrong and emotional in their endless debates between opposing viewpoints (e.g., "crazy" versus other "crazy" versus "why the hell are two republicans discussing who will succeed in the Democrat debate?")
What?? No mention of her cleavage or her va-JJ? Give me an effin' break... she's a woman, get over it guys. Sheesh.
I am sorry but I see this as a debate and a chance for us to pick a candidate for the primaries. Clinton is in this by choice and should be able to respond to this earlier and with some choice words if she truly has a platform to stand on. I remember Dean ,Gore and etc etc where the MSM comes after them.Obama has it right--she should not choose to do this and then cry foul if she is unable to stand up to it. By the way am a white woman who has had a career in a male dominated field for many years so find offense at all this poor little girl stuff. Oh yes it is unfair and yes we are not ever going to get a break from the media at all so maybe we should choose people who will come after them with a put down or two.This has really gotten very tiresome on Clinton's part. Okay bring it on !!!!
She was being attacked because she's the front runner.
She shouldn't be stupid enough to play the gender card while turning it away all the previous times. But from her, I'm not surprised.
Nobody should be stupid enough to play the gender card. They should be focused on getting Gov Poopy-pants outta the white house along with his fucktard posse, evilDick and the boys!
Keep a close eye on Russert the next Republican debate he "moderates". Let's all count the number of times he tears into Rudy for his NYFD radio debacle or his roaming the streets after 9/11 because he had nowhere to go or his numerous flip flops from liberal to conservative. Russert asked Kuccinich about seeing a UFO so why not ask Rudy why he enjoys dressing as a lady so frequently? Tim Russert and Chris Matthews make up the MSNBC God Squad and they don't even try to hide the fact that they're trying to destroy Hillary Clinton. I saw Matthews the day before the debate begging Obama to go for Hillarys' throat and he told Obama what he should say to Hillary at the debate. Mary Matalin did let the cat out of the bag during the Scooter Libby trial when she said that she and Cheney saw Meet the Press as their best outlet to get the WhiteHouse talking points out there without much opposition from Tim Russert. And hey, if the right is supposedly salivating over running against Hillary Clinton then why are they all going after her all of a sudden. Limbaugh and Hannity are spending their entire shows recycling the old Clinton era crap again. Seems funny them going after her with everything they've got now if there's no chance she can win.....They're gettin' scared!
The Republicans are dying for Hillary to be the nominee. They feel they can beat her. We need a man to run, but she will never give in.
As congress has proved, they put their party before their country. She will never back down.
Russert is Dick Cheney with the face of a pumpkin.
How is it that his bosses don't see how vile he is?
Is he that powerful?
Chaotic Modulation
www.YabbaDabbaHubbaDo.com
Politics may be politics, but certain minimal decorum was in order, especially because Hillary is a woman -- what's wrong with acknowledging that? -- and Tim Russert was certainly no gentleman!
Asking Hillary about the New York Drivers Licenses for illegals was certainly unfair; because that question should have been directed to Gov. Spitzer, not Hillary.
Timmah was exposed as cheney's tool and should not be his tool in the Dem debates.
Let Brian spew their stupid questions.
Geez.
off topic, but ... CNN has BREAKING NEWS with no details so far, and they are reporting: "An employee at an Arizona nuclear plant was stopped at its entrance with an explosive device in his truck, officials told CNN."
I'm going to be a cynic and assume that it was something stupid, like a bottle of over-shaken soda.
But be afraid until more details become available.
Timmeh the Pumpkinhead is a "journalist" in the same way that I'm a paleontologist.
In other words, he's not.
And he keeps on peddling that "I'm just a blue-collar boy from Buffalo" crap.
Can't stand him. Or Tweety. Or any of the rest of the Beltway Bush Kneepad Stenographers Brigade.
Until one of the Democratic candidates shoves your very apt question up PumpKinHaid's bunghole and breaks it off there....
This slanted bullshit will continue.
My money is on Edwards to do it. He's the only one with balls in this race. And no, that's not a putdown of Hillary it was
meant metaphorically.
Can someone explain to me how the hawk of the party who supports Kyl-Lieberslut and keeping the troops in Iraq , has the biggest corporate donor base, has the worst health care plan , supports NAFTA, (her husband's lovely project) does not seem capable of answering a straight question is now the front runner???? What am I missing here--it is as if we have no other candidates that are not far more qualified.(oh forgot they were not 1st Lady- qualifications there that I am missing)And then we wonder why we lose elections unless it is at the grass roots level.
And some many defend her and when pushed say it is because she is a woman. What a way to elect someone. Almost Bushian in the blind support for what!!!
Glad I could vent so thanks!!!
katie, Hillary is the front-runner because she is the most qualified, and we finally do need a woman President. What's wrong with acknowledging that.
Obama is also talking about what a huge crisis social security is in, what a huge threat Iran is and he won't sign the letter from Deocratic senators telling Bush he has no authority to go to war with Iran. In other words, all right wing crap. He has drunk the kool aide, he even was touring with a homphobe and a bigot. Obama has lost me. Completely. He should have waited. he's not politically mature enough for this kind of contest yet and now it's too late to take back a lot of things he's said. I'm no fan of sHillary but Obama looks more GOP every day.
I agree with John. That debate was about attacking Hillary as much as attacking the issues. In my opinion, it does nothing but help Hillary. It makes the other candidates look petty, and makes her a sympathetic figure. Look at the national polls since Obama and the other candidates started going after her. She always had the lead, but since they went on the attack, her lead has increased.
Evinfuilt @ 9:
She didn't "play the gender card". That was the POINT of the post and somehow you managed to miss it. Geez.
You and I must have read different posts. The point seemed to be that she DIDN'T play the gender card.
Kucinich Will Introduce Privileged Resolution To Force Up Or Down Vote On Cheney Impeachment
WASHINGTON, D.C. (November 2, 2007) — Congressman Dennis Kucinich (D-OH) announced today that he will be offering a privileged resolution on the House floor next week that will bring articles of impeachment against the Vice President, Richard B. Cheney.
“The momentum is building for impeachment,” Kucinich said. “Millions of citizens across the nation are demanding Congress rein in the Vice President’s abuse of power.
“Despite this groundswell of opposition to the unconstitutional conduct of office, Vice President Cheney continues to violate the U.S. Constitution by insisting the power of the executive branch is supreme.
“Congress must hold the Vice President accountable. The American people need to let Members of Congress know how they feel about this. The Vice President continues to use his office to advocate for a continued occupation of Iraq and prod our nation into a belligerent stance against Iran. If the Vice President is successful, his actions will ensure decades of disastrous consequences.”
http://www.afterdowningstreet.org/?q=node/28328
Rose @ 12:
We "need a man to run"??? What kind of jabber is that? Personally I'm tired of policy being dictated by testesterone drunk, overgrown frat boys. sHillary isn't great but she's better than any republican running and phrasing it like you did makes you sound like you should join the league of "women" voters. They are like you: A group of women who believe they should defer to men.
ted @ 20:
You have got to be kidding me. Someone drank the koolaid.
Hillary's a Bush clone.
The media wants to play a role. If the Dems are a snooze-fest the hopes that the pin the tail on the donkey (elephant) random Republican race becoming high ratings is unlikely.
They need not worry as Hillary's saber rattling in Iran will allow the media to have another war and perhaps recession to report on.
See was attacked bacause she is the front runner and she has responded with the gender card. Since this is the media we are talking about we know they are trying to Dean Scream it as best they can for now. Was the media after her at the same time as they knew the others were going to try to draw blood - definatly.
Would Hillary prefer to be in Dodd's or Biden's position? They only got asked 2 or 3 questions. I bet they'd love to get asked 25 questions!!
Another point is that this should be done to the Republican front runners - not that it should not be done to the Democratic front runners.
The biggest dissapointment was that STILL NONE OF THE ISSUES are going to be talked about. Rather its talk about how the entire "gender issue" or "front runner horserace" is impacting the very race - that is to say they are looking for virceral 15 minute segements to put between comercials rather than digging & discussing policy/skills/etc.
I agree that we need a woman to be president but just not this one unless you want more of the same of this week. The point I make is that we need to really take a look and not make a decision solely because she is a woman.Look at the record , look at the obfuscation look at just the plan dividing up on just this one issue. Do you really want another 4 to 8 years of the same old crap. Give me just one issue where she is much better than the other candidates. Excluding the woman meme.(By the way Obama is bi-racial and he got lots of crap but has not used this particular ploy)
While you are at it look at her unfavorables.I am in Ca and can tell you truly that not one woman or person I know has any desire to see Clinton in office.
Yes Tim Russert is a MockingBird. That is why he asks these questions. I mean if he wanted to ask pointed questions to Killer Hillary he'd ask about what she did with Vince Fosters papers she had seized right after his death. Or about 2 dead boys in Mena Ark. Or her unqualified support of the Bush Regime. One will not hear these questions on the MSM. Because like it or not Killer Hillary is gonna be the new Ordained President. To bad so many fall for the misdirection cited in these article. But like so many with the power of reaching millions, the only Conspiracies allowed to be mentioned are those that are Government approved.
Peace.
Evinfuilt @ 9:
I agree 100%. When Howard Dean was running, everyone (the media, the candidates, and the establishment) went after him. Timmy picked on her. So what? She didn't expect that? There are two things that will guarantee that you'll be treated with like crap in a debate: 1) Your the front runner and 2) Your a Democrat.
Also, as long as Democratic candidates and politicians continue to allow the media to treat them disrespectfully, the more they'll continue to do so. There's an obvious contrast between the tone of questions asked to Republicans vs Democrats. Republicans are treated more seriously than Democrats. If Sen. Clinton is not prepared for this, then she's not prepared to be the Democratic Nominee. This goes for all the rest of those running. Obama hasn't shown the aggressiveness necessary to defend his positions against a formidable ideological opponent and Edward's performance, while receiving high marks, engenders memories of his absolutely terrible debate against Dick Cheney. So ship up or ship out.
The media has a vested interest in leveling the playing field by attacking the leader. Otherwise why would you tune in to the next debate? Hillary should be chided for playing into the media circus like that. If she pulls the gender card it will backfire.
I think that the people that spew the most hatred of Clinton are those that have been drinking the republican koolaide. We have been told incessantly for over 15 years that we should hate the Clintons for whitewater, for blow jobs for this and for that. The Clintons are corporatists, no question. Now name one president in your lifetime who was not. Other than Carter, all of them republican and democrat have been completely beholden to the big guys and he wasn't much better. I think that the people who blindly hate sHillary Clinton are more likely to have sipped the koolaide. You hate her because you've been told to. You've been given your marching orders by the neocons and now you hate her.
Missing would be the enlightened position that it has nothing to do with "all boys" or "women".
It has to do with the most important job in the world thing. To only talk about quotes is not being completely candid either - there are plenty of handlers and spin artists on both sides. If the topic went to policy rather than gener it would have included talk about Edwards and Obama policy as well as differences in:
- Iran war resolution & and the candidates views of their Iraq war calls/mistakes
- Health Care & Lobby
- Flip flopping
- Hillary's desire for Sunshine into records
There is a list for all the candidates, but only one is the front-runner. The longer we talk about this useless stuff the worse off everyone is.
Americans are going to have to raise the expectations, and work harder and smarter then the politicos to get out of this idiotic instinct based drudgery rut the Republicans have got this country in the past 7 years.
Genius is 98% sweat and 2% inspiration.
Looks like she picked up on Chris Mathew's "free advice" and is going with the line "they're piling on because I am winning".
So guess the gender debate is dying down for a while and we will go back to tracking the hore race and not the policy.
I'm going to have stop watching anything that is on the NBC network because they are actually ruining my life, with their opinions and beliefs and trying to make us all believe it ,too. Are they suppose to ,as reporters ,tell us who they are backing and supporting ? I feel they have become far worse than FOX at this. So, I'm sure no one cares, but for my own sanity I'm leaving Matthews, all the female hosts including Mika, and of course old ,off the wall ,Fussert . I may sneak Olberman into my schedule...as he is soooooo good !!
Uhh, was it really because Hillary's a woman?
I find it more likely that it's because she's on top in national polls. If someone else (let's say Edwards) were up top, they'd all be going after him, would they not?
Good post, John. You can tell just how deferential Russert gets around Cheney by his failure to ask about the 5 deferments.
Russert would never miss such a rich opportunity with Senator Clinton.
What Hillary got hit with in the debate were powder puff softballs by comparison to what she will get hit with in the general election when the swiftboaters get a hold of her!
And if she bats her eye lashes and whines about the mean old boys picking on the gurrrrlll... we will have a Republican President for sure (a thought that makes me want to vomit!).
If you run for President, you've got to give as good as you get to survive and she didn't!
Right on EVinfluit could not agree more. Now she is in the "kitchen" cute huh from the frontrunner???
Chris Tim etc are all just a bunch of power wannabes and have not quite realized they are on the wrong side. My solution to them--DO NOT WATCH-it is amazing what it does to the blood pressure. Plus it hurts Tweety birds ratings lately with Keith really coming on strong where I feel i should put my support and help his nunbers.
God I jsut wish Al Gore would come out wth one of his really great speechs like sometime soon and just condense this crap right where belongs He is truly my choice --he has really become a recovered pol. Love him
PS. Russert is an a**hole, but far less of one than the swiftboaters who went after Kerry and are waiting for the chance to whack Hillary!
Obviously they are piling on because she's winning. I didn't need Matthews to tell me that, nor do I need Pumpkin head to tell me what to think about her. Nor does she. I would bet good money that her I.Q. is in the 150s. Stop listening to pundits. They are telling people how they should think. They are dissiminating the conventional "wsidom" so you don;t have to think for yourself. Clinton is perfectly capable of origianting the thought that she was being ganged up on because she's in the lead. Why the right wing talking point that she must have taken advice from Chris Matthews? Even on a progressive blog sexism is evident.
The single most unbelievable thing that occured during Tuesday's debate was Dennis Kucinich TWICE saying that Impeachment of Bush & Cheney is necessary to save the country and Constitution. TWICE he said this. And NONE of the other candidates had any comment!!
Bush & Cheney lied us into war, tortured and illegally wiretapped. If Hillary, Barack & John won't defend the Constitution from these offenses WHEN WILL THEY DEFEND THE CONSTITUTION??
The job of the President is TO DEFEND THE CONSTITUTION...If you don't want to do it then don't run for the job.
Yet everyone on stage was too scared to EVEN COMMENT on defending the Constitution.
wait a sec... isn't one of hillary's top pr guys also working for blackwater?! she's in bed with the defence industry also. i'm sorry woman or no woman i can no longer deal with this sort of crap! so, woman will save us huh? ever here of margaret thatcher?
Rasputin @ 41:
Ah, hell. I've been looking for a reason to move to British Columbia.
The swiftboat crowd is already going after her. They aren't waiting one bit.
isn’t one of hillary’s top pr guys also working for blackwater?
********************************************************************
Do you have any evidence of that? Because if not, it might as well be coming from O'Reilly.
Kucinich should have pointed out that both Ronald Reagan and Jimmy Carter reported seeing a UFO as well, so he's in good company. That would have sandbagged Timmy right quick!
curtilingus @ 26:
That's exactly my sentiment on this matter (about Hillary being a Bush clone). She voted TWICE to authorize the "war" and continued to fund it until it the elections were close, then decides to flip=flop. Let's not even forget how she voted in favor of the Lieberman/Kyl "Amendment", which was the straw that broke the camel's back. I DO NOT want to see her in office. Ever. She is not what we need right now.
As far as the debate is concerned, it was disgraceful as it was tactless; rarely was any pressing issue debated. Tim Russert and NBC should be ashamed for lowering themselves to Faux Noise standards.
katie @ 30:
Katie, I do want more of the same. I want more of what happened in the nineties during the first Clinton administration including the environmental protections put in place, the balancing of the budget, the strengthening and empowerment of the middle class in this country, and so much more. The nineties were all about peace and prosperity. Give me more of that. NAFTA was the only mistake, in my opinion, but that's nothing compared the what the Bush crime family has done both before and after Clinton I. I suffered through 8 years of Reagan and 4 years of Bush and look back at the first Clinton administration as an oasis of sanity sandwiched by unbelievable incompetence and thievery. I'm a woman. I support Hillary and so do all of the women I know from my eighty-something mother and aunts to my twenty something nieces and all of their friends. We don't support her because she's a woman, but I must confess, at least in my case, I support her because she's a Clinton.
PurplePatriot @ 47:
I'm heading for Vancouver myself! At least I can get healthcare there.
Swiftboat!
The politics of parsing
jude @ 38:
I'm with you on that. Whats going on here is the MS media is doing absolutely NOTHING-ZERO to address the real issues facing this country.
As every day goes by the more I begin to realize they are playing us for suckers.
brian @ 11:
Good God, Brian, you're channeling every one of my thoughts!.
Even though Hillary isn't my first choice I am so waiting for her skinning of Rudy.
Margaret @ 34:
Hillary Clinton’s Bush Connection
NEW YORK, Oct. 19 /PRNewswire-USNewswire/ — The Real News Project reports exclusively today that the engineer of George W. Bush’s rescue from financial disaster—a man who would propel Bush on the path to elective office—has quietly moved into Hillary Clinton’s inner circle of key financial backers. The engineer is longtime GOP backer Alan Quasha.
His mysterious Harken Energy drew intense scrutiny from investigators and the media in the early 90’s and again during Bush’s first term because of its dubious financial practices and board members connected to the corrupt Bank of Credit and Commerce International (BCCI). Along with a business partner, Quasha has been forging new links with Clinton and her associates for several years. Among other things, they have raised substantial sums for her, and in 2005 they discreetly hired Clinton confidant and longtime Democratic Party money man Terry McAuliffe, providing him with a lucrative temporary perch until the Clinton campaign formally launched with McAuliffe as its chairman.
“That Hillary Clinton’s campaign is involved with this particular cast of characters should give people pause,” says John Moscow, a former Manhattan prosecutor. In the late 1980s and early ’90s, Moscow led the investigation of the BCCI global financial empire—which included Harken board members among its prominent shareholders.
“Too many of the same names from earlier troubling circumstances suggests a lack of control over who she is dealing with,” says Moscow, “or a policy of dealing with anyone who can pay.”
http://www.afterdowningstreet.org/?q=node/27855
**Margaret, I was a Bill Clinton supporter. I'm currently supporting Kucinich or Gore (if he runs). My dissatisfaction with Hillary is based on solid facts.
Obama accuses Clinton of hiding behind gender
Stop the swiftboating now!
Everyone knows republican'ts are pussies who can't stand up to a snowman in a youtube debate, therefore, so they don't shame themselves nationally, they are treated like little babies, while the real men, and yes, I am talking about Hillary, deal with the tough questions. Seems to me we know who's really ready to LEAD!
Clinton considers giving up some powers
NEW YORK - If elected president in 2008, Democrat Hillary Rodham Clinton would consider giving up some of the executive powers President Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney have assumed since taking office.
In an interview published Tuesday in Guardian America,…Clinton denounced the Bush Administration’s push to concentrate more power in the White House as a “power grab” not supported by the Constitution.
Asked if she would consider giving up some of those powers if she were president, Clinton replied, “Oh, absolutely … I mean, that has to be part of the review that I undertake when I get to the White House, and I intend to do that.”
**Excuse me??!! She’s going to review which illegal powers to give back when she’s in the White House?? She’s unable to tell us NOW which powers are illegal and will be conceded? She plans on keeping, or trying to keep, some of these unConstitutional powers?? And none of the “news” programs have mentioned any of this??
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/200.....mGzHas0NUE
ted @ 14:
Uh, WAAAHHH?? She's the f*cking senator from NY. (She blew it by pulling a Kerry.) As for her getting deference because she's a woman...I call big time B.S. on that crap. Shame on anyone who plays the sex, race, age, or any other card.\
any questions about hillary's blackwater connection ...google: mark penn blackwater.
What I can't understand is this. Obama is allowed to bash Hillary saying she is playing the WOMAN card. Just how far do you think his supporters would go, and even the republican press, to really start trashing Hillary, which if you go to any blog site you'll already see, if she just once mentioned the race card. That Obama is getting help from blacks to play the race card. Most blacks that support Obama are making this point very prevelant. To tell blacks that Obama will work for them, blah blah blah..So if Hillary supporters even mention that Hillary would look into women's rights, should she be bashed.
And mostly the reason the Men jumped on Hillary is because they are jealous as hell that she is the front runner. But they are wrong, because the more they bash, the more she SURGES ahead.
Well if they all are truly are talented leaders then shouldn't they be able to outsmart the fat, smirking pig, Russert? Quit making excuses for any of them, especially Hillary since she is leading in the polls, which by the way doesn't make any sense to me based on her voting record. We need change big time, and the candidate that stands up and questions the continued lunacy and ideological bent of the mainstream media might possibly be the one that can lead this country back to sanity. If you can't do that then you don't deserve to the job of The President of the United States. There a lot bigger challenges in that job than telling some beltway insider jerk his questions are specious and irrelevant. Bush has lowered the bar for that job that the American electorate seems to be willing to accept anyone with half a brain. Seems fairly simple to me; don't answer the stupid question and talk about something that does matter and you have got my vote.
From Mother Jones about Hillary Clinton’s involvement in a strange religious group called The Fellowship. It may shock you to discover that Hillary appears to have very extreme religious views! Why isn’t anyone discussing this? Some shocking highlights:
…When Clinton first came to Washington in 1993, one of her first steps was to join a Bible study group. For the next eight years, she regularly met with a Christian “cell”.
…The Fellowship believes that the elite win power by the will of God, who uses them for his purposes. Its mission is to help the powerful understand their role in God’s plan.
…the faith is always evangelical, and the politics always move rightward.
…According to the Fellowship’s archives, the spirit has in the past led its members in Congress to increase U.S. support for the Duvalier regime in Haiti. The Fellowship’s God-led men have also included General Suharto of Indonesia; Honduran general and death squad organizer Gustavo Alvarez Martinez; a Deutsche Bank official disgraced by financial ties to Hitler; and dictator Siad Barre of Somalia.
…These days, Clinton has graduated to the weekly Senate Prayer Breakfast. She prays with men such as Sam Brownback, James Inhofe (global warming denier), former Senator George “macaca” Allen, Senator Mark Pryor (who told us that the separation of church and state has gone too far) and holy Joe Lieberman (blood thirsty neo-con warmonger).
http://www.motherjones.com/new.....yer-2.html
Lynnianaa @ 51:
How did Obama vote on Kyl-Lieberman which he kept saying was "so important?" What's the basis for his self-righteous "anger" at the frontrunner for her vote?
Why didn't Hillary get asked to critique the answers of Obama & Edwards like they were asked to critique hers? "Do you think Barrack was being honest when he talked about how important the Kyl-Lieberman vote was?" "Do you think about John Edwards was being totally honest about the backing he's receiving from trial lawyers?" What was their clear stance on Gov. Spitzer's plan? Didn't hear them say what they would do about that, thanks to no-follow-up Timmeh. Nobody had to tell anyone what Timmeh's strategy was. Couldn't have been plainer.
Evinfuilt @ 9:
Did you even read the article?
She hasn't played the "gender card."
dennis @ 58:
Paleeze. Grow up. She's brought this on herself. She should shut-up and start taking like a "man".
Check out the great Edward's video on her lame performance at the debate from Talking Points Memo.
I don't really care if Hillary is tough or a whiner. She is a corporatist just like Bush.
I will NEVER vote for Hillary Clinton. Allow me to repeat- NEVER.
If she wins the primary, Stephen Colbert will take my vote on a write in period.
There are a lot of smart Democrats out there that better start hittin' the cipherin' that there are millions of other Democrats like myself. You know the ones that are the shock troops for the party that do all the heavy lifting (phone-banking, door knocking, letter writing) that will NEVER work for Hillary.
These good folks can choose to throw down with a candidate that embodies core Democratic values (Edwards, Dodd, or even Gore), or at least comes closer to the mark like Obama, or they can choose to loose.
I'll be just as happy pouring my efforts into getting actual Progressives elected to Congress where they are sorely needed.
Marge @ 63:
Chris @ 69:
Thanks for your help in electing a Republican.
Johnny2Bad @ 68:
Interesting how Hillary's voting record is more progressive than Edwards' huh.
dennis @ 54:
No....Its about her views and policy. There is not one personal attack there and you know it.
katie@19
What am I missing here–it is as if we have no other candidates that are not far more qualified.(oh forgot they were not 1st Lady- qualifications there that I am missing)And then we wonder why we lose elections unless it is at the grass roots level.
And some many defend her and when pushed say it is because she is a woman. What a way to elect someone. Almost Bushian in the blind support for what!!!
Glad I could vent so thanks
_____________________________________________________________________________________________
The woman has 8 years on-the-job experience. To me she is the most qualified person at this time in point. Her husband is behind her. Remember those 8 years with President Clinton? The country was booming under his leadership, although everybody was trying to fuck him. He had his pipes blown, but I can't remember any 4000 thousands Americans dead, or a dollar costing 1.50 Euro, if you know what I talking about. See the different? Maybe if we get another eight years with another Bush, or Giuliani, you'd be a better human being. Hmm?
Josh @ 72:
Yeah?? Real progressive..if taking more defense industry dollars than any candidate (Democrat or Republican) makes you a "progressive".
FedUpFred @ 66:
Where in my post did I mention preferring Obama or Edwards over Hellary? The basis of the post was that I WILL NEVER trust the conniving hack.
Personally I'm glad Russert was asking the tough questions of the supposed front runner.
Chris Dodd said it best, we have got to win this next Presidential election and we can't if fifty percent of the people in this country won't vote for her. Hell Newt Gingrich has been touting Hillary Clinton as the Democratic choice for nearly a year now. Why do think that is?
If you want Gulliani or Romney as your next president then by all means, be my guest, go right ahead and nominate Hillary Clinton.
Dennis Kucinich has about as much chance as I do of being the next president. IMPEACHMENT??? Please. I would be happy if they could just pass a childrens health plan. Impeachment has no chance and neither does Kucinich.
And while I'm on the subject....Barack Obama (who is the only candidate I've given money to so far and BTW..he wasn't throwing the gay community under the bus by trying to reach out to people who are religious so please stop with the nonsense) happens to be black and trust me ladies gentlemen racism still exists in this country therefor I don't know if he can win.
It's called a tactical vote.
Johnny2Bad @ 73:
I say stop bashing her because she's a woman. We know she's the most qualified because she told us she is and she shouldn't have to prove it just because the mysoginist pig Tim Russert wants her to release her White House transcripts. She should've told poor Timmy it's none of his goddamned business. Secrecy is what being President is all about, Johnny2Bad, and the sooner you accept and embrace this woman's greatness the better off you'll be.
Don @ 76:
Well said, Don. I'm not sure why people haven't considered why so many Republicans/corporatists are pushing for Hellary to be the front Democratic runner. Maybe it's because she's plays on their team? No! It couldn't be! Not Hillary too!
As for the other candidates, you are absolutely correct, Don. They've got slim chances to win when they're going against corporate-touted Hillary.
Dear Libercalista.
.I too lived thru all the same era as you --also loved peace prosperity etc. BUT thru those years we received the great telecom giveaway NAFTA, the loss of congress thru the corporate giveaway on healthcare and we now get to reap these rewards for oh so many years.If you truly want progressive ideas and a way to take the country back on track you truly need to really take a look at your candidate and what she has done in the Senate.As far as I am concerned being 1st Lady is not a qualification for Pres.Sorry
Also Mark Penn her pollster with his pr firm got to prep Eric Prince for his appearance before Congress on Blackwater, her money man is underinvestigation AND the Justice Dept is investigating to see if there was coercion on donors. So yes can not wait to go back to those years. The start of better things to come.
So please keep supporting her because she is a woman and we can more years of secery and corruption. I for one am really and truly tired of the same old crap !!! But at least she is a woman the MOSt important aspect of this.Again I am a woman and do not know one that supports her other than my 84 yr neghboor (forgot her) because she loved Bill ---wonder how she would do without him??????
dennis @ 77:
Lulz! Greatness? You call her voting in favor of the Iraq "war" twice and the Lieberman/Kyl amendment greatness? Lulz!
Are you sure you're a democrat? How much of the cool-aid did you drink?
Don @ 76:
Voting for Hillary is a vote for a Republican. Her Presidency will be LITTLE DIFFERENT from a Romney or Guiliani presidency. I will not vote for someone who will (1) Not end the Iraq occupation (2) Expand the war into Iran/Syria (3) Not shred the Military Commissions Act/Patriot Act (4) Not promise to completely end Bush tax cuts when they expire (5) Not promise to end NAFTA.
That's just my SHORT LIST. I could give you 100 more. I will not have on my conscience the further death/destruction of another president married to the Military Industrial Complex. The sad sad truth is Americans will not revolt and demand change until the country HITS ROCK BOTTOM. The sooner it happens the better.
brian @ 11:
Well said Brian. I've made the same points about Mary Matalin considering that Potatohead Russert nothing but a tool. And Matthews really needs to see someone about his obsession with the Clintons. It's pathetic.
"Also Mark Penn her pollster with his pr firm got to prep Eric Prince for his appearance before Congress on Blackwater, her money man is underinvestigation AND the Justice Dept is investigating to see if there was coercion on donors. So yes can not wait to go back to those years. The start of better things to come."--Katie
Katie,
The fact that DOJ is trying to scrape up some scandal about Hillary should come as no surprise. What credibility does this DOJ have? Any of the competent prosecutors have been culled by Karl Rove. All that's left are Bushies. I agree that we will face years of this nonsense when Hillary's elected, but that's to be expected. I think (hope) the American people are wise to this crap. Also, I agree with you that Hillary would not be as electable if she were not Bill's wife. I think the fact that she is a woman would work against her. But she's smart and I'm tired of being embarrassed by my President's stupidity. She's a Clinton so she will lead this country in the right direction in a bipartisan way, and she's a woman. Why not a woman President? We've had nothing but men up until now, and I was always taught, "If you always do what you've always done, you'll always get what you always got." Hillary will not damage this country. Reagan/Bush/Bush have almost destroyed it.
The driver's license question was certainly stupid and coming from Russert...it was no surprise. Hillary is the front-runner and of course she'll be attacked. It's no different than any other front-runner in the past.
I'm a woman and I don't see any of the attacks on her as being because of her gender. She's certainly not pulling out some sort of 'gender' card saying that 'those men are mean to me because I'm a woman'.
I give Hillary a lot more credit than that. Love her or hate her, she's never been one to rely on her womanhood as some sort of defense against men.
I can relate to Hillary...I spent some time in the military and one of my first assignments was at a unit where for over a year I was the only woman. To get any sort of respect from the men I had to work twice as hard just to show them I was no less capable of doing the job. Many of their attitudes was that because I was a woman, I had it easier. How much I wish I could have told them it was far from the truth.
Partly, this is the fault of the American people because we allow it. Americans love inane questions and the gotcha game. Many Americans have no idea about issues anyway, so they love character assassination. Remember the Nascar driver who said of Bush: "I'm not much of an issues man. But I can just look in his eyes, and I know he's honest."
There you go, good ole folk wisdom. How's that workin' out for ya, Nascar fans?
lauer is an asshole. he does not merit a post. this is a non-starter.
obama is an idiot for entertaining the question.
Don @ 76:
I don't know where Chris Dodd gets his statistics, but the polls show that Hillary has a majority among ALL candidates. Independents are voting for her, and she's won over the soccer moms. Maybe 50% of declared Republicans won't vote for her, but only 36% of Americans now admit to being declared Republicans.
Lynnianaa @ 80:
Pretty funny, "dennis"! (Say, you were being sarcastic weren't you? Cuz if not, you gotta be on some kinda hillbilly heroin.)
Don @ 76:
It's called a tactical vote.
Absolute BS!! There's a host of religious figures Obama could've reached out to besides McClurkin. The man wrote a book titled the Audacity of Hope and talks about bringing the country together. How exactly does he do that by working with someone as virulent and divisive as McClurkin? Why not have Pat Roberts or James Dobson stump for him? It was a horrible move by Obama. I still like him, but I'm seriously disappointed in him.
I stand by my point that the "woman" meme is ingrained--just because she is a woman and we get to settle for that. Interesting how everyone agrees about her but still will vote for her because of her gender knowing what we will get from her. Interesting and we are doomed if that is the reasoning. \Granted Bush et al are a nightmare and we are in the last throes of a real democracy but what the hell she will review whether or not to change some pres powers. Okay I trust her she is a Clinton walks on water and is never ever misleading. Okay!!!
I want real change from the neo cons from the corporatists from the DLC from the money men buying and sellig elections, candidates being annoited and bagged for us. Is that too much to ask of the populace of this country????? So how about Obama--would it not be appropriate to have a first black Pres?? Is he out of the running becuase he is not a precious woman. Maybe if he was black and a woman then we could go all out and support him for that lamebrained reason!!!
kaT @ 88:
Uh, wrong. It was the Harris poll. You need to study up. Apparently Dodd did.
Listen guys. We are not getting out of Iraq any time soon. Al those candidates claiming to bring the troops home as soon as they get in the White House, maybe they do mean it. Precisely for that reason, they won't have chance to get elected. For good or for bad, this bastard got us in this mess, and we'll never get out of there.
First: Because, like Rice said, it is an investment. Do you expect us to leave behind 54 installations, plus the biggest embassy in the world just like that? Gentlemen, smell the coffe!
Second: Every orphan, is a future terrorist. That's what we made of them. So there are close to 200.000 future terrorist getting ready to get even with us.
Third: Let's be honest. The oil. With a little patient, that oil wil be our oil. That's why we went there. Right! Or did you really buy that " Spreading Democracy" bullshit.
Fourth: Unfortunately, if the Democrats win, it won't be like being under Bush, but the scandals will be the same. Pedophiles, homosexuals, money laundering, you name it. That's what America is all about.
Fifth: Stop the war in Iraq, and you will see what a recession is all about. The weapon industry machine will come to a halt!
Yes my friends, we are what we are. Nothing can change us!
And don't waste your time calling me a troll. Pleaseeeee!
once again russert, matthews can do anything they want to get their man elected. They even have David Shuster drinking their Kool aid. All you guys seem to be going along with it.!!! Can't these so called pundits be held accountable and asked to stop swift boating. This will never end til' they crush everybody they want to. Thought it was only the repugs that acted so unfairly. When this msnbc crew set out to destroy someone (like Howard Dean), THEY DO. They have the platform and the will, and they will get another republican in there by the way they are acting ,even if the desire to destroy Hillary is their only desire at the moment
garcia @ 93:
Troll! (ahhhhh, that felt gooood.)
Johnny2Bad@95
Not funny at all!
dennis @ 77 - now that was funny. Thanks for the laugh, no sarcasm or snark here.
Matt Lauer jumped in today when interviewing Obama saying something to the effect he heard the loud sound of the gender card dropping. Lauer is such a butt wipe!
Thanks, nonny mouse. Why should she have to answer questions? I mean, WTF?!? It's not like she should have to tell us what she's really thinking or anything. People need to chill.
Typical hillery and typical Obama redefinition spin from the racist spectrum of the progressives.
Obama has my vote.
Josh @ 70:
1. The reason why Hillary is being bashed on all sides is because the media wants to give the illusion of a candidate who's going against all odds. This creates sympathy and appeals to weak-minded voters (like you), and she gets their support. Tim Russert's aggressive behavior towards her should be evidence enough. Also watch how the other news channels are giving so much attention towards her. The news media WANTS YOU to vote for her, despite her piss-poor voting record that leans more towards the right-wing agenda over the past few years.
2. And she is playing the gender game. Her little speech in that woman's college was disgraceful and carefully intended to incite a feature of a woman going against a man's world. Utterly pathetic. If this is the only way she can get voting support from us women, she deserves to be called out on playing the gender card. I prefer to listen more closely to her rhetoric, her voting record, and her politics, and then make my judgment. Learn to read between the lines, please.
3. I don't care if she is a woman. Hillary could have been a man for all I care. If she's no different from the republicans currently holding office, then my vote will go to someone else with real progressive ideals.
4. How the hell do you know that the other candidates are jealous of her? Have you personally spoken and interviewed them?
[edited - please don't flame bait - site monitor]
This article seems to be written as if we would WANT Hillary to get the nomination.
I would be GLAD to see everyong gang up on Hillary, if it means that she drops out of the lead, so we can get an electable candidate into the general.
Remember, Falwell said that a Hillary candidacy would motivate his constituency more than Satan himself.
And, on top of it, Hillary is probably the most conservative of the Dem options... I mean, come on people, WAKE UP!
Lets pick a candidate that can win.
garcia @ 97:
Ha ha.
ted @ 20:
Hillary is as qualified as Laura Bush. And voting for any candidate because of their gender is an idiocy I simply cannot comprehend: "I think it's time for a WalMart presidency, after all, she's a woman!"
I'm no Hillary Clinton fan, and her gender remark demonstrates that she's a weakling.
She's gotten all the press because she's raised the most money, and the press wants all that money. Phooey on her.
There are MUCH more worthy candidates than her. As far as I'm concerned, both the bush and the Clinton dynasties need to get their asses out of the White House. We've had enough of both. By getting rid of both, we can begin kicking the corporations out of control of our government.
...we finally do need a woman President...
As a woman, may I ask the obvious question? 'Why'?
I hate the assumption that, just because I am a woman, I'm so blonde and filled with girly hormones that I would knee-jerk reflexively vote for another woman. If it were, oh, say, someone of a calibre of Elizabeth the First, or Aung San Suu Kyi, or even Indira Gandhi, I might give it serious consideration.
But this country needs Hillary Clinton the way the UK needed Margaret Thatcher.
right on nonny mouse--I too am a brainless and girly blondie---who twirls my fingers in my dimples as I just "oh gosh Hillary is a woman you know and woman should always stick together you know cause my mom you know she likes her too you know!!" Give me a break--We do need women of that caliber--where are they? Oh forgot not in bed with the corporations and military and walmart and insurance companies ad nauseum. God help us!
Clinton has never led in her life and still hides behind her pollsters when she doesn't have her finger in the air to see which way the wind is blowing.Forgive me for wanting an inspiring woman who can lead and does not drag around a 300 lb suitcase full of crap with her. I can dream right folks????
And... as for the UFO question...
Don't you think the public deserves to know if Kucinich thinks the a UFO talked to him?
I think so. If the guy is crazy, we have a right to know before we vote for him.
Maybe it was this "UFO talking to me" thing that made him introduce legislation to ban mind control devices from outer space.
yes you can Katie......I have the same dream, but rest of the Dems seem to think that they have to bash the smartest person in the race....very high IQ and would keep us away from war, etc So I guess , once again, the right wing will win,only because her own people killing her, and republicans can just sit back and watch and not get blamed for the slaughter
What am I missing here Jude???
jude @ 110:
She's so smart she had to move to Arkansas to find a bar exam she could pass. She's done so much to "keep us away from war" she voted for both the Iraq War and Lieberman/Kyl. If HRC wins , Republicans win.
Hi, they're not attacking her because she's a woman. They are attacking her because of her positions. First, she's in the position of the front-runner. Expect attacks. She also holds the most right-wing views of any Democratic candidate. Expect attacks. Oh, and not giving answers that reveal your positions on social security, illegal alien driver's licenses, etc, etc, etc put you in a position that deserves attacking. Hi, I'd like to know what the next leader of my country is going to do BEFORE the vote.
Oh, and contradicting yourself on raising the social security taxable income and whether or not you said Spitzer's ideas were good deserves criticism. Harsh criticism. Stop the lies, plz....
Edwards campaign response to Clinton says it all!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qggO5yY7RAo
Haloscan is really acting up tonight!
Edwards campaign response to Hillary is superb!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qggO5yY7RAo
this is modern day politics.....and as for a woman Prez...WHY NOT?The male Presidents have been screwing up for far long enough ....now I'm not a big fan of HC....and I don't like alot about her..but until someone knocks her off the top spot,the thought of her as Prez needs to be entertained.Anyone but another repub..yeah,yeah,I know...
Margaret @ 49:
Actually, one of her campaign staff used to work for a law firm that has had some of its other lawyers, in the past, represent Blackwater. I think Kevin Bacon was in there somewhere too. But that's close enough for the Hillary haters to proclaim that she's tainted and she probably ordered the Blackwater operatives to murder those Iraqi civilians too.
Evening Ras....nice to see you again...thanks for bringing up JE....he's looking better.I hope he comes on strong in the very near future.
fiver @ 112:
Jude..."Bash"? Uh, look, the leader of the pack always gets attacked, that's hard nosed politics. Hillary understands that and knows she screwed up in the debate. She's just hitting back like any front runner would (except Kerry maybe). I simply would rather someone not named Clinton or Bush occupy the West Wing for a change.
fiver...Uh no, the Democratic nominee will most likely win (even Hillary). If elected, the corporate mentality that has infected our democracy and controlled the agenda since Reagan will continue to flourish. Do we as progressives want that to continue? I think not.
It's interesting to watch the osmosis from non-aligned to far right/left wing nuts. russert is obviously a shill to the neocon machine. I used to have respect for the guy, but over the past six months it has dwindled to despise.
This pudgy faced host of "face the nation" has been showing his colors more and more as the time passes. It's a shame. My 94 yr old mother seems to think he is a God, and she is slowly seeing the transformation of this cheap piece of frozen chicken.
I'm not a Hillary fan, but certainly there is something more important than "debating Hillary". I hope the Democratic candidates remember these pigs when they own the White House and both houses of Congress come '08. I'm hoping there will come a day when we can round up all the scum at the cable propaganda network and all of these loose ends in the major media who have been responsible for keeping this country in the dark through our "darkest hours". Tar and feather is too good for the lot of them. Keep Guantanamo...and we can fill it with our war criminals (from this administration and Congress) and these enablers.
Waah, they're being mean to President Hillary. Waah.
If the Republicans actually tarnish her enough to cost her the Democratic nomination, they've just done us all a really huge favor.
It won't be easy for a Republican to win (or whatever) the White House yet again - unless the Democratic nominee is so loathed by Republicans that people who would have stayed home in disgust are instead motivated to come out and cast a ballot to stop that Democratic nominee from winning. Who, I wonder, among the prospective Democratic candidates, best fits that description? Think about it really hard for a moment.
Now think about how awesome it would be for the Right if not only did the Democrats run a candidate that energized the disillusioned Republican base, but if this candidate was also one who de-energised the Democratic base as a glorious side-effect. Unlike Republicans, who hate her more out of habit than anything else, Democrats have plenty of perfectly valid reasons to loathe and distrust Hillary Clinton. We know the drill, so I'll spare the readers the gory details. After 8 years of Bush, there won't be many of us who wouldn't hold our noses and vote Hillary in a pinch - but there will be a statistically significant number who just can't bring themselves to do it.
If you were a Republican, how could you possibly hope for a better candidate to run against than Hillary Clinton? If you were a big media company, and it was at least fairly likely that the next President wouldn't be a Republican this time, who among the Democrats would you be most likely to get behind? Who's most likely to give you the continued free reign that you want?
Hillary Fucking Clinton, that's who.
We're getting played for complete idiots. Wake up.
Johnny2Bad @ 119:
...
fiver...Uh no, the Democratic nominee will most likely win (even Hillary). If elected, the corporate mentality that has infected our democracy and controlled the agenda since Reagan will continue to flourish. Do we as progressives want that to continue? I think not.
Perhaps I phrased it poorly, but what I meant is that HRC is, for all intents and purposes, a Republican. She's racked up more corporate cash than Giuliani or Romney. Thanx for helping me clarify.
I guess Tweety and Russert have won this round and probaly the whole fight , now the repugs can sit back and enjoy their ride into the WH
Thank you so much for your reasoned and responsible post. The treatment of Hillary by both sides is often contemptible and the "Anybody But Hillary" contingent seems to have forgotten that the same thing was done to Al Gore in 2000... and look where that got us.
There are many things I disagree with Hillary on, but the same can be said for the other Dems candidates as well. Just the fact alone that the Dems will likely offer up the first woman presidential candidate is a major accomplishment in these reactionary times.
To let Giuliani or Romney win in '08 to spite Hillary would have to be the height of hubris and irresponsibility.
fiver @ 122:
Perhaps I phrased it poorly, but what I meant is that HRC is, for all intents and purposes, a Republican. She's racked up more corporate cash than Giuliani or Romney. Thanx for helping me clarify.
100% right you are.
Hillary supporters sound like authoritarian Bush-supporters. If you let skin color or gender determine your vote, you are a superficial ignoramus. Do they really think that change in policy automatically follows change in skin color or gender in the White House???
No wonder America is in such trouble, when so many citizens can't distinguish between superficial traits and the real issues and policies.
God help America if Democrats are so stupid as to make Mrs. Clinton the Democratic candidate, when it's OBVIOUS that a lot of people, -a lot of Democrats are against her.
The way to win the elction is to get people to show up at the polls and vote. 50-60% voter turnout is embarrassing in a free Democracy. When Hillary has such big opposition within her own party, it would be madness to make her run against a Republican. Most likely, a lot of Democrats will be more demoralized than ever and not show up at all.
I have never seen one Clinton-supporter explain their support besides spewing hollow words talking points. If she is the best candidate to pull America out of the crisis it is facing, then tell us why!
Isn't it obvious that the only way Republicans think they can win is to get Democrats to run with weak and handicapped candidates? Political strategists aren't stupid. They know that elevating Hillary to front-runner status in one instance and attacking her in the next, will cause Hillary to get a lot of sympathy from people who don't follow politics closely and boost her status even more from the emotional backfire.
Nothing new here. Democrats are playing into the hands of Republicans strategists. The only way Democrats could after these years of Bush madness loose, is if they give in to Republican corporatist warmongering policies like Hillary and Obama are doing. Thus, they will loose popularity among their base. Voter turnout will be low.
Ron Paul would beat Hillary. Just so you all have something to think about.
Yeah, so? You can bitch and squawk all you want, and I agree with you that it's unfair, and gender-biased (I presume the gender card you're talking about is the Queen of Pussy, which is lower than the King of Spades, both of which are trumped by the King or Ace of Clubs).
But it is reality, though a twisted form, despite all the machinations of the feminists.
And come the fall of '08, the same reality will exist. And that's why Dame Clinton is unlikely to be elected in a General Election, especially after the pit bulls get done tearing the chunks out of her hide and head.
So she can win the Dems' primary. But only if they're not smart, if they don't want to make sure to take advantage of the 99.95% sure-thing environment that almost anyone could (and should) wipe up the floor with the Repubs in '08. The unfortunate thing (rationally-speaking), is that the 'almost anyone' excludes (most likely) a woman, and a mostly-minority, in this country, at this time.
What a conundrum! Do what's right, and lose, thus actually doing what's wrong, really, really wrong, causing the almost-certain repeat of four more years the same as the (then) past eight years. Electing another Bush!!!??? Inconceivable! That might end this great experiment in democracy. Maybe it's time for it to end. But it would be a shame to destroy it because we didn't think, didn't face reality, didn't consider the situation rationally.
(For those who think I'm the irrational one, let's discuss. Maybe we can arrange a secure way to place a wager on my assumptions)
This is CERTAINLY not the time to run the one person capable of motivating disgusted Republicans to get out and vote aganst her. They're beaten bloody, collapsing on the ropes... and we offer them cocaine, refreshing and delicious lemonade, a loaded pistol, and steroids. Then we turn around and put on a blindfold before continuing the fight. I almost WANT Hillary to run, and by extension, lose. There can be no defeat more humiliating, no shame more shameful than losing to the first Republican candidate for President to run following George W. Bush, who will presumably, through the cowardice of people like Hillary Clinton, manage to escape un-impeached from two complete, unelected terms as President. Especially if it's Guiliani.
Wait a SECOND. Republicans like Guiliani about as much as Democrats like Clinton. Both are New Yorkers as far as their current/most recent office held, one's a left-leaning Republican and one's a right-leaning Democrat. Both are notorious, shameless corporate whores. [tinfoil] Is this what the beginnings of a conversion to one-party government might look like? Or the end? [/tinfoil]
ted @ 14:
FINALLY Hillary gets called on her trip(s). She's a liar and we've heard her change positions again and again with everybody's tail tucked between their legs and THAT'S ok. She's EXPOSED and the very next day she's crying "I am Vermin hear me roar", why? Because she wants to change the topic AWAY from the goddam ISSUES again. Doesn't anyone care what a fucking liar she is and we've been WAITING 20 months for this exposure to occur.
I hate that bitch...the thought of her voice like fingernails on a blackboard for years makes me physically ill.
can't wait for the next 11-17 debate. I want to see HC suckerpunched repeatedly, harder with each successive debate. The final knockout in Jan/feb, believe me she won't quit until the last dog is dead.
She wants power that's is ALL. How ludicrous to think of Bill back in the WH. Just absurd. Ridiculous to even consider such a strange setup as plausible. People who one would think would know better are NOT thinking. No. They're letting Murdoch do their thinking for them. He's setting Hillary up to take it front and rear and I think at this point we'll get what we deserve. Again. Too bad for us, too bad for the world.
If we can't have Kucinich or Edwards then let's have BIDEN and DODD, that would be a strong tough team, and don't forget, we're looking at EIGHT years.
When Bill and Hillary were in the White House, and the rumors of his predelicktions with other women were rampant, I occasionally felt a tug of concern for her, and her 'burden'.
Now that I've seen her in action, I no longer feel concern. Except for Bill, and admiration for his gentlemanliness in sticking with her, and wonder that he didn't predelicktic his way through every passing pus*y he could get his hands on.
(And if he did, it's certainly understandable. She may not be a lesbian, but she's a broom-riding witch (sic) at the least).
Considering the Iraq situation, the Iran situation, the Israeli situation, and the Hillary situation, it's time to make some serious disaster plans for the future.
I'm seriously considering emigrating from the US to a more secure location.
If Hillary wins the nomination, my plans will be upped in priority.
The day she loses the election, I'm gone. Using my prepaid, discount tickets on a tramp steamer (to remind me of why I'm leaving) to South America, where the future seems brighter. At least it's in a hemisphere where the fall-out will be minimal.
jude @ 123:
Jude are you paying attention. Have you even considered the fact that Hillary could lose a general election?? Please see my post Don @ 76:
Hey C&L can we get a fucking straw poll here?
"I'm not a member of any organized political party. I'm a democrat"
Will Rogers
I don't understand why I am supposed to vote for someone and feel pity for them simply because of their gender or race. A lot of people support Hillary simply because she is a woman and they think it is time for a woman president. Or they support Barack simply beacause he is a black man. Or they support another candidate simply because he is a white man. I thought we wanted the person with the best ideas, policies, and plan to put America back in the right direction. It is sad that the person with the best ideas and policies is overshadowed because of peoples support for someone based on their gender or race. It is no wonder that most Americans are fed up with the political process.
She is going to win. She is going to govern for eight years. She will have problems just like her husband's. Regardless, America will zoom back to its glory, like it did with her husband, and you, all sorry assess, I hope you can remember your stupidity in today's rant.
If Bush happens to get rid of the 2008 elections, well, I'll laugh my ass off from here where I live. I even pasted this thread to MSWord, so I can read and enjoy it a year from now. God bless America...what is left, that is!
anyone who truly cares about this once great country called america better wake up to the evil agenda of the corporate/ repiglican media and it's evil agenda .. and the agents of this evil like corporate cumsluts chris matthews, tim russert, brian williams , the entire cable pundit pimps minus kieth oberman, etc .. and EXPOSE IT AS MUCH AS IT IS POSSIBLE FOR YOU TO EXPOSE IT ... because until it is exposed for what it is they will just keep doing what they do .. read the DAILY HOWLER EVERY CHANCE YOU GET BECAUSE THEY ARE ON IT .. ON IT LIKE NO OTHER 'LIBERAL' IS ... HERE IS YESTERDAY'S POST .. PLEASE READ THE WHOLE THING FOR IT DOES LAY OUT THE ACTUAL REALITY OF THE CORPORATE EVIL CALLED THE 'MEDIA ELITE' AND THEIR AGENDA AND HOW THEY PULL OFF THAT AGENDA.....
************************************************************
WITHOUT PRECEDENT! This always happens, the pundits have said. As always, their statement is false: // link // print // previous // next //
FRIDAY, NOVEMBER 2, 2007
A WEEK THAT WAS: If you’re interested in how the press works, this has been a remarkable Week That Was—a week when the last fifteen years hit the fan. Bear with us as we try to cover as much of this as we can today. We’ll continue with these issues on Monday. On Monday, we’ll look at the softball questions that were asked at MSNBC’s last Republican debate. Today, we’ll focus on the questions asked at this Tuesday’s debate.
KRUGMAN SPEAKS: Back in the fall of 2000, Paul Krugman was forbidden—by editor Howell Raines—from using that naughty L-word when talking about Candidate Bush. (At the time, Bush was lying his keister off about his tax cut proposal.) Result? Bush told the same lies in the first Bush-Gore debate, right there in his opening statement. And wouldn’t you know it? That protected candidate ended up in the White House—and the U.S. Army ended up in Iraq.
Yep! As every good mainstream “journalist” knew, Al Gore was the “liar” in Campaign 2000. But at the Times, such charges couldn’t be lodged against Bush. So Bush ended up where he is.
Today, Krugman isn’t so restrained by his bosses—and so he speaks pungently in today’s column. Rudy Giuliani has long been a giant dissembler. With Raines consigned to the dust heap of history, Krugman brings out the L-word today—and he wonders why Giuliani’s dishonesty isn’t being treated as a serious character issue:
KRUGMAN (11/2/07): [H]ere's what I don't understand: Why isn't Mr. Giuliani's behavior here considered not just a case of bad policy analysis but a character issue?
For better or (mostly) for worse, political reporting is dominated by the search for the supposedly revealing incident, in which the candidate says or does something that reveals his true character. And this incident surely seems to fit the bill.
Leave aside the fact that Mr. Giuliani is simply lying about what the Democrats are proposing; after all, Mitt Romney is doing the same thing.
But health care is the pre-eminent domestic issue for the 2008 election. Surely the American people deserve candidates who do their homework on the subject.
Yet what we actually have is the front-runner for the Republican nomination apparently basing his health-care views on something he read somewhere, which he believed without double-checking because it confirmed his prejudices.
By rights, then, Mr. Giuliani's false claims about prostate cancer—which he has, by the way, continued to repeat, along with some fresh false claims about breast cancer—should be a major political scandal. As far as I can tell, however, they aren't being treated that way.
In Krugman’s treatment, Giuliani is “simply lying” in some of his health care claims; in other cases, he’s making “false claims” based on bogus statistics. And yet, Giuliani’s lies and false claims aren’t being treated as a scandal, Krugman says. That’s what “I don’t understand,” he says at the start of this passage.
In fact, Krugman most likely does understand; most likely, he’s choosing to speak rhetorically. Why isn’t Giuliani’s constant dissembling even treated as an issue, let alone as a political scandal? In fact, the permissive treatment of Saint Giuliani is in line with the treatment once handed to Bush. But then, the rules of modern press coverage have been rather clear: Over the course of the past fifteen years, the Democrat has always had the character problems, problems which typically involve his or her truthfulness—and the Republican candidate always has not. This punishing framework has been promoted no matter what facts may be found on the ground. In Campaign 2000, Bush’s real lies were hidden away; bogus “lies” were invented, then put in Gore’s mouth. And this week, we’ve seen the same dynamic—aimed this time at Candidate Clinton.
But then, it’s ever thus in our modern presspolitics! In Campaign 2000, the Dem nominee was a liar. In 2004, the Dem nominee was a flipper. Now, the Dem front-runner is being defined as evasive. And wouldn’t you know it? As with Candidate Bush in 2000, Giuliani’s endless, blatant dissembling is barely a blip on the screen.
Might we state the obvious again? This “journalistic” framework will persist as long as liberals and Dems permit it. And sadly, over the past fifteen years, we’ve been very happy to do so. We’ve done so again and again.
Indeed, are we fighting back even today? Before we look at some a new press critique, let’s consider the way Jonathan Chait analyzes this long-running drama. In Chapter 6 of his new book, The Big Con, he describes the way this character drama played out in each of four White House campaigns—1992, 1996, 2000 and 2004. Weird! In each election, it was the Republican candidate who had the good character, Chait observes. Then, he offers this analysis.
CHAIT (page 162): This pattern suggests two possible interpretations. The first is that, for four straight presidential elections, Republicans have put forward principled, decent and upstanding men while the Democrats have nominated a succession of cads. But unless there’s something inherently immoral about Democrats and inherently virtuous about Republicans—a notion belied by Mark Foley, Duke Cunningham, and countless others—sheer statistical chance suggests this is unlikely.
Note: That “succession of cads” would now include the current Nobel Peace Prize winner! And of course, we can now make it five straight campaigns. It turns out that the Democratic front-runner, just like her predecessors, has a vile problem with the truth.
In his book, Chait does a good job defining this problem. (Though we’ll suggest that mere “statistical chance” isn’t as strong here as he suggests.) But uh-oh! In Chapters 5 and 6 of an eight-chapter book, Chait does what so many career liberal writes have done in the past fifteen years—he goes to near-heroic lengths to downplay the mainstream press corps’ role in creating this pattern. (Yes, we still plan to spend a week taking you through this ludicrous part of an otherwise excellent book.)
But then, our career liberal writers have gone to great lengths to ignore the problem we’re discussing today—even as Krugman (a hero) steps back from stating or suggesting what is merely obvious. For example, the most ludicrous trashing in these elections was the brutal trashing handed to Gore—and career liberal writers have struggled and squirmed to avoid discussing it. Life is better for career liberal writers if they avoid the truth of these matters; spots on Hardball remain within reach, and good career paths remain within sight. You see, within that insider Village, the press corps’ misconduct just didn’t happen. Sadly, career liberal writers have played the key role in keeping it all disappeared.
With that in mind, we ask you a question: Do liberals and Democrats understand, even now, that Tim Russert and the rest of the NBC gang have played a key role in this process? (We speak now of the most famous “Lost Boys”—Russert, Williams and Matthews.) As you may recall, this team was assembled by Jack Welch, a near-billionaire conservative Republican who was also numbered among the nation’s largest defense contractors. Over the course of the past dozen years, they have become exceptionally rich—and they have trashed both Clintons and Gore in ways that are truly extraordinary. Each of the three embarrassed himself in Campaign 2000, for example. And yet, the career liberal world has basically refused to discuss this, right up this present day.
Any chance that the career liberal world covets those prime spots on Hardball?
Below, we’re going to continue to discuss Tuesday night’s Democratic debate. In particular, we’re going to look at the questions posed by those multimillionaire “Reagan Democrats,” Russert and Williams. But with regard to Brother Russert, a question has finally arisen this week. Do liberals see a partisan animus in his long-term conduct? Do we liberals see it—or not? This question arises because of this piece by Paul Waldman, at the American Prospect.
Waldman often does good work. (On another day, we’d say he does great work. But today can’t be that day.) But his current piece, about Tim Russert, defines our current problem.
Let’s start with the perpetual analytical problem; most of what Waldman says here is accurate. And a number of liberals have rushed to say that this is a brilliant piece. But read through Waldman’s profile of Russert, and you will note a curious omission: Not a single word in the piece contemplates any partisan aspect to Russert’s ongoing performance. To Waldman, Russert is a big, phony dope—a big, stupid guy who asks dumb questions. But ask the same questions of everyone? In Waldman’s profile, there isn’t any sign that Russert’s conduct might betray a partisan animus.
Early on, for example, Waldman describes Russert’s dopy question about Bible verses at last month’s Democratic debate. This follows:
WALDMAN (10/31/07): When Obama finished his answer, Russert said to the other candidates, "I want to give everyone a chance in this. You just take 10 seconds." Predictable banality ensued. A foreign visitor unfamiliar with our presidential campaigns might have scratched her head and said, "This is how you decide who will lead your country?"
Indeed it is, because the process is controlled by Tim Russert and people like him. Russert's Bible question encapsulates everything wrong with him, and with our political coverage more generally. It seeks to make candidates look bad rather than finding out something important about them (if you want to explore a candidate's religious beliefs, you don't do it in pop-quiz form and give them just ten seconds to answer). It substitutes the personal anecdote for the policy position, the sound-bite for the substantive answer. It distills the debate into a series of allegedly symbolic, supposedly meaningful moments that can be replayed.
This type of debate question is not about what the candidate believes and would actually do in office, but about how clever the moderator is for cornering the candidate. And above all, it takes a genuinely relevant matter (a candidate's view of the universe) and crams it through a channel by which the thoughtful candidate will be pilloried and the shallow, pandering, overly rehearsed candidate will garner praise.
Banality is surely a problem with Russert, as with Welch’s “Lost Boys” as a group. But is Russert even-handed as he dishes his treatments? There isn’t a word in Waldman’s piece to suggest that he may not be. According to Waldman, Russert asks the “type of debate question” which “seeks to make candidates look bad rather than finding out something important about them.” But over the years, has this conduct been even-handed? Waldman’s failure as a liberal is obvious here. It isn’t just that he doesn’t say that Russert tilts the field against Dems. In this piece, he doesn’t even consider this as a possibility.
This omission is quite striking in light of this week’s events. On Tuesday night, Russert and Williams staged a public auto-da-fe the likes of which we’ve never seen. But then, no one else has seen such a thing either; simply put, there has never been a presidential debate like the one the two high peacocks staged. And let’s get real here: For anyone who has followed their work, it is impossible to imagine the pair doing such things to a leading Republican. And yet, many career players on the liberal web still can’t bring themselves to advance the thought that the two big guns who were hired by Welch may have some sort of partisan animus. The thought doesn’t enter Waldman’s head—and here’s Matt Yglesias’ complete review of Waldman’s profile:
YGLESIAS: Paul Waldman’s brilliant piece on the evils of Tim Russert as debate moderator (and, of course, as Meet the Press host) unfortunately only scratches the surface of our problem, which is not so much Russert as it is Russertism. This, in turn, is built into the deeper structure of these things. The trouble is that someone discovered one day that Meet the Press or a primary debate could be very important even if almost nobody watched. The reason is that a clip might get picked up by shows that people do watch.
Under this new dynamic, the role of the moderator is not to play host to an interesting informative discussion but rather to maximize the odds that some particular 10-second snippet of an hour-long broadcast will be worthy of rebroadcast. Hence, the focus on inane questions designed less to draw out an illuminating remark than to trip someone up. The trouble, though, is that the more a broadcast is structured like this the fewer people will watch. Russertism has succeeded in creating a kind of political broadcast that even hard-core political junkies find difficult to watch. Indeed, the only way to make it tolerable is to step back and go meta, scanning the broadcast for signs of those telltale clips.
But the fewer people watch, the more the debate becomes about clip-generation rather than debate. And that only makes the debate more unwatchable! And down and down we go.
UPDATE: To be clear, it's not even necessarily that I think a "wonkier" broadcast would attract higher ratings than the current sort of debates. Rather, I think that if they tried to produce an hour-long debate broadcast whose goal was to maximize viewership of the hour-long broadcast, rather than producing two-hour broadcasts whose goal is to maximize the odds of generating a signature "moment," that the broadcasts would get higher viewership. It shouldn't be that hard to produce a presidential debate that virtually every political junkie watches. Right now what they're doing doesn't even attract that audience.
For starters, we think you know the first rule of this game: I’ll tell the rubes that you’re “brilliant” this week; you can say the same about me sometime later. But even after the past fifteen years, it doesn’t seem to cross Matt’s mind that part of the problem with “Russertism” may be its partisan cast. In the minds of these fiery liberals, Russert's inane questions are apparently equally doled. Russert tries to “trip up” Dems. But to judge from their work, he apparently tries to “trip up” Republicans too.
In Matt’s piece, Russert tries to trip someone up. We aren’t told who it is.
Chronology makes Matt’s post remarkable. It follows, by only two days, one of the most remarkable presidential debates in our history. No candidate has ever been savaged by moderators as Clinton was savaged on Tuesday (details below); nothing even remotely resembling that debate has ever been staged. But as they think about the guy who staged it, Waldman and Yglesias don’t even raise the question of partisan animus. If you’re a liberal, and you read their work, you aren’t told this might be a question.
In our view, Russert, Matthews and Williams have long been a partisan wrecking crew. Their debates have been astounding all year long; we have gone to substantial length to examine the way they have shaped them. Beyond that, Russert’s “problems” were quite apparent in Campaign 2000—the Event That Must Never Be Discussed—and Matthews was simply astounding. For ourselves, we can’t begin to understand what keeps liberal writers from noticing this. But it’s astounding to see the way they have to be pushed, dragged and hauled toward the task of observing what’s real.
Time passes slowly up here in the mountains! Eight years after the trashing of Gore, some of us have managed to say that what happened may not have been kosher. (Apparent rule: Once you win the Nobel Peace Prize, career liberal writers will start to defend you!) But even now, these writers can’t see the partisan problems displayed by Jack Welch’s sick network. Let’s say it again: This group was hand-picked by a powerful conservative Republican, then turned loose to savage the Clintons and Gore. But so what? Even after Tuesday’s astonishment, the liberal world still can’t digest it.
In fairness, it’s clear that Waldman and Yglesias aren’t trying to kiss up to Russert. And yet, they don’t even raise the possibility of a partisan cast to his work. In the early 1960s, conservatives began thinking—we’ll guess with cause—that they were getting a raw deal from the press corps. To their credit, they stood up and fought. Our side, it’s clear, never will.
POSTSCRIPT: Goofus wrote that sh*t about Waldman. Gallant still thinks he’s just great.
Special report: Welch’s at war!
PART TWO—WITHOUT PRECEDENT: Last night, good soldiers were squealing on MSNBC, defending magnificent Russert. For once in their lives, they’d been forced to defend themselves against flak from the left—and the lads didn’t seem happy. Chris Matthews made the most ridiculous statements—but Dan Abrams and Tucker were pushing him hard. And wouldn’t you know it? Even a well-known progressive guest insisting on adopting their outlook! Here’s NOW’s Kim Gandy, on last night’s Tucker, discussing Tuesday’s Democratic debate:
GANDY (11/1/07): It definitely was a pile-on. But of course, the front-runner always gets piled onto. It’s a little easier for them to do it because she`s female. She is—you know, they use a somewhat different approach for her because she’s female. But the bottom line is that she’s the front-runner and anybody who is smart and who’s trying to become the front-runner themselves is going to pile on.
Could the liberal world have less of a clue? In that formulation, Gandy says that what happened was fairly typical—and she says it was done by the other candidates. This formulation disappears Russert and Williams, whose conduct was simply off the charts—was unlike anything that has ever occurred at any presidential debate. We understand that the Clinton campaign itself doesn’t want to focus on Russert and Williams. But it was typical—and sad—to see this (outstanding) progressive disappear what had occurred.
Gandy’s comment at least served one purpose; she neatly summarized NBC’s line of defense. This always happens to the front-runner, they’ve said. Luckily, we have a way to see if that claim is accurate.
You see, at roughly this time eight years ago, Tim Russert hosted a GOP debate, up in Michigan. A half-dozen candidates stood on the stage, and there was a clear front-runner—George Bush. Beyond that, a clear question had arisen about this front-runner: Was he experienced and smart enough to lead the western world? In other words, the situation facing Russert was very similar to the one Tuesday night. Our question: Did that front-runner—the one named Bush—get treated like the one named Clinton? Thanks to this new-fangled thing we call ”transcripts,” we can go back and find out.
First, though, let’s take a look at the remarkable structure of Tuesday night’s debate. (For full debate transcript, click here.)
At MSNBC, they’re happy to accept the idea that the other candidates ganged up on Clinton. But of course, it all started with the two hosts. Has there ever been a debate where one candidate’s character was hammered this way? In the evening’s opening question, the pattern was clearly established. Obama was invited by Williams to bang away. Please kill the pig, Williams said:
QUESTION 1, WILLIAMS (10/30/07): Senator Obama, we’ll begin with you. You gave an interview to the New York Times, over the weekend, pledging in it to be more aggressive, to be tougher in your campaign against your chief rival for the nomination, the leader among Democrats so far, Senator Clinton, who is here next to you tonight. To that end, Senator, you said that Senator Clinton was trying to sound Republican, trying to vote Republican on national security issues. And that was, quote, “bad for the country and ultimately bad for the Democrats.” That is a strong charge, as you’re aware. Specifically, what are the issues where you, Senator Obama, and Senator Clinton have differed, where you think she has sounded or voted like a Republican?
Obama had made “a strong charge”—and he was asked to repeat it. His answer was exceptionally vague, as we’ll see below. But nothing he said about Clinton was challenged, and we moved on to Question 2:
QUESTION 2, RUSSERT: Senator Edwards, you issued a press release, your campaign, and the headline is “Edwards to Clinton: American people deserve the truth, not more double-talk on Iran.”What double-talk are you suggesting that Senator Clinton has been engaging in on Iran?
In his answer, Edwards made a baldly false statement about Clinton (see THE DAILY HOWLER, 11/107). But so what? Russert seemed happy to move right along. Having invited Obama and Edwards to bash Clinton, he now quoted a third, absent party who seemed to be doing the same:
QUESTION 3, RUSSERT: I want to stay on Iran, Senator Clinton. As you know, you voted for the Kyl-Lieberman amendment, the only member on the stage here who did that. Senator,Jim Webb of Virginia said it is for all practical purposes mandating the military option, that it is a clearly worded sense of Congress that could be interpreted as a declaration of war. Why did you vote for that amendment which would—calls upon the president to structure our military forces in Iraq with regard to the capability of Iran?
Basically, a fair question. Of course, Dick Durbin of Illinois said the opposite thing. Somehow, he didn’t get mentioned.
At any rate, the evening’s shape had come into focus. Candidates would be asked to batter Clinton; if they fudged or made factual misstatements, that would be A-OK. The moderators’ conduct would grow more problematic as the evening proceeded, of course. But readers, let’s stop here, and see what happened back in January 2000, when Russert moderated a Republican debate with a front-runner named George Bush.
We’re told that the piling-on always occurs. Any chance that could be accurate?
January 2000: It took place in Grand Rapids on January 10. Bush, McCain, Forbes, Bauer, Hatch, Keyes stood on the stage. As now, there was a clear front-runner—and at the start, he was the focus. But did that front-runner get piled on that night? Right in the evening’s first three questions, you can see a quite different approach.
Russert kicked things off like this. Can you spot the first difference?
QUESTION 1, RUSSERT (1/10/00): The first question is for Governor Bush. Governor Bush, Steve Forbes has an ad running on television right now which says the following: "There's something you need to know about George W. Bush: In 1994, he signed a pledge with my organization that he would not support sales tax or business tax increases. In 1997, he broke his pledge—he proposed an increase in the business tax and sales tax"—and they provide the documentation with your signature. Is that in fact an accurate statement?
This time, the first question went to Bush; he was allowed to frame the discussion. In Question 2, Forbes was invited to speak about his charge—but note the different framework:
QUESTION 2, RUSSERT: I'd like to give Mr. Forbes the same question. You put the ad on the air. Is it accurate? Why is it accurate? And should you have also mentioned that Governor Bush decreased taxes as well as proposing this business and sales tax, if that's the case?
On Tuesday, Edwards’ misstatement about Clinton passed without challenge. But back then, Forbes was challenged about his fairness before he even spoke! And when Russert’s co-host, Suzanne Geha, took her turn, an even more striking thing happened:
QUESTION 3, GEHA: Senator McCain, you have attacked Governor Bush's tax plan. You have said that 60 percent of his tax cut will go to the very wealthy among us. On Meet the Press yesterday—I happened to be watching; I know Tim Russert is going to pay me at the end of the program for plugging that (laughter)—but your chief supporter, Representative Lindsey Graham, agreed that you are playing a class warfare game, that you are pitting rich against poor, something the Republican Party does not like to do. Do you acknowledge that is what you are doing? Are you going to rethink your strategy or are you going to continue this line of attack?
Good God! Before McCain got his go against Bush, Geha said his “chief supporter” thought he was just a big *sshole! As such, you may note a slightly amended approach—back when the front-runner’s name was George Bush. And by the way, this was as tough as it would get for front-runner Bush this whole evening.
Yep! Geha’s question to “Ol’ Class Warfare” ended the evening’s focus on Bush. The next question concerned Internet filtering, and no one was ever asked to sound off on Bush again. (Nor did Russert ever ask Bush any other challenging questions.) Indeed, the rules were even framed at one point to make it impossible for attacks to occur. In one large chunk of this debate, the candidates asked each other questions. But the rules said that each hopeful could get only one question—so Bush avoided getting piled on. Most likely, the other candidates wanted to pile onto Bush. But the rules this night told them they couldn’t!
This Tuesday, things were different. Questions 1-5 were largely aimed at Clinton; there followed a series of questions (6-17) in which Russert and Williams basically begged the candidates to declare immediate war on Iran. But then, it was back to the trashing of Clinton. After Russert’s embarrassing series of questions (candidates were asked to “pledge” that they wouldn’t let Iran get nukes), Russert hurried back to Clinton. He asked a rather slippery question, as we discussed yesterday:
QUESTION 18, RUSSERT: Senator Clinton, elsewhere in the region, let’s talk about Iraq. One of your military advisers, retired Lieutenant General Claudia Kennedy, while campaigning for you in New Hampshire, was recently quoted saying, quote, “I don’t oppose the war. I have never heard Senator Clinton say ‘I oppose the war.’” Senator Clinton, do you oppose the war in Iraq?
And then, the evening’s highest comedy. Once again, try to believe it:
QUESTION 19, WILLIAMS: Senator Obama, was Senator Clinton’s answer to the opposition of the Iraq war question consistent, in your view?
QUESTION 20, WILLIAMS: Senator Edwards, same question.
At this point, the shame of the evening was becoming apparent. The two Weak Sisters of Democratic politics took their round of free pot-shots at the person Williams was hoping they’d trash. But then, Question 21 was aimed at Clinton too! Now, we were simply reading insults voiced by Saint Giuliani:
QUESTION 21, WILLIAMS: And we’re going to start with another subject at the top of this segment. Senator Clinton, it will go to you. It speaks to electability.
Earlier this month, Republican presidential frontrunner, Rudolph Giuliani, said this about you, quote, “I don’t know Hillary’s experience. She’s never run a city. She’s never run a state. She’s never run a business. She’s never met a payroll. She’s never been responsible for the safety and security of millions of people, much less, even hundreds of people. So I’m trying to figure out where the experience is here,” end of quote.
Senator, how do you respond to the former mayor of New York?
Somehow, Mr. Handsome thought Rudy’s insults about Clinton’s experience “spoke to electability.” (Brian tends to be like that.) At any rate, in Questions 22 and 23, Russert challenged Clinton again, about the availability of records from the National Archives. And then, good God! They did it again! It was straight back to the Two Potted Plants for their critical reviews:
QUESTION 24, RUSSERT: Senator Obama, your hand's up?
QUESTION 25, RUSSERT: Senator Edwards had his hand up. Then I want to give Senator Clinton the chance to respond.
In short order, Dodd was asked to trash Clinton’s electability too. Concerning Williams’ question to Dodd, Let’s play softball:
QUESTION 28, WILLIAMS: Senator Dodd, you gave an interview to our local NBC station here today, alluding to problems with Senator Clinton’s national electability. What is the point you want to make on that score?
Soon, Biden’s help was enlisted:
QUESTION 31, WILLIAMS: Senator Biden, you said recently, “While Mrs. Clinton was meeting socially with the prime minister of a country, I was sitting down and negotiating with them. I know my experience is considerably deeper and more relevant.” Do you stand by that quote, and is your inference that she is less qualified than you to be president?
Then, of course, it was time for Russert play fast and loose with Clinton’s “credibility.” We also discussed this one yesterday. Russert was playing it slick—coming rather close to a lie in his concern about Clinton’s credibility:
QUESTION 32, RUSSERT: Senator Clinton, I want to clear something up which goes to the issue of credibility. You were asked at the AARP debate whether or not you would consider taxing, lifting the cap from $97,500, taxing that, raising more money for Social Security. You said, quote, “It’s a no.” I asked you the same question in New Hampshire, and you said “no.”
Then you went to Iowa and you went up to Tod Bowman, a teacher, and had a conversation with him saying, “I would consider lifting the cap perhaps above $200,000.” You were overheard by an Associated Press reporter saying that. Why do you have one public position and one private position?
Russert’s logic was very weak. But his “question” stung.
Questions 33 and 34 were follow-ups about this troubling problem. (In Question 34, Russert played his patented “gotcha” card with an old quote from President Clinton.) Then, the impossible! He asked Obama to explain a change of his position—a question Obama simply ignored. Instead, he went back to trashing Clinton’s character, provoking Russert’s follow-up:
QUESTION 36, RUSSERT: But when asked by The New York Times whether Senator Clinton has been truthful, you said no.
In short, this was an embarrassing, ludicrous gang-bang, the likes of which has never been staged. In our view, Edwards and Obama massively lowered themselves by taking part in such absolute nonsense. (Richardson disavowed what was happening as he answered Question 27. For that reason, he’s now being repetitively trashed by both Matthews and Carlson.) But Russert and Williams identified themselves as the hit-men they have long been.
Last night, squealing squirrels were all over MSNBC, insisting that this is what always happens. Gandy was unwise enough to suggest the same thing. But nothing that dimly resembles this has ever happened in such a debate—as a look at that Grand Rapids session makes clear. Was front-runner Bush “piled on” that night? He wasn’t, and there was no chance that he would be. Simply put, Tuesday night stands alone in the annals of presidential debates. This weekend, people will tell you that it was the norm. As always, these people are lying.
THAT STATEMENT BY OBAMA: In “Question” 1, Obama was asked if he wouldn’t please trash-talk Clinton. Here’s what he got around to saying about the global challenges we face:
OBAMA: It does not mean, I think, changing positions whenever it’s politically convenient. And Senator Clinton, in her campaign, I think has been for NAFTA previously. Now she’s against it. She has taken one position on torture several months ago, and then most recently has taken a different position. She voted for a war, to authorize sending troops into Iraq, and then later said this was a war for diplomacy.
I don’t think that it—now, that may be politically savvy, but I don’t think that it offers the clear contrast that we need. I think what we need right now is honesty with the American people about where we would take the country.
He thinks she was for NAFTA, now isn’t? And by the way: When a person is accused of flipping on torture, is there any chance he might be asked to be a bit more specific?
Not on Tuesday night, there wasn’t! Edwards’ bald misstatement was A-OK; so was Obama’s complaint about torture. Nothing remotely like this has been staged before. If you doubt that, go ahead: Check that Grand Rapids debate.
MONDAY: Huh! Matthews hosted the GOP debate. What kinds of questions were asked?
Garcia, America is going nowhere other than an accelarating ride into the pits of hell. Signed sealed delivered by congress and the senate swallowed by some sort of warp in reality which is like living a distorted living mythological descent into madness, destruction and death. Death is all the american gov't has to offer the world. Involvement and revolution is in front of us to deal with.
So while you're laughing, what active compassion are you expressing to make this world a better place?
Screw you Garcia.
The questions Russert's ask are straight out of Fox News. The Iran/nucleur question is asked daily on Fox News. Of course I think that these debates should be tough but don't railroad HRC all night long and then have (a) a LIGHTNING round (WTF?? can we hear them speak, this is to decide the leader of the free world) and (b) ask the 2nd leading candidate what he is going to wear for Halloween and (c) completely give the 3rd leading candidate the entire night off so that he can attack the leading candidate. Did Edwards recieve any questions? I certainly don't remember any being directed to him.
Dee, Clinton has been skating without having to explain herself for the last 20 months until now. She has not been straight about anything and I found it refreshing personally.
Russert let the dogs out and of course that was disgusting and not his role. Hillary has evaded any and all direct questions in debates until this time she was nailed. It was handled badly. But this time she was not allowed to ESCAPE which was pleasurable and satisfying for many of us. But we've long known about the death of objectivity and professionalism in broadcast journalism bought and sold 8 years ago. Our sensibilities have been under relentless assault on brand new escalating levels ever since that time.
The very next day Hillary is braying about the contents of her pantaloons as enough reason to elect her.
She is intrinsically involved in this corruption. She IS as corrupt as the media.
Change the subject and avoid the issues which have been crying out to be addressed is a tired old ploy and I'm sick of her and sick of the media. ALL of them.
blue @ 137:
How 'bout a simple link to the article next time??...Jeez.
[Deleted. Personal attack-Sitemonitor]
[Deleted. Personal attack-Sitemonitor]
[Ok. Your little tiff with 'Jude' stops here. Goes for you too, Jude-Sitemonitor]
Thanks sitemonitor, just a slow afternoon and THAT was one waste of time as well.
141 Johnny2Bad Says@141
read the DAILY HOWLER EVERY CHANCE YOU GET BECAUSE THEY ARE ON IT .. ON IT LIKE NO OTHER ‘LIBERAL’ IS … HERE IS YESTERDAY’S POST .. PLEASE READ THE WHOLE THING…..
How ’bout a simple link to the article next time??…Jeez.
_________________________________________________________________
Did you get to read it at all, though?
140 crazylove@140
You mean, she is worse than Bush? Ah! Really! Oh! You mean, she'll be worse that Bush if elected? Oh! Really? Take a walk, get out of here.
Garcia, no I did not say she is worse than bush. Where did you read that?
If you read Maureen Dowd's NYT article this morning you'll see she agrees with me. I know it's a stretch, but learn to think willya?
Login or Register to post comments.