Candy Crowley: Hillary uses a Velvet Shiv
I've written many pieces on the antagonistic and almost hateful way the media treats Hillary Clinton. It happens in a lot of these little news pieces that cover the hot topic of the moment and ask yourself if they would ever use the same words to describe John McCain. CNN's Candy Crowley gives us the perfect example of this phenomenon. Please show me an instance where any other candidate would be described like this?
CROWLEY: Not much need for an answer, anyway. It's a pretty good bet that if Bill Clinton feels that way -- and he does -- then she does, too.
SEN. HILLARY RODHAM CLINTON (D-NY), PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: Obviously, we want as many people as possible to be able to participate.
CROWLEY: It's been like that a lot lately, a rendition of good cop/bad cop, ganging up mostly on Barack Obama.
She applies the velvet shiv.
H. CLINTON: I'm running for president because I believe that there is not a contradiction between experience and change.
Maybe John King will say that I'm a biased blogger who doesn't understand the years of experience Candy has and that she's equally been criticized by the right and the segment probably was edited a bit and she has said some really nice things about the Clinton's in the past. I guess using Prison Break and OZ analogies with Hillary stabbing Obama in the back is the new norm for excellence in journalism. Just think about the imagery a "shiv" conjures up to the viewer. It's unseemly. (h/t Mark Groubert)
Crowley shows her lack of class and professionalism. That's what I hear in her comments. We don't need a narrative from her, just the simple facts.
frist!
But Clinton kind of deserves this treatment, since she DOES strike low blows and IS a stealth neocon.
Using "velvet shiv" isn't unseemly, it's just some good, vivid writing. Crowley is no right wing shill. She's a good reporter who has not been overly harsh toward Clinton and is just trying to describe the dynamics of what is going on in the Clinton-Obama race.
Look at the way the MSM praised Bush, and how they bad mouthed Clinton. Why let the press Pick our president. Look at the last one the MSM chose
Oh, and why the hell would she use the word "shiv"? Does she hang out with gangs or something?
I imagine Hillary wishes they had won the court battle in Vegas. Why shouldn't she? She isn't going to rant and rave about it, but votes were involved, and she wanted them. That seems pretty normal to me in a presidential race. I don't think what they tried to do was kosher, but the verdict was sound and fair.
I do think Bill needs to take more of a backseat and fast. She's trying to keep her campaign on a firm but civil level and every time he shows up the cameras point to him and he just can't keep himself from talking, even more than he should. He raises the hell and she ends up having to get burned while she puts out the fire.
Travis @ 3:
I'm not a Hillary supporter, but I'm just curious, why do you refer to her as a neocon. You are basing that on what?
Fair or not, there are one heckuva pile of people that hate the Clintons. Do they deserve it? I don't know. I do know that their names have been involved in corruption and scandals for years and years. Whether guilty or not, that is the way it is. And Hillary isn't doing herself any favours by having a former President tramp around the country looking and sounding like he's running for re-election. It is unheard of. Spouse or not, a former President should NOT be trying to influence one of the two main political parties in the nation. It is no better than lobbying, which is a vile career.
John you should know by now you can't post anything even remotely favorable to Hillary or Bill or your not being a good Internet progressive. If your not a green party progressive then your as bad or worse than Bush or Cheney. There is no middle ground around here, we barely talk favorably about Edwards. (snark)
Crowley clearly has no class. This is a common trick to try and make a woman who isn't submissive seem like she's "violent" because of it.
i don't think candy's comments were unfair at all. I was rather nice prose. Believe me.. Chris Matthews and Joe Scarborough have hit her with much worse.
brian "gop" williams!
Stealth neocon? Where's that coming from? One of things, pro or con, about Hillary you can count on is that we know basically what we are going to get with her and her husband running the country for 8 years?!?!? Didn't see any sorts of stealth neocon then? I guess she knew that she would one day be running for president and save her neocon views until she was president....right? I'm soooooo stupid.
lol!
Does this person even have the chops to use a word like 'shiv'. She been watching too much Lockup on MSNBC or somethin'? It only makes her look silly from where I am sitting.
Candy Crowley did a piece in 2006 about why the Democrats were losers. This was before the election, well it may be true, but I can't hear saying the same thing about Republicans. And who cares what Candy Crowley says. A velvet shiv. Give me a break!
I think that when the press if unfair to any of our Democratic candidate that we should stand up and do everything we can to get fair play... C&L is right to bring this up, if we don't start now, it may be too late when we get into the general election...
This is what passes for journalism anymore. Just covering campaigns is boring, they have to liven it up. They can't just cover the news, they have to manipulate the news. They continue to ignore John Edwards.
This is why I no longer bother with this sort of entertainment. It stopped being the news a long time ago and became something bizarrely "based" on the news. Like the ultimate crappy reality show.
I don't think I am the only one who has stopped watching television, but I know I am in the minority.
pissed off patricia @ 7:
.. her voting record maybe?
Steve Skonning @ 12:
Hillary may be a great Prez, but it won't be her and Bill running the nation. Why do people think they are getting good ol' "I did not have sexual relations with those 2000 women" Bill back as Prez? I do not hear any other candidates anywhere stating publicly, that "my wife and I will run this nation better than any ReTHUG could possibly do"....Clinton was not that great a President people. Alot of legislation he passed, did not fully start screwing North America until after he started giving million dollar retirement speeches. What is it with this glorious view? It was a fake electronic economy he presided over, and it went bust after he left.
Tyler Durden @ 17:
no, she supported and stood by a neoliberal (bill), not a neocon
hillary, until otherwise proven, is a neoliberal.
(for those that do not know what that term means, please look it up and avoid any misunderstanding b/c of its inclusion of 'liberal' in the name. or don't, whatever.).
i was surprised to hear her, slightly, poo poo NAFTA. i think this was for political maneuvering, not something really believes.
look at the policies of the world bank and the IMF for the past 20 years, that is hillary clinton. that is the DLC. neoliberalism. economic imperialism and neocolonialism.
Candy Crowley is a tool. The end.
Candy Creepy and her pal Judy Woof Woof did their master's bidding in 2004 during the national conventions. Anyone watching those saw one RNC talking point after another tumble from their mouths.
Excerpts of Hillary Clinton's taped interview with Tyra Banks were released earlier this week, but the interview airs today on Tyra's show. In the interview, Hillary discusses, among other things, adultery. She tells Tyra that she had to "dig down hard" to get over the Monica Lewinsky affair of ten years ago, but that she "never doubted Bill's love" or her "faith and commitment" to Chelsea and their extended family.
Other takeaways: she admits to being embarrassed by the scandal but says, "I was just praying so hard and thinking so hard about what's right to do that I couldn't get anything else interfere with that. The momentary feelings — you know, you're mad, you're really upset, you're disappointed, all of that goes through your mind — but I have found you really shouldn't make decisions in the heat of those moments."
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/01/18/hillary-opens-up-to-tyra-_n_821...
GOOD LORD!! Hillary is on the Tyra Banks show now??!???? What's next, Dr. Phil????
ConcernedCanuck @ 18:
I think you missed the point, the point is and was that she is not a neocon. I am not actually a Hillary supporter, merely putting my two cents in about neocons which Hillary is not, neither is John or Barack!!!
Candy Creepy? My bad, I meant Creepy Crowley.
This crap has been going on since 2000. The MSM has been a complete failure with a few exceptions. From the very beginning of Bush's first run in 2000 he was coddled and pampered while Gore was vilified and attacked. I will always believe that the media aided Dubyah in this fucking nightmare. They have constantly rewarded this wicked piece of shit for his awful behavior. Thank you MSM, you sorry mother fuckers!
Samson- @ 19:
True but it's not a deliberate policy to ratchet up international tension like the War On Terror Scam so the MIC can enjoy tremendous increases in military and defense expenditures.
Steve Skonning @ 23:
Sorry...I got carried away...ahem.....a neocon? Not sure, but she does have the same financial backers as Shrub has/had. Is that a clue?
ConcernedCanuck @ 22:
What has a more negative impact on the nation. Twenty trillion dollars in debt accumulated by the systemic waste, fraud, abuse, graft, and corruption of the Reagan Bush Bush Jr Regime? Or the blow jobs that Monica Lewinsky gave Clinton?
Or Shuster calling Dr. Paul's supporter's the 'al ciada' wing of the repub party.....
narrow, petty, and distracting thy name is MSM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jEcUTYbuDvY
C&L, here to serve and protect...
HRC...
...and then to argue media bias is akin to the kettle calling the pot black.
Given the constant attacks of journalists who dare to comment in even a critical light on HRC, its a wonder any journalist would be inclined to make an even remotely controversial opinion.
Time for Amato and co. to start doing their own mea culpa's a la Chris Matthew's
"H. CLINTON: I’m running for president because I believe that there is not a contradiction between experience and change."
This is one reason I think Hillary is the smartest candidate running. This is a great way to position herself.
Did you mean Candy "Cowly"!
The bottom line. Soon, everyone is going to have to go back to work.
LOL oh my god the worlds going to end now because we have to work!
"Too Much" Candy Crowley weighs 400 ponds. She is revolting.
Journalist are not paid to state their own opinions, they are paid to find and report facts. If they want to express their own personal opinion, write should write an op-ed piece and identify it as such.
L.A. Confidential @ 33:
And I don't mean surfing the net.
pissed off patricia @ 35:
Journalists these days are indentured servants.
L.A. Confidential @ 37:
Granted the pay is a little better these days then the standard 7 year contract of the 17th century.
L.A. Confidential @ 28:
Reagan and Bush aren't running for election? Thus not front page news.
ConcernedCanuck @ 22:
I'm thinking I long for the days when a Presidential candidate would not deign to go on a show such as Tyra's. Hillary is trying to connect with people she would not normally give the time of day to. I'm not impressed.
C'mon, John Candy Crowley has been a joke since her shilling for the chimp in '00 and '04. She is someone at CNN's idea of a joke, yet here we go again as she poses as an insightful political journalist.
Let's not start taking this Uncle Buck faced imposter seriously in '08.
Wow. Can we please take the discussion off of Crowley's personal appearance and back on to her words and framing?
I finding the need for ad hominem slurs based on her looks more than a little misogynistic. I would hope we are better than that.
@John Amato - Nothing positive about Obama has been posted on this site.
Tyler Durden @ 17:
Why look at that? She's a NOT BUSH! And a WOMAN! Hence, the best choice for the job!
Just ask Nicole Belle.
Nicole Belle @ 42:
Right on. The internet unfortunately seems to give some people the impression that can speak like village buffoons.
While we're at it, let's also just refer to even those this site critiques by their proper names....
I don't like Bill O'Rielly, but that is his name...
I sometimes don't like Chris Matthew's, but that's his real name...
Critique is not license to insult..
pissed off patricia @ 35:
You are very confused. Journalists, and I use that term loosely, are paid to serve the interests of the corporations that they work for. Corporations exist to increase shareholder value. Period.
I find it hilarious that Clinton supporters are bemoaning the state of the media system in this country given the amount of media consolidation that took place under the Clinton administration. It was Democrats in the Clinton administration that championed substantial loosening of the regulations which govern media ownership (see Telecommunications Act of 1996).
So you get what we have here today:
Empire on the Verge of a Nervous Breakdown
http://rigint.blogspot.com/2008/01/empire-on-verge-of-nervous-breakdown....
"I've been thinking a lot this week about last week's leaked internal memo from Associated Press. Frank Baker, AP's LA assistant bureau chief, issued the directive that 'Now and for the foreseeable future, virtually everything involving Britney is a big deal.'"
The problem goes deeper than this, however. Notice that defense contractor GE's exclusion of Dennis Kucinich from the recent debate was based on "free speech." It's only through their corporate "personhood" status that corporations are able to claim such rights, which were never meant to apply to corporations in the first place.
It's their constitutional "right" to "free speech" which enables them to claim they have a right to act against the public interest by serving as the state's propaganda arm, as well as a propaganda platform for concentrated private wealth whose interests are in conflict with the public interest. Similarly, their constitutional "right" to representation gives them leeway to bribe politicians so that public policies end up favoring the corporations over the public interest.
Reform starts with the recognition that corporations are not people, and they should not be entitled to the same rights as individual human beings.
Do away with corporate "personhood", as well as limited liability, which is another gift of the state to the corporations (as opposed to something that was earned as a result of market mechanisms). In the meantime, stop giving your money to these corporations. Just cut them off. I've been television free for months and it's not like I'm missing anything that has any real value.
Whatever you do, don't continue giving your vote and support to corporate whores like Clinton, Obama, Edwards et al., and then whine on the internet when corporations behave in completely predictable and legal ways. It only makes you look even more pathetic and hypocrital than you already do.
Richard @ 4:
I completely agree. Furthermore, the Clinton presidency run is unique. An ex-Prez's wife is running, and we have a lot of history with them, especially a spouse who was publicly embarrassed by a sex scandal, and chose denial and blaming others as her response and political stance.
Crowley covered Bill Clinton's admin during the 90s. She was no raging Clinton hater then; in fact, supportive.
John, you cant make a comparison with coverage of candidates like McCain or Obama or Giuliani or Huckabee. Hillary is running on her WH experience and reporters would be remiss if they blocked it out as if she were a fresh-faced senator who got the Prez bug five years ago. Bill has insinuated himself into this race as well. He's made his temper and views viable, and as an ex-Prez his history is on the block as well.
Travis @ 43:
*sigh*
I'm so sick of this. Go on, smart guy. Find any indication that I am supporting Hillary Clinton on this site. I dare you.
C&L is not endorsing any candidate. I have elected not to share who I am supporting. My disgust at media framing and rampant misogyny does not equate to supporting said candidate.
You really have been living in Bush "You're either with us or against us" World far too long.
I wonder why this is even a story! Jon Amato, what's going on brother ? Why not be outraged by the attempt of the Clintons to suppress the votes of hard-working people of Nevada ? Those two have no shame when it comes to pursuing it their personal goals! I thought they would have caught the irony of their action, given how the Dems cried about stolen votes in both 2000 and 2004! When is the DNC going to realize that the Clintons care not about the party, it is all about themselves and themselves only. They go after fellow party members in a worst way that I have ever seen! Shame, shame, shame on the Clintons! God they are disgusting!
Nicole Belle @ 42:
I second this. Completely unnecessary.
I'm sick of these kind of freaky persons reporting the news. What can we do to get normal people to report normally? They would not be charged with "bias" if all they did was report the new. It's the "color" commentary that is so repugnant.
PS - Did anyone else notice the cookie crumbs on her chest?
A TRUE reporter reports the news, NOT give their opinion. All MSM has dropped that for ratings.
Booooo! MSM sucks! Boooo! The earth is round! Big news!
Can you imagine the heck that would be raised by the black leaders who support Obama if he was given any of this hate and vile the MSM spews at Hillary. But then it you go over to one of the democratic website you can spew all the hate and vile, mostly lies about Hillary you want. But for goodness sake don't say a word about Obama they''ll hunt you down and blow you up...this is the way some websites are allowing the hate to be continued.
Marge @ 54:
Marge, now what does Obama have to do with this? Get a hold of yourself, will ya!
CNN's Foxlitedom knows no bounds
Hillary is evil. Obama's supporters will take her down.
I remember when Candy was travelling with the GWBush campaign and she would gush like a schoolgirl over Dubya. She does seem to have a different set of standards when it comes to Hillary.
somehow I think John watches the wire.
Wire Season 4, episode 10 or 11. Cheese says to Prop Joe, "She was pulling a gun from her pussy and shit. It was unseemly"
She is doing want CNN wants her to do, she's doing what CNN allows her to do, just like Blitzer who basically does non stop speculation all day long , polls all day long , and reports very little NEWS , during his " Speculation Room ". This is the shtick that CNN (contains no news) decided a long time ago .
From Becks anti-muslim remarks about Rep. Ellis , to not reporting Israel Attacking Gaza and killing Palestinians DAILY (12 in one day) , to hiring Psyops as " interns " from military intelligence . CNN is not to be trusted any more than Fox . They are covering up the U.S. backed attack on Somalia , killing hundreds , many arrested at borders and turned over to U.S. intelligence for " interrogation ", goes unreported .
But what Obama said , what Hillary said , What Romney said to reporter , gets BEAT TO DEATH nonstop in CNN's contrived ": news" , including too many opinions, too many speculations , and very little NEWS .
Here's an oldie but goodie ....
"Jordan was full of indignation that I had somehow compromised the reputation of CNN. But in the course of our conversation it turned out that yes, CNN had hosted a total of five interns from US army psy-ops, two in television, two in radio and one in satellite operations. Jordan said the program had only recently terminated, I would guess at about the time CNN's higher management read Abe de Vries's stories. - Counter Punch .
Well, I'm NOT a fan of the dynasty aspect of the Clinton run,
and god knows their tendency to surround themselves with
the likes of Mark Penn, Dick Morris et all makes me wince,
I would still support her in the general (with a closepin on my
nose and some disinfectant wipes after I push the touch screen)
But, the real bit of information the democrats should take
away from this is, the Clintons are imaged in the press already,
and it's mostly a negative issue?
It goes from slight dislike, over at CNN, to outright loathing with
Tweety.
Only Keith seems to give her a fair shake.
So, like it or not, that is just another hurdle she will have to
clear in the fall, especially if she is running against St. John,
whom they give every possible break to?
McCain cheated on his first wife, dumped her for a rich second wife,
his Keating Five Scandal, instead of that being brought up, the media
is quick (at least, outside of Faux and the Hannity crowd) to jump
to his immediate defense at the slightest hint of bias.
Yes, I prefer Obama, but it's true, he's a relatively clean slate,
and, the media will tread lightly about trashing him lest they be
accused of racism.
This is just facts, people, and something the Hillbots will NEVER
acknowledge, if you ask them.
Just like her HUGE negatives outside of her core base.
Yes, I think she has voted for political expediency, for the AUMF,
and for Kyl Libermann...
But, she would STILL be better in the WH then McCain.
But, unlike her Rabid Supporters, I'm unwilling to jam my head
in the sand just because the media is unfair to her and pretend
that's not how it is, and nothing can change it?
They are, and they are going to be in the fall, face up to it?
I would prefer a candidate not dragging a boat anchor, so I
prefer Obama or Edwards.
Sure, the Velvet Shiv remark was probably unfair.
But, it's not going to get any better for her in the general,
no matter if we think she is treated unfairly.
"Velvet Shiv?" Sounds tame, somewhat poetic. Could be racially insensitive if used about African-Americans (due to prison stereotype), but Hillary Rodham Clinton is white. There's no issue here. You're over analyzing as usual, like some paranoid lunatic.
Besides, it's CNN!
Nicole Belle @ 48:
here
and
here
plenty of people seemed to have picked up on a certain tone from certain (not ALL) C&L contributors in favor of one conservative Senator representing the great state of New York
as has been mentioned before by others, there's no real shame in having a bias toward any one candidate, but denying it up and down when it's so blatant comes of as rather disingenuous
Everyone knows who's CL behind. So, how about to just cut the crap ?
Maybe you don't like the reporting Crowley and the rest of them are doing but all of this stuff that I am reading, you're just repeating what they are reporting.... They told how charming that George Bush, how we would like to drink a beer with him... Now they are telling us how charming Obama is and if we could just see him in person... Who wants a beer with George now?
Candy Crowley was hired by CNN after her stint as Miss Piggy when the Muppet Show was cancelled.
Isn't the proper term 'shank'? I thought 'shiv' went out when they closed Alcatraz?
crowley was one of the main reasons voters didn't know anything about george w's past when he was running in 2000. it seemed like her reports were written by karl rove.
Marge @ 54:
Whether it's deserved or not, Hillary is one of the single most divisive figures in American politics today. The media thrives on conflict and spectacle. What did you expect? Thanks to politicians of all stripes Republican and Democrat alike, "journalists" no longer have a duty to serve the public interest and the media system in this country is a joke. Corporate interests, for the reasons cited in my post above, overide all else.
Quit whining and supporting politicians who are agents of the status quo and the entrenched corporate interests and start striking at the root causes.
Also, what "lies" about Clinton you are referring to? There is plenty not to like without having to resort to lies. Her life-long series of pro-war stances. Even after it became apparent that there were no WMD and Iraq's alleged ties to al-Qaeda were bogus, she was unapologetic in her rabid support for the war in Iraq. It was only after it became apparent that her steadfast support for the war in Iraq was going to be a problem politically that she started modifying her position, which could still be described as supporting the military occupation of Iraq. Her crass, finger-to-the-wind, "triangulating" Macheavellian style. The fact that she is in the pocket of unsavory characters and lobbies (defense contractors, investment banks, Rupert Murdoch, insurance lobby, big Pharma lobby, Telecom lobby, the all war all the time Israel lobby). Notice how she weaseled her way out of addressing this issue when the question of these unsavory ties were put to her in the recent debate by answering a different question than the one that was asked. The lack of respect for the constitution demonstrated by her voting (or lack of voting) record. What's to like? The fact that she has a pulse and a vagina and calls herself a Democrat? If you are a Hillary supporter, you should be thankful that the media chooses not to play up the fundamental problems with her candidacy and focuses on the trivial instead.
Candy was hungry and grumpy...and hungry.
Radian @ 68:
'Shiv' is the noun, 'shank' is the verb
ms. crawly is as disgusting both mentally and physically as Jabba the Hut. her verbal affectations make me want to vomit.
I don't care one way or the other regarding Crowley . What IS important, is that this is the second time the clintons are involved in vote supression. Any one remember Iowa ?
Marge @ 55:
Well, don'tcha know, that's because "Dr. Feelgood" Obama is writing the final verse of Kumbaya, so all Americans, of all colors, all religions, all sexual orientations and political persuasions, can come together and join hands and *BAM one another with feelings of goodness and light and hope and change and .... oh, dear, excuse me, I'm getting all teary-eyed over here just thinking of what lies at the end of the Yellow Brick Road that Dr. Feelgood is laying down for American voters. Bless his heart.
*BAM - passing on the super delicious cool vibes from an encounter of the first kind with Obama's handshake as you shake the hand of the person beside you, who then passes on that BAM feeling by shaking hands with the person next to him or her, and so on, and so on, et cetera, ad nauseam.
I'm not a fan of Crowley....In fact she often makes me want to puke, but Hillary IS doing exactly what she said. Those of you who support Hillary are almost as blind as the repubs that supported Bush. I'm ready to be let down by someone new.
Bush
Clinton
Bush
ANYONE ELSE (except the batshit crazy GOP candidates...)
Shivs n' shanks, shanks n' shivs...catchy!
Seeing these last quotes, remindes me of how the left laughed
off Reagan, how could a lame actor, slow, seemingly dumb, win
the election.
He not only won the election he dragged the country to the right
for 50 years.
So, anyone with a brain read the comments Barack was making
about Reagan and got it.
Despite Taylor Marsh et all going on a rant.
Reagan almost single-handely made "Liberal" a dirty word.
He SOLD the ideas of the Reagan revolution to the public
and created new voting groups that STILL hold today.
Yeah, the southern strategy was absoutely reprehensible,
but Obama is talking about a SouthWest and Western Strategy
with New Immigrants and the Unions?
Why do you think the NEW unions went his way, why the old
line unions, like the Teachers, stuck with the Clintons.
It's the old vs the new, and the New will always win eventually.
Obama is saying, just maybe, the time is right to transform
politics to the progressive side in that same way?
Of course. we can just have a re-run of the 90s with Bill
and Hill in charge?
Except, THIS Time, Intel and Microsoft are NOT going to be
around to pump the economy sky high, the next President
is walking into a 10 billion dollar a month war and Recession
with a healthy does of Stagflation!
Hillary and Bill will try to "triangulate" their way out of it, with
Penn and the rest of the DLC making sure they walk THE DLC
party line.
She MAY indeed get the nomination with the same old playbook.
And, if the Republics are dumb enough to nominate anyone but McCain
she probably will win, certainly against Huck-a-buck or Willard.
But, she is a one-term president, sadled with a terrible backlog
of problems handed to her by Frat boy....
WashStateBlue @ 78:
i couldn't have said it better myself.
i'd only add that goat-boy mark penn's going to get his just desserts... and boy will it be fun to be a spectator.
it seems a bit incongruous for the clinton team to complain about perceived sexism, when we know they're planting stupid questions like, "diamonds or pearls?" in audiences.
I'm pretty sure it was Crowley who used the phrase, "The failed Clinton Presidency..." before he was inaugurated in 1993.
yellow dog @ 81:
the clinton presidency WAS a failure.
nafta sold out america, ruby ridge and waco were evil, clinton lied under oath and cost the american taxpayers 40 million dollars, and gore, the best democrat of his generation, lost, at least partly, because of it all.
change, baby. CHANGE.
no more G**damn bushes, no more G**damn clintons. this is america, home of thomas jefferson, benjamin franklin, abraham lincoln, saul bass, alfred hitchcock and many more. we can do BETTER.
america:
home of errol flynn, susan b. anthony, orville wright, thomas edison, eleanor roosevelt, walt disney, walter cronkite, annie oakley, jfk and george washington.
no more G**damn bushes, no more G**damn clintons.
this is america, we can do a HECK OF A LOT BETTER than these two narcissistic dynasties.
crowley may not use that expression on anyone else, but then again the Clintons stand apart for their arrogance, entitlement and corruption and deception. too bad for the dems if the corrupt duo get the nominatioin. it will be a very morman eight years.
Travis @ 64:
Travis, you need to learn your ass from your elbow, with all due respect. Your first link was Will Bunch, not me. I just linked his blog. And to my knowledge, there wasn't anything specifically pro-Hillary in it. But since reading comprehension seems to be an issue with you, I'm not surprised.
The second was coverage of the winner of the primary's speech. That's a legitimate postworthy subject for a political blog. You do understand that's what we do, don't you? (actually, it's quite clear you don't.) I also wrote up Barack's speech. But yet you don't accuse me of being pro-Obama. Maybe because you don't know who I'm supporting but ASSUME (and we all know what happens when you assume) since I'm not tearing into Hillary with every post that I must be pro-Hillary.
Again...wrong. But that's okay. You live in your overly-simplistic little world where everything has to be a hate on for Hillary.
Let me make this clear to you: reporting on a candidate DOES NOT EQUATE to endorsing said candidate. Nor does NOT reporting on a candidate equate with NOT endorsing said candidate. We report on media framing. Misogyny--which you appear to have more than a little bit of yourself since you called me out of all the contributers here--has figured into the framing of this race. I report on it. I have not nor will I publicly endorse a candidate.
jon @ 65:
Same challenge, cowboy. If you know so much, tell us who all of us are supporting. I promise you you have no idea.
Obama is running against two people -- Billary. The two of them, Bill and Hill, take both sides of an issue because they don't really stand for anything anyway. That way they can be everything to everybody. So how would this co-presidency work??????
The way the mainstream media and the liberal media (blogs like HuffingtonPost) display
rampant contempt for Senator Clinton reminds me of "Hate Week" in "1984".
The corporate media leading the masses.
Travis @ 64:
Plenty of people believed in WMDs too. Lots of people thought going into Iraq was OK. Many people still believe it's OK to be in Afghanistan, and that there was nothing wrong with going there in the first place.
It used to be a lot of people thought the world was flat, and that the heavens revolved around it.
Time and study proved them all wrong. And time will prove those who still think action against Afghanistan is okey-dokey, are wrong as well.
And if you'd go back and read the examples you cite as Nicole's support for Senator Clinton, study the language and read for comprehension and understanding, you will find yourself as well as the 'plenty of [anonymous] people' you cite above are wrong too.
There is something up with that entire fucking network. I have started watching (or having it on in the background) CNN and was trying to keep track of the number of negative comments they made about Hillary Clinton and I couldn't keep track. Sometimes they came three in one sentence.
The execs that run this network are certainly aware of this and I assume support it. While I am a huge fan of Obama, yet a Clinton supporter, I think the press is going to wait until he gets the nomination AND then rip him a new asshole and we democrats will end up getting beat.
That is why it is important for blogs like this to call out these fuckers and throw the shit back in their face.
Nicole Belle @ 86:
Ross Perot!!
WashStateBlue @ 78
I'd add that if she wins, the dem gains in congress will be wiped out by no later than 2012.
Back to the future.
---
ROM Spaceknight @ 82
the clinton presidency WAS NOT a failure.
the clinton presidency WAS a Democratic Party President failure because he forgot that the people on the left want their president to represent the people first.
----
Crowley was right if anyone was really paying some less biased attention they could see it. Even on the PBS newshour tonight Brooks & Shields talked about bills role in the campaign and the words cheapened and demeans were spoken and not both by Brooks.
PBS Brooks & Shields on Bill
---
I had wondered why before the NH primary when some of the clinton's dirty tricks were talked about on both Hardball and Coundown they weren't being posted here. And lately even why some of the other stuff hasn't been here.
Now I know why.
-
all these "journalists"(yeah...I know).....seem to have an over inflated ego...............fools.
I know what's behind C & L...the letters B & K! (insert rimshot here)
Bill Clinton's experience with the republican congress led to a change in the US jobs market and manufactring sector. Heck, one reason we're getting kicked now is NAFTA.
Hey, let's vote Hill in again. We haven't been punked enough.
Sometimes the blogs are onto the truth before any MSM picks up, or has the courage to either research or aggressively report sonething other than a rip and read poll number. Poll numbers? What do they mean? It means no reporter had to sweat to read their computer.
Fer example, Bill Clinton gets upset about Obama and Reagan? He needs to ask his wife what she means as well. If they're talking, on the anniversary of the whole Monica thang.
Loved the bits on Daily Kos
Obama's quote that Hillary had trouble hearing...
"I think it’s fair to say that the Republicans were the party of ideas for a pretty long chunk of time there over the last 10-15 years in the sense that they were challenging conventional wisdom."
And another little tidbit DK uncovered....
"So what did Hillary Clinton tell the Salmon Press editorial board? Apparently, nothing different than what Obama said.
But no president can do it alone. She must break recent tradition, cast cronyism aside and fill her cabinet with the best people, not only the best Democrats, but the best Republicans as well.. We’re confident she will do that. Her list of favorite presidents - Washington, Adams, Jefferson, Lincoln, both Roosevelts, Truman, George H.W. Bush and Reagan - demonstrates how she thinks. As expected, Bill Clinton was also included on the aforementioned list.
The hypocrisy of the Hillary campaign is almost overwhelming, trying to score cheap political points from the exact same things she's been obviously telling editorial boards herself."
Nicole Belle @ 86:
Nicole, it's ok that you or CL have your favorite(s). It's not a sin or a crime. But, for the love of God, drop the act and the fake outrage! You're a bit feisty today, aren't ya!
jon @ 98:
Sorry pal, it's put up or shut up time. I'm tired of being accused of something that I am not guilty of because of your own biases.
Either show me where I've EVER displayed a preference for Hillary Clinton or stop making the accusations.
Nicole Belle @ 99:
You're making this way too easy, Nicole! The funny thing is: I have never accused you of displaying a preference for Hillary Clinton or any other candidate namely! What a coincidence it must be that you chose to name Hillary!
jon @ 100:
Oh, aren't you the clever one. I got you confused with Travis who DID infer Hillary if you bother to read up thread.
The challenge stands. You don't know who I support and you can't say who Amato supports either.
Put up or shut up.
Nicole Belle @ 101:
Oh I know alright! I just won't say :)
jon @ 102:
I call bullshit. Obviously, you're all talk and no action.
No more questioning my biases and no more claiming extra-sensory powers to know who anyone here is supporting. Because if you do, I'll link right back to this thread and show one and all that you're full of it.
Nicole Belle @ 103:
If that makes you happy, you can call bullshit all you want! You can bullshit too, how about that ? Whatever I say, you can always say I am wrong. There is no guarantee! But hey, we're all good people! There's no need to embarrass anyone here!
No, excuse me? You come to where I work and insult me and you think there's no need to embarrass anyone? WTF?
We work extremely hard to leave our personal leanings out of the posts we make here. Every single one of us. And there hasn't been a day that goes by that I don't have some jerk screaming that I'm obviously a shill for some other candidate because they don't perceive me as being properly damning of them BECAUSE OF THEIR OWN PERSONAL BIASES. Not mine. Theirs. Because they want me to voice their agenda. So they project all sorts of bullshit conspiracies and accusations on me.
Sorry, I'm a person too. I'm a professional and I work damn hard to be fair to all the candidates. My only agenda here is a progressive one and I'm sick and tired of smart asses thinking that they can accuse me of bias because I didn't display the one they wanted to read.
Here we go again.
kravitz @ 97:
Nicole Belle @ 105:
Now, now! It's Friday night and I don't want to get anyone upset here, let alone you Nicole! You see, I think you're helping me proving my point in some way. My point was simply a matter of principle: like you said, you're a professional but also a person, i.e. human. And as a human being, you have your own biases just like I do or anyone else on here does - unless perhaps you are some super-being, in which case I would gladly worship you! Again, bravo for all your good will and all your daily hard work to strive to remain objective and push for an overall progressive agenda. Really, I and a lot of people on here do appreciate that. However, this is a blog; and as such, you owe no one anything.
Regardless of how hard and sincerely you strive to be objective and put your biases aside, as you said you're human, biases often show in ways we never suspect. So, I still think I know who you're supporting. This is not to taunt you in any way, neither does it lessen or downplay your hard efforts of trying to be as objective as possible. Hence, I don't see any necessity to point out who "I think" you or John is supporting. It's no one's business but yours! Plus, who cares really!? I don't! Please don't confuse me with Travis!
Again, I'm a big fan of C & L...Happy Friday :)
Uh, oh. Nicole is on the war path.
pissed off patricia @ 7:
Exhibit A: She's the most hawkish of the 3 Democratic front runners
Exhibit B: She voted for the Iraq war
Exhibit C: She never apologized (like Edwards did) for her vote on the Iraq war
Exhibit D: She supports one http://youtube.com/watch?v=52NDBLxW8fI
Still, I don't think she is a true neocon. She would be a Republican if she were, but she sure acts like one sometimes.
Wow...the blinders that some hillary haters have on are amazing.
yea, she went on Tyra, why, I don't know...but Obama is going on after her. So what?
And Tyler/Travis...your commenting on her voting record as a "neoliberal" must make Obama one also; his voting record (when he votes) is identical to Hillary's excluding 4 minor votes. He approached her 3 years ago for advice...and he says he got "good advice."
Before you try to analyze her record, don't forget Obama's.
J0sh @ 111:
lets face it hillary and obama are repigs and even at that they will cause us to loose the election!edwards or kucinich 08 , no more hogs that feed at big oild troughs!oink oink!
Crowley is totally inept as "analyst", and frankly biased (pssst--she's a Rethuglican, did you notice?). Where any journalist with integrity would separate personal opinions from reporting, Miss Candy stumbles ahead with her small-scope gee-whiz comments. For her the whole world is either Rethuglican (good) or bad guy.
If Hillary is treated hatefully by the media and people in general, it's probably because most people hate her. In my heart of hearts, I firmly believe that people are sick of the Bush/Clinton dynasty thingie and anyway they can jab at it they will. Give someone, anyone else a chance. These dynasties didn't invent governance.
Crowley has been kissing Bush family ass since W's daddy. She's been on the payroll for a very long time. I've been changing channels on her since the early 90's. I'm all for public campaign financing but we'll need an enormous media divestiture and overhaul as well. Nothing will be accomplished as long as these people keep dumbing down the rest of us.
Nicole Belle @ 105:
This is your job? How much does John A pay? LOL!
Will somebody please tell me what the hell a velvet shiv is???
hareli @ 47:
Agreed. A "velvet shiv" sounds like an admiring comment. If I'd use that phrase, and I could see myself using it, it would be when I was impressed by a candidate winning big points against another candidate with incredible subtlety. It's not gender-related in the least.
Hillary wants to take on the toughest job in the word and she definitely has the "ovaries" to do it. She doesn't need to be protected from the big bad meanies like she's some frightened "iittle girl". She can take the rough and tumble as well as Edwards and Obama.
On the other hand, I can't think of Clinton's presidential run as a victory for feminism, a step forward for women. She wouldn't be where she is if it weren't for Bill Clinton. I want my first female president to be a woman who made it on her own. I am uncomfortable with an Eva Peron.
"Rnadom Dude" and "Steve Charb" are chubby chasers!
Ruthless People @ 109:
yeah,and rightfully so..I have been trying to figure out who they(all of them here) are going to support and endorse...and I still haven't been able to figure who.some people just need to pitch a bitch about anything.
I've been writing comments for several years now that the continual and egregious assaults on Mrs. Clinton are eventually going to gain her more sympathy than opposition.
Already the Repocons and their media shills have pretty well run out of sensible criticisms and are now attacking her with such obvious BS that it just not working anymore.
My choice is Kucinich, who unfortunately doesn't stand a snow ball's chance. But if Hiliary survives both the assaults by the Dumbs, and the assaults and cheating by the Repocons, she will probably make a hell of a good President.
Comments are closed on this entry