Kurtz does Tweety
By John Amato Saturday Feb 16, 2008 9:10pmHoward Kurtz wrote a piece about Chris Matthews this week because of his bizarre anti-Hillary election coverage that has enraged most progressives that included a recap of events and quotes from Matthews, his guests and producers that are pro and con. It's the usual profile that spins it ever so favorably for a 5 million dollar a year Village Elder club member. Digby takes it apart in her usually insightful style.
"You know he's saying exactly what he thinks -- that's the whole trick. You know it's coming straight from his gut. That's what his appeal has always been."
Can someone explain to me when this became a more admirable character trait than being a decent person? I hear it all the time. "Well, he may be a racist and a child molester, but you know where he stands," as if being a straight-talking asshole somehow negates the fact that you are ... an a*&hole.
Update: When Matthews cries that the Clinton campaign goes after your kneecaps--he has an agenda to fulfill since he had to apologize for the venom that he spewed on a regular basis and he's not happy about it.
And when my pal John Aravosis endorses Tweety's positions by saying " Chris Matthews is still right"---well---I just disagree two times on that one.
Bob Somerby does a wonderful job also: "Kurtz shows the world how The Village profiles its own." As I read The Kurtzing piece, it just made me more aware of the fact that the media has been much harder on Hillary than on Obama. I guess that should have been expected since so many of today's reporters made their bones during Bill's presidency. Atrios links up a piece by John Heilemann---that discusses the surprisingly favorable coverage Obama. In response---Duncan writes:
I also think that while the press has been good to Obama, the press has been pretty damn good to every candidate with an R after their name. Obama's coverage may be strangely positive, but strangely positive for a Democrat.
I say surprisingly favorable too because he has a (D) attached to his name and as we've seen, even when McCain and Romney were calling each other liars, the MSM was virtually silent. I keep writing this point and I will continue to do so because on Howard's show today he brought up several segments about the favorable coverage for Barack---hint---hint everyone. They are laying the groundwork to do you know what. If Obama wins, I predict the gloves will come off---they will use the excuse of examining his record and McCrazy will be their anointed choice. The press will pivot and turn on him in a heartbeat. How much coverage have you seen by the media over McCain's pathetic pandering to the GOP base and his vote for torture? Kurtz did bring up this topic on Reliable Sources today. He agrees with us that the media was soft on McCain on this one.
"The New York Times" today has a story about this five days after the vote. "The Washington Post" did it yesterday. But most of the establishment media kissed it off.
Kissed it off. Do you think they would have done the same to Obama or Hillary? There would have been wall to wall coverage. (videos below the fold)
A flip flop of incredible proportions, but as the oily looking Jack Kemp told Alan Colmes. John was a POW---end of discussion--so just STFU.
COLMES: Secretary Kemp, he may have a problem with the general election. I presume you guys want to win a general election. And his appeal to independents and even some conservative Democrats is going to be hurt by the very thing he did this week, for example, when he voted against the Bill that says you use the Army field manual as a standard for interrogation techniques, even with the CIA, and he went against what he had previously said when he said the Army field manual should be the standard. And then he voted differently in the Senate this week, seemingly as a sop to the conservatives, to show that he's got these good conservative credentials. But that's going to hurt him in a general election. He went against everything he said about interrogation this week.
KEMP: Do you really -- do you really think, Alan, that John is going to have a problem with people who are worried about his heroism, his courage, his being a prisoner...
COLMES: No, that's not the issue I'm talking about.
KEMP: And his treatment of Guantanamo prisoners.
COLMES: No, I'm not talking about him being a prisoner. Everybody respects what he did.
KEMP: I'm saying the American people are not going to debate the Army field manual for interrogation purposes. They're going to look at a bigger picture, Alan. And I think that's where he can reach out to independents, Reagan Democrats and men and women...
COLMES: They're going to look at whether he's consistent about the things he said and now whether or not, because he wants to gain the respect, trust, and love of the right wing of the party. Is he going to change the way he votes in the Senate and veer off the Straight Talk Express?
KEMP: I disagree with you on that. He's got enough moral power and influence with both conservatives and the middle of the spectrum to make that balance, get an equilibrium, and to reach across the aisle and even attract Democrats who might have voted for Ronnie Reagan back in the '80s.
What Kemp really is saying---do you think the Villagers will question McCain on his pro-waterboarding flip flop or any other matters of foreign policy and fighting terrorism? Let's face it, the media wants to get in there and have their say too. Just ask Mitt Romney. They hated him almost as much as the hard core conservatives hate McCain. And the CPACers were forced (because of their horrible candidates) to embrace Romney as the TRUE conservative on the campaign trail even though he once ran to the left of Ted Kennedy on abortion rights and gay rights. He even committed the ultimate conservative sin. He denounced Ronald Reagan. Check out the video below.
I agree with Digby and share her view about the media attacking our candidates. It is important that we call bulls*&t whenever the media does this. If you support Obama or Hillary, it's not an excuse to turn a blind eye when either of them is unfairly attacked. Just because Matthews has no filter in his brain when he talks on teevee is no justification for his actions. Remember, he helped raise Malkin's profile when he shouted her down on Hardball after she made an outrageous claim that Kerry shot himself to get a medal in Nam. The right wingers rallied to her side. He was correct in his opinion, but his technique was so over the top that...well...you know the results.
When we talk about the media I don't mean if they focus their reporting on the latest polls (which is a problem) it's when they spread the smears. The ugly hasn't begun yet for Obama in the media. and I can feel it start to gear up now. The right wing has an incredible delivery system to inject slime and false narratives into the main stream media. Drudge will post a smear, Limbaugh will pick it up instantly and talk about it incessantly--Mark Haperin will pass it around to the Villagers---FOX will do specials on it and Wolf Blitzer when interviewing---will gives us the old "some people say" or "your critics have said" routine and validate that smear. I hope I'm wrong, but I fear I'm right. Remember, this isn't about who you support for president, but a systemic sickness that infests our entire media.
Login or Register to post comments.
Gossip. It would be cool to get a video montage of Chris Matthews Anti-Hillary slant if that's really the case. Otherwise he makes an awful lot of just plain dumb ass comments that would make for a good visual representation of what level our press has been functioning at the last 7 or so years. Peace.
They aren't being hard on Hillary. They are basically running free ads for her by labeling Democrats who do not support her as creepy cultists.
We need to stand up against Clinton's cynical new strategy. ANY candidate who attacks people for voting with enthusiasm and passion deserves to be canned. But a candidate who disses voters in her own party deserve special scorn.
It is simply disgusting to label the tidal wave of young democrats who have flooded into the party to support Obama's candidacy "creepy" because you happen to be losing. And from a purely strategic standpoint, how many of these "creepy" voters are going to vote for her in the general election? Nobody seeking to be elected democratically should mock the electorate.
I wish the people would tell Clinton that her game is bad for the party.
In other news.. Dallas Morning News Does Sibel
The establishment's secret fear of Hillary Clinton that she might act as her heroine Eleanor Roosevelt, to implement a post modern New Deal that would oppose austerity measures against programs that help the poor. That she would fund essential public services, like hospitals and schools, and provide universal health care available to all. The greatest fear is that she might act like FDR to now start regulating the markets starting with a 1% Tobin tax which could eliminate the income tax burden for everyone earning less than $125,000 year with plenty of money to fund the basic social programs of a civilized and truly decent society.
(Ouote)
That's the exact same line the Corporate Media talking heads use to boost Bush (and McCain) to try to make them appear authentic. Kurtz can't even come up with anything new, just recycled spin to justify the unwarranted and relentless attacks by his colleagues on the Democrats.
Remember, the Corporate Media have a vested financial interest in keeping Republicans in power. They want total control of the FCC to push through even more deregulation on media ownership restrictions. It's all about the corporate bottom line.
All I can say that this is a generational thing. Most of the media editors are in their twenties during the 60s. In the 60s, liberalism is an F-word, they defies order, creates all sorts of demonstrations and chaos. The republicans are the guys that respect order, the church and authority. They are the ones who wears the business suits, sat down with their family and goes to church every Sunday. Whereas the liberals, are the hippies, snorts cocaines, sing lots of tunes and causes a ruckus that is too often and too much.
It's not a wonder that most media editors pay the Republican candidates a blind eye, because the Republicans are the darlings of the 60s. Most of media editors wants to emulate their success. After all, no one wants to be called a hippie amongst their circle.
BigTobacco @ 2:
No, they're not running with that crap for Clinton's sake, they'll do it to every and any Democratic candidate for the reason I stated above. They are also engaged in a systematic attempt to divide the Democratic party along racial and gender lines. It's a voter suppression strategy. Don't be fooled.
As far as the media and right wing strategy against Senator Obama, this is a clue to what they plan to do this fall.
Focusing on Barack Obama’s “inexperience” and “undisciplined messaging” are two ways to ensure that the senator from Illinois doesn’t get to be president, according to honchos at the Republican National Committee.
full article from politico.com
Obama's already said he will not be swiftboated. I agree we have to call the media out on bs, and do all we can to prevent another 2004 and ensure a strong victory.
THANK YOU JOHN. Finally, a liberal blog that acknowledges how ridiculously obvious it is that coverage of Hillary has been much more negative than Obama. It makes me quite sick - it feels lately the MEDIA decides who the nominee is. Look what they did to Howard Dean. Is it too much to ask for the MSM to be neutral and let the American people decide? Christ....even blogs like Huffpo, Dailykos - and groups like MoveOn have gotten way too big for their own britches. While they used to be alternative avenues for people to get news and opinions - now they have more of a blatant agenda of their own, making them just as bad as the MSM imho.
Of course the media will turn on a dime to attack Obama. The media represents the status quo and anything that threatens their pampered and priviledged positions is a threat. They will tear Obama down as effortlessly as they have put him on a pedestal. Until there are consequences to pay that is their nature. They are scorpions that care little for the nation and care merely for themselves. Russert, Kurtz, Matthews, Hume, Wallace, Williams et al are a plague on the body politic.
Just supports the idea of getting computers with high speed internet access into every mansion, rancher, townhouse, apartment, trailer and cardboard box in the country.
"Hey, what was that bump?"
"Felt like an iceberg or something."
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=56626
Seth Cohen @ 9:
In case you haven't noticed, the Corporate Media has been going after Obama as well. I can give you plenty of evidence:
Slate Editor calls Obama speech style Fascistic
http://rawstory.com/news/2007/Slate_editor_calls_Obama_speech_style_0204...
CNN repeats smear of Obama supporters as cultish/creepy
http://mediamatters.org/items/200802150018?f=h_latest
Coulter links Obama to Saddam
http://mediamatters.org/items/200802150002?f=s_search
Fox News radio host compares Obama to Hitler
http://mediamatters.org/items/200802130016?f=s_search
The Corporate Media holds no favorites among the Democratic candidates. Both Clinton and Obama are fair game. Don't be fooled into thinking that these attacks a being generated by either campaign. It's a strategy coming out of Karl Rove's playbook to divide the Democratic party and soften up either candidate way before the general elections. There has long been a symbiotic relationship between the Corporate Media and the Republican party. For the Media, it's about their bottom line and which party gets to control the FCC.
So if we use the assumption that Matthews is speaking from his gut, he wants to:
1) Be Fred Thompson's bitch
2) See what was inside George W Bush's codpiece when he landed on the ACC
3) Have Tom Delay's love child
4) Have Ann Coulter whip him
5) Be Rudy's 4th wife
6) Wash Mitt Romney's hair
I could go on forever, this is too easy!
That Obama/Sinclair story has been out there for a while. Disgusting.
They just started to go after him. You ain't seen nothing yet.
GonzoD @ 14:
lol
why the hell would progressives be offended by Matthews' "anti-Hillary" comments? Hillary is not a progressive.
The NY Times today had an op-ed by Nicholas Kristof ("The World's Worst Panderer") about McCain's pitiful performance as a panderer. He can't even do that convincingly!
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/17/opinion/17kristof.html?_r=1&hp&oref=sl...
This defense of Chris Matthews recalls the initial closing of the wagons in defense of Don Imus. One of the defenses at that time was you know white guys and what they are really thinking. All Imus is doing is letting it hang out a little. Hey I am a white guy and I was brought up not to think about people in terms that when they come out, I would sound like Don Imus. Hey, I am not perfect and am a bundle of prejudices but I check myself and try to controls these prejudices by reminidng myself of real liefe experiences and reason. I expect journalists, of all people, to do better than me.
The MSM and pundits were taking their best shot at Hillary because she was the presumed nominee, with the rest of the pack being a bunch of no-news also-rans. It will take them a while to shift gears and wrap their tiny little heads around the new reality of Obama-as-candidate. All in all, a very good thing.
John Amato @ 15:
Its gonna' get ugly. Of course Duke Nukem McCain will be out of the line of fire.
First, let me say that I am an Obama supporter. However, I started out undecided between Clinton and Obama. I do not think that the press has been one sided during the campaign. It is largely because of the way that the campaigns have been waged that I now support Obama. He has taken the high road and in doing so inspired new voters and non-Democratic Party voters. Both Bill and Hillary have repeatedly taken the low road and it has cost them support. True the press is often infuriating, but as far as Hillary and Barack are concerned, they have also been reflective of the kind of campaigns that each side has waged.
17 nodynasties Says:
"why the hell would progressives be offended by Matthews’ “anti-Hillary” comments? Hillary is not a progressive."
Because i am offended by the distortion of the issues that leads people to make uninformed decisions about who their elected leaders will be. I am offended by the lies, the smears and the manipulation. I am offended that you should even ask that question.
Perhaps the coverage of Hillary has been far more negative because her whole campaign is surrounded by negativity. It's contagious.
There's a perception out there that Obama hasn't been put through the ringer yet or some shocking skeleton still remains in the closet. Has there ever been another Presidential candidate that has had to face the onslought of a popular 2-term ex President from his own party? If Obama were to buckle, it would have already happened.
Obama's coverage media coverage has been fair to favorable because, at his core, he is a normal and decent person. When he's interviewed he actually tries to answer the question. What interviewer wouldn't appreciate that?
In my comment above (#18), I forgot to mention that the reason Kristof gives for the poor job of pandering is that McCain is so very principled (heh!) So not negative on McCain, but I found it amusing none the less.
xoites defends Constitution @ 11:
But a minimum number of condos, a condo-minimum.
:)
xoites defends Constitution @ 23:
I agree.
Yup, buckle your seatbelts, it's going to get really rough come the general elections. I used to work for a press-clipping agency and read every single newspaper in two states during the 2004 elections. I noticed some real weirdness that was far too formulaic to be coincidental. One was that many papers ran Dick Morris' column under the title "From the Left" opposite the like of Bill O'Reilly and other conservative columnists. Another tactic was formulaic "I Used to be a Democrat" letters that all spouted the same right wing talking points against Democrats. I expect we'll see a lot of these blaming whichever Democrat that wins the nomination for alienating them and motivating them to for for the "moderate maverick" John McCain. The Republicans have a well oiled media outreach machine and a synergistic relationship with the Corporate Media. It's their mouthpiece. It matters little the political persuasions of reporters, it's who owns the media and who the editors are that makes the difference. Other than in rare exceptions, the owners and editors are Republicans.
unfrozencaveman @ 24:
Still cold.
27 John Amato Says: xoites defends Constitution @ 23:
17 nodynasties Says:
“why the hell would progressives be offended by Matthews’ “anti-Hillary” comments? Hillary is not a progressive.”
Because i am offended by the distortion of the issues that leads people to make uninformed decisions about who their elected leaders will be. I am offended by the lies, the smears and the manipulation. I am offended that you should even ask that question.
I agree.
=============
I take that as a high compliment.
I will take this opporturnity to commend C&L for doing their best to present the issues and expose the crap around this campaign while staying nuetral on the candidates. I know you must have a prefered candidate but i can't tell who it is and that is the highest form of journalism one can attain.
Hillary Clinton is as much a Crook and Liar as any of the Republicans.
Why the folks who run this website do not acknowlege this fact is
beyond me. People are rallying around Obama because there is at
least a chance that he is not. And that's a chance worth taking.
xoites defends Constitution @ 30:
Thank you. Primary season is very difficult to say the least.
unfrozencaveman @ 24:
The interviewer might be appreciative, but the news should not be influenced by this.
The media just loves McCain's access. Will you feel happy if he gets better coverage than Obama because he doesn't allow them as much access as McIraq?
great effort to hold the mainstream media accountable. we are going to have to if we plan on taking back America for the people.
nodynasties @ 17:
Exactly, thank you.
On what planet is Hillary Citicorp Clinton a progressive?
Sorry John, but I don't think you are right this time. Maybe in 4 years if Obama wins the Dem candidacy and becomes Prez, then ya, the smear campaign will be huge. But this time? No, don't think so. Why do I feel that way? Well, watching from the sidelines, I see the NeoCONs know it matters not who they run, they've lost the WhiteHouse after the 8 year Bush disaster. They know that the electorate (well except for that 30% idiot quotient) has caught on to their BS. They read blogs. They've figured out what is going on and I think they are more than happy to give up the WhiteHouse for 4 years. Hell, even though there are more Dems in CONgress than Repubs, Repubs still control it. I just don't see them attacking Obama the same way. Even Dems are split on their hatred of the Clintons, so it is no surprise the media has jumped onto that.
About Digby's comment on Tweety. I think the phenomenon might have started in 1968. At the Democratic National Convention a young reporter (Dan Rather, as I recall) asked a black delegate who he was going to vote for to be the party's nominee. Much to the reporter's surprise, the delegate said "George Wallace." The reporter then asked, "Why not Hubert Humphrey?" To which the delgate replied that he would vote for Wallace "because I know where he stands." Humphrey evidently had flip-flopped way too much in the delegate's opinion to be trusted. I agreed, but I preferred to vote for Pigasus rather than Wallace, Humphrey or Nixon.
John Amato @ 34:
#96 :)
Thanks for this piece. The regulars who visit this website do their best to be informed about the candidates, but the rest of the country get their information from the MSM. I so wish the MSM would just back off and let Democrats decide who we want to represent our party and let us have intelligent and informed discussions about it. The MSM has stolen that from us already by tainting their reporting so that our only choices are not our choices, but the choices the media has made. The same holds true of the Republican nominee. The MSM decided long ago that McCrazy would be the Republican nominee and the other guys never had a chance.
It still makes me want to hurl when I think what they did to John Edwards. He had so much to contribute to the discussion, and they just obliterated him by ignoring him. What a huge loss to our country.
Jack Kemp may want to 'calm' down about his friend, John McCain. If McCain had been really angry and disgusted with GWB, as he really should have been and shown it at that debate, in 2000 in SC, then perhaps he would've been the GOP nominee and perhaps president. This country would've been spared the petulant brat drunken moron frat boy that currently occupies the job. But he weakly didn't finish W and Rove and cheney at that debate and so this country has suffered a great deal because of W and his staggering inadequacies as president. yes, in a way it is McCain's fault that W is there. Fault lies mainly with the GOP for picking Bush and the people for electing him, but sadly McCain is also culpable for W's existence as president. the McCain of 2000 was the best example not the old sellout we in 2008. he wants that job so much, its amazing and disgusting to see what hes had to sacrifice in order to presumably get it. sorry, sir, the future is going to get in the way of that 'dream' being realized, and it's embodied by Barack Obama. you're done. if it takes an election and a loss for you to realize that, well too bad. thanks for not 'finishing' Bush and sparing us this disaster of the last 8 years. i dont forgive you for that. never. this coming November you'll rightly deserve your electoral loss. oh, and thank your for your service.
34 John Amato Says: The media just loves McCain’s access. Will you feel happy if he gets better coverage than Obama because he doesn’t allow them as much access as McIraq?
You're absolutely right about McCain! The press loves him because he talks to them. Same thing happened in 2000. Bush entertained the press and they didn't write anything bad about him! They couldn't line up quick enough to stick the knife in Gore's back.
"I knew Jack Kemp. Jack Kemp was a friend of mine. You sir are no Jack Kemp." LOL.
John Amato @ 33:
Well John, it seems that the job you do is exactly what is needed: a logical, factual counterbalance. Don't let the compliment go to your head. :)
If I recall correctly, Chris Matthews really wanted Hillary to pass up a run for the presidency and stay in the senate to become majority leader - thought she had the potential to be the best/most effective ever. Obviously, she ignored his advice and I think he's been mad at her ever since.
John Amato @ 34:
there's a difference: Barack has the example of faux and now knows he must guard himself.
McLame has no such impediment.
Judy Keller @ 45:
chrissie is into his man-crushes. there's no way he'd ever be favorable to anyone who won't wear aqua-velva.
Proud2bHumble @ 39:
Keep the list...That was too funny yesterday...
For some reason I can't quote other comments, oh well.
unfrozencaveman @ 24:
You say that Hillary's campaign is surrounded by negativity and that Obama is a normal, decent person.
Let's assume that you are correct.
I have one question, how do you know that?
Is this opinion formed by what the media is telling you, or do you have personal knowledge of the candidates?
I'm not trying to be a smartass, I just want to figure this out.
wild_idea @ 6:
I certainly do.
"On what planet is Hillary Clinton a progressive?"
Uh, that would be this one, dude. Or dudette.
Take health insurance.
Hillary = universal health care for all. [progressive stance, since 1992]
Barack = kids only covered. [timid centrist stance]
Hel-lo? Who's totally blind to who's progressive and who isn't?
Unless you're a Karl Rove operative, it would be good to look at the actual positions of candidates on actual issues. If you can get past the "hope! new! shiny! new!" media whore media spin. Seems to be too much to ask.
amazing that the media hammer has not fallen, yet.
What if there's no THERE there?
We know that lies will be forthcoming but if they don't hold up, what then?
Must we always assume that there is a skeleton in the closet?
what if there really isn't a skeleton?
what if there really isn't, if there's nothing to find?
John Amato @ 48:
Thanks!! I have a passion for dispassionate discourse...and funny shit.
"The Republicans are the darlings of the 60s."
What are you smoking?
Which 60s are those? The ones that Cheney and Rummy and Bubble Boy Boy lived in?
Dead wrong. In the 60s, they were living in the 50s.
And still are.
“On what planet is Hillary Clinton a progressive?”
How about the freeze on home foreclosures and the the interest rates?
GonzoD @ 55:
you say that after checking out her derriare.
John,
Obama didn't spring full-blown from under a rock. The Chicago Tribune has been covering him for 12 years. There's lots of ink. Especially during the time when he lost to Bobby Rush. Do a Lexis-Nexis search. The Clinton opposition research team have been digging for over a year. Here's the Trib's endorsement of him.
You write, "They are laying the groundwork to do you know what. If Obama wins, I predict the gloves will come off—they will use the excuse of examining his record and McCrazy will be their anointed choice."
I dont think so. [I have a 25-cent bet with you that says I'm right.] This is a momentous year. It will be Middle America that picks the President. Not California, as the current Flyover primaries and caucases show. If Obama wins the nomination, Middle America will vote in stunning record numbers. We have never had more than around 25% of the country voting in a presidential year. I predict that if Obama is the nominee, easily more than double that will vote, quite possibly 70%. It will look more like a Canadian election where more than 90% of the electorate in Quebec voted in the separation issue because it was important to them.
I think the press, for the time being, is looking around. Imus got trounced for his remarks. Bill Clinton has irreparably ruined his reputation in the tone deaf defense of his wife. The journos are terrified of making a faux pas because they know something is different now and they dont know what it is. They can't quantify it. Citizen anger is showing up in the voting booth. Even Murdoch has caught wind of it. When -- when -- did you last hear of 20,000 people filling a stadium to listen to a political candidate? Obama sensed that current and jumped on it. It's not the candidate doing this. It's the mood in this country. And this mood is fierce and fed-up.
56 CoIntelPro Says:
Not sure I get that.
let's tell the truth here for once:
Obama is a LIEbercrat. His voting record here! His website here!
Hillary is a LIEbercrat. Her voting record here! Her Website Here!
all the misrepresentations can be cleared up if the facts are available, huh?
GonzoD @ 58:
It's humor.
hareli @ 57:
I hear you, but I know our media all too well. Joe Klein, a cough, cough liberal pundit started the cult stuff. I'll bet you that quarter and I hope I lose.
60 CoIntelPro Says: GonzoD @ 58:
56 CoIntelPro Says:
Not sure I get that.
It’s humor.
Can't be, you had to explain it.
They're just kinder to Obama till Hillary is knocked off then they'll tear Barak a new one like you won't believe!
Obama cultists flood this board.
"Obama will be the voice of middle America." "He's a threat to the media (god, how laughable)." "He's a threat to the establishment." "He's more progressive than Clinton." "Clinton is like Karl Rove." I don't know how any group of people could be more out of touch with reality, except the 29 percenters. Obama must laugh his ass off every night, totally amazed you swallow this bullshit. Benny Hinn has got nothing on Obama.
Obama is a mainstream corporate shill, every bit as much as Clinton. The media loves him - he isn't a threat to anyone in power, most especially the Republican party. The Obama moonies, aided by the media, won't even let Clinton begin to deal with the incredible weakness of his candidacy - immediately they start yelling "Karl Rove" and "sleazy tactics." The only reason Obama is rising is the media enables him, and prevents any scrutiny. Clinton backs off because the new members of the Democratic party are the most pathetic wimps ever to enter the political arena, and the villagers play along. But they aren't going to play along for very much longer.
I wouldn't care, except that you guys will lose this election and seriously damage the party. In November, when we all say hello the President McCain, you'll pretend it's somebody else's fault we will be in Iraq for another hundred years.
now i really love to go to C&L, but there are serious problems in logic and in common sense with this post... lets examine a few of those examples
1. "I also think that while the press has been good to Obama, the press has been pretty damn good to every candidate with an R after their name. Obama’s coverage may be strangely positive, but strangely positive for a Democrat."
-Question: How can anyone say, with the notable exception of FOXNEWS, that the press has been favorable to the GOP in this election cycle! Its the same old arguement that is spun by both sides, that the press somehow favors the other side and shortchanges their side. And yet, it seems that most times I turn on TV, political analysts are admitting that the odds are greatly against the GOP in 2008. To take it from another angle, when we actually are getting some military progress in Iraq, the coverage about Iraq and the surge seem to misteriously disappear.
2. "The right wingers rallied to her side. [Chris Matthews] was correct in his opinion, but his technique was so over the top that…well…you know the results."
-Another Question: How exactly would you have handled the Malkin accusations? After seeing that clip, my respect for Matthews has to increase. He called her out on her ridiculous accustation, and the Right Wingers took it from there. I'd reckon that if most people were faced with that comment, they would have either cut her off (a common Bill O'Reilly tactic) or shouted her down. I like this blog, but too often they hold grudges against people and ignore the complete picture of a person. Does Chris Matthews have his flaws? Of course he does. But so does Keith Olbermann, and yet you never hear about those in this blog. In fact, he recently alluded to Bush as a facist. As a person of Jewish heratige, I take offense to that statement. Bush is one of the worst presidents ever, but to allude to him as a facist is not extreme, its simply wrong.
3. "When Matthews cries that the Clinton campaign goes after your kneecaps–he has an agenda to fulfill since he had to apologize for the venom that he spewed on a regular basis and he’s not happy about it."
-Maybe he does have some venom after the 1990's, but this statement shouldn't be gone after simply because.. its true. How else can you explain the Clinton distortion of Obama's willingness to debate, or his positions on heath care, or Hillary's ridiculous statement that "words are cheap," or even Bill Clinton's near-constant allusions to Jessie Jackson about Obama? They are all for her explicit political benefit. Not the Democrats political benefit, but her own.
Can this post, please. This blog should be above mediocre and biased posts like this one.
No Blood for Hubris @ 54:
Sweet. :)
That's what the press refuses to recognize. Meanwhile NYTimes has dropping circulation and subscriptions since adding KKKristol to the lineup that already has the delusional Brooks. So they just announced layoffs. All the numbers are worsening for the media and they still want to forcefeed a bunch of lies and venom to a dwindling audience.
You're right. No one gives americans credit for actually being outraged at what this country has become and who is responsible.
Obama has more votes than all the republicans combined and it's still not a major story.
80 precincts in NY register zero votes for Obama. and no outrage. not even here.
Republicans switching sides to vote for Obama. Still not a story.
More young people at the polls, people less likely to let race or gender be their deciding issue. No major story
You nailed it. Even if the media realized and acknowledged the current public outrage, they would shortly dismiss it as they habitually do.
They just won't acknowledge that people are tired of listening to parrots repeating lies.
GonzoD @ 62:
I know the sentence is too long for you.
Toast @ 64:
so who is/was your choice?
CoIntelPro @ 52 Says:
"what if there really isn’t a skeleton?
what if there really isn’t, if there’s nothing to find?"
I dunno, what if, maybe, John Kerry was really a war hero, no more a flip flopper than George Bush, and not the most liberal member of the Senate, and what if, maybe, there really isn't anything unAmerican about windsurfing? What if, just maybe, Al Gore never said he invented the internet, and didn't claim to be the person who started the Love Canal investigation, and when he wore a different blazer it was because he liked it, not because he was having an identity crisis? What if it so happened that John Edwards wasn't the ONLY candidate who spent alot of money on a haircut?
The way this stuff works: whatever the candidates strength is, make it a weakness. So, with Gore, the fact that he was promoted technology made him a joke because he "invented the internet." With Kerry, his war record was turned into a bogus controversy, and his long history in the Senate used as nothing more than fodder for misrepresentation.
There doesn't have to be anything to find.
I am happy that John is echoing sentiments I have expressed on this blog time and time again about this conspiracy against Hillary by the MSM.
What pains me more than anything is the fact that some people who are so "in love" with their preferred choice, are actually falling into the trap the MSM and Reps want us to be in. The way I see the level of abuse and venom directed at Hillary on this blog and elsewhere makes me believe that either you have Rep operatives now operating actively in liberal blogs or you have some overzealous folks coming into the process who seem to think that it's their preffered choice or nothing.
Senator Obama is NOT my preferred choice to be the Democratic nominee but I respect and admire him as a Democrat. I would never insult him the way some misguided people are insulting Hillary. Instead I would highlight why I think he is not ready to face the Reps.
Some of you newcomers seem to dislike Hillary because you say Barrack was against the war from the day one unlike Hillary. If he was So AGAINST the war, then why did he vote to CONTINUE funding the war in the Senate for three years running TO DATE? Doesn't that smack of a double standard to any impartial oberserver?
I want to say this again to those of you who are just coming into the political process for the first time. This is not about personalities. It is not a beauty contest. Our primary aim is to make sure a DEMOCRAT wins in November. This is serious business and your opponent has ALL the cards in their hands. If anyway we think we are just going to brush our way into the White House without a serious fight, then you are kidding yourself.
We need someone who they clearly don't want to face them like Hillary. Don't see you the stupid "polls" (some EIGHT MONTHS before the election) they regularly talk about on the major newspapers and tv networks (Clinton Vs McCain or McCain Vs Obama)?
If you are wise enough, you will clearly see which candidate they want to BAIT us into pushing forward.
Nice rundown.
But don't forget Bob Somerby's take on that Kurtz piece!
http://www.dailyhowler.com/dh021408.shtml
[Deleted. Abusive-Sitemonitor]
This glad mouth idiot is part of the problem.He like his Republican handlers has no honor;no truth for most of his reporting.I especially love it when he and other msm refer to joe klein as a liberal.See wolf blitzer`s interview with Charles Barkley for no other reason than it`s much funnier and honest then most msm reports that I have suffered through,but what the hell I learned how to suffer as a Catholic growing up in the 50s and 60s.I learned to accept suffering from my interest in Buddhism.I still don`t like it,so I don`t watch much msm crap
The bolded names do not deserve to be capitalized because they`re junk.
Matthews jumped down her throat the whole time and made her into the victim instead of John Kerry. That's what I mean. The Repubs are famous for playing the victim. It worked big time for her.
The MSM is as reliable in their story-telling as the Chimpy administration has been with their truth-telling .................
And Tweety Matthews is a ridiculous twit.
The Fourth Estate is crumbling. It's foundation rotted away by greed and corruption, the Barbarians breaking down the walls... Don't let the trapdoor to hell hit you in the ass on your way down,
Main
Stream
Motherfuckers
R.I.H.
*** GonzoD #55
What Clinton does not say is what i find disturbing.
She may be long on promises, but her policies come up short.
You think Hillary is progressive?
Let's start with a couple of corporations:
Hillary's ties to Monsanto:
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article19320.htm
Wal-Mart:
http://abcnews.go.com/Video/playerIndex?id=4221079
Home Foreclosures:
It is a "voluntary" freeze; it is not mandatory. Plus it would screw up the economy even worse.
Health Insurance:
First of all Universal = nonprofit. Hillary's health plan is not "universal" -- it is for-profit ... The insurance and health care providers are her largest contributors. You think she will fight them for the people?
The difference between the health plans: Obama wants to make health care "affordable" whereas Clinton's plan is mandatory. Mandating health care based on profit is not universal health care. Furthermore Hillary suggests fines or even garnishing wages of those not signed up.
The architecture of her plan is based on Massachusetts health plan which proved unsuccessful. Less than half of the previously uninsured signed up which led to skyrocketing costs for both the consumers, the state and the federal government.
Neither plan is perfect, but reducing costs for the individual and the government makes more sense because the insurance health care providers will never give up the profits -- not ever. Plus imagine what it would do to the economy!
Insofar as the right-wing attack machine do you really believe they don't have some goodies on the Clinton's? They have spent two years delving deep into their affairs (no pun intended). Whatever they found even if it is not that big of a deal it will be distorted and spun until it is unrecognizable.
Clinton claims she has been vetted, but some of her largest donors are either indicted or in jail. There is a long list -- including ties to Rezko.
http://www.tnr.com/politics/story.html?id=076fd56f-4aca-4683-a9d1-3c55d7...
http://www.margieburns.com/blog/_archives/2008/1/31/3497614.html
http://www.margieburns.com/blog/_archives/2008/2/2/3501879.html
Then there is the matter of Huge Kazakh's donation of approximately $31 million dollars to Bill Clinton's Library having to do with a mining deal, but it was scrubbed from MSNBC's site:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/22926743/
So taking anyone at face value comes at your own risk.
Do your homework.
John Amato @ 75:
Poeple generally become the victim when they`re victimized.I f you can make it work for you you`ve probably overcome it.Rethugs do a triangle thing where they play the victim,rescuer,and offender;sort of all at the same time.On that note good night.
You want to talk about who has STRONG TIES to Rezko?
You wouldn't even mention that if you were smart.
What time is the Hall of Mirrors Cult Meeting over?
Ommmmmmmm.
Toast @ 70:
John Kerry was handled by the same people who handles the repugs. see Carville and Matlin.
Even as a LIEbercrat, Obama has yet to show the signs of willful ignorance and weakness that plagued Kerry and Gore. So far.
The press is now trying the "inexperienced" card, while not acknowledging the "inexperience" of Hillary or the sheer idiocy of McLame.
It was the people whose outrage at the racist Clinton tactics made a difference, especially the African-Americans the Clintons thought to take for granted.
Women did NOT vote for Hillary in sympathy for the rightwing and media attacks.
you're right that the msm needs no facts to generate a smear. I contend that, as was stated earlier, the people will come down very hard on those liars, or maybe just continue to turn off their sets.
So far, and they've had lots of time, they have not found anything that has caught on, though we have a few id10ts who repeat the lies on the blogs.
BTW, I'm not a big Obama fan and I credit Obama's updated populist tone to the Edwards campaign and to Edwards' strong early showing. I generally won't trust a LIEbercrat for any reason, including Obama. But that's just me.
I'm posting this in the hopes that liberals will come down hard on the MSM when they really start on Obama.
serena1313 @ 78:
he/she/it never does homework.
John Amato @ 15:
But the problem with the story is the following: At that time, 1999, Obama was running for Congress against Bobby Rush. Rush's son was shot and killed around the 17th of October. Out of respect for Rush, Obama agreed not to campaign for two weeks. They began re-campaigning the first week of November 1999. I think Sinclair claims sex, drugs, and rock n' roll during the second week of November. There are campaign records of his appearances; others who were with Obama in a public capacity who can yay or nay. There would also be records of the campaign paying for limos, and the dates and times they were used.
I'm not saying that Sinclair didn't get BJs from a black guy in the back of a limo, but given Barack's local visibility then, claiming to be a candidate in a congressional race as a cover to a twit as low-rent as Sinclair appears is not difficult to imagine. :-)
John Amato @ 83:
That's exactly what I want to happen and will try to make happen. I sent out an email blitz of your post, of the Obama "Cult" references in the MSM, complete with links. I always advise direct engagement, especially with advertisers.
In answer to the question is your press biased, it most certainly is. There is no doubt that if you are not supporting a candidate and looking on as an observer, your media is so anti Hillary and pro Obama it is almost sickening. The claims of racism by the Obama camp were carried as gospel by the likes of CNN when indeed the comments were not racist at all. Hillary supporters were removed by CNN after numerous demands by the Obama campaign yet the likes of Roland Martin and every other Obama supporter were plastered hour after hour over every programme. Hillary gets trashed for her clothes, her hair, her voice, her husband while Obama never gets the scrutiny any other candidate would. But I guess no scrutiny and favourable treatment is better than the treatment of total neglect they gave to John Edwards. It just seems that even the discussion topics all start out with a negative premise for Hilllary and then it goes downhill from there. I am at the point now that our viewing of CNN is muted whenIi see the old regulars on because you just know what will be said. I am however astonished that the Republicans are getting a free pass too with almost no coverage of them. McCain is never questionned about his reverse on torture and waterboarding, Huckabee is treated as a shining knight coming to the rescue of the republican party even though he can't win and Romney got very little negativite coverage either. I rarely watch too many other channels other than Keith Olbermann at 8:00 on MSNBC and stick usually to CNN but I am afraid they are certainly a big disappointment to those of us who would like to see fair coverage of your candidates since your election does in some respect affect all of us even though not Americans.
Aravosis is a tool...
You look up the phrase "suck up" and you see his picture.
68 CoIntelPro Says: GonzoD @ 62:
I know the sentence is too long for you.
Yeah! It had words that had more than one syll-a-ble.
I just don't understand how one (e.g. John Aravosis) could make the argument that the press is excused from objective reporting just because the Clintons are mean to them. Shouldn't the fourth estate be held to a higher standard? No matter how badly they are treated, they have a duty to stay objective in their reporting. They do not, in John A's words, have to say "Screw you". If the press wants to retaliate, then join the Obama campaign.
Greg @ 65:
What distortion of his willingness to debate? He won't debate if he doesn't have to because as you watch the debates that is his weakness. He takes to long to think for words, he doesn't explain well and Hillary can talk circles around him when it comes to policy.
His positions on health care have been well documented by the NYT, I think in that 15M will be uninsured and that when they go to an emergency room they will be charged or forced to get insurance then. Sorry but what kind of medical plan that the democrats want sounds like this one which is what I would presume the republicans would put forth if they were forced to.
As for the words are cheap comment - When I watch the little of the rallies they show it is all words and not much substance of what he will do if elected President. It is more of a revival style meeting. And finally the Jesse Jackson comment made once by Cinton - that same topic was discussed on CNN about a week or two earlier and was also in an article on their website. Now I don't hear anyone yelling at CNN for being racist and mentionning Jesse Jackson and his wins in SC when he ran for President.
McCain and Hillary both want more war.
Yes, We've Lost Donors Because We've Protested a Rash of Clinton Surrogates Who Have Racialized the Nomination Contest. Help! It's Credit Card Crunch Time. Simply Put, BuzzFlash Needs to Receive Donations and Sell Premiums Reaching $25,000 by February 28.
"David Wright: What does it say about Barack Obama that it takes two of you to beat him? Bill Clinton: That's just bait, too. Jesse Jackson won South Carolina twice, in `84 and `88. And he ran a good campaign, and Senator Obama's run a good campaign here." That Was Bill Clinton Responding to Obama's Resounding Victory in S.C. Now Let's See, This is 2008. Since 1988, Bill Clinton won the S.C. Primary in 1992 and 1996; Al Gore in 2000; and John Edwards in 2004. Gee, We Wonder Why Bill Clinton Forgot to Mention Himself, Gore and Edwards, But Instead Compared Obama to a Candidate, Who Just Happens to be Black, Who Won the Race 20 Years Ago?
Oh Yeah, and Robert L. Johnson, the founder of Black Entertainment Television, who campaigned on January 13th in South Carolina with Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton, made a statement that alluded to past drug use by Obama "in the neighborhood." He also compared Mr. Obama to Sidney Poitier, the black actor, in “Guess Who’s Coming to Dinner.” Hillary was Sitting Next to Johnson at the Time and Defended Johnson, Until He Eventually Sort of Apologized for What He Says He Didn't Really Say. Got It?
Tweety has always been a racist and a sexist so nothings new.
I wonder if the Republicans will point out how Senator Obama and pal Oprah were telling Blacks they should vote for Obama to put a Black man in the White House. Where was Obama when the Jenna Six needed help from a Black leader or Katrina victims who begged for help on TV. Seems Obama wants the Black vote but doesn't have time to help Black people. I guess it's easy for him with his hand out.
Obama lived a very comfortable life in Hawaii growing up. When he was six years old, Hillary was in college fighting to blacks to be enrolled in colleges. Her work paid off or Obama when he came back to the United States. I loved it when he told about how he worked in the inter city to help blacks after going to college. Yes he grandparents paid for his education unlike most Blacks who still have those famous student loan payment. Where's Obama's sister in this campaign? I guess it's was a good experience for Obama to see how Black live in America. I just hope the 1.6 million dollar home Obama brought but couldn't pay for doesn't come back to bait him in the butt. Yes promises with indicted Mr. Renzo might come out. How does a man who can't afford a home end up with the home as he got help from a criminal. At lease Obama was a Senator and most likely would do future favors for the deal.
Tweety has many racist friends and look the US isn't color blind yet. These primaries are great but if the Democrats put Obama as the candidate McCain will win only because the majority of Americans will not allow Obama to be President. Now as we have seen Obama is like a Rock Star but that will fade when Americans learn he doesn't know or do much just gives a great speech. A friend following the campaigns from Germany asked me why Obama doesn't lay out his plan for chance he only uses the word. I told her because he doesn't have a plan, as people will follow blindly and at the end see nothing. Maybe John Kerry will be the Dick Cheney of today. Yes Bush just sits in the Oval Office as Obama would do and know nothing but give a helluva speech. While Kerry/Kennedy will be running the country life Cheney is doing now. Since Obama is so close to Connie Rice maybe she will be able to keep her job. Powell is using the race card and using Obama to get back in the White House. All those in need of a job are quickly saying they support Obama knowing he doesn't know anything but they can use this to say they supported him. Blacks have forgotten the 8 Clinton years they were given equal opportunities. Yes how quickly people turn on you. When there was a no show by the White House or Obama during the Katrina Storm all the Black people had their hand out for help from Bill Clinton. Yes Blacks even called him the first Black President as he made the White House represent all the races in the United States. Many Blacks got a college education thanks to the policies of Bill Clinton. Now Blacks act like they don't know him as all hail Obama who has always been a no show. Look at Illinois now it's one of the worse States with the biggest debt and unemployment. For the two years Obama has been Senator yes a freshmen Senator he's done little to help those who voted for him. At lease the world can see how Bush/Cheney got in twice, American stand for nothing but fall for everything.
"...enraged most progressives"? Youve gotta be joking. The only place more hostile to Hillary than the mainstream press is the progressive blogosphere. DailyKos is a veritable Hillary hate fest. Most progressives hate Hillary because she voted for the war and because she represents the centrist/DLC wing of the party (the wing that wins elections).
I dont know what that Duncan fool is talking about but the media is overwhelmingly liberal (except for Fox News). MSNBC is literally the Obama News Network because of that, because he's considered more liberal, plus he's black which is always a positive for white liberals. The mainstream press is based in liberal NY City and LA/Hollywood. To try to suggest that theyre easier on people with an (R) behind their names is laughable. And Im a liberal saying that, but I have to be honest.
About McCain and the liberal press. Besides the fact that he is sort of a maverick and pokes his finger in the eyes of conservatives on occasion, the love affair with him began in 2000 when he was the moderate/maverick foil to the christian conservative candidate George W Bush. Thats why the press got behind his campaign, because even back then he pissed off conservatives. He also gave the press alot of access, that helped too.
canadian visitor @ 91:
considering what has been done at the debates, Obama should continue to control whether or not he enters another. the moderators are ridiculously manipulative.
wolf blitzkrieg used up more time than any candidate
russert potato-head is a mindless shill.
chrissie is an attack dog and the jury is still out on Olberman.
maybe the debate should be on fux, so murdocKKK can give his girl sHillary a fighting chance and follow it up with commentary from KKKristol and Whom and Wallace.
Why Won't Hillary Clinton Release Her Income Tax Returns? Good Question. Obama Did. Is There Something That We Should be Concerned About? If Not, Why Not Release Them? 2/18
The media is already going after Obama.
Go to Media Matters, click on "Barack Obama" and you'll see all the smears, misstatements, falsehoods, and outright racist remarks the media does against him. This week alone the entire page was filled up.
And they say he hasn't been properly 'vetted' yet...he takes almost as much fire as Hillary and twice as much fire as McCain.
Roland @ 8:
Then there's this from jewsonfirst.org, who are dedicated to defending the First Amendment against the Christian Right and far-right Jewish groups.
http://www.jewsonfirst.org/08a/cufi_obsession.html
Jews on First links to the Republican Jewish Coalition who sent out this news release. So it looks like one of the areas of concentration for swiftboating will be on his wanting peace among Muslim nations.
I am telling you flat out that the RJC's screech about Hamas does not equal reality. If you dont believe me watch this newscast from HaAretz TV last Friday.
"W. Bank rabbi, Palestinian reporter present PM, Hamas draft truce"
http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/954425.html
And if you can't watch the video, watch it on YouTube here.
It occurs to me that so much of the animosity directed at Hillary is simply that people just don't like her. She is not Bill. And no matter what he says and does for her, people still don't like her. This is residual from the time she was First Lady. Her campaign is screaching and screaming because she is losing. Why is she losing -- people don't like her. Miss Inevitable never took that into consideration!
Two issues: Hillary's income tax returns: HRC posts a financial statement every year as reqd by the Senate. So tax returns are a red herring. And, even though I support Obama, I think this is a cheap shot and unworthy of him.
Second: I am really saddened by the way Kos, Aravosis and Arianna have gone after Hillary. It reminds me of Malkin. What happens once Obama wins? Do we just expect Hillary's supporters to fall in line? We Democrats are our own worst enemies. Half a dozen women acquaintances and co workers have already said they would sit out the election or vote for McCain. Our people have really gone beserk on occasions and think there are no limits when its comes to the Clintons.
Obama stands for a much better set of values than some his his more offensive supporters.
i'll have to go with aravosis on this. if the media seems like their biased against hillary, in this case it really only shows their perceptiveness.
i meant they're. whoops.
Kurtz describes Matthews' "strict Roman Catholic upbringing..." as his reason for being so hard on President Clinton after the Lewinsky affair, but Matthews doesn't seem to be bothered by the fact that McCain cheated on his first wife with Cindy or that Rudy's fillandering is legend.
Matthews is a scumbag's scumbag. The MSM does not report: they take sides, drive agendas and give free passes to those who suck up to them (McC) and those who keep them at arm's length (O). Their hatred of the Clintons drive everything they do. We are always saying that Congress is down among the weeds when it comes to polling results. The Decider is at a core 28% among his deadenders. Guess who is in the gutter?
And when my pal John Aravosis endorses Tweety’s positions by saying ” Chris Matthews is still right“—well—I just disagree two times on that one.
John Amato is impressive to make a stand with Aravosis. My opinion is Aravosis is very narrow in his open ideals. And has a hard time taking critical points about Gay’s. I never had chance to explain or defend myself for perhaps what he would consider out of bounds or not conforming comments that one finds in Googling or in definitions to include in writings as one would like to define away forward.
Similarly the exact persona, a striking way Neo-Cons may take. Aravosis strikes me that way. Especially closet types.
I think that the reason the OM (obfuscating media) is harder on Clinton than Obama is because they have all these story templates "left over" from the 90s; they just tweak them a tiny bit, cherry-pick a few facts and voila they've got a story. It's so much easier than doing real reporting or commentary. Also the stories are guaranteed to get a solid reaction from the known, rabid Clinton-haters (i.e., the real Clinton-haters are the people who think that the Clinton's routinely had people rubbed out, etc., not people who would really rather not see HRC as prez).
Obama’s already said he will not be swiftboated
Yeah, and I said I was going to wake up this morning in Aruba with Jessica Alba. Guess what?
Chris Matthews is an ass, granted.
Just a quick point though - Clinton's campaign has been much, much more negative. It's a simple formula that she receives worse press coverage partly due to this fact. All news stories, and all people within the news, don't just immediately receive fair and equal coverage. A person saying a lot of factually untrue things deserves to get worse press coverage. A former president campaigning, in an unheard of until now way during a primary contest, who goes around making false charges against their opponent is going to attract a lot of negative press.
You can fairly state that Obama gets better media coverage, but just blaming that all on Chris Matthews is a cop-out. The Clintons could have done a thousand and one things which would have gotten them much better coverage. Unfortunately, they have chosen the lowest lane of the low road to travel on in this contest, and they're getting blowback, deservedly so, for doing it.
how strange that the word progressive is used in the same sentence as Hillary Clinton......what planet are you guys on these days?
Kurtz does Tweety
Don't Ask, Don't Tell.
Matthews is right about the Clintons. They go for the kneecaps every time.
If this election is about winning and I believe that it is, then both candidates better be fully prepared to go for the kneecaps, because the republicans have no qualms about such tactics.Don't take my word for it, just ask Max Cleland, Al Gore and John Kerry.
Sad but true.
In the end, both candidates would be good. I'm just worried that Hillary is trashing the party by attacking voters for being stupid, cultish, creepy, naive, etc.
When you start attacking a candidate's supporters, you are messing with a hornet's nest. I mean, as a progressive independent I am already finding her campaign increasingly alienating. I might just get out there and start canvassing for Obama just to counteract the hit pieces coming out of the Hillary tent.
Maybe that's what she wants. Maybe if she goes after the supporters, enough will react, through heckling and protesting. And then you can spin this into the story about Obama Democrats being cultish and creepy. Which would fracture the party and maybe get her the nomination.
But what about AFTER the nomination. You can't win a general election with the support of half your party. I mean, is it any wonder that McCain is supporting Hillary in this endeavor? Repeating her memes, running her press, etc.
I figured out yesterday while reading on Americablog CHRIS IS RIGHT, by John Avaros that this is about GRUDGE PUNDITS. Read below as the leader of on of our most supposed progressive blogs explains why he and his team are "mean" to Hillary Clinton.
___________________
Doozy, unfortunately it was an off the record lunch with the campaign that I can't recount because, even though they really ticked us off, if things are off-the-record they have to be kept that way. But, I can tell about aspects of our relationship with the campaign that were not off-the-record.
Joe and I reached out to Hillary's people two years ago. Sat down with them, told them we were agnostic on her and her campaign - didn't love her, didn't hater her. But that we were concerned that a lot of folks online, the blogosphere, the Netroots, etc., seemed to really really really not like Hillary, and that didn't seem helpful to the party, especially since at that time she was the shoo-in to win the nomination anyway. So, we sat down for 2 hours and gave them lots of suggestions as to how they could better improve relations out there. In return, a number of bloggers did get invited to a lunch with bill, and that was great. But since that time, and we're talking 18 months ago, the campaign's relations with a lot of us were nonexistent. I mean, I received only 2 emails from their outreach person in 6 months. Nothing else. In the meantime, I'd go on Paula Zahn's show and Howie Kurtz's show, sometimes 3 times in a month, and be asked to defend Hillary and I would. I never got a call, never got an email, never got anything from the campaign thanking me. I didn't say a thing, it didn't piss me off, but I did think it weird that no one even said thanks, but whatever. And again, remember, at this point, we were one of the only blogs that hadn't turned against her (this is a good year ago). I wasn't particularly angry that they never reached out, but it does give you a window into what critics raise - this sense that somehow they were doing me a favor by letting me publicly defend her, so there was no need to say thanks.
So, then the controversy over Hillary's Iraq war authorization vote comes up. Do we join in the call for her to apologize? No. I did, however, write a few posts, maybe 3, about Hillary's comments about having lived through 9/11 and that's why she feels the way she does about Iraq. As a result of those handful of posts, I learned that apparently this meant that I had written Hillary off, had decided to support another candidate, and that's why the campaign was no longer talking to me (of course in the previous 6 months, as I said, I'd been contacted twice by their outreach person, so the not talking had begun a half year earlier, but whatever). Basically, we went out of our way to try to help her for free, and I repeatedly defender her on TV, because she's a powerhouse in the party and the level of hate and/or visceral dislike for her didn't strike as very healthy (especially since, at the time, she was THE shoo-in for the nomination). In return, since we didn't drink the Kool-aid 100% of the time, but only 97% of the time, we were written off as the enemy.
Oh, there's another story too. A year ago at the DNC winter meeting Joe and I were trying to get an interview with Hillary. Again, keep in mind that we're the only top blog that wasn't openly antagonistic to her. A top staffer of hers tells us that he can likely bring her down to the blogger area of the conference and that we'll get first dibs at her. Joe, my coblogger, tells Hillary's person "no." Joe says "turn around." It was someone who may have publicly eviscerated Hillary and caused quite a scene, something she really really really didn't need. Her staffer thanked us, and Hillary never appeared. This was before the handful of posts I wrote criticizing her.
Now I'm telling you all of this not to suggest that we deserved some brownie points from the campaign or something, but to show you that we were pretty damn nice to her campaign privately and when we didn't have to be. And we got pretty much nothing in return other than "you hate us, now go away" the first time we wrote anything critical of her.
After something like that happens, it changes your view of the campaign and eventually the candidate. There is a definite sense that you're dealing with people who don't appreciate you, who think you owe them something, and who think that they're so much better than you that you should be happy that they let you help them at all. It's not a good thing, and it suggests something about them that is rather not good.
Subseqeuntly, I've talked to other journalists I know, people who were not around in the 90s and weren't part of the get-Bill posse, and they've had the same experience with the campaign. Strong-arming to the point of creating resentment. And, interestingly, they did not have the same experience with the other campaigns. Neither have we.
So that's the part of the story that I can tell. Some of you may think that we've been mean to Hillary of late, but you don't know the whole story of how much we tried to help and go treated pretty crappy as a result. That was a window into the soul of her campaign, and it wasn't real pretty.
John Aravosis | 02.17.08 - 7:09 pm | #
onceler @ 108:
It is funny what people percieve as "negative" when it involves their candidate and what people are willing to claim as "false charges". Clinton talked about Obama's stance on the Iraq war as a fairy tale yet the Obama camp made it into a racist campaign for a while that the CLinton's were saying that a black man running for president was a fairy tale. Clinton talked about Jesse Jackson winning after the media had made the race all about race and racism for a week saying how the blacks were voting 80% for Obama in SC. CNN also discussed Jesse Jackson's win a week before. Clinton's claim was not racist or out of the ordinary as it had already been discussed on TV. Obama was the first at the debate to raise Walmart and Hillary retorted with Rezko - fair game in a debate. Hillary mentions whatever and if it is not positive about Obama then it is claimed as going negative??? How about all the snide comments Obama ihas been making about Hillary? How about the mailer he sent out dissing the Democratic party under Bill Clinton while saying he found it hard to see who he was was running against earlier yet makes his attacks against an ex Democratic president and the democratic party? Sorry, but it appears neither Clinton has said anything that should garner the amount of hatred she has. You want to compare the two candidates go right ahead by discussing their differing health plans or their experience and voting records but when you go read blogs etc. and read Obama supporters coming out and calling Hillary a murderer and ranting against her for everything Bill did in office is not acceptable to me as a viewer.
112@BigTobacco
All of which is perfectly true.
The msm is soft on McCain? That's been a gimmie on any republican. The msm has demonstrated from Reagan, Bush I, to GW.Bush that they are soft on republicans. All of the above were soft on the wealthy elite and corporations and tough on unions and ordinary Joes. The msm would look more appropriate if they wore cheer leading outfits that say "Republican" on them. I still don't understand how republicans get in office knowing (ordinary Joes are the majority) in this country. It is sad that democrat and independent candidates not only have to outwit their republican candidates, but the msm too.
Thank you John, this is exactly what I've been stating all along.
For the hundredth time...fellow Progressives who have fought against the crap MSM on their giving Bush's policies a pass for the past 7 years, are now hoovering up everything the MSM is giving about Obama, without a second thought.
Are we really that simple-minded and republican like? Because it's "good coverage", it's good for us?
Oh, no, there's no manipulation there...huh?
Especially when you look at open-voting states and see that just as many republicans are voting for Obama as Dems...We're f*cked if Obama gets the nomination...
Kyle beat me to it almost verbatim. Aravosis is a complete tool. I could care less what he has to say nowadays.
#113
With all due respect, here comes the whaaaa!mbulance.
First of all, there are many millions of people (yes, millions) who do not go online for news, let alone blogs. It seems to be that people like Kos have gotten big egos because of the attention they garner, but whom many millions could care less about. Notice Ned Lamont's campaign..he did respectably well, but...he didn't win. Of course Obama did campaign/endorse for Lieberman, so you know.
Seriously people, this is about the direction of an entire nation...And you're basing it on how a campaign treats the blogosphere? As far as I'm concerned, everyone needs to start out neutral, and base everything on policy...Because getting your fweelings hwurt doesn't compare to having a weak dollar, and a sucky economy.
Sorry, but it just doesn't.
I am disgusted with fellow progressives attacking and demonizing of Hillary Clinton...you simply DO NOT take a successful (in comparison to preceding, and post-presidency's) Democratic presidency and slam, slander, and rip up to make yourself look good.
Obama.Has.No.Honor. That is not the way you win the Presidency!
WHERE was Obama's stay-above-the-fray attitude he displayed with McCain, after McCain ripped him a new one, a year ago, when Obama was dealing with Clinton?
Obama is a charlatan, and his supporters will fall hard from the pedestal they've placed him (and themselves, by default) upon.
Your friend John Avarosis has gone completely round the bend in his hatred for Hillary and is really no better than Tweety now. His blog has become just another venue for Hillary Haters. I supported Edwards and watched the media make him invisible so now I don't really care which one is nominated - I will hold my nose and vote for the Democrat that the corporate media and the blogs like Americablog pick. Avarosis is an ex-republican that just cannot find a way to shake that mean streak that runs in all of them and turns into Little Lord Pissy Pants if you question anything about the sainted Obama. I just can't wait now until Nov. when this new, fresh American Nightmare is finally over.
Jack Jett:
So all Aravosis and his pal want is for Clinton to make nice. Really? I mean, you dump on them because you are not treated deferentially. We had journalists who thought they had to be catered to and given intensive care. Now, from your post it seems that some of our big muckety mucks in the blogging community also expect respect. Have they seen too many repeats of The Godfather?
If Clinton does not deal openly and fairly with the media set that out. They have an obligation to be open. Don't demean, just lay it out oin plain language and it will have an impact. What I see is that we have some leading bloggers who want to be treated like prima donnas. I saw Matthews plaintive cry to Clinton : "Come on my show". It was pitiful. Is that what it about: the mutual massaging of egos?
I will not predict the winner in Nov but I can say who the losers are in all of this. Chir Matthews is a joke and a buffoon. Dkos and John Aravosis have become what they hate. They have lost credibility and relevance. Aravosis needs to grow up and stop whining. His personal grudge against the Clintons trumps accurate reporting. Who can trust these people??? They have proven to be immature and unprofessional. Good riddance!
Jack Jett and Alan:
You're getting there. Our Mr Kos and Mr Aravosis are big boys now. Mr Kos has space on Newsweek, and has been on MTP ( the stamp of an arriviste). Mr Aravosis has been on CNN and on Reliable Sources among other venues. These are two big men, now, and they want respect.
All those politicians going on their pilgrimage to the Kos Convention has had its effect.
So the big blogs are doing what they criticised journalists for doing: injected themselves into the political campaigns. All I can do is to ignore them or take their pronouncements with lots of salt.
so Bill and Hillary clinton are good for this country? Aren't people somewhat blinded to the fact the Clinton's aren't exactly the best thing this country has ever seen.
I don't long for the 90's when I was on welfare adn serving in the Navy.
I think the Clintons are just lucky they precedeed bush.
Regarding "#123
It is clearly become grudge punditry. I lean towards Hillary but I could be just as happy with Obama. We are lucky to have two fine candidate. I don't see any rational reason to let a personal grudge become a reason to bash every movement that the Clintons make, and ban those that disagree.
Due to the Bush family, I lost faith in my country. I lost respect for the mainstream media for the lead up to the war. I was proud to be part of a net root community that's primary goal is to get a democrat in office. Now it seems that Arianna Huffington and John Avaros have joined forces with Wolf Blitzer and Chris Mathews to ensure that all are NOT created equally. No matter how you slice or dice it, this is some fucked up shit.
Mr. Avaros told me that the Clintons were fanning the flames of racism, but couldn't explain how. Today the MSNBC is bashing Bill (running the same clip every 15 minutes) because he took on an anti abortion activist. He took on one of those idiotic abortion nuts and now he is getting pummelled in the press for not be "light" enough.
So the question is ....Are we, Americans going to allowing talking/blogging/journalist heads decide who should be our candidate based on how many times said journalist get their ego stroked?
Having hosted a TV show, I know how arrogant a celebrity publicist can be, yet it was never representative of the artist.
We can no longer depend on the bloggers to do our vetting for us. Now their egos are out of control, and they have their own personal agendas that really do not include us lowlife scum sucking commenters.
I may end up voting for Carrott Top as I haven't heard anything negative about him in a while.
'Scuze me, but since when does Howard Kurtz have much of importance to say about the political process. He is and has been a shill for the Neo-Cons from the get-go. So, of course, he will prefer Hillary and distain Obama, since Hillary's affinity for AIPAC is right out there!
And going after Chris Matthews is just too easy! Of course, he is a jerk with a big mouth. And he also occasionally has some interesting observations. I think this is a big red-herring!!!!
Rev T Redlights @ 31:
When you're talking about Matthews, Hillary's record has nothing to do with it. It's about Tweety being a creepy, sexist pig...
Well, I'm turned off by cheap politicians, and their rabid enablers, who are willing to sacrifice multiple journalists for short term campaign goals, because of campaign pressures... there's a real taste for blood there that you don't see in Matthews and Shuster.
It's OK for a blogger to go on TV or write a column for Newsweek I believe. it helps us expand the reach of the sphere, but it's what you do with it...
John: Sure it's ok and I'd like to see you, Digby, Atrios and lots of others on tv. But Kos and Aravosis have forgotten their roots. When I read their posts nowadays there is a certaintly and arrogance that is reflective of the MSM. Bloggers can't expect deferential treatment. They, too, have to account for their words and deeds. Expand your reach: with light not heat.
Since Aravosis started banning people, I have been doing so blogger research, an it appears our progressive leaders can love the BOONDOGGLE as much as the next Repuke or MSM journailist.
America in NOT VOTING ON THE EGOS of pundits. They are 90 percent wrong.
I noticed KOS was a sell out a year ago. The banning of Clinton voters on a blog is starting to make Fox News seem a little more fair and balanced.
What's up with Matthew's posting a pic of Osama Bin Laden on the screen during his "Hardball" show while talking about Barack Obama. It's on today's Hardball. He even sort of half apologize's for it, calling it the wrong picture! No Kidding!
Matthews is a right winger. History shows us that. Chris is waiting for Obama to get the nomination, and then BAM....on lack of experience, slum lord, rezko, voting present over 100 times and of course there will be several Obama/Osama mistakes(?)
Lesson learned.....ALL MEDIA IS FULL OF SHIT..........
You just have to remember John Aravosis is a "lapsed Republican"....and sometimes he is more "lapsed" than others.....it is a way of thinking, a blindness, that often never leaves them.....
They're holding off on Obama because they know he's genuinely popular. They know that's unsustainable, and that soon enough they can get the shivs in. Meanwhile the wingnuts are quietly sharpening them, ready to place in the hands of these intellectual footpads.
Login or Register to post comments.