The Abrams Report: The Politics of Fearmongering
By Nicole Belle Wednesday Mar 05, 2008 1:19pm
On his Wednesday show, Dan Abrams looked at various charges and countercharges that Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama have leveled at each other recently (he found them both equally guilty of misstatements). However, Rachel Maddow of Air America (and MSNBC, give this woman a show, what on earth are you waiting for?) felt much stronger than either Dan Abrams or Peter Beinart of The New Republic about Hillary Clinton's fearmongering strategy to distinguish herself from Barack Obama:
Download | play 
Download | play (h/t Heather)
DA: You really think the “3 am” ad is a cheap shot?
RM: The “3 am” ad is such a cheap shot, it’s actually the first thing that’s made me mad at Hillary Clinton. It almost made me as mad as the thing she said, ‘oh as far as I know he’s not a Muslim.’ Those have been the two worst things that she has done.
The ‘3 am’ ad was wrong because it cedes the argument to the Republicans over the Democrats in terms of whether or not Americans voters ought to be scared into voting for someone .DA: Peter, to me, that just suggests when you’re a Democrat, you can’t talk about national security issues in the primary.
PB: The truth is the Democrats have been scaring Americans about foreign policy for the last 100 years. I mean, I heard Rachel earlier say the Franklin Roosevelt said “freedom from fear.” Franklin Roosevelt spent the entire late 1930s scaring Americans about the Nazi threat, and thank goodness he did. The real debate should be how serious do we think the terrorist threat is. That’s a genuine argument you can have. Rachel may think it’s less serious than John McCain; she may be right. But it’s perfectly reasonable to have the debate.
RM: There’s a difference between talking about the threats that are faced by a country and talking about how to stand up to them and how we as a nation can face them as…with unified…with unity and from a position of strength. It’s another thing to say “Be afraid! Vote for me.” which is what Hillary Clinton is doing, which is George W. Bush politics.
Login or Register to post comments.
First she was "personally offended", now "it’s actually the first thing that’s made me mad".
When will she be "taking umbrage"?
The ‘3 am’ ad was wrong because it cedes the argument to the Republicans over the Democrats in terms of whether or not Americans voters ought to be scared into voting for someone .
Has she ever, ever named one crisis call she ever took at 3:00 am? ...in any position of authority?
(Other than calling hospitals and bars looking for Bill)
"Senator Clinton has ... constantly sent out negative attacks on us, e-mail, robo-calls, flyers, television ads, radio calls, and we haven't whined about it because I understand that's the nature of these campaigns." -Barack Obama.
Whoo Hoo!....Let the whining begin!!
Is the ad saying that Obama can't pick up a phone?
Politics, the art of saying stupid things to get people to vote.
grandpa mcshame-shitstain-insane will be mongering all the fear he can in the general election. right after he blows ted haggard and john hagee
[re Rachel Maddow] '…give this woman a show, what on earth are you waiting for?'
Rachel Maddow is extremely intelligent, knowledgeable (she has a PHD in political science which after all, must mean something) and makes insightful analysis.
However, in my observations thus far, she does not seem to have even one mean spirit in her body. That could disqualify her from a prime time lead. Maybe I am wrong. It is certainly unusual.
Hillary is adopting classic Bush tactics using fear in the three a.m. adds and ignoring rules that don't serve her purpose like campaigning in Fla and Mich back in early winter.
I'll give Obama's people respect for one thing. They could have made this damn ugly long ago. I mean, he's running against a Clinton. All he would have to do is lob out even half the stuff the Repubs do, and it would stick in people's heads. So far, he really hasn't. He's played softball. Imagine........
"It's 3AM, do you know where Bill Clinton is?"
"It's 3AM, the phone goes off, and Hillary's girlfriend answers"
"When running for Senator, Hillary pounded her opponent about showing his tax returns, well Hillary, where are yours"
And that would/could be just the start, not to mention all the implications over the years of shady dealings, like turning a $1000 cattle futures investment into over $100,000 return. Stan Lee Media's lawsuit. Dealings with shady characters from the MidEast and Asia. Dems would do themselves proud if they tried to talk Al Gore into jumping in and sending these two back to Warshington, where they actually belong----in the senate.
I love Rachel and her political insights!
She's mostly calm, cool and collected which works great when you want to "short circuit" the other side. I hear she was a Rhodes Scholar.
And yes! Get her a TV show already.
Leslie @ 4:
It can also be seen as "Do you want McCain picking up the phone, getting pissed and attacking the wrong country again?"
Leslie @ 4:
In Hillary's ad, the phone rang six times. In Obama's ad it rang three times. He was quicker on the draw. In Hillary's ad the mother checking on the kids is fully dressed at three in the morning. I don't know what we are supposed to make of that.
The first thing I thought when I saw the ad the very first time is that she is playing the republicans game of fear.
#11 Strawberry,
Well, Hillary has told us repeatedly that McCain has more experience! [WTF?]
I think Rachel Maddow is dead right on this. It's clear now (if it weren't before) that Hillary is just in this for herself, and will do ANYTHING (including picking up tired and dishonest Republican tactics) to get the nomination.
Hillary Clinton: "Booga booga booga! Be scared. Vote for me!"
Undecided voters: "I'm ascared, Hillary! If I vote for you, will you take the 'fraid away?"
I honestly don't know who to be more angry at. The woman and campaign who stoops to the same scare tactics the GOP used against Kerry (see wolf ad from 2004), or the gullible voters who will decide their vote based on a drop of the hat gut feeling.
Don't forget that the Rezko smear in a debate was Clinton's attempt to make a Whitewater-like smear on Obama. Having been the victims of a GOP attempt to tar her and her hubsband with Whitewater, you might think that Clinton would not engage in launching a similar, especially on a fellow Dem.
the whole Dan Abrams thing of charges and counter charges thing to me is an insult to his viewers, seeing these XXX on the screen is pretty silly IMHO.
Alice in Wonderland @ 7:
I don't think Olbermann is mean, he is tough but I don't detect mean. Is America ready for a openly gay prime time talking head?
What would Zeus do? @ 15:
Especially when it's already been all over the internet, the pictures taken of her and Bill with the same guy. You don't get your picture taken with the Clintons, without something else going on. They are politicians too. Or is it first?
pissed off patricia @ 12:
Fully dressed mom at 3am:
1. Working 3 jobs inGWB's america to support her family
2. Hooker
3. Always sleeps with clothes on in case of terrrrrrist attack
Zeus,
You'd also think Hillary would be careful about smearing Obama over the Rezko issue, when she and her supporters also have ties to Rezko. [TPM Election Central]
Strawberrybitch @ 11:
Do you really think that was Hilliary's target? Please give the folks here some credit.
Leslie @ 20:
Now the Clinton team is labelling Obama "Ken Starr".......ouch.......not sure but I think they really are going to go down that road. This could get REAL ugly.
I love the way Obama handles this stuff. After her ad was shown he quickly showed his own. He just refuses to drop to the typical campaign level of flinging shit at his opponent. I hope he is able to continue to do that and hang on to his cool. If he is the nominee, his cool head will make McCain look even more desperate, and forgive me, a little bit nuts.
Each time Hillary points out that something isn't fair or that she's being attacked, she needs to remember that that sort of stuff won't work when you are sitting in the oval office and things aren't going your way.
It's 2009 and President Hillary gets a 3:00am call at the White House:
Hillary: Hello?
Bill: It's me, honey. I'm calling from a Motel 6.
Hillary: What do you want?
Bill: I just like talking to you while I'm having sex.
Canuck,
The photo of Rezko with the Clintons really doesn't prove anything. Lots of people get their photos taken with politicians.
There's more to substance their connection than a photo. See here.
AGAIAN, I say that terrorism is a none issue.
ConcernedCanuck @ 18:
What? My 76 year old mother has a picture of her and Bill and there is NOTHING going on between Bill and my mom. Although my mom would LOVE for there to be something.
Clinton protests too much about her tax returns. What is she hiding?
natisman @ 21:
It was a joke, bonemunch. Sheesh.
Whats everyone whining about now. What 3AM ad?
I agree with Rachel 100%. I will not vote for that woman! I would rather see McCain keep stinking up the place than her doing it in the name of Democrats!
Rachel forgot to mention that she is a card carrying member of the Hillary haters.
Leslie @ 25:
Ya I read some of that, but was just pointing out how stupid it sounds to blame someone over their "questionable" contacts, when you have the same and then some.
I would rather have Clinton than "Bomb, bomb, bomb Iran" McSame. Are you nuts Bill!? Either Hillary or Barack would make good presidents, much better than McCain.
Leslie @ 28:
TO: Interested Parties
FR: The Obama Campaign
RE: TAX RETURNS: What does Clinton have to hide?
DA: March 5, 2008
The Clinton campaign today maintained that “the vetting of Barack Obama has just begun.” The truth is, more than a year into this campaign, some very simple vetting of Hillary Clinton has yet to start.
In the face of her unwillingness to release her tax returns, Hillary Clinton has made the false case in this campaign that she is more electable because she has been fully vetted. When it comes to her personal finances, Senator Clinton’s refusal to release her taxes returns denies the media and the American people the opportunity to even begin that process. Though her campaign has tried to kick the issue down the road, Democratic voters deserve to know, right now, why it is she is hiding the information in her tax returns from last year.
The Clinton campaign has said that they have released copious amounts of financial information but there are many questions about their private dealings that could be answered in their tax returns but not in the information that is currently available. For example, here are eight pieces of information that could be learned from her tax returns, the accompanying schedules, and attachments:
Effective tax rate – including whether or not any tax shelters were used to reduce it
Amount of income for spouses by source
Amount of stock gains and losses
Gross income for the couple
Amount earned from stock dividends
Amount of household employment taxes paid
Personal exemptions taken
Charitable contributions made
Senator Clinton has also claimed that she is too “busy” to release her tax returns. Given the fact she is able to loan her campaign $5 million, you would think the Clintons would be able to hire an accountant. The reality is that she wants to keep this information hidden from voters. The people of Wyoming, Mississippi, Pennsylvania and the rest of the country should wonder why.
.
Nicole,
Neither video works... :(
.
First time I've seen the MSM say something derogatory about one of Clintons dirty tricks......it's about time.
Clinton is pathetic. Just pathetic.
Shame on you, hillary clinton...your campaign is dishonest and corrupt. Even if it works, and you win, it's wrong, and nobody will vote for you but the Clintonista zombies.
ohio progressive @ 37:
Man your sure a Uniter
They sure as hell got a lot of mileage out of that 3am ad. All the cable news channels showed it about a zillion times for free. Kind of the same way they showed the swift-boat ads against John Kerry.
buzz @ 32:
Actually, if you go back to most of her commentary during the MSNBC primary coverage, she seems to go out of her way to defend Hillary in many instances. I think the recent tactics of Hillary's campaign have really turned RM off to her, though.
today new reports have showed up from the CBC that exonerate Obama in the 'NAFTAgate' controversy, and the CTV owned Globe and Mail report that it was CLINTONS PEOPLE at the heart of the initial story
and the US MSM hasnt picked up on this yet at all. It would take Obama kicking and screaming and 'shame on you'-ing for them to pick up on this.
Can we get Clinton another pillow?
As WE THE PEOPLE want change in the government and politics, the campaign managers and media pundits go and do business as usual. I hope that WE THE PEOPLE will invoke the change we so badly need.
Whys Obama even running as a Dem. He should be the third party.
His supporters literally HATE Clinton. And anyone who supports her. From day one.
Strawberrybitch @ 29:
Bonemunch? Is that some sort of cracker slang? :D
L.A. Confidential @ 38:
I am a uniter, trying to get everyone behind the one candidate who represents true change.
LA, you are a bit too laid back "it's all cool man" about everything.....
nothing phases you one way or the other....that's ok too...
that's not dividing, for sure.... but neither is it uniting.....
when will media matters stop schilling for clinton regarding the 60 minutes interview?
that is what i want to know
L.A. Confidential @ 43:
nobody hates clinton, it's not personal....get over that little fetish..
people hate the way she's campaigning, the dishonest things she's saying about obama, the intentional mischaracterizations.
like a boxer in the ring constantly punching below the belt. it's a bum fight.
L.A. Confidential @ 43:
You know and I know that that's a gross exageration. All supporters? Or maybe a few vocal ones here? I really don't think 6 people can represent everyone who supports him.
ohio progressive @ 45:
L.A. Confidential @ 43:
Close to 50% of the population hate Clinton, or question her "truths", so I'm just surprised that Dem faithful would even consider nominating someone like that as their party rep. Kinda like shooting yourself. Over and over.
buzz @ 32:
ya....
everyone who says the truth about hillary is a hater
enuf
krisken @ 48:
the last exit polls in Ohio and Texas show that Hillary supporters were more likely to abandon Obama for McCain?
Dead links.
dammit I wuz gointa sae sumpin
ohio progressive @ 45:
I like Obama but I've been around long enough to know that rarely if ever do these people deliver what they said they were going to do. Good intentions are fine. Reality is a different story.
In normal campaigns it is the press that helps the voters differentiate between the candidates. They ask the tough questions of all the candidates. This election cycle, the media decided to beatify Obama, a complete free pass. That left Hillary to either wither and die or stand up and fight. I'm glad she chose the later, the American people deserve a choice. Don't think for a minute that Obama's campaign led by hate mongering Jesse Jackson Jr isn't capable of throwing some dirt of their own, it's just that the media will call it brilliant strategy instead.
EliteLemming @ 49:
I vow to try to restore our democracy.
http://myfightfordemocracy.blogspot.com/2007/07/new-declaration-of-indep...
Goon @ 52:
Never, ever, conclude that a poll is conclusive proof. Probability does not = causation
krisken @ 44:
Actually, bonemunch, knucklehead, buttmunch, buckethead are terms of endearment in my family. If I really didn't like you, I'd be using more derogatory terms. But I save those for rightwingers who dare venture here unannounced and unwelcome.
God, the Hillary Hatred crowd here is as bad as Americablog and HuffPost. But I'm sure calling her names and making lewd innuendo makes you all feel so much better about your candidate that you really know nothing about and don't even care to find out.
I had a lot of respect for both Olberman and Maddow until they both fell in line and planted their lips firmly on Obama's ass. Now they are no better than Tweety and Timmeh.
I nominate Rachel to take over Tweety's spot. It would be kinda funny for Rachel to host a show called "Hardballs".
I'm sure they'll give it a different name.
Rachel Maddow, Keith Olberman, then Dan Abrams... I never would have considered myself to watch three hours of political and news commentary, but I just may do it.
L.A. Confidential @ 55:
Then you should KNOW your canidate won't deliver.
Nancy50 @ 56:
The only person beatified is Clinton, and that by her koolaid drinking supporters.
So maybe I would concede your point that Obama's camp would be capable of throwing good dirt....but the bigger point you seem to miss (blinded by hillary's halo (which, by the way, most rational people can't see)) is that Obama has not thrown any of that dirt....he's chosen the honest road.
Clinton went down the dishonest dirty one.
That's a big difference.
krisken @ 58:
keep in mind i'm saying this in response to people claiming based on message board posts that all Obama supporters hate Clinton. I could show you comments on Taylor Marsh's site, TalkLeft, No Quarter and Hillaryis44 that can match or outdo anything I've heard from an Obama supporter. Attacking each others supporters is low and stupid. I'll take an exit poll over your subjective experience, thanks.
Nancy50 @ 56:
Unfortunately, we've seen the effects of the media on the easily led. Undecideds don't think for themselves based on issues, but on the whims of the media and who their current target is this week. Every time a new "scandal" erupts, that person becomes a target and their polling drops. Of course, line jumping republicans also have a hand on both sides mucking things up. That's also tied to media though.
EliteLemming @ 62:
I base my belief that Clinton wont deliver on the fact that she had a chance to deliver healthcare, and royally blew it.
ConcernedCanuck @ 50:
I make my own decisions based on the information I observe. Not the media, Rachael or Keith or anyone else. Their just people to me. I'm not into idolatry.
In fact, even Obama admitted "what in the hell did I get myself into" his first day in Congress.
I know the feeling. Hows he going to be an effective President with that lurking around in his subconsciousness?
EliteLemming @ 62:
I'm not even decided on Clinton! The Dem party is a total mess.
Strawberrybitch @ 29:
Sorry! Sorry! Sorry! and I won't try to explain either.
videos are not working? Or is that just me?
Strawberrybitch @ 59:
Nice. Friends of mine have been known to throw flour at and wake a person up by, er, slapping genitals on the sleeping persons head. Needless to say, I stay awake and alert around them.
ohio progressive @ 63:
What campaign is arm twisting black superdelegates that haven't supported Obama - threatening loss of their congressional seats? Here's a clue -- it's not Clinton. But we don't want to play the race card now would we?
Good you-tube mashup: take that commercial and then have it end with a recording of McCain's bomb-bomb-iran song.
Goon @ 52:
[Citation needed]
I think this is bogus, especially since MSNBC reported that Obama won a majority of Independent and Republic voters. Show me the polling data, then I'll believe you.
krisken @ 65:
Agreed Krisken,
If the Hillary camp would only stop, take a deep breath, consider some of the dishonest tactics (plagiarism), read the articles on Obama, the position papers, and do a little independent thinking, her support would evaporate.
Instead, people are voting because they think she was funny on SNL, or they have pity on her, after all the whining, and the first questions...or because the scare ads work...
it's too bad nobody is paying attention
Goon @ 66:
I think I totally mistook you, and apologize. Sorry.
Nancy50 @ 72:
Have some proof on that, or this hateful rumor time at C&L?
You're full of it.
I used to enjoy rm, however, she seems to have lost her sense of humor and is mostly indignant in her MSNBC seat.
Nancy50 @ 72:
Nobody had to twist Lewis' arm.
80% of his constituents voted for Obama.
Somebody filed to run against Lewis in the primary.
He's a corrupted DC insider-- just like hillary-- been there forever getting rich and fat, wants to stay there forever getting rich and fat...
so he saw the writing on the wall.
no arm twisting.
just the kind of politics that, ironically, obama will put an end to.
so your conspiracy is another clintonista fantasy, like the first questions
krisken @ 77:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/03/02/AR200803...
ohio progressive @ 75:
Did I imply all that? Not my goal.
Look, crap has been flying in copious amounts at all the candidates now. All their crap is in the open. Now ignore all that and look at the issues that concern you.
I know I'm not neutral and have my own opinion, but I really didn't think I shouted out a condemnation in that post!
Give Maddow a show of her own? You've got to be kidding. We need people who manage to at least give some appearance of being neutral. Maddow has become just another Obama shill on MSNBC.
I used to respect her. Not any more. Keep her on Air Obama where she belongs. Or on MSNBC with the rest of the Obama shills.
By the way, I was an Edwards supporter and hadn't quite made up my mind until I decided that if I didn't like the media picking our candidates, I sure as hell wasn't about to let a bunch of hot air bags like Matthews, Olbermann, Abrams and Maddow chose who I would vote for of the two I was allowed for a choice. I voted for Hillary. And the only reason I know what any of the MSNBC dunderheads says if when I see it online. I quit watching MSNBC quite some time ago.
Goon @ 66:
AND!!! Her biggest campaign contibutors are none other than....drumroll please! The Insurance Companies and BIG PHARMA!!!
Should she be nominated, she's still gettin my vote, because, I'd rather smash my nutbag with a meat tenderizer than vote for McBain.
I still think Obama's gonna steamroll this nomination, then the election.
L.A. Confidential @ 55:
I like Obama but would take Clinton over the alternative John McCain anyday. With that being said, I agree with L.A. Rhetoric and campaign ideas or policies in the run up to the elections are one thing. Delivering on those ideas and/or policies when in office is something entirely different and I don't care who the Presidential hopeful is that made them. Once in office, the President's proposals will have to get past Congress and even if your party holds the majority in both the House and Senate it still is not a sure thing. That is just the reality of our polical system.
pickles @ 79:
Well, she kind of has to do those things when she's up there sitting next to Pat Buchanan and the Scar, or else she'd never get a word in edgewise.
I don't hate Hillary at all. What I dislike is the way either she is running her campaign or the way her people are running her campaign.
For anyone who thinks the MSM is giving Obama a free pass, how many times did you see the picture of him wearing the white turban? How many times have your heard his religion questioned?
Nancy50 @ 81:
Wow, that certainly didn't say what you implied by your post!
Supporters of Obama are pressuring super delegates to vote the way of their districts? Say it isn't so?!?!
Give me a break. I call both sides guilty of that one.
I totally disagree with Maddow. The ad doesn't evoke fear mongering to me. It is a direct question to the audience about which candidate they believe can handle difficult national situations better. If no one in the audience for the ad can respond that their candidate can do better, then that is a problem with their candidate, not with the ad. Can Obama run this ad? Why not? If he can't, that speaks to how well he will be able to do in confronting the Republicans in November.
kenoshaMarge @ 83:
Yeah, because voting against whoever the MSM is pushing at the time is SO much better than voting for whoever the MSM is pushing at the time. And as far as Rachel Maddow, I'm getting really tired of people who seem to think that she's some huge Obama fan based on her anger towards Hillary's scare tactics. Haven't any of you been watching her commentary in the past two months? She's been defending Hillary at every turn until Hillary decided to take her primary campaign into the GOP gutter.
I hope the American public has wised up enough that they don't go scurrying under the bed everytime some American politician goes "boo!". The normal American action if a foreigner said "boo!" would be to spit in his eye; why do we take that sort of crap from opportunistic Americans?
willyjsimmons @ 78:
This country is really fu*ked up. Basic Tribal Warfare.
In the meantime the Cons keep looting every last penny out of the American Vaults.
Once, thanks to Josh Marshall sourcing the story from Drudge.
Twice.
And gain, it was courtesy of TPM.
All counter-spun to smear Clinton.
The MSM WAS giving Obama a relative pass...until SNL made fun of them.
Now they're mad.
Too bad for Obama.
Get used to it.
Imagine, years of the left blogosphere chastising the MSM for their failings, and all it took was for Hillary to mention that single SNL clip for everyone to get defensive.
Sheesh.
Is America READY for an openly gay prime time host??? How do you even ask that question?? This is the United States of America where we ELECT Black, Whites and EVEN gays. What are you even talking about?
Wes @ 17:
kenoshaMarge @ 83:
Now this kind of silliness might win Clinton the nomination, but will surely cost the general.
MacDaddy is loving such silly logic.....
Oh, and by the way, if you vote for the candidate you think the MSM doesn't want you to vote for, because they don't want you to vote for that candidate, they are still choosing who you should vote for.
If Hillary can have her 3:00 am political sad, I can have mine!!!!
Go Obama go!!!!
willyjsimmons @ 93:
Dude, put on some sunglasses...you are blinded by the halo you see around hillary's head.
She's not a saint.
She's not a martyr.
Snap out of your devoted adulation....you're not thinking clearly
krisken @ 65:
How come when Obama got the republican crossover votes it was good, but since they went for Hillary it is bad??? You think that all the Obama crossovers were because they loved him and didn't want to mess with the Democratic Primarys.
Candideinnc @ 89:
He can, and he did. You may want to take note that the Obama ad actually produces factual statements about his record that support the opinion that he would be better to take that call.
But honestly, I don't know how people can't interpret using young children in dark bedrooms and red phones in the white house ringing at 3am as anything but fear mongering. For those who don't, was the wolves-lurking-in-the-forest ad that the GOP ran in 2004 also not fearmongering?
krisken @ 88:
link
Might not be coming from people with official ties to the Obama campaign...but the suggestion that blacks ought to be supporting Obama or else is certainly out there.
And the Obama campaign has done little to nothing to squash these sentiments.
willyjsimmons @ 93:
I guess you don't watch tv. If that's the case, you get a pass.
When a candidate asks why they always get the first question, that sounds like a whine to me, no matter who it is. It's that sort of thing that looks rather foolish in a debate.
Actually now that Hillary has Obama on the defensive I'd like to see his tough side for once.
I mean, this is a Candidate who is going to have to protect the United States from whatever enemies we have to face down the line. And after Bush you better believe the list is going to be LONG.
#1. The Rachel is a big meany that hates big tough Hillary and I'm going to cry about it is tired.
#2. You will NOT vote for McCain over Clinton...get over yourselves.
#3. Rachel can have her point of views, even when you don't agree with them.
#4. Hillary is NOT Bill. So many people believe that they are voting for Bill and they aren't. Those ships have sailed.
#5. Its time to start acting like a political machine and stop pretending that we are voting for class President. Who will win? Who will get more people involved in daily political activities? Who can attack McCain on his Iraq support? I live in WA State and have Maria (can't say no to GOP) CANTwell but I'd rather have her in there then throw up my arms and get another do-nothing Republican shill in her place. Let's work with what we've got and start building up rather then start tearing down (ala Hillary's ad and her recent talking points that McCain & her have more experience then Barack 'gives one speech' Obama). Remember Hillary wants to talk about her big Chinese speech on women's rights are human rights? Wasn't that just a speech? Nothings changed in China. (I can throw tiny stones, too)
Hudson County Kevin @ 98:
Think about it for a minute.
Some of Obama's republican votes were genuine. True?
I think even a Clintonista would agree.
Some of Clinton's republican votes were genuine. True?
I think not even a Clintonista would try to assert that.
Plus, you have the likes of Rush Limbaugh and Hugh Spewitt telling their zombies to vote for Clinton.
So i think your point is weak.
Hudson County Kevin @ 98:
Holy crap, did I say that too? Was it a psychic projection directed into the minds of people here? I don't know what it is, but people seem to be reading a hell of a lot into my words tonight!
Never said that. Bad in both cases. Move along.
willyjsimmons @ 100:
Next is when I link all the cases of women suffregists calling women who don't vote Hillary stupid and slave minds.
Honestly, I stick with both sides being guilty.
ohio progressive @ 97:
Nice to see your bias showing...
at what point did I declare?
Mike Gravel 4 President
I suggest you slow your roll.
I think Maddow may have only partially hit what Clinton's new ad actually is doing. Clinton's ad is exactly the sort of fear mongering that we saw and continue to see from the Republicans. However, that same sort of ad that she ran against Obama is the same sort of ad that McCain will run against her if she becomes the nominee. Everyone already knows that with McCain's military background and hawkish rhetoric, that he is going to run on national security specifically. In other words, Clinton's ad is not only directed at Obama but its indirectly aimed at her as well and many undecided voters will that when they compare her to McCain.
Can't that whiny Beinart shut his worthless mouth for one second and let Maddow speak?
At least when she talks she has a point. And she has the decency to let others be heard.
ohio progressive @ 75:
If she was Hillary Rodham, she would have been out before Edwards was. It's just the name.
The woman has been campaigning for how many years now, and people think the media has been unfair to her? Why is she running then? Why has she kept herself in the spotlight all this time, if she thinks the media attacks her? It's pathetic. The Clintons are their own party. They could care less about the Democratic Party and that's obvious by their campaign strategy. I don't know where anybody comes up with the "Obama attacks" spin, I really don't. Until today, I haven't heard his campaign attack anyone. He responds to HER attacks.
Hate to break the news to Hillary supporters, but, if she wins, you ain't gettin' Bill back as Prez. You'd be more likely to see her and Bill finally split up, because they have nothing more politically to conquer.
Alice in Wonderland @ 7:
Are you suggesting that a host with civility and politeness won't add to the discourse?
Don't worry about her holding her own. The problem is there aren't more like her.
ConcernedCanuck @ 9:
The difference here is that you mention the Clintons by name. Hillary's add simply asked the question and didn't mention any names at all.
Seriously. Is this 3AM ad on You Tube or something?
I don't even know what they are talking about since I'm normally asleep at 3AM.
Link?
Given that the original article mentions Clinton and/or Obama, the hair-trigger, shoot-from-the-hip folks are going to be everywhere so expect considerable rhetorical collateral damage as they go after their "real" targets.
krisken @ 106:
Or I could point directly to Jesse Jackson Jr. suggesting that members of the CBC who don't support Obama "might find some young primary challenger placing you in a difficult position"
Funny you would say 'slave minds' though
Talk Left
Whether fearmongering or fishmongering
It all smells.
Hello, ladies.
This just in: Rolling Stone cover photoshopped:
blaze @ 112:
Nor did it give any specific evidence from Hillary's record as to why she would be better to take that call. So, in essence, the ad is basically saying: "Because we decided to scare you and run this ad, Hillary Clinton is better for national security." When you break it down like that to the logical argument being made, it seems pretty silly to me.
Barack Obama Rolling Stone Cover
It'll work now.
blaze @ 112:
Yes, it says "I'm Hillary Clinton, and I approve of this message"
The Clinton campaign is hurling stuff at Obama and he, along with his campaign people, are batting this stuff down. When and if Hillary's folks find something real to throw at him, I think he will respond but not in a down and dirty sort of way. He'll be calm and collected just as he's been so far in each debate.
Obama's campaign said today they received 55 million dollars in Feb. Hillary got 35 million in the same time. I have no idea what McCain got.
Alice in Wonderland @ 7:
And RM is the only person on MSNBC who takes on Pat Buchanan when he makes pro-Hillary comments. He has bought into the Rush Limbaugh line: Support Hillary, Elect McCain.
I had changed my mind to vote for Clinton over Obama after Hillary promised to co-sponsor legislation to ban the use of Blackwater and similar private military firms whereas Obama would not rule out their use.
The 3 am ad turned me off to Clinton almost immediately, and Obama got my vote in the Texas primary. The "be-afraid, vote for me" ad told me this: Clinton will make progressive-style promises to help her get elected, but in the end she will still be a Republican-Lite just like Bill was. Ain't no way I'll trust her now.
pissed off patricia @ 121:
$1.75 and a muffin.
People are upset with that ad?
I don't get it.
L.A. Confidential @ 43:
No they don't, that's your biased opinion. Why don't you take it down a notch?
Yikes! Why the crap wouldn't Obama rule out Blackwater? You know, I have faith in the guy, but he needs to actually commit to ending the atrocities we're perpetrating. Instead, he seems like he's trying to make everyone happy at once by not committing to end Blackwater or the war or anything.
bmw 528 @ 126:
Read his blog and tell me those supporters tolerate Hillary.
L.A. Confidential @ 125:
the 3am ad?
dont be obtuse
hillary took a page from the opponent of her old mentor
L.A. Confidential @ 125:
Neither does Bill
Anymore.
L.A. Confidential @ 125:
I mean come on Rush Limbaugh puts out stuff like Barrack The Magic Negro every freaking day of the week and people are flipping out because Hillary promises to be on top of protecting our kids from any potentially nasty stuff?
Okay
ysbaddaden @ 130:
Not from Hillary....not for a LONG time...
Maddow is an Obama tool.
She doesn't care that Obama sips wine with Homophobe Donnie McLurkin, but she gets pissed at Clinton pointing out Obama has NO foreign policy experience.
Maddow is an embarrassment.
A useful tool for the Obama campaign.
uncle joe mccarthy @ 129:
I fail to see the burning WTC buildings, or weeping Israelis in the ad?
L.A. Confidential @ 125:
It's the tactic that bush used with the wolf ad. That's what we don't like about it. Selling fear is the republican's way.
L.A. Confidential @ 128:
Your comment about Obama and his supporters is way out of line and a simplistic and unnecessary generalization. As whether most here tolerate Hillary or not, I have no idea. Flamethrower comments like yours don't exactly help our cause. Irregardless who the Democratic nominee is I am voting for him/her in November.
uncle joe mccarthy @ 129:
So your saying we should just bring home the troops and just kick back and pretend we're an impenetrable fortress that can't be breached why worry about National Security let's party and have a good time 24/7?
i call on the fec to investigate the canadian memo leak
if found that the clinton campaign was behind this leak, then hillary needs to immediatly step down
using a foreign government to sway a domestic election is not only immoral...it is illegal
bush, cheney, clinton....all treasonous scoundrels
L.A. Confidential @ 131:
That is a very good point.
blaze @ 112:
"I'm Hillary Clinton and I approve of this message"...........it's on EVERY political ad.
I wish they would give Rachel a show of her own, but when you speak of fear mongering , you hit the nail on the head, with the six bigots that own operate and control national media in this country.
They are at a stage now where they are at least allowing liberal guest on these shows, where they were not even doing that in the past. If we recall they were claiming the current freaks all over these networks (like Dan Abram), were in fact liberal.
They cannot afford to have the Rachel's and Randi's of the world with their own TV shows because people like Abram's Dad, would really get reviled for the cheap criminal that he is. Bill O'Riley, Shaun Hannety, Chris Mathews, Wolf Blitzer and all of these lunatics would simply be attacked on the spot and brought down to the miniature size that really are.
George Bush and the gang of right wing jerks that he planted as FCC officials, and that are supposed to be working on behalf of the American viewers that are the real owners of media, but instead are working to give even more leverage if that's possible to screw over the people who pay their salary.
Only in America can we allow the people, we employ, such as these elected officials, including the President and the Cabinet members, he selects to also get on the payroll, to screw over their own employer (the American people), and get away with it over and over again.
L.A. Confidential @ 131:
so you are now comparing hillary to el druggo?
good
i wouldnt vote the the perv to be dog catcher
same goes with hillary
the ad was disgusting
hearkens back to lbj
at least then, americans had sense enuf to know when something wasnt right, and that ad was only seen once
pissed off patricia @ 135:
There's nothing scary about the ad. LOL man oh man.
Bluesage @ 60:
I AGREE
L.A.
Really? You expect us to believe that you are a wide eyed innocent and just don't get why that ad would piss people off? Puhhhlleeezzzze.
willyisimmons
I think the burning towers may have been implied.......;)
L.A. Confidential @ 137:
you know that is not what the ad was saying
stop being a fuciking nit
pissed off patricia @ 135:
See Obama's Harry and Louise mailer then...
'Hillary Clinton would FORCE you to buy insurance even if you couldn't afford it!!!!!!!'
As been said before, neither are innocent...
but the howls of indignation being directed towards Clinton are simply coming off as a little bit disingenuous at this point.
liberalNmoderation @ 139:
I don't think it's a good point. I happen to hold HRC to a higher stander than stupid running mouth's like Rush. And just what, exactly is HRC protecting our children from? Teh FEAR?
L.A. Confidential @ 137:
The 2 trillion we squandered on Iraq would have put Social Security on a sound economic platform for the next 50 years, and would have bought every American free gasoline for a year or more. If you think there is anything redemptive about Bushco's 20th century Manifest Destiny you are in the wrong party.
L.A. Confidential @ 143:
its 3am....have you got your check from the clinton campaign yet?
Login or Register to post comments.