"Media Matters"; by Jamison Foser
Poodle Skirts & Cooties
The Hotline's On Call posted capsule reviews of the speeches at the February 2 DNC Winter Meeting by various presidential candidates. The reviews included such categories as "Standing ovations," "Subtle Theme," "Discordant note."
The "Discordant note" the Hotline crew chose for Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton's speech? "Voice climbed into a yell five times."
We happened to watch some of Wesley Clark's speech, some of Dennis Kucinich's, much of Barack Obama's, and nearly all of John Edwards'. Enough to know that Hillary Clinton wasn't the only candidate whose "voice climbed into a yell five times," anyway.
She was, however, the only candidate to have her yelling described as "discordant." Indeed, On Call didn't even mention any other candidates' yelling. Or shouting, or screaming, or anything else about their speaking style or voice at all. (See reviews of Clark, Dodd, Edwards, and Obama.)
Hillary Clinton's yelling, though, was "discordant."
It is entirely possible, of course, that the fact that Hillary Clinton is a woman didn't have anything to do with On Call describing her "yell" as "discordant."
But it reminded us of something that's been bothering many of us: On January 22, ABC aired an interview of Clinton conducted by Charles Gibson. Gibson's third question was:
You are a strong, credible female candidate for president of the United States, and I mean no disrespect in this, but would you be in this position were it not for your husband?
Which made us wonder if Gibson will ever ask Sen. John McCain the following question:
You are a strong, credible male candidate for president of the United States, and I mean no disrespect in this, but would you be in this position were it not for your wife's money and political connections?
We suspect that Gibson will not. Why not?
The justification for Gibson's question of Clinton is presumably that she would not have the national profile that enables her to run for president if not for her husband. Given Sen. Clinton's own accomplishments, that's a debatable premise.
But if you accept the premise, then shouldn't Gibson also ask if McCain would ever have been elected to the House of Representatives if he hadn't left his first wife for the wealthy and connected Cindy Lou Hensley?
***
On February 1, The Daily Howler's Bob Somerby described Chris Matthews' comments about Clinton earlier in the week:
On Monday and Tuesday, Matthews had spent considerable time bashing Dem hopeful Hillary Clinton for telling a meaningless joke. As usual, he had directed gender-based insults at her, endlessly calling her a "girl" and complaining about all her "giggling." Nothing new -- last Thursday and Friday, he had referred to her as an "uppity women," implying that her husband refers to her the same way. But then, Matthews has long had a jones about Clinton that won't let his tortured soul go.
On January 31, Media Matters noted:
On the January 29 edition of Hardball, host Chris Matthews asked Massachusetts Gov. Paul Cellucci (R), who has endorsed former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani (R) for president, how Giuliani could "go into a debate with [Sen.] Hillary Clinton [D-NY] and land a punch against a woman." Matthews continued: "Isn't that going to be tricky for somebody like Rudy, who knows how to land a punch, to go up ... against a woman?"
Also on January 31, Maureen Dowd wrote in her New York Times column that, as first lady, Clinton "showed off a long parade of unflattering outfits and unnervingly changing hairdos." Dowd went on to claim that when Clinton "expressed outrage about Iraq," she "ended up sounding like a mother whose teenage son has not cleaned up his room."
On January 29, Media Matters noted that on the January 28 edition of The Chris Matthews Show, Time blogger Andrew Sullivan said of Clinton, "when I see her again, all the cootie vibes sort of resurrect themselves."
On the January 21 broadcast of The Chris Matthews Show, Newsweek's Howard Fineman and Matthews went on about "Miss Perfect" Hillary Clinton in a "poodle skirt" -- complete with a Photoshopped picture of Clinton in a poodle skirt on screen.
In early January, Media Matters noted Chris Matthews asking Chicago Sun-Times reporter Lynn Sweet if Clinton "doesn't look a little bit like a prohibitionist? ... A suffragette?" -- leading Sweet to say, "Come on, Chris. ... Oh, Chris. Are you playing to a stereotype or what? Where -- why --"
In December, Matthews compared Clinton to a "strip-teaser," asked if she is a "convincing mom," and said "her hair looked just to be cosmetic."
Last year, when the New York Daily News reported that Sen. Clinton's opponent in her Senate re-election campaign said "the senator used to be ugly -- and speculates she got 'millions of dollars' in plastic surgery," MSNBC's Tucker Carlson suggested the story was a plant from the Clinton campaign because "that's how she wins in every case, when people think that she's wronged." Carlson added, "Hillary Clinton is saying, on the one hand, 'Treat me like a man. I'm a man. I mean, I'm as good as any man'; and, on the other hand, she is saying, as a lot of female candidates do, frankly, 'No, I'm a woman, and treat me as a woman.'"
***
Hillary Clinton may be the person most capable of serving effectively as the next president of the United States. Or she may not be.
But this sure as hell isn't the way to find out.
maybe abc can get limbaugh to do analysis of hillary. they are losing credibility rapidly after turning over 40 million for a propaganda piece on 9-11.
to expand on the 9-11 remark, i put some things together concerning the writer of abc's "path to 9-11". in an august 16 interview in frontpagemag.com, cyrus nowrasteh said: "i also expanded my research because the [9-11] commission report only goes back to 1998, concluding that i needed to go back to the first attack on the wtc in 93," a complete and utter lie, of course. the report goes back decades and notes on page 72: "as a result of the investigations and arrests, the u.s. attorney for southern new york prosecuted and convicted multiple individuals." which puts the lie to the right wing spin that clinton did nothing about it. but where did nowrasteh "expand his research"? in a nation article on it's website, max blumenthal wrote that he asked nowrasteh about a cut scene where bin ladin was in direct sight but the clinton team refused to kill him. nowrasteh replied: "buzz patterson told me about 5 instances exactly like that. he was there." and on world net daily on 9-8-06 there was this: "reached at his home in so. calif. nowrasteh confirmed to wnd he consulted with patterson and gave him a preview of the drama." so who is patterson?he's a former aide who carried the "nuclear football", the missile launch codes. and he was with clinton from may 96 to may 98, left and wrote about a book about clinton called "dereliction of duty". but he vastly overstated his role, there are five people who do this job, and it's unlikely any are involved in policy. i found this on colorado media matters, a story on 9-26-06 concerning the dan caplis show on khow. patterson claimed that clinton refused to authorize a strike on bin ladin in 1996. but a caller to the show noted that in patterson's book he wrote that the strike was actually against iraq, not bin ladin. and apparently in his book patterson himself wrote of another no fire claim in "fall 1998". the only problem is that he also wrote in his book that he left the white house in "may 1998". so in the case of the "path to 9-11" you had a liar consulting a liar.
Liars consulting liars.
Well how else do you keep the fantasy going?
to continue on nowrasteh and patterson. another of patterson's books is entitled "reckless disregard: how liberal democrats undercut our military, endanger our soldiers, and jeopardize our security" you get the idea. nowrasteh, the script writer, also said in the frontpagemag interview that clinton did not respond to the cole. but the cole came at the very end of his term. so how about the bush administration? condi rice said this to the 9-11 commission on 4-8-04: "i do not believe to this day that it would have been a good thing to respond to the cole..." mr. nowrasteh must have been working with his other sources and missed that. the docudrama also has a very concerned looking rice reading the aug 6 2001 presidential daily briefing "bin ladin determined to strike inside the u.s." and saying something to the effect that the president must see this. but we know bush, rice or ashcroft did nothing. from the beginning they were focused on iraq and missile defense. holdover counterterrorism chief richard clark, who was ignored by rice, said that he felt the bush people were "frozen in amber" when returning after eight years out of office, ignoring that the greatest threat was terrorism. there was a mountain of evidence that nowrasteh had to overlook to produce his propaganda, instead he adhered to the words of a right wing liar. and abc bears the ultimate responsibility
MEFIRST,
I tend to agree with much of what you say, this posting included, but could you do us all a favor.....
Could you please break down what you want to say in short 3-6 sentence long lines as opposed to one long continuous sentence, it would make for easier reading.
i tend to write very long or short posts. i do not usually even use titles, an exception being below in this thread on a very short post. and i agree that it is a long paragraph, but it is not a long sentence. i try to punctuate carefully. but when you start adding paragraphs to a long post, it tends to make it seem even longer. and my eyes sometimes glaze over at the sight of a very long post, especially when it moves beyond the bottom of the screen. in this case i tried to pack as much info and keep it all on the same screen, at least each post. they are what they are.
Would you at least be interested in hearing about that great new aid to readability known as capital letters? If there's anything that makes my eyes glaze over, it's a long unbroken string of lower-case letters. That's where the impression of "one long continuous sentence" comes from. That and using only one space after a period instead of two.
no, i would not be interested. i'm only going to spend so much time here. i work a 50 hour week. i went to about six different sites to look up the info i did on nowrasteh and patterson, and tried to tie it all together. in other words, i showed some media misinformation. my time is going to be spent as i see fit.
How much time does it take to hit the "enter" key every few sentences?
Like this.
See that nice space there? It's not needed here, but in a long post, it's mandatory.
i think he mentioned capital letters. in which case, that would have nothing to do with paragraphs, which i already addressed. and if you go to his site, he does not use two spaces after each period. there's nothing "mandatory" here. do you have anything to actually contribute?
Hey mefirst,
I enjoy your posts and whether you use CAPS or paragraphs is immaterial to me. I'm still able to read and understand them.
Of course I've been chastised here for overusing CAPS, so perhaps I feel as if we're kindred spirits ;-)
I have TRIED to cut down [oh oops I CAPPED tried]...but I'm finding I kinda of enjoy the bold feature we get to use now even MORE [oh oops again] than the CAPS..
Eventually some poster will inform me I'm overusing that feature I'm sure.
So who do you like today, the Bears or the Colts?
Since I've no dog in the fight [Jets fan here], I'm pulling for the Colts. Only to piss Dave_Chicago off...haha just kidding Dave [if you happen to read this]
hey, jeter. another day in our little battling mmfa family. i know we have had some real scuffles, but i said in a post at christmas that i felt guys like you, bruce and oscar never try to deliberately mislead. and i am a .... dolphins fan. what frustrates me is that we kicked the hell out of both new england and chicago, and then get beat by teams we should have easily beaten. at least the 72 boys could pop the champagne again when the last undefeated team went down. as for today, i have to go colts, but i wonder if peyton's thumb is really healed.
Hey mefirst,
Yeah you and I have had our...debates ;-)
But they've been respectful, and without the vitriol & name-calling some get into here.
Like other "families" we have our arguments & mis-understandings.
But most of us here seem to be able to discuss issues without getting down 'n dirty.
I even have hopes that someday Tommy & Clams will put aside their hositly towards one another...
Well ok that MIGHT be asking for TOO much ;-)
*Kudos to the Colts, classy organization from top to bottom!*
In fact I always type two spaces after every period, but Blogger eats one of them. That's not material to posts here, howerver, since the software MMFA uses doesn't eat spaces.
Of course there's nothing mandatory. However, if you're going to go to all the trouble to gather the material you post here, it should be worth the extra few seconds to put it into a reader-friendly format to encourage as many people as possible to actually read and benefit from it. We're not asking for ASCII art here, just the occasional press on the shift and enter keys.
Regarding the use of line spaces to offset sentences or groups of sentences, in otherwise long comments:
It does make it easier to read... it makes it so that you can easily spot the several different thoughts of the comment, in their sequence.
You can scan down the comment, without reading every word, and easily spot a thought that might interest you, and read that sentence or two completely, and then even maybe go back to the top of the comment, to read each and every thought completely, that led to the one that caught your eye (or interest).
It's a quick way also to spot whether the comment contains anything of worth to you, in the same manner that an outline does, for an essay...
...and at 750 words, a comment here can easily qualify as an essay... the spaced-off sentences, again, serving as a sort of outline.
well, ok, since you commented. i rarely read your posts anymore. they tend to be extremely long frequently, sometimes with almost every sentence or two made into a paragraph. i just usually go right by them.
Thanks for responding, even though my comment was not in response to anything you might have posted, but was in response to Steeve's, and his observation that long posts should contain line breaks.
Which I agreed with, and added a reason for those breaks, because I sometimes write 600-700+ word comments, and use line breaks when I do.
I didn't need any input from you, as my post had nothing to do with you, but thanks anyway for the response.
truthfully, it does have something to do with me. and i said long before you posted that some posts just lose me. criticism can work both ways. anyway, no need to go on with this.
And while we're off-topic...
('08 and all the he said/she said surrounding it this early, is already having an undeniably destructive effect on the extraordinary Iraq dialogue going on right now, in Congress... a dialogue that seems to struggle for a breath of "media" air, amidst the smothering coverage of '08 this early... and the destructiveness of this he said/she said foot-in-mouth sideshow is not only of no interest at all to the American People right now, but is pissing them off even, me especially)
...next week, the cable channel Turner Classic Movies (TCM) will show the movie 'Network' (at 1 am Thursday night, probably too late for most folks).
I bet just about everybody who's interested in "media" misinformation already knows the story 'Network'... that it's loosely about a corrupted "media", television, in which nothing matters more than ratings... and why not, seeing as these television broadcasters are privately owned corporations, and therefore ratings are almost just another word for revenues...
Revenues are important to corporations, and to the owners of them.
And that'd be another interesting element to 'Network': Of how much of a corporation it is that IBC (or whatever it's acronym) is... of how it's just one company in a larger fleet of companies, and of how the "news' division is just that, simply a division of a larger concern (broadcasting), which is in turn just a fish in the belly of a bigger fish.
I post to point out something about 'Network' you may have missed... it's an element to the story that's very important, yet if you weren't watching carefully, you'd miss it.
Recall how Howard Beal, once he has a breakdown of some sort (a kind of passionate complaint against television, and the millions upon millions of idiots staring at it)...
Recall how he gets into trouble with the parent company of his network, because of something he says on air during one of his impassioned (but truthful, like a prophet) rants... something he says causes trouble right to the top, right to Mr. Ruddy (I believe is his name), the Chairman of the Board and principal owner of the mammoth company that includes IBC...
Howard's comments on-air get Robert Duval's character (network president I think) in a panic too... "I have to fly immediately, overnight, to see Mr. Ruddy personally in the morning, me and Howard both... and he's going to cut my head off, and Howard's too... I'm done, I'm finished! What Howard said has killed us all!"
Do you recall what it was Howard Beal said on-air, that caused such panic and anger throughout the corporation, that it caused the principal owner to immediately call Howard on to the carpet?
Again, it's an important part of the story of 'Network', and yet it's so easy to miss... and it's still very important today, the thing Howard said on-air that caused so much trouble for his owners...
It's maybe the most important of all the dirty little secrets in the "media" today, the thing that Howard blurted out, on-air, in the movie 'Network'.
ok i did read this one. and it's been a long time, but i think the line is "throw away your television". which i have sort of done. i watch almost no network tv. not that i'm a snob about it. i did like "married with children" for a couple laughs, but most of network tv is mind numbing. and the movie "network" predicted every single thing that has happened to television.
I've got a transcript of the movie 'Network' in my archives, and dug it out just to be sure... the name of the owner, played by Ned Beatty, is Jensen (not Ruddy), and Robert Duvall's character is Frank Hackett (nice choice for a name Paddy), and Beale is spelled with an e at the end.
Howard goes on the air one night, after already being established as the 'Mad Prophet of the Airwaves', and after already inspiring the "mad as hell" and television-destroying response from his audience...
He goes on, and during his live audience's welcoming applause, tells them to "Stop... stop it! I have something extremely important to say to you. Stop and listen to me... listen very carefully!"
He then goes on to explain to his audience of how one corporation might buy another, and of how this happens simply as a matter of purchasing stock, and of how common it's becoming...
He tells them that the buying company sometimes needs government approval (or at least must notify them of the transaction), from the SEC and even the FCC, if it involves a broadcaster license... and that the corporation that owns his network (UBC) is being bought up, by something called the Western World Funding Corporation...
Howard (a fictional character) tells us that the Western World Funding Corporation is simply a consortium of banks and insurance companies, who are simply acting as purchasing agents on behalf of the true prospective owners, and that they've filed all the forms and applications to takeover his parent company CCA (which again, holds his broadcast network UBC), but they won't reveal the identity of the true purchasers behind Western World Funding Corporation...
Howard says that they won't tell the SEC or the FCC or the Justice Department or the Senate even, who it is that's buying his broadcast network, license and all...
So Howard tells the American People, on-air, who's doing this.
Saudi Arabia, that's who.
He goes to ranting how much money the Saudis draw off from America and the rest of the world, by way of oil, and how much of the 'western world' the Saudis now own as a result... he tells about their influence in New York and Boston and New Orleans and Houston, of how much private and commercial real estate they hold in America... how they have such a large stake (by way of Aramco) in Exxon and Texaco and Mobil (you need to be updated Howard)...
He says "Hell, they already own half of England!"
He tells them, his fictional audience in this fictional story, that it's a threat to the American people to allow Saudis to own so much of them, to own them outright even (he says that, he says "they're buying you!")...
And they're buying his network.
And tells them all, in his 'Mad Prophet' way, to get up, and go to the Western Union office, and send a telegram to the White House, to president Ford...
"I want you to get up right now, and flood the White House with telegrams... have them wading knee-deep in telegrams by midnight tonight... I want you to say 'I'm mad as hell, and I'm not going to take this!'... I don't want the Saudis owning CCA and UBC... I want this deal stopped!"
"Stop the CCA deal!"
OK, as I said, this is what gets Howard in trouble... as Hackett finds out (too late to stop Howard), he's furious... but yes, he tells Faye Dunaway, we (CCA) are in bed with the Saudis... we do need their money... they are buying up CCA...
Yes, Howard told the truth, on-air, the friggin 'Mad Prophet'!
(I'll wrap it up...)
Ever wonder how Saudis can bomb the U.S. on September 11, 2001, and get away with it?
Ever wonder how they're never mentioned in the "media" at all, ever, in regard to 9-11?
Never mentioned at all, in the "media", with regard to the "insurgency" (the Shia-killing insurgency) in Iraq?
Did you miss it recently, where Saudi Arabia said that if the U.S. pulls it's troops out of Iraq, they're putting their's in?
It's an important part of the movie where Howard tells his audience the truth about who owns so much of the "media".
And it's Prophetic, it is... because they bombed us on 9-11, the Saudis did... and they solidified their power in the White House, by delivering a second term to their "good friend" and business partner, George W. Bush.
And there's been hardly a mention of them, the Saudis, since, in this privately-owned curse called the "media".
Charles Gibsonin in an an imagined interview of George Bush in 2001:
not only did he have no experience in policy making, he had no real life experience. a series of business failures in companies set up by daddy's pals, and life glimpsed from the bottom of a liquor bottle for a good deal of his adult life. it was sad to note the passing of molly ivins and paul krugman said it best in his column. he noted how she was exactly correct in everything she said about iraq. contrast that with bush boot licker kathleen parker. in a just written column she claimed john kerry "attacked america". since she wrote nothing more, i can only assume she was talking about his statement that he had never seen this country so isolated diplomatically. which is a completely true statement. look at what our traditional allies in europe think of us. and it is almost all due to bush.
Yeah, Molly is gone and shill Kathleen continues to waste ink. There is no justice with the grim reaper.
I would give just about anything to lock Tweety into a room for a couple hours with a printout of his top 20 idiocies and our three daughters (ages 27 - 33).When he emerged, he would be pale, have a blank stare and his chin and neck would be bathed in spittle.In a more fanciful scenario, our daughters would be replaced with my wife, my dear departed mother and her mother.Of course, then, he might not emerge at all.
I don't even suspect Rush of having any basis for comparison when it comes to women. I wouldn't waste the money to bring him on about Hillary. Maybe better save him as the big gun on Race Relations and 7-year-old boys in the tropics, where he has certified expertise.
McCain's wife was a governor and president of the United States?
Must have missed that.
You missed the whole point of that comparison too. No one would think of asking McCain that because he is a man...and it is inherently insulting to suggest that somebody didn't "earn" their own way.
Oops, Leather disappears in a puff of logic.
Absolutely Temp...
You'd never hear "Saint" McCain or "Reverend" Rudy get any questions like the one Hillary got.
Charlie Gibson is such a pathetic weenie. Why doesn't he just go back to selling white bread on that morning show.
Leather,
You must have missed many things in life. Hopefully, your comment is just sarcasm because no one can be that stupid. I've read your posts before and some, not many, have made sense. Please, tell me and the readers that you were just being sarcastic or is that really you.
When Mrs. Clinton's voice gets loud, it does (to my ear) get discordant, very shrill, somewhat nasal.
And no they (the media) wouldn't ask a similar question of McCain. Don't recall them asking it of jfklite in 2004.
Oscar:
Because of your obvious acoustic attenuation, and your excellent analysis of vocal timbre, you might wish to look into a career in one of the three seats of American Idol.
Unfortunately, you are a voter. The same "skills" would have you voting for Hannibal Lecter, whose voice could be described as a soothing baritone, never loud nor discordant, and steeped in authority. Add perfect enunciation, and you have a voice that you would find without flaw, attached to a cannibalistic serial killer.
Of course, GW Bush appeared to have "earned" enough votes for two terms, and his vocal "abilities" combine the country appeal of Andy Devine with the vocabulary of Norm Crosby. And here's the kicker; from an analysis of Bush's lack of speaking ability, should we have predicted Bush's incompetence, inexperience, apathy, and arrogance would have resulted in the deaths of well over 6000 Americans so far? Or the maimings and dismemberments of tens of thousands of more? Or the killings of tens of thousands of innocent civilians in other nations? Hannibal has NOTHING on Bush, when it comes to senseless and needless deaths.
And yes, I know, Hannibal is a FICTIONAL character, his voice supplied by an actor. If only Bush were fictional as well.
The lack of the same standards applied to GWB is truly one of the most infuriating "misunderbalance" in the corporate media. They are willing to allow "the emperor" to walk naked as a jaybird, while his opponents (especially if they are women) are judged on the type of trivial sensibilities that GWB fails at as well (usually setting the gold standard). Pungent analysis as usual, Tex.
That was a good one Mick...
"Misunderbalance." Well Done!
Pungent? Err...Poignant or cogent perhaps? Granted they're all close in meaning, but I tend to think of my daughter's diaper as being pungent.
Tex, first I congratulate you on getting through a post without yelling (caps). I have never voted for a presidental candidate based on vocal acuity only. Just pointing out that I find HRC shrill when the volume goes up. Maybe that's because I don't think yelling is becoming of any lady. I, at the same time, find GWB inarticulate at time and anything but a great orator. But then again, according to history, Lincoln was not a great orator, not that GWB is or ever will be a Lincoln.
I'm afraid that as the 2008 campaign goes forward, the candidates with the most $ and not necessarily the best ideas or leadership abilities will be the ones that advance, voices and presentation style aside.
i think of the edsel as more apt
"not that gwb is or ever will be a lincoln." couldn't resist.
Good one!!!!!!
So yelling is ok if it is done by a "gentleman"?
Not necessarily, Snoopy. But in HRCs case, I find her voice extremely annoying when the volume goes up. There are men who have the same effect on me, altho a specific example does not come to mind at the moment.
***
Hillary Clinton may be the person most capable of serving effectively as the next president of the United States. Or she may not be.
But this sure as hell isn't the way to find out.
*************************************
<> Your words above are the key to the whole arguement. I am a democrat who does not like Hillary. I do not consider her a good choice for president, I do not want her as our nominee.
Yet I find myself continually defending her against the nasty attacks from the right. Attacks are constantly launched against her femininity, her value as a woman. Any attacks on her ideas tend to be against vague generalizations and imaginary positions she has never taken. Oh, and let's not forget the distortions of what she has said and supported.
Asking if Giuliani can land a punch against a woman is disturbing. This is not a boxing match, it's a political campaign. The real reason for debate is to bring each candidated ideas into the open and search for the best. Saying Giuliani would have a hard time landing a punch against Hillary, IOW facing Hillary in a strong debate, implies either that Hillary is so brilliant Giuliani would have no chance against her in an open forum, or women do not have ideas worthy of debate.
The first is an insult to Rudy, the second is more revealing of Mathews.
I would like to spend my time supporting a candidate I find better qualified. Instead I am wasting a lot of time defending a candidate I do not support, because the attacks against her are so nasty they cannot go unanswered. All too often they are insults to all women, as the father of three daughters and a husband, I will not tolerate that. As a decent human being I cannot tolerate that.
Bobklahn, you have identified yet another consequences of sexism (and racism and other -isms). Because it has been so difficult for women to get the resources and support to enter top races, all the focus is on the one woman who has managed to do so. Rather than having the wide variety of choices that one has when choosing among white male candidates, you have one, and obviously that candidate is going to be less likely than your favorite choice of the other 10+ white male candidates to match your values. When we get to the point that the demographics of candidates for both parties better reflect the demographics of the society of the whole, then we will have made some progress. In the meantime, thanks for doing the right thing.
I So wish we had a press that concentrated on substance.
My criticism of Senator Clinton, articulate and informed as she is, involves her tendency to take positions based on political calculation. Rep. Kucinich's speech reflected his passion to stop this mad slaughter in Iraq; then Senator Clinton comes on with her "moderate" speech when the house is on fire.
Instead of discussing this, we get commentary about hair, speech tones and cosmetic surgery.
Regarding whether she took advantage of her husband's position: of course she did! But she has also shown herself to be a real player in her own right. Most people who succeed do so with a lot of help from those who supported them. What they do with that is what counts.
I've long ago given up on finding any depth in either the mainstream media or mainstream politics. I had the misfortune to have to sit through parts of The View the other day. Barbara Walters had only this to say about war-supporting, pro-zionism Joe Biden: "He's so good looking!" And a flip through the channels this morn had that loud-mouth McGlaughlin and Pat Buchanan holding an insipid conversation about some candidates "likability".
They don't care about issues because both parties have the exact same agenda: feed the corporate world, starve the worker, kill the Bill of Rights and do whatever Israel commands. There's no need to take the debate beyond the most shallow of superficialities. That might give the game away and drive the voters to alternative parties.
I don't really suppor Hillary for the nomination...
Edwards or O'Bama have just as good ideas, and none of the baggage.
All of them will be smeared, but let's face it: The Right Wing-Nuts control the media, and it will be a little harder to smear Edwards or O'Bama.
Come now! Lots of people, women in particular vote for the first lady and not the candidate. The R's are panicing over the prospects of having to fight Clinton again. Lots of people, women in particular will vote for the first man. Being fond of the ladies isn't seen as such a bad thing by lots of the ladies. Politeness forbids me to mention why the other variety of ladies are against men noticing them.
The media will flex it's muscles and show that they are the ones to decide the next president. Unless of course the media gets a little kick in the shins from the web master.
Here's a kick that will hurt real bad. Lots of souls are up for sale in DC. The R's are way ahead in that department at present. Will they stay ahead or will the web put soul sellers out of business?
"MSNBC's Tucker Carlson suggested the story was a plant from the Clinton campaign because 'that's how she wins in every case, when people think that she's wronged.'"
-----
Why would Carlson attribute to the Clinton campaign a tactic that has been the entire basis of the "Karl Rove method" for almost thirty years?
Methinks the pundit doth project too much.
This review of quotes by J. Foser makes me want to puke. The highest paid and most visible "journalists" seem to revel in being as shallow, petty and meaningless as possible. And did i mention petulant?
This kind of media bias against women is both surprising and disgraceful. Surprising because there are now many females in Congress and in governorships, mayoralties and many other political jobs, not to mention those in first leadership positions in other countries around the world.
But I guess I should not be surprised -- the garbage that continually comes out of these people's mouths would never be uttered in most business and professional environments. Even on popular television shows it would either be criticized or held up for ridicule.
It all makes me very, very angry. One consolation is that all the stupid bloviating in the same vein about Nancy Pelosi has clearly not stopped her in any way.
Thank you for your continuing excellent and essential work.
There is not any more of an insecure group than the power patriarchy. They don't want new ideas, diversity or integrity. They seek only to maintain their monetary and stagnant power. Any hint of that loss of power (see BushieCo) and they trot their arrogant, fearmongering and biased propaganda.
Don't get hung up on the woman angle. The "Clinton" part is much more important. The media would be reeeal nice if Condoleeza ran.
Off topic...
But I was pleased to hear Air America has been purchased and is ready to roll on...
and kick some more right-wing ass!
And don't forget, the "Fock You Channel" lost hundreds of millions of dolloars in its first few years.