"Media Matters"; by Jamison Foser
A "terrible" performance
The dominant political story of the past week and a half has been Hillary Clinton's performance in the October 30 Democratic presidential debate. During and immediately after the debate, the general consensus was certainly not that Clinton had fallen on her face. As Eric Boehlert explained this week:
What was interesting about the debate was that commentators who later described the night as a train wreck for Clinton were surprisingly subdued as the debate unfolded in real time. It was only later, as the pundits fed off each other and whipped themselves into a frenzy, that the reviews become increasingly harsh, to the point where it was written in Beltway stone that Clinton had absolutely bombed during the debate; a "debacle."
But again, as it unfolded live, that's not how it was reported. For instance, live-blogging the debate at abcnews.com, Rick Klein, who later hyped the dire debate consequences for Clinton at ABC's The Note, wrote at 9:33 p.m.: "Clinton is strong, concise, and sharp tonight. She is finding ways to contrast herself with the Bush administration even while defending herself."
By 10:35 p.m., Klein wished the two-hour debate was over already: "The last few minutes remind me of why debates should end at 90 minutes. Less energy on the stage, and fewer interesting things to be said."
Time's Ana Marie Cox also wrote about the debate in real time. At 10:53 p.m., Cox wrote that Clinton had made her "first mistake of the night" -- an hour and 53 minutes into the debate, and about nine minutes before the end.
But as the media feeding frenzy continued, the pundit class convinced themselves that Clinton had turned in the worst debate performance in years. It was "terrible," the New York Post announced more than a week later.
Time's Mark Halperin declared it "disastrous" and a "failure." According to Halperin, Clinton was "shrill" and "too hot tempered." The Politico's Roger Simon agreed that Clinton "really" had a "bad night" -- but Simon insisted that Clinton "seemed largely emotionless and detached." Given that two such esteemed journalists agreed that Clinton had a horrible night, but did so based on directly contradictory reasons, it's easy to suspect that no matter what Clinton had done during the debate, the pundits would have criticized her.
So constant were the negative reviews of her performance, Clinton ultimately said in an interview that she hadn't been at her best during the debate.
Perhaps the best indication that the "disastrous performance" story line is overblown is that Slate's Mickey Kaus has been promoting it. Kaus is in full-on Clinton Campaign Death Watch mode, endlessly hyping the latest sign that Clinton is just days away from falling behind Dick Cheney in the Democratic primary campaign. In recent days, he has declared Clinton's campaign to be "flailing," announced that "Hillary has now used two of what she must have considered the most powerful weapons in her arsenal ... and they both backfired," and speculated that further discussion of immigration policy would "just about do it for her" -- meaning, end her campaign. Kaus has compared Clinton to Mike Dukakis and made what even he acknowledges is the "cheapest" reference to right-wing smears about Clinton having an affair with a female staffer.
None of this, however, is a sign that Clinton is actually in trouble. It is, instead, a reminder that Kaus says a lot of silly things, particularly about the impending doom facing Democrats. Kaus spent the months leading up to the 2004 Democratic primaries declaring Sen. John Kerry to be a dead man walking. In one memorably foolish missive, Kaus announced a "Kerry Withdrawal Contest," explaining "help him drop out now and avoid humiliation." Kerry, Kaus wrote at the time, "faces not just defeat but utter humiliation in the New Hampshire primary. Is he really going to soldier on to finish in the single digits and get clobbered by both Howard Dean and Wesley Clark, if not one or more other candidates?"
Less than two months later, Kerry won New Hampshire comfortably. He then went on to win the Democratic nomination, losing only four states along the way. When Mickey Kaus declares you dead in the water, it's time to start working on your acceptance speech.
"Breathtakingly misleading"
If the media's rush to declare Clinton's performance a disaster sounds familiar, it's because there are striking similarities to the last debate performance to be so universally and harshly condemned by the media: Al Gore's during the 2000 general election.
Then, as now, the initial reviews weren't at all bad. In fact, the public and pundits alike initially judged Gore to have been the winner; the chattering class -- which couldn't stand Gore -- then talked itself into believing (or at least saying) that he had performed badly.
Then, as now, the real story of the debate was ignored by the media. In 2000, George W. Bush's misstatements and outright lies about serious policy matters were shoved aside in favor of relentless media criticism of Gore's mannerisms and utterly inconsequential mistake about which natural disasters he had visited with James Lee Witt and which he had visited with Witt's staff. This time around, the pundit class ridicules Clinton for allegedly evasive answers, while ignoring the larger story: the questions she was supposedly evading contained misleading claims and factually incorrect statements.
In her live-blogging of the debate, the very first comment Time's Cox made about the debate itself, two minutes in, mocked Brian Williams for an opening question that was transparently hostile to Clinton: "Bri-Bri, right in with the 'tell us how Hillary will eat our babies.' " Forty-three minutes later, she noted the resemblance of a question from Russert to Republican National Committee talking points: "The RNC has been emailing Tim. (See: Question about opening the Clinton archives.)" At 10:09, she mocked another Williams comment, this one about Obama: "Obama is totally a Muslim. Brian Williams just told me so."
In real time, Russert's question about the "Clinton archives" seemed to Cox to have been the result of RNC emails to NBC's star reporter. Later, President Clinton blasted Russert for his "breathtakingly misleading" question. The Annenberg Public Policy Center's FactCheck.org agreed, concluding that Russert "misled" with his question by "misquot[ing]" a letter from President Clinton. Correcting its earlier claim that Hillary Clinton's answer to Russert's question was "doubly misleading," FactCheck concluded, "Russert was wrong, and so were we. Bill Clinton ... called Russert's question 'breathtakingly misleading,' and we now agree. Russert did not respond to requests for comment."
Despite the fact that Russert's question sounded to at least one national reporter like it had come straight from the Republican National Committee, and despite the fact that it was "breathtakingly misleading," countless news reports have taken Clinton to task for her response, rather than indicating that Russert's question was false.
And -- what a coincidence! -- that's just what the RNC wanted the media to do. The Hill reported this week:
RNC officials acknowledged they've been encouraged to tap into the "stockpile" of opposition research they have amassed on Clinton more and more in recent days because of the senator's debate showing last Tuesday, combined with the upcoming Iowa caucuses and Clinton's continued leads in most polls.
[...]
Since last Tuesday, there has been a steady drumbeat of less than flattering stories promulgated by the RNC about the Clintons' role in releasing documents to the public.
[...]
Like many pundits, the RNC has seen Clinton as the presumptive nominee for much of the year, and one official in the RNC's research department said they have sought throughout the year to portray Clinton as "calculating."
Her trouble in last week's debate, quickly seized upon by her Democratic rivals, is helping paint that picture, the official said.
"She's really fallen into the framework that we've been using on her," the official said. "It's just been great for us."
[...]
After putting a strategic framework in place to define Clinton as both calculating and evasive, [Communications Director Danny] Diaz and the rest of the RNC communications team are trying to capitalize on what many saw as Clinton's first significant stumble.
The archives question wasn't the only question asked of Clinton during the debate that contained false or misleading assertions.
One of Russert's most over-the-top questions of the evening was about Social Security. Here is the complete question Russert asked Clinton:
RUSSERT: Senator Clinton, I want to clear something up which goes to the issue of credibility. You were asked at the AARP debate whether or not you would consider taxing, lifting the cap from $97,500, taxing that, raising more money for Social Security. You said, quote, "It's a no." I asked you the same question in New Hampshire, and you said "no." Then you went to Iowa and you went up to Tod Bowman, a teacher, and had a conversation with him saying, "I would consider lifting the cap perhaps above $200,000." You were overheard by an Associated Press reporter saying that. Why do you have one public position and one private position?
Even if everything Russert said was true, that would be a remarkable question: he began it by suggesting there is something wrong with Clinton's "credibility" and ended it by directly asserting that she is a liar.
But not everything Russert said was true. Very little of it was, in fact.
At the AARP debate, Clinton hadn't been asked specifically about "lifting the cap from $97,500"; she had been asked a far more general question. And she didn't say, "It's a no"; the moderator did. (Note that Russert went out of his way to make sure the audience understood that he was quoting Clinton directly: "You said, quote, 'It's a no.' " But he wasn't telling the truth. She hadn't said those words that he was so careful to make clear she had said.)
Russert then falsely characterized his own question to Clinton at an earlier debate. Russert did not ask, as he claimed during the October 30 debate, whether Clinton would "consider" lifting the cap. He asked whether she would lift the cap. And she did not say "no" in response. She said that she would first "move toward fiscal responsibility" before making any such decision.
Oh, and that quote Russert attributed to Clinton's conversation with Bowman? It appears to be made up. The Associated Press did, in fact, report about the conversation, but did not directly quote Clinton saying anything even remotely like "I would consider lifting the cap perhaps above $200,000." Indeed, the AP directly quoted Clinton saying only one word: "gap." That word, "gap," is key: not only did the Associated Press not quote Clinton saying what Russert claims it quoted her saying, it characterized her as having said she would consider payroll taxes on income above $200,000, but not income between $97,500 and $200,000. Russert not only made up a quote, he made up a quote that is contradicted by the very news organization from which he claims to have gotten the quote in the first place.
In other words, Russert's entire question was false. He misrepresented the questions Clinton had been asked -- even misrepresenting his own words. He misrepresented her answers and quoted her saying things she did not say. At the end of it all, he called her a liar. In fact, there is no contradiction between what Clinton actually said in the two debates and what she reportedly told Tod Bowman. And Bowman himself told the Associated Press -- in that same article that didn't quote Clinton saying what Russert claimed she said -- "I don't blame her" for wanting to discuss Social Security with him privately instead of publicly "because no matter what she says, she'll be attacked."
Russert was right about one thing: his question did, indeed, go "to the issue of credibility." And it left his own credibility in tatters.
Yet the rest of the media have politely looked away, ignoring -- or, worse, defending -- Russert's dishonest performance.
On CNN's Reliable Sources last weekend, for example, host Howard Kurtz -- whose entire job is to report about the media, for both CNN and The Washington Post -- led a discussion with the Politco's Roger Simon, Townhall.com's Amanda Carpenter, and columnist Clarence Page in which not one of the four so much as hinted that any of Russert's questions might have been the tiniest bit misleading.
Kurtz, to his (small) credit, did raise the issue of whether Russert and co-moderator Brian Williams focused excessively on Clinton or on encouraging conflict among the candidates. But that is a benign question, especially compared to the much more serious matter of whether Russert had lied during his questioning of Clinton, or merely unintentionally made false claims. Instead, the journalists defended their powerful peer. Page declared that "everybody up there got hard questions." Carpenter dismissed complaints about Russert's "gotcha" questions as an "excuse" and an effort to "evade and not answer the hard questions." But the problem isn't that Clinton got "hard" questions, it's that she got false questions.
Simon went further, praising Russert for having done "an excellent job." Again: Russert made false claims about Hillary Clinton in the middle of a question in which he challenged her credibility. That is not only dishonest and hypocritical behavior, it is deeply damaging to the public's ability to make informed decisions about the candidates. It is doing serious damage to American democracy. But to Roger Simon, Russert deserves praise for this shameful performance.
In print, Kurtz wondered if it was "wise for Hillary strategists to gripe, on background, about Russert's questions" -- but he hasn't written a single word about whether those questions contained inaccuracies. He did praise Russert's question about illegal immigrants as "entirely fair." Three days before Kurtz offered that praise, The Telegraph in Nashua, New Hampshire, had editorialized that Russert's question -- which was based on Clinton's comments to that newspaper -- was "weak" and "was based on either an incomplete viewing of The Telegraph's editorial board video or an unfortunate reliance on secondary sources." The Telegraph gave Russert "low marks" for the question, which was "based on an incorrect interpretation of what she said to begin with" and took Clinton's comments "out of context."
So, why does Kurtz think the question was "entirely fair"? Did he even look into the facts before offering his praise for Russert?
Who's really "playing the gender card"?
Instead of examining Russert's handling of the debate, the political media quickly followed his mugging of Clinton by ridiculing her campaign's postdebate response.
In the wake of a debate in which the NBC moderators had bombarded her with a steady stream of abusive, false, and misleading questions, and in which her opponents had also taken a few shots at her, Clinton's campaign responded with a web video about the "Politics of Pile On." The video concluded with a clip of Clinton saying, during the debate, "I seem to be the topic of great conversation and great consternation, and that's for a reason."
It was, in many ways, an unremarkable response, reflecting one of the oldest tactics in the book: Front-runners deflect criticism by suggesting the criticism is merely a result of their success, or of opponents' desperation. This isn't even Politics 101; it's more basic than that. The merits of the message -- in this or any other case -- aside, it's something that every political reporter in the country has seen countless candidates employ countless times.
But this time, those reporters pretended it was something else. They pretended Clinton was "playing the gender card." Worse, they derided her as a "little girl" and mocked her for "whining."
Mickey Kaus went so far as to say Clinton should "stop acting like a whiny daughter who's hade [sic] her Barbie taken away!"
Here's that "Politics of Pile On" video again. Does Clinton look like a "whiny daughter who's had her Barbie taken away"? She's smiling at the beginning of her comments, and speaking confidently as she moves on to explaining what she sees as the "reason" for the focus on her. How about her speech at Wellesley, the all-women's college where she first drew national attention as an undergraduate? That's the other piece of "evidence" of Clinton "whining" and playing the "gender card" the media has pointed to. Here's video of the line in question. Does she look like she's whining about having a Barbie taken away? Clinton didn't play the gender card, she played the desperation card, employing the time-honored strategy of suggesting that criticism is the result of your opponents' desperation or of your own success.
The absurdity of a bunch of journalists (many, if not most, of them male) mocking a United States senator as a whiny little girl, all while accusing her of playing the gender card, couldn't be more clear.
Kaus insisted: "Hillary could resort to the standard damage-control techniques available to all public figures: Restating her position, changing the subject, waiting for what was a minor bad episode to blow over, etc." But Kaus and his peers in the media are, in effect, saying that Clinton cannot resort to one standard technique available to all other leading candidates: suggesting that one faces criticism solely because one's opponents are getting desperate. When Clinton does so, the media declares her to be "whining." They're insisting that Clinton not use the tactics available to every male candidate since the dawn of time. That things must be more difficult for her; that she must run this campaign backward and in high heels. There is a gender card being played, all right, but it is being played by the media, and it is being played against Hillary Clinton.
And, to be clear, the "gender card" gets played all the time, usually by male candidates and journalists. When the media attempt to feminize John Edwards by calling him the "Breck Girl" and obsessing over his haircuts, they are playing a particularly nasty "gender card." When they describe Clinton as "Miss Perfect" and go on about "poodle skirts" and "cooties" and cleavage the like, they are "playing the gender card." When they refer to Barack Obama as "Obambi" and compare him to Scarlett O'Hara, they are "playing the gender card."
(For more on the "gender card" nonsense, see these posts by Ann Friedman and Jessica Valenti at Feministing and Dibgy.)
Bill Clinton's own reaction to the debate has also been distorted by the media. Several news organizations have falsely reported that Clinton accused his wife's Democratic opponents of "swift-boating" her. In fact, Clinton was referring to Republican attacks and to the media's role in promoting those attacks.
And both Clintons have been mocked for suggesting that Senator Clinton was swift-boated, regardless of who was doing the swift-boating. Countless journalists have dismissed the suggestion out of hand. But was it really a bad comparison?
Used as a verb, "swift-boating" suggests making false claims about someone in order to challenge their character or integrity. That is exactly what Tim Russert did during last week's debate. His Social Security question to Clinton contained false claims, he explicitly set it up as going "to the issue of credibility," and he concluded the question by explicitly (and falsely) asserting that Clinton has been dishonest.
"You people are really nuts"
By the end of the week, some of the nation's most respected news outlets -- ABC, NPR, The New York Times, and Time magazine among them -- had begun to shift their attention toward things that really matter: whether Hillary Clinton left a tip at an Iowa diner she recently visited. Clinton did, in fact, leave a generous tip for restaurant staff, though initial news reports indicated that she had not done so.
Time's Cox explained why stories like this one matter:
The most interesting thing about the Clinton did-she-leave-a-tip-or-not bruhaha yesterday was the ferocity and speed with which the Clinton campaign pushed back -- with reporters at least. One can assume that's because they know this is the kind of story, true or not, that sticks to a candidate like, uhm, an expensive hair cut.
Set aside for a moment the simple fact that this kind of story "sticks to a candidate" because reporters endlessly repeat it. Let's assume that this kind of story, "true or not" (and Cox does not seem aware of the restaurant manager's reported confirmation that the campaign did leave a tip) does stick to a candidate, and that reporters really are powerless to avoid repeating it. That no matter how hard they try, they simply cannot write substantive articles about policy; they must write instead about haircuts and tips. The fact that they stick to candidates whether or not they are true is precisely the reason it is so irresponsible of reporters to report and repeat them when they aren't true.
Meanwhile, Anita Esterday -- the waitress at that Iowa diner who Clinton supposedly failed to tip -- understands what America's media elite do not: Stories like this are a colossal waste of time and distract from things that are actually important. As Esterday told one reporter, "You people are really nuts. ... There's kids dying in the war, the price of oil right now -- there's better things in this world to be thinking about than who served Hillary Clinton at Maid-Rite and who got a tip and who didn't get a tip."
On MSNBC, Chris Matthews has been doing his best to prove Anita Esterday right. While kids are dying in the war, Matthews obsesses over Hillary Clinton's "Chinese" clapping. For three straight days, Matthews wasted viewers' time with discussions about ... clapping. Thursday night, he discussed it in two separate segments. Finally, Chrystia Freeland of the Financial Times urged Matthews to get over his fixation with Clinton's mannerisms and focus on issues:
FREELAND: I do think that we have to be a little bit careful also about not picking on Hillary's mannerisms a little bit too much. So --
MATTHEWS: Ah, those secondary characteristics are off-base. Am I being told that?
FREELAND: Just a little bit. I mean, there's the clapping, there was the laugh. I think there are things to pick on Hillary about, but probably the clapping wouldn't be what I'd choose.
PATRICK HEALY (New York Times reporter): Well, there's one thing, Chris --
MATTHEWS: Well, give me a list -- Chrystia, give me a list some day on email of whom -- what I'm allowed to criticize about Hillary. And how --
FREELAND: Any policy matters; dynasty I think is OK, too.
MATTHEWS: Oh, OK. Yeah, I'll be sure to keep that in mind. Jim Warren, what do you make of this as a cultural phenomenon? If you're watching us from overseas, you say, "Is this what Americans do at political rallies? Oh, it's interesting."
JAMES WARREN (Chicago Tribune managing editor): Well, I mean, she can't copy me and stick her hands into her pants pockets. So, there's not much left to her. And given the repetity of her life, 10,000 different appearances a day -- oh, my gosh, it looks like she's at Sea World in San Diego. Here comes the seal! Yikes.
MATTHEWS: You're worse than I've ever been.
WARREN: Anyway.
MATTHEWS: Throw me a fish.
Watch the video. Matthews' "I'll be sure to keep that in mind" was just dripping with sarcasm.
Imagine how much better off we'd all be if Anita Esterday had a television show on MSNBC, and Chris Matthews worked in a diner in Iowa.
Justice and Truth in the USA - Fact Check:
HRC's performance in the last debate was really bad. Everyone except HRC die-hards and Hillary campaign staffers at MMFA are in agreement.
Clinton Campaign Confirms Planting Town Hall Question, Says It Won't Happen AgainFriday, November 09, 2007
By Major Garrett
Clinton's critics have accused her of being a double-talker who refuses to answer tough questions specifically. Now her campaign has acknowledged planting at least one question.
Already her rivals have begun to criticize Friday's revelation.
“In light of a weak debate performance, not to mention a persistent inability to answer the tough questions, it appears the Clinton campaign has adopted a new strategy of planting questions,” John Edwards’ Communications Director Chris Kofinis said.
“It’s what the Clinton campaign calls the politics of planting.”
-------------- end quote -----------------
The Democrat Party is finally starting to realize what a looming disaster HRC is for the next election. Foser's latest column, in all honesty, sounds like he's running for the Democrat version of Sean Hannity.
What's next? A "Foser-itation" tour?
You're a great American, Foser!
Matthews isn't fit to clean out toilets...
at Sea World.
(My apologies to all janitorial professionals.)
JusTruUs, you are pathetically boring. If what you do gets you off, the term get a life cannot be overstated.
How will MMFA spin the story about the Clinton campaign planting questions in the audience?
I can't wait to see the article here.
I can't wait to see the article that you have concerning this...please let me know where I can find that one.
Here:
http://web.grinnell.edu/sandb/questions.html
and here:
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,310316,00.html
Oh oh! Looks like this might be a pattern:
http://cameron.blogs.foxnews.com/2007/11/10/another-question-planted-by-team-hillary/
In a telephone interview with Fox, Geoffrey Mitchell, 32, says he was approached by an operative for the Clinton campaign to ask a planted question about standing up to President Bush on Iraq war funding. The encounter happened before an event on a farm outside Fort Madison, Iowa. The Clinton event was hosted by Iowa State Sen. Gene Fraise.
Mitchell tells Fox that Clinton campaign worker Chris Hayler approached him and asked him to ask Sen. Clinton a question about how she was standing up to President Bush on the question of funding the Iraq war and a troop withdrawal timeline.
Mitchell told Fox the Clinton campaign wanted to contrast Clinton to Sen Barack Obama, who had recently said the president would probably prevail in the Iraq funding battle with Congress.
Mitchell said he refused to ask the question.
“I told Chris I had other issues I wanted to raise with Sen. CLinton,” MItchell said. Asked what those were, Mitchell said: “I wanted to ask her why she voted for the Iraq war and why she didn’t consider that a mistake.”
Mitchel told Fox that Hayler, the Clinton campaign worker, was unhappy and moved on to others. “I know he tried to have others ask that question,” Mitchell said.
Ultimately, Mitchell said Clinton took no questions at the event.
You'll see the MMFA article on the plant right after they see you condemn the numerous plants of the Bush administration, so you don't look like a hypocrite while you accuse MMFA of being hypocrites.
MMFA might also want to wait until there's some conservative misinformation involved. You know, their stated mission and all that.
I'll wait for the fox news expose on plants at caucuses from all candidates of both political parties before deciding. I don't even know if what Clinton did was at all unusual.
If Clinton's campaign did a bad bad thing here, I'll weigh it against Obama's complete lack of knowledge on social security or Giuliani's insane warmongering.
Sorry, but we Hillary supporters have our excuses lined up around the block. She'd have to do something really dumb, like shatter the budget deficit record or ram our military into quicksand for a decade or blow off the constitution or ignore terrorism threats, before she'll lose our support.
So are you for or against questions being planted in the audience?
For the record I'm against it, no matter who does it.
Funny we didnt see you in here slamming Bush during the Gannon/Guckert fiasco. Its a cheap trick. I am suprised it isnt more common.
Why bring Bush up? Is Bush running for office? I'm not a Bush supporter.
So do you support having questions planted in the audience or not? Is it bad when Bush does it but ok when Hilary does it?
I answered that. Do you have reading comprehension problems? What part of its a cheap trick was too complicated for you to understand? Again you SAID you were against it no matter who does it yet I clearly remember a DEARTH of cons in here speaking against it when the Guckert/Gannon story was in the news and on these threads. THAT is a valid point which is why I brought it up.
You did say it was a cheap trick. You just didn't say whether you were for it or against it. For all I know you might be all in favor of using cheap tricks. You seem to support a candidate who has used this "cheap trick" on more than one occasion.
Sorry I wasn't here during the the Gannon fiasco. I didn't know this site existed then, therefore I didn't post here. I would be more than happy to state that that was just one of the many things the Bush administration has done wrong. I do not support him or the Republican party.
Maybe to ethically challenged rightwingnuts that would make sense. No it wouldnt calling it a cheap trick was perjorative. It is only your reading comprehension that is lacking. For instance laughably assuming I support Hillary. That is dumb. Hillary is FAR too conservative for me and this kind of thing is just like her. I guess you wingnuts get used to that simplistic thinking. Either/or Black/white. Its really dumb but then again I guess its what you have.
You seem to have some anger issues. Lot's of name calling and insults from you. "Ethically challenged, wingnut, lacking reading comprehension, dumb."
Do you talk to people like that face to face? If so I'd imagine you get into a lot of fist fights.
Not very progressive of you.
I didn't say you supported Clinton, I said you "seem" to. Sorry for that.
You make alot of off base assumptions yourself.
Unlike you, I won't respond with name calling though.
Oh please, the WWAAAHHH is silly. You were just as snarky as me. What was this again?
For all I know you might be all in favor of using cheap tricks. You seem to support a candidate who has used this "cheap trick" on more than one occasion.
Why would there be ANY assumption I am in FAVOR of cheap tricks? The term is obviously perjorative. I prefer honest hostility to this snarky mask of false civility. Go ahead and whine but I didnt call you any names anymore than you SAID I supported Hillary it was all implied. If you want to talk about the issues fine, do so, that would not include saying things like YOU might be in favor of cheap tricks. If you are going to be snarky then you dont fit on the high horse pedestal.
How should I know if you support cheap tricks or not? You didn't condemn it. You simply attacked me.
Do what you will, makes no difference to me. I pretty clearly called out my position on planted questions. I'm against them, no matter who they come from.
You just attacked me for stating my opinion.
Give it up. Calling it a cheap trick is perjorative. Your snarky implication I might be in favor of cheap tricks is an attack on my character. You are snivelling. Keep trying to pretend your saying I might be in favor of cheap tricks is innocent we arent that dumb. Either you are or you are being dishonest, and one thing you can be absolutly certain of is I will decide how I post.
Since you are so ignorant you dont even know the name of the largest political party in the United States there isnt any reason to take anything you say seriously.
"The Democrat Party..." By TruthandJustice
If you are so into fact checking, and all, please check the naming of the Democratic party. I know it's hard for you to possibly realize what an ignorant fool you sound like when using the incorrect name of the party you're trying to disparage, and it also tells me that you listen to radio talk shows, a lot. Since they are the ones who foist this misnomer out on a willing public most days.
This is just like the 2004 debates, when Bush TRUELY bombed (hard work). Right after most debates, Kerry would gain on Bush. However, after a few days of MSM spin, Bush would gain on Kerry again.
Give the MSM a couple of days and they will revise history in favor of the Republicans.
Justice and Truth in the USA - Fact Check:
I did a search of the news archives and found no reports of anyone claiming that Bush did a better job during the debates.
In fact, the liberal MSM gave the first two debates clearly to Kerry, and gave Bush a draw on the last debate.
There was NO MSM rally for Bush.
Oh man...you do know there's this thing called "Fox News"? right?
What archives are you checking?
I watched one of the debates on Fox. Bush looked like a bumbling idiot and Gore was well spoken and appeared worldly and knowledgeable. After the debate, the commentators started by saying "Well that one goes for Bush..." and Bill Kristol said that Al Gore reminded him of that annoying kid in school, always raising his hand and knowing all the answers...and do we really want a guy like this to be our President?
Please don't feed the troll.
You could have stopped at "asshole."
Of course Russert didn't respond...
He got his ass caught in the cookie jar again. I'd like to see him invite Bill Clinton on his little Sunday coffee clatch.
He hasn't got the balls to, of course. He'd get his corporate ass pulverized, so he runs and hides behind the skirts at the RNC.
At the time that the Dems were dealing with the idea of having debates on Fauxnooz, I had some mixed feelings; as much as the thought of lending legitimacy to a discredited propaganda outfit like Fox seemed out of the question, I had to consider what they would do if the Dems didn't agree to debate there, and the Fox yakkers just got to talk behind the Dems backs, as well as accusing them of being "scared" to face Fox.
In hindsight, after seeing Russert and others, I think the Dems were wise not to give Fox that opportunity to pretend to be a real news outlet.
What I can't take is Russert's "working class guy from Buffalo" act, and his literary canon about his regular guy Dad Big Russ (nothing against BR, but it's tiresome).
I wish Russert were scared. But he's not-- he's arrogant, he thinks he's right, he knows he's unbeatable. He doesn't care. That's the scary thing. The only weapon against his type is humor and ridicule-- but on what forum? They've got it all tied up.
Russert is stalking Hillary Clinton.
This morning (11/10/07) Russert was supposed to questioning Obama on Meet the Quote Anomoly Analysis Press. Russert was more interested in talking about Hillary Clinton than anything else. I counted from the transcript. Nine questions for Obama concerned Hillary. Russert mentioned Hillary 21 times. Compared to others: Bush three times, Edwards zero times, Giuliani one time.
Hillary is going to need a protection from abuse order if Russert doesn't cool out.
for justice and truth to claim the mainstream media "gave" the debates to kerry is completely false. what they did was report the polls, as in this one linked, that showed the public who watched thought kerry won, overwhelmingly in this case.
http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/10/03/election.poll/index.html
Justice and Truth in the USA - Fact Checking:
In fact, the first two debates were clearly "won" by Kerry. And George Bush didn't do all that well in the third debate.
When I said that the MSM "gave" the debates to Kerry all I meant was that the MSM "judges" were like the judges on "American Idol" who give their opinions before the people vote.
The part that really kills the left is that the people didn't care that John Kerry was a better debater.
Kerry won the debates and lost the elections.
except for the fact that many of those polls were taken immediately after the debates before people had the time to be influenced by anyone. and did it help kerry when andrea mitchell was on nbc right away blasting kerry for remarks he made about fed chairman alan greenspan in one of the debates? without, of course, mentioning that she is mrs. greenspan.
Sorry, a bit late on this thread but how about the Ultra-liberal NY Times ( as it's called by the wingnuts here)?
Nice archive searching, JT.
Justice and Truth in the US - Fact Check:
When I checked google news archives I could not find ANY reports in print media or radio/tv that gave positive coverage to George Bush in the first two debates.
Finally, the NY Times is a part of the liberal MSM. That fact is pretty much settled based on all the documentary evidence I can find.
sure, we'll just take your word.
No its just settle in the conciousness of the Hivemind.
So, the "liberal" NY Times called the debates for Bush, and that supports your position that the mainstream media called the debates for Kerry?
OK.
The media is unbelievable. They are again trying to shape public opinion in the Presidential campaign. They did it with Gore, and now they are trying to do it to Hillary. The left wing of the Democratic Party is just as bad. They have learned from the media, and are acting more like right wing Republicans. Every point you made in this article is so on the mark, but how do you stop this from continuing. The media never seems to see themselves as they really are. Chris Matthews, and Tim Russert are two of the worst. They are so biased toward Mrs. Clinton, and use their platform to misrepresent everything she says or does. I have never seen a debate like the one in Philadelphia. MSNBC definitely orchestrated a "Let's Get Hillary Night," and the candidates just fell in line. Tim Russert was so outrageous in his questioning of Hillary, but I knew he would be from watching him at the debate when Hillary ran the first time for Senate. I want to thank Media Matters for stating what I have been feeling about the Media's distortion of what actually took place on that stage, and the aftermath. The media is doing such a disservice to the American People at a time when the issues are so important. They are responsible for Bush's election, and now they want to shove their choice, which from all indications would be Obama down our throats. I just hope the American people are smarter this time out, and choose the best candidate, namely Hillary Clinton.
Well, they should focus on the fact that her answers to the questions were more triangulation.
Hillary talks about wanting to revisit NAFTA then votes for the Peruvian Free Trade deal.
More politics of triangulation from this woman. And how can she be the candidate of women when he is giving them the shaft here and in Peru with another free trade deal?
To her good fortune the media overlooks these truths.
It is no wonder that the young people I talk to today have no interest in politics. They are only called upon to lay down their lives and limbs in a war zone but yet they cannot grasp what is really going on in the polical arena. We all talk about the importance of values in this country ad nauseum but our reporters have trivialized the political system with biased and poor reporting. They place more value on clapping, hair cuts, tips etc. than whether or not a candidate has a progressive program. How can we get the pubic to see how perverted the media has become whereby they tweak questions to make a candidate appear incompetent. If the media is "left" then they certainly wouldn't do the things that Russet and Matthews have done over the last few years. We the people should stand up and take all the people that lie and expose them. They have abused their political power in influencing the public. This is the reason we have George Bush for president. They can take the bow for that.
You and Eric really nailed it. Hillary Clinton is one tough cookie. She'll have to bring her hip boots to the next debate 'cause the sh*t will be that high. Richardson, Dodd, Edwards and Obama should be wary of "piling on" in hit jobs like this last debate, because this is the tactic that both the right and the MSM are going to be employing against them. The right and the MSM are going to be trying, at every instance, to turn pragmatic responses into general principles and then calling candidates hypocrites and flipfloppers when the two don't line up.
I can't believe Russert still has a job. And Brian Williams should be ashamed of himself. As usual, I rely on sites like this to get the real facts. Just tell it to me like it happened, boys.
Whichever Democratic candidate eventually wins the nomination, they're going to need a lot of support from the trenches to weather the sh*tstorm coming. Thanks, guys!
I really like the conclusion Foser draws, and the societal changes that would precipitate such a result:
"Imagine how much better off we'd all be if Anita Esterday had a television show on MSNBC, and Chris Matthews worked in a diner in Iowa."
Now, that would be an America in which a Mukasey would be fortunate to be a janitor, and "torture" would be a quaint reference to something from the distant past.
A Report from XOF NEWS...where up is down, gray is blue and Right is WRONG.
Breaking News: Al Gore has decided to run for President on the Republican Ticket and Rush turns GREEN. Cheney again decides he is the best VEEP candidate available.
Breaking News: There is no more Truth and Justice Fact Reporting..it has been dicovered by XOF NEWS that the writer of Truth or Dare is ...............
JEFF GANNON.
More updates to follow.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qggO5yY7RAo
How anyone could have watched that debate and not seen Hillary's performance as a train wreck is amazing.
Glad to see that the organization who Clinton helped start (yet who claims they have no affiliation or attachment with her campaign) is out there defending her again, when she was downright awful.
Also didn't see the quote from the unnamed Clinton worker who said the next day on a conference call that Russert should be shot. MMFA must have just not seen that one.
Here's your cookie, GRhino, Good doggie.
You might want to read the article again. Pay particular attention to all the live reports from media members who didn't think the debate was a train wreck while they were watching it.
And if what you say is true, I'm sure Hillary polled at 0% after the debate.
One more hint: when the whole debate is arranged to attack only one person, it will look like that person was attacked. Another hint: being attacked more than the other guys is not the same as losing.
And before you say that the frontrunner is always attacked like that, I don't see the republican frontrunner attacked like that. And according to the media idiots, Hillary is both the frontrunner and in her last throes.
GRINO, That did it for me...Never again will I trust anyone running for office who have prearranged questions being asked. Of course, you will also agree the anyone who is President be scolded for the same thing.
G. R. Hino...
To put things into a more accurate perspective, Hillary could have fallen flat on her face throughout the entire debate and still not be as damaged as your current President and Vice President are. There are an amazingly stubborn 9% who still like the Vice President.
Furthermore, just take a look at the lineup of prospective Republican Presidents. Even many Conservatives are not very exited about that sorry lineup of candidates.
Good luck in the 08 elections. You’re going to need lots of luck to win that one. Bush will have to hide himself somewhere with the hopes that voters won’t remember how he created such a mess in Iraq. Vetoed healthcare for poor children. Etc. etc. etc.
Furthermore, just take a look at the lineup of prospective Republican Presidents. Even many Conservatives are not very exited about that sorry lineup of candidates.
Any of the Republican nominees have 50% negative ratings??? Didn't think so.
"Vetoed healthcare for poor children. "
This is false. Bush vetoed an SCHIP expansion to cover families making up to $62,500 (i.e. middle-class families). Families currently covered under SCHIP (up to 200% of poverty level) are still covered. Please stop making false and misleading statements. No "poor children" are going without health care because of the veto.
"You’re going to need lots of luck to win that one."
We will if dishonest hacks like you keep spreading lies and misinformation.
according to this two day old poll, rudy has a negative of 47% and hillary leads him and thompson by 6 points.
http://rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/election_2008__1/2008_presidential_election/election_2008_clinton_vs_giuliani_thompson
I watched most of the debate. Hillary held her own very well. It's amazing to see how these things get reported, first in "real time" and then when processed thru all the filters; then we get a fantasy version of what took place. Clinton did not want to answer certain questions (and this is typical politician) but she was poised throughout the debate and stuck to her own agenda, despite attempts to dislodge her.
The press has its own agenda, and its not objective reporting. They develop a group point of view, and it's out of this mass mind that they report.
The Democratic field of candidates is impressive. I would like to see Kucinich's vision in the White House, and I think Edwards would be the best president.
"Hillary held her own very well. "
*But on specific issues I've come out with very specific plans. With respect to Soc Security I do have a plan
*Personally I am not going to be advocating any specific fix until I am seriously approaching fiscal responsibility.
That's "holding your own"??? Giving completely opposite answers to a question.
"I would like to see Kucinich's vision in the White House, and I think Edwards would be the best president."
Wow...I mean there's nothing more to say really. Here we have a person wants to see the vision of a guy that completely bankrupted a major metro city in the 1970's and admits he has seen a UFO. And thinks that a guy who spends all of his time talking about 2 America's (rich & poor) when he is clealry living in the RICH America would be the best president...Wow. I'm literally speechless.
Wow. I'm literally speechless.
Can we hold you to that? Please?
Yes Mary!
"The Democratic field of candidates is impressive. I would like to see Kucinich's vision in the White House, and I think Edwards would be the best president." - Mary -
SO DO I Mary AND... that would be my favorite ticket: Edwards/Kucinich or Kucinich/Edwards.
I wonder who Hino likes from the sorry lineup of RepubliCan'ts? My guess would be Duncan Hunter, Darth Vader, Mrs GW Bush or Dick Cheany.
Just a joke Hino!
GRhino, pay attention. It's possible to have a plan and not act on that plan until it is feasible. Let me dumb it down for you.
I have a very specific plan for my next vacation.
I'm not going on vacation until I have the money saved up.
Are those completely opposite statements?Maybe to you, Rush and Hannity.Not to regular humans.
my sentiments exactly.
One simple question. Did anyone ever consider that Hillary might have deserved the line of questioning she received from Russert? She doesn't seem to ever be held accountable for anything and it seems as though this is the first time I've seen someone try to pin her down with something difficult to answer. John Edwards youtube ad really showed this if anyone is wondering how bad it really was check this out - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qggO5yY7RAo
I hear pundits talking about Hillary's debate "meltdown." Just because you don't agree with the answers she gave doesn't mean they were bad answers. She made sense, even though I disagreed with her Kyl-Lieberman vote. But I haven't read the resolution and it seemed she was saying the President hasn't pursued negotiation and the resolution would push him to act on sanctions, and that though she didn't support a rush to war she thought we couldn't do nothing, that Bush already had the power to launch a pre emptive strike on Iran and didn't need authority from congress (Sec Rice reiterated this point on This Week.) And I thought her answer on illegal drivers licenses was good also, esp since Gov Richardson has instituted this program in New Mexico and has found it helpful. Why can't she support Spitzer and not take a definite position on driver's licenses? She's not running for governor. Of course that issue is going to slam you one way or another, and the current administration was blown out of the water when they tried to approach it. But it does seem like she's taking much more flack than any of the Repugs, esp Guiliani, who's fawned over and worshiped. I've grown to really like Hillary, and the issues the left has their panties in a bunch over are just what you have to deal with when you have to govern the WHOLE country. And from her perch as first lady she has a great understanding of what it takes to move forward.
"And I thought her answer on illegal drivers licenses was good also, esp since Gov Richardson has instituted this program in New Mexico and has found it helpful. Why can't she support Spitzer and not take a definite position on driver's licenses? "
Are you retarded?? Seriously, the question was YES or NO do you support giving a drivers license to illegal immigrants. How hard is it to answer that question? Chris Dodd seemed to be able to answer it quite easily. Apparently for her, it is quite hard though. How can you honestly say that her pathetic attempt to dodge it was a good answer. At the very least, she could have said something like "Well, that's a state issue and I work in the federal government so its really my area to comment on"
Yeah, I'm retarded. I thought this was the retarded blog. Sorry I bruised your towering intellect.
I/m very happy to see that SAG and Teamsters are supporting the WGA in this. This, IMHO, should always be the case, rank and file members need to toss out their own "fat cats" whenever they start putting their own lust for power and increased "turf", ahead of labor solidarity.
This is such a great article. It goes to the very heart of the media smear machine. It shows us how the "Liberal Media" monicker is the biggest lie perpetuated by the Right wing. Yet it continues. They are intentionally manipulating this whole society to suit their ideology. It is no longer about what would be best for we Americans. It's either their way or the highway, with us or against us, black and white... ...and as we had sat by before, not challenging these knuckle-headed fascists, we can all see how Clinton was impeached for "high crimes and misdemeanors" for lying about sex, Gore "invented the internet" for saying he helped to create it by losening it from the military and universities through legistlation, we need to attack Iraq because of "WMD and a threat to America because of Saddam's non-compliance".
They're all f*cking hacks. Russert, Kurtz and the rest of these jackasses are putty in there hands. No matter how many Glenn Becks, Bill Bennets, Kudlows, Tuckers, Savages, etc. you bring on, you will NEVER be "fair and balanced".
Which reminds me: How is David Horowitz' doing to [our education system] what [Fixed NoiZ has done for our "news"] going?
I always saw David Brock's "Media Matters" as a form of apology to the Clintons and to all of us whom lean a little to the left. His "apology" has turned out to be one of the most accurate "weapons" for truth we have... ...after repeated claims that the press is somehow "Liberal".
Thank you, David Brock. GREAT article, Foser. DAMN good.Is it any wonder that the media are held in lower esteem than congress?
They continue to do this country a disservice. Will they hold Rudy G. to task for lying about the survival rate for victims of prostrate cancer in England? Will Russert hold his feet to the fire?
I doubt it.