Andrew Sullivan on Sen. Clinton's "cootie vibes": "I just can't stand her"
On the January 28 edition of the NBC-syndicated Chris Matthews Show, discussing the potential 2008 presidential candidacies of Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-NY) and Sen. Barack Obama (D-IL), Time blogger Andrew Sullivan said "when I see [Clinton] ... all the cootie vibes sort of resurrect themselves." Sullivan added that he considered Clinton a "very sensible senator," stated that it was "hard to disagree with her on the war," and admitted that he "actually [found] her positions appealing in many ways." Nevertheless, he concluded: "I just can't stand her. I'm sorry about that."
As Media Matters for America noted, on the December 3 edition of the same program, Sullivan claimed Clinton was "still radioactive blue" and "also a terrible politician."
Sullivan's comments were first noted by Bob Somerby on his weblog, The Daily Howler.
From the January 28 edition of the NBC-syndicated Chris Matthews Show, during a panel discussion among NBC News chief foreign affairs correspondent and guest host Andrea Mitchell, Sullivan, Newsweek magazine chief political correspondent Howard Fineman, CBS national political correspondent Gloria Borger, and Time magazine columnist Ana Marie Cox:
MITCHELL: Bottom line. We put it to the "Matthews Meter," 12 of our regular panelists. "Can the Clintons stop Obama before the primaries?" This one is not even close. By 11 to 1, the panel says Obama cannot be stopped. Andrew, that's the bottom line for you as well?
SULLIVAN: Well, I just think as a candidate, he's so fresher than Hillary, that she harkens back to the '90s. I think she's been a very sensible senator. I think, in fact, it's hard to disagree with her on the war. But when I see her again, all my -- all the cootie vibes --
[laughter]
SULLIVAN: -- sort of resurrect themselves.
FINEMAN: That's a technical term, by the way.
SULLIVAN: I just -- I'm sorry I must --
FINEMAN: We in politics --
SULLIVAN: -- represent a lot of people. I actually find her positions appealing in many ways. I just can't stand her. I'm sorry about that.
[crosstalk]
FINEMAN: Wait a minute. In fairness to her, after this rollout that she had this week, the numbers in our poll, in the Newsweek poll and others -- very positive, very powerful actually.
MITCHELL: And in fact --
FINEMAN: Cooties notwithstanding.
[crosstalk]
SULLIVAN: But look how -- if you look at her polling over the years, it is absolutely dead straight-line. People who don't like her are not going to change their minds, and they're about over 40 percent of the population.
[crosstalk]
BORGER: Isn't it interesting that the woman is the most qualified and the establishment candidate.
MITCHELL: And the establishment. We'll be right back with scoops and predictions.
Media Matters: The right-wing media's election analysis just ain't that good
The Friday Rush: For conservatives, $400 million buys defeat at the ballot box
The myth of Fox News' ratings spike
Cootie vibes?
Ok really childish for a guy in his position.
Kinda makes me wanna scream since I'm stuck here working at a REAL job. I'd love the chance to be on TV and talk about cooties and poopieheads.
Life is not fair....
AMEN, Jeter . . .What is this guy, 10 years old? If you've got something SUBSTANTIAL to say in disagreement with HRC - her positions on the war, health care, etc. - please do so . . .But talking about "COOTIES"??!!! I expect more from the alleged grownups in the mainstream corporate media . . .
MMA has jumped the snark on this one.
Sullivan is just a snarky gay guy saying snarky gay things.
This is not a journalist reporting, but a blogger giving an opinion.
Just because the opinion is anti-Hillery does not make it media bias.
Media Matters, please, stay focused. Stick with the news, everyone, especially a blogger, has a right to their opinions -- even stupid ones.
But.
It is not media bias.
Actually it is. Do you ever see liberals who profess such fourth grade opinions on National media giving their opinions of the cootie vibes of say Bush or Condalizard Rice? No, and you shouldnt its inane and foolish, so foolishness is ok if it is aimed at Dems but we dont seem to see it aimed at the rightwing. None of it is dignified enough to be broadcast but it only seems to be worthy of broadcast to the broadcasters when its used by the right so I would say it IS media bias
So, now if you just don't like Hillary, and publicly admit it that there is really no good reason, just a feeling?........well, you get highlighted here. Honesty is fine as long as it tows the liberal line, if not, it's misinformation. Wow.
Tommy, Sullivan is not being highlighted for his honesty, but for his stupidity.
Are you saying that there is something praiseworthy about a grown man - let alone one that is paid by Time, Inc. to spread his opinions in print and online - going on a national talk show to discuss his "cootie vibes?"
Cootie vibes is a slang term. The reason this is highlighted is because someone said something negative about Hillary........and that is out of bounds here, even if it's a personal opinion.
Cootie vibes is a slang term.
Yes. In grade school.
If every negative comment about Hillary were highlighted on MMFA, there would be nothing else on the site. This post goes to an irrational prejudice that many commentators have against her, that colours how she is presented in the media.
Can you spell V-I-C-T-I-M?
Your point being... ?
If Sullivan's comment here falls under that category of "irrational prejudice" in your judgement, that is your opinion. I see it as a personal opinion.
Let's not get into a semantic debate. I agree, if there was any question, that Sullivan was stating his opinion. I will further stipulate that he has every right to his opinion, as does everyone else. He should not be muzzled, censored, stifled or silenced.
At the same time, his "opinion;" to wit, that the junior U.S. Senator from the State of New York gives him "cootie vibes," should be taken into account whenever this pundit's other opinions on the aforementioned public official are mentioned.
I would absolutely agree.
If you agree with all of that, then what was the point of your first post in this thread?
To be annoying.
I can't figure out why Tommy is unwilling to hold the media to a standard of professionalism?
Saying HC gives you the Cootie Vibe is not very professional or productive. It certainly doesn't add to the national debate or help the voting public become more informed.
"Cootie vibes is a slang term" - TommyYeah. Like "halfrican."
TOMMY!!Should Rush apologize?????
Rush?
Yes, Rush...look at his MMFA postfor today...should HE have to aplogiz for his horrendous remarks?? Remember I said you don't call ANYONE out to do that except for Olberman...
There is no Rush thread today. Sorry, one chance to follow you and you blew it.
You are correct...I messed up...I meant to say 'should Savage apologize for HIS horrendous remarks...?' Is his hate spewed frothiness worthy to be apologized for or is Olberman's comments still the worst ever....??
I have voiced my opinion on many Savage threads. If you want to know what they are, please feel free to read them there.
I HAVE been reading your's and all other's comments on MMFA for over a year and I have NEVER read that YOU asked for ANYBODY to apologize for ANYTHING, no matter how deranged and hate-filled the rhetoric has been...then you get all in a tizzy about Olberman commenting on O'Really's comments that a kid had fun being kidnapped and say Olberman should apologize because the remarks were HORRENDOUS...now, I say to you, is Savage's remarks on today's posting WORTHY of apologizing...??
His opinion on Savage threads--much like his opinion about the "cootie" comment--is that Savage should be given "props" for being honest. See the first post in this thread:
http://mediamatters.org/items/200610130004?show=1I am perfectly comfortable standing by any of my comments in full context. Feel free to take time out of your day and search, cut and paste to your heart's content.
Please, I beg you, don't stop now.......it only reveals what a small, very small "man", with no class or self respect, you are.
OK.....so you cannot answer my question...got it...
According to you on an earlier thread from today, all I do is divert the topic. Now you want to engage me?
Sorry, I have already answered you. Read it again.
Uuummm....if by 'answering' me, you mean NOT answering, then you are correct...but here the REAL world, you have NOT answered...and since it may be possible you got lost in the forest of logic and facts, I will say it again...DO YOU, TOMMY, THINK SAVAGE'S REMARKS ON TODAY'S MMFA POSTING IS WORTHY OF ASKING FOR AN APOLOGY FROM HIM?
I think the answer is "no." Since Tommy referred you to his previous Savage comments and then has repeatedly stated that he stands by the one I linked to, then I think it's safe to say that he doesn't think Savage should apologize for the remarks mentioned today.
This is sad.
Since I am done playing "skewer the Clams" with this pathetic poster today, he now speaks for me. I would advise a little chat with your therapist about this.........your behavior is even beginning to worry me.
That's really funny seeing as how I posted a link so that your comments could be read in their full context. Maybe you'd care to explain how that link is taken "out of context"?
Tommy is right. This post is yet another exampel of MM missing the point of their own site. Its not about missinformation and lies anymore. Its about higlighting opposing opinions. I think its arrogant of MM to think nobody should have the right to have a different opinion about for example Clinton even if they express it in a childish way.
MM missing the point of their own site
Now,tell me how that is possible. It's their site, how can they miss the point? Maybe on the other hand it is you, a commenter, who is missing the point.
Hillary Rodham Clinton is consistently portrayed in a negative light, not because of her policies or her stance on the issues, but because of the clothes she wears,the tone of her voice, her hairstyle or any one of a number of totally irrelevant factors. There is an irrational prejudice against her on the part of many pundits, liberal and conservative alike. It is totally within the ambit of this site, IMO, to highlight examples of that prejudice and hold them up for scrutiny.
What? There is no prejudice, it is one's personal opinion.
There is no prejudice, it is one's personal opinion.
You have completely lost me. What is prejudice if not "personal opinion?"
Are you prejudiced against George Bush, or is it just your personal opinion concerning your feelings towards him?
You are comparing apples and oranges. I am a blog commenter, not a professional pundit paid to give my opinions on public issues.
When there is a site called Comment Matters that discusses how commenters present misinformation, maybe there would be some relevance to your question.
Now you have lost me.........personal opinions are just that. This was an example of Sullivan's. There were no facts given that caused prejudice, only an opinion.
Please buy a dictionary. Prejudice - noun. An unfavorable opinion or feeling formed beforehand or without knowledge, thought, or reason.
A newscaster or journalist has no business interjecting an ignorant and irrational opinion based on "cooties."
Het Tommy,
I know you boys are again having one of those MAN spats and I usually don't like to get in the middle of that scary place, but for the record I don't like GW for mature valid and patriotic reasons I might add. His administration introduced the nastiest time of political fighting I've ever witnessed, he had us (left-right) at each other's throat. His first lie was that he was a "uniter and not a divider" His arrogant incomptence has been so damaging to the country and the world. Hell an major American city has been lost on his watch. I honestly tried to give this man a chance. I couldn't have imagined that he would have been as bad a president as he turned out to be. His performance and conduct has been beyond anything I could have phathomed. Oh yeah, my dislike of BUsh and Cheney is for valid reasons, it's not because I think they have cooties. BTW, Andrew Sullivan said he agreed with Hillary on many issues, probably the issues I have a problem with.
PS.
Cheney is scary, I think he's the boogey man. Now isn't that a stupid comment and it makes about as much sense as the comment made by the highly paid intellectual Andrew Sullivan.
Not the same. I for one have no irrational dislike for Bush. I dont like his policies. I dont like the things he does. Sullivan admits he doesnt have a problem with her policies nor does he say she did anything to provoke this feeling. THAT is the point. He has NO RATIONAL basis which he admits. That is basically a textbook definition of prejudice.
THE DIFFERENCE IS ...
... we all have our "opinions" and our "feelings". Sometimes we share them with family and friends. Sometimes those expressions help shape other's opinions (if I were to say, "I just get a creepy feeling from that neighbor kid," it's possible that my wife and kids will view that neighbor kid with a new light of skepticism. They would ask "what is dad seeing here, what's wrong in this kid's behavior?" They would alter their behavior around him, and have heightened suspicions, based on my "feeling" alone, even if I offered no facts.)
So, is that FAIR? It is what it is, an attempt to alert my loved ones to what we'd call "intuition".
But I don't have a media show that claims MILLIONS in viewers. I would NEVER express such opinion unfounded by fact for public review. It would be inappropriate, unfair, and unethical. Yet, today's pundits do this EVERY DAY. It's their STOCK IN TRADE, hoping to direct people's suspicions, cynicism, and dislike on political figures, based on their "feelings" alone. They are attempting to INFLUENCE ELECTIONS by their personal "opinions" about the candidates.
In short, they are engaging in political character assassination, and they are doing so in the guise of "expert political commentary".
We all have our opinions and feelings, and we all will express them within the context of our responsibility. I might not have been fair to that neighbor kid, and in time might be led to change my mind; even so, I felt it best to alert my loved ones to a heightened scrutiny. To be PAID to in effect SMEAR candidates, on no basis other than "feelings", to be broadcast nationwide ... that's an entirely different area of responsibility, ethics, and professionalism.
These "pundits" fail every test, yet there they are, venting their spleens with the express hopes of influencing public opinion AND the outcome of elections. Sullivan's message: "Don't vote for Hillary, she has COOTIES." Childish? Sure. Effective? Apparently, rightwing media ownership HOPES it will have a marginal effect.
Misinformation? Yes indeed; it is the creation and repetitive propagation of the rightwing "FRAME", the way America is supposed to VIEW a particular person, a skepticism, cynicism, and distrust which is prompted by the "feelings" of the people responsible for EDUCATING us in the news, issues and events of importance to all Americans, but who instead are IRRESPONSIBLY attempting to poison the well for certain candidates, in partisan fashion.
Who gives a damn what Andrew Sullivan thinks? Why, corporate ownership cares, enough to pay him a high wage to broadcast his "cootie feelings". Why? Because he promotes THEIR desire to destroy Democrat candidates while bolstering Republicans. Facts? We don't need no stinkin' FACTS. We have "cootie feelings".
Now wait just a durn minute, Tex. You just said "Democrat candidates". Unless you git it right an' start callin' 'em "Democratic candidates", you're a gonna git yurself banned, now. Ya hear?
MM:s own words:
"Media Matters for America is a Web-based, not-for-profit, 501(c)(3) progressive research and information center dedicated to comprehensively monitoring, analyzing, and correcting conservative misinformation in the U.S. media."
Ive seen on other sites posts where Olberman, Scharborough and others have people from MM as experts making statements that they have so and so many examples of misinformation in US media. For example I think it was when scharborough (when he challenged Oreilly) had some one from MM and he said that they have about 1100 examples of conservative misinformation on MSNBC. If they start critisising people because of their opinions they lose their credibility as a source of information on misinformation. The number of 1100 isnt credible any more. If i want to see posts where rightwing idiots make stupid comments about Hillary I have Youtube.
And if you dont like this place feel free to go to Youtube. From the beggining it was MMFAs contention that the outrageous and stupid things the rightwing commentators say was part of its mission, part of the media perversion so to speak. No one, in the entire world cares if you disagree. THIS IS NOT YOUR SITE. Feel free to start your own site and run it anyway you see fit. No one needs YOU as a hall moniter telling us or MMFA how THEY should run THEIR site.
Actually this site serves two purposes;
First is the stated mission regarding misinformation by the mainstream media.
Second is to provide a nice safe little playground for all of us who have nothing better to do. This item fits perfectly in this second category.
If you think so then apparantly you are new here. Outrageous and plainly stupid comments by the rightwing commentators has ALWAYS been part of the agenda here at MMFA.
And I stand by them. Find another one if your obsession with me continues.
Do you dream of me at night too?
Funnier still, because last time I referred to that Savage thread you denied ever saying those things. This has become a real pattern with you. You deny ever making a comment and then when confronted with a link you spew some nonsense about being taken out of context, and then finally you try to pull some phony pose of integrity by saying that you stand by your comments.
I stand by all my comments here.
Thank you for continuing to post.......Poor, pitiful irrational stalking obsessions brought to you today by Clams Casino. And NO, you cannot have my phone number!! I told you that yesterday.
Um excuse me guys...
But doesn't this little brouhaha you're having with Tommy belong on the SAVAGE thread? Or the Olbermann thread?
THIS is the Andrew Sullivan thread.
Jeter, You're right of course, but some people are consistently off topic - like cutting and pasting threads from weeks ago to try and make a point. And I know, I should just ignore it......
Actually Tommy maybe Clams & Mr. L should start their own website:
Tommy Matters For America ;-)
And yeah you probably should ignore them...but it's understandable why you can't. No one blames you for defending yourself...
They are obsessed with you--NOT the other way around
Thanks, J;
I know, I am just a poor little poster on one website throwing my opinions out there.......you'd think I was advocating throwing them in some foreign prison and forcing bad "clams" down their throat.
Typical. Since you refuse to answer the questions posed to you or even begin to address the issues that are being discussed, you whine on and on about how we have an "obssession" with you. At least this diversion served a couple purposes. One, it very plainly illustrates your routine hypocrisy when it comes to offensive comments made by liberals and conservatives (i.e. Olbermann needs to apologize for his jab at O'Reilly, but Savage should be given "props" for standing by his "opinions"), and secondly, it gives us a thread to refer back to the next time you complain about being taken out of context. Your whole m.o. is laid out nice and neat in this thread. At least you finally figured out that anyone can use the search function to find your past posts, so maybe in the future we'll be spared your standard first stage of complete denial ("I never said that"), and we can move immediately on to the second "out of context" stage before finally arriving at the self-incriminating proclamation, "I stand by everything I've written."
CC - I wouldn't hold your breath waiting for Tommy to answer. He isn't going to respond to you post and is going to continue to change the subject because it suits his needs.
STOP THE PRESSES AND ROLL OUT THE CENSORSHIP! SOMEONE IN THE MEDIA doesnt LIKE HILLARY and MMFA calls it misinformation!?! Socialist pigs
I have about had it with the high-school popularity-contest level of discussion from these talking heads. In 2000 we were told how great a guy Bush was and how much cooler he was than the dorky guy and his earth tones.
Six years later, the cool guy has brought us three thousand dead Americans, and counting.
I'd rather Senator Cooties... and fewer dead Americans. But that's just me...
Fine, if you want to debate Hillary on substance.
She recently stated that Bush more or less tricked her into approving the war. That she didn't authorize him to go to war, however, unless we had our allies behind us. That, "Had she known then what she knows now," she never would have voted for the war.
However, this is not true.
Several years ago when speaking to her concerned base, who were against the war...she said that SHE reviewed all the information herself, SHE made the decision that Saddam was not going to listen, SHE said he had WMDs, SHE spoke to trustworthty people who would give advice on how to act, SHE said that SHE made sure politics was not an issue, and SHE determined to authorize the President to do what was necessary. SHE also stated that just like when Bill dealt w/ Kosovo, that going alone is often necessary.
So, while Hillary may be vile to some....there are plenty of reasons to dislike her on substance.
Well too bad he said no such thing. He said she had cooties? Give me a break. If those are your "reasons" for disliking the woman than great, but you should have the same contempt for a number of folks in the GOP.
Cootie Vibes doesn't cut it.
Well, I'll try to stay on topic and not talk about all the other GOP who is dislike or like.
But, believe it or not, rational or not, gut instinct about how we feel about people is sometimes correct. Remember Kennedy vs. Nixon debates. Many people thought Nixon just didn't look as good as Kennedy all things being equal.
Many people would say they feel that way about Cheney too, justified or unjustified. That he just rubs them the wrong way, or he is Creepy.
So, while Sullivan is a Conservative who gives his opinion, I really don't understand why it is so wrong to say that Hillary gives him "Cootie Vibes."
I could understand your concern if Tom Brokaw said that, but Andrew Sullivan makes a living giving a conservative opinion about politics, and so, according to him, she gives him Cooties.
Exactly. Sullivan's states his personal opinion, even apologizes for it......and people here rail against him. More examples of tolerance from the left.
there seems to be a double standard on both sides. When the left makes similar statements against any GOP member we're called on it. When it's a conservative we're supposed to cut him a break? THe right is on a pretty blatant attack/smear campaign against Hillary and it's really sad. I don't agrre with Ldoren but at least she gave reasons.
I don't hold this guy up to Rather standars and given his statements theres a very good reson for that.
Good debate.
I'm curious to hear what you have to say about what I wrote.
Is gut instinct justified for voting or not voting for someone?
I think it is. That is not to say that I ignore the issues, however.
I think you can vote for anyone you want, for any reason you want. That's the beauty - and the danger - of democracy.
Sullivan can, similarly, get "cootie vibes" from any icky girl he wants. I just think his opinions regarding HRC should be taken with about a pound of salt henceforth.
I think gut voting is totally irresponsible, Haven't you had a manager that wasn't a persn you would particularly like to hang out with or whatever, but the person was competent and effective? Please everyone assess the issues and vote for the candidate whose platform best reflects that. Please leave out the cootie factor or the fact that you think you would like to have a beer with them. The fact is you will never ever be close enough to them to catch cooties or to have a drink with them. GROW UP!
I've never said it is the only factor. But, all things being equal, everyone has a gut instinct about people. It is called being human.
Sullivan was just honest about his gut instinct w/ Hillary.
I wouldn't put any money on the accuracy of the human gut. GW is president because half of the GW voter’s guts wanted to have a beer with him, and the other half thought God wanted him to be president, that's what their guts told them. Seriously though, I know a lot of people held their nose and pulled the Bush lever probably hoping for the best and against their gut instinct.
No, people voted for Bush because their alternative was Kerry.
...and he would have been a damn site better than what we got over the last six years. Lets see there was the cooking of intellegence to start a premptive war against a country that did not attack us, a old historic major American city is being allowed to die, Abu Garib, adovocation of torture as official American policy in contradiction to the consenses of the world that it's inefective and BARBARIC, dismissal of the congress as as co-equal branch of the US government (the legislatures allowed this), provoking and encouraging 1/2 of the American citicenry to declare war on the other half, secret energy policy, incompetence mismanagement and corruption in both the rebuilding of NO and Iraq, signing statements, taunting enemies instead of establishing and or strengthening diplomatic efforts, Dick Cheney, Karl Rove....God the list is endless. George Bush is a disaster.
Tolerance? So we should be tolerant of idiot newscasters who make judgements on political figures based on "cootie vibes"?
"But, believe it or not, rational or not, gut instinct about how we feel about people is sometimes correct." --ldoren1626
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
It stands by your own reasoning that it is also sometimes wrong. It is prejudice and does not belong in intelligent discussion. It is utterly unreliable and irrational thought (by your own admission that it is only "sometimes correct").
Why not try basing your opinions purely on substance? I think you have inadvertantly stumbled upon the difference between an independent mind and a partisan one.
Hi Ldoren, I've heard that you are a troll? Are you?
One way to gain credibility on this or any board is to actually post links or research regarding your talking points.
Having reviewed your previous posts, I am inclined not to believe anything spews from your keyboard (BTW I especially liked the "SHE", all in caps, but maybe next time you should try SHE, see how nice the bold letters and the underlining look?)
That's funny that you mentioned citing my points.
People got angry at me before for citing my statements; I guess I can't win.
I wouldn't consider myself a Troll, however. I happen to get taken off topic very easily though, for that I am sorry.
"One way to gain credibility on this or any board is to actually post links or research regarding your talking points." --adifferent mccain
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Why use stupid things like research when you have "gut instincts" on which to base your opinions? Hey, after all, they are sometimes right. Can you say the same for research?
Open,
Many people have opinions that are personal and not rooted in some research or facts. That is perfectly acceptable and understandable. Many will vote for Hillary because she is a woman, many will vote for her because they liked her husband, many will vote for her because they want a Democrat or for a host of other reasons based solely on gut instincts and opinion. Their opinions are their own - they don't ask to be validated or accepted by anyone else, they own them and are responsible for them.
Many here can't stand certain opinions because they don't agree with them, and then try and discount purely for ideological reasons.
Of course, I am equally welcome to have my own opinion about how such opinions are made. You should know better than to think I would fall for that strawman argument.
Using "gut instinct" has historically been the excuse of bigots and racists throughtout history. If you recall, some people felt that blacks were animals at one point. Was this based on science/reason or "gut instinct"? Hmmm?...
"Gut instincts" are also manipulated by charismatic individuals like Jim Jones or David Koresh to get people to ignore what would seem reasonable (to you and me) and make them do unthinkable things.
Just because people do things (like make decisions based on "gut instinct"), it doesn't make that my preference or that it is right in any way. I would hope that no one would make such decisions based on superficialities, but I am sure they do as you say and who can stop them?
Do you think it is okay to not vote for Hillary simply because you think she "has cooties"? Should it even be a factor at all? Don't give me any crap about "people have a right to their opinion". I want to know if you think that is okay.
open,
Don't ask for my opinion and then use the word "crap" in describing what it may be......that is beneath you. I stand by what I said, which you never even addressed. People have the right to their opinion and their voting preference any way they see fit.........what about that do you disagree with?
If that's "crap", then insult someone else.
"Don't ask for my opinion and then use the word "crap" in describing what it may be" --Tommy
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Maybe I wasn't very clear, but that wasn't at all what I meant. I genuinely wanted your opinion (and I don't think it is crap at all or else I wouldn't have asked for it). Your post above my "crap" comment only dealt with the you expounding the opinions of other supposed poeple. I am not interested in what you think other people think. That isn't relevant to me. I wanted to know what you think on the question.
I cant figure out if you dont get points like this because you are determined not to or if you really are this obtuse. Its not that I cant stand this absolutly juvinile opinion. But it IS an absolutly juvinile opinion and I wonder what business anyone has pretending it belongs in the dialogue for a Presidential race and if it doesnt as it obviously doesnt why was it presented to a National audience as if it were.
Tommy
Weren't you the person saying that important decisions shouldn't be made based on feelings on a post last week on Condi Rice and Barbra Boxer? Are you going to accuse me of stalking you now? I guess who you vote for isn't an important decision or you've suddenly changed your mind now to suit this particular argument. Consistent much? Now your advocating that going with you "gut" instinct is a valid way to make choices...
GUT FEELING = EMOTIONAL RESPONSE
Good catch...I'm reading this post again today and was just going to call out Tommy (*sigh*...yet again...) about his view to not let ANY emotion decide policy issues...
Both of you,
It is a ridiculous comarison that anybody with half a brain can figure out. One is an elected or an appointed member in our government who should never make important decisions which affect every American based on emotion. They should be made based on facts, not feelings.
This particular instance is individual people making voting decisions on their gut instincts or feelings. If they choose to do that, it is their business. I don't, but some do and it is their right as a free, private citizen to vote anyway they see fit. They speak and vote for themselves alone.
Now if you can't figure out the difference, keep trying.
Actually I dont see that big of a difference. Both are decisions that effect the policies our country enacts and the direction our country goes.
Solon,
One is an elected or appointed official who is representing the American people on matters of national security.
The other is a private citizen making his or her own choice.
The difference is staggering, brilliant, remarkable and obvious.
Tommy...They are BOTH private citizens...and they BOTH are on NATIONAL television saying what they want. And, because they BOTH have influence upon people because of their publicness and WORDS, it would behoove BOTH of them to have a discourse that is FACTUAL, honest, mature, and responsible...the dude saying he wouldn't vote for Clinton because of COOTIES is neither FACTUAL, honest, mature, or responsible.... It IS true he is 'going by his gut', or EMOTIONS, that are apparently CONTRARY to his intellect since he said she would be a GOOD candidate, so MY question to you, again, is 'why do you let this man get away with using EMOTIONS to decide who may be the LEADER OF AMERICA for up to eight years when YOU SPECIFICALLY said one should have NO EMOTION in their decision making'...And, by the way, how is the distinction you noted 'brilliant'? That makes no sense...
TOMMY!!Guy on tv: HC has COOTIES! Do not vote for her!Millions of voters: Hhmm...maybe I shouldn't vote for HC...Me, Mr.L: One, DEFINE COOTIES..two, millions of voters who thought that- you are MORONS!!
Well, some of my point was that many people voted for people like Kennedy over Nixon b/c of a gut instinct that Kennedy would make a better leader.
The same can be said for Clinton over Dole. Sometimes, people just know who would make better leaders.
If Hillary rubs people the wrong way, maybe that is relevant. She will have to represent us in front of the rest of the world. If people think she gives people the coodies, maybe that is relevant to the type of leader she would be.
I am sure some people vote with their gut, but as Chris Rock so famously said: "You can drive a car with your feet, but that doesn't make it a good idea".
I disagree with it and I think it is silly because using your gut can often lead to wrong conclusions and tend to rationalize what would otherwise seem obvious bigotry. Pundits like Sullivan take advantage of such things to make pavlovian dogs out of their audience. It is a terrible and unreliable way to make decisions.
If Hillary wins or loses (personally I would not vote for her at this point because I do not like many of her policies) let it be on her merrits and not necessarily whether we think she has "cooties" or not. We should be able to see by now how terrible the last "personality contest" turned out.
Welcome to another episode of "As the Troll Turns," starring LDoren, who has probably not been able to sit down since being spanked by Navy Guy over the weekend.
HA HA HA HA!
You and AM are really funny today!
Keep up the good work!
Easy to refute wingnuts,
Again, I am so sick of your blanket statements without providing justification. Please respond directly to what I say.
In fact, I posted questions for you on the other post, which you have still not answered.
Most of what you do is rah rah, you lost the argument, you're ignorant, you don't know what you're talking about type of responses to me.
To stay on topic, let's digress...do you think gut instinct is relevant ever for making voting decisions?
LDoren,
The fact is politicians play to people's gut instincts all the time - most don't want to get bogged down in policy because their wiggle room is much less. Their ads are touchy feely and they want votes based on that. In my opinion.
I agree Tommy:
I am a very educated voter, meaning I know the voting record of people before I vote. I know, where each person stands, and I sort through the spin.
However, I also weigh my gut instinct as a factor in my decision. I think most people do the same, everything being equal. Sullivan was just willing to admit it.
Well said, I agree........at least he was honest but even that's not good enough for some here.
No one has said his statement was not honest. Many of us have said it was shallow, puerile, and dumb.
Tommy
Do you think that people should be making important decisions like who to vote for president based off of an emotional response like a "gut" feeling?
Second question - Is it appropriate for the media to discuss "gut" feelings without any basis in fact? If yes, what purpose does it serve to inform the general voting public?
You can vote according to how you throw the I Ching if thats what you want, just dont expect us to advocate it being a good idea
What a wonderful little conservative haiku. But outside of that your "logic" (or apparent lack thereof) is only rivalled by Sullivan's.
Doesn't it drive you mad that we're gonna either get Obama or Hillary in '08? I know it just makes you sick to your stomach. How does it feel to know that your people don't stand a chance in '08. Don't you feel like you're screaming a a brick wall.
I find your posts amusing at best, keep up the good work. I need something to laugh at.
COL. ROY CAMPBELL...?
You should be stripped of your rank and thrown in the brig! You just posted on another thread that your for Hillary and against Obama. I can’t figure out what your objective is. Now your on this thread attacking Hillary. What’s up with You?
Your man, - Billy-Boy Oh! Really? - is a Jerk, and that doesn’t therefore mean that it’s OK for others to be the Jerk he is. You don’t know this? You’ve been running around this WebSite speading your special style of trash.
I’m a highly decorated War Veteran and I’ve never known my fellow veterans to enjoy killing anyone.
I know thousands of Liberals who can’t go to StarBucks. They can’t afford the prices there. When your at StarBucks they’re at home brewing up some words to rebut your cheap shots.
Who’s your commanding officer, GWB? What’s you problem with Obama? He’d be a big improvement over your GWB.
Your heart is so full of hatred that I decided to give you a small dose of it back.
BTW - ROY
It's not "Democrat Party," it's Democratic Party. From now on I will more accurately call yours the:
REPUBLICAN'T PARTY
Be sure to have a good day Roy The Boy.
Of course. Any babies born in America and then killed are Americans. Don't you understand the 14th Amendment? What was your point?
Well, cooties, honestly. The reight-wingers always attack the way people look.
reight-wingers?
Well you're about as grownup as Sullivan.
Go to your room!
I thought the right was all about policy and views but Sullivan thinks its all about the cooties.
Imus calls Hillary Satan daily, yet MSNBC allows this and Olbermann doesnt name him Worst Person in the World. Why?
Hi Doris....
I agree with you on Imus But...
He’s just not important enough to be concerned about. Keith doesn’t worry about such a small fish among the giant vicious man eating sharks like Oh...Really!
I miss the old days when we could trust a Walter Cronkite to say, “ And that’s the way it is” on this or that particular day.
That day is gone and now we have news from Pundits like Oh...Really! Unlike you, I’m very thankful that we have the Keith Olbermann’s around to refute and rebut the O’Reilly’s of our Pundit News World.
Andrew Sullivan, big Iraq War booster in 2002-3, finds it "hard to disagree with her on the war." I'm guessing he has the same position she has, blaming Bush for his poor "execution" but not admitting how terribly, dreadfully wrong he was to want this war in the first place.
Note to self: Sullivan is still stuck in middle school...and he is a blogger for Time magazine...he really did just say 'cooties' and that she is qualified but he just 'doesn't like her'...head...spinning...
Andrew Sullivan: If you have a personal issue with Hillary Clinton then by all means don't vote for her. In this example you really sound like an idiot with nothing to say. The fact that you don't like her doesn't interest me. I need a reason other than "because".
Hi Bruce,
When was that comment made? I watched the CM show with Andrew's cootie comment. I was dissapointed in Andrew. I disagree with the man's politics, but I always thought he was one of the more reasonable and serious commentators out there. The cootie comment was as Tommy always says "SILLY". I think his fellow panel members by the looks on their faces when he said this agrees with me.
What the heck is this to do sen Clinton's ability to represent a larger majority? On a local level, a city councilman was voted in to fill a vacant position and no editorial gave him much positive print. Turns out this guy stepped up to the plate and now four years later is well respected for his abilities, not his looks.
Tommy, LDoren, Roy = the same troll
It is obvious that this MMFA items is here because Sulliven is being extremely childish, and because our media has allowed this for years, his somments (and he) pass for something newsworthy.
Can you imagine real reporters or anchors speaking this way?
Tom Brokaw: Yes, Bush appears to have cootie vibes... nobody wants to be seen with him.
Edward R. Murrow: McCarthy wants the world to think that cootie vibes are the number one threat to America.
Please don't let these clowns derail what could be a good conversation.
Why do you feel it so necessary to scold your fellow posters against any conversation with opposing opinions? If you feel so threatened, get some help. The others here are capable of their own choices, despite your incessant please to STOP! You only appear desperate and foolish.
Apparently the LOW LOW standards of what is actual NEWS doesn't bother you Thomas, but it does bother me and it obviously bothers other individuals including MMFA. The PROFESSIONAL media should have standards and the fact you keep trying to down play this just floors me.
Why is this moron allowed to waste valuable air time talking about HC and her cooties when we have important policy issues to discuss.. I don't know maybe dying troops, the national debt, healthcare, schooling, and Medicare just aren't as important as HC and her cooties.
Scooter,
What you are doing is passive agressive. You make posts without providing justification.
I've posted many close-ended questions on the other blog post, but you nor anyone else has reponded to them.
I've done the same on this post.
If you would like to gain my respect, maybe you could have a debate about issues.
The adults were talking about how important the media is, and how Sullivan's wording was, and is, taking up valuable air time that could be spent on something other than "cooties."
Do you really think that I would want to earn your respect? The topic is media, not your junior analysis of my post. You appear to be alone in thinking that "cootie"-talk belongs on an important show that should be presenting the big issues.
If you really think that media doesn't matter, and think that Sullivan's statements, past and present, are good for America, then I have to ask: Do you realize that the name of this blog is "Media Matters for America"?
Let me guess: you are a staunch conservative getting a BS in social work.
Scooter:
Even your liberal friends now are on my side. They see the post I posted before this, thought it reasonable, and then you respond back with insults without backing them up.
Well, let's talk about the media. MSNBC is cable, they aren't your airways.
As far as Sullivan, all things being equal, instinct matters. It mattered for Kennedy, Bill Clinton and others. These leaders represent us before the world. So, if someone thinks Hillary gives him "Cootie vibes," that is relevant to the type of leader she would be and be perceived to before others.
<i>So, if someone thinks Hillary gives him "Cootie vibes," that is relevant to the type of leader she would be...</I>
How??
<i>...and be perceived to before others.</i>
She will be perceived as such, to at least some extent, because of how she is covered in the media. And that is exactly what the fuss is about.
It's great that Sullivan is being honest, yes. Will he be as honest next time he says something critical of Hillary? Will other pundits, who have similar opinions but less willingness to admit them?
I'll make a sports analogy.
If your team had to pick a captain for your team. Most of that has to do with - will the rest of the team follow him? Does the rest of the time believe in him?
If a Captain gives the team bad vibes, people won't follow him, he won't be a good leader. It may have nothing to do with how he plays the sport.
So...if Hillary gives American's Coodie vibes, maybe that has something to say about whether or not the American people will follow her.
My question is, how did people get that impression? Did they form it on their own, or was it created and reinforced by a media narrative driven by Heathers who just don't like the woman, for whatever reason?
Well, first I will say that I disagree with her politically.
Now, with that said, if you ask me....
1) She is hard to listen to. Her voice is obnoxious.
2) She doesn't seem to me like a true leader.
3) She appears weak. (There were many strong women in history, Hillary is not one of them).
4) Is it because of the media?....no, Hillary just gives me Coodie vibes.
It's fine, you're (of course) welcome to your opinion whatever it is based on, and I don't doubt that it is sincere... but I can't help but wonder: How many times have you heard Hillary speak? Are you sure you didn't just hear the most annoying excerpts? What made you conclude that she doesn't "seem" like a leader? Do you think maybe that impression was reinforced by a media narrative that only Hillary Clinton, out of all politicians, chooses her political positions on what will earn her the most votes?
All I'm saying is, media narratives have a way of being self-reinforcing. And it's not always obvious, when these narratives are reinforced in subtle and gross ways over a long period of time.
Tail Wagging the Dog?
I never heard a complaint about Hillary's voice until Rush Limbaugh complained about it.
"[Hillary] sounds like a screeching ex-wife. ... Men will know what I mean by this" -- http://mediamatters.org/items/browse/200603070003
When people start listening to their "gut" about everything it becomes difficult to tell if the dog is really wagging the tail.
Well, unless I take her out to dinner, I'm probably going to hear her on T.V or the radio.
And now that you show me that Rush said she sounds like a nagging wife, I realize that I'm not the only one. When I hear her yelling during speeches, I cringe.
Moreover, she's no Thatcher or Golda.
"And now that you show me that Rush said she sounds like a nagging wife, I realize that I'm not the only one." --ldoren
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Or maybe I was showing you where your "gut" likely got the idea in the first place.
I dont find her voice obnoxious. Her leadership abilities are yet to be seen to me, and I certainly find her to be a very strong woman and cannot for the life of me see where you get she is weak. You are entitled to your opinion. I am entitled to mine.
Case In Point
I'll bet you didn't discover she gave you "coodie (sic) vibes" until sullivan told you.
I certainly dont agree with you. Even IF I thought instinct as you put it were important why would I give Sullivans instinct any credence. EVERYONE has instincts I would listen to my own. So IN NO WAY does Sullivans grade school inanity belong in the National dialogue
This conversation isn't about whether or not someone is entitle to their opinion or not.
Is it appropriate for a professional media personality to be discussing HC and her cootie vibe in the first place?
Doren - I'm not trying to be insulting, but part of your argument seems a little naive. Do you honestly think that you've given an unbiased assessment that is free from the last 10+ years of negative comments and press on HC? People don't form their "gut" instinct in a vacuum and the Right has made a constant and concerted effort to paint this women in a negative manner. Have you met HC? Do you know what she stands for on issues and have you heard her platform from an un-biased source? Don't you think its better to form your "gut" instinct based on something other then what you've been told?
It's interesting that even though there is evidence to the contrary, McCain is given a constant glowing praise on how "trustworthy" and "presidential" he is on Chris Matthew's show and the majority of the comments that frame HC are all negative.. Most of which are based off of stereotypes related to women.
Why doesn't Chris Matthew's have a guest on that compares the accomplishments and voting records of McCain and Clinton and let us decide for ourselves who the better candidate is instead of having them tell us who the better candidate is?
I have listened to Sullivan on several programs.
While I do agree with some of his positions, I must confess that cootie vibes would succinctly describe my reaction to his mannerisms.
"Not that there's anything wrong with that."
By posting this article I do not believe media matters is pushing for censorship or intending to point out conservative misinformation. The article neither states an opinion or reason for condemnation. The reader is supposed form an opinion based on the merits of what this sullivan has to say. So rather than focus on if media matters has a right to post this on its own site, lets focus on what this guy is actually saying and what insight it gives us into his thought processes and the htought processes of other such men who find hilary vile and disgusting for reasons never defending by holding her accountable for her political merits or lack thereof.
The constant reference to her as an "opportunistic b*tch", the devil, dukkakis in a dress, and the diction which provides terms such as cooties, I would argue, reflect merely a fear among men of a woman who holds political power, domestically and globally. The same qualities Hilary posses, when ascribed to man, defines an ambitious expert politician.
I wish they would come right out and say, "I don't like Hilary because I don't want a woman having power over my country's future." Then I could at least respect their honesty.
After 26 comments I was very surprised that no one chose to comment on the blatant sexism involved in this guys words and the characterization of Hilary in general.
Lyn, I suspect that this is exactly what underlies what I and others have called an "irrational pejudice" against Hillary Clinton.
Not being a mind-reader, of course, I don't know that's the case.
I actually was gonna post that too Lyn. It's always been my contention that first and foremost, Hillary bashers can't stand her because she is a strong WOMAN. Everything else has always been secondary.
Well, if you aren't a mindreader then I will accept the honour and damnation that goes along with being a presumptuous "straight talker" <snickers uncontrollably> and stating flatly that we have no reason to doubt that this "irrational prejudice" is sexism rearing its ugly testosterone-filled head.
I mean really, I am male and yet I don't feel the urge to keep women "in their " in order to feel superior when out for a night of belching and ball-scratching with the guys.
From the surreal to the sublime.
It looks to me that the Chris Matthews Show bought a suit for Andrew Sullivan in order to look more presentable. Of course, being a blogger, he probably spends most of his time in Cheetoh-stained pajamas.
why doesn't he just come right out and say it...Sen. Clinton has GIRL GERMS! ewww...
I think Andrew sSullivan has the same reaction to all women.
Not that there's anything wrong with that...
I will not tolerate your homophobic comments. MMFA is a safe environment for people of all orientations. That was uncalled for.
He was JUST being honest.
His comment isn't homophobic. Stop being a drama queen.
"I will not tolerate"..... Hmmm...
Another day, another "Why is this here?" post from Tommy.
Imagine that!
Another day, another "Why is this here?" post from Tommy.
Imagine that!
Sullivan gives me the willies! He can keep his cooties to himself and the farther he stays from other people the better. Senator Clinton is coming across great! We have to question whether all these white males are just feeling threatened.
I truly enjoyed the days (perhaps they were very long ago) when a ridiculous comment like Sullivans would never have seen the light of day. Have our standards for journalists and pundits sunk so low that this garbage is even aired? Have some people regressed to the point where they feel they have a need to defend this type of "commentary"?
And the argument that "liberals get away with this stuff all the time" doesn't hold water. Show me the proof that it has happened with Dems even a small percentage of the times it occurs with right wingers.
Chollie
Just gonna try this to see IF it works [incase it doesn't--it was a cartoon] IF the cartoon does not appear, please DISREGARD this post...thanks.
This right-wing troll festival is giving me cootie vibes.
As has been noted time and again, right wing pundits "frame" the object of their derision in veiled or nefarious terms so that the dialogue is continually skewed to their vantage point as the "starting" point of the dialogue about individuals. Kerry as flip flopper, McCain as straight talker, Bush as straight shooting cowboy - independent of facts.
Sullivan stated "I must represent a lot of people". He therefore is attempting to avow by projection that Hillary has a high "cootie" factor. I could just as easily say the same about him and state that "I must represent a lot of people".
In her case, some would call it veiled sexism, in his case, some would call it veiled homophobia.
The point dear friends is that MEDIA MATTERS. These types of statements (sans rational thought) must be continuously ridiculed by both sides if we are ever to make progress back towards civil discourse.
Andrew Sullivan is an example of the stupidity that passes for discourse among the press in the country. I guess he's the king of "cootie" exposers. Pathetic