On CNN, Jeffrey said "it looked like, if someone had splashed water on Hillary, she would have melted like the Wicked Witch of the West"
On the January 22 edition of CNN's The Situation Room, discussing the January 21 CNN/Congressional Black Caucus Institute debate, Cybercast News Service editor-in-chief Terry Jeffrey said: "I think it was bad for [Sen.] Hillary [Clinton (D-NY)], even though I think she's probably going to get the nomination. There was a moment there in the debate ... where it looked like, if someone had splashed water on Hillary, she would have melted like the Wicked Witch of the West." Democratic strategist Donna Brazile responded: "Oh, that's awful."
From the January 22 edition of CNN's The Situation Room:
WOLF BLITZER (host): A lot of our viewers, Donna, want to get your analysis of what happened last night among these three Democrats.
BRAZILE: Well, it was a very bare-knuckle fight. And I think for Republicans who are wishing for a Hillary or Obama should be scared, because both candidates showed that they will not be Swift Boated.
Look, I know people don't like bloodsports. I tend to like it. I'm from Louisiana. But I believe that what they did last night was, they brought in their research books and said, you know what, I'm going to fight back. And that's what they did.
JEFFREY: You know, I think it was good for Republicans, but I think it was bad for Hillary, even though I think she's probably going to get the nomination.
There was a moment there in the debate, Wolf, where it looked like, if someone had splashed water on Hillary, she would have melted like the Wicked Witch of the West.
BRAZILE: Oh, that's awful.
JEFFREY: There's two characteristics about Hillary Clinton that I think came out in the debate that would play against her in a general election. One was her demeanor. She did very well in the New Hampshire debate, when she was charming and deflected tough questions with a smile and a laugh. She didn't do that last night. The second is the question Obama was hitting hard last night, hitting hard today, is the truthfulness of the Clintons.
BRAZILE: You know, if that was Margaret Thatcher, you would be here salivating. You would be the one with the water.
Media Matters: The Palin chronicles
The Friday Rush: A series of conflicts
Contrary to media hype, Sarah Palin is very unpopular
Offensive? I don't know. If HRC gets offended by this stuff... that's a problem in itself.
More - just a bunch of lame A-holes with nothing to say. Ever heard of talking ABOUT THE POLITCAL PLATFORM???!!!!! Damn. All this cult of personality stuff is not only insulting, it's moronic.
Greek,
This is another of those "who really looks more stupid here"? Jeffreys, for making such an obviously partisan snipe coming from an extreme dislike of Hillary, or Hillary herself? Jeffreys does.
Those that share his feelings towards Hillary are unfazed, those that like her consider the source and are unfazed, and those that are on the fence about her view this type of commentary far more negatively on her critics than Hillary herself.
So the discourse is surely coarsened unneccesarily, but the damage to Hillary is nill, and the respect due Jeffreys hardly gets a boost. He is the one who comes out looking ridiculous, not her.
There was a moment there in the debate, Wolf, where it looked like, if someone had splashed water on Hillary, she would have melted like the Wicked Witch of the West.
Well, let's pretend for a moment that Leno or Jon Stewart had said this. Would you still find it offensive? Or would you laugh?
Is something less offensive depending on who utters it? And if so, why?
What makes it less insulting?
Same words, different messenger.
It's a good point. BUT, these jokers are purporting to offer expert opinion... they're not hosting a comedy show. Again, is this really that offensive. Nah. It's just dumb. But, these guys get paid for this nonsense.
Hmmm... No nothing and get paid. Sounds like a good gig.
"After eating an entire bull, a mountain lion felt so good he started roaring. He kept it up until a hunter came along and shot him. The moral: When you're full of bull, keep your mouth shut."
"Humor is the good natured side of a truth" -Mark Twain
The comments made in the above article fail the Twain test.
Its CATTY is what it is...a snide, CATTY remark.
M E O W!!!
JJ, I have to disagree. I just finished watching Letterman, one of his opening monologue jokes was about Osama Bin Laden's son. Something about his dad was mad because when he turned 18 he accidently wrecked the Camel. Stereotypes can be humorous, but they have to be considered acceptable by the audience to be so.
I've never heard Jon Stewart make a remark like that. And I don't think Leno has either.
"During the argument between Obama and Clinton, security guards had to be brought in. You could hear Hillary screaming, 'Don't tase me, bro!.'" --David Letterman
"What happened yesterday between Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama? What was that, high school? Did you see that debate? Remember earlier yesterday, on Martin Luther King Day, they were talking about peace, Dr. King, bringing together, putting aside our differences. That didn't last long, huh? Then the debate turned into, 'You're a doodyhead. No, you're a doodyhead.'" --Jay Leno
"Congratulations to Hillary Clinton. The big winner up there in New Hampshire. Congratulations to her, did a a nice job. Yeah, despite all the predictions by the pundits, Hillary Clinton refused to roll over. How many times has Bill heard that?" --Jay Leno
"In an upcoming interview with the gay magazine The Advocate, Hillary Clinton says the rumors about her being a lesbian are not true and she says she's never had sex with a woman, no matter how many times Bill has begged her to." --Jay Leno
"A new novelty item is now being sold. Get this, it's a Hillary Clinton nutcracker that cracks nuts between its legs. Yeah, Hillary calls the nutcracker silly, and Bill Clinton calls it chillingly lifelike"--Conan O'Brien
"You all excited about the 2008 presidential election? There's some interesting potential matchups. For example, Hillary Clinton and Rudy Giuliani. ... On the one hand, you have a pushy New Yorker with a history marital problems. Or, you have a pushy New Yorker with a history marital problems." --David Letterman
"Is anybody really that surprised that Hillary Clinton is running for president? I'm not surprised. I mean, if you were married to Bill Clinton ... wouldn't you want to be able to tap his phone, read his mail, and torture him?" --Jay Leno
My point Johnny is a humorous observation is just that. Humorous.
Why would the same words delivered by a Leno be more offensive delivered by someone appearing on a political cable network? Humor is allowed even on this type of programming.
Same words. Different messenger.
So you judge what's offensive by the messenger & not by the words? That's your criteria?
So if Leno had said "it looked like, if someone had splashed water on Hillary, she would have melted like the Wicked Witch of the West" you wouldn't be offended?
But you're offended because Terry Jeffrey made the remark.
Those are very rigid standards.
Can you not tell the difference between journalism and comedy, Jeter?
Then again, given the state of journalism in this country today, your confusion is entirely understandable.
Yeah asking journalists to be journalists rather than clowns after a laugh is a really high bar for them.
Even a journalist is allowed a humorous observation.
What planet do you live on?
But you're offended because Terry Jeffrey made the remark.
I'm bothered by the fact that Terry Jeffrey is on this planet wasting oxygen. He's totally useless, and so is his so-called "news service".
These remarks are perfectly appropriate within the context of a comedy monologue.
I don't Jay Leno should get mixed on this argument, on account that he is seldomly witty or hilarious, as well as the fact that he has a penchant for going after the Clintons.
What I'm trying to say here is that no, it wouldn't be funny if Jon Stewart or anyone else would've said what Jeffrey said, but that's because the comment made was not funny at all. I don't mind Clinton jokes, just as long as they are funny. Jeffrey's comment was not.
A couple of weeks ago, I saw a YouTube video by a Barack Obama supporter calling Hillary Clinton the Wicked Witch, and I found it offensive though I support Obama, too:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X0CoZkTbkrY
JETER:
Jon Stewart answers your question of "what's the difference" better than anyone, when he was guesting on "CROSSFIRE". Tucker Carlson and Jon had this exchange, which exposes the meat of your confusion:
JON STEWART: But the thing is that this -- you're doing theater, when you should be doing debate, which would be great. It's not honest. What you do is not honest. What you do is partisan hackery. And I will tell you why I know it.
CARLSON: You had John Kerry on your show and you sniff his throne and you're accusing us of partisan hackery?
STEWART: Absolutely.
CARLSON: You've got to be kidding me. He comes on and you...
STEWART: You're on CNN. The show that leads into me is puppets making crank phone calls. What is wrong with you?
----------
So, Jeter, fair question. What's wrong with you?
My guess is he's been taking lessons in willful misunderstanding from Tommy.
Professional journalists should be held to more rigorous standards than comedians. There just isn't any comparing the two, no matter how much Jeter would like to pretend otherwise.
No Tex, I'd have to wonder what's wrong with you.
You are making a distinction about what is offensive or humorous by whom the messenger is. The words themselves make no difference? If Leno insults Hillary it's funny. If Terry Jeffrey were to utter the same words it's offensive.
Now does this apply to remarks directed only towards Liberals? Or is anything said by anyone that is insulting or offenive to Conservatives subject to a different standard?
I bet I can guess the answer....
JETER:
Let's TEST your "theory" to see if we can discover who has something WRONG with them.
You are the honored speaker at the annual Chamber of Commerce banquet in your home town. It is a large audience, including your husband and family and friends.
You speak about civic matters, and mention a disagreement you have with a proposal made by Mr. Jones.
At the conclusion, you accept applause, and sit down. Mr. Jones' partner, Mr. Smith, takes the microphone and says, "There was a moment there in Jeter's talk where it looked like, if someone has splashed water on Jeter, she would have melted like the Wicked Witch of the West!"
SAME WORDS. Is it funny? Is it humorous? Is it mean and partisan? Is it unfair? Is it APPROPRIATE? Would you enjoy such a characterization? By someone who is clearly hostile to you? Would the AUDIENCE "get the joke" and laugh uproariously at your expense?
So, Jeter, you tell ME. Let me know which one of us has "something WRONG" with them. I'm dying to know if the forum makes NO difference.
Tex,
Just for starters I'm a HE not a SHE, which I'm sure you know & it negates your weak analogy from the get go. But even if it were my wife who was the speaker your analogy is ridiculous. Are you seriously attempting to compare a local gathering to a nationwide audience. Big difference. Your analogy also falls short as you seem to somehow be equating The Situation Room to something like the network Nightly News where opinion, humor directed at a candidate or offensive remarks would not be appropriate.
The Situation Room belongs in the same category as Hardball, Tucker, Olbermann, O'Reilly etc. These are political programs that feature as guests... pundits, journalists, humorists, politicians, radio talk hosts etc. Discussions generally center around the guests opinions on the news & newsmakers. Observations are presented, sometimes in a humorous or depending on the ear of the beholder offensive manner.
My point, which you continue to refuse to answer is why is calling Hillary a witch hysterically funny if a Leno does it as compared to a guest on one of the political cable network shows?
Isn't the the same message being conveyed to the general public? Simply put, Hillary is a witch.
The MESSAGE does not change no matter who the MESSENGER is.
So tell me Tex, if calling Hillary a witch on Leno doesn't offends you, why is it suddenly so insulting if someone else says it?
SAME MESSAGE, DIFFERENT MESSENGER.
JETER:
First off, it's not an ANALOGY, it's a HYPOTHETICAL. As such, you put yourself in that situation, and describe what you would do (honestly, if possible).
Let's say you were a fireman, and ... ("But, I"M NOT A FIREMAN!" you howl.)
So, we see that, rather than deal honestly with the hypothetical, you choose instead to pettifog and equivocate. I don't blame you, you have no leg to stand on.
Now, IF Leno were to use the "witch" line on his show, I personally would not find it funny (to be fair, I don't watch Leno much). Even comedians' jokes fall flat, when they spring from mean spirit, when it's a cheap shot, or when there is no connection to a commonly shared experience. These "pitfalls" of humor occur with PROFESSIONAL comics, whose motivation is to make people laugh. These pitfalls are TYPICAL with partisan hacks like Jeffreys, whose entire motivation is to belittle, insult, and smear the opposition. Mean spirit is only "humorous" to a select audience of like-thinking partisans.
Anyhow, if you see no difference between a CNN NEWS program, and Comedy Central, you'll probably want to get back to scratching your watch and winding your ass.
Oh Tex,
Yours absolutely was an analogy, it was not a hypothetical. You attempted to make the two situations analagous, and as Jeter pointed out, failed.
In any event, welcome to 2008 and media/cable/political punditry. There is little difference anymore between the cable political shows who engage in analysis, and the satirical ones - they both vacillate back and forth between more serious discussion and humor-laden commentary by their guests. There is no distinct line anymore, it's easily blurred, so certain segments on "The Situation Room" can be on any Comedy Central program..they are nearly indistinguishable in various aspects of their programming.
If you want strict down the line seriousness, go to NPR or C-Span - they are a different animal where you normally won't hear hyperbole or politically incorrect commentary........watch these cable shows and you never know - they inform and entertain, that is the way they operate. If you find it so offensive to have your Democrats skewed, then perhaps you shouldn't watch, because all political parties get the same treatment, you just won't find documented on this website.
And your characterization of Jeffreys being a "partisan hack whose motivation is to belittle, insult and smear" is interesting - look in the mirror pardner, that's you to a T.
If you find it so offensive to have your Democrats skewed, then perhaps you shouldn't watch, because all political parties get the same treatment, you just won't find documented on this website. - Tommy
Seriously, I'd like to see you support your statement above, Tommy. Please provide us with links/research; specifically those pundits/"journalists"/television loudmouths with a national platform who skewer the Republican candidates just as much as the Democratic candidates. I'd love to see your response. I haven't seen liberal pundits/commentators treat Republican candidates as conservative pundits/commentators treat Democratic candidates - and for you to make such a remark, especially without support, is disingenuous. The right-wing dominated main stream media would never allow such a thing to be broadcast, even if it did happen.
Prove me wrong - and I'll need something more than just a blurb from the Daily Show or Colbert Report - those shows are satire - and everyone knows they're satire.
Watch Olbermann's show, or Abrams' show on MSNBC, they are heavily slanted towards the left and use humor and satire to skew those on the right all the time.
Listen to left wing radio, i.e. Stephanie Miller for one, the nastiness that comes out of there against all things rightwing/Republican should make you smile - and don't tell me she doesn't have the national audience that the rightwingers have, because that is her problem.
Visit tons of leftwing websites, many of which are linked to here everyday by various posters, the vileness exhibited there is legendary.
Watch, listen and read - that should keep you plenty busy......so don't tell me it's all one-sided. Because if it is, it means you are either naive, or the left is incredibly inept at humor/satire of their own. You decide.
And your characterization of Jeffreys being a "partisan hack whose motivation is to belittle, insult and smear" is interesting - look in the mirror pardner, that's you to a T.
Bingo Tommy! You just described ole Tex perfectly.
I don't know why either of us wastes time on this dude. He's been arguing that comics have some sort of right to deliver a remark that no one else has, but then turns around & says if Leno referred to Hillary as a witch he wouldn't find it funny...huh? Didn't he just blow his whole stupid argument with that one?
Me thinks Tex's time would be better spent roping cattle than spreading his BS around here.
TOMMY says, “Yours absolutely was an analogy, it was not a hypothetical.”
ANALOGY: a similarity between like features of two things, on which a comparison may be based. (the analogy between the heart and a pump. Or, more apt, the analogy between Hillary Clinton and a Witch).
HYPOTHETICAL: a proposition assumed as a premise in an argument.
RESPONSE: Was I making an argument? I was. Did I ask that a proposition be ASSUMED as a premise of that argument? I did. Did I ask for a response to that argument? I did.
An ANALOGY requires no assumption, presents no argument, calls for no response. I say, “My love is like a red, red rose,” and that’s an analogy. IF I were to say, "Let’s assume YOU were a red, red rose … " -- THAT would be a hypothetical. Get it?
No charge for the basic lesson in English usage, Tommy. Hope it helps you in the future.
---------
Now, as to today’s media. I AGREE with you the boundaries have been blurred and muddled, and that this mitigates Jeter’s “argument.” For example, Keith Olbermann has taken to referring to Rush Limbaugh exclusively as a “comedian,” because anything or everything Rush says can be viewed as “a joke.” This takes him out of any serious political discussion or consideration.
The same could be done for Jeffrey, although they would have to change the on-screen identification/disclaimer they give him as a “serious” political analyst, and correctly identify him as a would-be funny man.
I would absolutely agree that a citizen can get MORE news and MORE truth from Stewart’s “DAILY SHOW” than from MSNBC, CNN, FOX, and CNN combined. How screwed-up and pitiful is THAT??!?
Tommy continues: “If you find it so offensive to have your Democrats skewed, then perhaps you shouldn't watch …”
RESPONSE: (I assume you meant, "SKEWERED") Here’s the deal, Tommy. I reserve the right to complain, to be outraged at what has become of our Media, and to say whatever I damn please. At the same time, I can also be delighted that the likes of Limbaugh and Jeffrey and Matthews (and a thousand others) are self destructing, causing enormous backlash to their racist, sexist, hateful, bigoted, UNFUNNY diatribes. I find it offensive, but I LOVE that they’re doing it. I hope they keep it up.
Tommy concludes, “And your characterization of Jeffreys being a "partisan hack whose motivation is to belittle, insult and smear" is interesting - look in the mirror pardner, that's you to a T.”
RESPONSE: And your POINT is … what? I should be on the TV ranting like Jeffrey? Nice idea, but the current media lineup seems to only have openings for RIGHTWINGERS. I don’t think Bush will be nominating me for the Supreme Court, either. Guess I’m out of luck, for now. LOL
Apparently you can't tell the difference which may be the problem here.
No but Bain Trust, started by Mitt in 1984, now owns Clear Channel.
Someone noted a warming towards Mitt recently on the Aye Bee Normal radio talk shows recently.
Of course there's no direct link/cause here. The scales have just fallen from the eyes of these talking heads. S'ah freaking honest miracle.
On topic, maybe. Jeffrey related to or is the Jeffrey from Family Circle comic? He looks a bit like him. Oops its his last name, though in my heart of hearts, it'll alway be his first name.
CNN memo: Save the Hillary Jeffrey water event for sweeps week.
I don't think the problem is the messenger. Whether one finds the jokes by Leno and the others funny, they're still technically jokes. Jeffrey's remark isn't even a joke, though he may be, it's a simple-minded insult.
While the comedians' jokes may play off of themes that aren't really based in truth, they start with some sort of understood issue.I'm not offended by any of the remarks by the comics, it's their job to work from pop culture references, whether accurate or not. Jeffrey's remark is only offensive to me because he was too lazy to think of anything original or clever.
Isn't Jeffrey the one with the little girl voice? Someone should have mentioned that to him.
Unbelievably, but very, very predictably, commenters are saying this is another one of those —yes— right-wing statements that really was, yep, "a joke!", don't you know.
See, it's a joke that's only a joke after it's reprinted and the right-winger sees how embarassing, demeaning, unfunny and lacking in any wit or humor it really is.
They must excuse it by saying, well, it's no different than if a stand-up comedian said it. It's funny-haha-get it?
Except for the inconvenient fact we must overlook. That the "joke" was spoken by a representative— no, make that Editor-in-Chief —of the right-wing Cybercast News Service.
Yes, a News Editor —a serious political analyst— is put in the same company as Gallagher. That's the plainly obvious spinning way they know of to explain the regrettable remark.
Adding that the Hillary remark was made on Cable News Network— not Comedy Central. On the serious political analysis show Situation Room— not the jokey, comedy, muscial-variety Late Night with Conan.
There are clear delineations. Viewers know what they are, and they're smart enough to tell the difference between something meant as a funny joke and a quip intended a partisan political pot-shot meant to generate damage as well as laughs from like-minded partisans.
updated 8:31 a.m. ET, Thurs., Jan. 24, 2008
TUCSON, Arizona - A judge sentenced a woman to nearly the maximum prison term for negligent homicide after hearing a recorded jail conversation in which she made light of the cyclist she killed....
Cruikshank said he found a telephone conversation between Arrington and an unknown male friend, a week after L'Ecuyer was killed, to be "breathtaking in its inhumanity."
During the conversation, the man told Arrington that an acquaintance believed she should get a medal and a parade because she had "taken out" a "tree hugger, a bicyclist, a Frenchman and a gay guy all in one shot."
Arrington laughed. When the man said he knew it was a terrible thing to say, she responded, "No, it's not."
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/22818852/
MARY:
You NAILED it. MAXVOLT here represents the typical BUSH voter. Many of us scratched our heads and pondered how ANYONE could be stupid enough to vote for GW, and now we know. Yes, there ARE such people.
You know, back in 2000, there was a moment (just a moment) where Geore Bush didn't look like a simian meat puppet.
Hey Con's: If this is the best you can do, you deserve to lose AND YOU KNOW IT!!!
Obama 2008!
So that must make you one of the flying monkey's then.
These folks are put in these shows to accomplish exactly what they have accomplished here, and in the minds of most people. They create a tiff about some trivia which can be made to appear insulting, so everyone gather around to chastise him... which, again, it's exactly what is intended... thereby distracting everyone from taking up real issues...
The most insidious lie that the media perpetrates is the lies of omission and keeping real news and real information on all the issues and all the candidates. Why? Because Hillary and Obama and McCain are harmless to the status quo. In fact, they represent the status quo.
On the other hand, Edwards, who will stay in the race until the end, is blacked out, and none of what he says appears in the mainstream media. What little has been said about him is that the Wall Street and big corporations are afraid of him... so blacking him out is easier than making jokes about him...
Even controversial and insulting chatter by these folks still constitutes FREE exposure. Why don't they talk about how dangerous Edwards is to their agendas? Edwards has not taken one penny from corporate lobbies... so he'll not be beholden to them... scary...