On CBS, NY Times' Bumiller repeatedly questioned Dean about GOP depiction of Sen. Clinton as "angry"
SUMMARY: On CBS' Face the Nation, New York Times reporter Elisabeth Bumiller repeatedly pressed Democratic National Committee chairman Howard Dean to respond to Republican National Committee chairman Ken Mehlman's recent description of Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-NY) as "angry."
On the February 12 edition of CBS' Face the Nation, New York Times reporter Elisabeth Bumiller repeatedly pressed Democratic National Committee (DNC) chairman Howard Dean to respond to Republican National Committee (RNC) chairman Ken Mehlman's recent description of Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-NY) as "angry." While Dean refused to comment directly on this characterization, he indicated that he agreed with Clinton's recent public criticisms of the Bush administration, to which Mehlman had responded by accusing Clinton of having "a lot of anger." But following this answer, Bumiller again asked Dean about the RNC chairman's comments, saying, "Let me just try to get you to talk about Mrs. Clinton." After he again refused to comment, she asked, "Do you think she's too angry? Do you agree with Mr. Mehlman?" Meanwhile, others in the media have said in recent days that the Clinton remarks Mehlman cited were, in the words of Time magazine columnist Joe Klein, not "particularly angry or outside the box" and that Mehlman's comments represent what Klein agreed was a "purposeful gender attack."
On the January 5 edition of ABC's This Week, Mehlman said that Clinton "seems to have a lot of anger" and claimed that this trait might prevent her from being elected to the White House if she were to run for president in 2008. According to a February 6 Associated Press article:
Mehlman cited the New York senator's remarks on Martin Luther King Day in which she called the Bush administration "one of the worst" in history and compared the Republican-controlled House to a plantation where opposing voices are silenced.
"I don't think the American people, if you look historically, elect angry candidates. And whether it's the comments about the plantation or the worst administration in history, Hillary Clinton seems to have a lot of anger," Mehlman told ABC's "This Week."
Bumiller joined host Bob Schieffer in questioning Dean on the February 12 edition of Face the Nation. At no point in the interview did she air or quote the Clinton remarks cited by Mehlman during his This Week appearance:
BUMILLER: Mr. Dean, let me ask you about Ken Mehlman, the chairman of the Republican Party, said last week that Hillary Clinton was angry and -- too angry, and that Americans will not elect an angry candidate. What do you say to that?
DEAN: Well, first of all, I generally don't talk about 2008 because I have to be the referee in that race, and if I say anything about one of them, I've got to say something --
BUMILLER: Wait, we're just talking about what Mr. Mehlman said. We're not talking --
DEAN: I'm going to get to that in a minute.
BUMILLER: OK.
DEAN: So I'm going to leave the question of Senator Clinton's remarks aside. If I recall, Senator Clinton said something to the effect that this was the worst presidency we've seen. Now, the facts are that they've bungled the response to Katrina, and they -- and there's more evidence now the president misled the nation about that as well, because this week we see evidence that, in fact, as he told the American people, he -- the opposite of what he told the American people -- he did, in fact, know how bad it was because the White House was told the night before. He misled the American people about Iraq.
BUMILLER: But let me just --
DEAN: He misled the American people about the cost of the drug benefits for seniors and made a mess of that --
BUMILLER: Let me -- -- let me just --
DEAN: What has this president done right?
BUMILLER: -- try to get you to talk about Mrs. Clinton. What -- how do you react to --
DEAN: Well, I'm not going to talk about Senator Clinton. She's running for re-election in --
BUMILLER: Do you think she's too angry? Do you agree with Mr. Mehlman?
DEAN: She -- I said I'm not going to talk about the 2008 race. What I do agree is that Senator Clinton has said a number of things about the president which are true and which Mr. Mehlman finds inconvenient because the president's list of accomplishments is incredibly short.
That same morning, on the NBC-syndicated The Chris Matthews Show, host Chris Matthews aired Mehlman's comments on This Week, as well as some examples of Clinton's recent criticisms of the Bush administration, and asked a panel of journalists to comment on the story. None of them endorsed the RNC chair's characterization as legitimate. Atlanta Journal-Constitution editorial page editor Cynthia Tucker drew a parallel between Mehlman's description of Clinton and the earlier characterizations of her as First Lady:
MATTHEWS: But Cynthia, the question on the table now: Have the Republicans tried or succeeded at putting her in a box?
TUCKER: Not yet, but they're certainly going to continue this strategy. You know, Chris, I remember when she was first lady, she was caricatured as being cold, distant and aloof. Now, all of a sudden, she's got an anger management problem. But this would be the difficulty that any woman who ran for president would find. If you're a woman, if you're tough, if you're strong, if you're ever angry, you get caricatured as being -- rhymes with itchy.
Klein agreed that Mehlman's comments represented a "purposeful gender attack" on Clinton. Moreover, he said that her recent criticisms of Bush were not "particularly angry or outside the box":
MATTHEWS: Is this a -- I get the point. Is this a purposeful gender attack on her --
TUCKER: Absolutely. Oh, absolutely.
MATTHEWS: -- that you wouldn't do against a man. OK, Joe -- Joe?
KLEIN: Oh, sure. First of all, none of the things she said were either particularly angry or outside the box. [Former House Speaker] Newt Gingrich [R-GA] used to talk about the liberal plantation in Congress all the time.
MSNBC chief White House correspondent Norah O'Donnell compared Mehlman's treatment of Clinton with the Republican's attacks on Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) during the 2000 presidential primaries and on Sen. John Kerry (D-MA) during the 2004 presidential campaign:
O'DONNELL: Are the Republicans trying to exploit and make this image early on that she's angry? Absolutely. That's part of the strategy. The Democrats say, "Not going to be as easy as what you did with John Kerry, because most people already have an opinion of Senator Hillary Clinton." They've already formed that opinion. However, this is not new. The Republicans did this with John McCain in South Carolina -- the Bushes did this. They said -- there was this silent campaign that went around. Remember, "He's got a temper, you know. Is this really the guy you want?" Kerry, he was the flip-flopper. He's the guy on the, you know, on the --
MATTHEWS: Norah, who do you know who doesn't have a temper? I keep trying to find this person. I have one --
KLEIN: You know, there's a simple answer --
O'DONNELL: But this is so important. This is so important because electing presidents is about their policy. But a lot of it, people have said, is about personality. And the Bushes have made a strategy out of making it a lot about personality to obscure some of the policies.
Further, on the same program in which New York Times columnist David Brooks said that the Democratic Party has "the blogs and the netroots, who are semi-nuts and who insist on a Stalinist line of discipline," Brooks also said that Clinton's remarks were "objectively not angry":
BROOKS: But there is one other issue with Hillary. To me, her problem is not anger. I agree with Joe that what she said is objectively not angry. It's trust.
Don't watch these shows more than a few minutes. As I posted before, except for the NOW program on PBS, none of the supposed news programs investigates how policy affects people. Sometimes 60 minutes.
The pundits would do well to spend more time outside their studios doing manual labor, working at soup kitchens & such. They'd certainly have more real comments to make & ask better questions.
Actually our problem I think is that the Dems aren't angry enough at what is happening in our country.
You said it.
If any person's job involves a serious enough obligation, and that job also involves directing others to perform their obligations, then you'd better have a capacity to get angry, and you'd better have a way of expressing it.
And I don't care if that obligation is being a parent, or a boss, or a cop, or a football coach, or a soldier; if you're unable to find some anger at a serious time...
And you're unable to express that anger
...then you're no good at a serious job, and you're unable to properly 'motivate' those who are otherwise your responsibility.
And you'll never get Justice, you'll never get productivity, you'll never hold the line, you'll never take the hill, and your child will never grow to meet his or her own serious obligations in this world...
...if you d0n't get pissed at lieing, cheating, stealing, excuses, weaseling, insults, crime and...
Injustice.
Things that I agree, Democrats don't get angry enough at.
You are exactly right. Who are these people, and what qualifies them to say that they know what "regular Americans" think about anything?
I wouldn't even mind if they didn't go out and mix with the "little people," but instead worked on policy matters. But these people will opine about anything - psychology, medicine, the law, economics, international relations, the arts, popular culture, science, education - without any relevant experience or knowledge to back up their opinions.
Worse, most of them haven't even developed the skills necessary to be good generalists. They don't understand statistics, a cornerstone of modern policy. Their grasp of the scientific method is tenuous at best. They don't know how to interpret research, they lack the critical skills to dissect arguments, and their knowledge of history, economics, education, and everything else is shallow. They are "C-" students in an increasingly complicated and complex world.
So they do the only thing they can: pretend to read minds, focus on politics, dismiss public policy, and mock those (Gore, Clinton) who actually know about and care about the things they themselves do not understand.
For example:
[Larry] KING: Okay. Were you impressed with this “fuzzy [math],” top 1 percent, 1.3 trillion, 1.9 trillion bit?
[Ted] KOPPEL: You know, honestly, it turns my brains to mush. I can’t pretend for a minute that I’m really able to follow the argument of the debates. Parts of it, yes. Parts of it, I haven’t a clue what they’re talking about.
This is the attitude that continues, to this day, to allow Bush to say just about anything and get away with it.
[Margaret] CARLSON: Gore’s fabrications may be inconsequential—I mean, they’re about his life. Bush’s fabrications are about our life, and what he’s going to do. Bush’s should matter more but they don’t, because Gore’s we can disprove right here and now…You can actually disprove some of what Bush is saying if you really get in the weeds and get out your calculator or you look at his record in Texas. But it’s really easy, and it’s fun, to disprove Gore.
[...]
I actually happen to know people who need government and so they would care more about the programs, and less about the things we kind of make fun of…But as sport, and as our enterprise, Gore coming up with another whopper is greatly entertaining to us. And we can disprove it in a way we can’t disprove these other things.
This is the attitude that allowed Bush to lie about his own budget proposal in the 2000 election, and sent him to the White House.
[Jim] LEHRER: The word “occupation,” keep in mind, Chris, was never mentioned in the run-up to the war. It was “liberation.” This was a war of liberation, not a war of occupation. So as a consequence, those of us in journalism never even looked at the issue of occupation.
[Chris] MATTHEWS: Because?
LEHRER: Because it just didn’t occur to us. We weren’t smart enough to do it. I agree. I think it was a dereliction of our—in retrospective.
This is the attitude that led us into a disaster in Iraq.
These people are simply not up to the job of reporting the news. They are overpaid, underworked, dolled-up shells of human beings who have no business being on our airwaves or in our presses.
The above quotes are from the Daily Howler:
www.dailyhowler.com
If they want to see how we got into this mess, and how our media led us down the garden path. The quotes you posted are classic.
Really enjoy your posts, Ellington.
They don't understand statistics, a cornerstone of modern policy. Their grasp of the scientific method is tenuous at best. They don't know how to interpret research, they lack the critical skills to dissect arguments, and their knowledge of history, economics, education, and everything else is shallow. They are "C-" students in an increasingly complicated and complex world.
You have put your finger on a terrifying problem! Journalists today - at least the blathering pundits that populate the TV networks - don't understand science. They can't differentiate between empirical claims and normative claims; they mistake objectivity for neutrality, and yet ironically advance whatever agenda is handed to them as the meme of the week. (Apparently, that's Hillary Is Angry this week.)
We get better news from Jon Stewart on Comedy Central than we ever do on the 24-hour news channels. How can that be possible?
And by the way....I wholly concur that the Democrats are not nearly angry enough at everything that's happened under our current misleader. Moreover, Hillary Clinton is among the least angry, and she disgracefully panders to people who would never vote for her anyway (unless she actually does believe in outlawing flag burning and violent video games).
Thanks for the Howler quotes, which show us that our top "journalists" know in their hearts they are incompetent.
They feel comfortable with the "horse race" of personality, which is basically a distraction which the smear-specialists of the GOP have perfected. They are LOST on issues of policy which REALLY MATTER.
What good ARE they? Answer: Only propagandistic.
These shows along with the news organizations they are affliated with are only about getting ratings and making money for the parent corporation. They have to be provocative, they have to distort the truth to get people to watch. Ratings are the bottom line, not the pursuit of truth or fairness.
Gotta get that meme out there.
Hillary Clinton. Angry.
Hillary Clinton. Angry.
Hillary Clinton. Angry.
Hillary Clinton. Angry.
Hillary Clinton. Angry.
You missed the important distinction.
Hillary, not just ANGRY. TOO angry.
Odd they don't employ this tactic with Cindy Sheehan.
They don't worry or CARE that SHE is angry. Why? Because she ... and ALL AMERICA!!! ... have ample reason to be VERY angry their children are being expended for reasons that have turned out to be LIES. And with no end in sight. And sent without proper equipment to protect their lives. And NOW being "justified" by supporting "democratic elections" which are installing TERRORISTS!!!
So Sheehan ... don't go the "angry" route. She's just CRAZY and UNAMERICAN and EXPLOITING THE DEATH OF HER SON and should just SHUT UP.
But HILLARY? She's ... TOO angry.
These people ... Mehlman in the lead ... are sick, sick, sick.
that the Repubs are extremely scared at the prospect of their run for more MONEY, GREED, and POWER could be slightly curtailed of any strong Dem taking over in the WH!!
Of course......(Although I believe that the Conservatives will) They have to think of this Nov 06 (MidTerm) elections!!
The Neo-Con Right-wing movement could take a huge hit with the Dems and Progressive Liberals taking over Congress and then the WH in 08..........
Of course....they (Bush & Co) have (That pesky War on Terror), Diebold and those other two voting machine companies on their side (just in case)....No paper trail here please......
Running mate for Hillary?? Obama? Maybe.....Edwards? decent choice.....Reid? Likely....but if it were Reid.....I would flip these two around and have Hillary go VP!!
In about a year and half we''ll no doubt know.......
the republicans deal with true statements on bush with an attack on the person making them. this is all leading to: she's an angry feminist bitch and you really don't want that. you want a good buddy like ronnie or w. even if they are incompetent, they know all those feel good buzz words. and most republicans fall for it. every thing w has touched is a disaster, but hey don't you wanna have a beer with him.....well, scratch the beer part.
These networks give credibility to this Republican talking point by simply repeating and discussing it. Why bother buying Swift Boat commercials?
This characterization of Ms Clinton is the typical strategy used ad nauseum by the Republicans to break down a rather complex situation into one easilly repeated sound bite. If the woman isn't angry with what has been happening to this Nation she is under heavy sedation. There are other reasons I probably will not support her candidacy but showing justifiable displeasure is not one of them.
Dean does the best job of calling the Media on this kind of crap. He won't play the Repub "talking point game" because it keeps the media from having to discuss the actual results of this God forsaken administration. I am glad to see the Repub's are calling Hilary names because that means they are scared! Unfortunately, the Dem's will probably allow Hilary or who ever get's the Nomination to be "swift boated" once again. We have absolutely no spine and we are as afraid to call the Repub's AND the Media on anything.
Personally, I think that in response to Bumiller's question about Mehlman's crack, Dean should have just laughed and said
"This is just another example of the Republicans talking trash in a desperate attempt to distract people's attention from the serious failures of the Bush admnistration. Hillary Clinton could be pictured having a wonderful time, laughing uproariously at some joke, and Ken Mehlman would go on TV and sneer 'boy, Hillary Clinton sure laughs angry, doesn't she'?"
"Ms. Bumiller, I have to ask. Does the RNC send you a check for every time you repeat that Hillary is Angry? You couldn't be more fixated on this "impression" expressed by a partisan blowhard if it were a slot machine that paid off every time you put forward this "framing" being promoted by the RNC. So, 'fes up, do you get a check every time? Like a royalty?"
Won't happen, but wouldn't it be GREAT?
Had Dean simply answered the question it would NOT have been repeated. All he had to say was *No, he didn't think Hillary Clinton was angry or TOO angry and that Mehlman's description was pure Republican spin.* End of questioning.
Makes me WONDER why he chose not to....
Could it be that Dean STILL sees himself as a POSSIBLE candidate in 2008? Maybe he isn't in any big hurry to DIFFUSE any negative rhetoric. Maybe he figures it's NOT in his best interest.... After all the primaries can get pretty nasty, everyone MAY kiss&makeup afterwards as they UNITE behind the party's nominee...BUT it's dog eat dog during the nominating process. Maybe Dean figures the image of an "angry Hillary" could be VERY useful to his OWN run?....
Or as DNC chairman MAYBE he&others have already realized that while Hillary could sweep the Democratic primaries she PROBABLY could NOT win in the general election? So maybe no one is gonna rush to her defense--hoping SOMEONE else MORE electable will win the primaries?
By avoiding, sidestepping&trying to ignore the QUESTION Dean brought MORE attention to the contention that HE might believe Hillary is angry and that he didn't seem to be disputing THAT.
Bottom line: Ken Mehlman is the RNC chairman. So it was perfectly feasible&even expected that his charge that Hillary is angry would be brought up to his counterpart the DNC's chairman Howard Dean. That Dean danced around the QUESTION is very telling....AND that some of you here think that Elisabeth Bumiller was out of line ASKING it is very telling as well.
Jeter:
You bring up a good point. If Dean had DENIED that Hillary is or was ANGRY, that would have been an answer.
You suspect Dean is hoping Hillary keeps getting smeared, for his own agenda.
But such a denial would have Dean playing Mehlman's game of reading minds and attributing motives, and Dean would gain nothing by letting the Republicans frame the issue, even if it's measuring moods or reading chicken bones.
As this thread shows, there is a growing constituency that WANTS the Democrats to get mad. I've seen no evidence that, if Hillary even ADMITS she is mad as hell, that that would lose her any votes. It may indeed GAIN her support, if she decides to go after the Republican incompetence, corruption, and dishonesty with a vengence.
Mehlman's formula is MAD = UNQUALIFIED. It's bogus, of course. But they'll be trying everything under the sun in the next couple of years.
Consider their LAST characterization of Hillary: COLD. Now it's MAD. Opposites. Throwing whatever they can think of at the wall to see what "sticks". It's so transparent, it's comical.
If Dean had DENIED that Hillary is or was ANGRY, that would have been an answer.
Yes, but they wouldn't have accepted that answer, because their minds are already made up.
Your main point was also perfectly valid: is being angry a bad thing? I remember when Israeli prime minister Begin did something that displeased Ronald Reagan, the latter staged a photo shoot of himself making a phone call to the former, and Reagan had a furious look on his face. And when he walked out angrily on peace talks with Soviet premier Gorbachev, the press played it up as though his anger was a sign of strength.
Remember when George H.W. Bush had his spitting contest with Dan Rather? When it was over, George W.--then working on his father's campaign--crowed how "macho" his dad had been.
Colin Powell's rules for living include the line: "Get angry, then get over it."
Anger is no sin. Jesus himself got angry (read up on when he cleared the temple). A person who gets angry at the right time and with just cause is someone I would trust.
Tex, to answer your first question: is being angry a bad thing? No, NOT necessarily. Perhaps Dean could have handled the Question that way? That might have crippled Mehlman's implication that it is a "bad thing". Again mere speculation I suppose. AND I AGREE maybe her being angry MIGHT be a POSITIVE rather than a NEGATIVE...perhaps Dean should have taken that course?
Yes I came up with a couple of scenarios to explain WHY Dean may have been hesitant to ANSWER the QUESTION directly. Again, I'm playing a kind of Devil's Advocate here, as I've no way of knowing WHAT Dean's future plans hold. Or WHAT the Democrats are thinking about for 2008.
I AGREE that Mehlman and other Republicans are throwing mud and HOPING something sticks...But I still believe Dean could have DIFFUSED the situation, or at the very least forced Elisabeth Bumiller to move on to another QUESTION by simply answering : 'No, I don't believe that's an accurate description of Hillary Clinton. It's just more Republican rhetoric meant to demean Ms. Clinton.'
By NOT answering her DIRECTLY he gave the impression of deliberately trying to AVOID the QUESTION. (Of course how many politicians ever answer ANY question directly? LOL. They ALWAYS try to get their "talking points" in first&foremost.)
IF Dean had answered BUT Bumiller had STILL pressed him further, Dean could have cut her off by stating: 'I've answered your QUESTION.'
Like it or not, THESE kind of QUESTIONS are part of the media's political discourse. Always have been, always will be.
most of your post is pure speculation. dean did or did not do something because he's running himself. kind of a stretch. and how this would help him i don't know. as for him dancing around the question, i find nothing wrong with dean refusing to get into these personal attacks on hillary as too angry. he said let's talk about what she's saying that made the gop call her angry, instead of discussing the gop talking points. the fact that bumiller kept asking, when dean made himself clear, is the point of this story.
"most of your post is pure speculation"...by mefirst
=====
Absolutely, never pretended it wasn't...BUT of course we all occasionally do some speculating HERE when ATTEMPTING to determine "motives".
I have to DISAGREE with you about the way Dean handled the QUESTION. He should have answered and nipped it in the bud. As I wrote to Tex: "By NOT answering her DIRECTLY he gave the impression of deliberately trying to AVOID the QUESTION"
IF Howard Dean had remarked that John McCain was turning into a crybaby (based on the recent Obama incident) and Elisabeth Bumiller was interviewing RNC's chairman Ken Mehlman, do YOU even DOUBT for a second that she'd QUESTION him about Dean's remark??
Her QUESTION was fair, and Dean should have answered it and moved on.
speculation is fine, if it's based on something. you're questioning dean's motives with something that is nowhere in evidence, him running for president. as for her question being "fair", ok ask it once and then when dean says let's discuss the real issues she brought up, you move on. i think he pretty much did answer the question by saying this is just a distraction from what's going on. why play the media game of spin, which is what too much "political discussion" revolves around today. i mean let's be realistic. was this really a question he had to think about? he was going to say yes she's too angry?
mefirst, if you check out SOME Liberal blogs&websites you'd find that they are indeed "speculating" about another Dean run in 2008. Based on what? I'd guess that in some cases it's wishful thinking... of course SOME are also "speculating" about a possible return of Al Gore (that to me is a lot more far-fetched than Dean). I've NO idea IF Dean would consider running again. BUT I wouldn't doubt that IF a energized grassroot effort was put together you MIGHT see him interested.
That aside, perhaps Dean was damned if he did, and damned if he didn't when it came to responding to Elisabeth Bumiller's QUESTION about Hillary. IMO he could have diffused it and quickly moved on by saying he didn't think Mehlman's description of Hillary was accurate, called it a distraction or Republican rhetoric, then suggested they discuss more pertenant issues. By NOT addressing her *Hillary Is Angry* QUESTION he ONLY prolonged her tenacity to shake an answer from him.
mefirst, I'm pretty certain that YOU&I are never going to AGREE on this topic. Maybe another topic on another day ;-)
we won't agree, because you put some selfish motive to dean's action on no evidence. and you know what? you can find anyone saying anything you like on any web site. look at tommy.
Yes, Dean could have answered the question but doing so would have made Bumiller's question seem meritorious, when in fact it was just giving more airtime to Ken Mehlman's unfounded opinion. Now, if Mehlman had said something substantive, perhaps about Hillary's voting record, then a question from Bumiller about it would have merited a response from Dean. While he may have seemed evasive to you, Dean was correct in not playing Bumiller/Mehlman's little innuendo game.
Rusty, while I understand YOUR point, I think it might have just been easier for Dean to answer&move on. I don't think by answering he is giving anymore credence to the QUESTION...I actually think it would have taken the wind out of her sails. All he needed to say was that he didn't think Mehlman's remarks were accurate and then DISMISS them as nothing more than Republican rhetoric, then he could have suggested they discuss more IMPORTANT issues. Had he done that he could have AVOIDED her hounding him.
Unfortunately in politics SOMETIMES you have to deal with the "innuendos" in order to DIFFUSE them.
You may very well be right Jeter, but I still think Dean was smarter to completely avoid the appearance of engaging Bumiller on this non-issue. If he had responded on Bumiller's terms (that is, by directly addressing the "angry" comment) then she may well have taken that as an invitation to hound him further: "Mr. Dean, you say that this is just more empty Republican rhetoric, but what about when Sen. Clinton said [blah blah blah]?" I think Dean's parry was the best way to get Bumiller to move on to something else. (If there's one thing a politician is good at, it's directing a conversation to his/her advantage.)
Rusty -
That's the same point I was going to make: Treating the question seriously would be acknowledging it to be a serious question, i.e., that whether or not Hillary Clinton is "angry" is a central issue facing the electorate.
On the other hand, Jeter asked
IF Howard Dean had remarked that John McCain was turning into a crybaby ... and Elisabeth Bumiller was interviewing RNC's chairman Ken Mehlman, do YOU even DOUBT for a second that she'd QUESTION him about Dean's remark?
Yes, I do, an answer based on experience to date, where personal accusations and innuendoes against Democrats are far more likely to promote a media response than similar claims about Republicans.
I wouldn't be shocked if she asked the suggested question, although I do doubt she would, but what would really surprise me would be an exchange like this:
Bumiller: What about Howard Dean calling John McCain a crybaby? Is John McCain a crybaby?
Mehlman: [compilation of GOP talking points about Democrats "offering no solutions."]
Bumiller: Yes, ok - but is John McCain a crybaby?
Initially asking the question would mildly surprise me - but continuing to pursue it in the face of any resistance would be a stunner.
Oh, one last thing: Jeter, could you please give the Caps Lock key a rest? Reading your posts is like being persistently shouted at.
Ok ok "uncle"!!... I'm being double-teamed here!! ;-)
Look guys (Rusty&Larry) it is pretty CLEAR we're NOT going to come to an agreement here. If I were in Dean's shoes I would have handled the interview differently.
Of course it's probably a MOOT POINT anyway because no matter what Dean had said it's a pretty good bet that Mehlman will continue his "Hillary is angry" routine and Scarborough has joined the party by declaring Hillary comes off as "shrill"....look for Hannity&company to pick up this ball and run with it (if they haven't already)
*Larry, sorry you don't like "my style" of using "CAPS". I don't mean it to come off as "shouting"...I just use them for emphasis. HOWEVER, I'll tone it down a bit (just a bit).*
Dean was absolutely correct in not answering Bumiller's question. The NY Times and most of the 24-hour press bemoans the "lack of concensus" /"lack of alternative policies" coming from the Democratic party, yet only report on leading Democrats' reaction to the latest RNC "talking points"; not on their agenda for the future.
Warching this show live showed that all Bumiller wanted was Dean's reaction to Mehlmans comment. She had NO interest in anything else he had to say, despite his laying out a five point Democratic plan for the future; defence, education, healthcare, etc.
Isn't Dean the now the leader of the DNC? He was asked this question because his counterpart called Senator Clinton too angry & suggested she wouldn't be elected based on history. Dean dodged the question. I personally don't think he knew how to handle it because he doesn't not work under pressure. He's best at throwing bombs. He tries to change the subject rather than answer what was asked.
I think it would be better to have Senator Clinton respond to the accusation, but rarely does she get difficult questions. I wonder when she runs for office if she would be willing to sit down with a Conservative for a interview. She usually only does "softball interviews".
dream a little dream of me. it's the righties who won't go on liberal shows. franken has a standing invitation to bush, cheney and his administration. but they only go for rush's butt kissing. rush has addressed this very issue. he says he won't have liberals on because they get enough coverage in the "liberal media". the real reason is he doesn't have the gumption. just like o'reilly claimed he "took clinton apart", when clinton wasn't even there. the righties are too afraid of the big dog. cowards, every one.
I'm a Democrat and I'm angry as hell... having a complete imbecile win the presidency not once but twice under questionable circumstances was the start... handing away our lawbooks to corporations and other rich people ratcheted up my anger a bit... the war made it boil over... the corruption and cronyism were the melting icing on the cake...
overall, it's a criminal president and VP who are not being called to account because their party is in the majority... why are these men still in office and not in JAIL??? that's the biggest injustice, and it's infuriating...
Rarely does she get difficult questions?
Softball interviews?
Talk about a vaccuous post. Anything to back up ANYTHING you've said?
Didn't think so. Repug talking points.
[link to www.mediaresearch.org]
shannon's