Dowdunit: Columnist instigated personal hit on Clintons from "reluctant" Geffen
In an article for the March 5 edition of Newsweek about Maureen Dowd's controversial February 21 New York Times interview (subscription required) with Hollywood mogul David Geffen, a longtime donor to former President Bill Clinton and Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-NY) who is supporting Sen. Barack Obama (D-IL) for the 2008 Democratic presidential nomination, Evan Thomas reported that Dowd told the magazine, in Thomas' words, that during her interview with Geffen, "Geffen did not seem out to get the Clintons," adding: "Dowd says Geffen was initially reluctant to be interviewed for her column. ... Dowd says she was the one who brought up questions about Bill Clinton's past as a campaign issue."
Following their publication, Geffen's harsh personal comments on the Clintons have been the subject of countless media reports framed like the Newsweek piece, which carries the headline, "Fragged by an F.O.B. [Friend of Bill]" But that very same Newsweek piece went on to show that the circumstances surrounding the interview suggest it instead to apparently be little more than a proxy war waged by Dowd.
After goading Geffen, Dowd appears to have left out the fact that he was a source for a critical paragraph in the column, which she presented only as the negative views of other unnamed donors about the Clintons.
In her Times column, Dowd wrote:
Terry McAuliffe and First Groupie Bill have tried to hoard the best A.T.M. machine in politics for the Missus, but there's some Clinton fatigue among fatigued Clinton donors, who fret that Bill will "pull the focus" and shelve his wife's campaign.
But according to Newsweek, after Dowd "brought up questions" about Bill Clinton:
Geffen acknowledged that some big donors and celebrity Clinton supporters were fretting, as Dowd put it, "that Bill will 'pull the focus' and shelve his wife's campaign."
Geffen also spoke to Newsweek, and he flatly contradicted both a key assertion Dowd quoted him making just a few days ago, as well as the wholly negative portrait of the Clintons Dowd painted from his comments. The lead Geffen quote in the Dowd column was, "Whoever is the nominee is going to win, so the stakes are very high." But Geffen told Newsweek: "I think Bill Clinton is a great guy. ... I support them both. I just don't think she can be elected president."
Dowd is nothing more than a self-important, political wind vane who relies on catchy and/or derisively humorous phrases and descriptions about her subjects to pass as incisive commentary. She has offered nothing in the way of true insight about America and its politics. Her role has been reduced to that of the punk kid in "The Simpsons" that points and yells "ha ha" at anyone in an undesirable situation. Maureen-- start talking seriously, for once, if you can. Spare us the Soap Opera Digest-style synopsis.
That is the best characterization of Dowd's work that I have seen. Thanks.
Well said.
Did you hear this appalling tidbit on Washington Week this past Friday?
Nothing says more about the DC Media's Groupthink than that inadvertent revelation.
A dead heat w/Molly Ivins.
Ouch. That was a bad joke. One because Molly is dead and two comparing her to Maureen Dowd. I don't think that's a fair criticism.
I agree Bing, Dowd could not carry Ivin's sandal strap. For one thing, Molly was a reporter first, then a pundit.
After goading Geffen...
Oh please, what is Geffen 8 years old? Nobody twisted his arm. Who cares who brought what up first...Geffen sang like a bird.
Geffen also spoke to Newsweek, and he flatly contradicted both a key assertion Dowd quoted him making just a few days ago, as well as the wholly negative portrait of the Clintons Dowd painted from his comments.
Oh really? Funny how right after Dowd's column appeared that Geffen, when asked, didn't change his story or back down from what he told her.
But Geffen told Newsweek: "I think Bill Clinton is a great guy. ... I support them both. I just don't think she can be elected president."
Mmmmm...wonder WHY Geffen is trying desperately to suddenly backtrack??? Could it be the Clinton Juggernaut is using a bit of intimidation? Yeah that would be my guess too.
After 6 long years of the Bush administration trying to intimidate anyone who tried to defy them or speak out against them, do we really want or need the Democratic version of the same strong arm tactics?
I liked Bill. I was never too crazy about Hillary. Now I remember why.
jeter, you're basing your comments on nothing but conjecture. the clintons don't begin to compare to bush when it comes to tolerating dissent. and geffen is a millionaire many times over in a private business. exactly how does the "clinton juggernaut" silence him. those comments sound like anything you hear by rush.
First things first.
those comments sound like anything you hear by rush....by mefirst
Low blow mefirst. Since when have I ever parroted Limbaugh? Suggesting I am doing that here is a cheap shot. I'll wait for your apology.
the clintons don't begin to compare to bush when it comes to tolerating dissent...by mefirst
Are you suggesting the Clinton's don't have a machine out there pouncing on those that dare utter a disparaging word about them? That's naive.
Look how they reacted about Geffen's remarks. Talk about overkill. They would have been better off ignoring it.
Oh and Geffen may find himself out in the cold, blackballed socially IF the Clinton's move back into the White House. Watch for Hollywood [even those currently supporting Obama--but smart enough not to diss Bill & Hill] to be welcomed back to the Lincoln bedroom.
Could get lonely for Geffen when all his pals leave him for the "popular kids" ;-)
my comment about limbaugh like comments was just that. it sounds exactly like something he would say: the vindictive clintons out to crush anyone against them. so no apology. and if you want to know if you ever said anything like he would. well yeah, you did. our very first argument was about you calling cnn "the clinton news network". and you can say you like bill, but you voted for bush twice. must have been a bit of disapproval of bill in 2000, not to vote for the man who was a huge part of his administration. and of course they reacted to his comments. he called them both liars. what did you think they would say? i think we get along but if you say something i will question you on it, as you have done with me. why would you want it any other way.
it sounds exactly like something he would say: the vindictive clintons out to crush anyone against them.
Well isn't that exactly what the Clinton machine set out to do here? They didn't just "react" with a composed temperate response they send out the dogs and went straight at Obama. Who BTW has no control over what Geffen had to say. And did not need to rein him in. The Clinton camp should have made a comment directed towards Geffen and left Obama out of it.
well yeah, you did. our very first argument was about you calling cnn "the clinton news network".
Wow what a memory ;-) Was that really our first quarrel? Actually I have a vague recollection of it...but did I call it that OR did I say I'd heard it called that? Yeah parsing a bit here maybe...
you can say you like bill, but you voted for bush twice. must have been a bit of disapproval of bill in 2000, not to vote for the man who was a huge part of his administration.
Gore distanced himself from Bill Clinton if you remember correctly during his campaign. And just because Gore was Bill's VP doesn't mean he was another Bill Clinton. I've already asked [several times] for forgiveness about my Bush votes. No one feels more guilty than I about that. I should have sat BOTH elections out, since in 2000 I wanted McCain [not this time though] and the second time was a vote AGAINST Kerry [my State Senator] whom I despised.
i think we get along but if you say something i will question you on it, as you have done with me. why would you want it any other way.
We buried the hatchet long ago, and I think we get along pretty well--even when we disagree. And you're correct, I wouldn't want it any other way. I respect your opinions and we should be able to debate civilly. Which for the most part we have been doing for a long time now.
"pouncing on those who dare utter a disparaging word". i think you have greatly exaggerated the situation. and yes i do have a memory. because you were characterizing it as the clinton news network. you said even your wife admits it's called that, to which i replied so do i. it's called that by all the right wingers. i'm not sure what the "parsing" part means unless you're saying i'm deliberately mischaracterizing the situation. and, here's that memory thing again, you told a story awhile ago about kerry barging to the front of restaurant lines and asking "do you know who i am?" an utterly silly assertion. a senator gets a table at any restaurant he shows up at. and gore would have been clinton without the zipper problems. i don't know what would have made anyone think differently. bush on the other hand was the same lying scum, surrounded by lying scum like rove, when he was governor of texas. it was there for anyone to see.
"pouncing on those who dare utter a disparaging word". i think you have greatly exaggerated the situation.
Not at all. Not only did they pounce...they went after the wrong person. Their ire should have been directed at Geffen NOT Obama. This could come back to bite them. The entire situation was handled irresponsibly by the Clinton campaign.
i'm not sure what the "parsing" part means unless you're saying i'm deliberately mischaracterizing the situation
Actually I was referring to MYSELF. Asking you did I call it that, or did I hear someone else say it and I was merely repeating it? Then wondering if it made a big difference--or was I parsing it?
you told a story awhile ago about kerry barging to the front of restaurant lines and asking "do you know who i am?" an utterly silly assertion. a senator gets a table at any restaurant he shows up at.
THAT story about Kerry has been repeated numerous times on Boston radio and in Boston newspapers whenever Kerry's arrogance and snobbery come up. The man also had a fire hydrant moved from in front of his Boston condo so he & the little woman could park out front. BTW Patrick Kennedy [Ted's son] who is a Rhode Island Congressman has ALSO been heard to ask "Do you know who I am?"...and that one is on tape! There was an incident at an airport that was the catalyst to Patrick's question...
gore would have been clinton without the zipper problems. i don't know what would have made anyone think differently.
Not really. Gore was more to the Left than Clinton. And IF Gore wanted nothing to do with Bill, why would anyone think that voting for Gore would get you Clinton II.
bush on the other hand was the same lying scum, surrounded by lying scum like rove, when he was governor of texas. it was there for anyone to see.
I knew very little about Bush and nothing about Rove in Texas. In fact I never even heard of Rove before 2000...and learned more about him after Bush was already in the White House. Just like I'm betting you didn't know much about Kerry's resume as a Massachusetts Senator before he ran for President. Bush's record as Governor in Texas was held up as a good one. One in which he worked well with Democrats.
Hindsight is ALWAYS 20/20
i knew quite a bit about kerry. it's not like his record was hidden from the rest of the country. gore may have distanced himself somewhat from clinton because of the monica thing, but he also pointed out continually that he was running on the success of their administration. and you can hear a lot of things on the radio or in the papers that aren't true. but our discussion was about you making a direct comparison between this little spat and the strong arm tactics of bush. there is none. bush has sent out his attack dogs to question the very patriotism of those who oppose him. case in point, the ads the gop ran against max cleland in 2002. putting pictures of him on the same screen as osama bin laden. i think geffen ran his mouth and then backtracked. i simply said that portraying the clintons as this ruthless machine out to crush all dissent, which is what you did, sounds like a limbaugh talking point. and then you demanded an apology from me for expressing what was my opinion. i don't know if you want to go on with this, but we've both made our points. others can decide who's saying what.
I believe the strong arm tactics used by Bush & Clinton are similar, the difference being that Bush & Co. have used their intimitation tactics for far sinister motives.
I think Clinton's Campaign went overboard on this particular situation and it was illuminating to see their reaction and observe how the long knives appeared and were directed at her opponent rather that at Geffen.
I agree we can let this conversation come to a conclusion. And pat ourselves on the back for conducting it civilly.
We don't agree BUT can be a shining example to the others here ;-)
Others can judge our conclusions. Of course being MMFA is overwhelmingly populated with Democrat/Liberals I'd expect most will agree with you. No biggie. I'll view any opinions expressed on our posts with a grain of salt...
Jeter, don't feel guilty about voting for Bush in 2004, Kerry still won your state, your vote had no impact. Whoever counseled Kerry to run on his war record from Vietnam was an idiot. Bad strategy.
i know. five medals for service in vietnam. he should have hid that.
Hey Bruce, welcome back! Hope you had a great vacation.
As much as I despise Kerry, his military service should be admired. Unfortunately because of statements he made upon his return from Vietnam many have tried to tarnish that image.
Kerry's campaign should have known that Kerry might be vulnerable to that. But isn't that a sad commentary on politics in this country, when a decorated soldier can be smeared and Bush, who lucked out of combat & into the Guard [with Daddy's help] skips out on that and remained basically unscathed by attacks?
I just felt that emphasizing Vietnam as much as he did was going too far back in his life when so much other stuff that has happened more recently like his Senate achievements should have been highlited. He made it the focal point when it should have been a background item in my opinion.
The Bush Guard stuff didn't hurt him because it was so long ago and people were judging him by his first term, willing to give his plan a little more time. Once you have a record as President, the other stuff isn't going to matter.
My vacation was great, thanks!
apparently it wasn't far back enough for the republicans wearing bandaids at their convention.
Why does ANYONE care what David Geffen has to say? Because he's a millionaire... and a Clinton supporter? All this is meaningless. Geffen is none too bright for opening his big yapper (yet again...) His comments are meaningless. The Clinton machine should not accept his money if they don't want to suffer the consequences.
"Why does ANYONE care what David Geffen has to say?"
One possible explanation is that because the very wealthy Geffen is a former supporter and major financial contributor to Bill Clinton, an FOB (friend of Bill), if you like, that there may be a aubtle underlying assumption among some people that because Geffen actually knows the Clintons personally he may have some private insight into them, including their relationship, that the general public is not privileged to. That's one reason why I think Geffen's remarks were treated with some credulity and became so explosive.
And, all that is based upon assumption. Geffen may be rich, but he's also a known strange, petty guy. He's rich. That's it. This is Geffen's doing. The Clintons should not be taking money from him if he's going to be a potential 'liability'.
Then again, should anyone be responsible for the comments of a benefactor? Half of the buildings in Westwood at UCLA are named after Geffen at this point... to include, the Medical School itself (Geffen/UCLA Medical School). Since I work in the Medical Center, does that mean I am now responsible for everything Geffen says or does in regard to the Medical community? That doesn't make much sense to me either.
Unfortunately, very wealthy people who involve themselves in political campaigns and throw money around carry some stroke, regardless how strange, loose-lipped and petty they actually are. The candidates crave not only their donations but also the money these donors can get their equally rich cronies to pony up. But apparently some of these rich donors can be fickle loose cannons. As this entire episode applies to the Clintons, consider Daivid Geffen as an occupational hazard.
Ain't nuthin' for free. I have a feeling the Clintons will not be associating with Geffen in the near (maybe distant) future.
Why does ANYONE care what David Geffen has to say?...by GreekFurnace
Hey Greek, If a stranger [or political opponent] says nasty things about you that's usually taken into consideration by the public.
BUT let an old pal diss you and people are gonna wonder IF there might be something truthful in their words.
Like:
"Everybody in politics lies, but they [the Clintons] do it with such ease, it’s troubling,”
"I don't think anybody believes that in the last six years, all of a sudden Bill Clinton has become a different person"
Sang like a bird? You're buying into the line that what Geffen said was some outrageous attack. Look at his quotes from the interview. He didn't say anything that warrants the kind of reaction that this non-story has been getting in the media (and from Hillary).
Geffen: "It's not a very big thing to say, 'I made a mistake' on the war, and typical of Hillary Clinton that she can't. She's so advised by so many smart advisers who are covering every base. I think that America was better served when the candidates were chosen in smoke-filled rooms."
"Obama is inspirational, and he's not from the Bush royal family or the Clinton royal family. Americans are dying every day in Iraq. And I'm tired of hearing James Carville on television."
"Who can pay attention to the Oscar battle between The Queen and Dreamgirls when you've got a political battle between a Queen and a Dreamboy?"
"Republicans believe she's the easiest to defeat."
All this shows his how thin-skinned Hillary is, and how desperate for a fight Dowd is.
Clams you left out the best stuff.
"Everybody in politics lies, but they [the Clintons] do it with such ease, it’s troubling,”
"I don't think anybody believes that in the last six years, all of a sudden Bill Clinton has become a different person"
I'd guess it those TWO quotes that really got under Hillary's skin....
Kenny,
You are delusional if you don't think Hillary and most other powerful people [in or out of politics] don't use intimidation.
No conspiracy theories here, just common sense when one examines past behavior.
Ken... not Kenny (can't read, eh?)
"Intimidation tactics?" Pure horse manure. I was right. You ARE paranoid.
Kenny,
You are so naive.
This bogus attempt by Media Matters to put it all on Dowd is just another attempt to work with Clinton's campaign. You are conveniently failing to mention that Hillary Clinton used the story to go after Obama for having the audacity to take money from the evil Geffen, making a hypocritical ass of herself in the process. Are you paid directly by the Clinton campaign or are you just big supporters?
Hey, my observations of the current media traveling show, is the media bringing up Clinton all the time, and they don't differentiate between Bill and Hillary.
Regardless...
Regardless how Geffen's remarks may have been elicited... Regardless how the competing campaigns reacted... Regardless how popular Bill Clinton remains, and what a tremendous boost he could be for his wife's campaign... If I was a major Democratic financial contributor I might be a little skittish about Hillary Clinton's campaign being taken down by the well-financed Republican slime machine that performs this party function. Face it, Hillary Clinton has a much larger bulls-eye painted on her back than any other Democratic candidate.. she has been the subject of hateful villification by the right wing media for quite some time. It is plausible, and there exists the possibility that some previously unrevealed embarrassing information regarding Bill and Hillary Clinton's marriage could (and would) be used by the Republican slime machine. As highly regarded as Bill Clinton is, the notion that he is still a "player" is not implausible. I don't know if he is or he isn't... nor do I really care. But the short-term damage of any so-called "scandal" could very likely cost Hillary the White House. One thing you can be absolutely certain about is this... if Bill Clinton has played around since leaving office you can bet that the Republican slime machine will dig it up... and probably even make-up major parts of it.
I hate all of this Democratic infighting, particularly this early, but regardless how tactless Geffen's comments were (and regardless whether Maureen Dowd set Geffen up), there is an element in what Geffen said (or what is attributed to him) that should be of legitimate concern for Democrats. Regardless whether you or I think the Clinton's marriage should be off bounds, there are millions of voters that exist, and who could decide the election, who would hold any indiscretion by Bill Clinton against Hillary's run for office. It may be unfair, but unless Bill Clinton shaved his head and became a cloistered monk, he will always be suspected of being a "player" after the Monica Lewinsky affair.
I'm sure Hillary Clinton is both angry and sqeamish... but Presidential politics is not for the faint-hearted. Look at the way the Republican slime machine went after John Kerry and then multiply that by about ten to project what Hillary Clinton will be subjected to if she wins the nomination.
"...I might be a little skittish about Hillary Clinton's campaign being taken down by the well-financed Republican slime machine that performs this party function."- Irony
That's like saying you think a 92-year-old woman in a wheelchair could knock out Mike Tyson.
"...you think a 92-year-old woman in a wheelchair could knock out Mike Tyson."
No, to use a boxing anaology, I would put it more like this. If a boxer had a weakened left shoulder he might be more susceptible to being knocked down by a surprise right cross from a weaker opponent... and maybe even knocked out cold if the opponent had a piece of lead hidden inside his glove.
Irony101, I would ignore clsn. He seems to be a troll (of lower than troll intelligence). P.S. do you think, even if Bill were to shave his head and become a monk, the media would leave Hillary alone? They would probably would point out that her marriage is not working.
I know the rest of this is off topic, but I felt I needed to state it to the fourteen year old troll, who likes to start arguements.
clsn_lx1315, sorry, I was on vacation this weekend and did not get to reply to you and redking on the (what turned into) illegal immigration thread.
1. You are the idiot, because you do not seem to be able to understand sarcasim, when I said "all 10 of them" (also you seem not to be able to look up statistics, like Wisconsin's total hispanic populaiton 4%, of those 21-34% are believed to be illegal immigrants.)
2. I made a statement that basically commented that so many people on the thread seem to be getting a little over heated, my main point. And you attack me filled with rage and call me names or question my perception of reality? How is that for rational?
No need to reply, I don't argue with little kids or those who can count thier total IQ using the fingers on one hand.
From McCain: "Irony101, I would ignore clsn. He seems to be a troll (of lower than troll intelligence)... I know the rest of this is off topic, but I felt I needed to state it to the fourteen year old troll clsn_lx13151. You are the idiot, because you do not seem to be able to understand sarcasim...No need to reply, I don't argue with little kids or those who can count thier total IQ using the fingers on one hand."
McCain- You might want to check out MMFA's "Terms of Use" page. You seem to be violating a few of them. Thanks.
CLSN
Okay, I know I said I would not reply to you again, but I just had too, reply to your last one.
Maybe re-read some of your past posts to me, before you comment on my posts.
Pretty sure I didn't slam your intelligence, just disagreed with your position. If I did, I apologize.
Well, thank you CLSN
And I apologize too, I'm sorry
Just posted a question, with a little over-exagerated humor to "lighten" the mood on Friday. Went on a mini-vacation over the weekend....
Got back and saw what was written and the thread closed. But again I am sorry.
No problem. Hope your short vacation was good. We had one, too. Weekend camping with the family in the desert. Half moon. Lots of stars. Talked around the camp fire and watched everything rotate around the North Star for hours until we fell asleep. Pretty darned amazing, this universe.
Hey Clsn:
sniff.....sniff...SNIFF SNIFF SNIFF.....WWWAAAAAAAAAAAAA!!!!! You poor thing, you. Maybe you can get the ACLU to file a civil lawsuit for past "wrongs" done to you.
(h/t Clsn)
Thanks Rusty, but I think its over with.
I know I should be a better person than those who attack me. But just something about the attacks to my questions were a little over the top. Its a shame too, since on a few points I agreed with him. But oh well, I guess in this day and age you can't have an actual conversation about a "touchy" topic with out being yelled at and put down. (just look at the reactions to Val's posts, for example).
Oh and to stay on topic, Dowd, Maureen Dowd, opinion piece, etc.
Thanks for the link, Rusty, but you'll notice I never attacked McCain's intelligence. By the way, you take this site way too seriously. I'm starting to think "Rusty Shackleford" is a pseudonym for someone at MMFA. Perhaps Mr. Alterman? If you really are Mr. Alterman, you might consider changing your picture in the "Columns" section. You look stoned out of your gourd.
You're right, you never attacked his intelligence. That is a fabulous and meaningful distinction. My apologies.
I am not affiliated with MMFA, btw.
on the thread being discussed lcsn did call mccain a "naive fool" and said he lived in a "self made fantasyland".
clsn
Well, yes he did, but you'd have to be some kind of crazy liberal to interpret "naive fool" as a slam on someone's intelligence.
McCain, I sincerely apologize for that comment. I mean it. I must've lost it in the "heat" of the moment. I won't ever do that again. I promise.
Please don't blame Maureen Dowd for Geffen's remarks and don't turn Media Matters into a part of the Hillary Clinton machine.
Geffens backpeddling is unconvincing, if anything it suggests that he may be feeling heat from the Clintonistas.
As was stated above there are many of us who are uneasy about what Bills 'interim history' may turn out to be.
When Clinton was president, Maureen Dowd wrote many columns excoriating him mercilessly. It doesn't seem too far fetched that she couldn't wait to land on the Clintons with both feet given half a chance. So I take what she says with a grain of salt.
Joe Conason wrote a lengthy book about the Clinton non scandals. The Repubs didn't have much then and I doubt they have much of real substance now. But that has never stopped them from making crap up. The Clintons have had marriage counseling and Hillary seems to like Bill just fine, and he her. Their marriage has stayed together and they have produced a bright, well adjusted child. That is more than most of the so called "family values" crowd can say.
The Clintons have to be pretty thick-skinned at this point, but I still would rather not see MMFA blame a writer for coercing opinions that are accurate quotes.
There have been a wide range of opinions about Dowd here in the past week or so. I don't think anybody has expressed the opinion that she is the worst as far as being anti- Clinton, whether Bill or Hillary.
I think HRC has a lot of issues to explain if she wants to be considered seriously as a candidiate, and if that takes Dowd or the real righty hacks to bring these things up, let it be.
I'm hoping for some new faces in the '08 campaign, and would rather not be left with Hillary and a Republican. If I wanted to ignore inconsistencies and vote for biz as usual, I'd go register GOP today.
HBL, I have to agree with you. I'd rather it not be between HRC and a repub candidate. I like HRC, but am troubled with her war vote and some other votes that seem to indicate business as usual. I think we need somebody that can problem solve and not have all the baggage (deserved or not) getting in the way. We need the real deal to get us out of all the messes that little shrub has gotten us into.
Nader may be running again. He would fix a lot of the problems.
Dowd has always irritated me. The very fact that she's a regular on Imus in the Morning is enough. But "instigating" a comment from Geffen and making it up are two different things. It doesn't seem like she's done the latter.
The real issue here is that Hillary IS polarizing. I like the woman just fine, but I'm more interested in seeing the Democrats run someone who can win. People who dislike Sen. Clinton seem to dislike her intensely. They may not have good reasons for that, but they are not likely to vote for her and that's reality.We have to find a way to mend the red/blue, liberal/conservative divide that's distracting our country from its real problems. Is Hillary the person who can get that done?
"The real issue here is that Hillary IS polarizing."
Yellowdog, you are exactly correct. Polls show 40% of voters would not vote for Hillary Clinton. There is so much hatred and divisiveness in this country right now that, as a friend pointed out, we're like the Sunnis and Shiites. We need a president who can restore some semblance of unity of purpose to the country. aside from re-establishing America's credibility around the world.
Although Hillary Clinton is not my first choice for the Democratic nomination, I don't want to see her beaten up too badly in the primaries because if she does get the nomination I would vote for her as she is superior to any Republican candidate I've seen thus far. I thought the 2004 election was the most important election in which I had ever voted in my life. Particularly considering how Bush has made a bad situation even worse since then, and considering the difficulties that the next president will face as a result of that, the 2008 election may very well be just as important as 2004, or maybe even more so.
The Reds and the Blues ARE the problem. Let's unite the country in driving them out of office and away from the money and the guns. The world would be a much safer place if the USA went Green.
The MSM is trying to tell us that the Democratic choice is Hillary or Obama. The blosgosphere needs to use its incredible impact and open up this discussion about potential Democratic candidates. i just read a very convincing analysis supporting Biden based on his extensive foreign relations experience. i have no idea if the comment and analysis was accurate--do you? That is my point. Isn’t it much too early to let ourselves be herded into consideration of only two candidates. Do what you can to open up discussion and analysis of any number of potential Democratic candidates. Name a potential candidate and write a paragraph of support for consideration. Let’s get the ball rolling in pushing back against letting MSM rule. The blogosphere can and should use its potential strength to help democratically nominate potential leaders of the free world for consideration.
Indeed they are. I sent John Edwards a pledge this morning, out of spite.
I've been saying that for months now. They're going to foist the most far-right Democrats onto the Democrat voters by having every Republican on telly whine how liberal they are and ignore the more liberal candidates, like Kucinich....and that will make sure that the War Industry and the Israel Lobby will maintain control.
Just what is it Ms. Dowd is supposed to have gotten wrong? I've read through this "analysis" three times (as well as the underlying articles) and can't figure it out. It appears that the "instigation" consisted of asking questions, and the "personal hit" was the responses.
What happened to pointing out false or misleading reports and citing sources to prove the facts? Media Matters has done that very well countless times. Yet this analysis seems to rely on a derogatory, unsubstantiated headline followed by sneer and innuendo; completely lacking is any fact or clear analysis.
The only point being made appears to be that somebody said something that the Clinton campaign thought might be damaging, and the campaign needed to muddy up the source. We don't need this site to use such methods, but to debunk them. Bush has used Fox News, Limbaugh, etc., this way repeatedly... Does Hillary now have Media Matters at her disposal?
MMFA is not saying Dowd did something necessarily wrong. It is merely clarifying that the public conception that Geffen was out to get the Clintons and sought out Dowd for the comments. The fact is that Dowd has always had it in for the Clintons and instigated the Clinton conversations. That is what the public needs to know. This wasn't an AP reporter taking down comments from Geffen; this was a columnist seeking anti-Clinton comments in order to compose an anti-Hillary column. She's an op-ed writer and as long as she quoted Geffen correctly, then there's nothing wrong with that. But the public should know the circumstances in which those comments were obtained.
Mike, "... instigated the Clinton conversations" is just an unnecessarily loaded way of saying "interviewed David Geffen." Media Matters is unfortunately using two tactics usually employed by the right wing when faced with unpleasant facts.
The first is setting up the strawman that Dowd somehow implied that this was not an interview, but that Geffen sought her out to bad-mouth Hillary Clinton. The only ones making that point are those who wish to shoot it down.
The second is to attack the messenger. The story cannot be trusted because Dowd "has always had it in for the Clintons." Assuming solely for argument's sake that this is true, her column is still accurate. It is also accurate on a very significant issue.
HRC's major strength (in addition to name recognition) is her ability to generate money - especially from large corporations and the individual top two percent. Dowd's column relates that an extremely wealthy individual/corporation, a former Bill Clinton supporter, does not have confidence in HRC's presidential bid.
Whether or not Dowd is out to get the Clintons, the story is significant and accurate. To read the above headline on MMFA and find that it is supported by little more than a burning strawman and a thinly veiled ad hominem attack is disappointing to say the least.
Although I'd vote for HRC over any Republican without hesitation, the thing that bothers me the most about her as a political operative is he Cheney-like management of her push for universal health care. She ran it quite like Cheney's environmental pow-wow at the White House, in secret. By doing this she failed to get early feedback about how her plan would run into the problems it did. This is an example of her political tin ear, and not something she should be proud of in her political resume. It concerns me that she would run her administration very much like Bush-Cheney, i.e., with a paranoid, defensive style. Because of her abysmal health care failure, she set back universal health care for more than a decade. I hold her personaly responsible for the millions more without coverage since her debacle.
This is not to mention that she is overall a craven, pandering politician with no core principles. How else do we explain her pretzel act on Iraq, her "moderation" on reprouctive rights, and her advocacy of sanctions against flag burning?
"How else do we explain her pretzel act on Iraq, her "moderation" on reprouctive rights, and her advocacy of sanctions against flag burning?"
It seems to me every Dem who voted for the war needed to do a pretzel act. How exactly is saying abortion needs to be legal safe and rare "moderation"? By implying so, you're saying that there are folks on the left who don't advocate that. When exactly has Hillary been for flag-burning? You can disagree with her on that issue, but don't call her a panderer on that unless you are willing to call those on the opposite side panderers to us liberals.
When I said "sanctions against flag burning," I mean she wants to criminalize flag burning. When I say "moderation" on abortion, I mean she wants to chip away at Roe. When I talk about her pretzel act on Iraq, I mean I fail to find a profile in political courage here.
But my main complaint is the paranoid Cheney-like style of her health care task force, which set back universal health care more than a decade. It was not a good audition tape for the presidency.
Flag burning is a purely symbolic issue. There hasn't been a documented case of it on American soil since the Vietnam era--a solution without a problem. I can see how someone might reason "what's the harm in supporting a law against it, since it's a moot issue anyway?" But it is indeed a piece of political pandering I find hard to stomach.
Also, every Democrat who voted for the war does have a lot of explaining to do.
Flame me mercilessly, but I'm a big fan of MoDo. She's been a relentless critic of the Iraq invasion from the get go. I can see where her sarcasm can be irritating, but I enjoy it, and find that it's directed at worthy targets, for the most part.
Hillary, as a presidential candidate has, some real (as in non-fictitious) issues. MoDo and Geffen pointed out some of them. That isn't even remotely like insinuating someone attended an Islamist school, or that someone else started the rumor.
She certainly is bright enough, but her column too often reminds me of a smart alecky high school kid who's desperately trying to impress 'The In-Crowd.' Too much snide insider posturing; not enough fairness or analysis.
Maureen Dowd died to me when the Times stashed her column behind the pay-only wall.
learn to use the internets, Rusty, no payment required to read Dowd. You do need to register--for free. Unless you're a hardccopy subscriber, however, you do need to pay to read many articles over two weeks old.
Hmmm... I get the Times headlines every day in my email, and Dowd's columns (along with their other all-stars like Hebert, Brooks, and Rich) require "TimeSelect" membership.
What Latichever said was true until a couple of years ago. Now you have to buy the paper or have a Times Select account.
MMFA's apparent knee-jerk defense of Hillary may be explained by a little recent history: founder David Brock, before his political epiphany, had been commissioned to write a book trashing Hillary. He became alarmed by how little regard his employers had for the truth of its contents (see "Blinded by the Right"). But, if you take away the irrational Clinton-haters you are still left with people like myslef who have problems with her war positions. After much soul-searching I have concluded I would probably vote for her if she won the Dem. nomination (instead of, say, Nader). But I'm sure not all of us feel that way. Put irrationality back into the equation and you have not only the rabbid Clinton-hating attack dogs, but also people who feel, for one reason or another, that the US is "not ready for a woman president". These three groups may not have much to do with one another. Ignore them, and we could be saying "President Guillianni".
When I read the Dowd piece last week I had no idea what a stir it would create. But it may turn out to be a wake-up call.
My bad, as a subscriber and an automatic free user of Select, I didn't realize there was a fee to see Select columns.
Maureen Dowd must be loving this. Her and her bad plastic surgery get all the face time she thinks she deserves. This woman doesn't deserve to be writing for Free Republic, let alone the newspaper of record. (I LMAO when I walked by the remainder bin at Wal-Mart and so a bunch of copies of Mo's last book sitting in it.)
I always thought one of the reasons Mo hated Teresa Heinz Kerry so much is even though Teresa's had work done, she's able to spend so much money that the work is not so obvious. Teresa is flawless for a woman in her 60s. Mo just looks cut and stretched and plaquered. Yuk.
Waaaah, someone trashed Hillary, waaaah.
We're talking about a woman who's helped kill children in foreign lands for the past six years, a politician who has sold the American public out to corporate greed and imperial racism. She deserves all the trashing she gets.
Don't promote her to President, Democrats. Don't put another sociopathic killer into the White House. The only one who has been voting consistently against the war and for the American people has been Kucinich. Vote for him in your primaries. So many talk of taking the party back....it's done in the primaries.
I'll do it if he's still on the ballot by the time our primary rolls around.
Just watch. The media will try to ignore or ridicule him. The money will all go to the corporofascists like Obama and Hillary. They can't let real liberalism into the White House. Kucinich might start dismantling the US Empire and calling on Israel to withdraw from the occupied territories and stop giving them free guns and reform the FDA so Pfizer, Merck and Eli Lilly can't poison our children and he might set up a national health care system and use war spending for helping the American workers and .....
The enemies of America will not let us have a real liberal administration. They couldn't commit crimes on us then.
Please, please, PLEASE vote for Kucinich in the primaries!
EXCUSE ME --
I don't get this article's criticism of Dowd. It makes less sense when I realize Media Matters should understand journalism. Dowd didn't SLANT Geffen simply by asking questions. What reporter relies solely on what the interviewee WANTS to talk about? I agree her article made minor judgement calls without backing them up with enough/any evidence -- but she's an opinion writer. So she doesn't like Clinton. Now you know. If you do like Clinton, avoid her columns on the Senator from New York. But you might enjoy her other commentaries.