Wash. Post published column mocking Clinton as "Candidate Cliche," left out substance of proposals
On March 9, The Washington Post published Dana Milbank's "Washington Sketch" column, in which Milbank dubbed Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-NY) "Candidate Cliche" and characterized her as "trite," citing phrases from Clinton's March 8 speech at the Center for American Progress. However, neither Milbank's column nor any article in the Post reported on the substantive proposals Clinton laid out in her speech. Milbank did not even note that Clinton discussed a substantive proposal during her speech. By contrast, other print outlets, including the Associated Press, Newsday, The New York Sun, and the Los Angeles Times (an edited reprint of Newsday's article), all reported that Clinton proposed a new "GI Bill of Rights" to increase and enhance benefits for U.S. troops in the wake of reports of poor living conditions at Walter Reed Army Medical Center and bureaucratic red tape injured soldiers must navigate to get disability payments.
Milbank's column, titled "Candidate Clinton, Embracing the Trite and the True," omitted any mention of substance, focusing instead on Clinton's word choice during the speech, sarcastically labeling her statements "provocative stands." Milbank then pointed to past speeches to pick out the so-called "loft[y] words":
Yesterday, the Democratic front-runner took a number of provocative stands as she spoke about soldiers and veterans at the Center for American Progress, a liberal think tank:
"If you serve your country, your country should serve you."
"I'm here to say that the buck does stop with this president."
"Let us work ... to take care of those who are taking care of us."
[...]
Clinton reserved her loftiest words for the "blood, sweat and tears" put into the Voting Rights Act, which "gave more Americans from every corner of our nation the chance to live out their dreams," she said. "And it is the gift that keeps on giving." Clinton kept giving, too: "Let us join together and complete that march for freedom, justice, opportunity and everything America should be," she said.
The Post did not publish a news article on the substantive proposals Clinton outlined in the speech. By contrast, in its report on the speech, the AP noted Clinton's "GI Bill of Rights" and offered details of the proposal:
Hillary Rodham Clinton offered a new GI Bill of Rights for men and women in uniform, arguing that Democrats can do a better job of protecting and providing for U.S. troops than the Republican administration.
[...]
The New York senator, who leads early polls of Democratic contenders for the party's nomination, said she would put together a package of proposals designed to ensure troops have all the equipment they need when they're deployed, to ensure they receive proper health care, and to provide for families.
[...]
Her proposals include pre-screening troops for physical and mental conditions before they are deployed, and giving single parents in uniform more guardianship options.
She also insisted more needs to be done for those suffering traumatic brain injuries, which she called "the signature injury of the war in Iraq."
Newsday and The New York Sun also reported on Clinton's proposed "GI Bill of Rights," with the Newsday article, an edited version of which appeared in the Los Angeles Times, also noting that Clinton discussed Iraq war policy during the speech:
Clinton's speech came on a day when she backed Senate Democrats' plan for a phased withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq. The binding resolution is aimed at ending major operations there by March 2008.
Clinton, who supported the October 2002 resolution authorizing the Iraq invasion, took a dim view of its chances, however, telling the audience the measure was likely to be killed by Senate Republicans.
Do we need any more examples of how elements of the MSM hate the Senator and will say and do anything to throw off her campaign?
I wouldn't go so far as to say the MSM "hates" Senator Clinton. I think Franken nailed it in one of his books by pointing out that the MSM isn't necessarily biased overall. It's just that the MSM is generally speaking incompetent.
That, and issues don't sell papers. Horseraces do.
QUESTION: What is the definition of the term "STUMP SPEECH"?
ANSWER: It is the speech which is delivered countless hundreds of times by a candidate for national office, verbatim and without change or alteration. In other words, it is "cliche" and "rote". And it is delivered by EVERY CANDIDATE who every ran for office.
So, the charge of "trite" can be universally made against candidates for national office. It's a GIVEN. They will repeat their positions for thousands of audiences. They MUST, and they DO. So, to single Hillary out for this "criticism" defies any sense of fair play. To take this charge, easily made, and make it seem as if ONLY Hillary is engaging in this practice ... might as well sneer derisively that Hillary delivers her speeches in the English language.
THIS is what passes for insight and analysis? Taking an aspect that is universal to all candidates, and make it seem like a negative trait unique to Hillary? Good God!
Another Thing
Dana Millbank is a disgrace, Keith Olbermann should not allow this hatemonger on his show anymore. He is a frequent guest.
Well at least Clintons cliches are longer than 2 or 3 words. Like "Slow Bleed", "Cut & run", "Support the Troops" etc, etc, etc.
But some credit to Dana he has now shown that he can read at least one full sentence at a time. With practice Dana maybe able able to eventually read 2 or 3 sentences in a row.
Shame they're not two or three words. Despite they're ineptness at leading, the Bush administration IS good at tossing around those two and three word catch-phrases and getting them repeated over and over. Then again, it probably helps to have an audience that laps that kind of silliness up in lieu of substance.
Dana are you serious? You outed a canidate that makes use of short, quotable statements? Start working on your acceptance speech for the Edward R. Murrow award!
The guy had some white space to fill and did a little cut-and-paste, that's what it is more than anything. They still aren't used to the fact that they're being watched, heh-heh.
Looks as though Hillary, like Obama, is now to be pilloried for being "articulate"?
America don't need no fancy talk, we want "Victory".
Dana Milbank is too cute by half. He can be tongue in cheek and dead-on, turning on a dime. I'm afraid his political fear is that Hillary will actually win this. Fortunately there are other outlets, though unfriendly politically, who value their reputation for fairness and factual reporting. Keith Olbermann uses Dana as a balance , but holds his nose once in a while.
NPR SMEAR ALERT!!
This morning on NPR's comedy quiz show, Wait, Wait, Don't Tell Me, host Peter Sagel used the Clinton recitation speech in Alabama wherein she recited the lines of a poem/hymn written in ebonic dialect for one of his quiz questions, prefacing the question to his guest player with the prompt of which political figure recently fell flat trying to imitate a black voice. He and his comedy co-host then went on to insult Clinton's voice for the next few minutes. NEVER during that segment of the program did he reveal that Clinton was cheered and given a standing ovation by the black audience to which she was speaking, nor that the hymn she was reciting was written in ebonic dialect and therefore to quote it properly had to be read as written. NPR has shown its bias. THEY ARE ANYTHING BUT LIBERAL AND PROGRESSIVE.
Wow. "Trite", but gets widely pilloried for "reciting" in Ebonics. You mean, this is old hat stuff, done again and again? Or is it something NEW, or is it ... as it so often is with these media guys ... having it BOTH WAYS?
Remember, when we heard endlessly in the media that Kerry had "no ideas", and also heard endlessly in the media that he was the "most liberal member of the Senate"? How do you suppose BOTH could be true? They can't, but that doesn't stop the Rightwing smear machine. They know MANY voters will respond to a candidate who has "no ideas" by not voting for him. MANY OTHER voters will respond to a candidate defined as "VERY LIBERAL" by not voting for him. So, it doesn't matter that BOTH could not be true. It only mattered that there were multiple "NARRATIVES" presented to the American People by "our PRESS", with the sole purpose of convincing people NOT to vote for Kerry, using whatever narratives they could come up with.
So, if you don't like Liberals, don't vote for Hillary, because she IS one. If you don't like flip-floppers, then don't vote for Hillary, that's what SHE is. Don't like people who stubbornly stick to previous decisions? That's Hillary. She's also "calculating", "trite", "has a violent temper", is "Mrs. Bill Clinton" (has no identity on her own), is CONTROLLING (has the dominant personality in any room, even with her husband present) ... ah, hell. We'll just POLL what you don't like in a candidate, and then tell you that's what Hillary IS. Even if those depictions are directly contradictory.
Because that's what the PRESS is here for: to DELUDE, FOOL, and LIE to the American Public, in the furtherance of the agenda favored by the guys who sign the MEDIA checks.
Tex: you are right on, as you so often are. The "press" is a Corporate instrument designed to keep us "people" in line with the Corporate plan to pillage the peons. Liberals definitely present an obstacle to execution of that plan, and must be destroyed - or, at least kept from power.
I long for the day when we awaken to the fact that Corporations are NOT persons: cannot serve jail time; scoff at fines (knowing that they will simply extort more from real persons, to pay the few thousands that are typical for loss of dozens or hundreds of lives of real persons); cannot be executed even for blatant capital crimes; never face mortality at all, even when defective; and therefore have none of the rights of real persons.
CONLEY:
Time for a Rightwing Economist to explain to us that we cannot FINE or HOLD ACCOUNTABLE a corporation, because the cost of that fine for corrupt or illegal behavior will just be passed along to the consumer in the form of higher prices.
See, we will be fining OURSELVES, punishing OURSELVES, so it is best to just let corporations get away with anything including murder, to keep them from raising their prices (which we then must pay, punishing OURSELVES). Can't tax 'em, can't fine 'em, can't regulate 'em. They are GODS, and we would do well to simply worship them and hope they don't get angry with us. Perhaps more human sacrifices?
God save us from rightwing economists!
Tex: or for some loon (such as I) to recruit articulate spokespersons ( . . .) to explain to the peons that Corporations CAN be reined in, if only we disabuse ourselves of the notion that Corporations have the rights of citizens, without any of the responsibilties or consequences of citizenship. (See Halliburton now announcing relocation of Corporate Hdqtrs to Dubai.)
Instead, let us seek out the actual PERSONS responsible for the crimes of Corporations, and let the Board and Executives, and controlling shareholders, suffer the penalties criminally earned by Corporate behavior. Even *I*, foremost (and to the limits of my personal knowledge, ONLY) proponent of that program, quail somewhat at the profound implications of trying and jailing those who promote the Corporate profit at the expense of the common good, as criminally responsible for the heinous outcomes. But only a little, for I can see no other remedy than to hold the criminals responsible for the crimes.
Speaking of Corporations and responsibility, the Committee on Capital Markets Regulation issued an interim report 11/30/2006, with some recommedations for how to relieve the Corporations of the burden of so much regulation, criminal prosecution, and investor lawsuits. Thus, the ability to address abuses (including criminal action based on whistleblowers) is further reduced. If one wants to know what Bungle's Corporate sponsors are up to (link opens in a new window):
Committee on Capital Markets Regulation Interim Report
I don't think this is a valid target for Media Matters. The column in question is an "observational column" by a "columnist" (quoted from the WashingtonPost.com page that features this article). This indicates to the reader that the content is of an editorial nature and subsequently represents the author's opinion. I personally read all such articles with the realization that I'm reading something that is biased.
I think Media Matters should be more concerned with the accuracy of stories presented as news and should only criticize opinion columns containing factual errors. I do not find the omission of the "G.I. Bill of Rights" as being a factual error. I think the column is criticizing the Senator's campaigning, not claiming inaction.
Personally, I agree with Milbank's points. So far Senator Clinton has yet to produce anything I personally find differentiates her from the crowd, and I think Milbank's column was stating that fact. Media Matters claimes the "G.I. Bill of Rights" was "a substantive proposal." While I agree that it could be beneficial legislation, the fact is that it's also a no-brainer political stand introduced on the heels of what's currently at the top of the headlines. Contrary to the above statements, I actually think Milbank could have easily included the "GI Bill of Rights" as even further evidence that her campaign is bland and unimaginative.
Please don't misunderstand me. I like Hillary and always have. I was a huge supporter of her husband and continue to admire his leadership today. I don't criticize the woman, I criticize her unimaginative and uninspiring campaigning. I believe there is much more to Senator Clinton than her campaign presents. I hope the real Hillary stands up and differentiates herself from the crowd with some real proposals. It would benefit the overall campaign for president as well as the country.