MSNBC's O'Donnell suggested Sen. Clinton is "stiff" rather than "stately"
On the April 26 edition of MSNBC Live, when Democratic strategist Jamal Simmons said that Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-NY) has a "very sort of stately demeanor," anchor Norah O'Donnell interrupted: "Did you say 'stately' or did you say 'stiff?' " Simmons replied: "You said 'stiff,' I said 'stately.' " Republican strategist Phil Musser agreed, saying: "I'd say 'stiff.' "
From the 9 a.m. ET hour of the April 26 edition of MSBNC Live:
O'DONNELL: Well, you know, debates, as both of you know as political operatives, are always about moments and the very famous moment, of course, [former president] Ronald Reagan and the microphone -- the sound bites that we will play over and over again tomorrow as we handicap what happened in the debate. There was a moment earlier this week when [Sen.] Barack Obama [D-IL] was appearing before Reverend Al Sharpton's National Action Network, and let's just play a clip from that.
OBAMA [video clip]: There's something humming down here. Oh, that's somebody's BlackBerry. That's Sharpton's BlackBerry. Is that Hillary calling?
O'DONNELL: Jamal, that's the kind of light touch -- of poking, but also suggesting a little bit of rivalry there that may be a moment in the campaign that could really help someone like Barack Obama or one of the lower-tier candidates that you talked about.
SIMMONS: That's right. And one thing, the person who really will benefit from a moment like that will be Hillary Clinton. She's got this very sort of stately demeanor, and everyone's looking to get a window in --
O'DONNELL: Did you say "stately" or did you say "stiff"?
SIMMONS: You said "stiff," I said "stately."
MUSSER: I'd say "stiff."
SIMMONS: Everyone's trying to get a peek into her, you know, her inner soul -- who she is -- and I think this -- if she has one of those moments, it could be hers that really sets that tone.
MSM
The trend toward supporting anyone other than Senator Clinton is clear in the MSM. They do not like her, they mock her and I think most of them have an agenda that includes taking her down. This is the time we need MMFA now more than ever.
If this is the level MMFA has to stoop to in order to be able to scream foul about something then the term Free-speech Nazi really is well applied to them. Let's do a poll and run everyone out of the country who says they won't vote for Hilary..
Jeez.. grow up will ya? Does anyone else see the blatant hypocrisy of MMFA? Their stock in trade is having a whole section dedicated to who is complaining about MMFA when all MMFA does is complain about them? It's called either cognitive dissonance or outright hypocrisy.
I think they were talking about Bill Clinton.
Stiff? No. Arrogant and condescending? Yes.
Arrogant and condescending is a president who thinks he can simply stamp his foot and DEMAND that congress (a co-equal branch of government according to the constitution) send him ONLY the kind of bill the HE wants to sign. He has every right to veto the emergency supplemental bill, and in the process, deny funding to the troops that the congress is authorizing. But then, it is incumbent upon him to negotiate a compromise with the congress. Or will he simply call them names and threaten to hold his breath?
must be a slow news day when you snipe at a lib for offering an opinion of appearances as conservative misinformation
Oh my God, it's back!!
It appears so, Lynn.
MMFA's favorite child left behind has returned!!
So now con commentators aren't allowed to make observations? How does this qualify as misinformation? Cons are no longer allowed to give their opinion? You guys are really amazing.
Who's stopping them?
Pick your battles, Shaw. No one is telling anyone that there's something they can't say. Their words are merely being reported. Where is MMFA offending?
What's reported here is doen in a way that my husband calls "disleftia"- the inability to distinguishall the words that make up something that's reported. Following the pattern of how MMFA does it using bold text for the inflamatory value, let me show you an example with a hypothetical newsclip. The bold would be how MMFA would report this:
Newbreak:
The US Military reported today that it has developed and tested a new medicinal chemical to be used to eradicate foot fungus among the Iraqi civilian population. A spokesman for the Dept of the Army was quoted and saying that " we spent many millions of dollars on this effort, but we don't care about the cost as long it helps our troops and the Iraqi population.
it's all there, in its normal context, but when "disleftia" kicks in, read the text in bold by itself and the next thing you'll see is that printed on MMAF with the title "US ARMY OFFICIAL SAYS US WILL ERADICATE IRAQI PEOPLE AND DOESN'T CARE ABOUT OUR TROOPS"
Start thinking for yourselves, please instead of what MMFA feeds you?
MISINFORMATION is a broad category. It includes outright falsehoods, of course. It includes telling PART of the story, but not providing proper context.
A BIG part of the Rightwing Ideological Media (RIM) is the repeating of the FRAMING of events and people. Yes, they are inserted as "just the OPINION" of whichever talking head is on the tube, but the cumulative effect is to (hopefully for the rightwing) CHARACTERIZE events and people in a a light useful TO the Rightwing.
This drumbeat of "character observations" is intended to influence and in fact MISLEAD the listener, who very possibly may not have observed what the commentators are talking about.
By now, we can write the script for a Rightwing presentation. The DEMOCRAT is always soft on defense. The Democrat is "stiff" rather than "stately". The Democrat is a "flip-flopper", while the Republican is a "maverick".
I agree, it is the most subtle form of Misinformation, the constant repeating of rightwing-approved ways to characterize their opponents. But it is not meant to be blatant, it is meant to gradually erode support for the Democrats. Another example is the use of "Democrat Party", rather than the proper "Democratic" designation.
I applaud MMFA for chronicling every major example of this tactic, because it is important to have an "official record" ... because the first instinct of rightwingers is to pooh-pooh and deny any such thing is occuring. MMFA provides a public service by providing a RECORD of such things, to show a "trend" that cannot be coincidence.
In truth, the rightwing often circulate memos instructing public speakers what talking points to use when discussing various issues and candidates. Newt Gingrich, in his GOPAC days, even went so far as LISTING what he called "contrast words" to use against opponents, coordinating the smearing approved from the top.
http://web.utk.edu/~glenn/GopacMemo.html
Misinformation? Absolutely. It is a coordinated effort to present public policy and persons to the American People in a biased ... and thus NON-OBJECTIVE light. The intent is to FOOL, INFLUENCE, and misinform. The intent is to SMEAR, and thus try to WIN.
Bravo, MMFA. Keep it up!
Enormous effort was expended by the rightwing and their colleagues in the RIM to portray GORE as "stiff". To their mind, the characterization STUCK, and very well may have drained off enough of Gore's support that the election could be captured by the GOP. If it worked before, it might work again.
The reciting of Rightwing Talking Points is, in fact, misinformation. It is an attempt to use the format of supposed "news" programs to dictate an IMAGE of the GOP's opponents in every unflattering light that can be imagined.
Youi must live around a hoard of hypnotists to believe that crap.. You actually have that much lack of faith in the common man that he can't decipher someones mouth running on about nothing meaningful and some off-hand remark or judgement..
Typical Dem "we will educate the masses 'cause the sky is falling and they don't know any better" attitude.. Get a life dude..
All we need do, to ascertain and affirm Tex's insight, is consider that 27-35% of "voters"* support Bungle; and, lo, some even watch FoxLies.
"voters"* - varies from poll to poll; some use "likely voters"; others use "registered"; yet others, "voting age".
Let's just hope he doesn't keep using the word RIM he invented, soon he will be referring to things as RIM jobs and that would not be a good idea.
You're really infatuated with your voice, aren't you, Tex?
Aaron - Your really think rather highly of your posts don't you? It's pretty sad when the best you can come up with is a school yard taunt. Can't you provide anything of substance? Can't you address what he is saying?
Who cares if she is "stiff" or "stately" for that matter. I would rather have them talking about the content of her comments, not her appearance.
Our media is a joke, and the apologists coming to this site just don't get it. Why are you against a media that is focused on real issues? I wish people would stop listening to MSM when they continue to tell them what to think about the candidates. Provide the facts and let people determine the rest for themselves.
I'd rather have the media focus on real things, too.
This is just a non-story, though, and people are blowing it out of proportion.
Do you think Aaron understamds the difference between "voice" and text?
Do you think Aaron understands the difference between "voice" and text?
Oh.. saying it twice makes it more believable???
Tex is a talented writer but he wouldn't last a day at Reader's Digest.
That's true. RD is a mostly conservative publication, after all.
Is that because RD is written for a someone with a 6th grade reading level or some other reason?
ZINGGGG!
You shot a bull's eye with your commentary, Tex.
Not surprisingly, all the right wing apologists on this thread are saying that you're out in left field and there's no "there" here.
I believe it always means you've hit the target dead on when they complain that you've missed it completely.
Maybe Ted is your hypnotist?
Who is Ted?
Could it be that Hillary actually is stiff and so was Gore?
Hillary doesn't have much of a personality.
Unlike Obama and Edwards.
Have you seen Gore speak outside of a 4 sec sound bit? He is anything, but stiff. This is exactly why this story is an issue. The the MSM did a bang up job of portraying Gore that way during the 2000 election. There next target seems to be HC. HC is not my personal choice for the democratic nomination because of her her stance on particular issues.
Remeber how much personality the media kept telling people GW Bush had? Well I think we all know how that turned out.
It reminds me of the black knight scene in MP&THG
Your arm's off! No it isn't.What's that, then? Just a flesh wound.
Nicely done, Tex, as usual, and right on the mark. This SUBLIMINABLE usage of "opinion" is CLEARLY meant to cast the candidates in an unfavorable light and even if it seems "minor" to the right-wing idealogical media (i like that term) apologists, it's repeated usage DOES become conventional wisdom (i hate that term) in the so-called liberal media, and hence, the minds of the voters.
GEORGE:
Consider the plight of these Rightwingers. Bush's "approval" in the toilet for years, Libby in prison, Republicans calling for Gonzales' resignation (and IMMUNITY for that 5th Amendment Justice Dept. gal, so now she'll be ratting out the higher ups). Foley and Cunningham and DeLay in shame and disgrace (to name a few). Rice subpeonaed. Cheney likely to be impeached soon, and with his "favorables" in the TEENS, nobody will be coming to his rescue. BOTH houses of Congress lost, and NONE of the issues ... Afghanistan, Iraq, gas prices, Social Security, jobs, the DEBT, Heath Care, etc. ... are getting BETTER. All are getting WORSE. It's a nightmare for GOPers planning on running for office in '08. (Maybe with brown paper bags over their heads? LOL)
The RIM is doing the best they can to perpetuate the MYTH that is GOP competence, but it's a losing battle.
So, we have a few die-hard dead-ender rightwingers here sniping away, trying vainly to discount the tsunami coming their way. Denial is the first step in the grieving process.
Look at the ratings of the Democratic Congress. They have ranging from 28-40 percent, at times lower than Bush. They can't get anything other than a minimum wage increase passed and their agenda is stalled by lack of support. The left is in more crisis than the right. The victory last election was not enough to get an agenda passed and the defeatocrats label is going to stick just like it did after the Viet Nam war.
Well, a majority in BOTH houses seems like enough to get an agenda passed (whatever THAT means) unless the republicans are OBSTRUCTIONISTS! Remember how the righties liked to throw that term around during the do-nothing congress we last had? The ONLY card the right has to play is the power to filibuster or veto, because they DO NOT understand the power of COMPROMISE.
Also, this congress has a higher approval rating that the last one, and they are just getting started. The repugs have 21 senators facing rejection in '08 compared to 12 dems. Even if we DON'T end up with a filibuster-proof senate (60 dems, for those who may not know) we will almost CERTAINLY win back the White House. Had bush (lowercase intentional) faced re-election in '06, Pee-Wee Herman could have beat him, and if you guys can't come up with someone better than Julie-anni, you may as well quit now. And please, please get Nut Gin-grinch to run.
In case you missed it, the "Murkin" people are sick to death of the right-wing's ignorant stubborness, so save your breath.
Right, Leather.
A much better label would be "Republicants" - as in "can't get anything done."
How much longer should we give Dubya and his band of idiots? They've already had four years ... and Iraq is a nightmare we're never going to wake up from.
It's just another example of neocon arrogance - the idea that they could just waltz in and paper over sectarian hatred that's been going on for thousands of years.
You are RIDICULOUS.
I VOTED democrat in the last two ELECTIONS (the ONLY ones I've been of AGE to VOTE in), so you can SHOVE your labels right up your ASS.
I'll be JUST as glad as YOU are to see some of these people FALL.
In your world of tinfoil hats, can anyone say a bad thing on air about a democrat, or would that fall into the pre-established pattern of rightwing misinformation? Seems like you have your mind already made up, which is normally defined as 'prejudice.'
It was Bill that was "stiff" with Monica. Hillary is more tolerant then stately :-)
Zing
I was on MSNBC.com this morning about 830am ET, and the headline was "WINNERS." with the subheadline "Democratic candidates show a lot of political heft."
So, I think MMfA could probably forgive a commentator (who's job it is to make stuff up so we can be "entertained") for saying HC was a little stiff. Even great public speakers have not-so-great debates. AND, I would argue that no conservative really thinks going against Obama would be that much easier than Clinton.
Heck, I'd say "stiff," too, but not nearly as bad as Al Gore was before 2000 was over and he had a chance to breathe.
I bet Al would love to have that 2nd debate back in 2000 when he was so nice to Bush because people called him mean after the first one.
I do often wonder how much Gore kicks himself for softballing the election and the aftermath. He could have done much more on both counts, and in the end let down the majority of voters when he refused to take Bush head-on in the run-up and when he refused to fight for the nation's votes in the aftermath.
I do think his fight for the Environment afterwards makes up a great deal for his failings in and around the year 2000, though.
I also think that there is no question whatsoever that if Barack wasn't in this race, Gore would be in it, if not now, then awfully soon.
There is no question that Mrs. Clinton is one of the most charming rocks I have ever seen. Her charisma makes Alan Keyes look like John Kennedy. Mrs. Clinton seems to have no empathy with people, in fact, her public persona is whiney and shrill, on her good days!
She is a socialistic ideologue, driven and dangerous.