Mitchell suggested a conflict between Clinton's opposition to the war and support for the troops
On the June 20 edition of NBC's Today, NBC News chief foreign affairs correspondent Andrea Mitchell cited Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton's (D-NY) June 19 schedule -- "after speaking out against the war all day, Clinton was honored by the Marines last night" -- as an example of how "leading Democrats make sure they strike a balance between pleasing the base and positioning themselves to run against a Republican." By juxtaposing the two events as though they were in tension, Mitchell echoed a view commonly articulated by the media that "speaking out against the war" is anti-military or not supportive of the troops.
Media Matters for America has repeatedly documented (here, here, here, here, and here) various media outlets -- including NBC -- suggesting that a public official cannot be both against the war and supportive of the military. For instance, as Media Matters noted, on the February 13 edition of Today, co-host Campbell Brown said: "It's tough for Democrats. ... It's difficult to say that you're against the war and at the same time not say that you're against the troops."
From the June 20 edition of NBC's Today, which included a video clip of Washington Post columnist E.J. Dionne Jr.:
MITCHELL: But, how far is too far? The leading Democrats make sure they strike a balance between pleasing the base and positioning themselves to run against a Republican.
DIONNE [video clip]: They're thinking very hard about: Who can we put up? The Democrats are saying, "Who can actually win this election?"
MITCHELL: So, after speaking out against the war all day, Clinton was honored by the Marines last night at a sunset parade at the Iwo Jima Memorial.
Democrats know if they move too far to the left, they can lose the independent swing voters who will likely decide who does win the White House -- Matt.
Where is the misinformation here? Mitchell is not talking about supporting the troops, how did you make that leap? She is saying certain candidates have to worry about being too left for fear of independent voters looking elsewhere.......she's right.
Well I think MMFA is saying this is another example that if you are against the war you can still support the troops. I do not have an issue with the story or Mitchell. Its a fair question.
The misinformation is the false choice of being anti-war or supporting the troops. And I think it's also important to note just how cynical blondie's being here. Many people are smart enough to be able to choose a candidate and don't need this ridiculous "evaluation." Maybe some candidates don't make every decision based solely on hedging who they can win support from or who will be turned off.
Exactly. She's implying that Clinton needs to be visually associated with "the troops" as a counter-balance to her war protests, because as we all know, it is only the right who supports the troops.
Tommy,
This isn't misinformation.
This is a type of "Reflex Propaganda" that the corporate insider pundits spread every day.
One could just as easily make the other argument: That getting America's heroes out of this pathetic Republican mess is the only way to honor our troops.
Do you think a corporate insider like Mitchell would ever dare say anything like this?
That's not what she said. She simply said that if the Democrats move to far to the left they risk alienating independent voters.........just as if Republicans move to far to the right they run the same risk.
There is nothing misinformative or troop support related in that statement. It's pretty accurate if you ask me....from either side.
And her statements about Clinton talking all day against the war and then being honored by marines is just stating Clinton's earlier daily agenda....if you read something into that, you're way too sensitive.
No, this is another example of the media and the Karl Rove line of "Support the Troops"
And if the Dems move to far to the right they risk losing liberal voters. And yet we never seem to hear THAT frame. That said I agree that Mitchell didnt really make the link suggested by MMFA
Solon, I believe that is often said, mostly during the primaries when the candidates need their hard right and hard left voters more. Then during the general election they diss them, sometimes, and move to the center.
Sometimes it's like watching one of those old arcade games when the ducks move back and forth to avoid getting pelted.
Because moving to the left worked out so well for Howard Dean, John Kerry and Al Gore?
There are more in the middle than the far left.
There are more in the middle than the far left.-Leatherhelmet
True, and there are more in the middle than the far right. But, there are about 20% in the middle, who tend to (more often than not) lean left on most issues, and vote left.
Mitchell certainly meant to belittle Hillary with this comment, otherwise, why would she bring it up? Liberals have been the only ones really supporting our troops since before build up of our invasion of Iraq.
We saw the evidence presented by Colon Powell at the UN, and we said that he didn't make his case. Still, the knee jerkers sent our troops in to a no-win situation. Liberals don't want to lose this mess, but, they don't want the death toll to keep rising either.
By the way, it is ALWAYS the Independant "swing voters" who decide the White House.
MOVING LEFT? Are you insane? Gore chose Lieberman as his running mate exactly HOW is that running left? I left the Democratic party because of their constant movement to the right. You are as deluded as ever
On top of this, I posted a link last week to a site that evaluates, in a non-partisan way, the voting record of many legislators. Hillary is among the least liberal of all the Senators.
Where is the misinformation here?-Tommy
Mitchell worded it as such; "After seaking out against the war all day. . ." She could have said; Hillary was giving speeches; Hillary was on the campaign trail; Hillary was giving her recomendations concerning the war, etc. But, no. Mitchell chose her words to let her audience know that there was an irony here--Hillary spoke out against the war then was honored by the troops.
The misinformation is Mitchell's implication is that people who speak out against this war don't support the troops.
Nothing could be further from the truth.
Can you say, bubble headed bleach blonde? I wish "journalists" would just report news and stop pontificating. If that's what you cal pontificating.
Which deserves our respect more, the war or those we've sent to fight the war?
Opposition to the war does not show a lack of support for the troops.
There are "ironies" in politics, but this is not one.
To "support the troops", the very best thing that can be done is to remove them from the direction of incompetent and bungling leadership. Bad leadership gets troops killed and maimed unnecessarily. BAD military policy places troops in harm's way for no reason, and keeps them there without proper support, planning, or equipment.
Now, a REAL irony would be something like Republican Congressional Leadership (like Newt) railing about family values, and excoriating Bill Clinton for having an affair by day, and then going to visit their mistresses by night. THAT is the kind of "irony" that bears reporting.
I am worried if Gingrich decides to run for president ...
Gingrich for president; Ted Haggard for vice-president. That would be an awfully tough ticket for the Dems to beat.
Haggard/Gannon 2008
Tex,
I thoroughly agree with your supporting the troops comment.........BAD leadership is indeed injurious to our soldiers.
Bugs Bunny/Foghorn Leghorn 2008
I thought they were Democrats.
This support the troops is code word for murdering our own is good for war profiteers.
Bush has just pulled another con job on the People of the United States. The People gave the power of the Legislative branch to the Democratic Party in the name of ending this war. Bush like a little boy whimpered, "give me a chance". Even thouh he had 5 years. He sent more troops, now that the troops are there Bush gives the People of the United States the middle finger and says this war will last for decades. He conned America.
The lie about fighting terrorism. There is no fight against terrorism in Iraq. The fight is mainly against the Sunnis. Bush is committing genocide this very moment. The very same kind of genoice the world experienced in Rwanda. The very same kind genocide American sanctioned in East Timor. Bush will make Pol Pot look like a tea party.
More lies. This isn't a war against terrrorism. The battle in Iraq is a power play. Ethnic, tribal and political rivalry is at play. Whenever you hear the Bush lie that Iraq has to step up to the plate and take care of themselves you know you are being conned, because Iraq is not uniting under Iraqi Nationalism. If you think the People over there are going to forget their ethnicity, their tribal identity and their political loyalties just to please us Americans then ask yourself has the south forgotten their Confederacy roots just to please the North?
It is without question life for the People of Iraq was far better under Saddam than what they are under now and they are under the bloodbath created and sanctioned by Bush and the little loyal Bushies.
Bush's mismanagement and incompetence granted, but to say the Iraqi's were better off under a murderous dictator who raped and slaughtered thousands of his own citizens is absolutely ludicrous.
And you do make a couple reasonable and thoughtful points, but they are surrounded by so much far leftist lunatic hyperbole that they just get lost in the mix. Sorry.
tommy,
How sweet it is that you never bothered to point out what this lunatic hyperbole is. I guess tommy is going to kept that as his little secret and force everyone else to figure it out themselves.
This isn't about mismanagement. This is about being lied into this war and about war crimes Bush is committing.
How about two little gems;
That supporting the troops is code for murdering them.
And that the Iraqis were better off being innocently slaughtered at the hands of their beloved dictator.
Oh, and I forgot;
That we sanctioned genocide in East Timor.
And that Bush will make Pol Pot look like a tea party.
Tommy
In response to East Timor we did sanction that. Indonesia wanted the United States approval to attack East Timor because there was a wealth of oil there. Kissenger gave the green light. What happened in East Timor would make the Holocaust look pale.
The media concentrated only on pol pot and ignored what was going on in East Timor. The reason is simple. Pol Pot is a communist atrocity. East Timor is a Captialist atrocity. See the bias.
The so called surge in Iraq is to commit genocide against the Sunni tribe. But the lie will be that it is agains terrorists.
Bush has lied so many times he isn't going to stop lying now.
There isnt any question that we sanctioned what happened in East Timor. I have seen the minutes of the meeting where Suhuarto was told we understood what he was going to do. The Indonesian army went there eating US MREs, flying US A-10 bombers. We trained their soldiers. There can be no reasonable argument we didnt sanction and help with what happened in East Timor.
Tommy,
You have read enough here at MMFA to know by now how the support the troop slogan om the media is being used to attack those who don't support the war.
The war was never declared by Congress, never approved by the United Nation. It was orchestrated by lies to the public.
The commander in chief put our young men and women in harms way based on falsehoods and spinning stories. He didn't even have the balls to answer Cindy's simple question which is: what makes this war noble?
Bush ran from the question and from Cindy like the coward that he is.
The death of our young men and women cannot be noble if this war was based on lies. The death of our young men and women is murder because they are being put in harms way based on lies.
Those caskets means only one thing to the commander in chief which is profit to war profiteers.
This is pure murder for profit and Bush is sick enough to do it. He is a privatization fanatic and he has virtually privatized this war. He is pratically privatizing the duties of the CIA. All this taxpayer money is being pumped into the pockets of private organizations. Bush is robbing the American People blind.
There is nothing noble about this war.
Tommy,
If you think Bush is going to make good on his word to repair what he has damaged over there you are delusional.
I believe the delusion lies in your own head as I never said that.
What you implied was life in Iraq today is better than it was under Saddam. At least the people had running water, a hospital, electricity and good times around the kebob stand. It's a bloodbath today.
If you want a reasonable discussion about Iraq, fine. When you throw insanity like that in, there is no point. Discuss amongst yourself.
Tommy, I realize that, by law, you must reflexively reject the notion that Iraqis are worse off now than they were under Saddam, but that is becoming the case. An Iraqi diplomat, interviewed on NPR a few months ago, made that very statement. While Saddam was a real prick, the general populace could at least lead a relatively normal life when he was in power. They certainly can't do that now.
If the occupation hadn't gone to hell, it might be a different story.
Nerzog,
Despite the mess that Bush has made of this war, I will never admit, at least for the foreseeable future, that Iraqi's were better off under Saddam than they are now, or will be in the future.
You may believe that, or some Iraq diplomat may believe that, but I cannot agree. My opinion.
Tommy- opinions don't really count here. I don't like canned carrots. I don't care much for rap music. Those are opinions. You can't just pick a stance and back it up with "it's my opinion."
from dictionary.com
opinion:
a belief or judgment that rests on grounds insufficient to produce complete certainty
I don't exactly know what you're getting at, but considering you could probably get millions of different opinions on this issue from millions of Iraqis depending on their perspective......your point is lost on me.
I am of the opnion that Saddam was not a nice person, and I would imagine those who are now dead and were tortured under his regime would concur with that opinion.
But you are entitled to yours.
what about the people alive in iraq now? you can't ask dead people questions
Tommy, first of all, I must disagree with Gringo; this site is all about opinions. Yeah, it's nice if people can present facts and evidence to back up those opinions, but, at the end of the day, everyone here is just posting an opinion.
I think I know where you're coming from on Iraq. You strike me as a libertarian, and maybe, in your mind, liberty trumps all. "Better off" is a nebulous term; in a strictly philosophical sense, Iraqis are better off now because they are "free" politically. However, the fact that they live in a war zone tends to nullify that political freedom. How "free" are you, when you can't get a job, send your kids to school, or even walk to the store without getting blown up or shot?
They may, in fact, be better off in the long run, if this fighting ever subsides. However, objectively speaking, it's difficult to make the case that the average Iraqi is better off now than he was 5 years ago.
You'll never admit? Wow, how open-minded of you. Perhaps you'd care to share your optimism with the estimated 4 million displaced Iraqis...I bet they could use some.
Now that's not fair! It might be that fifteen percent of Iraq picked up and left because it was becoming TOO GOOD over there. Some people like to be miserable.
Tommy,
I understand that it's your opinion. I'd like to know what facts and direct knowledge you posess that led you to this conclusion. And, how did you become an expert who knows better than the Iraqi's themselves?
Saddam was a BAD guy--agreed. But, are they really better off now?
Due to the fact that they live this nightmare, I think I'll base my opinion on information I hear from Iraq's diplomats.
Yeah but it isnt UP to you is it? I mean how magnanimous of YOU to decide for THEM whether or not they are better off. Actually how incredibly arrogant. Lets dismiss someone who actually IS an Iraqi and who actually LIVES there and listen to YOU who has no reason to make this assertion, no possible evidentiary support except your WISHING it were true.
Check out what PBS Frontline has to say about how we have wasted so much trying to force democracy on Iraq.
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/endgame/?campaign=pbshomefeatures_1_frontlinebrendgame_2007-06-20
By law, mmfa cannot be an advocate for any candidate. However, they go to great lengths to bring up Hillary and offer their support.
Mitchell did not suggest anything...she was talking politics...this isn't even about lame mind reading by Brian Levy...it's about a shameless political ploy by mmfa to support Hillary...while skirting the laws concerning 501(c)(3) organizations.
Right! What other reason would they have for mentioning Hillary Clinton?
The thing I am confused about is if Hillary speaks out against the war and then supports the troops; how does that put her too far left as the caption and commentary suggest? How can that be confused. She is clearly putting herself in the middle ground.
Holy Crap! I'm thinking the "Why-is-this-here" gang may actually be right about this one! I'm meltiiiiiiiiiiiiiiinnggggggg!
You are right on the money, Tex. Andrea Mitchell was try trying to imply irony by juxtapositioning HRC's speaking out against the war and being honored by Marines. But according to Tommy, butter wouldn't melt in Mrs. Greenspan's mouth.
It seems to me that what the "media" hack mrs. greenspan did, was make a veiled threat (more a warning I guess) to "leading Democrats" (whoever that's supposed to mean; Mrs. Clinton I guess, since she's the only Democrat mentioned by name)...
...hack greenspan warns Democrats:
"How far is too far? [In opposing the occupation of Iraq]"
"Leading Democrats make sure they both please their own base, and yet stay in position to defeat a Republican in the '08 general election..." she says.
"...they know if they move too far left, they can lose the independent swing voters who will likely decide that '08 general election for the presidency."
It's a warning, masked as 'insightful advice', to not oppose the occupation of Iraq too vehemently, so as not to alienate the national electorate.
Pure bull... nothing but smoke being blown up somebody's...
As you all know, we just had the national electorate go to the polls, this past November... Democrats and Republicans and Independents and Libertarians and Greens and Socialists and Commies and whatever all else... the national electorate was out in force last November 7, 2006, to decide all 435 Congressional Districts (and the Territorial Delegates too), in addition to 33 Senate races decided that day also.
That's the national electorate going to the polls that day... not a primary or a caucus or a straw poll... THE NATIONAL ELECTORATE.
And you know what they did: 468 separate elections that day (435 House and 33 Senate)... not a single open seat won by even a single Republican: An Historical first! Also, not one single incumbent Congressional Democrat was defeated in that election... every single Democratic incumbent was re-elected: Another Historical first!
23 incumbent House Members were defeated (lost their jobs) and 6 incumbent U.S. Senators also were defeated... EVERY SINGLE ONE OF THEM A REPUBLICAN!
Now, I'd ask the hack greenspan about what the national electorate did that day:
"Are they the ones you're warning leading Democrats about... are they the ones who you say leading Democrats shouldn't alienate... are they the ones (the ones who decided that History-making election on November 7, 2006, that NATIONAL ELECTORATE) you're talking about when you say 'don't go too far?' [In opposing the occupation of Iraq]"
What a bunch of noise the hack greenspan makes... we've heard it before, this crap warning about 'don't go too far in opposing the occupation of Iraq'... bull... smoke up your arse, that's what that noise is...
We don't need to hear it, we don't care for such 'insightful advice' that such a stupid warning as that is.
It's stupid advice because it goes against the evidence... doesn't it hack greenspan?
It may belong here, but not for the reasons given. It's a "politics as horse race" piece. Nothing wrong with an occasional one, but they dominate the news today. There is no attempt to analyze whether the various parties--Democratic "base", independent "swing votes", etc. actually perceive the facts accurately. But it does not actively plug the false dicotomy: left/right, oppose the war/support the trooops, etc.