One report Cameron saw that Clinton's pastels are a new campaign tactic was apparently his -- and it was false
During the August 12 edition of Fox Broadcasting Co.'s Fox News Sunday, Fox News chief political correspondent Carl Cameron asserted that Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-NY) is conducting a "charm offensive" in which she "has gone out of her way to be more likable." He added: "We've seen stories about how she's brightening up the pastel colors and trying to put a little bit more of a smile on." However, the Daily Howler's Bob Somerby noted the next day: "Using Nexis, we can find zero 'stories' in the past three months about how Clinton is 'brightening up the pastel colors.' (We searched on 'Clinton AND pastel OR pastels.')" Indeed, Cameron may have been referring to his own report slightly more than three months ago, in which, as Media Matters for America documented, Cameron himself claimed Clinton was "wearing bright colors, smiling constantly, as if to deal with what polls say is a likability problem."
As Media Matters also noted at the time, Clinton had smiled and worn bright-colored clothing in numerous prior appearances.
From the August 12 edition of Fox Broadcasting Co.'s Fox News Sunday:
WALLACE: Let's talk about Hillary Clinton. I'm not sure, Carl, that she would have said, "I'm your girl," at the start of the campaign with all the questions about a woman president. It seems to me to show an increasing confidence.
CAMERON: There is a level of confidence -- and her charm offensive that has not gotten a great deal of attention. For months, Hillary Clinton has gone out of her way to be more likable.
The campaign and she know full well that if there is a liability and a problem in her candidacy, it's that so many people won't even think about the possibility of voting for her. Well, we've seen stories about her showing a little bit of cleavage on the floor of the U.S. Senate.
WALLACE: Oh, boy.
CAMERON: We've seen stories about how she's brightening up the pastel colors and trying to put a little bit more of a smile on.
That's clearly working, and part of it is pointing out that both Barack Obama and John Edwards, who had set out -- Edwards' campaign in 2004 and Obama's this time around -- as unifying Democrats who would be positive, optimistic, and idealists are now attacking her regularly.
Doh! Busted!
Is this anything like "Some people say..."?
Someone is actually doing a Nexis search on Clinton and/or pastels? You must be joking?
OK, so if pastels further the conservative agenda, then do dreary earth tones fall within acceptable fashion guidelines for liberals?
no joke sherlock. do you even read these items. he said "we've seen stories....". it's all part of the same effort to paint her as calculated. or maybe you didn't pick up on that...
no joke sherlock. do you even read these items. he said "we've seen stories....". it's all part of the same effort to paint her as calculated. or maybe you didn't pick up on that...
There's a lot of things that poor Tommy fails to pick up on....
Tommy, have you really become this obtuse? It seems your growing disdain for MMFA has resulted in you checking your brains at the door in order to get in one more WITH post. One wonders what is behind this endless refrain from you these days. It is pretty straight forward that it has nothing to do with the actual color and everything to do with inventing a false story in order to perpetuate the stereotype they want everyone to buy into. I wonder at your inability to grasp the meaning of these items when MMFA spells it out for you.
Obtuse? And you expect any reasonable person to take any of this idiocy seriously? Come on Lostlogic, sorry.......show me real conservative misinformation.
Hillary's choice of pantsuit colors? Dear god, liberals are humorless.
"Dear god, liberals are humorless."--tommy
OMG, that must be true. I missed it. Where was the joke?
Actually the entire thread is a joke. No surprise you missed it.
Well now I got that Tommy's post was supposed to be humorous.
The following made me laugh when I read it [and it's what I believe Tommy was poking fun at]:
However, the Daily Howler's Bob Somerby noted the next day: "Using Nexis, we can find zero 'stories' in the past three months about how Clinton is 'brightening up the pastel colors
This is what politics has come to? First Cameron's claim about Hillary's clothing, then a Nexis search?
I mean it's funny. The world is going to hell & we are having the pastel wars.
BTW, you can bet Hillary certainly does have someone on her staff in charge of her wardrobe. I'm sure most of the candidates do.
I see the point. I just find it more silly that apparently Cameron is just making things up here for some unknown reason. Although, I do see a pattern in his misinformation.
I suppose Cameron was betting that no one would bother to look up such a thing - which I agree is pretty trivial. Cameron has been known to make stuff up before about Kerry and his pre-debate "manicure" amongst other things.
The sad truth is that we really cannot rely on much of what the media are telling us - especially Cameron. If he is willing to fabricate a story about such a trivial thing, how can we trust him on much else?
Open_Mind, I agree with your assessment of Cameron.
It's unfortunate that politics has come to this though [and sad for me to admit--but it does seem more prevalent from the Right. The far-Left might indulge too?]
Next someone could say:
Hillary has all her clothes custom-made. And then someone will need to refute that by proving she buys much of her clothing right off the rack.
It's ridiculous.
And you're correct, how can we believe them about anything?
Typical right-wing knee-jerk dodge. The left does it toooo. Name somebody on the left who pulls the kind of bull Carl Crap-on does.
OR
A typical knee-jerk response from JScott towards any post written by a Conservative.
Did you read my post or just skim it quickly & post as fast as you could?
Did you even notice the question mark at the end of what I wrote?
Here's what I wrote [again]:
"The far-Left might indulge too?"
See that---> ?
Read that word "might"
I was cleary asking a question.
I'd just admitted the Right was guilty of this behavior & was asking Open_Mind if he might know if the FAR-Left indulged in similar behavior, as I'm not as familiar with the rhetoric from that extreme wing of the Democratic party.
I always apologize when I've misinterpreted what another poster has written.
I wonder if...
I was cleary asking a question.
And did you ever bother to find out the answer to your question, Jeter?
Fox News made the amazing discovery that you can make an outrageous statement legitimate simply by adding a question mark on the end. There's a Daily Show clip on this very subject.
Allow me to demonstrate. For example, if I were to write:
Jeter wets his bed.
with a period at the end, that would be a statement of fact, and you might take issue with its truth, if, in fact, you do not wet your bed. Whereas if I wrote:
Does Jeter always wet his bed?
you would have no room to argue. After all, I was just wondering out loud whether you have a bladder problem only sometimes, or all the time.
See how it works?
And sometimes a question is just a question.
Steve, I don't work for FOX, nor am I attempting to fox up my question.
I've been on this forum long enough that I would think those that read my posts know I don't try to couch an innuendo into a question like FOX does [that BTW was a valid point about that orginization]
I made an inquiry about the Far-Left. Simple.
Sorry you felt you had to make an issue over it with a childish analogy.
I'm sorry I offended you; I'm just very wary of the "fair and balanced" mentality that says, "but surely the other guy does it too."
Just before the last election, John Kerry screwed up a joke about Bush getting us stuck in Iraq. Every news channel spent an entire week rehashing the issue. Tony Snow even deigned to address this in a press conferences, claiming he couldn't figure out how to fit the word "us" into what Kerry had said.
All that for one stupid joke, made by someone who wasn't even up for election.
Do you honestly think that if someone on the left were to lie--no matter how trivially--and just make s**t up like Cameron did, that it would go unchallenged? Remember the brouhaha about those memos about Bush's National Guard service? Within a day we all heard that the documents were forgeries and were totally discredited.
The answer to "maybe the left might do it too?" should be obvious: no. Not because people on the left are more noble, but simply because they wouldn't be able to get away with it.
Steve,
Thank you for the apology. That took class. And it's appreciated.
Just want to clear one thing up, you wrote: "The answer to "maybe the left might do it too?"
I wrote FAR-Left in my post. When I say Left, I mean Liberal. When I say FAR-Left, I'm referring to the more extreme faction of the Liberal Left. Those are my own definitions, and might not jive with yours.
That said, I can't find anything in your post that I disagree with. Including your opinion that the media would probably not let Liberals get away with the same behavior.
Personally I couldn't recall any Liberal that has done what Cameron was pulling, which is why I inquired if perhaps those on the Far-Left might have. I sometimes find the Far-Left's rhetoric a tad disturbing.
When you say "far-left," what exactly do you have in mind?
The Green Party? Naderites? The Communist Party of the USA? People who want to legalize narcotics? Counterpunch magazine? Liberal bloggers?
The so-called "far left" has very little influence right now. The last time radical leftists had any significant power in this country was during the height of the Great Depression--the days of Huey Long and Father Coughlin, when people were starving and desperate for a savior.
Right now we're still too well off for that kind of politics to gain any real traction. If the balkanization of America continues and we enter another prolonged depression, the radical leftists might make a comeback, but I don't see it happening now.
Ha ha...you're a clown.
Yes, I do expect people to take things like this seriously...the thing being the focus on these silly "issues" to the detrimant of real issues. To creating and promoting these false "identities" of people/candidates inorder to con the public. To shoddy journalism created rather then developed through research...I could go on...but I know you know the truth...the question is what is up with this game you are playing with your postings these days...if you really think this is so much fluff one can't help but wonder why you still hang around...I know the sites that I have issue I don't bother wasting my time posting on. BTW I believe the fluff was on the part of the idiot who thinks the color of Clintons suits means squat to the real issues of the day.
My goodness conservatives are stupid. Yes tommy. LYING about stories that dont exist to further a rightwing storyline IS conservative misinformation, try to keep up. If this site isnt up to your standards feel free to start your own site and we can come by and tell you how to run it.
If you were to visit I would open the velvet rope for you immediately. You would be one liberal who gets to cut in line Solon - I do like you, even though you're hysterical. MUAH! ;)
I've always liked you too tommy. You can be frustrating and I wont be cutting you any slack because of it but I do think you are good for the site.
Solon,
I think it's fairly obvious that Hillary is trying to be more likable.
She might very well be dressing differently & smiling more to achieve this goal.
In fact, I do believe I've seen some proof of that with my very own eyes.
The problem here of course is that Cameron is claiming to have read something a Nexis search did not spit out.
So yes he's lying.
He should just have said it was his own observation.
I do find it interesting at times that even though nearly all candidates would seem to benefit from appearing more likeable - and no doubt all of them are conscious of that - it is most often remarked about candidates that the observer (in this case Cameron) aparently doesn't really like as some sort of insult.
Candidates have been kissing babies for hundreds of years (for what reason?), yet Cameron feels the need to tell us the shocking truth that a presidential candidate strangely wants to appear more likeable. How odd of them? I can't understand why.
Of course. ANYONE running for president tries to be more likable. That is an uphill battle for Hillary. Personally I never liked her. However you are EXACTLY right his LYING is the problem. If he wants to talk about pastels, fine, I will make fun of his superficiality but when he LIES to further the storyline THAT is a whole new kettle of fish.
Two words --"reading comprehension"--. Look into it.
: )
One word, that escapes liberals, apparently - satire. Look into it.
:)
Okay. I get it. My bad. You just threw me for a loop by mimicking conservative stupidity - as opposed to the real thing I have come to expect from you.
: )
could you point out the satire here? is this kinda like everything rush says is a joke?
My original post was satire, yet all the subsequent postings got all bent out of shape insisting I reread it.
It was a joke mocking this inane thread and the serious tone in speaking of a candidate's choice of colors in her wardrobe, for it to be even explained to you only reinforces the point I was making - that satire and joking is fine unless it's directed at Democrats or this website. Geez......
number one, no one was insisting you reread your original post. where do you get that from????? it was about rereading [or first reading] the mmfa story. number two, you asked if it was a joke that somebody did a nexis search on this, but you don't explain your "satire" there. the reason was to counter his remarks about all these stories. number three, you seem to be saying that what was said on fox was satire.
Even good satire (as opposed to what you wrote) is often difficult to interpret on the web and can often be mistaken for sincere fundamentalism in the absence of a winky thingy at the end.
; )
Satire is funny when it's based on reality. Of course, the satirist needs to have the same concept of reality as the audience.
I hope I don't appear to be too much of a suck-up, but I got Tommy's satire and got a good chuckle out of it.
I've decided that color should not be a deciding factor in this election. Plaid with stripes is definitely out, though.
Jeepers, where have I been. It's a doh! moment for me. Am I embarrassd. Of course, Carl Cameron is a rising star on the comedy circuit and Fox News is the Republican Comedy Channel!
Heh heh heh, now I get it: "Fox News: Fair and Balanced, You Decide."
Satire. Oh you!
Neil Cavuto, hilarious!
John Gibson, erudite, witty, he's Fox's answer to Hollywood Hunk Pauly Shore!
And that fan favorite, Bill-O, I laughed so hard, I peed myself, and then I just laughed some more!
Oh you! Oh you guys. Fox News! It was in the title, the whole time! Clever. clever.
Now that's A-1 satire! Some of the funniest comedians are well let’s say non-Conservative in their political leanings. I wonder why that is, in fact it seems that most people in the creative professions tend to be Progressive.
Martha Joseph, BRAVO!!!!!!
You don't really expect Tommy to read all of the words in an item, do you?
I mean, hell, that would mean he'd have to comment on the facts as they are, not as he'd like them to be.
Apparently tommy has attempted to add what he calls "satire" to his repertoire. He is no Joseph Heller, to be sure, but I suppose we all need to start somewhere.
It also seems to be our fault (isn't it always?) for not properly recognizing tommy's obvious genius in this situation.
If colors are now supposed to signify ideology, conservatives should be limited to gray and black. (rolling eyes)
Must be a slow day, I can not wait to see the thread on Imus and his possible return to radio.
Dang it Tommy, they caught on. We've been secretly using Carl Cameron to inject a story every three months into a 10 second blip on a cable news show regarding the color of Hillary's outfits to subliminally influence the electorate into thinking Hillary is a calculating politician and in so doing toss the election to the GOP! Drat that MMFA! Foiled again!
LOL!
Really. No doubt her hairdo calculations perpetuated by the conservative furthering media will be her eventual undoing.
Too bad we can't use the $25 she pays for her hairdo against her. Edwards pre-conditioned everyone by doing his part. My guess is this will soon blow over.
yeah heaven knows, there is not now and never has been any right wing campaign to paint hillary as a cold calculating bitch. anyone living in a cave for the last 15 years would surely agree.
Good one AA!
However, I have some inside information that Hillary uses a Flowbee.
Maybe you can use that on your next Fox "Nooz" report, Carl.
Yuk yuk. This may seem trivial, but let's not forget how the Right Wing liars virtually pecked Gore to death with similar stories. Remember the crap about "earthtones"? It's not the individual lies, it's the cumulative effect. I think MMFA has done well by calling this seemingly insignificant lie to our attention. It's just one more example of the ever tightening circle jerk that passes for news coverage these days.
I like that.... "seemingly insignifigant"...
Thanks for making Tommy's point.
I tend to disagree. While I know that you and Tommy are just funnin'...you seem to think that this is insignificant, where I qualify it with the word "seemingly". Of and by itself, this story is just fluff...but it is a symptom of the very mountain of GOP bullsh*t that has been dumped at our doorstep for the past 17 years or so. This is at the very core of MMFA's raison d'etre.
Thanks Nerzog, apparently you get when we are just funnin'. Some take it way too seriously. Glad to see you have a sense of humor. :)
Tommy what an appeaser you turned out to be. BTW those shoes are simply gauche.
Are they really? Tell that to Prada then!
I know, but I like Nerzog, and appeasing is always welcomed by Democrats. ;)
tommy, can you tell me who said that it was not a good idea to respond to the cole bombing because it would only embolden the terrorists. hint, it was not a democrat.
Another one of your feeble attempts at some "gotcha" contradictions with an irrelevant off topic question?
Let me save you some time, to equate in any way, shape or form, a topic about Hillary's choice of clothing colors to a response of a terrorist attack is laughable - if indeed that is where you're going. So you can skip your stock "scared to answer", because I am actually saving you from embarassing yourself. And you're welcome.
ok tommy, who said "appeasing is always welcomed by democrats"? which had absolutely nothing to do with the topic of hillary's clothes. go ahead and embarass me by answering. i can take it.
as i gaze at the monitor through tears of gratitude that tommy has spared me, i will reveal that it was condi rice who told the 9-11 commission that it would not have been a good idea to respond to the cole. [warning, first part of sentence is heavy on sarcasm.]
Nerzog, I couldn't agree more. These guys act less and less like journalist every day and more like PR guys charged with crafting an image they want to sell to the public. You are right it is not about each item individually but the cumulative effect of this type of campaign...anyone in the marketing business out there probally recognizes the techniques well.
AA, perhaps you could share your thoughts on why Fox's Chief Political Correspondant is discussing what the color of her suits or her "clevage" means to the electorate. What is the purpose behind a Chief Political Correspondant enagaging in this type of debate?
I think Hillary is coldly calculating that by using her womanly charms (and pastels) she can get a bump in the polls. ;-)
I thinkby showing her "cleavage" she has padded her lead among Dems.
How non-responsively charming an answer...I guess we both know what the reason behind his actions are anyway...and the reason why you feel the need to deflect and not answer (-;
Because Lost, the reason is image - an integral part of why many people vopte for President. Like it or not, it's just not about issues for everyone - that is the reality that many of you refuse to accept in politics.
You want issues stressed above all else. Be careful, it's issues that has sunk many a Democrats, and Republicans as well. Dissecting candidate's images is a vital part of strategy and punditry, for every candidate.
That's why.
Let me clarify, image is important for candidates, however......but to get all huffy over Clinton's pastel color choice is ridiculous. That was my point.
No basic mention that it appears Cameron is just making stuff up? You are arguing a strawman.
who got "all huffy" over her choice of pastels? [are we all speaking the same language as tommy?]
tommy maybe this will help. i think where we are getting lost is we assume that you see the reality of what is being said about hillary. this has nothing to do with her wardrobe per se. she is being portrayed as calculating in her choice of clothes and smiling more. what is being implied is that hillary is really a snarling demon who would prefer to mope about in drab dreary colors. in other words, it's her sincerity being questioned, not whether she likes pastels. hope this helps.
Hillary's calculations of her image is no better or worse than Romneys or Edwards or Guilianis or anyone else that is running. They have image consultants who get paid big bucks for stuff like this.
The hysteria many of you are making over this is misplaced, in my opinion.
The problem is that Hillary was singled out falsely. If you don't get it by now, you don't want to get it.
I get it, thank you. I just don't share your overwhelming concern that it is of paramount importance, I am very sorry.
<sarcasm>Yes. <solemn>It is pretty darn obvious that the entire fate of all humankind depends on the outcome of what is posted on this thread in the next few days! I am sorry as well that you don't share in understanding that overwhelmingly important FACT!!!!</solemn></sarcasm>
; )
Hmmm? You accused me of arguing a strawman when discussing Hillary's pastel wardrobe?
I don't believe I would ever use that term when speaking of something so innocuous, but hey, if you really feel that strongly about it - buy her a subscription to Women's Wear Daily.
but tommy, you always feel everything should be ignored. it's either a- a joke, or b- if it is true, then the proper way to deal with it is to simply "move on" and not give it any attention. you might have a little more credibility on this thread if that was not your constant refrain.
Your mischaracterization is ridiculous, but I have come to expect it when people make such baseless blanket statements such as the one you just made.
But for the record, I never said everything should be ignored. What I have said, numerous times, is that real substantive misinformation and correcting the record when falsely put out there by the media, is an important function performed by this website. Primarily when it affects any public policy or misinformation regarding misinforming the public of important issues.
However, to highlight talk show shock jocks and their partisan rhetorical silliness and offensive slurs, along with pundit's bantering back and forth harmlessly with guests on a host of politically related topics on a cable chat show for political junkies, primarily - is, in my opinion, just flat out gratuituous and silly, for the most part.
There is a real difference between the two. I am sorry if you feel they merit equivalent importance, which leads you to blur their distinction while misrepresenting my opinions.
but aren't you suggesting that we ignore what was said here? and that is my point about you, is it not? so by your very own words on this thread, you confirm what i said.
"However, to highlight talk show shock jocks and their partisan rhetorical silliness and offensive slurs, along with pundit's bantering back and forth harmlessly with guests on a host of politically related topics on a cable chat show for political junkies, primarily - is, in my opinion, just flat out gratuituous and silly, for the most part."--tommy
But, you miss an important little detail -- Cameron is a reporter. I know it is hard to tell the difference on Fox, but it is different when reporters make things up to support a point - as opposed to "shock jocks", etc. Reporters are supposed to be authoritative. Again, you are misrepresenting the argument. Maybe you should get that straight before further embarrassing yourself here.
Tommy, if it's so unimportant, why did Faux News ever bother putting it out there?
That is the difference between you and me I guess I don't want to only know fluff about the person I vote for...if there stand on the issues is going to sink them then I guess they should be sunk...what I don't believe is they should be sunk on some false stereotype. I think it is important to point out this fluff and fight against it every chance we can get.
Do you agree there is even a moral difference between reporting substantial issues and insubstantial issues to inform the public about their leaders or important issues?
Please explain the moral equivalence of reporting insubstantial information with reporting substantial information to viewers.
And if they aren't morally equivalent in your opinion, please explain why a media watchdog like MMFA should not favor the approach that would quite obviously seem more moral. What is wrong with that?
Lost,
Hahaha... I think Cameron and the Fox ensemble are just trying to scoop their rivals inside the beltway. It is a model that worked before but poses little problem for Hillary. It is nothing she can't makeup.
Yeah baby. It's shagalicious!
TOMMY and ANOTHERAMERICAN:
Time to remind you two to scroll up to the top menu and click on ABOUT US and read just the first paragraph.
Don't worry, it's short.
Don't cheat now - read all of the words.
You're right, I did miss it originally.
We will effectively analyze monitor and correct liberal fashion misinformation. Pastel colors are not indicitive of anyone's calculating undercurrent to reshape their image, except after Labor Day when white slacks cannot be worn on the campaign trail, after sundown.
Priceless...simply priceless!
I would have gone with simply stupid
And inform you when rightleaning propagandists LIE about them
Drafted,
Shoot, it isn't about us.. It's about MMFA!
Man you guys sure are tricky!
After helping Diane Farrell get defeated in the 2006 race for the House...Matt Gertz lands at mmfa and is relegated to statements like this:
- As Media Matters also noted at the time, Clinton had smiled and worn bright-colored clothing in numerous prior appearances.
God o mighty...see Spot run...see Dick run.......LOL.
your point?
I think his point is that Tommy missed that wonderful bit of satire by Gertz. ;}
Remember everyone. If someone smiles, it is because they are compensating for a likability problem.
Skip:
True only if the subject is a Dem.
If Repugnant, then either care-free and optimistic (Ray-Gun) or confident and optimistic (Bungle) or informed and optimistic (Cthulu - err, Rove).
Only if Lovecraft had collaborated with Pillsbury, Conley.Too doughy and evil for one creator.