Limbaugh: Other candidates don't criticize Clinton because "you can't hit the girl"
On the August 20 broadcast of his nationally syndicated radio show, discussing comments made by White House senior adviser Karl Rove about Democratic presidential candidate Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (NY), Rush Limbaugh claimed that "nobody criticizes Hillary. ... Well, you might say, 'No, Michelle Obama and Mrs. Edwards are out there criticizing her,' but, see, I finally figured this one out, too. You can't hit the girl. You just -- you can't hit the girl." He continued: "And for [Democratic presidential candidates John] Edwards and [Sen. Barack] Obama (IL) to go out there and criticize Hillary would -- she would -- she plays the victim better than anybody does, and she could make real hay out of that. So they've got their wives out there ripping her." He added: "But the drive-bys" -- a term Limbaugh uses to denote the mainstream media -- "aren't taking that seriously, because Hillary's the inevitable candidate."
From the August 20 broadcast of Premiere Radio Networks' The Rush Limbaugh Show:
LIMBAUGH: I did a little research here, folks, and I found -- you know, the Republican attack machine, quote unquote, went after Al Gore pretty good in 2000, and his negatives were not nearly as high as Mrs. Clinton's. And then in 2004, the so-called Republican attack machine went out after John Kerry, who served in Vietnam. And his negatives didn't score nearly as high as Mrs. Clinton's do.
By the way, the attack machine, as she calls it, is simply the truth squad. All we do is get the truth of these people out there. The thing about these Democrats, especially Mrs. Clinton, is when you -- when you call them on their facts, and how they're wrong about things, they consider it an attack. You know full well, folks -- you wish there were an attack machine in the Republican Party, don't you?
[...]
LIMBAUGH: So, I think -- as I said earlier -- I think she's getting ready to run against [Republican presidential candidate] Rudy [Giuliani]. I think that's what they think, or who they think the nominee on our side is going to be, and I think they want to.
So, in the meantime, Rove is out there trying to alert everybody to just what her record is. And, by the way, her incompetence is the hidden message. And the drive-bys are just -- they are just -- nobody criticizes Hillary. Why, they don't know what to do with this. This is unprecedented. Well, you might say, "No, Michelle Obama and Mrs. Edwards are out there criticizing her," but, see, I finally figured this one out, too. You can't hit the girl. You just -- you can't hit the girl. And for Edwards and Obama to go out there and criticize Hillary would -- she would -- she plays the victim better than anybody does, and she could make real hay out of that. So they've got their wives out there ripping her. But the drive-bys aren't taking that seriously, because Hillary's the inevitable candidate.
So here comes Rove, and he unloads first on this program, then goes on Meet the Press, then wherever else he went on Sunday, and unloads with basically the same message, and they're all out there saying that "Karl Rove singled out Hillary Rodham Clinton for criticism." If I may be so bold, he didn't single her out at all each and every time he has been asked about it -- including on this program. And I'll admit something to you, I hadn't intended to ask him about Hillary Clinton because I didn't think that I'd get an answer. But we had the audio sound bite of the ad that she was running, accusing this White House of not seeing half or more of the population.
What Limbaugh is saying here is not all that off base or controversial, or misinformative, for that matter. Hillary's candidacy is historic and the treatment of her by the other candidates and the press is setting precedency, while traveling in unchartered territory.
I am sure the strategy for Obama and Edwards concerning their responses to Hillary is cautious and careful, and it should be. This is hardly earth shattering. Maybe they are tempering their criticism of her because she is a woman, who really knows? They have to figure all angles into their campaign strategy, or at least they should.
But for their wives to come out swinging at her is a little silly......they are not running for office. Then they shouldn't cry foul if they get a few arrows pointed at them.
Maybe they are tempering their criticism of her because she is a woman, who really knows"
Tommy,
Do you really believe this? It seems of late you seem more inclined to come to the defense of the the most partisan winger than you were in the past. You generally called a spade a spade. But these recent excuses and what they probably meant posts is kind of going over into RINO territory. I know you're one of those South Park Libertarians that really aren't too crazy about Republicans but you really really hate the Democrats because you beleive they are going to raise your taxes, but you gotta be fair man. This is just Rush partisan BS where he puts some right wing talking point out on the premise that it's really a fact, when it really isn't.
Lynn,
I have no idea, but to act as if Hillary's gender is totally irrelevant to the campaigns of Edwards and Obama is naive, in my opinion.
And I have no idea how you think my conjecture is some slam at anyone, it isn't. It's just a comment on political strategy.
I am surprised at the defensiveness of your post.
I do not believe gender is playing any part in this, the fact is Hillary is a tough campaigner and Edwards and Obama know this, she will rip them apart that is why she will be a good President she has stood up to the hate.
I'm not knocking her, but any candidate running for the presidency should be able to "stand up to the hate." Every president has and will get their fair share of it. So, in my opinion, I don't find her standing in front of hate to be all that impressive. I would hope as the president of the US you would be able to stand up to that sort of thing.
Expand on this please, I am not sure how she is reacting any differently than anyone else.
That is my point exactly. DorisRussell made the statement that she was impressed that she was standing up to all of the hate (I paraphrased her comment here). I was simply stating that this doesn't strike me as impressive as I would hope that all candidates have the gall and ability to stand up to much hate. They will endure much hate during their presidency, either from the left, or the right, or from other countries. You are correct in that she is acting no different than any other candidate, and that's the way it should be. Doris made the statement that she was impressed, but it's nothing to be impressed about because if Hillary wants to be president, she should have poise and the ability to withstand a great deal of hatred.
It bugs me when the right wing spin machine put's forth their opinions and negative assessments of someone or situation as if it's total fact. I think the Dem candidates are playing it safely with each other and not being too negative at all. But Obama has certainly made snaps at Clinton and vise versa. I don't agree with the scenario that Rush has put forth. I just finished commenting in a thread that I was way too late to be commenting in, but essentially what I said is that I’ve noticed when Right wing pundits want to insert their talking points and characterizations of Liberal candidates into a debate they will put forth negatives as if it's fact and ask for their guests to comment on. Something like ... Do you think Hilary Clinton's shrillness will hurt her candidacy? or Will the voters be able to get past John Edwards` hypocrisy. This is their slimy way of injecting their right wing non-sense under the guise of being neutral. I think you second Limbaugh's assertion here as if it's the absolute God's honest truth. I don't think that it is, I don't see it Limbaugh’s way, but apparently you have been seeing it Limbaugh’s way a lot lately and of course if that’s you’re honest assessment that’s your honest assessment. I just noticed that in the past you seem to be just as likely to take Limbaugh to task then to agree with him, although you always tried to down play the influence that Limbaugh and others has on the Republican politics, including all the wing nut gas-bags on the radio that get audiences with the powers that be.
Ah, yes, you gotta love Tommy's cocky, nonchalant retorts. The way he easily dismiss arguments with a brush on the shoulder has become his trademark. I was actually waiting for his other classic maneuver: "This is HIS OPINION!" Gotta love Tommy, even when you disagree with him, one can always find some amusement with his William F. Buckley-esque condescension. ;)
Oh yeah, Tommy's hand to the face.
When it's actually Tommy's head up his a$$.
:-)
Where did Lynn state that gender is totally irrelevant?
Rush is the one taking the extreme position that is based on (?) and your attempting to rationalize his statements.
I think gender is less relevant and there are obvious examples of all of the Democratic hopefuls attacking Senator Clinton (not just their wives)
This is Rush pandering to the worst part of his audience yet again. He is trying to make it appear as if Hillary has some unfair advantage due to her gender because real men wouldn't attack a poor defenseless gril (I'm surprised there wasn't a joke in their against John Edwards). According to Rush the only thing Hillary is good at is playing the victim, but isn't hat what all girly feminize limp wrist liberals are good at? Playing the victim?
Tommy,
You have to understand that to Lynn any "independent thinker" must automatically reject everything that Limbaugh says because Limbaugh is a rabid partisan. To her and others, it's not possible for Limbaugh to ever be right. They expect others to disagree with Limbaugh 100% of the time, and if you don't you're labeled a right wing extremist or a Republican apologist. To them, liberalism isn't an ideology at all but simply common sense. To present a conservative point of view or go against the liberal line is extreme and "ideological." But of course, the liberals aren't ideological. They're simply "centrists." They think that embracing liberalism is simply the same as breathing air, and anything that goes against liberalism is simply "right wing ideology." Many posters on here including Lynn have often criticized me for being ideological, partisan, and always agreeing with Limbaugh. On the other hand, these same people are also ideological, partisan, and disagree with Limbaugh 100% of the time. But of course they don't realize this, because to them it's only conservatives who can be ideological and partisan, because liberalism is simply common sense and the way that things are supposed to be.
Liberalism may or may not be common sense. I dont have enough to judge. Who, though, ever said liberalism is CENTRISM? Personally I have NEVER seen any such claim.
Some here have said that the Democratic Party is a centrist party. I'm sure you'll probably argue that Democrats aren't liberals, but I'm sure that most people disagree. When someone makes a claim like that they're basically saying that the Democratic Party is "moderate" and "open minded" and the Republican Party is extreme right wing.
Who said that? I am a Liberal who is essentially a Democrat at first by tradition and now it’s pretty much by default now since that party comes the closest to espousing my point of view, but the Democratic Party encompasses people along a political spectrum. There are more centrist Democrats like the Clintons and Joe Lieberman (the schism with him and the party has been over Iraq), you have the Blue Dog Democrats, a group of fairly conservative Democrats. Jim Webb is the newest member of that group. It's the same way with the Republican Party, you’ve people far right like you, and moderates, and socially liberal leaning Republicans in the North and the Western part of the country although you aren't tolerant of them since you’ve you've vowed to run them out of your party if they don’t meet the RINO litmus test. BTW common sense isn’t about politics you either have it or you don’t, my common sense has nothing at all to do with my political beliefs. Moreover there are many many common sense Conservatives that post at MMFA and I’ve always said that.
"but the Democratic Party encompasses people along a political spectrum"
But yet the tent wasn't quite big enough for Joe Lieberman. He disagreed with the Democratic platform on one issue and he got booted out of the party. Even I'm more tolerant than that. I think that a Republican can deviate from the platform on two or three issues and still be a true Republican. I just don't like these Republicans like Lincoln Chafee who basically vote liberal much more often than they do conservative.
Don't tell fibs RINO, Lieberman lost in CT's primary election bid but when he ran as what he calls an Independent Democrat he won his seat. I understand that CT is overwhelmingly Democratic so the Democrats sent him back to the senate. That said I would have voted against Lieberman or any Democrat including my boyfriend Obama if he thought staying the course in Iraq was the right thing when I think it is deadly wrong, my conscious wouldn’t have allowed me to do otherwise. I have never been a one-issue voter, but that issue is important enough to me that I couldn't support a candidate who supports this continued fiasco even if I agreed with them on every other issue. BTWm Lieberman's voting record is pretty much in line with what I support although I believe he too is apart of that old school DC politician-lobbying network. I am very upset with that DC system. Anyway have a good evening RINNY.
No. Study the vote. He got about 30% of the Democratic vote, and about 80% of the Republicans. I guess that phone call he took from Karl Rove right after losing the primary (fact) really paid off. Oh, and then there were all those campaign contributions from Fox "News."
Your simplistic mind always jumps from the Manichean viewpoint to an unsupportable baseless assertion. Joes only problem, that in the state of Conneticut which is NOT the nation, was NOT the war rather he wasnt satisfied with supporting the war but he had to demonize those who opposed it which was the VAST MAJORITY of his base in his home state. No one knows if he would have survived a challenge had he been more respectful of the war opponents in his state and been satisfied with opposing the war.
Does losing your party's primary get you "kicked out of the party?" Liebermann chose to run as an independent after not receiving the democratic nomination. He was not kicked out of the party. He chose to leave.
The national Democratic Party didn't do a thing to try to save Lieberman. They didn't give him one dime. They just stayed out of it. Compare that to what the Republicans did for Lincoln Chafee, a liberal Republican. They went out of their way to help him win the primary. They gave him all kinds of money and even had a big get out the vote program for him. They did all that for a RINO Republican when the Dems didn't do a thing to help a guy who simply disagreed with them on one issue.
I do not understand how it is the party's leadership's responsibility to choose the nominee, instead of letting the members of the party choose the nominee instead. I can understand how the Republican party (with their weak modern history of respecting the Democratic process) would want to influence their OWN party membership through funding someone they'd like to have represent a state, but I don't see why the Democratic party would want to influence its own membership towards one candidate, when other perfectly viable Democratic candidates are available.
Why should the Democratic leadership be held in a negative light for letting Democrats decide who the Democratic candidate should be? Isn't that why we have primaries?
Well, RINO, when Liebermann bashed the party as being taken over by extremists he certainly did not avail himself to their help
http://www.americablog.com/2006/08/lieberman-attacks-democratic-party-as.html
He lost the primary. Why did the National Republican committee come out and support Chafee in the primary? I think its pretty simple actually:
"Republican leaders reasoned that in Rhode Island, which has three times as many registered Democrats as Republicans and which voted for Democratic presidential candidate John Kerry with nearly 60 percent of the vote in 2004, only Chafee could hold the Senate seat."
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/14806295/
Lieberman was not kicked out of the party.
And, I know this is off-topic, but since you and I have talked free speech on these boards before, I would LOVE your thoughts on this article:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/08/21/AR2007082101662_pf.html
If this does not rile you up as a free-speech loving Constitutionalist, I don't know what will!
I think that the protesters should be allowed at Bush's rallies unless they are disturbing it. If they're yelling and disturbing the rally then they should be removed. If they're just holding up signs and listening then I don't see why they shouldn't be allowed there. That's my opinion.
And also, McCain has also said before that the Republican Party has been taken over by extremists, and he hasn't been challenged by anybody in a primary. He's actually one of the front runners for the Republican nomination.
Where is the outrage you showed when Imus was taken off of the air, RH? This is the federal government silencing citizens, not corporations!
From the article:
"A White House manual that came to light recently gives presidential advance staffers extensive instructions in the art of "deterring potential protestors" from President Bush's public appearances around the country."
Potential protesters, not even those who are protesting, just those who they think MIGHT protest.
Again from the article:
The lawsuit was filed by Jeffery and Nicole Rank, who attended the Charleston event wearing shirts with the word "Bush" crossed out on the front; the back of his shirt said "Regime Change Starts at Home," while hers said "Love America, Hate Bush." Members of the White House event staff told them to cover their shirts or leave, according to the lawsuit. They refused and were arrested, handcuffed and briefly jailed before local authorities dropped the charges and apologized.
The federal government did not see a disturbance and prohibited citizens wearing objectionable shirts to leave an event with the President. That, to me, is SICK.
More:
The manual offers advance staffers and volunteers who help set up presidential events guidelines for assembling crowds. Those invited into a VIP section on or near the stage, for instance, must be " extremely supportive of the Administration," it says. While the Secret Service screens audiences only for possible threats, the manual says, volunteers should examine people before they reach security checkpoints and look out for signs. Make sure to look for "folded cloth signs," it advises.
How do signs create disturbances?
How can you defend this policy and this president on free speech grounds and rail against posters here who you have called "the free speech police?"
And by the way, I would not call McCain a front runner at this point. He is maybe fourth behind Rudy, Fred and Mitt
I agree with you on that. I don't think it's right for Bush to do that if they're simply peaceful protesters. I simply said that if there's someone at the rally who starts screaming when the President is speaking then that person should be removed. The rally couldn't go on with that happening. But I don't think that someone who is simply holding up a sign or wearing a controversial t-shirt should be removed from the rally. I agree with you that that's a violation of free speech rights.
I know it seems to be one of your passionate issues RH and you constantly argue with those on this site who you think are advocating for censorship in the media. I am going to email my Congresspeople about this. Do you have any thoughts on how we can preserve Freedom of Speech rights when the most powerful in our government seem to flaunt the law?
The people who have been arrested could file a lawsuit and take it to court. No one's stopping them from doing that. It could potentially make it to the Supreme Court and they could decide the issue.
They did and they won $80,000. My point is this: You were so outraged with the Imus thing. You called MMFA the free speech police. You posted many things on here. I just want to know if this outrage ranks as high as the Imus thing with you.
To me, this government has effectively tried to make it illegal to show our President disapproval. Is this a battle you will choose to stand up for? I am sorry if that came out strange, but this is something that I am trying to rally those for free speech to write their congresspeople/representatives and immediately bring some national attention to this issue. It is completely against the Constitution to do what Bush and his workers are doing here.
Care to join me in this?
Try this, hunter of Republicans in Name Only. He was being challenged, and strongly, by a political neophyte, back by his own money, and by the netroots. All kinds of people in the party supported Lieberman, but after he lost the primary, he decided to be a disloyal Democrat and oppose the nominee of the party by getting votes like, well, yours. How long do you think Arlen Specter would have lasted if the Club for Men's Hair Growth had unseated him as the GOP nominee? Your party, and people like you, would have torn him apart like sharks.
No, it wasn't a big enough tent for him, and he lost the Democratic primary, and then he won the election based on support by a large majority of Republicans. Not for his other "centrist" policies, but because of Iraq. Surprised?
It's incredibly ironic that someone with the nickname "RINO HUNTER" would be lecturing the Democrats on their intolerance.
I dont CARE what most people think as it isnt EVIDENCE, nor do YOU know what most people think about whether Democrat is the same thing as liberal. Bottom line NO ONE I KNOW has ever said liberals, not Democts are centrists and your sad attempt to rehabilitate your baseless assertion was an embarassment.
Thanks Solon. I feel better now. It's always fun to get a little tongue lashing from you. You're always good for a laugh.
And you are always good to remind me that the well of human stupidity is truly bottomless.
Did you read that on today's fortune cookie?
I dont like Chinese food. Did you ever learn to read at ALL?
Nah, thoose darrn woords re jist soo hard too figiroe oute.
Give that six year old that reads you the posts a raise and maybe he will explain them to you also.
RINO,
I just love it when you tell me off, it's just sooo sexy!!
LOL! That was a great comeback.
You don't have to tell me that I'm sexy. Everybody already does it all the time anyway! j/k
Instead of stereotyping, RH, why not state why you agree with Rush? How has Hillary been treated differently because of her gender?
Please don't make blanket statements and stereotype all those who debate with you.
I think that Rush was just pointing out the obvious. Neither Edwards or Obama has really criticized Hillary over anything, while both of their wives have criticized her quite harshly. Obama has criticized both Hillary and Edwards for voting for the Iraq War, but beyond that I haven't seen any of the major candidates go after Clinton. They seem to be very cautious when talking about her. Now that could be because they don't want to alienate her supporters, but it's very possible that it could also have something to do with her being a woman. And also, I don't think it's a stereotype to say that the liberals on this site don't agree with Rush on anything. I've never seen any liberal here agree with Rush on any point he's ever made. Until that happens I won't back away from what I said.
Most of the challengers for the Democratic nomination haven't gone after their opponents very much.
Saying that they haven't gone after her does nothing to prove your opinion that they have failed to go after her because of her gender.
Try again.
You don't prove opinions.
I think she meant to say "provide basis for" or "support" vs. "prove". I know what she meant.
We don't disagree with Rush because we're disagreeable.
We disagree with Rush because he says stupid things that are verfiably false.
There's something wrong with being anti- anything simply to be against it. There's nothing wrong with being anti- anything that is wrong or stupid or mean or illogical or without compassion or hateful. Being against those things are good qualities, and I've seen lots of posters here who have those qualities. Rush does not.
Here is an Edwards criticism:
http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D8QP1V5O2&show_article=1
Here is another:
http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2007/08/22/rivals-criticize-clinton-for-saying-iraq-policy-working/
Here is a third: http://mobile.time.com/detail.jsp?key=121469&rc=qu
What type of criticism are you looking for?
So, RINO HUNTER, you're saying that it's the Democrat's duty to tell lies about each other, leaving each other bloody and damaged, so that you'll be able to finish them off with a dirty lie or two when the campaign starts. Ha, ha, you're such a comedian.
Actually, the front-runners all agree that, for instance, we should get out of Iraq as quickly as possible. There's some disagreement about how fast and how completely. Should they then listen to Limbaugh for good malevolent gossip and political spin, and parrot that at the debate? So far, they haven't done that. The Iraq discussion this Sunday was very revealing. There was, for a few minutes, a genuine dialogue about why it's best to leave quickly, or what we might think about as leaving the best way. That had to be cut off by Stephanopoulos, because the "liberal media" needs food fights.
RINO,
To many liberals, Limbaugh is the devil incarnate....he is never to allowed to be given an inch, on anything. His whole comedic schtick is hyperbole and inflammatory rthetoric to stir up liberals. So even at times when myself, or someone else, sift through, and even condemn his insults, and realize he is making a point of some sense, we are immediately chastized for being Limbaugh scum.
It doesn't matter that we may not agree with every word he utters, but if we happen to on some larger point he is making, without his patented offensiveness in play, it's still treated with the same disguist. Oh well......that's life on the boards. We love it.
"His whole comedic schtick is hyperbole and inflammatory rthetoric to stir up liberals."
No, his whole inflammatory schtick is rhetoric about liberals, aimed to stir up his own neo-con base and deflect any responsibility from the Republicans who held power for nearly a decade. His constant stream of BS serves only one purpose: give mindless neo-cons a way to deny reality and responsibility so they can pretend that supporting liars and thieves is somehow their ticket to being real Americans.
There are plenty of excellent conservatives out there who I may not like for their smarminess and elitism but that make good arguments and genuinely make policy dispute points - I disagree with them, but they do add to the political debate. Rush is not one of them. Rush is not one of them.
To stir up lib'ruls? Knucklehead, "libruls" don't listen to Rushbo.
His inflammatory rhetoric serves to stir up his LISTENERS about them dirty hippie lib'ruls. You and Rino in other words, and it's worked like a charm for 10 years, and it's obviously still working now.
Will you people ever wake up and smell the BS that Rushbo shovels every single day towing the Fascist Corporate line? Doubtful.
Don't you remember his "I won't have to carry water for those that don't deserve it..." line after the 2006 elections? He was *admitting* to you people that he LIES TO YOU to promote the agenda. Duh!
Yet, you continue to listen and praise him as a paragon of virtue.
Too funny.
"traveling in un-chartered territory"
I find this statement interesting. Other female candidates have run for other elected offices and you don't see people pulling punches in those races.
Why do you think the Presidential elections are different?
Presidential races are in another league than local races, if you don't think so, we disagree.
No I realize there are differences (national v. local and state), but there are obvious similarities as well.
I watched a number of females candidates get attacked by their competition (male and female) during local elections.
We've seen attacks on Senator Clinton by the other candidates (people have cited examples below). I'm wondering what you and Rush are basing your opinion off of?
I can't be the only person here who knows that Hillary Clinton is not the United States' first female presidential candidate, can I?...
You bring up fuzzy menories Z. I believe you maybe right about most forgetting. I can't remember her name right now.
Oops should be V
No, you're not the only one, but apparently they all don't count now that there's a Clinton on the lineup.
I can appreciate that a candidate will be more highly scrutinized in the Presidential race than local races. However, I didn't realize that made sex - or race, religion, looks etc - relevant assessment criteria. Is that your idea of elevating the debate?
Such a knee-jerk reaction, perhaps you'd better read it again. I am not talking about "elevating any debate", I am talking about political strategy.
"I'm wondering what you and Rush are basing your opinion off of?"
Can you please answer my question?
I have no idea what Rush is basing his opinion on, you will have to ask him.
Mine concerning political strategy has been explained enough is in this thread. Sorry, you either missed it, or you don't agree.
You did read the entire item, right? Rush wasn't just discussing the finer points of ""political strategy" T and you know that full well.. He was stating that the other candidates are afraid to go after Senator Clinton because she is female, and that if they did attack her she would inevitably play the victim card and that's why they need their wives on their behalf.
You weren't just giving your personal opinion Tommy, you got on MMFA trying to interpret and spin Rush's comments so they didn't sound so "off base or controversial, or misinformative" After you made your declaration about his statements you moved into your personal interpretation of what Obama and Edwards should do in response to Hillary.
I suppose I shouldn't be surprised you missed the point. With respect to "elevating the debate," I'm referring to arguments you've made in the past. My question was a rhetorical one pointing out the apparent inconsistency in your positions.
Oh, I am sorry I didn't get that you were going off in some other direction about an unrelated topic.
I guess I need to type more slowly for you today --- your comments on this topic are inconsistent with some of your past comments. I wouldn't point this out if your past comments weren't in some way relevant to your comments here.
Really? If you want to backup your assertions with a related and relevant topic where I am "inconsistent", be my guest.
Ugh...I was hoping you'd be honest so I wouldn't have to Google.
Once upon a time you referred to posters who responded to Rush's "bigoted" comments as "further lower[ing] the discourse." You wrote that you would prefer to "ignore him" and chastised others for "sink[ing] to his level."
That was about Obama's race. You could have made the same argument there that you're making about Clinton's gender here. Why is Clinton's gender an issue when you seemed to imply - correctly in my opinion - that Obama's race shouldn't be?
By the way, I seem to recall that wasn't the first time you wrote of the need to raise the discourse. However, that's the first example I was able to locate.
I said that Obama's race and Hillary's gender should not be an issue at all. What I am saying here for the umpteenth time is that strategically speaking, everything is discussed by campaign people during campaigns. It isn't about what should or should not be an issue, this is about what is strategy in campaigns...aka reality.
If you can't see the distinction between what should and what is, then I can't help you.
You seem to be making a different point when you wrote that "[w]hat Limbaugh is saying here is not all that off base or controversial." Rush's bigotry may be a reflection of what is, but I don't see how that makes it less controversial. Nor do we have to accept it.
However, is Rush really reporting "what is" when he asserts that some candidates are avoiding direct attacks on Clinton because of her gender, using their wives instead. Is he privy to some inside information to know this to be true?
Other women have run for President. Are you seriously going to claim Cynthia McKinney got a pass because she was a woman? Victoria Woodhull ran for President in 1872
Cynthia McKinney was a nut. You can't compare her to anybody who isn't locked up.
And you are a moron so your weak attempt at a point cannot be taken seriously.
And I sure hope Elizabeth Dole isn't reading this thread. It would so hurt her feelings to realize that the memory of her presidential campaign didn't even last 8 years...
It's a little scary how quickly we forget. Here's a not-even-close-to-exhaustive list of female U.S. presidential candidates:
1872: Victoria Chaflin Woodhull, Equal Rights Party
1884, 88: Belva Ann Bennett McNall Lockwood, National Equal Rights Party
1960: Whitney H. Slocomb, Greenback Party
1964: Senator Margaret Chase Smith, Republican
1968: Charlene Mitchell, Communist Party
1972: Rep. Shirley Anita St. Hill Chisholm, Democrat (and notably both the first female African American member of the House of Representatives and the first African American candidate for President of the United States.)
1976, 1980: Ellen McCormack, Democrat and Right to Life Party.
1988: Rep. Pat Schroeder, Democrat
2000: Elizabeth Dole, Republican
I think it's a slightly different case with this election as Hillary has a much greater chance of actually winning the vote. None of these women have been front runners or received as much publicity as Hillary has. I would say this is a far different case, thus some uncharted territory.
Solon,
I think you have mixed up Cynthia McKinney and Carol Mosely Braun. McKinney has been mentioned as a possible green candidate in 2000, 2004 and for 2008, but she has not ever been an official presidential candidate to my knowledge.
You are absolutly right, I screwed that one up pretty good, thanx for the help.
She ran as a Democratic candidate in 2004, IIRC, as I remember looking at her, Sharpton, and Dean in the primaries. She, of course, did not win the nomination.
... and neither has Clinton.
Tommy: Maybe they are tempering their criticism of her because she is a woman, who really knows?
For the sake of argument, Tommy, let's say that you and Limbaugh are right, and that Clinton's opponents are tempering their criticism of Clinton because of her gender. Specifically, what particular kind of criticism do you think her opponents are tempering? Clinton has taken heat on her voting record and her foreign policy positions... so what protection, precisely, do you think her gender affords her?
Did you also miss my point? I am talking about political strategy in the innerworkings of campaigns. If you think that Mrs. Clinton's gender has never been spoken of in terms of running against her in strategy sessions, then you have your opinion. I happen to think that every little detail is strategized to the nth degree in campaigns. That is all I am saying,
Did you also miss my point?
Well, to be fair, you did have your head covered.
No, Tommy, I got it. I was just asking you to go a step further: if you're right and Clinton's opponents are micromanaging their campaigns out of concern for her gender, then I'd like to know specifically what kind of criticism Clinton has avoided by virtue of being a woman?
I ask, because it seems to me that there's plenty of evidence against Limbaugh's claim that the "drive-by" media has cut Clinton slack because she's a woman. On the contrary, she's taken heat specifically because she's a woman: remember that absurd cleavage controversy?
Micromanaging? Is that what you think I said? Forget it, apparently you can't make your points unless you mischaracterize mine.
I think what Tommy is trying to say here is "You're right, I can't really come up with one example of where she has avoided it becuase she is a woman."
He has a tough time with words sometimes.
No, Tommy, I don't think you said anything about micromanaging. I think you said that "every little detail is strategized to the nth degree in campaigns." And that's completely different.
You said micromanaging out of concern for her gender. That is not what I said, but you know that.
I said that no detail is overlooked when it comes to political strategy, Hillary's gender is one of many strategized items that are most likely addressed by her opponents. Why is that so hard for any of you to see?
You seem to think that I am endorsing this type of strategizing, or saying her gender should be an issue. No, I am saying that all cards are on the table when presidential candidates are determining strategy.
You can't be that naive to think that Hillary's gender has never even come up when her opponents are figuring out how to campaign against her? You can't believe that?
Point to the places where her oppenets have shyed away from an issue becuase she is a woman. Point to a place where they have attacked a different cadidate but not her on an issue they have in common. It should be easy enough if Rush has a point.
So, it is your contention that Hillary's gender is a complete non-issue specifically regarding any and all strategy conducted by any of her opponents?
Because that is my point. Your question is not.
But this is not at all what Rush was saying. So whatever your point has suddenly now become (nothing like moving the goal posts for good ole Rush). He was talking about critizism of Hillary. Attacking her and saying that they did not do it becuase she is a woman. So if you can find an example of where they did that fine. If not, stop pretending Rush had some sort of truth behind his "point". He made this up as to say she is even more flawed than what others say becuase they are "afraid to go after a woman" It is hogwash and you know it. If Barak wins the nomination, he will make the same lame lie only exchange "black" for "woman".
Tommy, really, why are you so defensive? I asked you a question and I asked it politely, and you've responded by charging me with misrepresenting your position and refusing to answer my question.
You wrote that you thought that "every little detail is strategized to the nth degree in campaigns." Gender would be one of those details, wouldn't it? If that's not what you meant to say, then fine -- but you can't seriously fault me for taking you at your word when you said that every detail is strategized to the nth degree in your comments about candidates' consideration of Clinton's gender, can you? (Unless, I suppose, if N=1.)
Frankly, I don't care whether you want to call adapting a campaign out of concern for a competitor's gender micromanagement, management, tailoring, considering, spinning, or "strategizing to the nth degree." What difference does it make?
You began this by claiming that "[w]hat Limbaugh is saying here is not all that off base or controversial, or misinformative, for that matter." You added that "I am sure the strategy for Obama and Edwards concerning their responses to Hillary is cautious and careful, and it should be. This is hardly earth shattering."
I asked you to speculate on how Clinton's opponents might be cautious of criticizing her because of her gender.
I have no doubt that Clinton's rivals and opponents have discussed her gender and take it into consideration. But that does not mean, as Limbaugh asserted, that the other candidates and major media are backing off from criticizing her. In fact, as I said, I can offer at least one example of criticism directed at Clinton for no other reason than her gender.
I never said that I thought you were "endorsing this type of strategizing, or saying her gender should be an issue." What gave you that impression?
Seriously, Tommy, I'm not trying to pull a "gotcha" here with you. I'm asking you an honest question: if you think that Limbaugh isn't all that off base, then how do you think other candidates and media are pulling their punches when it comes to criticizing Clinton?
I was addressing Limbaugh's larger point of candidates and their strategy, read my first post. I did not get into his endless trashing of Hillary, because I find that boring and repetitive. My only point was that her gender is a strategical point for her opponents because this is the first time anyone has faced a woman for President, an unprecedented moment in history.
But right away all the liberals come to immediately slamming Rush and saying I agree with his insults about Hillary or feel she is being treated with kid gloves like he said. Perhaps I shouldn't have began my initial post with "Rush not being off base", but I was talking specifically about strategy where her gender is concerned, not his railing against Hillary.
But that is completely different from Rush's "point". You are saying that her opponents consider her gender, as well as other things, when creating strategy regarding how they attack (or respond to) her. Rush is saying that BECAUSE of her gender, opponents DON'T attack or respond to her.
Rush is saying that, I said I have no idea if that is the case or not. I am only saying her gender is considered in the strategy against her.
That isn't what your said in the very first sentence of the very first post on this item.
"What Limbaugh is saying here is not all that off base or controversial, or misinformative, for that matter. Hillary's candidacy is historic and the treatment of her by the other candidates and the press is setting precedency, while traveling in unchartered territory."
You were either extremely un-clear with your blanket defense of his comments or you were trying to spin his statement into something that it clearly wasn't.
Pick one.
Fair enough, Tommy. But I wasn't "slamming" Rush and I never said that you agreed with Limbaugh's insults about Clinton. So I hope you can understand why I might be a bit confused by your reaction to my question.
But this does bring me back to the question of how Clinton's gender is affording her special treatment from mass media and rival candidates. To be clear, let me repeat that I agree with you that it's likely that her gender has been taken into consideration by those parties. But Limbaugh's specific point was about "not hit[ting] the girl", and I think that's a claim that warrants some supporting evidence.
As for your point about how Clinton's campaign for presidency is unprecedented... it's not THAT novel. The United States has seen several female candidates for Vice President, and Elizabeth Dole ran for President -- although she backed out before the primaries -- in 2000.
You were not "slamming" me, I apologize as that was unwarranted.
Perhaps my comments were unclear, I guess I understood what I intended my point to be. but I must not have been clear in what I wrote.
And it is only a guess on my part regarding how much of a role Hillary's gender plays in her opponents dealings with her. She is the frontrunner and they are usually the most attacked within their primaries. Is she being treated the same as other frontrunners have been historically? I don't know. If she were a man, would the level of criticism be the same? There again, who knows.
I do think being a Clinton will make her more of a target against the rightwingers who hate her so much. But as I have said, say what you will about her, she is very tough and I like that in any candidate.
Apology accepted, and I do appreciate it.
It sounds to me as though we just disagree about the substance of Limbaugh's claim. I don't think he was merely stating that Clinton's gender is a consideration for other candidates and for major media; I think he was arguing they treat her with kid gloves because she's a woman and "you can't hit the girl."
When you said that other candidates were cautious in their strategies towards Clinton because of her (not quite) unprecedented status as a female presidential candidate, I thought you were agreeing with Limbaugh on this point. I really did not mean to mischaracterize your argument, and I'm sorry if I did.
"I think he was arguing they treat her with kid gloves because she's a woman and 'you can't hit the girl.'"
Well, there you go, that's what happens when you respond to what Rush actually said instead of what you "believe Rush was trying to say"!
Indeed. What was I thinking?!
Gosh, maybe because the item is about what Rush said, and not about what you said?
But for their wives to come out swinging at her is a little silly
Why? Spouses campaigning is nothing new. Clinton is a candidate. So, what's silly here?
I actually can't stand Rush Limbaugh, but I think the substance of what he's saying is at the very least quite plausible. The most searing criticism of Senator Clinton from the Obama and Edwards camps have not been from their candidates or their press people; it's come from their wives.
I don't know whether they're afraid to be these men beating up on a woman, but I will say that it seems like Hillary Clinton is the only candidate in the campaign thus far who has repeatedly referred to people 'attacking' her. Her whole schtick is that she can withstand attacks, and the way she proves it oftentimes is by attacking first and pretending like the response to that attack was unprovoked.
BB,
I admit, I haven't really seen any criticism by the wives with regards to Hillary and I noticed that Rush didn't mention it in the part of the transcript above. I am not doubting you and I respect your point, but can you give some examples to show me "[t]he most searing criticism of Senator Clinton from the Obama and Edwards camps [that has] ... come from their wives."?
I am also wondering if that criticism was solicited in an interview or if it came from a stump speech. It is one thing to give an opinion where it is directly asked for, IMO and quite another to offer it up unsolicited. As I say, I am unfamiliar with it either way, but it makes a difference to me in determining if it is part of a larger strategy or not.
Fair enough. One example each. Both much more directed and biting than I've seen come from the candidates or their official spokespeople.
Michelle Obama on the stump:
While she doesn't mention Hillary Clinton by name, she does say that 'if you can't run your own house, you can't run the White House.' That is about as biting an indictment of Hillary Clinton as I've heard.
Elizabeth Edwards being fairly tough on both senators Obama and Clinton.
She's may be a little less biting, but certainly she's direct and unafraid of calling them as she sees them.
"We're electing the leader of the free world," Elizabeth Edwards said. "They should have been making speeches about why it was they were doing this, and standing up and trying to rally. And they didn't. They weren't leaders."
...
She also criticized Clinton for not producing a health care plan and for questioning whether there was sufficient "political will" to enact universal care.
"Hillary is saying we need to develop a political will. She hasn't been talking to people if she thinks we need to develop it. We do not. There is consensus on this issue," Edwards said.
It turns out Michelle Obama wasn't talking about Hillary Clinton. It was just a media fabrication.
MMfA does it's usual excellent job of exposing the BS in the top (latest) item on today's roster.
BTW, Michelle Obama's speech is very good. You know, her actual words - not the ones put in her mouth.
Of all the candidates in the race, I support Senator Obama the most, but this is a pretty clear reference to Hillary Clinton. I'm not going to deny that it's a well crafted reference that allows for a benign reading, but if you watch the footage of that speech, you notice she's giving an applause line. She's giving a soundbite. Only after the applause does she 'clarify' her meaning. This was a speech crafted by somebody who knows how to manipulate the media. By someone who knows how to say something while being able to deny they said anything. It's really smart.
Actually it's not a clear reference to Hillary at all.
After she talks about keeping one's house straight, she goes on to talk about how she and her husband are keeping their house straight.
It was not a reference to Hillary at all.
You were wrong. Admit it. It won't hurt.
As much of a surprise as it may sound to you, I am perfectly willing to admit when I'm wrong. I simply don't think that I am here. Again, I completely admit that the text is open to interpretation. I absolutely agree that there's an obvious and benign interpretation if one goes by the text of the speech alone.
But there's more than the text here. This is a speech--not an essay. It's there to be heard. Not simply read. If you do more than read the words (this takes both a critical eye and ear), you'll notice that the way the line is delivered is as a soundbite. It's written to be a soundbite. It's an applause line. If you watch the way the line is delivered you can see she pauses for effect and the crowd responds with applause.
So, if the crowd hasn't already heard her clarify the statement as to what she's referring, why do they applaud? Could it be that they infer an indirect comparison to other candidates who do not have control over their houses? Feel free to disagree, but I believe the person who crafted that line foresaw that it could be a line that would draw comparisons. I think that's the fundamental purpose of the line.
Of course this is all inference, and I most certainly could be wrong. I just don't think that I am. And I don't know that I could be convinced otherwise.
Fair enough. One example each. Both much more directed and biting than I've seen come from the candidates or their official spokespeople. Michelle Obama on the stump: While she doesn't mention Hillary Clinton by name, she does say that 'if you can't run your own house, you can't run the White House.' That is about as biting an indictment of Hillary Clinton as I've heard.This is what you said. You claimed that this was an example of her attacking Hillary. It was not. She said it was not. She talked about her own family. There is no reason to believe it was an attack, but you didn't say it was your opinion that it was an attack anyway. You said that it was an attack - that it was as biting an indictment of Hillary as you've heard. Statement of fact.You provided no evidence to back you up that the wives have made the most caustic remarks. They have not. It's the latest rightwing talking point. I don't believe that you don't like Rush, and I don't believe that you're a liberal.Admit when you're wrong, and admit that you're striving to gain some credibility by saying you're a liberal and you dislike Rush Limbaugh. It's okay. It doesn't hurt to admit you're wrong. I'd be flabbergasted if you admitted you were wrong, ever, based upon your behavior here so far in your short tenure. That's another way that you don't have credibility. You don't get credibility by saying you deserve it. You get it because you truly do deserve it. You have to earn it, and you have so far been going into the negatives on earning trust and credibility.
You just can't cut anyone any slack can you? And you are so legalistic that you won't allow for someone to explain a post, or something they meant to say in a post. Is it possible that someone conveyed a message they did not mean to convey in a particular post, and that they would go back and clarify when questioned about it? But that apparently is not and never will be good enough for you. It's no use arguing, debating, or conversing with you as you see anyone who may agree with even just one conservative point to be the devil incarnate. Cut people some slack, eh? We're not perfect, nor does anyone communicate flawlessly.
I cut lots of people slack.
I don't cut people slack who try to manipulate the evidence to fit their preconceived notions.
I don't cut people slack who try to gain credibility by claiming that they hate Rush, but... or they are a liberal, but....
Let their behavior be what gains them credibility. I don't cut people slack who don't deserve it, and when I need guidance from you about to whom I should cut some slack, I'll ask.
This is exactly why you're irrational and difficult to speak with. You immediately jump to conclusions and expect that a person has completely explained themselves and their views in 3 paragraphs. If you would engage with someone instead of put them down, then you might learn something. I come on here trying to learn something, because I admit that I don't know all there is to know. You come across as knowing all and anyone who dares to challenge you or your posts is scum and has nothing to contribute to the forum.
Stop suffering from the disease that has caused us so many elections: you're letting the GOP define the issues -- and they're lying. tell you what: read the whole speech. I think you can find it on YouTube. Now, forget the thoughts that Drudge, with his unerring eye for distortions, first defined. It was then repeated by every idiot in the media as if it was true, so you can be forgiven. Read the transcript. The whole thing. You'll feel embarrassed that Drudge and the others put one over on you. She wasn't talking about the Clintons marriage.
In fact, if she was, it was exactly what the right said, I'd be that much less likely to vote for Obama. But that's okay, that's not what Michelle, a very effective speaker, was saying. She was talking about the difficulties of being a family while her husband was campaigning for president, and how important it was to do that. The implication that it was about Clinton was planted. If Michelle Obama wanted to say something like that, you wouldn't be scratching your head and saying, "I think that's what she was saying." You'd know.
"While she doesn't mention Hillary Clinton by name, she does say that 'if you can't run your own house, you can't run the White House.' That is about as biting an indictment of Hillary Clinton as I've heard."
Really? I thought she was talking about Benito Giuliani and his harem that includes his cousin.
You know, that's a meaningful criticism only to a GOPer. The Clintons have stayed married for 30 years or so. I think they love each other, actually, and it's a pretty good partnership. It's kind of like FDR and his wife. You guys always try to make it ugly, you know?
"And, by the way, her incompetence is the hidden message. "
The fact that Limbaugh the defender of all things Bush and all things wing nutty would dare to mention the word incompetence when he's spent 6 years defending the most incompetent F-up that ever crossed the white house threshold is well pretty nervy I'd say; the wing nuts should omit that word from their vocabularies.
Right, Lynn, it's a hidden message. That's why Rove has to hit all of the yak shows revealing this hidden message.
Bush's imcompetence, on the other hand, doesn't require any traveling magician to expose it, it's been pretty out in the open.
Rush Limbaugh claimed that "nobody criticizes Hillary. ... Well, you might say, 'No, Michelle Obama and Mrs. Edwards are out there criticizing her,' but, see, I finally figured this one out, too. You can't hit the girl. You just -- you can't hit the girl." He continued: "And for [Democratic presidential candidates John] Edwards and [Sen. Barack] Obama (IL) to go out there and criticize Hillary would -- she would -- she plays the victim better than anybody does, and she could make real hay out of that. So they've got their wives out there ripping her." He added: "But the drive-bys" -- a term Limbaugh uses to denote the mainstream media -- "aren't taking that seriously, because Hillary's the inevitable candidate."
Ok Rush well lets look at this in the correct context. No one is critical of Senator Clinton ? So when Edwards brought up lobbyist he was not being critical of her? When Obama brings up her vote in the fall of 2002 he is not being critical? When my favorite candidate Mike Gravel brings up the war he is not being critical of her? Where is Rush getting his information?
So when Edwards brought up lobbyist he was not being critical of her?
He was treating her like the rest of them.
Which means the "being a woman gets you a pass" bs is proven wrong.
Maybe what Rush REALLY means is that no one is criticizing Hillary's gender. They're only criticizing her policy and voting records. Rush would probably prefer that they attack her gender, and because they don't, he thinks they're avoiding it out of caution or "political correctness".
Rush was right: Hillary is the inevitable candidate.
Don't forget, if the Republicans choose Hillary to run against, and she loses, then it's the Republicans fault.
I would not go that far Tommy, if she loses chances are she will have been smeared like Kerry was or the election would have been stolen like Bush did to Gore in 2000.
Good to have the excuse in you back pocket! It comes in handy every four years or so.
Good point Tommy. The "knuckledraggers" control everything. I forgot.
Check your hands for scabs.
Don't forget, if the Republicans choose Hillary to run against, and she loses, then it's the Republicans fault.
No one has ever said anything like that.
If the Republicans think that Hillary is the candidate that they can have the best chance of beating, and Democrats don't recognize and weigh their options, and if the voters then decide that despite those negatives they'd still like to have her be the candidate, then sobeit.
It won't be the Republican's fault.
If that is the plan of Rove, Limbaugh, et al, then fairminded Democrats should consider that.
It seems quite likely to me that part of Rove's playbook is to have as much impact on the candidates chosen by the Democrats as he can, and to see what he can do as far as aiming us towards their preferred candidate. If you don't think that Rove is that devious, then you don't know.....Rove. There are many ways to help elect Republicans, and one of those ways is to try to influence the opposition party to run a weaker candidate.
The point being is that the Democrats are in charge of their own destiny, at this point. They need to nominate the candidate who can hold his or her own against any and all onslaughts directed at them by their opponents. The one with the best chance against the Rebublican nominee.
If their supporters continue to complain about the attacks against them or play the victimized party, they do so at their own peril. If they feel Clinton is too vulnerable against the Republicans, then nominate someone else......for you cannot send her up as the Democratic nominee and then whine about the unfair attacks against her later. You should have thought about that before you voted for her in your primaries.
Besides, my view of her is she is plenty tough enough to withstand what is thrown at her.
That's always seems like the argument with you T. Instead of trying to change a broken, dirty, and unseemly political system, Democrats should just pull themselves up by the bootstraps and nominate a candidate wants to jump right into the pig pen. Someone that will inevitably start to behave in a similar manner in order to be competitive in our current system (see John McCain prior to 2000 and see John McCain today)
Why can't we demand change and better yet why don't you?
Demand all you want. If you think nominating the best candidate that can defeat your opponents is bad strategy, well, that's your choice.
You know that wasn't my point or my question to you T. Could you try a second time please?
In these types of threads, tommy often wants to avoid the larger moral discussion and instead usually insists that is just the way things are, so who cares or get over it or that's not the topic. That is the gist of it. Of course, he will repeat some version of those cop-outs a hundred times without ever really addressing the larger moral aspect of the issue.
The larger moral discussion? Ok, fine. Rush should never, EVER say anything mean or derogatory against any Democrat, if that is your larger moral point, then we agree. As a matter of clarification, I wish every political issue and media personality would stick to the facts, without hyperbole. We agree on that moral point too, I hope.
Wow, you really know how to stimulate a good conversation, thanks for stopping by.
Your hyperbole aside. Thanks for finally addressing the issue that nearly everyone has asked you in some form or another. I will leave it on that happy note.
: )
"If their supporters continue to complain about the attacks against them or play the victimized party, they do so at their own peril. ...you cannot send her up as the Democratic nominee and then whine about the unfair attacks against her later."
What are you talking about? We can't complain if she's treated unfairly? Why the hell not?
You were the one who started this thread off by alleging that there were Democrats who said that it'd be Republicans choosing the Democratic candidate but the Republicans would be unfairly blamed if that candidate lost. I debunked your argument, and this was the best you could come back with - that we aren't allowed to complain when there are unreasonable attacks against that candidate?
I think the whole purpose of MMfA is to complain about unfair and unreasonable attacks by conservatives that forward the conservative agenda. Why should we be forced to stop that complaining if those attacks continue after we've picked a candidate that the Republicans think might be the easiest one for them to beat? How does that computation work?
Rove would have no power, NOMO, if you didn't give it to him. He's just a pasty-faced old bullshi**er.
"By the way, the attack machine, as she calls it, is simply the truth squad. All we do is get the truth of these people out there."
Rush wouldn't know the truth if it bit him in his behind.
Hillary has been pointedly attacked, most often by biased people like Rush, most often for things that were not flaws, for 15 years. She's being attacked for her gender - none of the men are ever attacked for their gender. She's attacked because she was married to the best President in the last 50 years, Bill Clinton, who served during the peak of the vast right-wing conspiracy's power. Of course her negatives are going to be higher than Kerry's or Edwards' or Gore's or Obama's.
"By the way, the attack machine, as she calls it, is simply the truth squad. All we do is get the truth of these people out there."--limbaugh
Yes. Thank goodness we rely on the "Truth" squad to tell us all about Hillary:
I fail to see what any of that Limbaugh dubiously refers to as "truth" has to do with anything of substance - even assuming a shred of it was actually true. This is how right-wing nutjobs argue by pretending that personal attacks are a legitimate debate tactic. We expect this sort of thing from them. They have been very successful driving up Hillary's negatives because they have had a steady drumbeat of utterly insubstantial BS arguments going for about 15 years now. Apparently half of the country can't tell the difference between substantive arguments and pure crap.
ep, half the country formed their opinion of Hillary because Rush at one point said Moynihan didn't like her.
Oooh dos dweaded Webubwicans! hahaha...
You are correct. That was obviously the only time Rush Limbaugh ever mentioned Hillary Clinton. Nice strawman. Lol.
; )
Never said it was the only one... I just found that particular reference rather funny considering the rest. ;-)
I suggest you read up on what constitutes the "straw man" argument.
Considering my original point wasn't necessarily just about Rush and that the supposed "truth squad" in question that Rush was referring to makes bogus cumulative arguments to begin with, that would make your argument a strawman for saying it was just Rush and that one cherry picked item demonstrated anything at all - when that wasn't my argument nor any poster's argument I have seen at this point.
Your use of the strawman aside, Moynihan was deeply respected on both sides of the aisle and some Democrats listen to the "truth squad" and may have had a lesser opinion of Hillary for what appears to be a false reason.
But it was a lie, so it doesn't really matter how "small" you think it was. By this time, Moynihan was the a beloved old veteran. He in fact gave Hillary his blessing.
Hillary isn't being criticized in her candidacy? What lunatic is raving about this? Oh wait, I see, it's Rush.
Mr. Limbaugh, please remove your cranium from your rectum so that you can see what is actually going on. And her attackers are simply telling the truth? Oh please, spin another yarn will you? You being the person who has probably most attacked her with lies and vitriol in the past, and I'm sure you will again (although I think Dick Morris is catching up fast).
Got a problem with her positions? Fine, call her out on those.
What bugs Rush is noticable, if one reads "between the lines."
Other candidates aren't "hitting" Hillary the way Rush WANTS them to hit her, with innuendos, slurs and wild-ass rumors like Rush did, even to the point where Rush called then-13 year old Chelsea "the new White House dog."
Candidates are actually going after Hillary on her voting record and policy issues, and that is what is getting Rush all huffy.
Rush is the epitome of personal slur politics, and he can't relate to actual political discussions.
"Rush is the epitome of personal slur politics, and he can't relate to actual political discussions"
Rush is nothing more than a GOP propaganda minister. And his hate toward the Clintons is beyond the scope of hate. The problem is Rush has a large audience and his propaganda could hurt her next year with his and the GOP smears.
Dorris,
My guess is that most people who listen to Rush (20 million?) were not going to vote for Hillary anyway.
Sory. I should have typed Doris. :-)
Actually I don't really like those weekly cumulative numbers. They are deceptive.
Many (if not the vast majority) of those listeners are counted more than once (or even five times). If you were using those numbers as a general comparison, that would be one thing, but the actual number of people who listen to Rush's broadcast at any one time is a fraction of the 20 million number you cited.
Good point but it only serves to show the actual size of the audience is much smaller and the effect of Limbaugh on any election is a lot less than proclaimed by many here.
I agree, but to a certain degree, people who listen to Rush seem to be much more opinionated and willing to fight for those opinions than the general population. Around the watercooler, they can influence others more than the general population - especially if there is not a knowledgeable person nearby to correct them. Rush's hollow information gives some the illusion of knowledge. I have argued with these people in the past, they don't give in even when they are completely licked. They would rather believe I am the devil than admit Rush didn't tell them the whole truth about something - even when the truth is staring them right in the face.
This kind of thing has happened too often for me to believe it is some kind of coincidence.
I think that is the worst effect of Rush's influence.
"I'll admit something to you, I hadn't intended to ask him about Hillary Clinton because I didn't think that I'd get an answer. But we had the audio sound bite of the ad that she was running, accusing this White House of not seeing half or more of the population."
Okay, which is it Rush?
You didn't plan on asking him about Hillary, and that sound bite from the ad just jumped on its own into the tape player and played itself?
Or you planned on playing that sound bite, your staff had the sound bite ready, per your instructions, and at the time you requested, they played that sound bite, and then you asked him the question about her?
Inquiring minds want to know.
Dems aren't attacking Hilary because they don't want to look like republicans. Every Republican is rabid about Hilary, most Americans are easily confused so the Dems just stay away from attacking her.
I am sure Chris Matthews will have a segment tonight on her "annoying voice"
Now that is funny! ;-)
Can't hit the girl? Whatever Rush. Republicans have been beating the stuffing out of Lady Liberty for decades. They're just like some spouse beaters anonymous group, except they revel in their abusive tendencies.
To be honost, I thik Rush is just projecting a bit here, since this is how the right does it. Remember the 9/11 widows? They sent out Coulter to attack them so that all of the right wng talkers could say things like "Ann should not have said that, but she had a point so now we can talk about it" I bet if Hillary is the candidate, Malkin and Coulter will be all over the place with nonsense about her.
Well I'm late getting to this thread, couldn't find anywhere to jump in, so I'll tag on here at the end [or end for now]
I think some [Rush included] might have figured that both Hillary & Obama might have been treated with kid gloves by the other Democratic candidates.
I've seen no real evidence of that as of yet.
Jeter,
I think Hillary has scored a few solid punches to Obama. But then when the door is wide open, it is hard not to walk through it. :-)
AA,
I'm sure we'll see the Dem candidates really beating up on each other as 2008 approaches. Could be fun to watch ;-)
I figured Hillary & Obama might be somewhat immune, but I don't think that's happen thus far. Elizabeth Edwards has let them both have it LOL.
Saw the funniest thing the other night on FOX. They played a clip of Elizabeth bemoaning the fact that John-Boy can't make himself Black or a Woman. Then they said that gave Kucinich a great idea...then they showed a photo of Kucinich as a Black Woman. Well you had to be there, but it was hilarious.
I suppose here it would be defined as a smear :-O
Okay? Am I missing something? Rush did a pretty accurate job here.
Sure IF by accurate you mean telling the lies you want to hear. Other than that no so much accuracy.
Aside from needing a shotof Viagra now and then, Limbaugh must be nearly blind and/or deaf if he thinks only Democrats criticize Clinton. The criticism comes from many, many Republicans and for sure, Carl Rove. So why lie about it.
As unpopular as the entire Bush administration is at this time, it seems the more they rant about Mrs. Clinton the better she will do. Rush ought to learn. The far right rude and hateful remarks before the midterm elections contributed ever so much to the Democrats taking over both the House and the Senate.
One is tempted to hope he keeps up the rant. No one mobilizes progressives like Rush and Hannity et al,
Limbaugh says "you can't hit the girl". Can we hit the overweight, thrice-divorced closeted gay drug addict who took so much OxyContin that he went deaf?
:-)
Now, that IS funny! Here we have someone saying "you can't hit the girl." Is this the same person who did the White House dog skit about Chelsea that had so many of us in stitches? Maybe it's just the age of the girl that determines whom one cannot hit. (And I'm not talking about sucker punches by a guy who doesn't have the courage to actually face those he insults.)
It's pretty clear that they'll be back. They've already laid down the memes. Hillary's an unfeeling, ruthless bitch. Edwards is gay. Obama-Osama is a "Magic Negro," a "halfrican," and so on. Those are the big three, but you can be sure that oppo researchers are looking into everyone. Then, whoever gets the nomination, they get the guns uncovered. The target for Hillary is likely to peel away "progressives," and women, and so on. Important factions of the "liberal" media already hate her, and will repeat the criticisms, whatever they are, and take whatever Drudge pretends to see in the latest news -- we have lots of examples of that already, eagerly parroted by our own Obama and Edwards and Kucinich supporters.
The key to whether it is effective or not will depend on us, not them. First of all, stop believing their spin, or at least, stop repeating it. If Limbaugh says something, it's believed by a minority; when it becomes dangerous is when it becomes repeatable gossip, and that happens when it's taken up by "liberals" and even "progressives." That's the way it worked with Gore. If Limbaugh says, "Gore says he invented the Internet," it's nothing. If it's repeated by reporters from the New York Times, the Washington Post, Chris Matthews, Arianna Huffington, and people like that, it starts to work.
I'm leaning toward Hillary, but would in no way be distressed if Edwards, Obama, Richardson or Dodd win the nomination. If Kucinich wins, I'll fight for him like hell. That's what belonging to a political party means. But what's critical is that the Noise Machine is disrupted this time. Don't repeat malicious gossip. Denounce them. Oh, and don't worry too much about correcting malicious gossip about Giuliani or Romney or anybody else. Not our job.
None of the Republicans, who have managed to get the focus here, have actually watched any of the Democratic debates, have they? There's been a ton of criticism of Hillary, since she is the front-runner: on her vote for Iraq, for instance. Why SHOULD they go further? In Democratic circles, launching a full assault on Hillary by, say, repeating a tenth of the lies that the right tells about her would backfire on whoever said it. Saying she has the wrong policy in this area and that has been done. I applaud the Democrats for not being an Animal House, and I'd happily vote for whoever gets the nomination. Your field of candidates, however, consists of Benito Giuliani, Mutt-abuser Romney the flip-flopper, Wacko Tancredo, Duncan "I'm completely nuts!" Hunter, and an assorted pack of losers. You talk about your candidates the way you want. We talk about ours the way we want.