Media figures note Russert's repeat performance as Clinton's "opponent" during debate
After the October 30 Democratic presidential debate, numerous media figures commented that co-moderator Tim Russert had acted as, in the words of The New York Times, Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton's (NY) "third toughest opponent on the stage." During the debate, Russert asked a total of 30 distinct questions (not including follow-up questions).* Fourteen were either questions directed to Clinton or questions directed to other candidates about Clinton. Many media outlets took note of Russert's focus on Clinton. Russert has received media attention for his conduct toward Clinton in previous debates as well, including criticism following a debate he moderated in 2000, when Clinton was running for Senate against then-Rep. Rick Lazio (R-NY).
In writing about the October 30 debate, numerous media figures noted the conduct of the moderators, and Russert's in particular:
- An October 31 New York Times article on the debate reported: "Mrs. Clinton walked into the debate expecting to be the target of attacks but as the night went on, she appeared surprised by the intensity as she was challenged not only by her opponents but by the moderators, Brian Williams and Tim Russert of NBC." The article later described Russert as "arguably" Clinton's "third toughest opponent on the stage."
- In an October 31 Washington Post "Media Notes" column, media critic Howard Kurtz wrote: "At times, it seemed like 4 against 1, with Brian [Williams] and Tim [Russert] repeatedly pressing Hillary as well."
- ABC News senior national correspondent Jake Tapper wrote in an October 31 blog post that "Russert flatly accused her of being duplicitous on Social Security, saying to him and at an AARP-hosted debate that she would not increasing [sic] Social Security taxes, then telling a teacher -- and being overheard by an AP reporter -- that she would consider it. 'Why do you have one public position and one private position?' Russert asked." Tapper added: "Clinton denied she did, saying -- when pressed on her private conversation with a teacher -- that 'everybody knows what the possibilities are, Tim. Everybody knows that. But I do not advocate it. I do not support it.'"
- Philadelphia Daily News columnist John Baer noted Russert's treatment of Clinton in his October 31 column. Baer wrote: "OK, I ADMIT it. I've got Clinton fatigue. It settled in firmly during last night's Drexel debate as Hillary fended off Barack Obama, John Edwards and Tim Russert on 'voting Republican,' using 'doubletalk,' inching toward war with Iran and more."
- While live-blogging for the New York Times political blog The Caucus on October 30, reporter Katharine Q. Seelye wrote of Russert's questioning: "Mrs. Clinton is getting a tough grilling tonight from Mr. Russert and she's being very assertive, very adamant, in making her points."
- In an October 30 entry on the washingtonpost.com blog The Fix, Chris Cillizza wrote: "Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-N.Y.) spent the first hour of the debate fending off shots from her opponents and parrying pointed questions from the moderators." He also asserted that Clinton "for the majority of the debate ... acquitted herself well despite having the deck stacked heavily against her. In the first hour, nearly every question and response started and ended with Clinton."
Several media reports also highlighted Russert's conduct toward Clinton during the previous MSNBC-sponsored Democratic debate, held September 26 in New Hampshire. For example, a September 27 Concord Monitor article on the debate reported that "Clinton found herself in the spotlight for much of the debate, both because of criticism from her opponents and due to tough questioning from Russert. Clinton and Russert sparred several times, notably on the issue of Iran." Similarly, a September 26 article in The Hill stated: "Aside from 'Meet the Press' host and debate moderator Tim Russert's intense questioning on a number of issues, Clinton faced direct, and on at least one occasion abrasive, criticism from her on-stage rivals." A September 27 New York Daily News article stated: "Often under attack, as much from tough questions by moderator Tim Russert, Clinton stayed aggressive, even differing with her husband, and what she told the Daily News Editorial Board, on torture." In a September 27 Hartford Courant article, then-Hartford Courant Washington bureau chief David Lightman wrote of the debate: "New York Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton's seven rivals for the Democratic presidential nomination probably should have simply sat in a circle around the front-runner at Wednesday's debate and thrown darts. ... Even moderator Tim Russert got into the game, asking Clinton whether the country was ready for Bush/Clinton/Bush/Clinton should she be elected." Also, while discussing the debate during the September 27 edition of National Public Radio's Morning Edition, national political correspondent Mara Liasson stated that "Clinton herself was clearly a big target last night for her fellow Democrats and for the moderator of the debate, NBC's Tim Russert," in his questions of Clinton.
Russert received criticism for his questioning of Clinton while moderating the debate between Clinton and Lazio in September 2000. According to a May 23, 2004, Washington Post Magazine article in which Howard Kurtz interviewed Russert on a range of subjects, Kurtz questioned Russert about the Clinton-Lazio debate:
Q. [Kurtz] One controversial moment in your career was in September 2000, when you moderated the debate in the Senate race between Hillary Rodham Clinton and Congressman Rick Lazio. You asked if she would apologize for branding her husband's accusers as part of a right-wing conspiracy. You asked, "Do you regret misleading the American people?" That caused quite a stir. Did you go too far on that?
A. [Russert] No.
Q. Absolutely fair game?
A. Oh sure. I mean I believe the question before that, or the question after that, was [when] I showed a commercial that Congressman Lazio had run, which had dummy footage of Daniel Patrick Moynihan. They had pictures of Moynihan and Lazio walking down the hall. They had never walked down the hall together; they were superimposed. And I said to him, would he apologize to the people in New York, or would he acknowledge now that that was phony footage in effect. And then I [asked Clinton the question] because I was talking about the whole issue of credibility, [and she] had gone on the "Today" show and said, "This is all part of people who are opposing my husband; it's not true and all part of a vast right-wing conspiracy. . ."
I have no problem asking difficult questions of either Democrats, independents or Republicans, and that's a case in point.
Q. On the [Monica] Lewinsky matter, Mark Sommer, a Buffalo News columnist, said you were "like a bull in a china shop." He said you chose "sensationalism over substance." He said Russert "embarrassed himself and his profession." Pretty tough stuff.
A. Yeah, but he wrote an apology or a retraction. [Actually, a clarification.]
Q. Did you call him?
A. I didn't call him. He got his facts wrong in that column in a big way . . . Can you imagine a debate with Hillary Clinton running for the Senate from New York and not talk about her comments?
If Rick Lazio had said that it was a left-wing conspiracy against him, would it not be fair game? . . . I never mentioned Monica Lewinsky; I never mentioned sex; I was talking specifically about Hillary Clinton's comments when she was on the "Today" show. The accusations were false, she said, and they were the result of a vast right-wing conspiracy. So, I mean, it was a perfect --
Q. It was her own words. The question is, should it have been part of the Senate campaign? And your answer is, obviously, yes.
A. Well, of course, just [like] Lazio's credibility in using phony footage. I mean, you have to be evenhanded in these things, and to this day I'm amazed, well, when you say cause a stir, it was largely amongst party activists supporting Hillary Clinton. And I fully expected that . . . You get it from the left and the right, and I think that kind of confirms you're doing a pretty good job.
Contrary to Russert's assertion that he "didn't call [Sommer]," Kurtz wrote the following in a June 21, 2004, column, as The Daily Howler noted:
Tim Russert has told the Buffalo News he regrets an error he made in a recent Washington Post Magazine interview.
Russert had said he never called News reporter Mark Sommer to complain about a negative review of his performance in moderating a Hillary Clinton-Rick Lazio Senate debate in 2000. But Sommer says in an interview that Russert called him twice about the piece and "was furious. . . . I was struck how a guy who basks in the reputation of being a tough reporter can't handle criticism when it applies to himself."
"I just plain didn't remember it," Russert says in an interview, adding that he's "been called a lot of things by a lot of people" and doesn't object to criticism. His beef, which had led to a clarification in the News, was Sommer's assertion that "Clinton had already answered similar questions" before Russert asked about her charge that a vast right-wing conspiracy was out to get her husband.
Russert "was correct on a technicality," says Sommer, in that Clinton hadn't responded to a journalist's question on the subject. But Russert says Sommer mangled the facts and should apologize.
Also, contrary to Russert's assertion in the May 23, 2004, interview that Sommer "wrote an apology or a retraction," The Buffalo News offered a "clarification" of Sommer's remarks, as Kurtz noted. The full text of the Buffalo News "clarification," as noted by The Daily Howler, read:
In a Sept. 18 [2000] commentary after the first debate between U.S. Senate candidates Hillary Rodham Clinton and Rick A. Lazio, News Arts Editor Mark Sommer criticized debate moderator Tim Russert for asking Clinton if she regretted "misleading the American people" in a 1998 television interview. In that interview, she blamed criticism of her husband over the Monica S. Lewinsky affair on a "vast right-wing conspiracy." Sommer's commentary asserted that "Clinton had already answered similar questions before." In fact, Clinton had not been asked that question previously. But she has addressed the issue generally, including making a press statement that she was misled about her husband's affair. The News commentary also stated that Russert has belittled the idea of a "vast right-wing conspiracy" on his NBC "Meet the Press" program. That observation was based on Sommer's impression and interpretation after watching many of those programs. Russert, however, asserts that is not the case and that he never belittled the idea in any way.
Russert's questioning of Clinton during her run for the New York Senate seat was highlighted by other media outlets. For example:
- A September 20, 2000, article in the Times Union of Albany, New York, stated:
Author Gail Sheehy, whose work has been critical of Clinton, said Lazio cannot be faulted for bringing gender politics into the debate. It was, she pointed out Tuesday, moderator Tim Russert of NBC News' ''Meet the Press'' who asked Clinton whether she had misled the public immediately after the scandal broke. Clinton said she did not mislead anyone because, ''I didn't know the truth.''
But Sheehy added Lazio may have hurt himself in lashing out at Clinton after her response.
''I thought the guilt-by-association charge took him over the line,'' said Sheehy, who otherwise described the debate as a ''pretty even smackdown.''
''It's really comparing apples to teapots ... and I don't think he scored with that. People remember it wasn't Hillary Clinton who had an affair -- it was Hillary Clinton who came out of it doing something if not noble, then at least active and worthwhile.''
- A September 17, 2000, Newsday article (subscription required) noted criticism of Russert's questioning during the New York Senate debate:
When NBC moderator Tim Russert asked Hillary Rodham Clinton during Wednesday's Senate debate about her handling of the Monica Lewinsky affair, he opened a door that, oddly, has been largely closed during Clinton's year on the campaign trail.
From impeachment and Lewinsky to commodities trading, firings in the White House travel office, Whitewater, the disappearance and unexplained reappearance of Rose Law Firm billing records, grand jury appearances and fund-raising irregularities, the first lady's role in the "Clinton scandals" has always been in the background, but never at the center of the battle for New York.
As perilous as such a set of stinging jellyfish might be to the ordinary candidate, Clinton has seemed immune. And even as new developments on the scandal front are percolating-the planned release of White House records expected to show overlaps between Clinton's big donors and guests treated to overnights at the White House and Camp David, and a new independent counsel report on Whitewater-the reaction to the Lewinsky question showed why she has sailed along.
Russert was criticized in some quarters for playing excerpts from the 1998 interview in which Clinton blamed the accusations against her husband on a "vast right-wing conspiracy" and asking if she had misled the public. Clinton deflected the question by saying she was misled by her husband and took little heat. Lazio is widely expected to pay a political price, especially among women, for complaining that her actions and response reflected a "pattern" of blaming others for the Clintons' problems.
"I thought the debate was supposed to be about issues in New York," said Roberta Cooper, 57, of Smithtown, a voter who came to a Lazio event Friday to tell him the exchange about the Lewinsky case had caused her to switch to Clinton's side. "New York State knows it the scandal has nothing to do with the Senate race in New York."
- In a "Critic's Notebook" published on October 19, 2000, New York Times television critic Caryn James wrote of the presidential debates that year between George W. Bush and Al Gore:
The debates were lackluster, yet the Bush campaign's rejected proposals would have been worse. Imagine those meetings, moderated by Larry King (the king of softball questions) and Tim Russert (whose self-aggrandizement at the Hillary Clinton-Rick Lazio debate made him a performer rather than a moderator.) With Mr. King too cool, Mr. Russert too hot and Mr. [Jim] Lehrer [of PBS] too lukewarm, where is Goldilocks when you need her?
* Media Matters for America counted only
discrete questions asked of each candidate.
Media Matters used the MSNBC
debate transcript. In one instance,
the transcript incorrectly indicated that Russert asked a question that Williams
had actually asked. Media Matters
did not count that question.
I heard and watched tonight as Hillary Clinton said that she would not support the NY Governor in his bid to give drivers licenses to Illegal Aliens.
With a minute (or two) she contradicted herself and said she would.
Hillary Clinton represents the height of Hypocrisy evidenced by far too many in politics today. Her political ambitions runneth over.
Tim Russert was right to call her on her disingenuous comments.
Eight years of Clintons in the White House is six years too many. Let them go the way of Karl Rove.
The only real problem with Hillary is that she's kickin' everybody's a$$. This is like when Randy Moss is on fire, they try to stick two men on his back pocket. Cuz the other teams get tired of his silly dances in the end zone. She's tougher and smarter than Russert..."brang it own" chubs.
I'm not sure what you watched, but that's not what was said. Not even close.
williams is an admirer of rush limbaugh. he claims in this link that his followers had nowhere to go pre-rush to listen to someone who thinks like them. think??? or blindly repeat talking points? and russert's recent comments about hillary being responsible for 40 million people uninsured. since the collapse of her health care plan in the early 90's, border on lunacy.
http://mediamatters.org/items/200501240007
comma after "uninsured".
...or blindly repeat talking points
"Hello Kettle, this is pot, you're black".
What do you think is going on here at Media Matters? They throw out some obscure post, bogus example of media bias, or weak story such as this, and the minions here follow lock, stock, and barrell.
Is Hillary Clinton getting tough questions an example of media bias? Must be - because we all know as president she'll never face anyone as tough as Tim Russert.
This is quite interesting, and certainly flies in the face of the overwhelming right wing media slant.
All these "media figures" rushing to dump on Russert for being to tough on Hillary? Glad they've all got her back.
All these "media figures" rushing to dump on Russert for being to tough on Hillary? Glad they've all got her back.
Excellent point Tommy!
Kind of destroys the whining by the Left that the MSM has a Conservative bias.
Russert's questioning of slippery Hillary was not out of line. Perhaps if she'd stop talking out of both sides of her mouth or actually gave a direct answer to a direct question, he & her opponents wouldn't have had to continue to make her the center of attention.
I'm not a Edwards fan but bravo to him, and also to Obama & Dodd for not letting her get away with non-answers.
And now the Clinton Camp is spinning this, [with help from MMFA by highlighting it] that poor Hillary was being picked on. Oh boo hoo hoo. What we don't need is Hillary & her henchmen/woman in the White House blaming everything on Right-Wing, Media & World conspiracies all out to get her.
I hope this is the beginning of the end for this lady. At one time I even considered voting for her BECAUSE of Bill. No more!
Watching her give *If Looks Could Kill* glares directed at anyone that dared to challenge her makes me hope they all have bodyguards!
J,
On one side they say her sex shouldn't be an issue and it's sexist to bring it up, and now they are complaining on that she's being picked on by mean men - can't have it both ways.
Excellent point, and also remember that Hillary and her campaign said she isn't running for President because she is a woman, then her answer to a question in one of the earlier debates about fighting off 15 years of being attacked by the right involved the words "...I'M YOUR GIRL."
I like Hillary a lot, I've even met her in person, but MMFA really has to admit that she does indeed have "double talk" issues. And though Russert may have been out of line years ago (and more recently with his interview of Sally Smith regarding the "40 million uninsured" blame he laid at her feet based on Smith's book), MMFA did not provide one example of where he asked an out of line question the other night at the debate. That should've been the highlight of this post after all, am I wrong?
Russert wouldn't be doing his job if he didn't focus on both her recent statements on the issues AND what her opponents have had to say about her, so of course he is going to direct a majority of questions towards Hillary. She is the frontrunner after all.
I hope the next time Russert hosts a Republican debate that they (MMFA) count how many of his questions have to do with Rudy Giuliani.
Fascinating. Would you mind providing links to some quotes from the Clinton camp that complain that she's just a woman that's being picked on by mean men? I'd love to read that.
Some obscure post? Is this story an example of an obscure post, or might you have misdirected your comment? Did you read a single line of the pages and pages of documentation which more than show this is an issue of interest to many? Maybe over on the right you think its "obscure" to point out something that every disc jockey, newsperson, and civically coherent citizen has talking about.
Are you claining that 14 out of 30 questions (not even counting follow up!) -- effectively half of the questions he asked at this event -- were directed toward Hillary is not an example of the bias of Tim Russert? Maybe you could address a single point in the body of the article.
Did you even read the article?
Hillary is accustomed to tough questions, as are (or should be) all of the political candidates vying for the nomination. Its not the fact that Tim was tough, its the fact that he is, and has been documented to be, abso-f&ck$ng-lutely unhinged.
In re your comments toward MEFIRST, please go ahead and show me the talking point people are so blindly following here.
The real problem with Hillary is that she did a terrible job during the debate. I mean, stop complaining about liberals like Russert and Williams lobbing softballs at Clinton.
Here is an excellent quote from the liberal SLATE website:
The question going into Tuesday night's debate was whether John Edwards or Barack Obama would really take on Hillary Clinton. They both did, but if Hillary Clinton was harmed politically, it was her own doing. Obama and Edwards consistently raised questions about her character and forthrightness, and then she gave answers that helped them make their case. Much of the night she effectively deflected attacks—often refusing to engage her opponents and using the GOP candidates and George Bush as her foil—but on questions about Social Security, access to her records as first lady, and tax increases, she was evasive and indecisive.
Since when is Slate liberal???
I think their label is more contrarion than liberal or conservative.
Gore Carries SlateMost of us voted Democratic. Does that prove we're biased?
By Michael KinsleyPosted Tuesday, Nov. 7, 2000, at 3:00 AM ET
One result is no surprise: Slate's staff is voting overwhelmingly for Al Gore. Fear of confirming conservative suspicions about the liberal predisposition of the media is probably the main reason other journalists will resist following our lead.
...
HOW SLATE VOTED
They almost all voted for the Democrat party - but they are not "liberal"?
Sure...
That was in 2000 (7 years ago for you math challenged people). MK is long gone as editor (he does occasionally write for them).
I can only assume you don't actually read Slate.
Do you have more current data from Slate on their voting preferences? Or at least some evidence that the voting patterns might have changed?
Because it seems to me that I'm the only one who actually has a link to a specific piece of evidence of voting preferences at Slate, and all you got is snarkiness and attitude.
Yeah, and I'm sure in the last seven years (with the overwhelmingly popular conservative movement in this country) Slate's contributors have rushed to support the right-wing.
Tim Russert did go after Hillary Clinton pretty hard in the recent Presidential debate...and I'm glad he did.
There are legitmate questions concerning whether Hillary Clinton's sometimes seemingly inconsistent explanations of her positions on certain issues are cleverly crafted obfuscations. By contrast, I found that John Kerry's explanations of seemingly inconsistent positions during the 2004 campaign were usually sincere and genuinely nuanced intellectually. Whatever the reasons, Hillary does not engender the same natural trust. Therefore, to afford Hillary Clinton an opportunity to undergo withering scrutiny is a plus...a plus for voters and a plus for Hillary Clinton, too, because she is provided an opportunity to resolve all doubts in her favor.
In 2004 I believed that election was the most important one in my lifetime. Fortunately, George W. Bush has not blown up the world in the interim or started another unnecessary war...yet. But he has plunged the country in debt, usurped Constitutional powers in an unprecedented way and divided the country in an ugly partisan way. He has destabalized the world and caused a profound distrust of the American government by Americans and foreigners alike. 2008 is a critical election because the person we elect President is faced with the monumental task of undoing Bush's many mistakes and restoring trust in our government. The experience, judgment and honesty of each candidate for President should be scrutinized like it has never been before.
By virtually all legitimate polls Hillary Clinton holds a commanding lead over the other Democratic contenders, but yet there are doubts about her among Democrats, Republicans and independents. She is divisive in the sense that the intensity of her approval ratings are matched by the intensity of those who dislike her. At this juncture, Republican or Democrat, it is imperative that our next President possess the capability of bringing the country together. It is axiomatic that our next President must be trust worthy. Vetting the Democratic front runner (within fair bounds, of course) is a service we should all appreciate, not criticize. Regardless of Tim Russert's politics or style I was not at all offended by the way he grilled Hillary Clinton during the debate. I thought it was necessary to direct more attention to the candidate that is considered by many to be the prohibitive favorite, but about whom there are still concerns.
Lastly, I am not a particular fan of Hillary Clinton and I have not decided whom I should support. But from what I have seen already, Hillary Clinton and the other top Democratic contenders are far superior to any candidate the Republicans have to offer. It would be nice to see the Republican frontrunners subjected to the same scrutiny that Hillary Clinton was subjected to. But if Hillary is the real deal then this ordeal by fire will make her a stronger candidate and quite possibly seal her election as President.
A few words of advice to Hillary: Come clean with Bill's Presidential papers pertaining to your work on health care during his administration.
As Russert does his good work for America, I wonder if he ever ponders WHY he did not "go after" GW Bush about such "character" topics as his SEC investigation (about insider trading at Harkin), about how he made his fortune on gifts from his daddy's friends which allowed a TAXPAYER BUYOUT (your fortune, George, is all TAX DOLLARS), pressing Bush about where he actually was when he was NOT reporting for Guard duty in Alabama, etc.
See, there are lots of these kind of obscure "character" topics about EVERY candidate, and they can be ignored by "the press", or they can be gone after with zeal.
Russert "picks his battles", and invariably he suits up to go after Hillary, but leaves his tough-guy tactics at home when he faces Bush, Giulianni, or any of a myriad of Republicans.
Russert claims to be doing adversarial journalism, which is what the people demand, and I have no problem with him going after Hillary ... she's a big girl and can handle herself well (he caused her no damage in the most recent "debate", he only provided Hannity with some sound bites to distort).
What bothers me is that I want a Russert for the Democrat side, some reporter who will ask the Republicans the same sort and intensity of questions that Tim poses to Hillary.
It will not be Tim Russert; his tough-guy persona will not be seen by Republicans. (He claims that hitting Lazio for a "doctored" ad is all the "equal time" he needs to show in order to prove he's balanced and even-handed. He's kidding, right?)
Tex, I will stipulate that Russert is an a-hole...don't care for him at all. But we're dreaming if we think that, unless there is some ratings value inherently present, Tim Russert will go after one of the Republican candidates as he did Hillary Clinton. Perhaps I'm off-topic but I'm looking at this thread more in terms of Hillary Clinton and resolving doubts about her rather than about Tim Russert. That Russert has not gone after Bush/Cheney, for one, is a no brainer.
Agreed. That was my first thought when I saw this topic. If Russert and his fellow over-paid creampuff pundits had exhibited half as much curiousity toward Bush/Cheney's war, we'd be watching those two thugs frogmarched out of the White House by now.
I think you are comparing “apples and oranges” a little bit with the character question. Russert asked her a simple “yes” or “no” question about a policy issue. He was not going after her character on this question. However, Hillary revealed a great deal about her character with her response. If she would have answered the question the first time, then Russert would not have felt the need to ask her a follow up question. This was not “going after her character” or anything like that. It was asking for clarification on a legitimate policy issue. That's good journalism
Russert has apparently never had a real job. Before he got this 'news' gig, he was chief of staff for Monihan Dem.) and prior to that was counsel to Cuomo (Dem.)
Monihan was at least not as crazy as most Democrats, but Cuomo is a typical liberal ditz. Russert is as unbiased as little Geo. Stephanopolis. That Hillary can't woo him tells an awfully lot about Hillary.
Russert has been cultivating access to the White House aids and political figures, and they have been playing him for some time. Case in point was his role during the Plame leak and investigation.
Russert regularly lets Cheney lie to his face on the Meet the Press.
How in the world does Russert think that Hillary's opinion about a right-wing conspiracy in any way compares with a candidate who issues a fraudulent photograph?
The reasoning there, the analogy, is not just fallacious, it's dishonest.
CARL:
Hillary should just direct questioners about the "Vast Rightwing Conspiracy" to the very good and well-researched book by Joe Conason, "The Hunting of the President".
In that book, the cast of characters of the Vast Rightwing Conspiracy are called by name, itemized, and their actions documented.
There IS a conspiracy, it IS Vast, and it is decidedly Rightwing. Denying it is folly.
Well then I guess you're also onto the Roswell conspiracy that Bill Richardson referred to last night.
Little green men - space ships....wooo...woo...woo. Look out Tex - they're right behind you!!!
the cast of characters of the Vast Rightwing Conspiracy are called by name, itemized, and their actions documented.
Which facts claimed in this book have been debunked? Comparing that book to Roswell is either stupid or disengenous. I vote the latter.
...Whrrrrrr......
Seymour Krelboyne - the Little Shop of Horrors (MMFA) needs you NOW!
I vote for both stupid and disingenuous.
Read below response to Tex on the validity of the "conspiracy theory". That is of course if the Roswellians don't get to you first.
WC:
Obviously, you haven't read the book. There are no "little green men", but there WAS a group of lawyers who called themselves "the Elves" -- which included Ted Olson, Ann Coulter, and various other Federalist Society attorneys (Ginsberg for another, if I recall) -- who worked behind the scenes helping to dig up dirt on Clinton and coordinating information between Richard Melon Scaife and Kenneth Starr.
Just that one example, how information found its way from Lucianne Goldberg to Ken Starr without ever passing through any official legal procedures is illustration enough of the vastness of the conspirators, and their underhanded Rightwing motivations.
Scaife alone invested MILLIONS in various enterprises (conspiracies) to try to get damaging information about Clinton, to get him removed from office. And Scaife's own funded American Spectator was leading the way in publishing paid-for rumors and fabricated-for-hire "scandals". Many more of the conspirators were on staff at the Spectator, one of which was MMFA's own David Brock.
In "Blinded by the Right", Brock tells us the complexity and zeal with which his rightwing companions set about smearing their political enemies (Democrats) without any factual basis or evidence. It was their JOB, as they conspired to bring Clinton down.
And Brock's book? All facts, verifyable persons, and confirmed actions, with nary a "little green man" or "black helicopter" in sight.
It's standard Rightwing procedure to try to discount exposure of Rightwing conspiracies as being akin to wild JFK assassination conspiracy theories and UFO sightings ... but this all hinges on the one word "conspiracy", as if it is wholly a science-fiction concept.
It is simply NOT. There are conspiracies all around us. Col. Oliver North was conspiring his ass off to get arms to Iran in exchange for hostages, and arms to Nicaragua for Reagan's favorite "freedom fighters" ... and all "off the books" as far as the American Government was concerned. Conspiracy FACT. G. Gordon Liddy and his "plumbers"; Conspiracy FACT. Tom Delay organizes his office workers in 2000 to go to Florida and as a mob, disrupt the vote counting; Conspiracy FACT.
Wooo, wooo, wooo, my ass. Either discount the REALITY of the rightwing's reported actions of behind-the-scenes conspiring on a vast scale, or admit you cannot discount Hillary's claim.
Bringing up insane BASELESS conspiracy theories does nothing but make you look silly and desperate. As a rebuttal, it utterly FAILS.
Great book for a conspiracy theorist. Political books always have the slant of the authors - this one is no different.
http://www.nytimes.com/books/00/04/09/reviews/000409.09lewist.html
...and before you get on me as a Clinton "hater" - I didn't give too much credibility to "No One Left to Lie To" either.
Sorry - the link above requires registration. Key excerpt follows.
On Jan. 27, 1998, Hillary Rodham Clinton told Matt Lauer on the ''Today'' show that there was nothing to the idea that her husband had been involved in an intimate relationship with a White House intern. She dismissed the notion as just another bit of nastiness in what she said was the real story, which the press had been ignoring: the existence of a ''vast right-wing conspiracy"
.....……As the argument unfolds over the years, the answers will surely be complicated. But not to Joe Conason and Gene Lyons, the authors of ''The Hunting of the President,'' essentially a journalistic brief in support of Hillary Clinton's assertion.
…….It would seem that the authors' minimal task, after having propounded such a striking theory, is to make it plausible. It would be hard to overstate this: They do not succeed. But there will be readers who will savor this book nonetheless. Conason and Lyons are correct that there are people who dislike the Clintons so much they will believe anything negative about them on the flimsiest of evidence. There are also Clinton supporters who will accept any theory to absolve them no matter how unsupported
That NYT review was ignorant and had an agenda-- which was justifying the harassment against Clinton. Also, it was written years ago, before Brock and others spilled the beans on these right wing operatives.
There was clearly a "vast" conspiracy against the Clintons-- from day one. And papers like the NYT were complicit. The bias was overwhelming-- and, apparently, still is.
CARL:
Correct on all, and thanks.
Oops - almost forgot to add...
David Brock is an admitted liar - that's how he made his living - supposedly. He too follows the almighty dollar.
Come up with some credible evidence and I'll call off the little green men. Till then - they will continue to circle your posts. Whirrrrrr....
WC:
We both know you are not personally influenced by EVIDENCE.
So feel free to continue your whirling or whizzing or whatever you're doing. Trot out a brigade of little green men if you like.
REALITY has a well-known Liberal Bias, and while you're making spaceship sounds, your rightwing is going down in flames. Whir went the House, Whiz went the Senate, Zing disappeared Bush's popularity, Bzzzt goes the Republican prospects for 2008.
Conspiracy theories! Wheeee!
Tex - Next time resign with some dignity and we can have further fun on another thread.
WC:
I always have tons of fun jousting with Rightwingers who have no clue and no skills at debate. You are one of my favorites ... resorting to whirling spaceships and little green men! Wonderful political debate material!
No, I'm very satisfied with my comments here, and especially your responses. And don't you worry about "retaining any dignity". As a Rightwinger, you had none to start with.
Regards, and remaining on the job!
It’s not fair to call the conservative opposition to the Clinton administration a “Vast Right Wing Conspiracy”. True, the opposition was vast and right wing, but it was hardly a conspiracy. The opposition was very out in the open. I agree that there were many conservatives who were against Clinton from the start and didn’t give him a chance. I remember seeing an “Impeach Clinton” bumper sticker before he even took office. But this is not a conspiracy.
You mentioned Tom Delay going to Florida for the 2000 election to disrupt vote counting. What proof do you have of this? He may have just wanted to make sure the votes were counted correctly. Both Republicans and Democrats did this in the aftermath of the 2000 election. There is nothing wrong with this.
Please back up your accusations with fact. If it is true that Delay and other Republicans were guilty of voter fraud, then they need to be punished for that. If there is no evidence, then you need to drop the claim.
http://www.hermes-press.com/criminal_vote.htm
Why didn't Russert and other mainstream "tough question" reporters investigate this? It took Greg Palast working for The Guardian to ferret out the ferrets in the voting scandal in Florida.
Just getting tired of the whole thing.
Wow….this is amazing. First the Dems wont debate on Fox News, because they are to big and scarry, and now Russert is picking on Hillary. Give me a break. How is she supposed to be the leader of the free world if she can’t handle reporters, good ones, bad ones, fair ones, or evil ones. I can just see the future MM headlines now: “Leader of France mean to Hillary”….”Summit leaders gang up on Hillary…its just not fair”. Heaven forbid we ask a front runner hard questions……and get this…..actually EXPECT an answer
That would be a valid point if Russert had actually challenged Bush or Cheney at least once.
Russset explained to Moyers on PBS that he CAN"T challenge them because doing so would mean he won't get any more interviews. Keeping his job is more important than doing it.
gannon, are you saying because russert didnt ask cheney any tough questions that Hillary should get a pass? WTF? why is it liberals only want the rules enforced on the other side. why is it ok for Clinton to be a scumbag, but not Bush? If they are doing someting wrong. Get them out - on eihter side. Stop the crap of saying its ok for your team to cheat. I am so DONE with that mentality.
POINT OF VIEW:
FOX NEWS was avoided, not because they are "big and scary" (as you assert), but instead, FOX NEWS was avoided for Democratic Debate forum because they are HOSTILE to Democrats, while SUPPORTIVE of Republicans.
FOX NEWS is Biased, Partisan, prone to promoting FALSE Rightwing talking points, they come at every issue with Rightwing favorable FRAMING, NARRATIVE, and PREMISES ... which means their questioning all comes from a FALSE reality.
FOX NEWS is about character assassination, rumors, SMEARS, innuendo, and scandalmongering when it comes to Democrats.
Such a "debate" would not be about informing the public, or exploring the issues, but instead about a constant press for a "GOTCHA" that will hopefully sink the Democratic candidates.
Not in a million years would FOX subject Republicans to the same treatment.
Big and scary? Nope. Small and Petty. But mostly it's that FOX NEWS is the propaganda arm of the RNC.
Fox is more biased towards Republicans, that's been found to be true:
http://www.journalism.org/node/8197
But's if that's your/their sole reasoning then why don't the Republicans boycott NBC/MSNBC, CNN, ABC & CBS for being biased in favor of Democrats?
http://www.journalism.org/files/topline.pdf
(page 4)
The stats show clearly shows us that CNN is ridiculously more biased against Republicans, than FNC is against Democrats.
there's a good example of being able to prove anything with statistics. Figures don't lie, but liars figure. I wonder if citing casualty figures from Iraq is counted as a "liberal bias."
CNN, MSNBC, CBS, etc are all biased...in favor of conventional wisdom, and ignore important stories 24/7 because the news departments are part of the bottom line, instead of being funded for the public good.
Any chance you read the report? Nope.
That much is obvious.
I tried, but adobe takes a long time to load on dial up. I managed this time. The "tone" of stories is inherently subjective, but I grant you that this could be fairly valid stats.
However, you might consider the reason the Republicans racked up so many 'Negative" stories....all the R's outed for sex scandals recently. The corruption scandals. The Terri Schiavo story and all the other power trips they've pulled in the past 7 years. In other words, the truth is, since the R's have the most sh%t in their closets right now, why wouldn't they get more negative coverage?
As far as the Iraq debacle, they should all be ashamed, Rs and Ds, who enabled it.
Rep. Rick Lazio (D-NY)
When was he Democrat?
The only reason Tim had to ask her so many questions was that he couldn't get a straight answer from her the first 4 times he asked it. Even Obama and Edwards had no idea where she stood on NY driver's licenses for illegals.
DAVE:
"EVEN OBAMA AND EDWARDS" have selfish interest in being "confused" about Hillary's positions.
Goes without saying that RIGHTWINGERS wish very much to portray the Democratic Frontrunner as "waffling, confused, won't give a straight answer, is acting 'like a politician', etc, etc.
Anyone with a brain understood exactly Hillary's position on issuing drivers' licenses to undocumented workers/illegal aliens.
1. There is no such bill in Congress on which she has to cast a vote. Therefore, she has not heard all the arguments, and has an open mind.
2. Because of GW Bush and the Republicans, there is no comprehensive immigration reform which would address these problems in New York, and across the nation.
3. In the absence of National Leadership, the states are left to deal with the problems piecemeal, addressing issues of public safety and health as best they can.
4. The Governor of New York has proposed allowing UW/IA to have drivers' licenses, in response to the REALITY that these people are already ON OUR ROADS. So, should they have licenses, as a public safety issue? The Governor says, YES, and Hillary says it "sounds like a good idea."
5. When she has to address the questions about immigration as PRESIDENT, she will do so as a COMPREHENSIVE NATIONAL plan, instead of commenting on the various piecemeal "fixes" the states have been forced into by the lack of Federal action.
I'm not confused: Hillary's position on the issue is reasonable and clear. If YOU are confused, it's because you have a selfish interest in being confused BY HER.
The argument AGAINST providing these licenses is that "illegals" don't "deserve" the "privilege", and shouldn't be in this country in the first place. All well and good, but are we then going to just DEPORT the 12 million or so illegals, before they can again get behind the wheel of a car? We are NOT. It cannot be done, it WILL not be done. So the question comes again: Should everyone on our roads be required to have a license? Sounds like a good idea, at least until the BIGGER questions can be answered by a comprehensive immigration reform program that WILL NOT come from Republicans or Bush.
Tex,
In the absence of National Leadership....
I believe being a US Senator would make you a leader.
Your answer was as confusing as Hillary's. When pressed by Russert if she believed illegals should have driver's licenses, all she said was that she knew why Spitzer is doing it and thought it was a good idea, but never really said either way, as she knows that approx 72 percent of the state are against it. I know Spitzer is for it, but Hillary never really came out with a direct answer. Edwards and Obama also noticed this. I'm sure you watched the debate, Tex, what did you think? Is she for giving licenses to illegals? Yes or No?
Tex explained it very clearly. I cannot imagine anybody who read his post would believe it to be confusing. Please read it again. Then again. It's really isn't all that complicated.
I've read it again and again. Maybe you can help me out. Is Hillary for or against illegals getting driver's licenses? Yes or No. Tex's response must have been written in liberal speak that you've figured out but I can't see where he answered it and I'm still waiting for his reply. Yes or No Appleboy.
Dave: are you a brainless boob? Yes or No!
Then, you must be looking for something to misunderstand - and that also would make you a brainless boob, wouldn't it? Yes, or No!
Dave,
Throughout Tex's triangulating speech, he sounds just like a Democrat - he obviously favors rewarding illegals with legal documents. Why he, and Hillary, can't just say it flat out instead of dancing around it is ridiculous.
But in Tex's world, taking responsibility for one's words is verboten, because it's far easier to blame the rightwing.
Perhaps Hillary just gave an honest anwser. It's a complicated issue which might require some thought regarding all those ugly things called details.
By the way, wouldn't it have been safer for her to just say she is against it? I don't really know the answer. Any thoughts?
Complicated issues require honest answers - if she's for it, fine - against it, fine. Just say one way or the other instead of straddling the fence so as not to box herself in. Her way makes it much easier to flip it around and not have to defend it as she takes the middle ground.
I think the point is that she doesn't know all the issues involved with this proposal. And if she doesn't know the details then I wouldn't except her (or anyone) to give a final answer on something they haven't studied. This isn't a black and white, no-brainer, slam dunk issue (perhaps to some it might be). I'm sure there would be pros and cons to issuing drivers license to illegal immigrant. So as I said before, perhaps she gave an honest answer given what she knows so far.
Complicated issues require honest answers.
No. No. No. Eight years of Republican rule has proved otherwise. Like her or hate her, everyone must admit she has a very skilled political adviser. If anybody thinks they didn't work this one out before the debate you are probably wrong.
So we are supposed to be thankful that she has a very skilled political adviser that helps her tiptoe around tough issues without committing to any real answer.
Gee, no thanks.
Complicated issues require honest answers - if she's for it, fine - against it, fine. Just say one way or the other instead of straddling the fence so as not to box herself in. Her way makes it much easier to flip it around and not have to defend it as she takes the middle ground. Tommy
The very meaning of complicated means difficult if analyze or understand. You admit that the illegal immigration issue is complicated but you want a simple answer from Hillary. Sorry but that makes no sense.
Out of all the candidates running, both Republicans and Democrats, Hillary has been inspected in detail, placed under a microscope more than ANY other candidate. Her position on each and every issue, her thighs, her laugh, her marriage, how she speaks. Each and every rumor, lie about her has been out there and still she stands. I'm no great Hillary fan but the more you guys pile on her, the more petty you appear. If any of the Republican candidates had the same microscope placed on them. they would be crying to their Momma or they wouldn't still be a candidate. Keep it up and you will succeed in getting her elected.
Russert put the question to her and everyone else on the stage, by asking if she or they were for or against illegal aliens getting driver's licenses. She gave Tex's long drawn out non responsive answer and never actually answered it. Obama and Edwards also had no idea what her answer was and said as much. Apperently you have no idea what her answer was either. Russert and I were looking for a yes or no and she waffled. Hillary not only did not give an honest answer, she gave no answer.
Maybe, just maybe, she didn't give a yes or no answer because she hasn't studied the issue and all of it's gory details and consequences. Would you prefer a president who doesn't think about and study complicated issues before making decisions on such issues? Actually, it is not so hard to imagine such a president now is it?
You can make excuses for her non answer all you want. She could've claimed ignorance to the proposal put forth by Spitzer but she didn't. She waffled on the question. She sounded like she agreed with the Democratic Spitzer by saying it sounded like a good idea, while attempting to appeal to the 72 percent of NYers who are against this policy.
Yeah, the old "excuses" ploy. Nice argument.
Well if you can't imagine someone not giving a yes or no answer to a complicated question without studying the facts, then so be it. I can't argue with you.
For the fun of it though, here's a question for you. Say you are buying a house and your real estate agent calls you up and says he has a house for you and wants to know if you want to buy it. Your options are:
1) No
2) Yes
3) I don't know yet. I need some time so I can look at the house, have it inspected, take a gander at the current interest rates, study the neighborhood crime rates, etc.
What's your answer? Oh, and you cannot choose option 3 otherwise it might look to your agent that you are using "double speak".
When you are answering your real estate agent you are not asking strangers to support you in public office by having a direct impact on their lives; by which those issues and your decisions are crucial and important to those supporting you.
In other words, the house is your business......her answers are ours.
TOMMY:
How is "her answer" YOURS to demand? Even if you live in New York, the decision WILL NOT BE MADE BY HILLARY. The Governor is promoting it, and if he can convince the New York State Legislature to go along, then it will become law, and Hillary will have had nothing to do with it.
So why, again, is Hillary's answer yours to demand? Because it is a divisive issue, and simple minded rightwingers want her to take a controversial stand, when NOTHING is riding on her making a YES or NO decision immediately? That's not a proper reason for wanting an answer, it's simply a political "gotcha", and Hillary didn't fall for it.
The Governor is proposing the idea. It will be debated in the state legislature, and many "unintended consequences" will be presented.
The idea might be abandoned entirely, or modifications might be proposed as "compromises". Perhaps a special "driver's PERMIT" instead of a license? Pros and Cons?
It is ABSOLUTELY a "good idea" to insure that all drivers on our public roads have the proper licensing (and guess what? Here in Texas, you can't renew OR GET a driver's license without showing VALID PROOF OF INSURANCE). So, wouldn't it be great if all drivers had a drivers' license (which is not GIVEN, it has to be earned through TESTING), and had INSURANCE too?
Ah, but what if they are illegals, in this country for ten or more years and driving to work every day. By God, those illegals should be PUNISHED and DENIED any privileges like a license. Right? Out of SPITE?
Who does that REALLY punish? The illegal who will continue to drive, or the rest of us on the road with people who have no option but to drive WITHOUT a license or insurance?
As I said earlier, until there is FEDERAL LAW about immigration and how to handle illegals currently IN this country, working, and raising their families ... simply THROWING THEM OUT is not an option. And while it might "FEEL GOOD" to think they are being PUNISHED somehow by being denied drivers' licenses, you need to really think through what is currently happening, and the problems it is causing society.
So, unless Hillary is personally going to have to make these decisions then her opinions on them are none of our business?
Good one Tex, as ridiculous as ever - you never fail to disappoint.
TOMMY:
Her OPINION is, having all drivers on our roads have a license "sounds like a good idea."
You don't WANT her opinion. You want her to take a stand on a false choice. You want a bold answer to a complicated issue. You want her to commit to something that isn't even DEFINED yet.
In short, you want her to give you and your rightwing pals something to hit her over the head with, no matter WHAT she says. And she didn't give it to you, so you have decided to hit her over the head for being "evasive".
Meanwhile, we SANE voters see that our next president will not be trapped into needless false choices, and that's a GREAT thing considering the past seven years.
Bravo, Tex (as always!), but good luck encouraging sane answers to take hold in insane minds.
Tex,
All that is fine and good. The truth is Hillary simply was caught. She said in an earlier interview, "So I KNOW EXACTLY WHAT GOVERNOR SPITZER’S TRYING TO DO AND IT MAKES A LOT OF SENSE,..."
But in hte debate when asked why, in her words, it "makes a lot of sense" to give licenses to illegals, her first answer sounded like an endorsement. Mr. Spitzer is trying to "fill the vacuum left by the failure of this Administration to bring about comprehensive immigration reform," she said.
after Senator Chris Dodd disagreed with her, calling a license a "privilege" not a right, she broke in a moment later to clarify: "I just want to add, I did not say that it should be done,
This prompted Mr. Dodd to interject that her second answer didn't sound like her first. So Mr. Russert tried again: "Do you support [Mr. Spitzer's] plan?""You know, Tim, this is where everybody plays gotcha," Mrs. Clinton replied. "It [Spitzer's proposal] makes a lot of sense." So, she does support it? Unfortunately, she wasn't done speaking. "Do I think this is the best thing for any Governor to do? No." At that point, Mr. Williams changed the subject.
If that is not an equivocation to a straightforward question, then I'm not a Republican.
How can anyone take her seriously when she won't answer a simple quesiton like this?
Appleboy earlier said she might not be familiar with the issue, but she repeatedly expressed that she knew what Spitzer was trying to do. She never tried to explain her position and if her position was any different than Spitzer's proposal. Everybody in the house knew she was digging her own hole by not answering yes or no.
It reminded me of Kerry not releasing his military records when he said he would do so.
my quotes came from the WSJ online in the Review and Outlook section today.
I don't care if the domain is politics, physics, religion, basket weaving or whatever, if somebody asks you a question on a matter you don't have all the facts to, then sometimes the best answer - and the most honest I might add - is "I don't know".
APPLEBOY:
These Rightwingers DO like the simplistic, gut-tested, cocksure answers, delivered with certainty and without thought.
The result of such decision-making is, for one example, the Iraq War.
Now, do the decision-makers SUFFER for wrong decisions? Nope. They deny, meanwhile OTHERS pay for their bad judgment.
If only Bush had taken Hillary's example, and actually STUDIED issues, and probable consequences, and weighed those against doing nothing overt ... we'd still have those 4000 brave American Soldiers alive today, and those 30,000 maimed and dismembered would be whole today.
Death and destruction, POINTLESSLY, as a result of such snap decisions and gut-reactions.
Ah, but the cocksure Rightwinger demands snap decisions, and by God they're demanding such foolish irresponsible behavior from Hillary.
Tell you what, boys. Don't like that Hillary actually THINKS about issues before making a decision? Don't vote for her. Cast your vote for someone JUST like Dubya Bush. That'll lose her 20% of America's votes, and she'll just win by the 80% remaining.
Tex,
It looks to me like you are trying to deflect the issue.
Illegal immigration is a key issue in this election. Why won't Clinton simply tell the public where she stands on a controversial proposal originating in the State she represents?
We all know that she calculated that she'd lose fewer votes by evading than answering. Is that good for the country? Why should we vote for someone who won't take a stand on tough issues?
ANOTHER AMERICAN:
Is it a good idea for all drivers on our roads to be licensed? Yes.
Is it a good idea for all drivers on our roads to be insured? Yes.
Is it a good idea for our states to know WHO is in the state, and should having some form of official identification be encouraged? Absolutely, especially after 9/11.
Is it a good idea to have borders which are open enough to admit 12 million people illegally? Nope, terrible idea.
Would it be a good idea to simply deport all people who came here illegally? Not really, and further, it would be a nightmare of practical logistics.
Would it be a good idea to just GIVE a drivers' license to illegal aliens? No sir.
Would it be a good idea to encourage illegal aliens who are currently driving our roads to study for and EARN a drivers' license? Yes indeed.
Would it be a good idea to allow illegal aliens to have a drivers' license WITHOUT having proof of insurance? No. Absolutely not.
Is a drivers' license just like current citizens have the ONLY way to achieve the goals we have spelled out above? Maybe, maybe not. What other options are there?
Should all illegal aliens be issued drivers' license? Absolutely NOT ... but they SHOULD have some way to become LEGAL behind the wheel of a car, otherwise they are FORCED to remain illegal, untrained, and uninsured behind the wheel ... and that is unacceptable.
Should the status of all illegal aliens be determined, whether they stay or go, whether they can work towards attaining citizenship, whether they can work and have children here? YES, ABSOLUTELY, all that should be done, but it cannot be done by the states. It MUST be done on the Federal level.
In the meantime, should states just IGNORE health and safety problems that exist because of illegal aliens' status? The states CANNOT ignore those problems. They harm America and her citizens every day. When illegal aliens are involved in a crash, the usual result is they flee the scene. They HAVE to, in their minds. They are PREVENTED from behaving responsibly, by people who think denying them access to a drivers' license is PUNISHING them for being illegal. This is both petty and short-sighted, and it does not harm the illegals anywhere NEAR the harm to the rest of us.
If I could snap my fingers and have every person illegally in America disappear back to their country of origin, WOULD I? Damn, I just don't know. What would be the effect on our economy, on our neighborhoods, on our future? What would be the effect on children BORN here, and who are thus legally citizens?
Questions and Answers. My Rightwing pals like the simplistic, black and white, YES or NO answers. The world just isn't made that way.
See Tex, let me help you a little and maybe you can realize why you live in a world where waffling answers and flimsy convictions are standard fare.
Tough issues and tough choices demand principles over partisanship. And principles sometimes require making absolute yes or no decisions when our country's security and borders are at stake.
We cannot afford to be namby pamby, squishy, well maybe yes, but perhaps no, nuancing your way in and around vital decisions and important issues so you can try and appeal to every focus group, or special interest within your party - as the Democrats often do. This is why they have such trouble committing to simple questions such as illegals for driver's licenses.
It is far more important not to piss off some in their party who want open borders and soft immigration enforcement, than to take a principled stand on a very fundamental issue such as this. You don't get it, you can't understand it, you don't see it - because your liberal, Democratic leftwing mindset views this as the sensible, less disruptive road to take......convictions and principles be damned, political expediency and victory is far more important.
There, in a nutshell, is what you're missing.......try and grasp that and maybe you will come around one day and not be afraid to take a stand for what is right......and not be such an undecided waffler.
Back to the griddle.........
TOMMY offers me some counsel! Part I
Tom: “See Tex, let me help you a little and maybe you can realize why you live in a world where waffling answers and flimsy convictions are standard fare.”
RESPONSE: Gee, Tommy. That would be GREAT. I’d never have to think again about complex problems and difficult choices. Teach me how to wear those blinders that guide the Rightwing! It would DEFINITELY be a much easier life!
Tom: “Tough issues and tough choices demand principles over partisanship.”
RESPONSE: I see. A PRINCIPLE, like “truth”, is an absolute, unchanging thing, held forever and in every circumstance. I’m sure you’ll tell me (and everyone reading) what your PRINCIPLES are, so that we might be freed from doubt about what’s universally correct.
Tom: “And principles sometimes require making absolute yes or no decisions when our country's security and borders are at stake.”
RESPONSE: Hmmm. I thought CIRCUMSTANCES sometimes required decisions, and they were INFORMED by one’s Principles (like what’s JUST, what’s FAIR, what’s CONSISTENT, what’s LAWFUL, which decision causes the least harm, what’s MORAL). Are these the PRINCIPLES to which you refer?
Tom: “We cannot afford to be namby pamby, squishy, well maybe yes, but perhaps no, nuancing your way in and around vital decisions and important issues …”
RESPONSE: That’s odd. Our founders wisely set up our government with three branches and representatives voting laws by majority rule, and seemingly endless DEBATE on issues, for the exact reason that all vital decisions should be explored from every angle, every “PRINCIPLE” weighed against probable results. Those three branches were set up to have CHECKS and BALANCES against each other, to prevent one person or one branch’s DECISIONS (read: PRINCIPLES) from dominating our nation. Our Founders set up a system where every namby pamby representative, every squishy Senator, every ‘maybe yes’ executive branch member, and every ‘perhaps no’ Supreme Court Justice would have his or her say.
What YOU suggest here is a totalitarian dictatorship. Not surprising, considering your strong rightwing ideology and ‘Principles’ (which you may get around to spelling out).
Tom: “… so you can try and appeal to every focus group, or special interest within your party - as the Democrats often do.”
RESPONSE: Representatives represent their CONSTITUENTS. You dismiss those constituents so easily, but, of course, that’s a mainstay of totalitarian rule.
TOMMY offers advice, PART II
Tom: “This is why they have such trouble committing to simple questions such as illegals for driver's licenses.”
RESPONSE: So, it’s a SIMPLE QUESTION for YOU, because you have “Principles” which guide you? What principle might that be?
Tom: “It is far more important not to piss off some in their party who want open borders and soft immigration enforcement, than to take a principled stand on a very fundamental issue such as this.”
RESPONSE: Uh, those who want “open borders and soft immigration enforcement” are NOT “in their party.” You’re describing the Bush Administration. Those “principles” are tricky, aren’t they?
So, what IS the “very fundamental issue,” as you see it? Is it NATIONAL SECURITY, which would require knowing as best as we can manage WHO is in our country? Documenting them, knowing their address? Is it a PRINCIPLE that the State Government owes it to its citizens to make the roadways as safe as possible? What PRINCIPLE guides you here?
Tom: “You don't get it, you can't understand it, you don't see it - because your liberal, Democratic leftwing mindset views this as the sensible, less disruptive road to take.”
RESPONSE: Uh, safer, more secure, more reasonable, more protective of our citizens, more willing to ADDRESS a problem rather than IGNORING it. And, of course, the ALTERNATIVE (comprehensive immigration reform) is an unrealistic “fix” for anytime in the near future.
Tom; “...convictions and principles be damned, political expediency and victory is far more important.”
RESPONSE: The “convictions and principles” of the Bush Administration, and of YOURSELF, can damn well be damned. The decisions you (both) make and support are harmful to America, and go AGAINST the Principles I hold dear (listed above).
Tom: “There, in a nutshell, is what you're missing.......try and grasp that and maybe you will come around one day and not be afraid to take a stand for what is right......and not be such an undecided waffler.”
RESPONSE: You told me you would give me guidance on how to be “PRINCIPLED”, and you gave exactly ZERO indication about what “principles” you might be meaning. In a nutshell (a well chosen analogy), you’re saying that if one is PRINCIPLED, one agrees with your world view and approach to policy (which, in this case we must suppose – because you never directly SAY -- means the illegals on our roads WILL NOT be getting drivers’ licenses?)
If one disagrees with you, one is UNPrincipled. As a definitional device, this fails every test.
You DID “help me out a little”, though. You helped me see that you can post an “instructional lesson” without ONCE mentioning what position YOU hold, WHY you hold it, what PRINCIPLE you are using, and how making such a PRINCIPLED decision does not conflict in any way with any OTHER principle you might have. In a nutshell indeed.
Thank you Tex, for providing a comprehensive visual aide for exactly what I was expaining to you.
With all your equivocations, preverications, obfuscations and worthless declarations, you have more than illustrated my point fantastically.
Well done, Pardner'
TOMMY:
Thanks, Pard. As we know by now, "DUH" from the Rightwing is the extent of their reasoning/thinking power.
Anything more than "DUH" looks dazzling to you, don't it, pard? All that "equivocating" and actually thinking about all the ramifications of a decision might be, weighing it against potential unintended consequences.
Tiring and tedious, right? Better to flip a coin about whether to go to war or not. Or just check that GUT (and principles to go unnamed) how and if to allow illegals to have drivers' licenses. Takes away all that straining brain work!
Anyway, I guess you have NO ANSWER to the charge that you bloviated all over three counties about "principles" without ever naming a single one. Pretty good trick, there, pard!
Maybe I just missed your point: That your PRINCIPLE is to HAVE no principles at all, thus you cannot be bothered to name even one.
12 million illegals? try over 30. and yes, send them all home. with 30 million illegals here, stats show that avout 50,000 of them are child molesters. I guess they are just doing the jobs americans dont want.
Russert showed his true character during the Imus affair, he remained quiet despite appearing on the show almost weekly for 10 years and having Imus endorse and even give a nice statement on the back of his book about "Big Russ". I in no way support Imus, but it just showed what a spineless man Russert is.
Russert's comment about "balance" was telling. He actually seems to think that a doctored photo is equivalent to saying that there's a right wing conspiracy against the Clintons.
There IS a right wing noise machine that has heavily targetted the Clintons. This fact has long been known.
Russert reveals the insane thinking of the press, that if you find fault with one side that you have to find something on the other side to criticise. False equivalency seems to be the order of the day with the press.
False equivalency seems to be the order of the day with the press.
VERY TRUE, and it is part of the problem. There are often more than two sides to any argument. By only showing two sides we are mislead. By showing the two as if they are equivalent, we are further mislead.
example: Are crop circles are caused by aliens? By modern journalistic standards, both sides should be given equal time.
Keith Olbermann moderating the next Republican debate might offer a first step towards parody with Little Tim's rightward lean.
"It's just a jump to left."
A good article on Russert (and the mainstream press):
http://www.prospect.org/cs/articles?article=tim_russert_stop_the_inanity
"The two parties' nominees will be decided three months from now, and we can be sure that in that time, at least one or two candidates will have their campaigns upended by the answer they gave to an absurd question, delivered by Tim Russert or someone like him, about what their favorite Bible verse is, or whom they want to win the Super Bowl, or what kind of beer they like. "Aha!" the reporters will shout, as though they actually unearthed something revealing on which the race for the presidency of the most powerful nation on earth should be decided. The one whose tiny little mind devised the question will be praised to the stars for his journalistic acumen."
So I guess the story here is :
1 - When Hillary does bad - focus attention on the reporter who made her look bad
2 - Warning to reporters - don't ask hillary tough questions - toss softballs only.
Because as we all know as President she'll never have to face anything as tough as Tim Russert's questions.
WC, all candidates should undergo tough questioning...
For example, I will be extremely disappointed if Rudy Giuliani is not questioned about his close relationship with Bernard Kerik. In my opinion, that focuses on a critical issue of judgment and the fundamental integrity of a candidate.
And Mitt Romney...I'd like to know how he can blandly accept the endorsement of right wing religious leader Bob Jones who calls Mormonism a non-Christian cult. In announcing his endorsement of Romney Jones said: "As a Christian I am completely opposed to the doctrines of Mormonism.." Then Jones went on to say that his endorsement was not about religion. Well, if religion was not a factor to Jones why even mention Romney's Mormon faith and his opposition to it.
My point is that Jones has gratuitously insulted Romney's religion by calling it a non-Christian cult. Does Mitt Romney have such little integrity that he would accept Jones' back-handed endorsement just to get the right wing Christian vote?
This isn't about Romney's faith being a disqualifier...it's about Romney's integrity and whether he's such a whore he'd allow his religion to be insulted in exchange for votes. That's about character. I'd like to see Romney questioned doggedly about that without allowing him to get off easily with some scripted answer about his religion being irrelevant.
These are just two very small examples...I'd like to see all the candidates anser questions that make them feel uncomfortable.
anser (sic)=answer
(And what I meant by that was a candidate not just being asked an uncomfortable question, but actually backed into a corner to answer it.)
I don't disagree with your points. We all know these debates are limited to the time allowed. HRC is such an obvious frontrunner. I think the moderators have the responsibility to focus on the frontrunner. This election season has started earlier than any I can recall - there's sufficient time to weed through candidates. It will tell an interesting story if Hillary's numbers don't slide as a result of her performance Tuesday night. She was horrible.
If in the general election debates this single candidate focus happens - then maybe there's a story about bias. This is not it.
WC,
I'm not In agreement with your last statement. While, I do believe that our candidates should receive the utmost scrutiny and also be asked tough questions, I do not believe it is fair to subject just Clinton to these inquiries. I follow these debates very vigorously, and I can honestly say it was very lopsided in the attacks on Clinton compared to the other candidates. By the way, I'm a big supporter of Dodd.
Hillary is by far and away the frontrunner - the focus is on her. The other guys on the stage are filler.
This is primary season - watch what happens when the general election season starts.
Have to agree with you, WC... OUCH! ;>)
The agenda for evening seemed to go something like this: Okay...Hillary is way ahead, a prohibitive favorite according to some, but there are these nagging questions that remain about whether she is genuine. Some of her positions seem inconsistent and her explanations disingenuous. Let's get this out on the table once and for all...
The truth is nobody cares about Dennis Kucinich's UFO experience or Bill Richardson's plans. I think this tough, no holds barred questioning helps the Democrats. No one can say now that Hillary is not being challenged on her positions and explanations. Let's see how she meets the challenge.
With that said, I honestly don't thinkTim Russert is going to challenge any Republican candidate like he did Hillary Clinton, although he could and should. His track record would indicate otherwise.
Rock, it might be worth considering if there is actually something appropriate about giving tough questions to a candidate who is not only considered the foregone conclusion front-runner but has indeed contradicted themself. All of this conversation is focusing on the dynamics of the debate and ignoring the substance. Which of course is exactly how the Clinton campaign is treating it in the aftermath.
I think the only legitimate criticism here is Russert's failure to give tough questions to Republicans on so many key occasions. There was actually nothing innapropriate in what he did at the debate the other night. Clinton has not only been declared the 'inevitable' canidate, her campaign has taken that on as their basic strategy for avoiding a real race against the other Democrats.
Russert gave the tough questions to the far and above front-runner in the polls who has actually embraced the front-runner position. Part of how she is doing this is in avoiding direct answers to a lot of questions. Basically avoiding gaffes to maintain her lead. This piece by MMFA ignores the fact that she has avoided answering questions as directly as Obama or Edwards on some basic issues. And some of her statements have been conflicting. If there was a difference in how Russert questioned her, there is also a difference in how she is running her campaign.
It also seems no mistake that MMFA is portraying Hillary as the victim of an unfair pile-on in the debate. That's what her campaign is doing too. It actually strikes me as the most mysoginistic thing I've seen yet in the campaign. They are gladly capitalizing on the whole, "Gosh most women would be flattered to be getting so much attention from all these men," line.
She lost a lot, I mean a lot of respect from me when she began playing that card so directly. She claimed to be victimized by the GOP attack dogs during the debate which is ironic because of course that's what is helping her in the polls with Democratic primary voters. And then after the debate the direct approach of her campaign is to depict her as a victim of those darn aggressive Democrats, always ignoring the substance of the criticism and painting Obama as "Abandoning hope." Incredibly cynical campaigning worthy of Karl Rove. As a Democrat, I'm disgusted.
Of course a big part of the problem is that none of this garbage she is pulling now is going to win her the general election against the Republicans. This notion that to beat the GOP you have to become more like them is exacty what has been fracturing the potential Democratic base for the past two elections. In spite of all the bungling of Bush, this is setting up as a worse electoral defeat than John Kerry.
"...Russert's failure to give tough questions to Republicans on so many key occasions."
That is indeed a legitmate criticism, Sundog, but I don't think it helps Hillary Clinton to be perceived as whing about it...which she has not. Whining about Russert's failure to challenge Bush/Cheney or Republican candidates plays into the hands of the right wingers. Hillary's supporters and team need to ignore it and focus on resolving doubts about how genuine she is. As I pointed out above, being challenged on her explanations of positions that many people still find a bit inconsistent presents an excellent opportunity for Hillary to seal the deal.
SUNDOG - you and I are not on the same side of the aisle - but I will tip my hat to you for a most excellent post!
Obviously Williams and Russert are conservative RW media hacks.
I really don't ever remember any other candidate getting hit so hard by 'moderators' as Hillary was.
Very fair rebuttal sundog, but I offer a counter to the foregone conclusion you assert. While it may be true she will probably win the nomination, I see a far greater hypocrisy among the GOP hopefuls. I would argue that it is foregone conclusion that a democrat will definitely win the next election based on the lack of substance and quality among the republicans. I also do not feel as confused about her answers on several topics which have been deemed to have been answered ambigious by her. Real life issues are not black and white or right or wrong. Real concepts to answer our nation's problems require critical thinking, not just soundbite answers in the interest of time.
It seems like at least some dem's are concerned about HRC's negatives. I think there is fear her negatives might keep some dem's at home and turn out the repub's during the general election.
Actually, it's the right-wing needling of Hillary right now during our nomination that is galvinizing support for her among Democrats in the nomination process. It's nearly impossible for Democrats to criticize her because we get lumped in with the righties who attack her unfairly about everything in the world. Her campaign is intentionally capitalizing on this. If Obama points out that she didn't actually answer a question he is 'Abandoning Hope.' Her campaign is using this to put the focus on dynamics and remove substance from the internal Democratic debate.
You sir, represent Hillary's greatest asset.
Actually I was referring to Chris Dodd's comments regarding Hillary's electability during the debate.
let me rephrase
Actually I was referring to Chris Dodd's comments during the debate regarding Hillary's electability in the general election.
I missed the context. Still true about the righties helping Hillary to the nomination though. Some like Hannity are doing it very intentionally.
This may be a topic for a yet undeveloped thread - but guys like Hannity are pushing for a Hillary nomination. Plus - I don't think he has much impact on those who have yet to decide how to vote. He preaches to the choir.
I see it as one of the main dynamics shaping the campaign. I was very glad to see the other candidates point this out in the debate after Hillary tried to capitalize on it. Her whole stance was to be the above-it-all victim. So she pointed out just how much the GOP is attacking her. Irony times 1000. I was so glad when Obama said, Maybe they go after you because that's an argument they are comfortable having. Ed and Dodd later amplified this idea and stated it more bluntly. The coverage has almost completely ignored these exchanges in spite of what they imply.
In arguing with Hillary supporters, the main thing I find is that they support her because she has become the standard bearer in their minds against the right wing. What they ignore is that the righties are gleefully obliging in engaging her instead of other more difficult targets. It's basically a cheap trick but it's taking advantage of years of ingrained attitudes towards Hillary from right and left.
And her campaign is blatantly manipulating the situation. Any criticism of her, even just questions from the left that she doesn't want to answer are lumped in with the attacks she has been in from the right all these years. And for many of her supporters it all makes perfect sense.
They are in a fortress and the righties are making sure they stay there so no better Democratic candidate can get to them.
WC:
Your assertions are that Hannity is "preaching to the choir", but yet WANTS Hillary as the Dem Nominee.
How is he cleverly working this? He daily announces his "STOP HILLARY EXPRESS", which would on the surface seem a desire to derail Hillary's candidacy.
And, he's not giving this message to Democrats, a kind of "reverse psychology" which would have Dems supporting that which Hannity opposes, because -- as you note -- Hannity is "preaching to the choir."
It's all very confusing. Hannity is talking only to the Rightwing base, but in that, he is staunchly opposing a Hillary nomination, but he REALLY WANTS Hillary as the candidate, so he's actually trying to rouse Hillary support from among Democrats, who are NOT in the choir he preaches to.
Whew. I guess it's good enough if YOU understand what he's doing.
(Did you write that scene in "The Princess Bride", where the Vizzini uses his "reason" with the Man In Black about which bottle contains the poison?)
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0093779/quotes
about halfway down ...
Tex,
I agree with you about Hannity. He wants to stop Hillary and makes no bones about it.
Most of the conservatives think Hillary has the nomination locked up so they are focused on Hillary. Besides, she makes for an easy target.
As the front runner, she's now under the election microscope. The storyline emerging is that she equivocates on tough issues. Every reporter worth his/her salt will now ask direct yes/no questions. Unless she answers that spell out a definite position, she'll be labeled as 'calculating' to election day.
Tex, actually it is you who is making it overly complex. Hannity is hardly locked in a little room with only his supporters. Explain a huge billboard in Atlanta reading "Stop Hillary." That's hardly preaching to the choir. And since it's Democrats, ie the people who hate him, voting in the primaries, the predictable effect would be to push them further into her corner. What effect would someone who Democrats hate telling them to Stop Hillary be expected to have? And Hannity is only one minor example of it.
You seem to be obtuse because of your support for Hillary. That's what they do. When Democrats do it, that's not good.
Tex
Hannity is using the hatred the left has for him (he is proud of it) to rouse support from the Dem base to push HRC to the nomination. The amount of Dem minds he might change, if any, is insignifigant to him. He believes the results of the '06 elections are due to the GOP base staying home and not the advancement of the Dem agenda. By preaching to the choir he is energizing that base to get off their butts and vote in '08.
The GOP candidates are jokes - no one of real substance there. Guys like Hannity believe GOP has a better chance of people voting against HRC than voting for (insert GOP name here). If another Dem candidate gets the nomination more people may listen to what they have to say. In the general election that candidate may pose a greater threat than HRC - who many people just turn off.
This is of course my opinion only - I hardly listen to him. His voice aggrivates me.
When exactly has a lack of substance and quality hurt the Republicans? Where does that thinking come from? I am genuinely puzzled by that. It's hard to know how to respond because it's such a strange assertion.
The folks who brought us George W Bush might lose the election because they don't have any good candidates this time? I could carve a better man than Bush out of one of the dog turds cooling in my yard. Where does this overconfidence come from? Do you think they're so ashamed of W that they're going to just roll over and let us take our turn?
In fact, they run on the flaws and ambiguities of the Democratic candidate, not the qualities of their own. Hillary has by far the highest 'negatives' of any of the Democratic candidates. By far. She is the one factor that could allow them to galvanize their support behind their latest empty suit with a haircut. And that's before the campaign. Her tendency to employ double-speak and avoid direct answers is exactly the kind of ambiguity that allows the GOP to fill in the blanks. They are dying to run against her. The modern GOP machine is specifically designed to run against a candidate like her.
Hillary Clinton and Matt Drudge, perfect together.
I watched the debate and thought the whole field received some tough questions on policy and positions. What stuck out for HRC was her habit to equivicate. I understnd these are complicated times which do not necesssarily translate into sound bite answers. However, candidates should not be allowed to hedge their bets anymore. We need leadership and sound policy, not bi-partisan commissions and positioning.
There is an old Indian saying that "every young brave thinks theirs' is a new chapter in the book of life." But I do believe we face a critical point in our counrty. The candiadtes do not serve US well by hiding their positions, their reasoning or their intentions. Let it all out and let the chips fall where they may.
GOTKIDS:
Yes, Some voters DEMAND certainty, and so they can find certainty in candidates like GW Bush.
Bush ran on being AGAINST "nation building". Hated it, would never do it.
Same for DEBT. Hated it, would not allow it to build up, fiscal responsibility and all that.
Bush claimed he would be a "uniter, not a divider", and that his leadership would be a demonstration of "compassionate conservativism."
Bush HATED that government wasn't "transparent" and accountable. HIS administration would be open and honest. Yessiree!
So, you can get all the "certainty" you want from certain candidates. The problem is, they have no trouble at all LYING THEIR ASSES OFF.
Lack of substance and quality in the Republican party? Are you joking? What substance and quality did the boy king offer in either of the previous elections? None. It's flash and media lavish that render substance and quality absolutely meaningless.
The presidential race has officially made its way from being a forum of idea to a popularity contest. Substance is meaningless, and quality is limited to image. HRC recognizes this, and she knows that she doesn't need to worry about substance or consistency. She just needs to win enough of that popularity contest to bring her family back into the White House, the exact same way GWB squeaked his way in (minus the elections fraud, of course).
Can you imagine if those meanies at Fox News had their way with the democrat candidates? Oh the humanity!
I think next time they should all act 'ascared' again and run from Russert as fast as they did when Fox was to host a debate! This story should make the trotskys of what stands for the democrat party of today, proud to believe these wannabe leaders of the free world will face down Al Quieda in a fight, .............unless of course they are asked by an islamofacist if it is OK for illegal aliens to get driver's licenses.
By the way Media Matters (very little), it seems you guys have been off track all along? http://www.journalism.org/node/8197 What say ye?
You liberals are so brainwashed that you cannot tell the difference from being hard on someone and asking legitimate questions that the American people care about.
Hillary Clinton said in a meeting that she thought Spitzer's idea was a good idea. 80% of the American people disagree.
So...that line of questioning is reasonable, and she bombed.
Get over it. Tim Russert asked questions the American people wanted to hear.
That's fine Copious but the truth is there were some really important questions we have needed Russert to ask in the past and he has totally failed. Specifically when he speaks with members of the Bush administration. There is a real reason for a reaction against him.
The problem with the criticism of him here is that this was in the context of an internal Democratic debate and MMFA treats it as though he was criticizing her in favor of some conservative agenda. In this case, it's simply not true.
I love it. He asks her legitamate questions, and you turn it around to what he did or didn't ask Bush.
Bush is not running for the next election, Hillary is. Name one question that he asked her that was unfair. You can't.
He served the American people well Tuesday.
CD,
Has Russert served the American people well during the Bush-Cheney years? Why or why not?
No, I didn't turn it around to that. I've just written about three hundred words here saying why I think within the framework of the debate, Russert's actions were legitimate.
You were the one stating things in absolutes. As though Russert deserves no criticism for anything because he doesn't deserve it for this. My point is that MMFA is confusing issues in a way and now you are doing that too. Because this was a debate between Democrats and they treat it like an unfair conservative attack on Hillary. They ignore the fact that she was indeed avoiding direct answers.
They are not exposing conservative misinformation as is their stated purpose, they are revealing a specifically pro-Hillary Clinton stance by ignoring the substance of what was said and focusing on the dynamics, just as her campaign is now doing.
you said it perfectly!!!!
Gee...I wonder if the poodles in the media will get around to reporting that one of Hitlery's supporters suggested assassinating Tim Russert for pressing the Gorillary to actually answer a question
If that's the best you can do, dog, you'd better stay on the porch because you're going to get chewed up.
No..but it is all this particular blog is worth.
No..but it is all this particular blog is worth.
Then why are YOU here?
To laugh at the idiocy.
Russert had better stay far away from Marcy Park, if he knows what's good for him.
Idiots on display: you're #1, thanks for coming.
One of her supporters? Oh boy, you got her now. I think there is a guy who knocked over a bank last week who had a Bush bumper sticker. Clearly Bush is in favor of robbing banks.
Actually, the person that wants to assasinate Russert is part of Hitlery's inner circle. The threat to murder a journalist that didn't toe the fascist line was made during a campaign strategy session conference call.
STRANGER:
You accuse CONSPIRACY to COMMIT MURDER.
Wow.
And you KNOW who is involved, "Hillary's inner circle."
Why be coy? Stand up like a MAN and demand that these felons be arrested, charged, and tried. After all, you feel confident that there is enough evidence to state your assertion as FACT ... in fact, persons as sure of FACTS as YOU are, are called "witnesses" ... who come forward to testify about their knowledge.
So, get with it, you rightwing whistleblower! Take your accusation and engage our legal system, which really frowns on conspiracies to commit murder.
What's that you say? You don't actually HAVE the evidence? You don't really KNOW anything? All you have is vile smears?
Darn. Another rightwing SAVIOR bites the dust.
Well, I think the reporters from The Hill that listened to the conference call and heard Hitlery's crew discussing assasinating Russert should name names.
Those on the Gorillary's campaign involved should be prosecuted for this.
STRANGER:
So, you got NOTHIN'. As I expected.
But you DO have a skill, and you can be proud. You have a 3rd Grader's ability to take someone's NAME, and "make fun of it" by modifying that name in ways you consider "insulting". You tell the world that this is a person you don't respect, because LOOK! you play with her NAME. Gee, that will make the rest of us dislike her as well, because it's such a clever way to 'dis someone.
Way to go!
Isn't the job of a newsman supposed to be one of challenging these candidates; to get at what they stand for and how they will serve us as our leaders?
While I am annoyed with Russert for his refusal to ask tough questions of the administration, but is more than happy to beat on Clinton a bit, I am very happy to see that many of the questions she received from her were from the left of the political spectrum. We DO need to know why any of our candidates would entertain war with Iran at this point in time. We DO need to know why a supposedly "liberal" candidate would so often vote alongside conservative motions. Millions of us are still waiting to hear why our supposedly liberal majority refuses to ask the tough questions to the President and his administration, and hold them accountable for their crimes.
These are welcome challenges in a Democratic debate. It's a shame Russert doesn't hold the same standard of questioning to the President.
Simply and well put.
Of course, Hillary was right. There was a right-wing conspiracy against Bill Clinton, since the beginning of his campaign. Press figures like Russert aided and abetted it. Read "The Hunting of the President," for the picture of stupid and gullible reporters going to Arkansas bait shop owners. See the collusion between Scaife, Olsen, Goldberg, et. al., and the multiple wacko conspiracy theories about Hillary killing a man who committed suicide, making money on a land deal on which they lost money. See the "Clinton murders" nonsense. Think the 9/11 Truthers are stupid and irritating? The right went hook, line and sinker for Clinton madness, and were surprised as hell that Bill won reelection and ended very popular everyplace but Conservative Ruritania and the Establishment Press Whores like Russert, Matthews and Dowd. The only time Hillary was wrong was that her husband had had an affair. Of course, even that had its conspiratorial aspects; Lucianne Goldberg, Ann Coulter, and Ted Olsen conspired to convey the tapes provided by Monica's BFF as a perjury trap, to get Clinton impeached.
They're all gone by now, or diminished in political power. But Russert and the press whores still won't acknowledge what they did, what they did later with Gore, and what they're obviously going to try to do with Hillary if she gets the nomination.
Oh, and for those Obama and Edwards supporters who might feel like cooperating in the auto-da-fe, be prepared to have it done to your boy, too. Idiots like Russert really believe that they have the right to say who can run for president, just like Jack Welch had the right to throw his weight behind George Bush on election night 2000.
Would that be the same Jack Welch who personally hired Russert, Williams and Matthews?
Why yes, it would be.
If it's the job of the moderator to be even handed and elicit the views of all the candidates on the issues then Russert failed miserably.
Does he deserve to be called on it? Yes.
Sundog,
What do you not understand is that if the GOP select Rudy, the you can pretty much forget about the Christian conservatives vote, which was responsible for our current Dubya problem. Our next president will be selected by the independent vote here in America. I truly believe in my heart that these folks are really going to take a hard look at the candidates unlike in any previous election. The internet is fast becoming the source for most of our information on candidates positions, thus more and more people are developing very keen insight and are ready to make informed decisions. I really believe that smear campaigns are going to gain less and less traction as more people become more educated and informed on the real issues.
Even Rudy could get the right-wing vote with proper campaigning. Would it be easy? Of course not, but the GOP doesn't care about the quality of their own candidates. You'd have thought that an alcoholic and a coke user whose wife killed a man with her car, and whose girls seem to also be alcoholic drug addicts would not win the hearts of the right wing, especially against a "family man" like Gore. Rudy is slick enough to be able to work well with the GOP campaign machine, and if it is Rudy vs. Clinton, there's a damned good chance Rudy will win OR we'll be seeing filth throughout 2008 from both campaigns.
If Clinton gets the nomination AND if the GOP continue their dirty tactics, the DNC and Clinton campaigns will need to get their hands just as dirty to win. It will be horriffic to see, in the end, because this is not what our politics should be about.
I dread access to media next year. Maybe I'll just stick to reading ZMag once Jan 1 hits.
How can you even begin to talk about dirty tatics, while at the same time attacking Mrs. Bush for an accident in which she killed a friend of hers. You are pathetic
Pardon - do you NOT think that if Ms. Obama had the same history that it wouldn't be highlighted - REPEATEDLY - on conservative radio? For Christ's sake, they rant about him wearing PINS. The Bush family's closet is FULL of skeletons, and that is one of them. My point, which you obviously missed in your mock outrage, is that a closet full of skeletons is conveniently ignored by the Moral Majority when it is politically expedient.
Republicans will not lose the evangelical vote if Rudy is their candidate, no matter how often that lie is told. The GOP has perfected the whitewashing of their chosen, and that will also apply to Rudy if it has to.
while at the same time attacking Mrs. Bush for an accident in which she killed a friend of hers
I'm sure you said the same thing about Ted Kennedy, right?
Ted Kennedy was drunk and dissapeared. He continues to get voted in to office, 30 plus years now? Ms. Bush holds no office, had the accident when she was a teenager and was not charged wiith drunk driving. Hmm look at the kennedys history. again I ask, why do you give your own team a pass?
Our next president will be selected by the independent vote here in America.
Rove/Bush wrote the blueprint.
Both sides know it's a battle for the independents.
It's tricky business because you have to make sure your base gets out and votes while you're appealing to the independents.
Iraq is the major issue. 66% of Americans want a resolution sooner rather than later and any candidate who supports Bush's policy is fighting an uphill battle no matter how much mud the 527s sling.
Thanks Johnny. Absolutely correct.
It is stupid to pretend that Russert and Matthew's do not have total disdain for the Clinton's. More worrying is that MSNBC as an organization is trying to outfox Fox as most conservative (apologies to Olberman) Whoever ends up on top as the democratic candidate will face the same biased treatment.
It is not that complicated. Sen Clinton understands why a governor of a state to supports driver's licenses for illegal immigrants as a stopgap measure. The governor is put in this position because of the inability of the federal government, which is responsible for immigration and border control, to get a handle on the illegal immigration. This does not mean that Clinton is advocating driver's licenses for illegals at either the federal or state level.
Well, if she had a problem with this debate, it's a good thing that the Democratic Party has boycotted Fox News.
it's a good thing that the Democratic Party has boycotted Fox News.
For democrats, yes.
Compare the two...
Russert and Williams went after Clinton like bulldogs.
I tortured myself by watching the last Con debate on Fixed News. Loaded with softball questions and easy oportunities for the conservative wusses to bash Clinton.
When is Timmie going to host a Republican debate?
What this thread and the main article don't really put across well is whether Clinton was singled out or if her opponents in this debate received the same hard line of questioning that it is reported that she was.
To me it is unfair if she received the majority of hard questioning purely because she was/is the front runner. If it's a debate then everyone should be treat the same. You want to probe Clinton (or anyone else) with deep and probing questions on things specific to her, then do it during a one to one interview. A debate should surely give everyone equal time and be about general issues of policy. I actually believe that Clinton will actually probably benefit from this in two ways based on my reading here of what happened:
1. She seemed to have had to provide the most detail and received the most attention and so her opponents would have suffered to a degree from lack of exposure
2. If her treatment is perceived within the core democrat electorate as unfair then sympathy will draw more people to her.
Is this fair?
I agree completely. Debates are NOT intended to be showcases for the frontrunner - they are showcases of ALL selected candidates so that you can judge them equally (supposedly). Concentrating more attention on one candidate, as a host, is a failure, as it mars the supposed intention of the debate.
The problem with the debate was that it was set up to hurt Hillary. Barak and Edwards, never talked about what they will do or their vision. When asked a question, they would mumble something and then use their time to attack Clinton. I wanted to hear what they had to offer, not how much they didn't like Clinton. They were given fast balls by the moderators to hit Clinton out of the park. Barak said Clinton's answer to the immigration question was confusing, but he gave the same answer she gave. Clinton was harrassed by the moderators. They kept pressing her over and over again, after she had already given a valid answer. When asking the same question to the others, they took their answer and moved on. It was a set up. I knew everything about Clinton after the debate, but nothing about the other candidates, because she was the subject of every question. It isn't that they were picking on her, it was not a fair debate.
Can you imagine if those meanies at Fox News had their way with the democrat candidates? Oh the humanity!
I think next time they should all act 'ascared' again and run from Russert as fast as they did when Fox was to host a debate! This story should make the trotskys of what stands for the democrat party of today, proud to believe these wannabe leaders of the free world will face down Al Qa’ida in a fight, .............unless of course they are asked by an islamofacist if it is OK for illegal aliens to get driver's licenses.By the way Media Matters (very little), it seems you guys have been off track all along? http://www.journalism.org/node/8197 What say ye?I just couldn't help myself, I didn't want to miss out on all the fun!
It is already known what those "meanies at Fox News" would do. It would be what Bill Clinton called a "conservative hit job". Why should Democrats appear in a biased forum?
It makes them appear weak and afraid, of what? a tough question? If asked to debate on Fox, then do what Bill did and make the 'vast right wing conspiracy' the issue. Instead, the cowardly democrat candidates run from an opportunity to explain themselves honestly to the American people. That's what they are afraid to do, have to show who they really are....thus you saw a bunch of obfusactors, obfuscating.
Why have the republican candidates been willing to debate in any forum? They certainly are not timid about presenting their beliefs to the American electorate.
Most of the GOP candidates refused to appear at Morgan Sate University - so don't spout this crap about the brave Republicans. The Dems can get their message out just fine without going to Fox, thank you very much. It is not as if Fox viewers are going to vote for them anyway.
Wasn't it in Sept 2007 that Thompson, Giuliani, Romney, and McCain didn't participate in a debate at a historically black college? I believe this was also after a number of GOP candidates decided not to participate in a debate sponsored by a spanish-language network. So let's be honest, the GOP side isn't necessarily ready to air their beliefs anywhere, anytime either.
As for Clinton and the debate - I didn't see the debate, but if Clinton did waffle/hedge/obfuscate as everyone says, is it really all that surprising? All of these candidates hedge their bets and are extremely careful of how they answer, to pretend that hillary is the only one doing this is silly (with the exeption of long-shot candidates that have little to loose otherwise). We live in the age of technology and the gong show press, of course they have to be careful of what they say.
And the yes or no questions to extremely nuanaced and complex problems has become almost standard at all these debates. Personally, i like when a candidate refuses to answer in yes/no and elaborates on the issue, to me, it shows they are familiar with and have some understanding of the problem at hand.
Can you imagine if those meanies at Fox News had their way with the democrat candidates? Oh the humanity!
I think next time they should all act 'ascared' again and run from Russert as fast as they did when Fox was to host a debate! This story should make the trotskys of what stands for the democrat party of today, proud to believe these wannabe leaders of the free world will face down Al Qa’ida in a fight, .............unless of course they are asked by an islamofacist if it is OK for illegal aliens to get driver's licenses.By the way Media Matters (very little), it seems you guys have been off track all along? http://www.journalism.org/node/8197 What say ye?I just couldn't help myself, I didn't want to miss out on all the fun!
Duplicate post? No original thoughts , just repeats? I vote for repeats since no one paid attention to the first, the second post the same post but in larger fonts. You remind to of the small child saying nasty words to get attention.
What about Rangel's tax plan. She said she was not familiar with the details, then said she did not agree with all the details. How can she not agree with something she doesn't know about?
Remember what Cheney's communication director, Cathie Martin, said about Tim Russert and "Meet the Press":
Option 1: "MTP-VP," she[Martin] wrote, then listed the pros and cons of a vice presidential appearance on the Sunday show. Under "pro," she wrote: "control message."
"I suggested we put the vice president on 'Meet the Press,' which was a tactic we often used," Martin testified. "It's our best format."
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/01/25/AR2007012501951_pf.html
Teeny-taco,
Here's an excerpt from a story on the reaction of republicans to Chris Matthews (an aide to Tip O'Neil) and George Stephanopolis (worked in the Clinotn whitehouse) moderating a GOP debate:
"Writing the day before the October 9 MSNBC Republican presidential debate, Human Events editor Jed Babbin added that taking on Matthews specifically and media bias geerally is a sure-fire way to electrify the GOP voting base and awaken the general public to what they instinctively know. The media are biased to the left and actively engaged in furthering a left-wing agenda"
Toughen up democrat candidates and let American see more of what you really are about....they already know you are terrified of those meanies at Fox, just give America more of the stuff of which you are made! Then let the voters decide!
PC:
"The media are biased to the left and actively engaged in furthering a left-wing agenda"
You spout such nonsense. Look at what Cheney's Communication director said about Russert in my previous post.
TT,
I'll look at yours if you look at mine. Check the link regarding fairness in media that I noted as well.
Pearls before Swine,
I NEVER do the ALL CAPS thing but my repeat created a change in font size. I agree doing that it is childish and just shake my head when I see it. My apologies for the mistake but I stand by wanting to re-enter the dialogue, even if you disagree with the contents of my 'rants'.
And to all, I DID see that you pointed out MY ERROR regarding the refusal by top tier GOP candidates to attend a debate at Morgan State Univ, a school primarily attended by Americans of black african descent. I was not aware of that but would agree this was more than bad form. Conservatism possesses the central belief of the power of the individual to reach their potential, to rise above dependency and to see that liberty really is the best option for human condition.
We have not reached out to make sure that all Americans understand this message. To not participate is despicable and wish all the republican candidates had. I also wish I had been aware of this before I attempted to mock the democrats fearing FOX. I wish both sides would engage honestly at every opportunity in the future.
My humblest apologies.
Well Meet the Press is Dick Cheneys' and Mary Matalins favorite way to get the propoganda out according to Matalin herself. Tim Russert and Chris Matthews both go after Clinton desperately trying to bring her down at every opportunity. Makes you wonder if Hillary is supposedly the dream candidate of the GOP to run against why everyone and their brother are unloading both barrels on her every chance they get. Seems they're getting a little worried. Hillary ought to boycott any future debates "moderated" by either Russert, Matthews or Fox News.
How is any of this Tim Russert's fault? Hillary Clinton is the one who couldn't answer basic questions.
The point is that Russert is not even handed. He let Cheney get away with outright fabrication on Meet the Press for years but now he won't accept Hillary Clinton not answering his questions to his liking during this debate.
see video: Dennis Kucinich for President Telling the Truth at Debate
don't let Russert and the rest of MSM rob us of the chance to vote for the best candidate.
Dennis Kucinich is the only democrat running for President who has voted against authorizing the war in Iraq and against funding its continuation.
if she would answer the friggen questions one way or the other, Russert wouldn't have to follow up with so many additional questions. Hey, she is the front runner now and she can't camoflage her answers forever. Tim is a fair guy, but not apt to let her get away with dodging. I hope she doesn't try to make out that she is being bullied. She is strong, tough and can handle the pressure.....just give us some straight answers.
While it impressive (and a little eyebrow raising) that you have manged to extract Mr. Russert's questions to Mrs. Clinton going back so many years, I am left wondering "why?"
What is the problem with asking her difficult questions? She seeks the highest elected office in the land. The US is not a Parliamentary system...there is no opposition across the aisle to hold her responsible on a daily basis. So it falls to the media, doesn't it? Good for Mr. Russert.
I think that Mrs. Clinton, her supporters (including, perhaps, yourselves) have forgotten that she does not seek to be monarch of the United States. She seeks to be the President of a republic. There is no reason to insulate her from direct questions...particularly ones that relate to her fellow citizens, and constituents, in the State of New York. Frankly, there is too little of this.
Russert, Chris Mathews, Wolf Blitzer, and Lou Dobbs are megalomanics.I am SO SO very tired of them. I am hungry for news and politics, and I find myself turning off both networks in disgust with greater frequency these days.They have built Ms. Clinton up, and now they are tearing her down (not Dobbs)
The debate the other night was a vicious farce, and since, MSNBC has not gotten of the senator's back for one minute.
I would like to see the count of the times they used the word "flip-flop"
To Hillary, Qusetion: Is the sun shining?
Hillary's answer: You know that nuclear fusion is very complicated. Weather is very unpredictable and constantly changing.
Bill's answer: Well it all depends on what you mean by 'shining'?
Bush: I won't comment while there is an on-going investigation going on.
Tom Delay, et al: Ain't in the Bible. Liberals are taking over our schoos with their godless science.
boo hoo. Someone actually asked Clinton tough questions. Hmmm, if a republican responded this way to being questioned, people would be saying the person should "grow up." And make a big deal about it.
By the way, why, if we are to be a gender neautral country, is it a big deal if a woman becomes president? Shouldn't it matter if they are qualified, and not their gender. Stop making a deal out of her possibly being the first woman president. Stop dividing the country.l
The homosexual propagandist, Media Matters, can't accept that Hillary turned in an exceedingly poor performance.
Russert asked Hillary a question about New York. Surprise, it turns out Hillary is the senator of New York.
The gay jihadist believe Hillary is their ticket to sexual chaos on a national scale.
I watched most of the "event" (not really a debate, except for a brief exchange between Hillary and Dodd) last night. I was impressed, really with all the candidates. Hillary held her own and I think too much is made of the driver's license issue. Actually I give her credit for not giving a dumb yes or no answer to it. Everyone has an opinion about illegal immigrants, but until someone is willing to offer a reasonable national policy, the states will have to come up with some way to monitor who is in their state.
I do not at all appreciate her equivocating about Iran...she needs to stop Bush from war mongering... instead she votes for crappy resolutions about Iran. This is extremely troubling.
I loved Biden; he really shone, esp. on foreign policy. And his Giuliani jokes were great. Richardson and Dodd also did well. Edwards is great on labor issues; however, sorry he takes the standard position on not legalizing marijuana.
Kucinich of course is right on about Iraq. Didn't appreciate the moderators trying to marginalize him with their UFO question. Obama handled that one very well. :)
Overall the questions were pretty good. Most of them did involve policy. Makes you wonder why in the Republican debates, it's all about how tough they will be against terrorism and who is more religious (gag/puke)
"To me it is unfair if she received the majority of hard questioning purely because she was/is the front runner."
No it is fair. Reporters always hunt the biggest game in the room. That is the nature of the business Jack killing the Giant. Lately, however, they have been kissing the Giant's backside -- see the White House. Russert did his job. The problem is the press lately has done its job infrequently and selectively, so when we see it done it suprises us.
Tim Russert is sadly, to full of himself to admit that he is a poor moderator. His questions last night were idiotic and amateurish, particularly the one about whether the candidates would "assure America that Iran won't get nuclear weapons" . That;s like asking a candidate to assure Americans of who will win the British elections...ho can an American President assure people as to what will happen in a foreign country. Russert is notoriously soft on Republicans as is his butt brother Chris Matthews. Clinton did fine last night, and if anyone was humiliated (besides Rudy Giuliani) it was Tim Russert and Chris Matthews.
Thank you media matters for trying to assasinate one of the fairest and most respected people in the media cause, he didn't malign to your agenda. Sorry but, maybe it was Clintons fault for trying to play both sides on every issue. Go back to legit storys like how Bill O'Reilly defames people 6.8 times every minute. I'd also like to thank you for getting a congress that has continued this oil war.
I didn't realize how powerful Media Matter is...they can assasinate press people and elect congress all by themselves. Wow.
I'm sure you think that HRC is "fair game" (a term I hate) but Russert must not be touched. Because....? I think his tough question facade should be examined, because he doesn't follow up when he asks a tough question. He throws softballs at Dick Cheney and seems more interested in having access than doing his job, as was said earlier in this thread. His appearing on Imus over & over, his entaglement with the White House thugs who outed Plame, etc.
To be fair, he does rise to the occasion on occasion, and he is but one of many mainstream press people who don't do the tough questioning and investigative journalism that this country so clearly needs.
I guess Clinton got to accustumed to the free ride up til now.
Russert did what he is expected to do--confront on the issues concerning the candidate who is being ushered onto the red carpet without having to sit in the frontrunner's hotbox. Better we know now that she can't take the heat because if she thought the Democratic boys were picking on her, she will run off the stage in tears when the Republicans get ahold of her. And we women don't need role models who think acting tough is adopting a macho swagger, but then whines when she isn't treated like the Queen . How I hate the smug look on her face every time she hears herself speak.
Poor little girl...waaaaaaa! wonder what those women who she smeared to cover up for her sexist husband think of her playing the woman card now?
I'm not going to vote for Hillary in the primary, but really. She's very tough. Your take on her is petty.