NY Times' new columnist Kristol said Clinton won because "[s]he pretended to cry"
SUMMARY: William Kristol attributed Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton's victory in the New Hampshire Democratic primary to "the tears," saying, "She pretended to cry; the women liked it." He added, "The women were sorry for her, and she won." Kristol is one of several media figures who described Clinton's actions as "calculated," reviving a characterization frequently made by the media that Clinton is "calculating."
During Fox News' January 8 "You Decide 2008" coverage of the New Hampshire presidential primaries, Fox News political contributor and recently hired New York Times columnist William Kristol attributed Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton's (D-NY) victory in the Democratic primary to "the tears," saying, "She pretended to cry; the women liked it." Anchor Brit Hume asked Kristol, "You think she pretended?" Kristol responded, "I do," to which Hume replied, "I don't." Kristol added, "The women were sorry for her, and she won." Hume had previously asked Kristol if "there [is] anything else to attribute it [Clinton's victory] to," to which Kristol said, "No, it's the tears." Kristol was referring to a recent campaign event in Portsmouth, New Hampshire, during which Clinton's voice broke as she talked about why she is seeking the presidency.
Kristol's January 8 comments came moments after Fox News political contributor and National Public Radio special correspondent Juan Williams said of the incident, "Now, Hillary Clinton shows a little emotion, and people say, hey, wait a minute, the ice queen is melting. There's a real person inside."
As Media Matters for America documented, Kristol is one of several media figures who described Clinton's actions as "calculated," reviving a characterization frequently made by the media that Clinton is "calculating." On the January 7 edition of Fox News' Special Report, Kristol said, "I don't believe it was genuine. I think no Clinton cries without calculating first," adding, "She's crying for herself, and I don't even believe it's genuine. I think it's entirely calculated."
The blog Think Progress also noted Kristol's January 8 comments.
From the 10 p.m. ET hour of Fox News' January 8 "You Decide 2008" coverage:
HUME: And quite an achievement for her, I suppose, to come back with only a few days and the momentum coming out of Iowa and all that, and the Barack Obama -- I mean, the, good Lord, you certainly -- there was nothing about the media coverage of the last several days that would have generated any momentum for her -- unless, as one of my colleagues suggested tonight, that perhaps that incident in the restaurant when she showed a little emotion.
WILLIAMS: That's right.
HUME: That that might've -- I mean, that was obviously seen everywhere. I mean, there are very few people who --
WILLIAMS: In fact it was headlines. It was headlines.
HUME: It was headlines.
WILLIAMS: And inside the Clinton campaign, they were calling it the anti-Muskie, you know, the reverse Muskie, because, remember, Ed Muskie cried here, and everybody thought he had broken down and he was a weak man and certainly couldn't be our president. And all of a sudden he went down.
Now, Hillary Clinton shows a little emotion, and people say, hey, wait a minute, the ice queen is melting. There's a real person inside.
And this has to do with her redirecting her campaign in the last few days, because, as we've seen in the exit poll numbers, it was the last few days that seemed to have changed the tide here.
And if that's the case, Hillary Clinton showing emotion, Hillary Clinton starting to offer some sort of vision beyond I'm Bill Clinton's wife and I'm a policy wonk, that started to stir people up. And her appeal to women on the abortion issue, I think --
HUME: So your view of it was then that in doing that, with her voice soft, and whatever it was, it was certainly feminine, that that was appealing to voters?
WILLIAMS: It was appealing to women voters specifically, Brit. And I think it's going to pay off.
And I think going forward -- you know, we've talked about the black vote, we have not talked about the Latino vote, but the Latino vote is strongly with Hillary Clinton.
Going back to John Edwards for just a second, I think at this point he's a wholly owned and operated subsidiary of the unions, and that's why he stays in. You know, his "Two Americas" speeches way back in '04 was very effective, talking about the need to care for the poor, health care, education.
But, you know what? It's gone away from that now, and I think it's become personal between him and Hillary. And if that's the case, I think a lot of people are just gonna turn off to John Edwards as he's got his problems, but it's not about the leadership and future of the country.
HUME: Here's old stone heart here with his data.
KRISTOL: No, I, well, I'm -- unfortunately, senior women are not stonehearted, as I am, and they went big for Hillary.
It's interesting if you look at when people decided. This was an even race before Iowa. I mean, let's not overdo this. It's not as if Obama has been here for weeks or months. He was behind, he caught up, Hillary Clinton was slightly ahead.
People who decided sometime in the last week strongly for Obama. He did get a bump out of Iowa. Sometime in the last few days, a little bit for Obama. In the last day, for Clinton -- a small margin, but still for Clinton.
HUME: Well, is there anything else to attribute it to?
KRISTOL: And that's the tears. No, it's the tears. She pretended to cry; the women liked it.
HUME: You think she pretended?
KRISTOL: Yes.
HUME: I don't.
KRISTOL: The women were sorry for her, and she won.
So, that is his opinion, what is the issue? He is a pundit , they get paid to give opinions.
I think the issue is the constant drum beat from conservatives that EVRY SINGLE THING any Clinton does is fake and calculating. This is another example of it. I think it is misinformation, so does Media Matters. The problem with Kristol is he is no political pundit or columnist, he is a Republican strategist with a huge video and print microphone. In that context, you may be right, what is the big deal, would we expect anything less from Kristol? Kristol also said John Edwards should get out of the race because the American taxpayers are paying for him to run. I thought it was a bit ironic considering how many billions of taxpayers money was "lost" due to his foolish project in Iraq he fought so hard for our government to implement.
I don't know whether I'd call it Mis-Information, it's simply his biased opinion. I happen to believe that Hillary was genuine, but I would have been shocked to hear that Kristol did.
Kristol probably thinks the mothers of soldiers killed in the war he supports are pretending to cry too.
The guy is an ass.
Yes the guy is an A** and I also think Hillary was genuine, but why attack someone who thinks differently when that is what he is a pundit? He is not an anchor like Keith Olbermann co hosting MSNBC coverage with Matthews. My God.
but why attack someone who thinks differently when that is what he is a pundit?
As a pundit, you could say that Clinton "cried" because she was frutrated, or because she was moved by something.
But to say that she was faking it, is at best misinformation and at worst at a lie.
Why is it acceptable for a pundit to opine that Hillary may have "cried" because she was "frustrated" or "moved", but it's a lie to say she was pretending?
Seems both are one's opinions based on their perceptions, and perhaps preconceived notions, of what they saw.
One is no more valid than the other, they are strictly one person's opinion
The difference being, tommy, that William (the bloody) has yet to score a single accurate prognostication: even his hindsight has yet to register a point. For someone who has NEVER been correct (although always "right") to issue a PAID opinion verges upon the ludicrous.
Well considering the NY Times pays him and I don't, nor do I read their newspaper, that is their business.
It's an unbased assertion. There's a difference between speculating why she got emotional and flat-out saying that she was faking it. He doesn't know. He couldn't possibly know, and he must be fully aware of that.
Unless there's a history of suspiciously-timed or poorly-acted emotional outbursts, you would tend to give someone the benefit of the doubt that they were being genuine. To assume such a thing based on nothing is prejudicial and intellectually bankrupt. Whether it's a "lie" or not, it's reckless behavior at best.
Short answer - Clinton
Which means that Brabantio is correct. Case closed.
There may be plenty of Clinton bias, but there is also plenty of Clinton history for people to make a prettty damn good judgement of what makes them tick - they are NOT an unknown entity, no matter how you see them.
You're right, Tommy. The Clintons are not an unknown entity. Nor are their detractors.
Most, if not all, of those hacks in the media, chiming in about Teargate, have spent many an hour savaging the Clintons in the past.
Sometimes, they've had good reason and more often than not, they had no good reason, other than trying to generate more division in the country.
Kristol has been doing it since 1993 when he started attacking Clinton's health care proposal. He was the one who claimed back then that there's nothing wrong with the health care system in America.
There have been times over the years that Hilary Clinton has actually seemed like she cared about this country and was willing to put nation before party.
As far as I can tell, there has never been an instance where Kristol has not been willing to do that.
Not once.
We're more divided now than at any other point in our history. It's time that we put all of the petty bullsh_t away and focus on today and how we get to tomorrow.
Worrier,
I don't disagree with anything you've said, I am not a Kristol fan by any means, for various reasons.
And of course his opinion, his slanted opinion is full of anti-Clinton bias, so anything he writes about them is viewed through that prism, and should be taken as such. Which is why I find most of it just partisan, and unworthy of much more than that.
People can agree or disagree with him.
"And of course his opinion, his slanted opinion is full of anti-Clinton bias, so anything he writes about them is viewed through that prism, and should be taken as such. Which is why I find most of it just partisan, and unworthy of much more than that. People can agree or disagree with him."
Wait that's not right. Let's edit that...
"And of course his opinion, his slanted opinion is full of anti-O'Reilly bias, so anything he writes about him is viewed through that prism, and should be taken as such. Which is why I find most of it just partisan, and unworthy of much more than that. People can agree or disagree with him."
That's better. So what you're saying is that nobody could take Olbermann's opinion of certain illegal-immigration opponents as being dishonest or untrue, and so couldn't possibly be used as proof that Olbermann traffics in falsehoods. It's just a matter of whether you agree with his opinion or not, nothing more.
I would agree with that.
I'll amend that. I don't think O'Reilly was one of the people that Olbermann called racist, so I know it doesn't match up right. Still, with Kristol it's just his opinion, with Olbermann it's the first thing that comes to Tommy's mind to demonstrate how Olbermann traffics in falsehoods.
From one day to the next, completely contradictory comments. What a shocker.
Let me just say one thing, and I am very flattered by it actually, if the truth be known.
If I am so impotent around here and full of so many glaring contradictions, worthless or have little or no impact, then why do you go to such great lengths to try and discredit me all the time? As I said, I am flattered to have that kind of affect on you, and a few others around here too. With so many liberals posting and only a few conservatives, why me? Why do I get your attention so? Why do I get under your skin like nobody else? If I was so stupid, or irrelevant, or whatever, you know you wouldn't bother, now would you? Do you get all hot and bothered by hit and run rightwingers who throw out idiotic crap around here? No, you ignore them because they have no affect on you, isn't that right Brab? You keep me on my toes because, well, we both know why......I am sure you will say I am full of myself or something, but whatever, it's the truth and if you were honest, you'd admit it.
Of course I don't expect an admission, and you will likely answer appropriately, but we all can read between the lines and know why I bother you so much.
Think about it........
:)
I do the same thing to AA, RinoHunter, and anyone else who makes such glaring contradictions. Further, I really don't have to go to any great lengths.
You actually showed what the reason was yesterday. You wanted everyone to take you at your word that you saw some episode where Olbermann made certain comments. But you couldn't back it up.
That speaks to credibility. That's the point. When you make such blatant contradictions, and hold such obvious double-standards, then it shows everyone why your word can't be taken at face value.
You're accountable for your own words. It's really that simple, and it's been explained to you many times.
I really have no idea what you're blathering on about here. I really don't care. It's just some vague personal attack because you can't handle personal accountability.
HAHA!! Do you see me going to the arguing lengths with posters who have no credibility? Of course not, nobody does. But you do to me all the time. Or is it that you just can't stand it that someone dares come on and challenge your liberal mentality?
Think about it, you might get it.
awwww, you said Brab has credibility!
"Do you see me going to the arguing lengths with posters who have no credibility?"
You've questioned Clams credibility several times. Yet you went to great arguing lengths with him yesterday. Your point wasn't who you argued with anyway, it was about who I argued with, and everyone knows you're not the only person I've had long debates with.
"Of course not, nobody does. But you do to me all the time. Or is it that you just can't stand it that someone dares come on and challenge your liberal mentality?"
What does your double-standard have to do with anyone else's political views? You can challenge whatever you like, I have no problem discussing beliefs with anyone, which you should know because you've been on my side on several threads where homosexuality is the topic.
Quit flailing. If you're really so indifferent to being called out as a hypocrite, then why are you making such an effort to antagonize me? Just accept it and move on, without suggesting all sorts of ridiculous motives.
I'll be back later, looking forward to seeing the depths you'll dig yourself into. Try not to get too personal, we all know you hate it when people attack you personally, OK?
Despite your insult, I will try and answer you.
Yes, I admit I do argue with people who I have come to have no respect for, Clams specifically - and would you considering the numerous times he has called me a racist? I do get caught up in the moment and have a stubborn streak, I have never denied that.......but what I mean by the "lengths", I mean searching through MMFA's archives and then linking to irrelevant topics and introducing past comments and topic threads into unrelated current topics being discussed - all for the express purpose of trying to discredit my opinions, or playing some "gotcha" game. I rarely, if ever, do that.....because I won't go to such lengths just to try and show someone else up. It's petty, it's desperate and it's what a few do here, you know who I mean.
:)
or then there is the other explanation. people provide links to just show how you change your opinions to fit a particular thread or time, when you had just the opposite opinion before. if you were able to show some inconsistencies on the part of others, you would do it in a heartbeat. showing inconsistency is not some "gotcha" game. you don't like people doing it, so you try to throw them off by claiming how they are supposedly obsessed with you.
You just proved my point, and don't tell me what I would be "able" to do if I could.
The point is; why do you really care? You answered it, thanks :)
the point is why do you care, if people quote you accurately? you want to claim that it would be "petty" of you to do it. why would that be? this is a discussion board. that your credibility, or hypocrisy, is not supposed to be something to be discussed is a rather curious claim, considering that so much of this site revolves around various showings of contradictory statements. you apparently see yourself as mr. i can't take the heat, but i won't get out of the kitchen. your posts are fair game. just like anyone else. deal with it.
HAHA!! Do you see me going to the arguing lengths with posters who have no credibility?(Tommy)
Why would you argue with the people you agree with? ;0)
HBL,
As I explained in the previous post, I did not say arguing, I said arguing lengths.
Hey Tommy, this is one progressive poster who appreciates you. I don't always agree with you, but you, Jeter, AA, and even Sue make these threads more enjoyable day in and day out.
That being said, that whole business yesterday about the illegal immigration mess was just that, a mess. I can't tell who "won" but I do know both sides misrepresented themselves to some degree, though to the same degree, I'm not sure.
I think this all goes back to the baby boomers "you're either with us or against us" '60s mentality. It's gotten so ridiculous these past 10 years or so, that one side can't even hear what the other side is saying, because it's almost as if we come from two different realities. Think about it. When was the last time you argued, face-to-face, with someone from the "other side" and both sides ended up so confused about what the other was saying, that nothing was resolved? That's what we've become, a nation of over-talkers. If I can talk over you, then I've won the argument. It's pathetic.
It's also why I'm an Obama supporter. I believe Andrew Sullivan said it best on the Colbert Report Monday, so I'll let him speak for me in that regard.
Thanks DB, I agree completely.
I know it makes you feel all warm and fuzzy if you think you've caught me in some contradiction, whatever gets you through, frankly I am indifferent to it anymore.
In any event, I am not rehashing an off topic argument here just to please you, but let me say that to call someone a racist because of a disagreement over policy is slimy and underhanded, which is what Olbermann did. If I called you a racist with no merit, is that my opinion? Perhaps, but it's invalid.
However, for Kristol to assert Hillary's cry is pretending is hardly without merit considering their historical context. And this is part you always seem to have trouble with - YOU ARE FREE TO DISAGREE!!, and call it crap, or stupid, or baseless, or whatever else you care too...damn, isn't that wonderful? So the validity comparison of each example, the topic thread here, and your off topic introduction, is apples and oranges.
You seem to have such a hard time getting this whole opinion thing, and I know you itch for a 100+ debate on it, but we've done it before and you still don't get it, so why bother?
So, enjoy your day.
And you're free to disagree with Olbermann's opinion. Your point yesterday wasn't that it was slimy and underhanded, it was that it showed how he trafficked in falsehoods.
And besides, it would be just as easy to claim that Olbermann had histories to base his comments on (which we couldn't because you could never explain who he was talking about at all), or to say that Kristol's opinion is invalid.
So backpedal all you want, it doesn't explain how you can claim an opinion is a lie one day and then say an opinion can't be called a lie the next. There's nothing about the two threads that explains that away.
Had he said she MAY have been pretending he would have been on solid ground. When are you guys going to give up on the its just an opinion defense. IF its an opinion stated as fact without even an ATTEMPT at evidenciary back up its misinformation. Tommy molests small furry animals. So is that misinformation or just my opinion, notice I didnt state it as an opinion and niether did Kristol
Sueeld,
Has KO done anything during his coverage on MSNBC that has skewed their coverage in any way?
Yes, his opinions and discussions in his own show have hurt MSNBC from having a fair look at the coverage. Even Tom Ridge last night was sort of laughing and mocking Olbermann when he was being interviewed. This is someone who is a gentleman and has been on the other end of Olbermanns WPITW Smears.
Tom Ridge last night was sort of laughing and mocking Olbermann when he was being interviewed.
I saw the interview and did not notice ANY laughing or mocking by Ridge. By "sort of" do you mean "not really"?
I saw the interview and he was laughing, but it was a fair exchange between Ridge and Olbermann. Lets be fair here.
Ridge is a paid political operative and a self-caricature and he’s just not capable of mocking Olbermann. One would have to be more delusional than the Giuliani campaign to think Ridge got the better of Olbermann in that interview.
You must think the same of Brit Hume then, right Sue? His opinions on Fox News Sunday should disqualify him as well, right?
Absolutely, Brit Hume is a GOP propagandist.
I'd call the 15 year campaign by Clinton's political opponents to smear their sincerity is conservative misinformation and Kristol's statement is an example of that. The whole trick has been to smear them personally because they could not compete with them on policy. The Clinton years speak for themselves, unfortunately, so do the GW years. Did you know that abortions went down under the Clinton administration but are again rising? Did you know that W Bush has increased the size of government by 33%? Did you know that less Americans died at the hands of Islamic terrorist attacks in Bill Clinton's 8 years in office than in any other 4 year period of any president since 1980? Who cares about that when Bill is a womanizer and Hillary is a cold biotch? That is the point of the 15 year campaign to smear the Clintons. No matter what happened, just remember those two charteristics of Bill and Hillary, that has been the plan of the right.
NO that isnt good enough. Ethics require if he is making such an accusation he have something to back it up. If a lefty columnist accused Bush of being a child molestor would you say well its just his opinion so that is ok?
So, that is his opinion, what is the issue? He is a pundit , they get paid to give opinions.
Many folks including his partner Brit Hume
1) Don't believe he is being truthful about his opinion, or
2) His opinion are worthless
Opinions are fine, granted, but anyone who gives an opinion on a psychological issue had better be a shrink himself if he wants to be taken seriously. Rule numero uno, as they say...
Last time I checked, Billy Kristol isn't a shrink therefore his 'opinion' is crap as always.
No, that is not just an opinion. When you ACCUSE someone of something you are obligated to cough up some evidence and mind reading doesnt matter. If I said you molest small furry animals or nieghborhood pets. Would you say well its ok its just his opinion? THAT is a smear, THAT is misinformation unless he has her cue cards and they say cry here. Other than that the its his opinion excuse cannot be used for making things up and claiming them as fact.
And he got his job at the NY Times because he pretended to think.
I think fred Barnes decided to oust him from his post at FOX. no love lost between the two.
Whether she did or didn't, whether it swayed votes for or against her, whether it was genuine or not, whether it mattered - it's all basically irrelevant and just stuff for pundits and talk shows to over-speculate on until it wears out.
Congratulations to Hillary for her win yesterday.
Yep, there goes the neighborhood. Everyone get ready for another Repubulican in the White House. She won't beat Gumby in a general election. Moderates only hope now is that McCain gets the GOP nod.
I think you are wrong. America wants change, change from incompetent governing. Well, Clinton can bring competent governing back to Washington, AGAIN. George Bush has shown that whether you love government or hate government, we need someone in there who cares about governing. Someone that takes it seriously. The Republican Party is in shambles today because they have proven over the last 7 years that they are incompetent when it comes to running a government. What else would anyone expect from a bunch of people who hate government anyway and only want to dismantle it? No republican has a chance in November against Hillary or Obama.
We have an honest disagreement here. I agree with you about the yearnign for change. I also would agree that tis election is the Democrats for the taking. But, I have said this (probably too many times) and at risk of sounding like I regurgitate punditry from the MSM, she is too polarizing. Too many people view her negatively. She cannot win a single southern state and her polarizing presence will only hurt her with the independent vote. I can tell you that as a lifelong person who has voted Democrat 90% of the time I will not vote for her. Nominating her is giving away the White house, in my humble opinion.
I am not so sure Chris, the Democrats are far more energized than the Republicans, so far anyway.....and the Republicans are sputtering knowing who to nominate, how can they really decide with the paltry group they have running and the less than enthusiastic people voting for them.
Democrats win unless they really screw it up.
You're correct Tommy. But she is too polarizng to win the independent vote, especially if McCain gets the GOP nod. Too many negatives, too much baggage, she is just an extension of the status quo i.e four years of a Bush, eight years of a clinton, eight years of a Bush, and do people really want to continue with this dynasty? I don't know about you but I sure as hell don't.
Chris, You make very valid points, and I do think McCain would be her toughest opponent. And I have said that why can't we have other families besides the Bushs and the Clintons occupying the White House?
I guess time will tell if she energizes her party to get the Republicans out, or if the Republicans feel strongly enough against her to get out and vote. Sometimes I think they are just resolved to lose this year and are slightly apathetic about it all......especially given their unexcited slate of candidates.
Maybe the Republicans will just shrug and say let her have the damn office then, what do we have to offer?
Good point about her candidacy energizing Republicans to vote. If nominated I think you will see that. If nominated I surely hope McCain is as well so I can go vote. I will admit that I have been caught up in the Obama ferver and would likely support him. I'll even give him money if he is nominated. On the other hand as a "traditional Democrat" what gives me hope about McCain (if Hillary is nominated) is that many of the right wing talking heads simply call him a liberal. I figure if people like Limbaugh, Hannity, and O'Reilly don't like him he can't be all that bad.
You're right. The polarizing entrenched hardliners on both sides don't like any moderation, or any bridge-builders who want to kick their divisiveness to the side. This threatens the foundations of their base and asks people to look around for other alternatives, perhaps those who will work together.
This is especially true of far left, or far right talk show hosts - they live and die off of divide and conquer, keep their listeners angry and bitter against any opponent. Anyone who dares shake that up scares the hell out of them.....which is why the far right detests McCain, and the far left soon will for Obama, I believe.
It's hard to believe that anyone has the audacity to criticize Hillary. After all, she is the infallable one. At least that's the impression I get from this lame excuse for a web site.
Don't let the door hit you in the ass on the way out then.
if that's the impression that you get, then our school system has failed. Why don't they teach reading comprehension anymore? Oh yeah, NCLB.
I'd really like to see some real criticism of Hillary for a change, instead of empty accusations of pretending, acting, cold calculation, murderous intent, conspiracy, and deviousness.
The media and pundits have been bashing the Clintons for "whining" about unfair media treatment. Last night, it became so evident that they are absolutely right. I like Obama, but the media looks at nothing he does with any hint of skepticism. The polar opposite is true of Clinton. I really think all of the negative press about Hillary and the writing her off has united a bunch of folks around her. The woman is a fighter and always has been. This race has only begun but I think the press is doing Hillary a favor right now. The average American can observe that the playing field is not level. These, mostly men, pundits are not necessarily mysoginist, but they are when it comes to a woman being president. Matthews is the absolute symbol of that in my opinion. He is so old school and embarasing in his opinions and observations concernign race and gender.
OK, Pete: Senator Clinton is too corporatist, too hawkish, too inclined when in doubt about the saleability of her instincts, to seek centrism and approval rather than "Damn the torpedoes, do the right thing!"
I will nonetheless vote for her if she is nominated as the Democratic candidate; and might even contribute to her general election campaign if she is nominated.
I agree with your assessment of HC. As we got closer to this election cycle I began to pay closer attention to HC and her record and I was disappointed in her. My choice for president is Barak Obama, but if HC wins the Dem nomination honestly and with out mud slinging or dirty political tricks I will vote for her; but right now I'd like to see a Obama/Edwards ticket take the White House. I kind of think that's really what Edwards is realistically expecting as well. I also believe that Obama’s and Edwards’ assessment of HC is probably the same as ours. I think the two of them are probably closer in philosophy than they are to HC, although I believe that Edwards’ is more liberal than Obama. Obama strikes me as a more pragmatic Liberal like myself. Anyway I hope to see that ticket or some similar pairing and you know Edwards in 8 years could launch a run as VP for the main chair.
Exactly, one of the things that kills me is there are plenty of legitimate criticisms of Hillary and we hear how her voice sounds and she is pretending when she cries. I dont like the lady, I never have, it galls me to keep defending her. I hope she gets knocked off and its still likely.
LAME WEASEL OF A COMMENT
WEASEL14532: I can say this much for you - Your nick fits.
Go away sorcerer troll. You weak attempts at satire are stupid. They wont get better. You are pathetic go back to your bridge
It hurts...
...to say this, but Brit was right.
I wonder how blood manages to flow through Kristol's cold, cold body?
I think from now on, I'm going to call him comedian "Billy Kristol," because he's just sooooo funny...
p.s. no offense to Billy Crystal
Of course Kristol is wrong. I would like to take him to the track, have him pick a horse then take the field because that horse will never win.
Do not misunderstand me. I don't like Hillary. I want her out of the picture. BUT if you are looking for the angel that pulled her campaign out of the morass, it would be those that sat in the low branches waiting for the last gasp to pick her bones. The media actually created a backlash that stunted Obamas momentum.
I believe that as well, if the media is Obama's friend he doesn't need any enemies. I’m sure the media telling NHers who they would choose before any of them actually showed up a the polls had to be annoying. HC won fair and square and of course I was disappointed by her win because Obama was my choice long before the media developed a crush on him. I always felt that the media crush and simultaneous dislike of Al Gore shaped the 2000 election. I’m hoping that we (the voters) will ignore media influence and vote our own conscious now. I think that maybe we’re there, at least I hope so.
Steely eyed ice cold Kristol............who , in my opinion got ousted from his post at FOX by the other ego head Barnes. i don't think barnes appreciated Kristol's incessant overbearing opinions and cross talk..
The sheer arrogance of this man.
His message to his readers? First, ONLY HE is smart, perceptive, or clairvoyant enough to be able to determine people's true mind and motivation (by watching a VIDEO ... like Frist medically diagnosing Terri Schaivo).
Second, and particularly ironic, Kristol claims this ability on the issue of EMOTIONS, such as EMPATHY or COMPASSION ... as if he has shining expertise in these areas.
Third, Kristol, on behalf of his NeoCon brethren, has determined with disgust that the voting public is STUPID and GULLIBLE, willing to "fall for" an obvious bout of playacting. He shows ZERO respect for the American People (why does he HATE America?).
Fourth: Somebody PAYS him for this crybaby, sour grapes stuff. I wonder, is his distress REAL, or is he faking it because it's the best thing he can think of to say in order to advance his agenda? Or to get another paycheck? (I believe his distress is real.)
Fifth: Even MORE ironic, who made sure Hillary's "teary" moment was broadcast far and wide? It was the Rightwing Media, who figured this display of her "weakness" would sink her campaign, just as it did Edmund Muskie's in the past.
Sixth: It is the Rightwing Media that made sure everyone knew about it ... and here's the biggest irony of all: For the tears to demonstrate WEAKNESS as the rightwing was touting, THEY WOULD HAVE TO BE GENUINE, and an ACTUAL display of emotion out of control! Otherwise, she is not WEAK, but very much in control of herself. (Ah, this is the WIN-WIN, thinks Kristol. She is either WEAK, or CALCULATING. Nevermind the third possibility, that she was just upset, and has actual human emotions like everyone else. UNTHINKABLE!)
Seventh: Aw, hell. Keep it up Kristol. Your tone-deaf, ham-handed tactics along with that of your brethren Limbaugh, Hannity, et al ... it's the very best thing Hillary has going for her. The more you guys mindlessly and childishly ATTACK her, the more people see her merits. Keep it up, Kristol. Like any obsessive, you're your own worst enemy.
#3 is among the most important, IMO. It often goes unnoticed when a right winger smears the voting public, but not to someone as observant as you, Tex.
I think you're right, Tex. I've been noticing the same thing, that what these righty monkeys see as a "win-win" with the emotional AND Robotic framing is too stoopid even for many of their intended suckers.
As much as I'd like to see somebody less conservative than Hillary in the White House, I would take some pleasure in seeing the Fox GOP puppets writhing at the thought that they put her there with their clumsy overestimation of the countries gullibility.
KRISTOL: No, I, well, I'm -- unfortunately, senior women are not stonehearted, as I am, and they went big for Hillary.
While Kristol is saying this tongue-in-cheek, you know it's partly an image he wants to project, at least in comparison to those "old ladies".
It's a common and ridiculous theme used by Rush Limbaugh and many others in the media to build up the self-esteem of their followers; that conservatism is based on facts and cold, hard logic, while liberalism is all emotion.
Pretty obvious, with their voting for "safety" and "traditions", Kristol's own analysis here made up entirely of "feelings", that it's just that reliance on sheer emotion and sentiment that makes them want to create that imaginary rational image of themselves.
There could be an interesting backlash among women for the condescending attitude on display here by Kristol and other neanderthals on the teevee.
Along the lines of "I haven't been a Hillary supporter until now, but it makes my blood boil to see the attacks on her..."
Kristol is counting on people not actually seeing the video which shows HRC didn't cry at all.
He's misreading the situation if he thinks her base, women over 40, are voting for her out of sympathy. Its more likely they realize this is their shot and there isn't another one on the horizon.
I guess you can get a paycheck by simply having an opinion rather than an opinion which is actually based on facts.
Kristol is as bad as Scarborough/Matthews who brought up the question of whether the polls were so wrong because the voters lied about supporting Obama while never intending to vote for an African-American.
Kristol may be correct. Remember Ron Brown's funeral? Nobody can fake emotions when the cameras are on better than a Clinton.
Have proof their faking? Or is this just another baseless claim?
Dave,
What did you think of Boehner's tears on the Senate floor? Was he given the same treatement?
Thanks for sharing your feelings, Dave.You really seem like a sensitive, almost motherly type, with your ability to tap into other people's emotions.
I didn't tap into Bill's emotions. I watched them go from happy to sad in a matter of nanoseconds when he looked up and saw the cameras. It looked just like Jets fans watching their kicker step up to kick the game winning feild goal and seeing it go wide right.
Wow, those Jets fans sound pretty well organized.Thousands of them playing to the cameras like that.
Got video?
He has to, DBen. There were cameras there.
Video of the Funeral or the Jets fans? I'd like to see both, and figure out why Dave can't understand the death of a friend provoking as wide a range of emotions as somebody kicking a ball.
HBL,
The way the Jets played this year, I would think the reactions would be similar at kickoff and not just at the end of the games ;).
Last funeral I went to, we laughed AND cried. We remembered a life, good times, funny times, and were sad that a good person had passed.
But maybe DAVE is of the opinion that funerals should be exclusively solemn and dreary. If so, he should steer clear of an Irish wake or a New Orleans funeral procession.
(It IS good to see that some rightwingers are still mired in the 90's attempts to smear Bill Clinton. If they can just convince folks of Clinton's phoniness, maybe they can get him retroactively impeached again? LOL.)
Tex, I was going to mention the Irish Wake as well. Sappier than a Mexican funeral, and more brutal and funny than those 70s Friars Club roasts back when Don Rickles was in his prime.
I watched the video of Clinton, and it's possible that he saw the camera and changed his demeanor in a very calculated way. Possible. Also possible he was laughing and crying as any normal person does at a wedding, and one of many cameras in the crowd caught that change of expression (in a nanosecond !).
I don't know exactly what the truth is there. I'll leave that to the emotional Clinton Derangement Syndrome mind-reading feelings-channelers.
Of course, those disgusted by the duplicity of Bill Clinton most likely voted to restore integrity to our country with this guy.
And Unicorns MAY be eating my carrots. I have as much evidence they are as YOU do that Hillary was not being genuine. When will you wingnuts give up on trying to convince us you have amazing mind reading powers. YOU DONT.
To me, the best part about this is that the people who are most outraged wouldn't vote for her in a million years. If someone is a Kristol reader and follower, do you think he or she would ever vote for Hillary? Our guy Phillib is scared that she wouldn't be able to respond to terrorists if she cries at this point, but honestly, why does he care at this point? If she gets the nomination and its down to two candidates, I am sure he will use this as fuel to add to the fire while forgetting John Boehner's absolute meltdown on the floor of the Senate.
Why is this story of almost tears getting much, much more press than Boehner? The larger issue is, who cares either way? I guess my bottom line is that those who are most "concerned" with this show of emotion wouldn't vote for her anyway.
To those who criticize her (and I am one), let's keep the criticism to her policies and not to soundbites, ok?
Also, I never thought I would see a telecast where Brit Hume was actually, potentially the voice of reason. YIKES!
You forgot about Geoge H.W. Bush, and Duke Cunningham (I can't find a video for it, but we all know it's out there.)
A day late...
Actually, Kristol needs to keep up with the competition.
MSNBC's tag team of Tweety and Joe are harping on "The Bradley Effect" as the real reason HRC won. In other words, the pollsters and the ball-chasing puppies of the MSM had it right, but those evil, lying bastard voters deceived them with their poll answers.
Gooooood puhhpeees!
Maybe MMFA could do another article based on these two statements:
KRISTOL: And that's the tears. No, it's the tears. She pretended to cry; the women liked it. AND
KRISTOL: The women were sorry for her, and she won.
Does Kristol really think Democratic women are so simple in their thoughts that her policies could not have possibly played a role in their votes for her? Does he really think that many women were debating between let's say Obama and Hillary and thought to themselves: Well, I was going to vote for Obama, but since Hillary cried, she showed me emotion and even though I don't like her voting record, I am going to vote for her anyway.
Is that what he thinks?
HUME: - "Here's old stone heart here with his data".
KRISTOL: - "No, I, well, I'm -- unfortunately, senior women are not stonehearted, as I am, and they went big for Hillary".
TRANSLATION: - - KRISTOL: No, I, well, I'm -- unfortunately I'm uh well I am just a total calculating iceberg and cruel Jerk. Her fake, tactical crying worked.
A Forecast... Buckle your seat belts. It's going to be an interesting and ugly ride in the race that will result in taking back the country we all love.
Hillary's coffin was nailed shut... Then Suddenly... She came to life again in New Hampshire! Not because of her real crying, but in spite of it. It was not a factor or a Fake as BILLY KRISTOL says.
Attacking Hillary for her honest HUMAN character traits is stooping extremely low. Reminds me of the ROPE DANCE... How Low Can You Go! Go Lower Now!
President Bush and his father cry. It's a great human behavior. You show me a man who is NOT AFRAID TO CRY and I'll show you a REAL MAN. (OR WOMAN)
HILLARY,,, Congratulations and YOU GO GIRL!
It’s so sad that the party of supposed “Christian values” is commandeered and cheerled by such cold-hearted selfish condescending irreverent fools as Bill Kristol.
Every pundit at Faux News is from the same mold, as predictable as the oceans tides and calculating as the devil himself – so nothing any of them ever say or do really surprises me anymore.
You could spot a future Republican in a 3rd grade schoolyard. He’s the guy picking on the shortest kid in the class, poking fun at the disabled girl, pulling Molly's pigtails, and stealing Johnny’s lunch money.
If you are going to post in stereotypes...
...you could spot a future Dem by grade 12. He's the one looking at the other guy's in the locker room in a "friendly" way, whining about the Military being allowed onto his HS property for recruiting, complaining that he might have to work at Walmart for less than CEO salaries, and bitch that because his Geo pollutes less than everybody else's vehicle does, they all should be driving one. And IMHO the R's aren't stealing Johnny's money....the D's are.
Looking at another guy in the locker room?
At least it's age appropriate. Not like Foley.
At least it's not in some disgusting airport men's room like Craig.
At least it's not someone paying a male prostitute for sex and crystal meth like Ted Haggard.
Nothing wrong with anyones sexual preferences, but come on. The Republicans seem to like to mix their homosexual schemes with illegal activities at the same time they rant about the evils of homosexuality.
Hmmm, I see nothing distrubing about any of your Democratic stereotypes - sounds pretty much like my life story actaully - and proud of it.
But if you see nothing disturbing about my shortlist, then you really do have a problem (other than your aparent homophobia).
Ok, Dave, I'll play along
"you could spot a future Dem by grade 12. He's the one looking at the other guy's in the locker room in a "friendly" way," The Republican kid is using a telescope from far away and when he gets caught claims that a falling star went into the naked guys's window.
"whining about the Military being allowed onto his HS property for recruiting," The Republican kid chats up the military recruiter, but blames his non-enrollment on a football injury and then continues to play football (Jack Kemp example-claimed a knee injury should keep him out of Vietnam, but not the AFL). The Republican kid also frets for hours about the need for more military on the ground in Iraq and Afghanistan, but doesn't realize he could be part of the solution. Naw, someone else can fight he thinks.
complaining that he might have to work at Walmart for less than CEO salaries, The Republican kid either doesn't work or works for dad's office. What dad doesn't know is that Republican kid is sitting on the copier for hours xeroxing and faxing his backside to clients.
and bitch that because his Geo pollutes less than everybody else's vehicle does, they all should be driving one. Who "bitches" about polluting less? I would consider that a source of pride. Are you sure you aren't talking about a poor Republican kid bitching that his car doesn't pollute enough?
And IMHO the R's aren't stealing Johnny's money....the D's are. You may be right here, but the D's would spend it on projects for Johnny. The R's would steal Johnny's credit card, max it out so grossly that Johnny's future kids have to pay it off and give it back saying that he gets to keep his money.
The Republican kids scream when they don't get into Harvard because of Affirmative Action until they realize their father's legacy got them iin despite their 2.6 GPAs. Republican kids rant and rave about student fees put in by Student Council and immediately spend all the money raised by the students before them. In an hour.
Republican kids look down on poor kids by thinking the parents of the poor kids just didn't work as hard as their parents did.
I could go on and on ;)
Fried, your post reminded me of this.
And on that note, my boss just told me that her sister, who lives in Colorado, just got 112 inches of snow. 112!
What part of Colorado? We only have a dusting in Denver so far :)?
I don't know, she said she lives at the base of a ski resort. She's gone for the day or I would ask her.
Thanks for he great video link. Never saw that one before. Everyone should see this if they haven't already.
My favorite part was Tom DeLay lecturing the students that If we had the 40 million babies aborted since Rowe vs Wade 30 years ago, then we wouldn’t need “illegal immigrants” to do the jobs their doing today. LOL, right. Republicans have all the answers – only problem is, they're all wrong!
DAVE: And IMHO the R's aren't stealing Johnny's money....the D's are.
Your humble opinion doesn't count - Figures DO...
What planet have you been living on?
From the Office of Management Budget…
2000 Inherited from Clinton/Dems - $284 Billion SURPLUS
2007 GW Bush/ Repubs - $163 Billion DEFICIT
As of Jan. 7, 2008, the White House predicted that the government's 2008 deficit would be about $50 billion higher than 2007, or $213 BILLION DEFICIT
You need a shoe to swallow, Dave? Someday you'll realize that most all of the crap you've been fed about all the things you value as a Republican, are just that - crap. This ain't your granddaddy's Republicans, dude. While all your heros like Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity have been telling you how great you have it, GW has been robbing you and your children blind.
Jump ship while you still have a life jacket, the Titanic's going down.
Now if only Kristol would stop pretending to be humanoid.
So what?
Kristol got a job at the NYT because he pretended to be a journalist. And since he is wrong all the time, I think people felt sorry for him, and so he was hired.
That's right. And what's his beef about it anyway? His boy bush got elected after pretending to speak english.